Professor Oleksandr Sagan, Institute of Philosophy (NASU)
Professor Liudmyla Fylypovych, Institute of Philosophy by G.S. Skovoroda
(The example is the historical sources collection “The Reunification of the Kyiv Metropolitanate with the Russian Orthodox Church”)
“The Orthodox Encyclopedia” Church Research Center is now one of the most authoritative Russian church sciences which is a joint effort of both theologians and secular scholars who explore the history and characteristics of Orthodoxy as a religious subject. In 2020, this center published a collection of documents “The Reunification of the Kyiv Metropolitanate with the Russian Orthodox Church. 1676-1687. Research and documents” .
In the preface to the book Hilarion Alfeyev, Metropolitan of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Department for External church relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, worded clearly the reason for this collection. In particular, according to the Metropolitan until 2018, the Patriarchate of Constantinople “implicitly acknowledged complete jurisdiction” of the Moscow Patriarchate over the Kyiv Metropolitanate. And only “in 2018, Constantinople attempted to revoke the act of 1686 and extend its own jurisdiction to Ukraine. That was the point the Patriarchate of Constantinople and its representatives for the first time announced a statement that the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarchate appeared to be a temporary and conditional one…” 
In other words, this collection is actually a response (of two years delay) to the Moscow Patriarchate; it concerns the decision of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Constantinople Orthodox Church (dated 11/10/2018) according to which “the legal binding of the Synodal Letter of the year 1686, issued for the circumstances of that time, which granted the right through oikonomia to the Patriarch of Moscow to ordain the Metropolitan of Kyiv, elected by the Clergy-Laity Assembly of his eparchy, who would commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch as the First hierarch at any celebration, proclaiming and affirming his canonical dependence to the Mother Church of Constantinople”. The response style (aimed at asserting one’s position) has produced a significant impact on the quality of the supporting documents and the papers submitted themselves. At issue are the substitution of concepts, the absence of original texts, the manipulative presentation of texts in modern translations as well as the voluntary reduction of sources.
The substitution of concepts starts with the very title of the collection. Indeed, at the time of the annexation of the Metropolitan of Kyiv to the Moscow Patriarchate, there could be no reflection of any “Russian Orthodox Church”, since generally such (the church) had not existed yet. The Church was named this way only in 1943. From the beginning of the 18th century until 1943 this Church was the “Russian /namely Rossiyskaya/ Orthodox Church”. In the 17th century (this period is analyzed in the collection) this church was referred to as ‘Moscow Orthodox Church’. A parallel and equivalent to it was ‘Moscow Patriarchate’. Substitution of old historical institutional names, which had existed in other dimensions and attributes, for present-day ones is a manipulative and anti-scientific technique. The attempts of the compilers of the collection of documents to manipulate the readers’ minds is further evidenced by the fact the authors of the introductory and concluding analytical articles do not use the ‘Russian Church’ notion (a synonymous name frequently used in the 17th century for the Kyiv Orthodox Metropolis), obviously to avoid confusing the reader – since then it would not be clear who was ‘reunited’ with whom.
Furthermore, all the titles that refer to old Ukrainian institutions, or those that dealt with Ukrainian issues, have not been changed. For example, “Little Russia”, “Little Russia order” and others.
Amidst these manipulations, there also arises the matter of the historiography of the names and nature of some documents cited in the collection, as well. It would appear that they were already censored in imperial ‘tsarist’ times and have long since been amended. For instance, only at the beginning of the 18th century, by order of Peter Romanov, the Moscow Kingdom transformed into the Russian Kingdom, and then to the Russian Empire. However, in the aforementioned collection under 1679 the names ‘Russian ambassadors’ already appear (documents No. 23, 26, 27, etc.). That is, the Moscow tsars delegated the ‘Russian ambassadors’ in 1679, which seems rather out of place.
Besides, the term “reunification” (repeated unification, accession of once rejected) is mentioned here in the context of “the annexation of the severed Kyiv Metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarchate». But, if one objectively follows the historical course of events, it was the Moscow Metropolitanate (later – the Patriarchate) that arbitrarily separated from the Kyiv Metropolitanate. This self-separation is also evidenced by the fact that the metropolitans, who already ruled independently (since 1448) the Moscow Metropolitanate, bore the title ‘Kyiv and All Rus’. And only since 1461 they are referred to as ‘Moscow’.
Considering the foregoing, a conclusion is that the authors of the collection consciously distorted the core and nature of the events that occurred in the last quarter of the XVII century in the Kyiv Metropolis.
The manipulative approach proceeds in the preface of Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev. The Metropolitan cursorily explains the breakaway from the Metropolitanate of Kyiv and the creation of the independent Metropolitanate of Moscow in 1448, allegedly through the signature by the Patriarch of Constantinople of the documents of the Florentine Union. Although, as the metropolitan admits, only in 1458, that is, 10 years after the Muscovites split the Metropolitanate of Kyiv and created the Metropolitanate of Moscow, the “Uniate” Grigory Bolgarin was appointed to the Kyiv cathedra. The question therefore arises – Was the Florentine Unia the cause or the occasion for the secession of the Metropolitanate of Moscow?
Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev grounds the essentially raider attack of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Metropolitanate of Kyiv by the fact that this “reunification of the Kyiv Metropolitanate with the Russian Church actually saved Ukrainian Orthodoxy from destruction.”  This refers to the conflict between the Orthodox and Uniate Churches in the second half of the seventeenth century. Yet the historical facts indicate something quite different. Right after the withdrawal of the Kyiv Metropolitanate from the Constantinople Patriarchate and its entry into the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate (with conditions and traditions unacceptable for Ukrainian Orthodoxy) the process of transition of Western Ukrainian Orthodox dioceses (Lviv, Lutsk, etc.) to the union actually started.  In particular, this became the impetus for the Lviv Archdiocese, which most steadily opposed the spread of the Uniate idea after 1596. In 1700, however, its clergy by a large majority accepted this difficult decision to convert to Unia.
As a matter of fact, a number of the clerics of the Kyiv Metropolitanate warned of such potential consequences of entering the jurisdiction of Moscow. For instance, the opponents of the accession to the Moscow Patriarchate bluntly declared that it was necessary “to look back at the Orthodox in the Crown of Poland and the Duchy of Lithuania, who are defending themselves from the Romans because they are baptized by the Patriarch of Tsaregrad and have belonged to him as their patriarch from the beginning. As soon as we are separated from the Patriarch of Tsaregrad to the Moscow Patriarch, the Romans will tear the Orthodox from the Patriarch of Tsaregrad under their authority and force them to join their Uniatists. They will claim that they are following our example. In fact if the Metropolitanate of Kyiv has rejected the native patriarch Tsarhorodsky, and has gone in obedience to the Moscow patriarch why can not you also recede and join our clergy” . Nevertheless, opposition to the union on the Moscow part (both church and secular) often consisted of repressive measures against the initiators of the change of confession. As it happened, for example, with the Lutsk bishop Dionysiy Zhyboplinskyi who after accepting the union was “captured, taken to Moscow, where he was martyred” .
The words of Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev that only in 2018 “Constantinople tried to withdraw the act of 1686 and extend its jurisdiction to Ukraine” also pretended to seem cynical. For some reason, Alfeyev believes that only in 2018, ‘The Patriarchate of Constantinople and its representatives made a statement for the first time that the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarchate appeared to have a temporary and conditional character”.  It has to be noted that only in the 20th century the Patriarchate of Constantinople several times made unequivocal statements about the non-recognition of the boundaries of the Moscow Patriarchate outside those that were at the time of the recognition of the Moscow Church in 1589 (the Kyiv Metropolitanate never entered these boundaries). 
In addition to these statements, a significant argument in contradicting Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev’s statement is the basis for the granting of the Tomos of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Poland in 1924. After all, the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the justification for the Tomos clearly noted that “… the first separation from Our See of the Metropolis of Kyiv and the Orthodox Metropolises of Lithuania and Poland, dependent on it, as well as their incorporation into the Holy Church of Moscow came not under the prescription of canonical rules …”[10 ].
The opposition of the Moscow Patriarchate and even the secular Bolshevik authorities to the receipt of the Tomos by the Orthodox in Poland was insane. The Russians clearly realized and anticipated the consequences of such an act. Therefore, after the ‘liberation’ of Poland in 1945 Soviet secular and church leaders initiated the ‘refuse’ of the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church from the Constantinople Tomos and in 1948 announced their own Tomos (in fact, it was not provided). Tomos from the Ecumenical Patriarch for the Orthodox Church in Poland clearly noted that, apart from certain conditions stipulated by the Constantinople Patriarchate, the Kyiv Metropolitanate had always remained part (“canonical territory”) of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. After all, the reasoning in the document was straightforward: the Orthodox dioceses in Poland belonged to the Metropolitanate of Kyiv, which never belonged to Moscow. Therefore, against the backdrop of the rise of an independent state, autocephaly was granted to part of the archdiocese.
One may pay plentiful attention to the absurdities both in the preface and in the texts of analytical materials:“‘Formation and development of the idea of the unity of the metropolis of all Russ in the Byzantine era” (pp. 7-32); “The Kyiv Metropolitanate, the Moscow Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1676-1686” (pp. 33-140). However, the extent of the paper allows only a cursory description of the documents collected in the collection.
The collection analyzed counts 246 sources which (according to the compilers) most fully reflect the events of 1676-1686. Sources are presented in translation into present-days Russian language, often without providing any texts of the original documents. In many cases, such original sources have not been preserved, which makes one doubt the accuracy of their content. In 33 cases out of 246 (13%) documents are represented in fragments. At the same time, the principle by which these fragments were selected is not defined. This, accordingly, provides a biased display of the essence of the document, citing those parts of it that confirm the concept of the compilers and avoiding citing facts that deny this concept.
Overall, the analysis is focused on the idea developed back in the time of the Moscow Tsar Peter the Great (Romanov’s dynasty) (1672-1721) about the alleged desire of the clergy of the Kyiv Metropolitanate to transfer to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Church and consent to this act on the part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.  Moreover, in the opinion of Moscow historiographers such agreement was complete and final, without any conditions. The presentation of this concept and its “justification”, by the way, occupy almost a quarter of the volume of the collection and are presented both at the beginning of the book (pp. 5-144) and in the concluding commentaries (pp. 844-894).
The presented sources can be combined into several groups which reflect the authors’ aspiration to convince readers of the validity of the aforementioned theses. Namely:
– a group of documents on the persecution of Orthodox Christians on the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the ‘conflict’ of the Moscow side for their rights;
– documents that characterize the activities of Gedeon Svyatopolk-Chetvertinsky before and after his election as Metropolitan of Kyiv;
– letters, edicts and universals of the Polish king John III Sobieski;
– correspondence between Russian (Ukrainian) clergy and secular people with Moscow leaders (tsars, officials, diplomats);
– the correspondence of the Moscow side with the Jerusalem Patriarch Dositheos II Notaras (attempts of the Muscovites to form support for their attempts to seize the Kyiv Metropolis), incl. documents that confirm the payment for activities of the patriarch with lobbying of their interests by Muscovites;
– correspondence of the Moscow side with the Patriarchate of Constantinople;
– documents that clarify the role of the Moscow Patriarchate and Moscow tsars in organizing the elections of the Kyiv Metropolitan;
– documents that certify diplomatic and administrative (since 1654, Moscow controlled the left-bank Ukraine) efforts of the Moscow side (ecclesiastical and secular) regarding changes in the jurisdiction of the Kyiv Metropolis from Constantinople to Moscow;
– documents (over 10% of the total), which attest to the importance for Muscovia of receiving the Kyiv Metropolitanate – it is said about rewarding all those involved in changing the jurisdiction of the Kyiv Metropolis by Moscow tsars and the patriarch.
Of a particular interest are the documents No. 210-219 representing the letters of the Patriarchate of Constantinople at May-June 1686, as well as the decision of the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in which the Ecumenical Patriarchate determines the reasons and method of subordination of the Kyiv Metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarch. It should be noted that only one original of these documents (No. 210) has survived, and all the rest are submitted in translations from copies translated by Muscovite officials back in the 17th century. And these translations have always had specific characteristics. 
Actually, the edict of Patriarch Dionysius IV  does not verify in any way the ‘forever-transfer’ of the Kyiv Metropolitanate. Here are listed the reasons for the transfer: the presence of frequent wars between the Ottoman Empire and the Tsardom of Muscovy, which was a natural obstacle to the communication of the thrones in Constantinople and Kyiv; the farness distance of the Metropolitanate from the Mother Church and the impossibility of promptly placing metropolitans. The conditions for this temporary subordination were: the chirotony of the Kyiv Metropolitan in Moscow, upon condition his election in his metropolitanate by free votes and according to local custom; not interfering in the affairs of local Ukrainian dioceses; commemoration at the liturgy to Patriarch of Constantinople.  Besides, the Ukrainian side, especially Hetman Ivan Samoilovych, strived for retain the title of Exarch of the Patriarch of Constantinople (‘Exarch the most holy Apostolic Throne of Constantinople’) to the Metropolitan of Kyiv  (see Document No. 158 ). However, Moscow secular and church leaders flatly rejected the idea of retaining this title.
The terms of the Ecumenical Patriarch are clear enough. And it is not a secret at all, the Moscow Patriarchate started to violate them practically immediately. This refers to the interference in the affairs of the metropolitanate and diocese; changes of the dioceses and even the metropolitanate boundaries; the elimination of the ruling bishops; appointment, instead of election, of metropolitans; not commemorating the Patriarch of Constantinople; the elimination of the title of Exarch of the Patriarch of Constantinople and even the lowering of the title of Metropolitan of Kyiv to Archbishop; liquidation of the own ecclesiastical court of the Kyiv Metropolis (the Moscow Patriarchal Court was supposed to be only an appellate instance) and more.
Consequently, an explanation is relevant for covering the reason the Moscow Patriarchate neglected the terms of cooperation with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and how this contributed to the “good of Orthodoxy” (as it was stated in the letters of the Moscow tsars and the Patriarch to Constantinople). In the collection, there is a large “Commentary on the documents of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from May-June 1686 on the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Patriarch of Moscow” which is given after the documents.  Moreover, only a few documents are commented on (210-219), and the comments lead to a refutation of the aforementioned conditions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, to which the Kyiv Metropolitanate is transferred to the management of the Moscow Patriarchate.
The purpose of the comments is clear enough, yet complicated to verify that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has forever transferred (the impossibility of returning) the Metropolitanate of Kyiv to the Moscow Patriarchate. Therefore, the Moscow spiritual and secular authorities should owe the right to take any actions regarding this metropolitanate whatever that might be considered. 
To add some weight to their arguments Moscow document commentators involve another international player. They add the argumentation of the Jerusalem Patriarch Dositheus towards these issues (documents No. 203-206). The evolution of Dositheus’s views from a complete rejection of the idea of re-subordination of the Metropolitanate of Kyiv to the possibility of its entry into the Moscow Patriarchate is freely explained. This evolution depended on the financing of him personally and his patriarchy from the Moscow tsars and the patriarch (document No. 194 ). In fact, Dositheus performed paid services to lobby the interests of Moscow. Therefore, the logic of analyzing the ideas of Dositheus in the comments to the documents of the Patriarchate of Constantinople can be only one – distracting attention from the main issue (violation of the conditions of the Ecumenical Patriarch) and attempts to show the inconsistency of the position of Constantinople.
Furthermore, the attention of the Moscow comments completely leaves aside the fact that both the contemporary Moscow tsars and the Moscow patriarch gave guarantees to the newly elected Kyiv metropolitan, and in his person – the entire Metropolitanate of Kyiv, to preserve his rights and privileges, as well as the traditions of the metropolis. The collection contains documents Nos. 144, 145, 177, 178, 183, etc. There are also a number of documents on the struggle of Ukrainians for their privileges – documents Nos. 133,134, 135, 136, 150, 151, 152, 157, 158, etc. Subsequent events demonstrated that almost all of the guarantees mentioned in the documents of either the tsars or the Moscow patriarch were violated by the Moscow side. The Metropolitanate of Kyiv almost immediately after the change of jurisdiction ceased to be a subject of interchurch relations and turned into an ordinary Moscow metropolitanate, and later also an archdiocese.
Therefore, it was appropriate and quite logical on the part of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to make a decision on October 11, 2018, by which the Metropolitanate of Kyiv was returned to the Mother Church (Patriarchate of Constantinople): “4) To revoke the legal binding of the Synodal Letter of the year 1686, issued for the circumstances of that time, which granted the right through oikonomia to the Patriarch of Moscow to ordain the Metropolitan of Kyiv, elected by the Clergy-Laity Assembly of his eparchy, who would commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch as the First hierarch at any celebration, proclaiming and affirming his canonical dependence to the Mother Church of Constantinople.” 
On the website “Orthodoxia.info”, representatives of the Patriarchate also published documents that certify the non-canonicity of the residence of the Moscow Patriarchate on the territory of Ukraine. 
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew also provided a clear and unambiguous explanation of what happened in the second half of the 17th century with the Metropolitanate of Kyiv. In particular, Patriarch Bartholomew noted:  “The fact is that there is no canonical text, that is, a kind of Patriarchal Tomos or a Patriarchal and Synodal Act, by which the Kyiv Metropolitanate would be transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate. The documents are more than understandable, and the letters of Patriarch Dionysius, sent in 1686, can not be understood. They not only do not transfer the Kyiv Metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarchate, but, moreover, they define the main condition of [guardianship over the Kyiv Metropolitanate] in the fact that each Kyivprincipe continues to recall the Patriarch of Constantinople as his canonical leader. Anyone who has basic ecclesiastical and canonical knowledge will understand that the Kyiv Metropolitanate could not be transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate if the Kyiv Metropolitan should continue to recall the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Unfortunately, the Moscow Patriarchate unilaterally violated this agreement. It forced to stop the mention of the Patriarch of Constantinople because it knew that this was a visible sign of the canonical jurisdiction of the independence of the Kyiv Metropolitanate to Constantinople. It is also known that before the appearance of the letters of Patriarch Dionysius, our “Russian brothers” tried to chirotonize the Kyiv metropolitans, but each time they were exposed to [the negative] reaction of the clergy and the people of Ukraine [Little Russia], who under no circumstances wanted to submit to Moscow. Moreover, Nikon, the Patriarch of Moscow (1652-1658), anticononically appropriated the title of Patriarch of the Great and Little and White Russia, which is a proof of the expansionist spirit that he was obsessed with.
However, the documents of 1686 are not the first canonical texts made public by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. If you look at Tomos, by which in 1924 the autocephaly was granted to the Polish Church, you will find in it the same view of the situation with the Kyiv Metropolitanate. In Tomos of the Polish Church, it is clearly stated that the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolitanate and its merger with the Moscow Church was carried out contrary to canonical provisions. This suggests that the Ecumenical Patriarchate and after 238 years did not cease to point out the anticanonical seizure of the Kyiv Metropolitanate by the Moscow Patriarchate.
Of course, this situation has lasted more than 300 years, but this does not mean that the canonicity has been rehabilitated. There is no such canon that would tell us that sin or anticanonicity is being cured with time and turned into canonicity. As far as we know, “something that was invalid from the beginning can not be confirmed with time.”
“We gave way to the Patriarch of Moscow in permission for the Kyiv Metropolitanate’s ordination, but with specific requirements that the Russian side did not adhere to. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has never, in its history, intervened beyond its jurisdiction. We have no expansionist aspirations. I recommend you to study the history of the Church, starting from the Fourth Ecumenical Council and so on. You will see that the Church of Constantinople is constantly decreasing and narrowing. At the same time, read the decision of the Council, which was gathered in the St. Virgin the Comforter Church, in Constantinople in 1593. This council determined the borders of the then newly formed Moscow Patriarchate. Explore whether the borders defined by the Holy Fathers are identical to the modern borders of the native Russian Church. So, the question then arises: Can any Church wilfully expand its borders, and even by means of the territories of another Church?” 
Regretfully, studying the history of the Kyiv Metropolitanate in one of its most complicated periods (the last quarter of the 17th century) the compilers of the analyzed collection followed the path of substitution of notions, manipulation, and tendentious selection of sources. In particular the struggle of the clergy of the Kyiv Metropolitanate against joining the Moscow Patriarchate is almost not highlighted – only two documents (No. 134, 140), a warning to the clergy of Kyiv about the unacceptability of the order in the neighbouring diocese of Belgorod and a report from the Metropolitan of Belgorod Avraamy to the Patriarch of Moscow Joachim regarding the protest sentiments in the Kyiv Metropolitanate are addressed to this subject. Even the fact that 32 years later (1654-1686) the administrative subordination of Ukraine to the Moscow Tsardom, despite total administrative pressure and blatant interference in church affairs, caused Moscow to exert considerable effort, including outright deception (to guarantee long-standing rights and privileges which it did not intend to exercise), to obtain the Kyiv metropolitanate, is evidence of the protest sentiments of the Ukrainian clergy.
According to the Charters of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which are included in the collection publication, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has provided explicit criteria for its cooperation with the Moscow Patriarchate in the chaperoning of the Kyiv Metropolitanate:
a) The Kyiv Metropolitanate formally stays within the Constantinople Patriarchate. The main indication is that in the liturgy the Patriarch of Constantinople is commemorated first, before the Patriarch of Moscow. According to Church canons, the head of the Church is the first to be commemorated.
b) The Moscow patriarch only has authority over the metropolitan of Kyiv within the limits of the powers delegated to him by the patriarch of Constantinople.
Therefore, by accepting the charters of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Moscow Patriarchate undertook the following obligations: not to interfere in the selection of the metropolitan and only to consecrate him; not to interfere in the affairs of the metropolitanate (except through an appeal to the metropolitan church court); to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch in all liturgies in the territory of the Kyiv Metropolitanate as Head of Church.
It is relatively straightforward to ascertain whether or not the Moscow Patriarchate is fulfilling its obligations. Even if one does not read the history of the Kyiv Metropolitanate after 1686 or the biographies of all the figures involved in the change of jurisdiction and the metropolitans appointed from Moscow, one only needs to attend a liturgy in any church of the Moscow Patriarchate that is active in the territory of the Kyiv Metropolitanate. It is enough to listen there, to whom the priests commemorate as head of the church, for whom they pray. The answer is obvious, and it only confirms the rightness of the Constantinople Patriarchate and the appropriateness of its actions in 2018.
 The Reunification of the Kyiv Metropolitanate with the Russian Orthodox Church. 1676–1687. Research and Documents. Moscow: The Orthodox Encyclopedia Religious Scientific Center, 2020.912 p.
 Reunification of the Kyiv Metropolitanate. Foreword. P 5.
 Communique of the Holy and Sacred Synod of Constantinople OC 11.10.2018 // Sagan O.N. Orthodox Church of Ukraine: constitution and development prospects. K., 2019.S. 85-86.
 Reunification of the Kyiv Metropolitanate. Foreword. P 5.
 History of religion in Ukraine. Catholicism in Ukraine / Ed. P. Yarotsky. T.IV. K., 2001.
 See: Document No. 140. 1685, no later than August 8. Document of the Metropolitan of Belgorod Avraamy to Patriarch of Moscow Joachim with copies of protesting articles of the Kyiv clergy against the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolitanate under the authority of the Moscow Patriarch // Reunification of the Kyiv Metropolitanate. P. 478.
 See: Prof. Igor Skochilyas: “The Lviv Union of 1700 became a unconstrained choice of the clergy and laity of the Lviv Archdiocese” // https: // Synod of Bishops of the UGCC / synod.ugcc.ua/data/profesor-igor-skochylyas-lvivska- uniya-1700-roku-stala-dobrovilnym-vyborom-duhovenstva-i-myryan-lvivskoy-arhyparhiy-3492 /
 Reunification of the Kyiv Metropolitanate. Foreword. P 5.
 This is a letter from Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrius to Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow (1991) and a statement made in Kyiv by the official representative of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, Archbishop Vsevolod (Maidansky) (2005).
 See: Mulik-Lutsik Y. Entry of The Orthodox Church of Ukraine into the Moscow Patriarchate // Religion in the history and spirituality of Ukrainians. Selectas of Yury Mulik-Lutsik / Compiler and sciencifific ed. prof. Kolodny. K.: UAR, 2019.P. 121-145.
 What is wrong, see: Document No. 134. 1685, July 22. Letter from hetman Ivan Samoilovich to the Sevsk voivode L.R. Neplyuev on sending articles in which part of the clergy of the Kyiv Metropolitanate expressed concerns about the introduction of the order of the Belgorod metropolitanate in case of recognition of the supreme power of the Patriarch of Moscow. // Reunification of the Kyiv Metropolitanate, p. 460-461; Document No. 140. 1685, no later than August 8. Document of the Metropolitan of Belgorod Avraamy to Patriarch of Moscow Joachim with copies of protesting articles of the Kyiv clergy against the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolitanate under the authority of the Moscow Patriarch // Reunification of the Kyiv Metropolitanate. P. 476-482 and others.
 See: L. Zvonska. Letters of Dionysius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, on the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarchate: Greek text and a comparable analysis of the Old Russian and Ukrainian translation // Jurisdictional Status of the Kyiv Orthodox Metropolitanate in 1686: Theology, Canon Law and the Cultural and Historical Context / Edited by prof. O. Sagan K., 2019. P. 10-47. (Lesia Zavonska. Certificates of Dionysius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, about the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarchate: Greek text and comparative analysis of the Old Russian and Ukrainian translations).
 No. 210. May, 1686. Certificates of Patriarch Dionysius IV of Constantinople to e, to the tsars Ivan and Peter Alekseyevich and the czarevna Sophia Alekseyevna in the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolitanate fto the Moscow Patriarchate // Reunification of the Kyiv Metropolitanate. P. 695-704.
 Ibid. P. 700, 703.
 Reunification of the Kyiv Metropolitanate. P. 875-876.
 Document No. 158. 1685, October 30. Protocol of negotiations between the hetman envoys K. I. Golub and V. L. Kochubey, as well as Bishop Gedeon Svyatopolk-Chetvertinsky, elected Metropolitan of Kyiv, with the boyar Prince V.V. Golitsyn on the issue of preserving the rights and privileges of the Kyiv Metropolitanate, including the status of the Metropolitan as Exarch of the Patriarch of Constantinople // Reunification of the Kyiv Metropolitanate. P. 529-532.
 Commentary on the documents of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from May-June 1686 on the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolitanate under the authority of the Moscow Patriarch. // Reunification of the Kyiv Metropolitane. P. 844-894.
 Reunification of the Kyiv Metropolitanate. P. 874.
 No. 194. 1685, November 15. Royal decree on the issuance of salaries to the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus II Notara // Reunification of the Kyiv Metropolitanate. P. 622-623.
 Communique of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Constantinople OC of 11.10.2018 // Sagan O.N. Orthodox Church of Ukraine: constitution and development prospects. K., 2019.P. 85-86.
 See: http://orthodoxia.info/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/final-oukraniko-1.pdf Ukrainian translation see: https://www.kpba.edu.ua/ publikatsii / all-news / news / 2638-jk.html
The introduction to these documents states: “The Ecumenical Patriarchate considers it appropriate to remind all the historical and canonical truth about the relationship between the Church of Constantinople and the Church of Ukraine, as evidenced by the preserved official documents, which, unfortunately, either ignored or deliberately concealed for obvious reasons ”….“ This study is based on the entire argument of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which refutes all accusations of Moscow against Constantinople about the “invasion” of its canonical dioceses. Through this study, especially in the original correspondence, which is being published for the first time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate confirms its canonical and legal jurisdiction in Ukraine and at the same time proves that the Moscow Patriarchate violated the rules of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Patriarchal and Synodal Act of 1686. under the conditions under which he acted, he was forced to endure and remain silent, but it never forgot or forgave.”
 See: “I am not an ‘eastern pope.’ Interview with the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew” // RISU. – 28.02.2019 / https://risu.org.ua/ua/index/monitoring/society_digest/74893 Translation from Nisam “Eastern Pope” / Politics. – 21.02.2019 / http://www.politika.rs/articles/details/423274
 You can read more about this problem in the collection of reports of the participants of the international expert conference “Jurisdictional Status of the Kyiv Orthodox Metropolitanate in 1686: Theology, Canon Law and the Cultural and Historical Context” (edited by Prof. O. Sagan. M., 2019. 127 p.).
 Yevhen Nikolskyi, Oleksandr Sagan. Annexation of the Kyiv Metropolitanate by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686: subjective preconditions and consequences // Jurisdictional Status of the Kyiv Orthodox Metropolitanate in 1686: Theology, Canon Law and the Cultural and Historical Context. K., 2019. P. 105-113.