Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the seizure of churches. Orthodox churches in Ukraine. Dossier

(by the Uniates): the process of legalization of the Uniate Church in Western Ukraine took on the character of religious aggression against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and terror against the Orthodox in this region; illegal actions of the Uniates are not stopped by local authorities, but on the contrary, the latter, when transferring churches to the Uniates, make discriminatory decisions against Orthodox Christians; in such conditions, the Orthodox, under pressure from the Uniates and local authorities supporting them, not wanting to accept the union, are often forced to move to the so-called Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC).

In this regard, the episcopate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church adopted an Appeal to His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus' and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, which contained proposals designed to strengthen the authority of the hierarchy of the UOC for more active opposition to schismatics from the UAOC and the Uniates.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is granted independence and autonomy in its governance.

In this regard, the name “Ukrainian Exarchate” is abolished.

The Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is elected by the Ukrainian episcopate and blessed by His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.

The Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church bears the title “Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine.”

The Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine, within the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, is given the title “Most Beatitude.”

The Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine has the right to wear two panagias and present a cross during Divine services.

The Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church elects and appoints ruling and suffragan bishops, establishes and abolishes dioceses within Ukraine.

The Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine as the Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is permanent member Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

This Determination of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church is subject to approval by the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church with the introduction of appropriate changes to the Charter on the governance of the Russian Orthodox Church.

UOC under Filaret (Denisenko)

Soon three bishops - Bishops of Chernivtsi Onufry (Berezovsky), Ternopil Sergius (Gensitsky) and Donetsk Alypiy (Pogrebnyak) - disavowed their signatures under By appeal. The next day, January 23, by decision of the Synod of the UOC they were removed from their departments.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, held on February 18-19, adopted an appeal to Metropolitan Philaret and the episcopate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church with the demand “ Immediately reconsider the decision of the Ukrainian Synod of January 23 in order to bring peace to the hearts of the brother bishops and to their grieving flock, who are now crying out for justice in the Church. This will preserve church peace and the unity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church».

Split

In connection with numerous non-canonical interventions of the Moscow Patriarchate in the internal affairs of our Church and on the basis that Ukraine became an independent state on December 1, 1991, we bring to the attention of Your Holiness that the Act of 1686 on the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate ceases to be valid.

We turn to Your Holiness with hope that you will take this into account and take the necessary actions to canonically streamline the current situation of our Church.

Kharkov Cathedral

Fulfilling the Decree of the Holy Synod of May 21, Metropolitan Nikodim (Rusnak) of Kharkov and Bogodukhov, on May 27 convened and headed the Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which, based on its location, went down in the history of the UOC as Kharkov.

On May 14, Metropolitan Nikodim sent Philaret a letter in which he asked him to fulfill his promise and convene a Council of Bishops “for the sake of peace in our Church.” But there was no answer.

17 archpastors arrived at the Bishops' Conference.

The Council made some changes and additions to the Charter of the UOC concerning the procedure for electing and the status of the Primate of the UOC; The composition of the Synod of the UOC was also expanded - to seven people, four of whom are permanent. The name of the state within which the UOC carries out its mission was changed. In his actions, making changes and additions to Charter on the governance of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Council of Bishops was guided by Section XIV, paragraph 2 of the previously valid Charter, which stated: “The Council of Bishops has the right to make corrections to this Charter, with subsequent approval by the Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.”

The main act of the Kharkov Council was the expression of no confidence in Metropolitan Philaret, his removal from the Kyiv See, from the post of Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and his inclusion on staff due to the failure to fulfill the oath promise to resign from the post of Primate of the Ukrainian Church, given by him at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on March 31 - 5 April 1992. This act was committed in the absence of Metropolitan Philaret, who refused to attend the Council of Bishops of the UOC and ignored the calls repeatedly sent to him. For committing schismatic actions, the Council, as a pre-trial measure, banned Metropolitan Philaret from serving in the priesthood until the final decision on this issue by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church.

After this, on the basis of Section V, paragraphs. 12.13 of the Charter, the election of a new primate of the UOC took place. In the second round, Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan) received 16 votes and was elected Metropolitan of Kyiv and Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Under Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan)

Being in canonical unity with the Moscow Patriarchate, we have a real opportunity to influence its church policy, which is in no way possible to do from the outside. At the same time, the UOC, together with the Russian Orthodox Church, represents the largest jurisdiction with an influential and authoritative voice in Orthodox world. In addition, our canonical unity makes an invaluable contribution to the creation of friendly relations between Ukraine and Russia and is the key to peace and stability - both between states and within them. If the political forces in Ukraine cannot take advantage of the opportunities of the UOC on issues in which our interests coincide, then this happens not through its weakness or connection with Moscow, but through the lack of a constructive dialogue with the Church. Unfortunately, our opponents are not able to think long term, since their thoughts turned out to be locked within the narrow boundaries of the primitive Bolshevik-nationalist worldview or the commercialism of Western ideology.

The Primate of the UOC is elected by the Ukrainian episcopate and blessed by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. The Primate of the UOC is a member of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Ukrainian episcopate participates in the Bishops' and Local Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church, in the elections of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.

According to the Charter of the UOC, the highest bodies of church power and administration of the UOC are: the Council of the UOC, the Council of Bishops of the UOC (Council of Bishops) and the Holy Synod of the UOC chaired by the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine.

With the exception of three regions of Galicia (Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk and Ternopil), the UOC is the dominant denomination throughout the country.

Discussion around the issue of canonical autocephaly and the boundaries of autonomy

At the end of 2007, a discussion arose due to the fact that assumptions began to be made that the hierarchy of the UOC was seeking to legally obtain autocephaly. The main ideologist of obtaining “canonical autocephaly” of the UOC from the Moscow Patriarchate is usually considered Bishop of Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky (since December 19, 2007) Alexander (Drabinko), vicar Kyiv diocese; he himself rejects such suspicions. Archpriest Maxim Khizhiy (cleric of the Vladimir diocese) believes that “the question of autocephaly of the UOC is a problem of time, and of the immediate future.” On February 4, 2008, the Moscow newspaper “Moskovsky Komsomolets” published an interview with Bishop Alexander (Drabinko), in which he, in particular, said: “Opinions on this matter among believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are different.<...>As for the Bishops' Councils of the UOC, they spoke out on this matter a long time ago. Today this issue is not on the agenda.”

In connection with the approval of the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church by the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in January 2009, paragraph 18 Chapter VIII which states that “in its life and activities, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is guided by the Tomos of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' of 1990 and the Charter of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is approved by its Primate and accepted by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus',” the Ukrainian newspaper “Segodnya” wrote that such the status of the UOC “sets it apart from the list of other self-governing Churches within the Moscow Patriarchate that do not have expanded rights.”

At the end of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan) answered the journalist’s question: “Do you still need autocephalous status or not?”: “This status should crown all our efforts. But first we need to achieve unity. Any status can be approved, acceptable or unacceptable.<…>»

UOC and the Ukrainian state

During the Kharkov Council in May, the administration of President Kravchuk supported Mister Filaret (Denisenko) and, according to Mister Nikodim, put direct pressure on him.

The UOC is in conflicting relations with other Orthodox Churches officially registered in Ukraine - the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. From time to time, reports appear about the claims of these churches to the premises and property of the UOC and even about the seizure of parishes.

After Victor Yushchenko's victory in the presidential election, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II expressed concerns about maintaining the church status quo in Ukraine.

The UOC has a negative attitude towards the “joint prayers” of representatives of different jurisdictions, which became popular under V. Yushchenko.

The Council of Bishops of the UOC, held at the end of January 2007, 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 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.” For its part, the Synod of the UOC-KP at its meeting on February 28 reacted favorably to V. Yushchenko’s appeal regarding the possibility of dialogue with the UOC.

According to media reports, the brother of Ukrainian President V. Yushchenko, Verkhovna Rada deputy Petr Yushchenko, headed a public organization For local Ukraine, which will deal with the issues of unifying Ukrainian Orthodoxy and creating a single local church.

At the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church held at the end of June 2008, Patriarch Alexy II in his report to the Council on June 24 stated: “<…>The schism of Ukrainian Orthodoxy arose precisely as a result of the invasion of political elements into church life.” And Vsevolod Chaplin, in his expert report, said about the situation in Ukraine: “It is impossible not to recognize the existence of an active and direct church-state dialogue in Ukraine. At the same time, government authorities - both at the central and local levels - provide significant assistance in resolving practical problems of the Church, including the construction and reconstruction of temple buildings, the establishment of the cultural, educational and social mission of the Church. At the same time, alarming news is coming from Ukraine. In particular, numerous appeals are received from clergy and laity who ask His Holiness Patriarch to protect the unity of the Church, which they value and which they are ready to defend even in the most difficult circumstances. When heard repeatedly, including from the lips of the President of Ukraine V.A. Yushchenko, assurances that the state does not intend to interfere in church life and decide for believers which churches they should go to, there are many cases of pressure government agencies central and regional level at the choice of believers. In these circumstances, the hierarchy of our Church has repeatedly emphasized that the politicization of church problems and attempts to cope with them by secular methods inevitably lead only to even greater difficulties in resolving existing difficulties. The most likely consequence of political interference in a sensitive area church life may destabilize the social situation.” At the same Council, on June 25, Metropolitan Vladimir, in particular, said: “We are pleased that the state in Ukraine is concerned about the problem of church schism and considers overcoming it one of its priorities. At the same time, the active participation of the state in resolving church problems sometimes has negative sides. The state’s intentions may be good, but the ways in which they are implemented can lead to even more serious consequences when old schisms are replaced by new ones. The threat of precisely this development of the situation arises when representatives state power They ignore the position of the largest Church in Ukraine, take certain actions aimed at healing the schism, without its knowledge, without consulting its Primate. In such cases, we consider the actions of our government to be unauthorized and beyond the limits provided for by the Constitution of Ukraine in the field of church-state relations.”

Dioceses of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church

Notes

paragraph 18 Ch. VIII Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church: “The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is self-governing with the rights of broad autonomy. In her life and work, she is guided by the Tomos of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' of 1990 and the Charter of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is approved by its Primate and approved by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.”
Sociological survey: “What church do you consider yourself to be a believer in?” , 2006, Razumkov Center
On the official website of the UOC
ZhMP. M., 1990, No. 5, pp. 4 - 12.
Documents of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. Moscow, St. Daniel's Monastery, October 25 - 27, 1990. Definition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church // ZhMP. 1991, no. 2, p. 2.
ZhMP. 1991, no. 4, p. 8
JMP. 1992, No. 6 // Official Chronicle, pp. XI-XII.
JMP. 1992, No. 6 // Official Chronicle, p. XII.
Quote from: VI.3 The question of the unity and status of Ukrainian Orthodoxy - the modern stage. From the book by Alexander Drabinko. Orthodoxy in post-totalitarian Ukraine (milestones of history)
Definition of the Consecrated Jubilee Council of Bishops on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. // ZhMP. 2000, no. 10, p. 19.
Definition of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church (January 27-28, 2009) “On the life and works of the Russian Orthodox Church”
Definition of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow, January 27-28, 2009) “On the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church”
see interview with Patriarch Alexy II 12/19/2001
see interview with Mr. Vladimir dated February 27, 2007
DEFINITION OF THE CONSCICATED ANNIVERSARY COUNCIL OF BISHOPES OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ON THE UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH Moscow, Cathedral of Christ the Savior, August 13-16, 2000 08/16/00
Church newsletter No. 1-2(374-375) January 2008
Comparison of the new Charter of the UOC dated December 21, 2007. with the current Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church. Lawyers' opinion. Analytics. Quotes. On the website otechestvo.org.ua 02/14/2008.
Journals of the meeting of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church dated May 31, 2007
Report of His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir of Kyiv and All Ukraine at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow, June 2008) On the official website of the UOC.
“Ukrainian Orthodoxy at the turn of eras. Challenges of our time, development trends.” Video on the MP official website June 25, 2008
Statistics of Ukrainian Old Believers have been published blagovest-info.ru 07/19/07.
From where baptism comes, from where comes rebirth. Interview with the secretary of Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan), Bishop of Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky Alexander (Drabinko). // “Moskovsky Komsomolets” February 4, 2008
Where baptism comes from, hence comes rebirth. Interview with the secretary of the head of the UOC-MP, Bishop of Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky Alexander (Drabinko) portal-credo.ru February 04, 2008
Celebration of the Holy Synod of the UOC on November 22, 2006 Address of the Holy Synod of the UOC to the President of Ukraine, the head of the Verkhovna Rada and the Prime Minister dated November 22, 2006
Dmitry Skvortsov. Ukrainian Orthodoxy: Is a new schism coming?
Most of the hierarchs of the UOC-MP participated in the consecration of the “main ideologist of canonical autocephaly” of the Ukrainian Church portal-credo.ru on December 20, 2007.
God gives a holiday, and “EDIOTS” work... Statement by Bishop Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky Alexander (Drabinko), secretary of the Primate of the UOC, editor-in-chief of the official website of the UOC dated January 6, 2008
Maxim Khizhiy. Ukrainian Orthodox Church on the eve of autocephaly. ej.ru January 18
The issue of autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not on the agenda, says the vicar of its first hierarch Interfax.ru on February 4, 2008.
A meeting of the Bishops' Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church took place. On the official website of the UOC
On the website bogoslov.ru

What is the situation in Ukraine today?

IN Lately cases of forceful seizure of churches by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church with the transfer of parishes into subordination to the so-called “Kyiv Patriarchate” have become more frequent. To date, more than 30 temples have been captured. Most of the churches were captured in Volyn, Rivne, Ternopil, Lviv and Chernivtsi regions. Only four religious communities voluntarily changed their jurisdiction.

On December 18, 2016, representatives of the UOC-KP, with the support of the extremist organization Right Sector, banned in Russia, attacked parishioners of the Assumption Church in the village of Ptichye, Rivne region, demanding that the temple be transferred to their jurisdiction.

How many Orthodox jurisdictions are there in Ukraine?

In Ukraine there is currently one canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church(UOC), which is a self-governing church within the Moscow Patriarchate. In addition to it, there are two church structures unrecognized by world Orthodoxy - the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the “Kyiv Patriarchate”, which pursues an aggressive policy towards the parishes of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The head of the “Kyiv Patriarchate” Filaret (Denisenko) with fighters of the “Right Sector” Photo from the site ruspit.ru

What is the “Kyiv Patriarchate”?

“Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate” is a church structure that emerged in 1992 with the support of the then leadership of independent Ukraine. It was headed by the former primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate Filaret (Denisenko).

The UOC-KP traces its history to the Kyiv Patriarchate, which was under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, denying the legality of its transition to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686. However, at present it is not recognized by any of the canonical Orthodox churches.

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 UOC of the Moscow Patriarchate, 11% of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

How do temple invaders justify their actions?

The main argument of the attackers is that the population of the cities and villages where the captured churches are located, themselves decided to change their religious affiliation. The “Kiev Patriarchate” transfers communities under its jurisdiction according to the same scheme. First, a vote or village meeting is held, at which political rather than church agitation is conducted. As a rule, the majority of village residents are in favor of moving to the UOC-KP, while the actual parishioners and the priest are in the minority. After this, the temple is captured by force.

Why can’t the population choose their own jurisdiction?

Seizures of churches in Ukraine occur when a religious community is identified with a territorial community. While the very fact of living in a certain locality does not give the right to seize someone else’s property (temple, liturgical utensils), unauthorized change of leadership, as well as amendments to the charter documents of the religious community of this locality. Indeed, according to such a scheme, it is possible to change the subordination of not only the parish of the UOC, but also of any other religious organization on the territory of Ukraine.

Who is helping the Filaretites seize churches?

As a rule, militants from the radical nationalist associations “Right Sector” and “Svoboda” take the main part in attacks on churches. During the last attack on the parish of the Assumption Church in the village of Ptichye, Rivne region, believers were not allowed to approach the temple, they were beaten with sticks, with rebar, Molotov cocktails were thrown at them, and pepper gas was sprayed. According to eyewitnesses, the head of the Right Sector in the Rivne region, Roman Koval, publicly threatened to begin a massive seizure of UOC-MP churches throughout the region.

Photo from the site ruspravda.ru

How do local authorities feel about attacks on churches?

The Ukrainian authorities adhere to a policy of principled non-interference in the conflict between the “Kyiv Patriarchate” and the UOC-MP.

A year ago, the head of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, stopped attempts to seize churches in Ukraine, and the authorities of the Rivne region began to seize churches. However, no specific measures were taken against extremists.

As for law enforcement agencies, according to eyewitnesses, during the attacks on the temple in the village of Katerynovka and the village of Ptichye, the police sided with the invaders.

Is there a threat of capture of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra?

Yes, the “Kiev Patriarchate” really claims to seize the Lavra. On December 7, a petition was posted on the website of the Kyiv City Council to transfer the Lavra from the UOC-MP to the jurisdiction of the “Filaretites.” The petition received the required 10 thousand votes. The authors of the document accused the clergy of the UOC-MP of an “anti-Ukrainian, mercantile, and sometimes hostile position to Ukraine” and asked the deputies to facilitate the transfer of the Lavra to the UOC-KP. Kiev Mayor Vitaliy Klitschko has already instructed a local government commission to consider this petition.

Representatives of the UOC-MP talk about the manipulation of Internet votes cast for the petition. The abbot of the Pochaev Lavra, Metropolitan Vladimir, in his open letter called the initiative with the petition a provocation with the aim of inciting interfaith hatred. According to him, “the transfer of the spiritual cradle of Orthodox monasticism in Rus' - the Kiev Pechersk Lavra - to schismatics means closing it to world Orthodoxy.”

Dissenters under the walls of the Lavra

What measures are being taken to influence the “Kiev Patriarchate”?

Chairman of the Synodal Information Department of the Moscow Patriarchate Vladimir Legoida on December 20 called on the Ukrainian authorities to immediately stop representatives of the UOC-KP, who came into conflict with the church community in the village of Ptichye. The head of the INFO demanded that “religious radicals and militants who hinder the implementation this decision, must be firmly stopped inactive in currently law enforcement agencies."

Two months earlier, the Department for External Church Relations of the UOC-MP submitted a report on the main violations of the rights of its parishioners, which were characterized as discriminatory.

Patriarch of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church Neophyte sent a message to the President of Ukraine P. Poroshenko, in which he expressed concern about the development of the situation “in the religious sphere of the Ukrainian state.” The head of the Bulgarian Church called on the Ukrainian president to “take all necessary steps to protect the rights of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, protecting it from the seizure of churches, as well as other forms of force, information and other pressure exerted on it.”

The seizure of churches of the UOC-MP caused concern among the foreign policy service, as well as personally among Pope Francis. According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Vatican has repeatedly raised this issue with the hierarchs of the Greek Catholic Church, the “Kyiv Patriarchate” and “directly sent a signal about the need to suppress this practice, which is a gross violation of freedom of religion.”

Photo from the website rusprav.tv

What is the international community's reaction to what is happening?

At the UN, there is a fact of oppression of Orthodox Christians in western Ukraine. Experts have recorded evidence of “threats of physical violence or coercion aimed at forcing people to change their religion.”

Experts from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights visited the Ternopil and Rivne regions on January 28 - February 1, where attempts were made more than once to seize churches of the UOC by the “Kyiv Patriarchate”. Representatives of the monitoring mission reported complaints from local residents about local authorities ignoring similar violations: intimidation and discrimination, and expressed concern that believers cannot pray in “desired places of worship” because they are being obstructed local residents and external forces.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is granted independence and autonomy in its governance.

In this regard, the name “Ukrainian Exarchate” is abolished.

The Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is elected by the Ukrainian episcopate and blessed by His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.

The Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church bears the title “Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine.”

The Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine, within the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, is given the title “Most Beatitude.”

The Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine has the right to wear two panagias and present a cross during Divine services.

The Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church elects and appoints ruling and suffragan bishops, establishes and abolishes dioceses within Ukraine.

The Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine, as the Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, is a permanent member of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

This Determination of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church is subject to approval by the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church with the introduction of appropriate changes to the Charter on the governance of the Russian Orthodox Church.

UOC under Filaret (Denisenko)

Split

In connection with numerous non-canonical interventions of the Moscow Patriarchate in the internal affairs of our Church and on the basis that Ukraine became an independent state on December 1, 1991, we bring to the attention of Your Holiness that the Act of 1686 on the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate ceases to be valid.

We turn to Your Holiness with hope that you will take this into account and take the necessary actions to canonically streamline the current situation of our Church.

Kharkov Cathedral

17 archpastors arrived at the Bishops' Conference.

Under Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan)

Being in canonical unity with the Moscow Patriarchate, we have a real opportunity to influence its church policy, which is in no way possible to do from the outside. At the same time, the UOC, together with the Russian Orthodox Church, represents the largest jurisdiction with an influential and authoritative voice in the Orthodox world. In addition, our canonical unity makes an invaluable contribution to the creation of friendly relations between Ukraine and Russia and is the key to peace and stability - both between states and within them. If the political forces in Ukraine cannot take advantage of the opportunities of the UOC on issues in which our interests coincide, then this happens not through its weakness or connection with Moscow, but through the lack of a constructive dialogue with the Church. Unfortunately, our opponents are not able to think long term, since their thoughts turned out to be locked within the narrow boundaries of the primitive Bolshevik-nationalist worldview or the commercialism of Western ideology.

With the exception of three regions of Galicia (Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk and Ternopil), the UOC is the dominant denomination throughout the country.

Discussion around the issue of canonical autocephaly and the boundaries of autonomy

At the end of 2007, a discussion arose due to the fact that assumptions began to be made that the hierarchy of the UOC was seeking to legally obtain autocephaly. The main ideologist of obtaining “canonical autocephaly” of the UOC from the Moscow Patriarchate is usually considered Bishop of Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky (since December 19, 2007) Alexander (Drabinko), vicar of the Kyiv diocese; he himself rejects such suspicions. Archpriest Maxim Khizhiy (cleric of the Vladimir diocese) believes that “the question of autocephaly of the UOC is a problem of time, and of the immediate future.” On February 4, 2008, the Moscow newspaper “Moskovsky Komsomolets” published an interview with Bishop Alexander (Drabinko), in which he, in particular, said: “Opinions on this matter among believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are different.<...>As for the Bishops' Councils of the UOC, they spoke out on this matter a long time ago. Today this issue is not on the agenda.”

In connection with the approval of the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church by the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in January 2009, paragraph 18 of Chapter VIII of which states that “in its life and activities, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is guided by the Tomos of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' of 1990 and the Charter of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is approved by its Primate and is accepted by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus',” the Ukrainian newspaper “Segodnya” wrote that this status of the UOC “sets it apart from the list of other self-governing Churches within the Moscow Patriarchate that do not have expanded rights.”

UOC and the Ukrainian state

During the Kharkov Council in May, the administration of President Kravchuk supported Mister Filaret (Denisenko) and, according to Mister Nikodim, put direct pressure on him.

After Victor Yushchenko's victory in the presidential election, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II expressed concerns about maintaining the church status quo in Ukraine.

The UOC has a negative attitude towards the “joint prayers” of representatives of different jurisdictions, which became popular under V. Yushchenko.

At the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church held at the end of June 2008, Patriarch Alexy II in his report to the Council on June 24 stated: “<…>The schism of Ukrainian Orthodoxy arose precisely as a result of the invasion of political elements into church life.” And Vsevolod Chaplin, in his expert report, said about the situation in Ukraine: “It is impossible not to recognize the existence of an active and direct church-state dialogue in Ukraine. At the same time, government authorities - both at the central and local levels - provide significant assistance in resolving practical problems of the Church, including the construction and reconstruction of temple buildings, the establishment of the cultural, educational and social mission of the Church. At the same time, alarming news is coming from Ukraine. In particular, numerous appeals are received from clergy and laity who ask His Holiness the Patriarch to protect the unity of the Church, which they value and which they are ready to defend even in the most difficult circumstances. When heard repeatedly, including from the lips of the President of Ukraine V.A. Yushchenko, assurances that the state does not intend to interfere in church life and decide for believers which churches they should go to, there are many cases of pressure from state bodies at the central and regional level on the choice of believers. In these circumstances, the hierarchy of our Church has repeatedly emphasized that the politicization of church problems and attempts to cope with them by secular methods inevitably lead only to even greater difficulties in resolving existing difficulties. The most likely consequence of political interference in the sensitive sphere of church life may be the destabilization of the social situation.” At the same Council, on June 25, Metropolitan Vladimir, in particular, said: “We are pleased that the state in Ukraine is concerned about the problem of church schism and considers overcoming it one of its priorities. At the same time, the active participation of the state in resolving church problems sometimes has negative sides. The state’s intentions may be good, but the ways in which they are implemented can lead to even more serious consequences when old schisms are replaced by new ones. The threat of precisely this development of the situation arises when representatives of state authorities ignore the position of the largest Church in Ukraine and take certain actions aimed at healing the schism, without its knowledge, without consulting its Primate. In such cases, we consider the actions of our government to be unauthorized and beyond the limits provided for by the Constitution of Ukraine in the field of church-state relations.”

Dioceses of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church

Notes

paragraph 18 Ch. VIII Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church: “The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is self-governing with the rights of broad autonomy. In her life and work, she is guided by the Tomos of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' of 1990 and the Charter of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is approved by its Primate and approved by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.”
Sociological survey: “What church do you consider yourself to be a believer in?” , 2006, Razumkov Center
On the official website of the UOC
ZhMP. M., 1990, No. 5, pp. 4 - 12.
Documents of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. Moscow, St. Daniel's Monastery, October 25 - 27, 1990. Definition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church // ZhMP. 1991, no. 2, p. 2.
ZhMP. 1991, no. 4, p. 8
JMP. 1992, No. 6 // Official Chronicle, pp. XI-XII.
JMP. 1992, No. 6 // Official Chronicle, p. XII.
Quote from: VI.3 The question of the unity and status of Ukrainian Orthodoxy - the modern stage. From the book by Alexander Drabinko. Orthodoxy in post-totalitarian Ukraine (milestones of history)
Definition of the Consecrated Jubilee Council of Bishops on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. // ZhMP. 2000, no. 10, p. 19.
Definition of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church (January 27-28, 2009) “On the life and works of the Russian Orthodox Church”
Definition of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow, January 27-28, 2009) “On the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church”
see interview with Patriarch Alexy II 12/19/2001
see interview with Mr. Vladimir dated February 27, 2007
DEFINITION OF THE CONSCICATED ANNIVERSARY COUNCIL OF BISHOPES OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ON THE UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH Moscow, Cathedral of Christ the Savior, August 13-16, 2000 08/16/00
Church newsletter No. 1-2(374-375) January 2008
Comparison of the new Charter of the UOC dated December 21, 2007. with the current Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church. Lawyers' opinion. Analytics. Quotes. On the website otechestvo.org.ua 02/14/2008.
Journals of the meeting of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church dated May 31, 2007
Report of His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir of Kyiv and All Ukraine at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow, June 2008) On the official website of the UOC.
“Ukrainian Orthodoxy at the turn of eras. Challenges of our time, development trends.” Video on the MP official website June 25, 2008
Statistics of Ukrainian Old Believers have been published blagovest-info.ru 07/19/07.
From where baptism comes, from where comes rebirth. Interview with the secretary of Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan), Bishop of Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky Alexander (Drabinko). // “Moskovsky Komsomolets” February 4, 2008
Where baptism comes from, hence comes rebirth. Interview with the secretary of the head of the UOC-MP, Bishop of Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky Alexander (Drabinko) portal-credo.ru February 04, 2008
Celebration of the Holy Synod of the UOC on November 22, 2006 Address of the Holy Synod of the UOC to the President of Ukraine, the head of the Verkhovna Rada and the Prime Minister dated November 22, 2006
Dmitry Skvortsov. Ukrainian Orthodoxy: Is a new schism coming?
Most of the hierarchs of the UOC-MP participated in the consecration of the “main ideologist of canonical autocephaly” of the Ukrainian Church portal-credo.ru on December 20, 2007.
God gives a holiday, and “EDIOTS” work... Statement by Bishop Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky Alexander (Drabinko), secretary of the Primate of the UOC, editor-in-chief of the official website of the UOC dated January 6, 2008
Maxim Khizhiy. Ukrainian Orthodox Church on the eve of autocephaly. ej.ru January 18
The issue of autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not on the agenda, says the vicar of its first hierarch Interfax.ru on February 4, 2008.
A meeting of the Bishops' Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church took place. On the official website of the UOC
On the website bogoslov.ru
Changes to the Charter on the governance of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church were registered by the state on the official website of the MP on June 10, 2008.
The Orthodox community is concerned about the discrepancy between the Statutes of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Moscow Patriarchate. Interfax.ru April 15, 2008
Protocol No. 2 of the meeting of the Council of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Chapter VII of the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church
Journal of meetings of the Holy Synod of the UOC dated July 16, 2008
The UOC retained broad autonomy
Metropolitan Vladimir: “Should the church really be silent?” . Russian Newsweek (February 2, 2009). - In an interview, Metropolitan Vladimir explained that there will be autocephaly, but only after the reunification of all Orthodox Ukraine. Retrieved February 12, 2009.

Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP), which, as is known, is part of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) with rights of broad autonomy. I understood the situation.

Essence of the question

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate is the only canonical church in Ukraine recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. 39 percent, that is, the majority of Ukrainian Orthodox Christians are parishioners of the Moscow Patriarchate. There is another denomination - the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP), which was denied canonical status. The UOC-KP is considered an alternative Orthodoxy (in religious terminology this is called a schism, that is, a split, a schism of the church).

How do the Churches of the Moscow and Kyiv Patriarchates differ in practice and why is the first recognized as canonical and the second not? A person who enters Ukrainian churches once or twice a year to light a candle will not find any differences, but they exist, and significant ones. The Moscow Patriarchate, for example, does not accept a free interpretation of prayer, or the invention of new icons or frescoes. It is unacceptable for clergy and parishioners of the UOC-MP to pray for the repose of a conditional enemy - more precisely, they do not define enemies in principle, which cannot be said about the UOC-KP. Also, the Moscow Patriarchate conducts services in Church Slavonic, and the Kiev Patriarchate - in Ukrainian, translating the Holy Scriptures in its own way. But the key difference is that the founder of the UOC-MP is considered. The Church is in unity with Ecumenical Orthodoxy, with common sacraments, while the Kiev Patriarchate recognizes only those sacraments that it likes.

It was precisely in order to subjugate the objectionable faith that Ukrainian politicians developed a bill oppressing the UOC-MP. They decided to oblige the Moscow Patriarchate to obtain consent from the state for the appointment of priests and abbots up to the regional level. The Church will also have to receive approval for visits and approve the composition of foreign delegations coming to Ukraine for preaching activities. And the parishes, of which there are, according to various sources, from 12.5 to 14 thousand in the country, after the adoption of the bill, will have to enter into some kind of agreement with the authorities.

Remove Kirill from prayers

What will be the subject of this document is not disclosed. However, it is known that it stipulates conditions that oblige the UOC-MP to “respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and laws of Ukraine.” What could we be talking about? That the UOC-MP completely loses its independence, and that the name of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill is not mentioned in prayers. - guarantor of the canonicity of the UOC MP. If the name of His Holiness is removed from the prayers, then parishes of many thousands will lose their canonicity, and at the same time their dogmatic provisions, rituals and teachings. According to a source in the UOC-MP, who spoke to Lenta.ru on condition of anonymity, this is exactly what Ukrainian politicians want.

Photo: Anatoly Stepanov / ZUMA Press / Globallookpress.com

“First they will tell us: don’t pray for Patriarch Kirill. Then, I do not exclude this, they will be forced to include words for the health of the servant of God Peter [President Poroshenko] in the prayer service. Then they will be forced to paint the walls of the monasteries with flags (Ukrainian Insurgent Army, banned in Russia). And if this or that bishop refuses, they will push him to the wall and ban the activities of the parish,” our interlocutor believes.

At least the last statement of the Lenta.ru source can be officially confirmed. According to the bill, all parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate will indeed have to undergo the re-registration procedure and obtain the opinion of certain independent experts. If they do not fulfill the conditions of the government experts, they will not be able to function in the future. According to the chairman of the legal department of the Church, Archpriest Alexander Bakhov, this is aimed primarily at interfering in the activities of the UOC. A human rights activist from public organization“Orthodox Ukraine” Oleg Denisov. “Trying to actually legalize the scheme of political pressure on religious organizations, the authors of the bill compiled an illogical and erroneous cocktail of legal norms, the application of which is impossible in practice,” Denisov believes.

At the same time, we should not forget that in addition to the spiritual aspect and faith we're talking about also about quite material things. According to statistics, now the UOC-MP has 45 dioceses, over 12 thousand parishes, 20 educational institutions, three laurels and 183 monasteries, in which more than 4.5 thousand monks live. These are tens of thousands of buildings, structures and other religious structures with expensive decoration, luxurious utensils, rich iconostasis and unique holy images. If translated into money, these are cosmic amounts. The schismatic UOC-KP, led by Metropolitan Filaret, who once declared himself “the Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus'-Ukraine,” has long had its eye on all this wealth.

Photo: Yuri Martyanov / Kommersant

Deny cannot be allowed

Experts from the Verkhovna Rada commissions also agree that the bill is unconstitutional. This time they couldn't help but notice the obvious. In particular, their conclusions indicate that “there is reason to believe that the agreement [between UCP MP and the state] may contain an opaque list of obligations.” Experts also point out that at present, the norms of the Criminal Code of Ukraine clearly define the responsibility that comes for encroaching on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine. And in the law of Ukraine “On freedom of conscience and religious organizations» the principles of interaction between religious organizations that conduct their activities in the country have already been prescribed.

The commission concludes its conclusions as follows: “The bill restricts the right to freedom of worldview and religion, contains signs of discrimination and divides citizens of Ukraine on religious grounds. The adoption of this project may lead to new conflicts in the social and religious environment of the country, and will also negatively affect the international image of Ukraine.”

But if the violations of the bill and its anti-constitutional trail are so obvious, why is the Rada bringing it up for consideration? The second half of May and June promise to become very hot in the Ukrainian parliament and politics in general. The post-Maidan Ukrainian government sometimes receives loans from various authoritative organizations - it topped the rating of the most corrupt states. Now the authorities are preparing for the next controversial step: allowing the sale of agricultural land. The constant increase in tariffs for housing and communal services, the rise in prices for gasoline, medicines, bread and other goods and services add fuel to the fire.

In such a situation, the threat of destruction of the parishes of the main denomination of the country is a reason to divert attention. The political technology is clear: national radicals, hiding behind icons, will demand the closure of “pro-Moscow” churches throughout the country. Ukrainian citizens will stand up for the defense of their parishes, priests, and spiritual mentors. Meanwhile, the authorities will quietly pass a package of laws in parliament, because of which the people will become even more impoverished. There are already enough examples of UOC-MP churches being captured by nationalist groups banned in Russia. IN different regions Ukrainian radicals are religious buildings, beating parishioners and forcibly transferring churches to the Kyiv Patriarchate.

The last stronghold of the community of the two branches of the Russian people - Great Russian and Little Russian - remains the united Russian Church, an integral part of which is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (it is not for nothing that Mr. Brzezinski always considered Russian Orthodoxy to be the main ideological enemy of the West). It is against this that a new, this time legislative, attack is planned.

It should be remembered that according to the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, the UOC within the Russian Orthodox Church has the status of self-governing and has the rights of broad autonomy, is the largest denomination in Ukraine and, as of 2016, owned the largest number of religious buildings in Ukraine.

Nevertheless, on May 18, the Ukrainian parliament plans to consider bills directed against the UOC.

There are two of them. Bill No. 4511 (among its authors are deputies from the “People’s Front” D. Tymchuk, S. Vysotsky, member of the Poroshenko Bloc A. Briginets and ten more “coalitioners”) and bill No. 4128 (People’s Deputy of the “NF” V. Yelensky and deputies from BPP and “Self-Help”).

The first document, “On the special status of religious organizations whose leadership centers are located in a state that is recognized by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine as an aggressor state,” in Art. 5 suggests that such religious organizations will be able to appoint metropolitans and bishops only in agreement with central authorities executive power.

The impression is that Ukrainian legislators have somehow “forgot” that, according to their Constitution, the Church in Ukraine is separated from the state.

A Art. 7 of this bill is even more extreme: if representatives of a confession cooperate with religious centers in the “aggressor state”, and also if the fact of “cooperation with representatives of military-terrorist associations” is established, the authorities are given the right to completely ban this religious organization on the territory Ukraine.

It is clear who is meant. The vector of this “law” is aimed at the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Pan Tymchuk has never hidden that his initiative concerns the UOC: “The idea is for religious organizations, whose control center is located in the aggressor state, to enter into a memorandum with Ukraine. And they pledged not to engage in subversive activities against Ukraine. Using the example of the Moscow Patriarchate since the beginning of the ATO, we see that throughout the country churches remain propaganda points against Ukrainian statehood. Anti-Ukrainian literature is sold even in the center of the capital - in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra.”

“Tymchuki lawmakers” do not take into account the obvious: the center of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not “outside”, but in Kyiv, and its founder is the Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Human rights activist of the public organization “Orthodox Ukraine” O. Denisov states: “Trying to actually legalize the scheme of political pressure on such religious organizations, the authors of the bill created an illogical and erroneous cocktail of legal norms, the application of which is impossible in practice.”

The Main Scientific and Expert Directorate of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, as noted by the Strana.ua resource, harshly criticized this document. The lawyers who provided the expert opinion are convinced that bill No. 4511 should be rejected, since the provision special status for certain religious organizations does not meet the requirements of the Constitution of Ukraine and violates the principle of equality established by Art. 5 of the Law of Ukraine “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations”, which states that all religions, denominations and religious organizations are equal before the law. Also, this legislative initiative grossly violates the constitutional principle of non-interference and separation of Church and state, which is enshrined in Art. 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine and the right to freedom of worldview and religion guaranteed by the same article of the Constitution.

Exactly the same conclusion is formulated in the annual report of the Commissioner Supreme Council Ukraine.

And the head of the Legal Department of the UOC, Archpriest Alexander Bakhov, believes that the provisions of this bill are discriminatory.

Bill No. 4511 grossly interferes with the procedure for electing bishops and metropolitans and proposes to subordinate the hierarchs and clergy to the authorities.

It was written, in essence, for the UOC - to dissolve it in schism, in the religious sense to “unite” it with the schismatic, not recognized by any local Church in the world, the so-called. "Kyiv Patriarchate".

Similar conclusions apply to the second bill, No. 4128, according to which it is proposed to add to Art. 8 of the Law of Ukraine “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations” contains provisions regulating a person’s membership in a religious community. The bill proposes to determine membership in a religious community on the basis of “self-identification.”

Many experts call this project the “law on church raiding.”

On its basis, the so-called “Kiev Patriarchate” will begin to take away parishes from the canonical Church. People's Deputy and major church philanthropist V. Novinsky points out that the mechanism for the seizure is simple: specially gathered people will be brought to the church, who on the spot “self-identify” themselves with this church community and will immediately vote for the transfer of the temple to the subordination of “KP”, exposing the believers outside. Naturally, this will lead to a colossal increase in religious tension throughout the country.

Since 2014, Orthodox churches in Ukraine have been subjected to cynical seizures, merciless robberies, and constant pressure from “patriots” proposing to come under the control of “Filaret.”

In Ternopil, Rivne and other regions, there are dozens of cases of such raider church takeovers, with the forceful support of right-wing radicals.

These bills were already introduced into the Verkhovna Rada in October last year, but the Presidential Administration managed to thwart their adoption. This is the split in Ukrainian consciousness: one hemisphere of the “Poroshenkoites” is preparing an explosive legislative initiative with like-minded people in parliament, and the second, in the Presidential Administration, is trying to disrupt it.

Some experts believe that even now the chances of adoption are small, but a group of initiators and “legislators” need a scandal. For what? To distract people from thinking about the current catastrophic situation?

If we recall the scale of the all-Ukrainian religious procession in July last year, to celebrate the Baptism of Rus', we can confidently assume that such bills “could provoke a colossal civil confrontation, even bloodshed and religious war.”

Acutely feeling the coming challenge and understanding all the consequences of what was being done by the “darkened” and unreasonable, the hierarchs of the canonical Church raised their voices.

In particular, Metropolitan Luke of Zaporozhye and Melitopol called on the faithful of Ukraine to fast and pray deeply from May 14 to 18 so that anti-church bills would not be adopted. After all, we are talking about the fact, the address emphasizes, that people will be kicked out of the church they have been going to all their lives, and representatives of civil authorities - often non-believers and people hostile to the canonical Church - will appoint clergy.

Kiev publicist Miroslava Berdnik published the following remark on Facebook: “Satanic tricks with anti-church laws against the UOC-MP, which they want to put to a vote on May 18 in the Verkhovna Rada, unfortunately, if not now, then later, may come true. Therefore, to begin with, I dare to give the bishop advice, before making an address to the flock, we should remember how a year ago he banned priest Andrei Pirogov for wearing the St. George Ribbon on May 9th. Someone tell the bishop that such and similar prohibitions lead to anti-church laws in less than a year.”

Attentive laity also remembered that in the recent past, Metropolitan Luke, as a member of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints of the UOC, made a strange proposal to introduce in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church the celebration of the conciliar memory of “all the saints who have shone in the land of Ukraine.”

Alexey Selivanov emphasizes on Facebook that at first the archpastor advocates “for singling out individual “Ukrainian saints,” and then he is indignant that Ukrainians are against the Church. However, it makes no sense to support Ukrainian nationalism with one hand and fight its consequences with the other.”

However, no one has forgotten how Archbishop Luke on April 13, 2014 saved “300 Cossacks” from the Ukrainian ultras, the Nazis, who surrounded them and were ready to literally tear them apart.

The Odessa Diocese of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church also accepted the appeal in connection with the planned vote in the Verkhovna Rada on anti-church bills No. 4511 and 4528.

As the diocese emphasizes, if these documents become laws, they will put them under full state control all inner life Churches and affairs of each parish community.

“I urge you to sign the appeal to your people’s deputy elected in your majoritarian district, who on Thursday, May 18, will have to vote in the Verkhovna Rada on these bills. It is our right as voters to ask elected officials to protect our interests. The signature of each of you is the voice of a Christian in defense of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church,” notes Metropolitan Agathangel of Odessa and Izmail. The Bishop also emphasized that the notorious bills grossly violate Art. 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine, contradict the law on freedom of conscience and religion.

The mentioned archpastors blessed the dean fathers and rectors to organize the collection of signatures of parishioners under the Bishop’s Appeal, and the lists in as soon as possible send to the reception offices of people's deputies of Ukraine.

The bill did not leave many well-known Ukrainian political scientists and experts indifferent.

Thus, Dmitry Skvortsov (Kyiv) believes that these bills are aimed at eliminating the only official institution that civilizationally connects Ukraine and Russian Federation. However, the publicist admits that the faction of the Petro Poroshenko Bloc (BPP) will sabotage the promotion and voting of the scandalous bills. The fact is that the adoption of such laws will further tarnish Ukraine’s reputation among international human rights organizations, and most importantly - in the Orthodox world: Bulgaria, Belarus, Greece, Georgia, Romania, Russia and other countries.

During the years of persecution, the Church only strengthened, and its persecutors disappeared. It will be so now. Ukrainian political scientist Mikhail Pavliv recalled this, commenting on the odious bills, noting in social network, that the deputies are bringing a real religious catastrophe to Ukraine, and reminding that for the entire human history greatest number people died precisely in religious wars, and already today, over the past decades, the number of victims of religious wars around the world is estimated in the millions. Now they want to bring this catastrophe to Ukraine. “The level of irresponsibility of the scoundrels who come up with such initiatives is staggering,” the political scientist notes. “The government of hucksters and nonentities is readily throwing into society another, as they consider, “flash-and-noise information grenade” in order to blind millions of Ukrainians with anger, grief, indignation, evil triumph and hatred. And under the cover of this light and noise, carry out your next machinations, continuing to build your personal power on blood.”

Former Minister of Justice in the government of N. Azarov, Elena Lukash, calls the upcoming bills “laws on religious fascism.”

“The benefits of the “Holy Patriotic War” for the authorities are clear,” the expert comments, “firstly, inciting religious confrontation will successfully distract from the issue of the sale of land, pension reform, a ruined economy and other mechanisms for the destruction of Ukrainians, and secondly, they will be “defeated” and the priests of the UOC MP appointed by enemies and ideological opponents were ruined. Bonus - the property of the UOC-MP and cries about another victory for the “patriots”. This is ordinary fascism... Modern fascists will confidently incite religious hatred and convincingly tell us about “patriotic Christianity” and “patriotic patriarchy.” Religious wars are a terrible thing. And under their cover, “proper Christians” will be able to do whatever they want. “We will not tolerate anyone in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact, our movement is Christian,” Hitler declared. And we remember well how this “Christian” movement ended for the world and its leader. And the same will happen in Ukraine. But I would really like to avoid this. Rule, Lord!” - she hopes.

This conclusion is echoed by M. Berdnik: “Priests and theologians I know compare these bills on the management of Orthodoxy with the institution of authorized representatives in Soviet time. They are mistaken. This bill is a copy of the fascist constitution of the OUN (banned in Russia - ed.) Stsiborsky.”

In Sciborsky’s document, only autocephalies and Uniates are allowed, but there is not a word about the canonical Church (i.e., the Russian Orthodox Church).

It should also be noted that the topic of Ukrainian scandalous bills was raised the other day in Washington - within the framework of the World Summit on the Protection of Persecuted Christians, which brought together 600 delegates from 130 countries.

In his speech, the deputy head of the Department for External Church Relations of the UOC, Archpriest Nikolai Danilevich, touched upon various aspects of the violation of the rights of believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. During one of the sessions, Fr. Nikolay, among other facts, mentioned discriminatory bills No. 4511 and 4128, noting the paradox of the Ukrainian situation, which lies in the fact that discriminatory actions occur in a country with an overwhelming majority of Christian population and are directed against the largest religious community.

In turn, the summit participants pointed out during the discussions that in most cases, persecution and oppression of Christians arises for political reasons, as well as as a result of state propaganda and attempts by the state to completely control the religious sphere. And this despite the fact that the constitutions of most of these countries stipulate the right to freely practice any religion. It was also noted by the forum participants that one of the reasons for the persecution of Christians is nationalistic chauvinism.

Alas, there is no doubt that some analysts are right when they claim that the persecution of canonical Orthodox Christians in Ukraine will continue as long as Russophobic and extremist forces are in power in the country.

It is no secret that many leading figures of the Kyiv regime are adherents of non-traditional religions and sects, and do not hide their hatred of Orthodoxy. And now the Rada has decided to revive last year’s bills to liquidate the “Moscow Church.”