It’s a state enforcing a particular administrative jurisdiction.

It’s state banning religious organization no matter how many rounds of mental gymnastic you do

These are all Orthodox churches, literally the same denomination. The Ukrainian church declared its autocephaly so that it is not administratively dependent on the Moscow Patriarchate and that was recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and others (eg the Church of Greece, the Patriarchate of Alexandria).

This has nothing to do with the matter

What this move does is Ukraine mandating that churches within its boundaries adhere to the autocephaly. It’s not banning anything, just returning canonical ownership of the physical infrastructure to the canonical administration.

Gold medal at mental gymnastic. This is just setting up state supported religion and opressing those not adhering to it.

This makes sense in the context of a war of national liberation, when the enemy is literally in a position to do propaganda by controlling those churches.

Finally you say something with substance, unfortunately for you this substance jut offer a more or less valid reason for state opression, not making the opression disappear.

Ultimately, this is more like confiscating Russian assets than restricting religious freedom.

Oh damn, so having anything at all to do with Russia now justifies literally everything

From the point of view of a believer, the only observed difference will be which particular patriarch is mentioned during mass, nothing else changes dogmatically.

Sure, it’s only religion, known as least important and trivial issue ever. Read yourself again what you just wrote here.

and these are all internally orthodox politics.

It’s not when a state comes in and bans and confiscates. Afaik Ukraine is secular state, it does not have state religion so why it does everything to look like it have one.

The Vatican commenting on it is as absurd

I mean sure Vatican shouldn’t throw any stones when the topic is religious freedom, but again, it’s clear case of religious opression.

as, say, the Egyptian Coptic church making pronouncements about the Pope’s dismissal of cardinal Burke

Bizarre and missed comparison. More apt would be if Egyptian Coptic church expressed concern over US state banning and confistating US catholic church (or any other non-Coptic church in US).

But then again, the Vatican not staying in their lane has been the original reason of the 1054 schism to begin with, so this isn’t that surprising.

Good thing you mention 1000 years old history! Makes your erlier dismissal of any concern over the organisation and worldy manner of denomination even funnier and more detached from reality. I’m sure there was no issues with antipopes or friday prayer names ever, after all “nothing else changes dogmatically”

No, because it’s state banning the church. As in you know, organisation that have all the armed services in its disposal and can enforce it. Pope see it as dangerous precedent especially that if states starts to ban the churches, catholic mafia organisation will be first on list in many many places. It’s also a textbook religious opression, as defined by basically everyone (except you probably).

Too horny on main