Ukrainian church’s gains could be reversed if Kyiv bans Moscow Patriarchal Church in Ukraine, Greek Catholic priest says

Mykola Medynskyi (Image: risu.org.ua)

Mykola Medynskyi (Image: risu.org.ua) 

Analysis & Opinion, New Ukraine, Ukraine, War in the Donbas

Ukrainian churches have been gaining in recent years as ever more people have chosen to leave the parishes of the Moscow Patriarchal Church in that country, Chaplain Mykola Medynskyi says; but if the Ukrainian government were to ban the Moscow church as some are suggesting, those gains could turn into losses over night.

That is because, the Greek Catholic priest says, such a governmental ban would be taken as “a signal” by some of the most zombified within the Russian church and they would “immediately begin protest actions in society.”

Indeed, he says, some of them might try to act in ways that would allow them to become martyrs to their cause. At the very least, this would divide many communities and weaken Ukraine, something many in Moscow may want but that no one committed to Ukraine’s future can possibly be in favor of.

Related:

Edited by: A. N.

Tags: , , , ,

  • zorbatheturk

    RuSSians worship at the Church of Our Father Putin.

  • Ihor Dawydiak

    It would be highly unlikely that the Ukrainian Government would even consider the banning of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) as it would not only be an infringement on religious freedom but it would also be totally unnecessary. As matters stand, while this affiliate of the Russian Orthodox Church has to varying degrees followed the dictates of “Pope” Kirill in Moscow, it has also been losing its parishioners at an ever increasing rate which could lead to an almost complete self destruction in the not too distant future. As to the reasons of why this has been happening should be relatively obvious. This particular Church has been increasingly alienated from the vast majority of Ukrainian Society (meaning every ethnic group residing in Ukraine) since it cannot properly address or support the views of the vast majority of patriotic Ukrainians which in turn represent the vast majority of Ukrainian citizens. Instead, this Church has been almost non-existent in any criticism of Putin’s policies in regards to Ukraine and in most cases have been apologists for Patriarch Kirill who in turn has been nothing less than an appendage of Russia’s Grand Pederast. Therefore, what would be the point in banning this Church and risk the possibility of providing Putin with potential ammunition as well as international criticism when this Church has been destined towards its own implosion? In this case, nature should be allowed to run its course.

    • http://www.krantvannederland.nl/ Cees Boogaart

      Churches belong to parishioners , not to the priests or Moscow, so if Ukraine would offer a transfer from Moscow Patriarchate to Kyiv Patriarchate, with agreement of parishioners it would be more succesfull.

      • Ihor Dawydiak

        True enough Cees but not according to the Russian Orthodox Church. They in fact have challenged the right of not only the transfer of any its Churches in Ukraine to another denomination (especially to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate), but they have also gone so far as to challenge the right of its former parishioners to switch allegiances using Ukrainian courts. So why the great fuss? The answer lies in the fact that the UOC(MP) has more people that attend and support their local Churches in Ukraine than in all of Russia. As such, losing their Church in Ukraine would be a viewed as a disaster by the Orthodox clergy based in Moscow. That in turn would be another reason why the Ukrainian Government has been reluctant to become involved in this sordid affair. In other words, why not let the ROC and its affiliate in Ukraine blame the courts for their demise rather than the Government of Ukraine? While all of this may sound strange it is also a shrewd tactical maneuver by the authorities in Kyiv.

        • http://www.krantvannederland.nl/ Cees Boogaart

          ROC may say or think what they want parishioners (in past) payed to build and maintain the church and fund the priests, so if parishioners want to change they can. In Netherlands a lot of catholic churches were changed to reformed (protestant) churches when the parishioners changed belief. So priests went, and vicars came. Churches belong to parishioners, not to Pope of Rome. Orthodox Catholics want to get those churches back (cause of the money involved in property) but as Catholic myself, I opposed that, cause churches belong to parishioners.

      • Brent

        But you’re referring to what happens in the “civilized world”….in the “Russian MIR”, they church and it’s KGB informant Patriarch Kiril belong to Putin. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cade0491c63ed6bd18152e73c028da606d9865596c2db28cc941738e609ba0d2.jpg

        • http://www.krantvannederland.nl/ Cees Boogaart

          russia world won’t be there much longer, and Ukraine doesn’t belong(ed) to it..

          • Brent

            Agreed!!!

    • Dale Davies

      Well said. Banning things has a tendency of creating an opposite effect. Look at prohibition in the USA. Those that wanted to drink still could theough the efforts of the criminal element. Criminals like Al Cappone became wealthy.
      With the passing of time the Muscovy Patriarchate will likely pass into history in Ukraine with little fuss.