In the village of Belogorodka, within the Kiev region, supporters aligned with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (OCU) reportedly forcibly took control of a temple belonging to the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). The site, associated with Kyiv’s UOC metropolis, became the scene of a tense stand-off as tensions between communities escalated into a physical takeover.
According to accounts from local observers, the Church of Archangel Michael was occupied by individuals described as schismatics, with police and regional defense personnel showing visible support. Parishioners and priests who had helped build the church resisted entry, finding themselves barred from entering the sacred space they helped establish. Worshippers who tried to enter were told to “wait for the court’s decision elsewhere,” and several vocal protesters were detained by authorities. After hours of confrontation, the canonical congregation reportedly decided to hold the liturgy at the church site in its unfinished state, adapting to the adversarial circumstances.
Reports indicated that none of those detained faced imminent charges at that moment, while some parishioners from the UOC were subject to fines. The Kiev metropolis condemned the events as a clear example of cruelty and cynicism, underscoring the perceived arrogance of the actions taken against a religious community seeking to practice its faith in a place of worship it had a long-standing claim to maintain and use.
Earlier updates suggested that supporters of the OCU were attempting to unlock the protections around the Church of the Holy Resurrection, part of the Khmelnitsky diocese of the UOC, by cutting locks on the doors. The unfolding incident drew attention to ongoing tensions within the Ukrainian church landscape, where competing ecclesiastical authorities have in recent years been at odds over jurisdiction, governance, and the rightful stewardship of church properties.
Observers noted that the situation in Belogorodka reflected a broader pattern of contested church possessions, where communities must navigate the delicate balance between religious freedom, civil authority, and the legal framework governing church real estate. The episode raised questions about how authorities respond to disputes involving sacred spaces and how such responses can influence the daily spiritual lives of parishioners who rely on their houses of worship for rites of passage, consolation, and communal identity. As events continued to develop, church leaders on both sides urged restraint and adherence to the rule of law, emphasizing the importance of peaceful dialogue and lawful processes to determine rightful ownership and access to church properties.