Talk:Pochaiv Lavra

Between Poland and Russia edits
I've noticed today's massive change of the Between Poland and Russia paragraph from more or less neutral into Russian POV. While I do not want to revert it, I would like to ask you to explain the edits. Specifically: Most of these edits are quite controversial both from point of view of Uniate/Orthodox and Polish/Russian relations and it would be good to have references to support them. --Lysytalk to me 18:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) "Volhynia was annexed to the Russian Empire" has been changed into transferred. Was it really trasferred ? Who transferred it ? Annexed seemed more neutral in this context.
 * 2) Why were these sentences included in the article: "[...] began a massive return of uniates to Orthodoxy. The Russian Imperial authorities did not however rush to confiscate the property of those who chose not to return. Moreover typography and religious schools continued to use latin whilst the main language of communication was Polish." It seem they are only apologetic to Russian policies and not related to the article itself.
 * 3) "In 1823, the Bishod of Volyn Stephan wrote to Empror Alexander I to return the Pochaev Monastary to the Orthodox Church but was overruled". Why is it not explained if "Bishod of Volyn Stephan" was Orthodox himself ? Why did he want to have the monastery returned to Orthodox Church ? Why did Alexander I refuse ?
 * 4) "It was only in 1831, after the Uniate churhches' support for the November Uprising, that Nicholas I of Russsia ordered the cloister to be restituted to the Russian Orthodox Church". Did Pochayiv Lavra monastery also support the uprising ? In the previous version of the article it was mentioned that the monastery was a "stronghold of Polish opposition to imperial authorities". Why was this deleted now ?
 * 5) "What is interesting is that none of the monks resisted and soon reverted to Orthodoxy as well". Why is it interesting ? Should they resist ? Why ?
 * 6) Why was this sentence: "Pochayiv evolved into a citadel of militant pan-Slavism, with several reactionary and anti-Semitic periodicals published within its walls." deleted ?
 * 7) Was Pochayiv Lavra not with Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church between WW1 and WW2 ?
 * 8) What exactly were the "1929 persecution, this time from Warsaw" and how did "the Lavra survive them, despite numerous allegations" ?


 * All of this was taken from the official site of the Pochaev Lavra, which presents history in far more greater detail. Now to the issues:
 * Volhynia was transffered along with other territory gained from the 1795 partition of Poland
 * The second paragraph shows purely that the Russian authorities were a) tolerant of the Uniate cloister. b)Fully allowed them to continue with their polonised deeds
 * Bishop Stephan was Orthodox revert from Uniatism. He asked to transfer after the main Orthodox monastary, of the Volyhnian dioscise in Ostrog burned down. Alexander the I refused because of the tolerant Imperial policy towards the Unia
 * The uprising was supported by the ruling uniate clergy, normal monks did not. The cloister was not involved in the uprising. And it was not exactly a Polish stronghold, please provide sources.
 * Well it goes to the point above really, saying that the monks agreed to revert to Orthodoxy, having been given the opportunity.
 * I would like some sources about anti-semitism and about militant propoganda.
 * No since 1831 no uniate ever stepped inside the walls of the Orthodox Lavra. There are a million sources to confirm that. And during the interbellum the Lavra was administered by the Polish Orthodox Church, whose clergy and followers were almost entirely of Ruthenian descent.
 * In 1929 after the Polish Republican decree on the protection of Ruthenian peoples ceased, and the Roman Catholic Church immediately began to exploit this. The Lavra received more than a hundered accusations against it and demanding for the Orthodox peoples to transfer the cloister. In vain.

--Kuban kazak 20:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanations. Regarding the first question, I'm not quite satisfied with the answer. You said that "Volhynia was transferred along with other territory gained from the 1795 partition of Poland". Saying that it was trasferred means that there was someone who trasferred it to Russian Empire. Therefore I asked who transferred it, but you did not answer. --Lysytalk to me 20:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well how is territory transferred? First someone ccedes the territory and then someone else annexes it. On the agreement of the third partion it was recognised that Poland would ccede the territories to the nations in question, of which one was Russia. The nations then annexed those territories. In retrospect, the terries where transferred, via Poland cceding them and Russia, Austria and Prussia annexed them. Remember the Polish Sejm authorised this move. --Kuban kazak 21:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing 2nd and 3rd partition. 3rd partition was a result of a military operation and not an agreement with Poland to cede the territory. Polish Sejm did not exist at the time of 3rd partition. Pochayiv became Russian in result of 3rd partition only. --Lysytalk to me 07:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to change it back to "annexed", since I believe this is a result of a misunderstanding on your side. See the definition of Annexation, by the way. "Annexed" seems fairly neutral, as Polish POV would be "occupied" of course :-) --Lysytalk to me 11:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume that the official Polish POV would be transferred as documented by the Polish-Soviet border demacration treaty of August 1945, when Poland officially stated that it recognised Volhynia (amongst other territories) as part of the Soviet Union. For the sake of simplicity keep it annexed, I really don't mind. -- Kuban kazak 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think nobody ever doubted that Volhynia does not belong to Poland after 1945. By the way, I would like to congratulate you on expanding the article. Some bibliographic references would be useful, now. --Lysytalk to me 19:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Cossack regiments
What about these Cossack regiments ? Are they military units ? How do they relate ot Ukrainian Army ? --Lysytalk to me 11:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * They are NOT part of any army, including Ukrainian as all the Cossacks are. Cossacks actually exist in a loose confederation of each other. For a Cossack regiment (or host) to become "official" (like the Pochaev ones) they need an official recognition from the Sumpreme Ataman (commander) of the All-mighty Don Host. The Soviet law of 1988 preaty much puts Cossacks as a civil service, and although not military officially, they have been seen in many conflicts, Yugoslavia, Transdniestr, Chechnya etc. As the constitution of Ukraine carried this law forward in 1993 it is identical to Russian. Cossacks have also always defended canonical Orthodoxy against any threats and are commonely seen as guards in Orthodox Monastaries. The ones in Western Ukraine have been formed as a result of multiple forceful seisures of Orthodox property by nationalist paramilitants and normal riot police. The regiment in Pochaev Lavra is consists of many ex-Soviet Parachute troops, mostly of native Ukrainian origin. And because the shismatics still occasionally stir up trouble, they have been more than a few times in action. I am telling you this because I am Cossack and have lived in Volhynia for five years (although not in Pochaev, but in Rovno). And have personally witnessed some of the worst forms of provacation and attacks by the schismatics and their nationalist supporters on cannonical orthodoxy. --Kuban kazak 18:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is very interesting. Maybe it would be useful to have a more detailed article on Cossacks in Russia and in Ukraine today ? The current articles seem to focus mostly on the history. --Lysytalk to me 19:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a look at my article, written about my own people. Kuban Cossacks I will in the future expand the historical section, but the article shows more about the 20th century. -- Kuban kazak 19:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Mislabelled image "View of Pochaiv in the early 1800s"
Uhhh, no. Have a close look at it. That is an image of the Theotokis apparation of 1675. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.9.102 (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Translation.
It may or may not be important, but "Zalizo" (surname of the priest) translates as "Iron". 2001:8003:E415:A101:85BB:F21:5DD4:C24F (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Date of Theotikos - are we sure?
This is usually given as 23rd July 1675. According to accounts available on the Net, the sun became eclipsed. According to NASA modelling, which is the best I can find, there was no eclipse on that date. However, there was one on the 23rd June 1675. 2001:8003:E40F:9601:ED20:63A8:D7B2:E701 (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)