Kiev Patriarchate Routine: Forgery and Fraud with the State Register

Not so long ago the news, citing the deputy director of the State Department for Culture, Religions and Nationalities in Ternopil region Igor Kulchytskyi, was published on the site risu.org.ua. The official stated that the Kremenets District Court had refused to consider an appeal of the UOC community of Bashuky village because the community ceased to exist as a legal entity. However, he forgot to say that the parishioners of the canonical Orthodox Church had lost their legal status as a result of the criminal actions of the Kiev Patriarchate representatives and the governor of Ternopil region Stepan Barna.

The church in Bashuky village was seized in June, 2015. The community of the UOC decided to assert their rights in a civilized way. They went to the police and filed a claim in court. Meanwhile, representatives of the UOC-KP held the so-called "referendum" in the village, which, as it has been explained not once by the head of NGO "Public Advocacy", human rights activist Oleg Denisov, is null and void. In fact, this is a survey among some groups of individuals. However, the UOC-KP activists regard the results of these surveys as a sufficient reason for a raider seizure of other people's religious buildings and structures.

On September 4, the Kiev Patriarchate supporters came to the governor Barna with dubious documents, which were supposed to verify the results of the quasi-referendum. One of the papers was said to be the minutes of the UOC parish meeting. The "protocol" stated that the community wants to make changes in the state register in order to change the jurisdiction - to become part of the Kiev Patriarchate.

It is clear to any normal person that the document is a fake. If only because the UOC parishioners openly opposed raider actions of Filaret followers at the time when the "protocol" was made. However, Stepan Barna got satisfied with the fake. The governor signed a regulation on making changes to the registry, and subject officers replaced "UOC" for "UOC-KP." By the same serial number, with a stroke of a bureaucratic pen, on the basis of the forgery, they cancelled one legal entity and created another.

The parishioners, members of the general meeting of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church parish, tried to get across to the authorities of the Ternopil Regional State Administration, that the parish meeting of Bashuky village hadn’t made any decision on the transition to the jurisdiction of the so-called Kiev Patriarchate. They also put the results of the unlawful "referendum" in issue. However, officials of the regional administration acted at an alarming rate. Documents to replace one community for another were issued in record time.

Immediately after that, the representatives of the Ternopil Regional State Administration intervened into the legal action brought by the UOC community against the UOC-KP. Officials of the regional administration, who participated in the proceedings as a third party, suddenly announced a well-thought petition that the case should be closed because there is no UOC community any more, and therefore, there is no complainant. The same thesis later was announced by Mr. Kulchytskyi.

It is strange that neither Kulchytskyi nor the governor Barna and his subordinates know the Ukrainian law. According to Part 3, Clause 8 of the Law of Ukraine "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations", even if the community loses the status of a legal entity, it exists and enjoys all the rights, as the state registration of the religious community is not at all mandatory.

Or maybe they know but defiantly continue discrimination of Ukrainian citizens on religious grounds. Moreover, they interfere with the judicial process. Fortunately, on November 24, the Ternopil Court of Appeal ordered the Kremenets District Court to reopen the case to invalidate the decision of the parish community of Bashuky village.

Let's hope that this time the parishioners of the UOC will be able to defend their rights. Moreover, that in a similar case the Kremenets District Court of 11.27.2015 has already invalidated the protocol of the "general meeting" of the community, on the basis of which the UOC community was re-registered in the Kiev Patriarchate.

The Papacy Is Not a 'Development'—It's a Contradiction

The Holy Canons assert the absolute authority of each bishop within his own diocese. The Ecumenical Councils, while acknowledging the Pope's symbolic primacy, also explicitly checked his attempts to exercise superior authority over the Church, or to place himself above his fellow bishops. And the Church Fathers fleshed out this ecclesiology, affirming the rights of bishops and synods while checking papal ambitions.

Meet the New Rome, Same as the Old Rome

J.D. Vance’s comparison of the Ecumenical Patriarch to the Pope highlights growing tensions within Orthodoxy, as critics accuse Patriarch Bartholomew of pursuing "Greek papism" and aligning with U.S. geopolitical interests, risking the erosion of his primacy of love and the unity of the Orthodox Church.

The Trial of Met. Tychikos: When the Church ‘Washes Her Hands’

A look at the clear parallels between Pilate’s trial and the trial of Met. Tychikos.

From Protestant Pastor to Orthodox Priest

Joshua Genig was the son of devout Lutherans. From an early age, he dreamed of serving the Lutheran church as a pastor and teacher. He got his wish—and yet one thought kept him up at night: "Is any of this real?" After years of searching, Genig and his family were received into the Orthodox Church, and the Rev. Mr. Genig is now Father Joshua.

Analysis: The ‘Appeal’ of Metropolitan Tikhikos and the Patriarchal Synod

The Synod of the Church of Constantinople is going to review the high-profile appeal of Metropolitan Tychikos, who was removed from the Paphos See by the Cypriot Synod. What decision will the Synod members of Constantinople make?

The Abp. of Cyprus, the Euros, and the Phanar

What explains the certainty of the Archbishop of Cyprus that the Patriarchate will validate his own and the Synod’s illegal actions in the case of Tychikos? Does he know the decision long before the Synod convenes?