Talk:Christianization of Kievan Rus'

Christianity was accepted at Kyiv/Kiev before the Catholic/Orthodox split. Much of the behavior of the rulers and hierarchs around Kiev, document continued contacts with the West. That's why the general term was used, to underline this acceptance before the creation of separate Catholic and Orthodox jurisdictions. And this "ecumenical" behavior often continued after the Great Schism. See all five or so links for a broad, balanced overview. Genyo 17:57, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainians

Ghirlandajo, the Ukrainian people didn't just spring from the loins of Venus 200 years ago. They've been living in Ukraine for thousands of years. Trying to write them out of history smacks of colonialism, and academic literature doesn't support your point of view. —Michael Z. 17:15, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Being a Ukrainian myself, I know perfectly well that Slavic *ancestors* of the present-day Ukrainians arrived to the territory of present-day Ukraine in 6th or 7th century AD. But the term Ukraine didn't appear until the 16th century, and the first to apply it to the left-bank Ukraine were Brethren of Sts Cyril and Methodios in the 1830s. Therefore, to say that Ukrainian Orthodox Church was founded in the 10th century is a complete nonsense. We may say that the Ukrainian church traces its roots to the baptism of Kiev or something like that, but to use the term Ukraine to the people of the 10th century is an anachronism. --Ghirlandajo 17:31, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I believe neither exact term "Russian Orthodox Church" nor "Ukrainian Orthodox Church" were used in 988, but they both trace their roots to that year. Honestly, I don't know the political details of their split, but this article should respect the historic lineage of both. People who Volodymyr dunked in the Dnieper in 988 were of the ethnicity which today is called Ukrainian. It's not right to just blanket label it "Russian". —Michael Z. 19:55, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Yes, Vladimir was a Ukrainian, Charlemagne was a German, Justinian was a Turk, and Julius Caesar was an Italian :) I see your logic now. It doesn't matter that Vladimir called himself /ruski/, and the church was called /russkaia/ at that time.

The East Slavic church (988) was headed by the Kievan metropolitan, the last of which moved to Vladimir in the 13th century, and then another metropolitan, St Peter, moved from Vladimir to Moscow, where the Russian metropolitans (later patriarchs) have been residing ever since that time. Ukrainian and Russian churches have been split in 1303 and united in 1686, and known under the name of Russian Orthodoxy. The Ukrainian Orthodox church of the Moscow patriarchate still controls most churches in Ukraine, including Kievo-Pecherskya Lavra.

But there is also a smaller, post-perestroika secessionist structure referring to itself as Ukrainian Orthodox church but not recognized by any patriarch in the Orthodox world. It presumes to trace its origin back to 1303, when the new metropolitan see was created in Kiev (not to be confused with the original see from 988, still continued by the Moscow partiarchate). ----Ghirlandajo 22:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the label, "Ukrainian Orthodox" is quite accurate, and linguistically not so anachronistic, and conceptually, not anachronsitic at all! The term "Orthodox" extends back into history to the 200s and 300s AD, when it was a term of opposition to the herectic Gnositcs! And the term "Ukrayina" appears on maps as early as the 1100s, as a term synonymous with "Rus' (propria)!this synonym became preferred when the ethnically Finno-Ugric, linguistically Rusyn/Old Slavonic, and politically Mongolian nation called "Moskva" (and , later, "Rossiya") developed in the northen periphery of "Rus'" from the 12th - 16th centuries! The early Ukrainian immigrants to the US termed their churches, "Rus'ki" (Ruthenian) even as late as the late 1800s! Genyo 01:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Baptism of Kievan Rus

Dunking of Kiev was but an episode of the Baptism of Kievan Rus as a whole. The whole idea of Vladimir was to christianize the whole state. And there is much more to be said about this important process. Vladimir dunked Novgorod and many others as well, by the way. So I suggest to expand the article and move it to Baptism of Kievan Rus. (Of course, if someone dares to write a detailed account on the Kiev dunk, welcome...) Votes? Mikkalai 00:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai, stop stretching so hard. . .you'll snap! There is no such thing as an event called the "Baptism of Kievan Rus'!" Novgorod caught on in 989 from what I've read! The event talked about here was the baptism of one city, Kiev. . .Ukraine's capital. I'm aware of how hard certain ideologies try to connect this city to "Russia," but it just doesn't work! Get over it! Genyo 23:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)