ノート:ウクライナ正教会 (モスクワ総主教庁系)

About "Autonomous"

”自治教会” これににかんして、まちがいやすい：

- The UOC-MP has NOT been granted autonomy by the ROC. This was supposed to be decided by the ROC Synod in 1992, but was never considered. The current status is "indepedence in self government".

- The authocephaly of the OCJ is NOT recognized by Constantinople or most of world orthodoxy.

間違えておりません。存じております。ですがしっかりと「モスクワからの承認」と書きましたし、英語版からの翻訳にそのまま則った段階のものを「間違い」と称されるのは心外です。

それからOCJのauthocephaly なんて誰が主張しているのですか？基本的な知識と日本語能力を持ってから編集に参加して下さい。貴方のやっている事はただの荒らしです。--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月10日 (日) 17:30 (UTC)

正教会内で「自治教会」「独立教会」の地位が「他教会から認められていない」状態にあるものなど沢山御座います。これらについては「Ａ教会からは承認を得ているがＢ教会からは承認を得ていない」という書き方をした上で「一応の自治教会」「一応の独立教会」として扱うのが普通です(See Orthodox Wiki's articles.)。そういう意味では、英語版の記事の状態のまま放置していた小生の非は認めますが、「自治教会でわない」は通常の言い方ではありません（コンスタンティノポリ総主教庁ＰＯＶになります）。それと、日本語力がその程度の状態で、こちらの方に色々と仕掛けられるのは、正直申しまして無謀と思いますよ。--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月10日 (日) 17:42 (UTC)

ごめんなさい、Klimentさんはよく英語のrefをciteする、のprofileで"en-2：This user is able to contribute with an intermediate level of English."とつけてる、から簡単の英語なら読めるとおもてた。UOC-MPの問題は”他教会”の問題でわない。モスクワ(ROC)はUOC-MPのスタトスをまだきまてない。1992のROC Synodに決めるよて、でもまだです。だから正式のスタトスはROCない、"indepedence in self government"。Qe2 2008年2月10日 (日) 17:58 (UTC)

I will write in Japanese, but you can use English here as I can understand English.

Your Japanese is too bad to understand.--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月10日 (日) 18:01 (UTC)

Thank you. You are a gentleman. The problem with the current language is not that the UOC-MP has an autonomous status which is not recognized by World Orthodoxy, but that the UOC-MP has not officially been granted autonomy by Moscow. In 1991, the UOC was promised "independence in self government" by Patriarch Alexsii, but this was NEVER approved by the ROC Synod. In 1992, the ROC Synod was supposed to consider what status to grant the UOC (autonomous, autocephalous, etc.), but the agenda was tabled, and NEVER reconsidered. Hence, cannonically, the UOC-MP remains merely an administrative unit WITHIN the ROC. I apologize that, as you wrote, my Japanese is very poor. Hence, I did not know how to correct this, and could only make simple changes. Like you, I only want to see the article show the truth. Qe2 2008年2月10日 (日) 18:10 (UTC)

O.K. I will write in English here as possible as I can.

I know the "truth". So the ariticle:only saying "autonomy 1990 recognized" is not correct. In this point, you are right.

I translated the ariticle from the one written in English. The source said only the phrase meaning "autonomy 1990 recognized". I could not immediately decide how to adjust the phrase, considering it.

Now, my adjustment is below.

"autonomy/1990（事実上:de facto）"

citation→[1]--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月10日 (日) 18:26 (UTC)

I believe we may have crossed notes. I am still concerned, as noted below.Qe2 2008年2月10日 (日) 18:35 (UTC)

>正式のスタトスはROCない、

You mean,"ROC has not given full status for UOC(MP)"?

I know that. So I wrote "1990（事実上:de facto）".

citation→[2]--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月10日 (日) 18:04 (UTC)

I think the current language may still be misunderstood. Is there some simple way to write that the UOC-MP is often referred to as an autonomous church, but has not been granted autonomy? "事実上 " would be the opposite situation, where the church is able to operate as an autonomous church, but is not called one. With the UOC-MP it is often listed as an autonomous church, but it's de facto status is that of a collection of dioceses within the ROC. See, for example, (English) [3], or, in more detail (Ukrainian) [4] (I think we should avoid citing other Wiki articles.) Qe2 2008年2月10日 (日) 18:22 (UTC)

I doubt the page

I doubt the page: [5]. Because it includes the article which must be primary mistakes or concoctions. That is below;

"The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) itself on its own announced its patriarch in 1448, and it was recognized in this status by the Orthodox world in 1589 – 141 years later! ".

In Japan's documents, and in many other countries', I've read that the Russian Orthodox Church declared its autocephaly status without granting by the Eccumenical Patriarchate in 1448, but did NOT declare its patriarchate status. Moscow Patriarchate was recognized in 1589, but I've NEVER heard the declaration of the patriarchate by Moscow before 1589.

I guess that as this page is even not UOC-KP's but Catholic University's, the page makes primary mistakes.--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月11日 (月) 22:13 (UTC)

I appreciate, truly, your willingness to take the time. Honestly, one of the concerns I have with many articles on Japanese WIKI is that many posters, unlike you, are either unable or unwilling to seek out primary sources. RISU is a respected source of information, but part of the problem is in translation from Ukrainian to English.

Moscow was not *elevated* to a Patriarchate by Constantinople in 1589, but *recognized* as one at that time. I do not known when Moscow actually began to refer to itself as a Patriarchate, but by as early as 1510, when Moscow began to call itself the "Third Rome", the Patriarch of Moscow had begun to use the title of Patriarch, and even to suggest that Moscow should claim precedence over Constantinople. I believe that Ivan the IIIrd, who was the first to assume the title of "Tsar" and use the double-headed eagle of the Byzantine Emperor, may have at the same time granted the title to Moscow.

As I am not sure, I would not ask that this be changed until I (or someone) could research this, but it is an example of how caution is necessary, especially when much of the Japanese material is prepared by a concerned party. Qe2 2008年2月12日 (火) 14:40 (UTC)

About the other arguments

You said below;

"With the UOC-MP it is often listed as an autonomous church, but it's de facto status is that of a collection of dioceses within the ROC."

The autonomy status is not formaly recognized by the other Orthodox Churches. But in the custom of the Orthodox's document's, the situation of the UOC(MP) is expressed "Autonomous Church (recognized by Moscow, but not Constantinople)". And...

• ROC has not made a protest against UOC(MP) on this matter.
• UOC(MP) has high level autonomous control to its Church, including its budget.

I agree with you on that matter that the expression may be not precise, but I observed the custom which is not so far from the fact, as you said...

"the UOC-MP it is often listed as an autonomous church"

Because Wikipedia is not the most advanced study's, but an encyclopaedia.--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月11日 (月) 22:13 (UTC)

This is the one point where I disagree most strongly. As an encyclopedia, writers of Wiki articles are obligated to publish *verifiable* information.

To summarize:

In 1990 when Ukraine gained independence, the ROC in Ukraine incorporated as the UOC. At that time, it was granted a status of "Independence and Self Government", NOT autocephaly. There is no cannonical definition for this status, and Moscow is free to define it as it wishes. At the time, the ROC Synod determiend that this would be temporary status until the status of the church could be decided. Even the website for the UOC-MP itself nowhere states that the church is autonomous, and Met. Volodomyr's official biography even states: "Upon completion of the Council of Bishops His Holiness the Patriarch departed to Kyiv where he handed in to Metropolitan of Kyiv the Tomos of granting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church independence and self-governance." . This is in agreement with the RISU article which also states: "Now as to the status of the UOC-MP. It was acknowledged at the hierarchical sobor of the ROC in 1990 and officially has 'independence and freedom in administration.' But in the 2000 years of Orthodox practice, no churches have had such status. In addition to autocephalous churches, in Orthodoxy only the status of autonomy exists, that is, that of a church which jurisdictionally subordinates to the mother-church."

Continuing, in 1991 at the All-Ukraine Council (Sobor) held in Kyiv at the Kyiv Pecherska Lavra, the Sobor, including all UOC bishops, unanimously voted to request recognition of autocephaly from Moscow.

The request was communicated to the ROC Synod, which delayed action until the fall of 1992, when a Full Synod of the ROC was called specifically to address the UOC's petition.

However, at that Synod the UOC petition was tabled without discussion, and has NEVER been considered. The UOC-MP remains, canononically, a part of the ROC.

In Orthodoxy, the words "autonomy" and "autocephaly" have very important meanings, as I believe you understand. Many journalists writing about the churches are lay people who do not recognize the difference, but an Encyclopedia should only include verifiable facts.

Beyond 1992

At the 1992 ROC Synod, Metropolitan Philaret was asked (according to UOC-KP witnesses "pressured" and "threatened") to resign. In the end, he agreed to offer his resignation to the next UOC Synod, and the following resolution was passed:

"The Council of Bishops took into account the statement of the Most Reverend Filaret, Metropolitan of Kyiv and of All-Ukraine, that for the sake of church peace, at the next Council of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, he will submit a request to be relieved from the position of the Primate of the UOC. Understanding of the position of Metropolitan Filaret, the Council of Bishops expressed to him its gratitude for the long period of labor as Archbishop of the See of Kyiv and blessed him to serve as Archbishop at another cathedral of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church."

The above are facts.

Upon returning to Ukraine, Metropolitan Philaret did not resign.

A group of UOC bishops then recanted their signatures and held a Synod in the city of Kharkiv, where they elected the ROC, Bishop Volodomyr, their Metropolitan. They declared that Metropolitan Philaret and his followers were in schism.

Later that year, the remaining UOC bishops called a unification Sobor with the UAOC, and formed the UOC-KP. A group of UAOC bishops broke away (or did not join) that group, and are today's UAOC.

These are, more or less, the UOC-MP, UOC-KP, and UAOC as they exist today.

This is also factual.

Now, from the standpoint of the supporters of the UOC-KP, the Kharkiv 'Synod' and the refusal of the ROC to consider the resolution of the Kyiv Sobor, as promised, are schismatic actions, and the UOC-KP is therefore preserving Orthodoxy.

From the standpoint of the supporters of the UOC-MP, the schism was caused by the Kyiv Sobor and Patriarch Filaret, and the UOC-MP is preserving Orthodoxy.

I will confess that I am a supporter of the UOC-KP, but my concern, as far as Wiki goes, is merely that the information presented is the *verifiable truth*. (As this one of the cornerstones of Wiki, I would hope that we would agree that this should be; your recent contributions give me great hope.) Qe2 2008年2月12日 (火) 15:22 (UTC)

You misunderstood.--以上の署名のないコメントは、Kliment.A.K.（会話・投稿記録）さんが 2008年2月12日 (火) 18:05 (UTC) に投稿したものです（Kliment A.K.による付記）。

I do that often.  :)--以上の署名のないコメントは、Qe2（会話・投稿記録）さんが 2008年2月12日 (火) 20:37 (UTC) に投稿したものです（Kliment A.K.による付記）。

Please...let yourself read my words again.

I said "The (UOC(MP)'s) autonomy status is NOT formaly recognized by the other Orthodox Churches."

Of cource, the word "the other Orthodox Churches" includes ROC. I KNOW that UOC(MP) is not formal autonomous. However, I can't make a choice against the custom of the world Orthodoxy. Again I say, "This is only a result of observing the world custom of expression on this matter". I've tried to adjust the expression as far as the custom lets. An example was my adjustment "事実上"(de facto). When Japanese users read this word:"事実上"(de facto), they certainly notice that this expression implies the status of UOC(MP) is not stable. This is a kind of Japanese expression.--以上の署名のないコメントは、Kliment.A.K.（会話・投稿記録）さんが 2008年2月12日 (火) 18:05 (UTC) に投稿したものです。

I understand, but still, factually, it is incorrect, and not conforming to world customs. I explained my problems with "事実上" above. This seems incorrect because the "事実" is that the UOC-MP is NOT autonomous. I thought my suggestion to add an explanation would acommodate your desires, and still make sure that readers recognized the truth. (It is not your responsibility to write such an explanation, but you did erase it when I added "???") As I pointed out, the UOC-MP ITSELF does not say it is "autonomous". If so, why should we?

Also, please note that the current version still states "モスクワ総主教庁による承認..." --以上の署名のないコメントは、Qe2（会話・投稿記録）さんが 2008年2月12日 (火) 20:37 (UTC) に投稿したものです（Kliment A.K.による付記）。

I wonder...Why don't you try to adjust the English Wikipedia's, or OrthodoxWiki's ?--以上の署名のないコメントは、Kliment A.K.（会話・投稿記録）さんが 2008年2月12日 (火) 18:05 (UTC) に投稿したものです（Kliment A.K.による付記）。

I am not sure if I should answer that question. (I am not upset at being asked; I just am not sure that I would like to set a precedent by answering.) Wikipedia in every language is the cooperative effort of all interested parties. People have asked me if the information on this Japanese article was true, which made me realize that the article was problematic. (I imagine that for every one person who asks, ten or twenty simply assume that the information here is true.) Many Japanese users contribute to English Wiki articles (some whose English is even worse than my Japanese), and I do not know if they are ever asked this question. That is the power of Wiki; that it can bring together knowledge from all over the world. --以上の署名のないコメントは、Qe2（会話・投稿記録）さんが 2008年2月12日 (火) 20:37 (UTC) に投稿したものです（Kliment A.K.による付記）。

The reason of my saying:

I wonder...Why don't you try to adjust the English Wikipedia's, or OrthodoxWiki's

...is only CONSISTENCY.--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月13日 (水) 15:08 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that your only concern is consistency. My only concerns are neutrality or accuracy. If you have an argument regarding facts or neutrality, explain it to me (in Japanese, if you wish). However, if you understand that my changes are factual and neutral and still delete them simply for consistency, that is very close to vandalism.

Also, I am still awaiting your response to my suggestion below. Qe2 2008年2月13日 (水) 15:34 (UTC)

？？？

Where I wrote "My only concern is consistency."? I said The reason of my saying":I wonder...Why don't you try to adjust the English Wikipedia's, or OrthodoxWiki's " is only CONSISTENCY. Your phrase is vicious concoction.--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月13日 (水) 15:50 (UTC)

？？？

どこに「私の関心事は整合性のみです」などと書きました？私は「私の言葉『なぜオーソドックスウィキや英語のウィキペディアで修正を試みないのですか？』と言った理由は、整合性です」と言ったのです。貴方の言葉は悪質な捏造です。--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月13日 (水) 15:50 (UTC)

Even in your response you write your concern is "is only consistency". I changed the emphasis from "consistency" to "only", but the words are yours. Qe2 2008年2月13日 (水) 15:55 (UTC)

＞The reason of my saying:

＞ I wonder...Why don't you try to adjust the English Wikipedia's, or OrthodoxWiki's

＞...is only CONSISTENCY.

CAN YOU READ IT? Where I wrote " my concern "!?

読めますか？どこに「私の関心事」など書いてありますか！？--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月13日 (水) 16:10 (UTC)

Do you know how to use colon? O.K. I rewrite the phrase without colon.

The reason of my saying "I wonder...Why don't you try to adjust the English Wikipedia's, or OrthodoxWiki's"...is only CONSISTENCY.--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月13日 (水) 16:13 (UTC)

コロンの使い方を分っていますか？--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月13日 (水) 16:13 (UTC)

the other user doubt it with the difference between the two articles in two languages.

If you make a success on adjusting this argument only in Japanese Wikipedeia, the other user doubt it with the difference between the two articles in two languages. Then, this Japanese article should be extremely disadvantageous. Indeed, this article was based on the English article, and English article has very strong advantage.--以上の署名のないコメントは、Kliment.A.K.（会話・投稿記録）さんが 2008年2月12日 (火) 18:05 (UTC) に投稿したものです（Kliment A.K.による付記）。

I understand your suggestion, and perhaps someday I will try to contribute to those. However, I do not have the time, or energy, to tackle every Wiki. I am only trying to help IMPROVE the Japanese article. I am really pleased that you expressed an interest in helping, and have done a lot, but if you do not want to do so, that is of course OK, too. --以上の署名のないコメントは、Qe2（会話・投稿記録）さんが 2008年2月12日 (火) 20:37 (UTC) に投稿したものです（Kliment A.K.による付記）。

Also, my understanding is that the types of sources I have provided are expected to have greater weight than another Wiki article. I can understand why someone would begin by translating an English language article, but I do not think it is appropriate to feel bound by whatever is written there, especially in the face of strong evidence. --以上の署名のないコメントは、Qe2（会話・投稿記録）さんが 2008年2月12日 (火) 20:37 (UTC) に投稿したものです（Kliment A.K.による付記）。

Please, stay calm. Nobody here is enemy of UOC-KP. And Also, Nobody here is enemy of UOC(MP).

Neutrality and established expressions are needed here. --Kliment A.K. 2008年2月12日 (火) 18:05 (UTC)

I apologize if I seemed not to be calm. I am concerned that, intentionally or not, these two articles were somewhat biased towards the UOC-MP, and that some of that remains. For example, I do not think it is neutral for the UOC-KP article to have stated "フィラレート総主教は総主教に選出されて以来、教会と国家の間の政治に活発に関与し続けている" as this implies that Patriarch Filaret is exceptionally or especially involved in politics. (In fact, I can provide a great deal of journalistic evidence that the UOC-MP is involved in secular politics, but all suggested was deleting that sentence, which I appreciate thatyou seemed to agree.) I STRONGLY agree that "Neutrality and established expressions are needed here." Believe it or not, that is really and truly what I am trying to accomplish. --以上の署名のないコメントは、Qe2（会話・投稿記録）さんが 2008年2月12日 (火) 20:37 (UTC) に投稿したものです（Kliment A.K.による付記）。

Perhaps we should slow down. I do trust and appreciate your efforts.Qe2 2008年2月12日 (火) 20:37 (UTC)

I apologize if you doubt Neutrality here because of the sentence "フィラレート総主教は総主教に選出されて以来、教会と国家の間の政治に活発に関与し続けている".

Please let me explain the sentence. It was included in the article:en:Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchate(23:22, 13 January 2008 UTC)

Filaret remains very active in both church and state politics.

I translated it into Japanese literally. Doubting it, However, all the things I could do was literal translation. So I did NOT deny your having deleted the phrases.--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月12日 (火) 22:23 (UTC)

How to respond in Wikipedia

As a (general) rule, please respond in one place,

• ...or paragraph with signatures would be divided to confuse.
• ...or a second response maker would be confused.--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月12日 (火) 22:09 (UTC)

A proposal for a compromise agreement

I do consider not only the "fact" but also the "expression" suited for encyclopedia(and you do so, too?). When two different sights exist, recognizing the "fact" for all people is extremely difficult. All things we can do is making a compromise agreement.

Let's review.

The point which we agree on is below

• UOC(MP) is not formally autonomous.

The point which we do not agree on are below

• Qe2: UOC(MP) is obviously never autonomous."
• Kliment.A.K.: UOC(MP) can be said "autonomous(de facto)".

Are these right? If they are so, considering what is the fact is not productive, because I know the summary of both insistences of UOC(MP)'s and UOC-KP's. The theme which insistence is correct is not so easy that we can make agreement here.

So I inserted the word "事実上"(de facto). You said ""事実上"(de facto) implies the autonomy is the fact", but it is not true.

"事実上"(de facto) expresses these things below:

• The status is not formal.
• The status is not stable.
• The status is doubted on something by someone.

I suppose these points to be acceptable for you, too.

I guess, if you understand the Japanese word:"事実上"(de facto)'s meaning and nuance, you may accept the phrase "1990(事実上)".

However, if you cannot accept the expression, an alternative is below.

In Japanese

自治教会の成立 - 1990（事実上・非正式）

自治教会の承認 - 1990（事実上、非正式にモスクワ総主教庁より。コンスタンティノポリ総主教庁は承認せず）　

In English translation

autonomy - 1990(de facto, unformal)

autonomy recognition - 1990(de facto, unformally by Moscow, not by Constantinople)

The reason I observe the expression custom:"de facto" is that there is no protest to UOC(MP), OrthodoxWiki, and Wikipedia on this matter by Moscow Patriarchate. You know, the Moscow Patriarchate is very sensitive to matters like this(Maybe the other Patriarchate are also, too), but on this matter, it has made no protest.--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月12日 (火) 23:01 (UTC)

I think we are very close to an agreement. Regarding the Moscow Patriarchate not objecting, the MP (ROC and UOC-MP) benefit greatly from the present situation. Because the UOC-MP has not formally been granted autonomy, the MP is able to excercise a great deal of control over the life and actions of the UOC-MP. However, because many people, in Ukraine and elsewhere, believe that the UOC-MP is autonous (either because they see such references on the Internet or because they do not recognize the special meaning that Orthodoxy has for the statuses of "autonomous" and "autocephalous", the MP can present a stronger case against the "schismatics". There are also many in Ukraine who would not attend a UOC-MP church if they understood that "The UOC" was really a part of the ROC. (That is also another reason for the MP to insist strongly that people not add "MP" to the "UOC".) In sum, there is no motivation for the ROC to object, and strong motivation for the ROC to allow confusion to spread.

The above is for your understanding only, to address your question as to why the ROC does not object. The decision to grant or not grant autonomy is up to the MP. The reasons they may or may not choose to do so are speculation which does not belong on WIKI. However, Wiki (and any other media) should report the true situation as it is. Would this be something you would be willing to consider as a starting point:

教会の成立 - 1990

教会の承認 - 1990（非正式にモスクワ総主教庁より。）　

In conjunction with this, eventually a section in the body could explain this situation.

I can imagine that this must be frustrating, but the terms "autonomy" and "autocephaly" are important in Orthodoxy. Qe2 2008年2月13日 (水) 06:07 (UTC)

See also: uk:Українська православна церква (Московський патріархат)

In Ukrainean, the expression is "Автокефалія/автономія проголошена" and "Автокефалія/автономія визнана".

Why do you try to adjust only in Japanese article? Do you suppose Japanese can be deceived? Do you look down on Japan?

ウクライナ語でも、「独立教会・自治教会の宣言」「独立教会・自治教会の承認」となっていますが。

なぜ日本語記事のみ修正しようと試みるのですか？日本人なら騙されるとお思いですか？日本を馬鹿にしているのですか？

I made a concession the word "de facto" and "unformal", as I regard the words as more appropriate. However, I cannot make more concessions because of reading the article in Ukrainean.

私は既に「事実上」と「非公式」という文言において譲歩しました。その方が適切だと私も考えたからです。しかしながらウクライナ語記事についても確認した以上、これ以上の譲歩は出来ません。--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月13日 (水) 22:22 (UTC)

An example of the expression

Orthodox churches in communion

• The article says "Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) (de-facto autonomous)"--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月12日 (火) 18:21 (UTC)

About deleting the sentences with citaion, refering to insistence

I disagree your edition. You delete the sentences with citation, which refered to insistence. They say "主張している"(they insist so...), and it is not POV.--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月10日 (日) 18:29 (UTC)

I am sorry. I misunderstood. Qe2 2008年2月10日 (日) 18:33 (UTC)

No problem. Excuse me but, I sleep now, so I will respond about the problem left above in some day.Thank you. --Kliment A.K. 2008年2月10日 (日) 18:38 (UTC)

Good night. Thank you. Qe2 2008年2月10日 (日) 18:39 (UTC)

必要な誘導文(Needed Introduction)

＞正教会は一カ国に一つの教会組織を具える事が原則だが（ウクライナ正教会以外の例としてはロシア正教会、ギリシャ正教会、ルーマニア正教会、日本正教会など。もちろん例外もある）、これら各国ごとの正教会が異なる教義を信奉している訳では無い。よって教義や全正教会の性格については正教会の項を参照。

The sentences above are needed for encyclopedia in Japanese. The fact that UOC, ROC, and OCJ etc. are not denomination names but structures names is NOT popular in Japan.--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月12日 (火) 04:52 (UTC)

名称

I apologize if I am misunderstanding, but I am concerned about this sentence:

ウクライナの国家宗教委員会では、「ウクライナ正教会」と呼称されている。

The UOC-MP is registered with the State Committee of Ukraine in Religious Affairs as "Ukrainian Orthodox Church". This is the name that was selected by the church itself, and the registration process is similar to a Japanese organization registering with the Ministry of Culture. The Bunkacho does not give a name to the body, but only accepts the name if it is not used by anyone else, and otherwise legally and morally acceptable. As such, I wonder if something like 『と登録されている」might not be more accurate than 「と呼称されている」。Qe2 2008年2月12日 (火) 15:31 (UTC)

Please let me to respond the other arguments later in some day.

Now I respond only this matter.

＞「と登録されている」

Yes, indeed, you are right. The expression is better than 「と呼称されている」.

Immediately I adjust the word.--Kliment A.K. 2008年2月12日 (火) 15:39 (UTC)