The move (some hundred years after the initial Mongol onslaught) of the metropolitan from Kyiv to Vladimir to Moscow is what substantiates the Russian claim to all of the former Rus'. A huge problem with that- Moscow was a Mongol puppet state. A more modern similarity- Nazis conquer France in 1940 and create a puppet, Vichy France, which claims the authority over all french territories. But there's also the Free French, hiding out somewhere in Senegal. Tell me who has the right to France and the French empire, the puppet or another region of French empire like Senegal?
Still both parts of the eastern Slavic church were one jurisdiction and not two.
No that's is incorrect. For example Halychyna, before AND after the Poles came, had their own metropolitan and was part of Constantinople jurisdiction not Moscow. I'm repeating myself- as Rus was destroyed its principalities became politically independent and isolated from each other, and so they created their own churches.
The Orthodox church under Polish rule was forcefully integrated into Roman Catholic Church while preserving her Byzantine rites.
No it wasn't, a PART of the Orthodox churches became Uniates but Orthodox Church existed in Poland-Lithuania. Sure, it was persecuted by the Catholic Poles but it remained strong. Ukrainian Cossacks, they weren't praying in the Moscow's church
Is it what you mean by the TWO churches?
No, that Ukrainian church and the Russian church were sister churches, part of the Byzantine jurisdiction; ==> Kyiv was not a part of Moscow.
What happened in 1589 it was that the autocephaly of Moscow church...
Then the Moscow church are schismatics,:)
Would you expect that there would two separate jurisdictions kept divided by the future border line drawn by the Bolsheviks in XX century?
My turn to not understand what is written. Bolsheviks defined borders of Ukraine? If that's what you meant then I'm in shock.
Here's an insight- Ukrainians existed before Bolshevics.
BTW, this area in the east was the one which voted for Yanukovych and which is Russian speaking.
You mean 'this area in the east was part of Moscow jurisdiction in 17th cent.'? Another insight- if there were priests present in the eastern and the southern Ukraine the only ones whom they would be able to preach to would be wolves and wild horses- the region was not populated (minus Slobodschyna).
The source is some Ukrainian nationalist in Canada. Do you have an official source from Constantinople Patriarch Bartholomew about his claim?
How convenient to discredit the source by calling him a nationalist in Canada. OK, I'll try to do better
http://www.risu.org.ua/eng/news/article;6059
Fifth story down the page.
Scroll down the page at this site
I know several Greeks and they are not afraid of Russia, rather they appear to LIKE Russia very much!
I support the opinion of this guy- Russians freaked out when Greeks supported Estonian church's independence from Moscow, imagine what Russia would do if Ukraine did the same, they'd go into coma. (Scroll down almost to the end of this site (Historical sidenote- Moscow took over Estonia's church when Soviets invaded in 1940, nice)
It is you who has to decide. Are you Catholic or are you Orthodox
What if I tell you there's no difference. Liturgy is identical, holidays are the same. BTW, in Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate liturgy is in Russian and is officially supported by the Communist Party of Ukraine, another Russian agent on the Ukrainian soil.
Are the matters of church/faith secondary in relations to national issue?
HAHAAHAHA- the naivette. Of course. Everything is political. I accuse Russians of the same- they use the church for nothing but politics.
Is it the position of your friends?
Hard question. I'm a city guy and most of my friends don't care that much which church to go to, so if there was an Ethiopian church nearby they'd go to that one. :)
If this happen will this "united" church be Catholic or Orthodox? What is your preference?
Orthodox.
To be sister churches they had to be distinct. Can you describe this distinction before the fall of Constantinople, and before the Unia of Florence in XV century?
Were there are another "sister churches" like that? How this differentiation was affected by the 1299 move of metropolitan see from Kiev to Vladimir (closer to Moscow) after the destruction of Kiev by the Mongols?
My turn to not understand what is written. Bolsheviks defined borders of Ukraine? If that's what you meant then I'm in shock. Here's an insight- Ukrainians existed before Bolsheviks.
The Ukrainian republic was created by the Soviet government. The eastern border was drawn by the Soviet government and this process of expansion was done with Khrushchev adding Crimea. As a result large lands in the east which are ethnically and historically Russian became part of Ukraine. Western border of the Ukraine was drawn by Soviets when they took Lvov area from Poland and easternmost part of Czechoslovakia. Northern was drawn when Soviets decided where the Belorus is. Southern border was defined by the creation of Moldavian republic.
==The move (some hundred years after the initial Mongol onslaught) of the metropolitan from Kyiv to Vladimir to Moscow is what substantiates the Russian claim to all of the former Rus'. A huge problem with that- Moscow was a Mongol puppet state.==
Actually history is more complex. Most of Russian principalities including Great Principality of Vladimir (later Moscow) were under Mongols. This means 1) they paid tribute to Kazan, 2) Kazan approved princes. Mongols did not live among Russians (but Russian slaves lived among Mongols). Some Russian principalities (for example Novgorod) were not under Mongols.
But all Russian principalities constantly (in unions of singly) fought each other and Mongols. So 'puppet' is not right since their politics was independent.