BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION
From the Archives
of
Rev. Fr. John Scharba,
former Pastor of St. Michael
UOC, Hammond, Indiana
(currently Antony, Archbishop
of Ierapolis)
In
a letter dated September 27, 1982 to Very Rev. Stephan Bilak, President of the
Consistory, UOC-USA Rev. Fr. John Scharbs wrote:
“………delegates
voting status is granted by (our) Church Constitution to all priests, all
parishes, the United Sisterhoods and to the UOL. As such is the case, these
individuals and organizations have not only the right, but the responsibility
of asking the very questions which have been directed to your office concerning
the decisions of the Sobor”.
Now
dear readers, from former Rev. Fr. John Scharba and currently Antony,
Archbishop of Ierapolis, President of
the UOC-USA Consistory, comes the part that bites one in the backside…….
“I am astounded
that whenever any individual, clergy or laity, has honestly questioned any
decision of our Metropolitan or Consistory over the past several years, that
person has been labeled as unfaithful to the Church, as insubordinate, or as
one who is attempting to undermine the authority of the Consistory. This type
of character assassination is typical of those who have no other defense for
their actions. There are a great many individuals within the ranks of the
Clergy and the laity who have experienced such character assassinations under
the guise of protecting the authority of the Consistory or the Hierarchs. This
must cease.”
We see no problem with the above position either in 1982 or
today 20 years later. Where we do see a problem is in the hierarchs of UOC-USA
not practicing what they preach not only in religious matters but in secular
matters as well.
Keeping in mind the above we
present to you an excerpt from Resolution #4 passed by the Metropolitan
Council published in the
Ukrainian Orthodox Word, Vol. LI, Issue 7, September 2002
“the
Metropolitan Council deplores the intrusion of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
-Kyivan Patriarchate into the life of the Church here in America creating a
malicious spirit of disunity, lust for power, distrust and animosity among some
of the faithful of UOC of USA”.
The above Resolution#4 is directed not only at UOC-KP in
Ukraine but also at the Vicary of UOC-KP in the USA with its spiritual leader
Bishop Stephan Bilak.
That is correct….. the very same Rev. Stephan Bilak, former President of Consistory of UOC-USA and
now Vicary Bishop of Ukrainian Orthodox Church- Kyivan Patriarchate.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE
HOLY CANONS!
(
or how to use man made church laws to your own advantage )
To those within the UOCUSA who so readily throw about the word
"Canonicity" in their justification of all of the actions of the
Bound Brook hierarchs and label "uncanonical" all opinions
contrary to their belief, we call your attention to a number of canons :
4th
Ecumenical Council, EPITOME of CANON 10
No cleric shall be recorded on the clergy list of the churches of two cities.
But if he shall have strayed forth, let him be returned to his former place.
But if he has been transferred, let him have no share in the affairs of his
former church.
Depending on the audience before them and /or for "political
expediency", the Bound Brook hierarchs use a variety of titles.
For example Antony, Archbishop of Washington will be used
before his Ukrainian flock. However in non-Ukrainian settings, his TRUE
title (since 1995) is used, Archbishop of Hierapolis.
Now isn't this contrary to the canons?
2nd
Ecumenical Council Canon XXX. (XXXI.)
If any bishop obtain possession of a church by the aid of the temporal
powers, let him be deposed and excommunicated, and all who communicate with
him.
Canon XLII.
If a bishop or presbyter, or deacon, is addicted to dice or drinking,
let him either give it over, or be deposed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mail from the Orthodox News Service website.
The “Ubiquitous Ukrainian Problem”
In a powerful, lengthy letter of
May 18, 2001, to the Orthodox News Service expressing disdain for
the SCOBA pastoral message, L.
Lucic provides an insightful, in depth analysis of the political maneuverings
of the “canonical” bishops of SCOBA, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Moscow
Patriarchate from the time the Kievan Metropolia was sold to the Moscow
Patriarchate for a “mess of pottage” to the present day Bishops of Bound Brook
“being sold out to the Greeks.” We are providing the most pertinent highlights
and the entire section dealing with the “ubiquitous Ukrainian problem”. It is
fascinating reading.
“One can then well understand the
current outrage of our Ukrainian brothers and sisters in America who are aghast
at once again being 'sold out to the Greeks' by their own bishops in a secret
conspiracy whose ramifications include a clear prohibition of their joining
under the omophorion of a truly free Ukrainian Orthodox Church in their
homeland.”
“I'm sorry, your Graces, but both your words
and actions today and yesterday leave me no option but to say that you lack any
credibility. The circumstances of your meetings, today as yesterday, and the
pastoral messages that you issue, conceal only thinly-veiled outlines of crude
political manoevering and agendas far removed from the Gospel of Christ.”
“The real truth is that the motives which underlie your
actions together--as opposed to some of the evangelical oration of your
pastoral--are basely political.”
“Firstly, Constantinople, no longer
having any flock of her own in the true patriarchal territory, is intent upon
creating one almost anywhere by any means--largely the artful interpretation of
canons speaking of the patristic diaspora.”
“.......ever since (Moscow
Patriarchate) rather mysteriously granted status of autocephaly (to the OCA
while) still in the depths of the 'cold war' period, the OCA has been a slavish
follower and suppliant of the Moscow Patriarchate and her satellite Churches.”
“Invariably the OCA and its clergy mouth
the Russian Patriarchal line and take its position in any and all controversies
with Constantinople and its American Archdiocese.”
“And then there's the
ubiquitous 'Ukrainian problem', proving once again that our chief shepherds in
the Old World learn no lessons from the history they're so fond of glorifying.
The rancorous and ever increasing multiplication of jurisdictions for
ethno-political goals which characterized the post-war scene in the Ukrainian
'diaspora' of the 'free world' have now been imported back to the homeland with
a vengeance. And here again, Moscow is waging a rearguard action to hang on to
another part of her former spiritual empire, studiously unaware that Ukraine is
now a sovereign independent nation with an Orthodox patrimony older than and
precedent to her own and therefore, according to any real logic and honest
canonicity, eminently worthy of her own autocephalous local church. But by
artful manipulation of the canons and reliance on Russian cultural and
political organizations, she continues to extrude her presence into the former
'satellite' countries with the obvious connivance of the new, 'democratic'
Russian regime--while all the time trumpeting the rights of Russian minorities
there to canonical suzerainty in the newly-independent states! The crass
politicization of it all must make the new masters of the Kremlin smile as
widely as their socialist predecessors. And all the while, Constantinople
writhes as she is pointed out as historically the honest broker who in true
byzantine style sold off the ancient Kievan Metropolitanate to the newly
emerged Russian power to the north for a mess of pottage. As though making
amends-- with one eye open, of course, to her own primatial goal-- she
intervenes with no thought of self-interest to extend her very canonical
omophorion over the 'uncanonical' Ukrainian groups in the West, to supposedly
deliver them from their self-imposed exile from their other Orthodox brothers
and sisters. And all of this is smoothly accomplished in true byzantine
cloak-and-dagger style with only the vaguest and sketchiest details revealed to
anyone, including the 'diaspora' Ukrainians. One can then well understand the
current outrage of our Ukrainian brothers and sisters in America who are aghast
at once again being 'sold out to the Greeks' by their own bishops in a secret
conspiracy whose ramifications include a clear prohibition of their joining
under the omophorion of a truly free Ukrainian Orthodox Church in their
homeland. And this to generations of Ukrainian Orthodox in this country who
have been consciously programmed to believe that the cultural and political
goals of a free Ukraine are of the very raison d'etre of the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church in America and are the 'sobornopravna' duty of the laity to fulfill
together with their bishops. Clearly those folk will be in no mood for quite
some time to enter into any united American Orthodox Church under the tutelage
of Constantinople!”
For the full text of L. Lucic
letter Click http://
www.orthodoxnews.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Statement that was made by Archpriest Mihajlo
Doder of the Serbian Orthodox Church on Orthodox Christianity
<ORTHODOX@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU> on May
28, 2001
"You act as if being in communion with the
Ecumenical Patriarchate is the litmus test of being Orthodox. While the Church
of Bulgaria was in "schism" with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the
Serbian Church served with both the EP and the Church of Bulgaria. Likewise,
the clergy of the Serbian Church often serve with the clergy of ROCOR, but are
also in communion with Moscow and the EP. We must get away from the idea that
the EP is some kind Orthodox "Pope"."
An in depth explanation by
Rev. Protodeacon Larry A. Faseruk of the intricate “canonical”
inter-relationships between various Orthodox Churches
In this (Archpriest Mihajlo Doder) gives two examples that communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is not an absolutely necessary condition to be in communion with other canonical Orthodox Churches. The first example, which is the Bulgarian Church is straight forward. This church was in schism with the Ecumenical Patriarch, but the Serbian Church served with the Bulgarian Church. The Serbian Church was not deemed to be uncanonical, and its Bishops were not excommunicated or anathemized by the Ecumenical Patriarch for these actions. The second case listed is ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, also called the Synod Church. The ROCOR is not considered to be a "canonical" church. It is not in communion with either the Ecumenical Patriarch or Moscow Patriarch. This means that it is in a similar state The UOC-Canada found itself prior to 1990 and the UOC-USA prior to 1995. Hence it is not necessary to be in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch in order to have communion with other Canonical Orthodox Churches.
Prior to 1990 the
UOC-Canada could not convince the other canonical orthodox churches to share
communion. In fact the UOC-Canada could not even convince Bishop Vsevelod to
share communion. I clearly remember several times in the late 1980s that Bishop
Vsevelod was present at liturgies in the Toronto area, and that he did not
share communion with the bishops of the UOC-Canada. Can a Canonical Orthodox
Church have communion with a heretic schismatic church? Consider what is
happening in Syria. The Non-chalcedonian churches were condemned as a heretic
sect and communion was stopped with them, and this was ordered by an ecumenical
council. Now according to Metropolitan George, who is a member of the Holy
Antiochian Synod, a canonical Orthodox Church : “ We are not in communion with the Syrian Church or the other
so-called non-Chalcedonians. We do, however, have a special relationship with
the Syrian Church, especially in the Middle East. There are many towns,
especially in northern Syria, where only one parish exists, be it theirs or ours.
There may be no other parish for many miles. In those cases, we allow
marriages, for example, to take place in each other's churches, as well as
shared communion, etc. This is a special agreement between the Patriarchate of
Antioch and the Syrian Church. Concerning the Melkite Catholic Church (eastern
rite Catholic Church), they officially proposed the idea of
"double-communion" with both Rome and the Orthodox Church at the same
time." There are also similar
agreements with the Alexandrian
Church (A canonical church)
and the Coptic Church (the monophysite heretics).
What has communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch meant to the UOC-Canada and USA? It means that the bishops of the UOC-Canada and the USA get to serve with the Bishops of SCOBA, and visiting bishops from the Moscow Patriarchate. Prior to 1990 for the UOC-Canada and prior to 1995 for the UOC-USA, these canonical churches looked at the UOC-Canada & USA, the same way that these canonical churches currently look at all the small orthodox jurisdictions, some that practice a realistic form of orthodoxy and others that practice a really strange form of what they call orthodoxy. It means that the bishops of the UOC-Canada & USA get to serve with canonical bishops, who in their hearts firmly believe that Ukrainian is a dialect of Russian, that Ukrainians are actually "Little Russians" and our ancestral home country is an inseparable part of "Great Mother Russia", and that Ukrainian Nationalism is a relatively recent idea, and at first a product of an Austrian and Vatican Plot to break up Russia, and then later it became a Nazi plot. These myths are not just confined to those bishops. It is found in every level of those churches from lay people on up from ethnic Russians, Serbs, etc to converts. Actually the converts take these myths to heart more than the ethnic Orthodox.
Why cannot the
UOC-Canada & USA serve with clergy from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-
Kyivan Patriarch? According to Fr. Mihajlo, the lack of communion with the EP
is not a sufficient impediment. Moscow has placed other blocks in the way.
First they have "defrocked" Filaret. That is they have reduced him in
rank from Metropolitan to monk, for daring to ask for the independence of the
Ukrainian Church from Moscow, and getting most of the bishops in Ukraine to
sign a request. So Moscow defrocked Filaret and then most of these other
bishops repudiated their signatures. Filaret rejected the defrocking as being
uncanonical and continued to help establish an independent Ukrainian church.
Moscow then issued an anathema against Filaret.
This Moscow issued anathema is constantly being used against the Kyivan
Patriarchate. Even the fact that the Ukrainian Churches in the Diaspora will
not defy the Moscow issued anathema is constantly used. Let us consider what an
anathema is. It is a pronouncement that places the target individual outside
the realm of salvation. In short it is taking the place of the Final Judgment,
usurping or acting as perjury for the Great Judge. In acting as a judge you
take a big chance, especially with the Great High Judge. If it is a judgment
that would be upheld then no problem, if it is not upheld, then a big problem
for the person who judged. Is it such a huge sin to request an independent
church? It was done for Constantinople itself, and a patriarchate was
established there with considerable opposition. Moscow got its independence
from Constantinople, as well as Greece and several others. So why is it a huge
sin when it is requested for Ukraine? Is Patriarch Filaret teaching anything
contrary to the established doctrines of the Church? NO! All he is asking for,
is an administrative change to boundaries to accommodate a Autocephalous
Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Much has been written about what is called phyletism,
the great sin of setting up more national churches, but the ones that are
existing are ok. That is complete nonsense. Nothing has been written about the
greater sin of Religious Imperialism, except by some to condemn the Pope. The
continued domination of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by the Moscow
Patriarchate must end. Let all Ukrainians say, to the Moscow Patriarch, with
one voice the words of Moses to the pharaoh "LET MY PEOPLE GO".
Rev.
Protodeacon Larry A. Faseruk
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADMIT or DENY? ….The Bound Brook Hierarchs Respond
In the ongoing court case initiated by Archbishop Antony, the hierarchs
answered questions called "A Request for Admissions" posed by the
defendant parish Holy Ascension in Clifton. Their responses are shocking. Here
are a few example……
Admit __________ DENY_______X______ |
|
· One of the
specific purposes for the creation of the UOC-USA was working for the
renewal, preservation and strengthening of the independence of Ukraine from
Russian rule. Admit ___________DENY _______X_______ |
|
· A
fundamental feature and principle of the UOC-USA at the time of its creation
was autocephaly. Admit __________DENY _______X________ |
|
· A fundamental
feature and principle of the UOC-USA at the time of its creation was
independence from foreign, non-Ukrainian control or influence, especially and
particularly any control or influence by Russia or any of its agencies,
including but not limited to the Russian Orthodox Church and other churches
or institutions allied with the Russian Orthodox Church directly or
indirectly through one or more intermediaries. Admit __________DENY _______X_______ |
|
· A fundamental
feature and principle of the UOC-USA at the time of its creation was the age
old tradition of conciliar self-government and broadest participation of the
laity in church life, as distinct from the hierarchical rule characterizing
the Russian Orthodox Church and other Orthodox Churches. Admit __________DENY _______X______ |
|
· A
fundamental feature and principle of the UOC-USA at the time of its creation
was the right of parishes to hire and fire priests and pastors. Admit __________DENY _______X_____ |
|
· In
1918-1921, Ukraine was briefly independent following the Russian Revolution
before being re-occupied by Russia Admit _________DENY ___________ See
Appendix A: Although said independence
was not recognized by entire international community. |
|
· The head of
the UOC-USA diocese, Metropolitan Mstyslav, was elected Patriarch of the
UOC-Ukraine and its worldwide diocese, including the UOC-USA, until his death
in 1993. Admit _________DENY _______X_____ |
|
· For more
than half a century, the UOC-USA diocese and its bishops resolutely held
themselves out to the public as the key diocese of the UOC-Ukraine in exile intent
on preserving its independence from foreign rule and on its reestablishment
of and reunification with its Mother Church in Kyiv, Ukraine. Admit ________DENY ________X_____ |
|
· The
memorial church at the UOC-USA diocese administrative center in So. Bound
Brook, NJ (the "Center"), was built overwhelmingly by the Survivors
(as was the entirety of the Center) to honor the memory of those millions of
victims. Admit ________DENY _______X_____ |
|
· The UOC-Ukraine
was targeted by the Russians for annihilation specifically because its ethnic
Ukrainian identity and assertion of independence, and its pivotal, political,
social and cultural role in the process nation building. Admit ________DENY____________ See
Appendix A: Question
objectionable in that it calls for speculation as to the motives of the
Russians. It is generally believed that this is the reason by the Ukrainian
population. |
|
· The Ecumenical
Patriarchate / Church of Constantinople refused to extend recognition to the
reborn UOC-Ukraine in the 1920's. Admit _______DENY _______________ See
Appendix A: Question
objectionable in that the Plaintiff cannot answer question. |
|
· The UOC-Ukraine
encouraged the cause of Ukrainian national and social liberation from Russian
rule. Admit _______DENY ______________ See
Appendix A: Question
objectionable in that Plaintiff cannot answer question. |
|
· In the 1930's
and 40's, all assets of the UOC-Ukraine were usurped by the Russian regime,
and then turned over to its agency, the Russian Orthodox Church. Admit ________DENY _____________ See
Appendix A: Question
objectionable in that Plaintiff cannot answer question. |
|
· The
UOC-Ukraine has been persecuted by the Russian Orthodox Church for some 300
years, to the point of complete destruction in Ukraine of its public
manifestation, leaving its survival underground. Admit ________
DENY _________X_____ |
|
|