The nice thing about Wiki (almost all the time) is that it lists its citations, and you are able to follow up on any source. Which is the proper way to dispute information on Wiki.
What I was hoping for is an argument as to why it is not “canonical”. Or for that matter why it is “false”. So, stand and deliver.
It seems to be recognized by all the big authorities in the Orthodox world. The exceptions seem to be those churches in countries/entities with political entanglements with Russia.
That is a big weakness of Orthodox churches in general, in that they tend to be state/political churches. An ancient Catholic criticism btw.
Council of Crete.
The *canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, led by Metropolitan Onuphry, the primate of Kiev and all Ukraine did not ask for autocephaly. The schizmatics of the OCU did. If anyone should be Patriarch of Ukraine it is Onuphry.
Bartholomew acted unilaterally to grant the “tomos” in 2019, which was contrary to agreed upon procedure in 2016 at the council.
The schizmatics, who were supported by Poroshenko actually placed a phone call to Mike Pompeo at state (meddling again) thanking him for his help. (Start there.)
Bartholomew acted unilaterally granting autocephaly to Ukraine and Dumenko’s schism, ignoring the true primate of Ukraine, which was Met. Onuphry of the canonical and true UOC.
You can believe whatever you want. I don’t care. But don’t rely on Wikipedia for the truth.
The truth is this is a tragedy for the Orthodox Ukrainians and is spilling over into Eastern Orthodoxy itself. (see Greeks) It did not need to happen and has caused division, which the Orthodox world is trying to correct NOW.
Do not try to tell me what is proper because you don’t know. And I know you don’t.