The attainment of autocephaly by the Orthodox Church of Ukraine intensified the religious transitions of parishes that were preceded by individual parishioners’ switches. The highest dynamics of such transitions occurred in the Volyn Region in the north-western part of Ukraine. These transitions refer exclusively to a switch from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine without affecting other religious communities. Most of the population supported the autocephalous status of the Orthodox Church of (...) Ukraine, for they consider granting autocephaly as a major historical event for the Ukrainian nation. The process of active religious transitions was primarily determined by the aptness of each parish community and political climate on a national level. The Orthodox Church of Ukraine was able to maintain its high regard, but with the change of political power in Ukraine in 2019, it lost political support. The process of religious transitions dwindled. (shrink)

A series of conflicts that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union culminated in the war in Ukraine waged by Russia in 2014. The international community was taken by surprise, and its reactions to the Russian aggression were often confused and inadequate. Even more confused and inadequate were the responses from global Christianity. Russian propaganda often renders the aggression against Ukraine as a quasi-religious conflict: a “holy war” against the “godless” or “heterodox” West. It would be natural, therefore, for the (...) Christian churches worldwide to loudly condemn both propaganda and aggression. However, in most cases, their response was silence. Such reactions came from most local Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic church, and international ecumenical organizations such as the World Council of Churches. An exception was the reaction from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which decided to grant autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. The article argues that the Tomos for autocephaly was, among other reasons, a reaction to the war in Ukraine. The responses of other local Orthodox churches to the Tomos also indicate their attitude to the war in Ukraine. These reactions have demonstrated a profound crisis in inter-Orthodox solidarity and social ethics. (shrink)

This article analyses the ideas and works of Oleksandr Lototskyi in connection with the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Lototskyi was a prominent scholar and politician during the Ukrainian revolution of 1917–1919. The chronology of Lototskyi’s beliefs as they developed, ranging from the support of the autonomy of the Church to the idea of autocephaly is reviewed in detail against the background of historical events. Lototskyi’s representations on behalf of the state at the All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Sobor (...) in November 1918 in support of Church independence showcased his convictions. The idea was incorporated by the Directory of the UNR into the Law “On the Highest Church Government of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.” The article shows that the paradigm of autocephaly, as envisioned by Lototskyi and exemplified through his actions whilst Minister of Confessions, became the cornerstone of modern Ukrainian philosophy in favor of religious independence. (shrink)

Christianity in the lands of Macedonia dates back to apostolic times. However,the Macedonian Orthodox Church remained unrecognized by the Ecumenical Orthodoxyfor more than half a century due to the controversy over its canonicity.The paper includes an excursion into the history of Macedonian Orthodoxy, the country’spath to its own autocephalous church and the prospects of gaining Pan-Orthodox recognition.This subject is quite relevant today. To this day, there is no clearly defined algorithm ofgranting a Tomos. This means that there is no unified (...) legitimate way for a church to obtainan autocephaly when separated from the mother church. Therefore, obtaining autocephalyalways entails ambiguous perception in the Orthodox world.On July 19th, 1967, the Synod of the Macedonian Orthodox Church announced autocephalyof the Orthodox Church of Macedonian Republic on their own.Since that time the canonical status of the Macedonian Orthodox Church wasn’t recognizedby any of Local Churches.2018 the stage of meetings between the Macedonian authorities and the Ecumenical Patriarchatebegins. Fanar negotiated with the President of Macedonia Gheorghe Ivanovregarding the granting of autocephaly.2022 the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate decided to recognize MOC canonical.The Serbian Patriarch officially proclaimed the autocephaly of the Macedonian Church.Archbishop Stephen was given a Tomos.The peaceful act of returning the church to the canonical field took place in the Orthodoxworld. (shrink)

This paper treats the fifth-century AD apocryphal Acta Barnabae. § I sets out briefly the consensus view of ABarn’s main aim - to establish the autocephaly of the Cypriot Church by endowing it with an apostolic founder, Barnabas, in a text modelled on Acts which affects to be contemporary with Acts and to be the work of John Mark. § II examines ABarn’s detailed interactions with Acts, its foregrounding of Barnabas over Paul, and its centralising of Cyprus in early (...) Christianity; ‘itinerary style’ is highlighted as a prominent feature of ABarn’s striving for verisimilitude. § III treats ABarn’s use of further ‘novelistic’ strategies for the same purpose; they mostly draw on topoi, but sometimes arguably on personal knowledge of Cyprus. § IV reflects on ABarn’s curious downgrading of its inscribed author, John Mark. This is attributed to the anti-Monophysite stance of the fifth-century Cypriot Church towards both the Antiochene and Alexandrian Patriarchates. (shrink)

In Ukraine, in October 1921, Metropolitan Vasyl Lipkivsky was quipped by the UAOC, which in the 1930s was completely liquidated in Ukraine. In 1924, Metropolitan Vasyl Lipkovsky sent to the United States Archbishop I. Theodorovich, who organized the UPA of the parish in the USA and Canada, and thus created the UAOC on the American continent. In his letter to Archbishop Ioan Teodorovich on March 27, 1946, Bishop Mstislav wrote: "... solemnly declare that I recognize the grace of the hierarchy (...) of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in the United States of America and in Canada, the hierarchy that has renewed the function of the episcopal serving as the act of the First All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Council in Kyiv, in the month of October 1921, as well as the sanctity of all the mysteries of the Church by that hierarchy of completed and completed in the past Church. "Unfortunately, it must be said that Archbishop Mstislav very much Ro broke his solemn affirmation of "the observance of the Autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the United States of America and in Canada, and the church and people's sovereignty of its system.". (shrink)

An important moment in the recent history of the Eastern Orthodox Church was for sure the recognition granted to the Ukrainian Orthodoxy by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople with the Tomos of autocephaly. Praised by some Orthodox churches and damned by other, it was preceded by some attempts of negotiation initiated by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and by a few meetings between the representatives of the aforementioned institution, Russian Patriarchate and the Ukrainian local churches that was later recognised by Constantinople (...) and by a Schism between the Constantinople and Moscow. At the same time, it divided the local Orthodox churches between the ones who sustain one or the other side or prefer to remain in a neutral state and determined later meetings like the one from Amman in Jordan, between leaders and representatives of the Orthodox Church. Conscious of the relevance of the event and its potential consequences, we have tried here to see how it was reflected in the ecumenical space. Therefore, we have proceeded to the investigation of the journals from the ecumenical area that spoke about it, and we analysed the way how they saw it and emphasised the main elements that have raised their interest. Together with the ecclesiastical challenges, we found that they were also interested in this problem not only for its theological meaning but also because of its geopolitical relevance. The research, based on the literature investigated, therefore presents the Ukrainian problem and its image in the ecumenical space.Contribution: The research investigates how the image of the Eastern Orthodox Church changed in the ecumenical space after the foundation of the New Ukrainian Church and the debates that followed inside of the Orthodox space in this context. It is linked with the scope of the journal due to the fact that investigates a topic relevant for the ecumenical area and presents a topic that can contribute in the future to the change of the relationships with different churches with the Orthodox one. (shrink)

The article by Alexander Soldatov contains a new view to solving the problem of autocephaly in the context of the desire of the Orthodox Churches in Ukraine to the attainment of the autocephalous status. Analyzing the canon law, the statements of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church and the historical experience of Orthodoxy, the author comes to the conclusion that there are two types of autocephaly in the Orthodox tradition - old and new one. These types are (...) different in the scope of authority of the church authorities and in the mode of origin. Author's concept is related to the ancient principle Pentarchy, i.e. the primacy in the Universal Orthodoxy five ancient patriarchates that are exclusive carriers autocephaly completeness. Only they, with certain reservations and limitations, have the right to grant autocephalous status of the other local Churches. The Moscow Patriarchate is not a member of Pentarchy, this right it does not have, which removes from the agenda the question of the very possibility of obtaining autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from Moscow. In this regard, the article addresses some lesser known aspects of "resubordination" of the Kyiv Metropolis to Moscow Patriarchate from Constantinople in the end of the XVIIth century. (shrink)

The article explores the semantic potential of social narratives associated with the creation and constitution of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which caused a interpretations conflict, marked by conflicting interpretations and differences in meanings that are applied in different contexts. The narrative arranges events in a certain time sequence, accumulates and translates meanings, individual and social experience. The presence of meanings in the interpretation of the narrative depends on the perspective, interpretation horizons and the subject's ability to analyze information and (...) its correct application. The social narrative accumulates a set of stories and messages that are fragmentary and disordered, constructs a coherent plot aimed at finding and defining meanings, and forming social discourse. Social narratives materialized in social structures, orientations, expectations, and stereotypes of their bearers due to everyday modification in the form of simple images, attitudes, and principles. Since each social narrative claims to be exclusive and correct in its own way of understanding events, a clash of narratives and their interpretations is inevitable. A large-scale event determines the modification of social structures, standards, and evaluation criteria, is accompanied by the transformation of everyday life, reveals deep mental layers, and opens up new perspectives. The extraordinary event that was marked by the creation of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine is accompanied by diametrically opposite assessments from the clergy, believers, politicians, experts – from the statement about autocephaly as the only opportunity to achieve unity and recognition of Ukrainian Orthodoxy to the political subtext justification of the new religious organization creation. Church circles represented by representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate claim that the state interferes in the internal Affairs of the Church. The Constitution of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine takes place in the context of the confrontation of two social narratives – the «ukrainian world» and the «russian world». The social narrative «ukrainian world» is based on values rooted in the national soil, but the social narrative «russian world» denies the existence of the Ukrainian nation and the Ukrainian state. Under the patronage of the Russian Orthodox Church, the expression of the ideas of the «russian world» is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, which enshrines in the minds of believers ideologies about «the common origin of the Ukrainian and Russian peoples», «the common baptismal font», «the unity of the historical space of Holy Rus», «the identity of the East Slavic Orthodox civilization». The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate did not support the decision of patriarch Bartholomew to grant autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Metropolitan Onufriy did not give his blessing to the hierarchs to participate in the Unification Council, which is called «a non-canonical assembly of schismatic groups». The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, according to its primate, has de facto autocephaly, so it is the only canonical local Orthodox Church in Ukraine. In the face of the conflict of public narratives, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, along with meeting the spiritual needs of believers, contributes to the formation of national identity, the formation of a worldview matrix that will determine the vision of the future development of the country. (shrink)

A study of the creative heritage of Ivan Ogienko provides a solid basis for concluding: Ukrainian Orthodoxy, in its dialectical interrelations with the peculiarities of the Ukrainian national mentality, exists quite realistically. A deep awareness of the reality of the existence of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy phenomenon has given him his whole conscious life to fight for the renewal of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, for its autocephaly, and for proving that Ukrainian Orthodoxy is significantly different from Russian Orthodoxy. Therefore, it (...) is not possible to confuse not only on cult grounds, but also on ideological and existential characteristics side by side, co-existing for two centuries in the territory of Ukraine, two Orthodox Churches - the Russian and Ukrainian. (shrink)

The First All-Ukrainian Council of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, which took place on October 14-30, 1921, in Sofiyivsky Cathedral, Kiev, became a major event in the life of the Ukrainian church, for the first time it declared it collectively as an autocephaly, Ukrainianization, catholicity and apolitical. But the course and decisions of this forum have also become a significant phenomenon in the development of Ukrainian culture.

The problem of formation and recognition of the Ukrainian Local Orthodox Church has not been considered by clerics of the Churches or believers only as ecclesiastics since its actualization in Ukraine at the beginning of the twentieth century. The objectivity of such an assessment of the question of propriety is borne out by the experience of becoming autocephalous of other local Orthodox Churches - none of them being able to choose their autocephaly only through the implementation of a particular (...) church program. The reason for this state of affairs is the fact that the procedure for obtaining administrative independence of a particular church unit is not written out in Orthodox canons. (shrink)

Summary. The article deals with the close link between the diminishing influence of the Moscow Patriarchate on social and political processes in Ukraine and the restoration of the Ukrainian cultural and civilizational space. Namely, the gradual deprivation of Orthodox believers of the post-imperial syndrome, including attitudes, perceptions, behavioral models, etc., associated with the stay of Ukrainians in the foreign-language and other people's mentality and culture of the empire. It is noted that the receipt of the Tomos on recognition of (...) class='Hi'>autocephaly and the constitution of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine by Orthodox believers of Ukraine has a positive impact not only on the development of the OCU itself, but also the level of patriotism, restoration and development of the Ukrainian-speaking environment, archetypal traditions, rituals, behavior models, etc. The conclusion is about the religious aspect of promoting Ukrainian development from the Asian to the European cultural and civilizational model. (shrink)