Back to Front Page

Background Information

Archbishop Vsevolod as Patriarch Vsevolod in Ukraine??

On July 6, 2001 Orthodox Christian News Service posted an anonymous letter from a priest warning of “nightmare scenario” if ecumenical Patriarch recognizes “renegade” Ukrainian jurisdictions. Of great interest is mention of Archbishop Vsevolod as a potential Ecumenical Patriarch’s appointee as Patriarch of a united Ukrainian Orthodox church. 

July 6, 2001 Orthodox Christian News Service <http://www.orthodoxnews.com>

Editor:

It is appalling the way the present Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew of Constantinople, fashions himself as the "Greek Pope," with universal jurisdiction over the entire Orthodox Church. Perhaps, he learned too well and finds too comfortable, the Romish ecclesiology he learned while taking his Ph.D. at the Vatican? Be that as it may, nowhere is this papal mode of operation more evident than in his present uncanonical and unprecedented interference in Ukraine.

Under the guise of bringing unity--instead of the truth of his desire to build empire--he has brought together two uncanonical Orthodox bodies, from which one canonical Orthodox body is supposed to emerge under his omophorion. In addition, he ignores the fact that the self-styled Filaret a.k.a. Michael Denisenko was not simply deposed but excommunicated by the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate after his schismatic action of establishing a Ukrainian Patriarchate with himself as head.

Thus, the Ecumenical Patriarch considers Filaret Denisenko as worthy of leadership of a church of which he, Filaret, himself is no longer even a "lay" member in good standing!?

In fact, Patriarch Bartholomew acts unilaterally, in a geographic area over which he has no jurisdiction, for Ukraine has been subject to the Patriarchate of Moscow for many years. In fact the so-called Patriarch Filaret's actions are in direct opposition to Moscow's jurisdiction, jurisprudence, or failing that, even its advice and consent.

In short, the Ecumenical Patriarch may well find himself outside canonical Orthodoxy by this most recent reckless attempt to establish another (remember Estonia) geographical foothold for the withering Constantinopolitan throne. Apparently Bartholomew has begun to believe the purple-prose of his "neo-platonic" byzantine encyclicals and the grandiosity of his "pheme" and is acting as if there were still some eastern emperor to support his tactics.

Does he have no respect for the canons of the "Great Church of Christ" over which he presides--canons he takes such a vigorous interpretation of with the Holy Mountain? These are same canons which he used to veto the charter of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, for example, just a month or so ago!

Does he believe the Moscow Synod and Patriarch are illegitimate, so that their actions are of no consequence, or that they will simply stand aside and let the Archbishop of New Rome seize one-third of the territory of the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate (the third Rome); not by arms but by the stroke of a pen?

Even if the EP were to put Archbishop Vsevelod--a canonical hierarch--over the Ukrainian Church as Patriarch, how would this remedy the fact that all of Denisenko's ordinations, elevations, baptisms, marriages, etc. were and remain without grace and are illicit, inasmuch as he himself was, is and remains excommunicated from the Orthodox Church?

Additionally, would not the same principles hold for the actions of the likewise renegade Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church? Moreover, of what canonical standing would Bartholomew's interventionist actions be in unifying the Ukrainian jurisdictions in the first place?

In short, would he not find himself, by such action, canonically deposed as Ecumenical Patriarch? It is questionable whether or not any synod would ever meet to do so--because of this intervention in the internal affairs of another canonical Orthodox Church; namely the Moscow Patriarchate; and therefore, though still bearing the exalted title of "Ecumenical Patriarch," find himself a heresiarch rather than hierarch. Would not all Orthodox Christians within his jurisdiction, leaving aside the reaction of the Moscow Patriarchate, be canonically, duty-bound to separate themselves from him inasmuch as his actions are in defiance of the Holy Canons?

Has he no fear of St. Basil the Great's warning that "he who causes schism commits a graver offence to Christ than the heretic?" I fear the answer to all of the questions present a nightmare scenario for contemporary Orthodox Christians--lay as well as clerical. As an Orthodox priest, I must pray the Ecumenical Patriarch quickly comes to his senses vis a vis his "settlement" of the problems of the Ukrainian Church. Should he persist, however, in such an unprecedented and uncanonical way, I for one will feel duty bound to cease commemorating him or continuing any liturgical concelebrations with clergy or hierarchy within his jurisdiction.

I suspect many other Orthodox priests may well be presented with the same dilemma and be forced to take the same action to remain faithful to the "Great Church of Christ" over which Christ ultimately presides through his Scripture, Sacraments, Tradition and Holy Canons and not the Archbishop of Constantinople.

One cannot help but muse--in an ironic and saddened sense--over the last Bosphorion thunder from the "Great Throne" when to the all the eparchial bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church in America as well as the laity he stamped his staff shouting: "Archbishop Spyridon will be your Archbishop for the rest of his life!" I imagine many a mental eyebrow was raised and a unheard "really!" spoken.

Perhaps, in the present situation the Archbishop of Constantinople, like the former Archbishop of America, may find his "Great Throne" set firmly on sand rather than stone!

Name Withheld by Request

Editor's Note: This letter was written to Orthodox News by an Orthodox priest whose name has been withheld by his request. Although normally we do not publish anonymous letters, we have done so in this case because of the obvious problems that would be involved if the author were to be identified, and because this letter says publicly what some other Orthodox Priests in the United States have been saying privately on this critical issue.

 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

 

A Russian Orthodox priest sent out a notification informing members on their news list of our website saveouruoc.com.  The purpose of the notification was to solicit responses to our web page. The excerpt below shows with what disdain we, and our web site, are viewed. Read on:

 

On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 04:51:09

Hieromonk Christopher (Calin)

Russian Orthodox Cathedral of the Holy Virgin Protection,

New York City

 

Here is a response. I am sure more will come:

           

Subject:  Re: Ukrainian Self Justification Web Site  http://www.saveouruoc.com/exclusiveclub.html

 

Beloved Hieromonk Christopher

 

Father, bless! Please forgive me, but isn't the provocation of rolling-on-the-floor laughter not allowed during the Great Lent? In reading the page cited, I was once again reminded of how seriously troubled so many people are in this world - who knew?

Best regards,

Max Bartheault <max.bartheault@LYCOS.COM>Organization: Lycos Mail (http://maillycos.com.80)

 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

STALIN and the MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE-Historical Notes

Soviet Commissar Speech in 1945 after the election of Patriarch Alexy, when Stalin organized the Moscow Patriarchate for the purpose of using the Church to gain support for the War effort:  Prior to this time the Russian Church in Exile was recognized as the "true" representative of Russian Orthodoxy. Note the world orthodox leaders that allied themselves with the Stalin effort including the Ecumenical Patriarchate. 

Rapprochement between The Orthodox Church and Soviet Government.

Speech of M. G. Karpov at Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1945.

Reverend bishops, priests and delegates of the faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church! The Government of the USSR has instructed me to greet in its name this exalted assembly and to convey its wishes for the success of your labours in organizing the higher administration of the Church. The Soviet Government has also asked me to greet the guests of honor of the local Council, who have come from the Orthodox East – Patriarch Christophoros of Alexandria, Patriarch Alexander m of Antioch, Metropolitan Germanos representing the Ecumenical Patriarch, Archbishop Athenagoras representing the Patriarch of Jerusalem - as well as those who come from our Georgia - Catholicos Callistratos of all-Georgia - and from the Slav nations, our brothers - Metropolitan Joseph representing the Synod of the Serbian Church, and ail the bishops and priests who accompany them.

The present local Council, called to elect the Patriarch of Moscow and all the Russias, and to adopt a rule for the administration of the Orthodox Church, will be a landmark in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. I am deeply convinced that the decisions of this Council will be of value in strengthening the Church, and will form an important starting point for the further development of its activity in helping the Soviet people to fulfill the major historical tasks which confront them. The local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church has met at a time when ail the nations of our great country, together with ail the freedom-loving nations of the world, are fighting a holy war of liberation against the imperialist German bandits and are straining every nerve for victory at the cost of lives and possessions of millions of people sacrificed on the altar of patriotism. Throughout the sore trials to which our country has so often been subjected in the past, the Russian Orthodox Church has never broken its links with the people: it has shared their needs, wishes and hopes and contributed its full measure to the common task. It was in its churches and monasteries that learning arose and the earliest chronicles of the life of our country were completed; the walls of our churches and monasteries have more than once withstood the assault of foreign invaders, and many eminent churchmen have given their lives for their country.  And now, when the Hitlerite bandits have viciously attacked our sacred soil, when all the nations of the Soviet State have risen and surged forward to fight this great patriotic war in defense of their honor, their freedom and their independence, the Russian Orthodox Church has from the first taken the fullest part in defending the country with ail the means at its disposal. Having fully grasped the significance of the events, that eminent churchman, that wise and venerable man who was first Metropolitan, then Patriarch Sergius, bestowed his blessing upon the faithful in their task of participating in the defense of the frontiers of their country. In his many sermons and messages to the Church, he ceaselessly called upon her loyal sons to fight to the death against the barbarous enemy of the Soviet land - Hitlerite Germany. Last year, the Patriarch Sergius died to the great loss of the Russian Orthodox Church. In accordance with his testament, the government of the Church passed into the hands of the senior Bishop, Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod, Alexis, an outstanding churchman and an ardent patriot who never once left his post during the 900 days of the siege of Leningrad and who, in total unanimity with the other members of the Holy Synod, has guided the Church from the death of the Patriarch to this day. The Church has not confined its patriotic action to letters and sermons but has collected funds for building tanks and aeroplanes and for helping the sick, the wounded and those crippled or orphaned by the war.  The Soviet Government has shown and continues to show deep interest in the Church's part in the struggle against the enemy. In our country, the triumph of the new regime, a Socialist regime unprecedented in history and the most righteous in the world, has also brought about a new relationship between Church and State. The great Socialist October Revolution which liberated our people from slavery and gave them freedom, has also freed the Church from the shackles which impeded its internal activity. Freedom of conscience, promulgated by the Decree of 23 January 1918, has been consolidated by the basic laws of our country as embodied in the Soviet Constitution. The Council of Church Affairs which, by Government decision, has been created and attached to the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, forms a link between the Government and the Patriarch of Moscow and all the Russias, and provides liaison in all matters needing government approval. Without in any way interfering with the spiritual life of the Church, the Council promotes normal relations between Church and State by seeing to the proper and timely application of government laws and decrees concerning the Russian Orthodox Church. There is no doubt that the normal relations established between the Council and Patriarchate have helped to strengthen the Church administratively; the Council will continue in future to take all necessary steps to remove obstacles of whatever sort which may hinder the Soviet citizen in the exercise of the liberty of conscience granted by the Constitution. Once again, I sincerely wish the members of the Council success in the task which awaits them.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Who is The Boss……

Sobor of UOC-USA?…Metropolitan Constantine?…or Patriarch Bartholomew?

Fact: On March 2, 1997, Metropolitan Constantine elevated Bishop Vsevolod of Scopelos to the rank of “Archbishop” prior to the convening of the UOC-USA Sobor, the highest governing body of the Church. Despite this irregularity and the trampling on Church sobornopravnist, the Sobor affirmed this elevation. Curiously, the “Archbishop” continued to use the title of “Bishop of Scopelos”. Did anyone ever wonder why?

Fact: On April 14, 2000, Patriarch Bartolomew elevated Vsevolod, Bishop of Scopelos to the rank of “Archbishop”.

Confused? You should be. Think about it. Can a bishop be elevated twice to the same rank? NO. Does this mean that our Sobor’s decision and the elevation by Metropolitan Constantine did not “count”? Why wasn’t the UOC-USA elevation of Bishop Vsevolod recognized by “world” orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Why was it only in the Ukrainian press and in the official UOC-USA periodical, Orthodox Word (Pravoslavne Slovo) did the title “Archbishop” appear? Why wasn’t it ever acknowledged by Bishop Vsevolod, as he continued to use the title “Bishop of Scopelos”? What authority do the UOC-USA Sobors and the Metropolitan now have? Who has the authority to elevate the hierarchy? Does the Sobor? Does Metropolitan Constantine? Did the UOC-USA give up this authority unwillingly or was this part of the deal with Constantinople?

SO WHO IS THE BOSS?

Obviously, the now “Achbishop” Vsevolod knows? It’s time we recognize it as well. The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s own description of the relationship between the EP and the UOC-USA specifies that “the election of hierarchs” is within the right of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Face it, the UOC-USA “elevation” of Archbishop Vsevolod meant NOTHING! Our Sobor’s decision meant NOTHING! Metropolitan Constantine’s elevation meant NOTHING!

So much for the Bishops of Bound Brook’s claim that “everything has remained the same”.  Wake up, people.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Excerpts from an analysis published by the Minister of Foreign Affairs –Republic of Turkey—Mar-May 1998 Journal of International Affairs

 

THE FENER GREEK PATRIARCHATE

by

A. SUAT BİLGE
Dr. A. Suat Bilge is Professor of International Relations and Ambassador (retired).

 

The Turkish Government manipulates the election of the Patriarch of Constantinople….

 

“….The Turkish government would have the right to control the designation of the Patriarch and limit his actions… “….the candidate must be a Turkish citizen with an occupation in Turkey at the time of the election. Meletios…. was compelled to resign ….Grigorios was elected Patriarch on 6 December 1923, in compliance with the communiqué sent by the Istanbul Governor’s Office. During the next elections, Konstantinos, who was not favoured by Turkey, was elected Patriarch…. The Turkish authorities forced Konstantinos to leave by train and he was forced to resign. . In November 1948, Athénagoras, the Archbishop of North and South America, was elected Patriarch. During his assignment at Fener, he eliminated religious differences between the Orthodox churches in Moscow and Istanbul, uniting the two.  Some groups in Greece accused him of treason due to his complete loyalty to the Turkish state…. In early 1964, the requests for the abolishment of the Patriarchate once again came on the agenda….Under these circumstances, Athénagoras was forced to remain silent and his voice was not to be heard any more….

 

Patriarch Bartholomew wants to consolidate his power and become the “Eastern Pope”; Constantinople:  the “Vatican”

 

“….A controversy concerning the Fener Greek Patriarchate started in Turkey in 1997. It was stated that the Patriarchate could be used both for and against the interests of Turkey. On the one hand, it was claimed that the Patriarchate had intentions to establish itself as an ecumenical church and become a state like the Vatican; that the Orthodox world was trying to gain power in Turkey. On the other hand, some people stated that Turkey could benefit from the prestigious position of the Patriarchate and suggested an improvement in its status. First of all, I want to stress that the Patriarchate no longer enjoys the importance it once possessed in Greek-Turkish relations. Today, the Patriarchate is trying to become influential in Turkish-American relations...”

 

“…meaning of the word ‘ecumenical’ is the honorary priority of the Fener Greek Patriarchate over independent and equal Orthodox churches. …With this title, the Fener Greek Patriarchate works for the unification of all Orthodox churches. In the past, Orthodox churches were organized horizontally and on an equal basis. For this reason, there is no hierarchy among them. The Fener Greek Patriarch has no authority over the Archbishop of Athens or the Patriarch of Moscow. The Fener Greek Patriarchate can unite with them only to the extent they deem appropriate. “

 

 

Patriarch Bartholomew’s motives are political…

 

“…..Is the unification of Orthodox churches a religious or a secular issue, or even a political activity? In an article published in Time magazine on 5 May 1997, Patriarch Bartolomeos said: “We believe that Orthodox Christians have a special duty in the improvement of East-West relations. Like the Turkish Republic, we have one foot on each side.” The responsibility mentioned by Bartolomeos is a political one. If we take into consideration that such an activity also comprises relations between the Orthodox churches in the United States and Russia, the political significance of this activity for Turkey will become clear. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Orthodox Patriarchate in Moscow gained significance once again. It also wants to play a role at the international level. “

 

Moscow may eventually influence the election of the Patriarch….

 

“ As its very name suggests, the Fener Greek Patriarchate is a church with an ethnic character; it is a Greek church….”

 

“…In the future, it will prove more and more difficult to find a Greek candidate who is a Turkish citizen, since the size of the Greek community and thus the number of Greek religious persons in Istanbul has been on a continual decline. The problem can be overcome by granting non-Turkish Greeks the right to become Turkish citizens, thus making them eligible to become a Patriarch. Consequently, Americans who are not Turkish citizens, but might prove to be useful to Turkey could become future Patriarchs.”

 

“…..According to the 1970 regulations, the Patriarch is elected by a secret ballot of the metropolites of Istanbul and _mroz (Imros), through an election held at the Fener Greek Patriarchate. There are requests for the amendment of this election system. Some people suggest that the Patriarch should be elected by a Religious Council comprising the representatives of all Orthodox churches, which are affiliated to the Fener Greek Patriarchate, including those in the United States.….It is not clear whether or not the supporters of the above mentioned proposal intend to include Orthodox churches in Russia…..If the new election system promotes the Patriarch to the ecumenical status, it would be logical to expect that the Russians will also demand a say in the elections. “

 

“….The new election system will give birth to an international religious institution within Turkey and the Ankara government will have difficulties in supervising the activities and elections of such an institution.  In practice, the proposed system will hand over control of the Patriarchate to Orthodox groups of Greek and Russian origin who are living abroad….. “

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Word Magazine April, 1984 Page 5-6--ORTHODOXY IN AMERICA:

 

SUCCESS AND FAILURE

by Metropolitan PHILIP

 

..."My second vision concerns the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA). Since the purpose of SCOBA is to bring organic unity to our churches in America, I believe that SCOBA should be elevated to the rank of an Orthodox Synod which will have the power to deal effectively and decisively with our Orthodox problems in this country....My third vision, ladies and gentlemen, concerns the Ecumenical Patriarchate. There is no doubt that we need a catalyst to lead us from the wilderness of division to the promised land of unity and fulfillment. I do not know of a better catalyst than the Ecumenical Patriarch, himself, who continues to live like a prisoner in Istanbul. Let us prevail on him to leave Turkey, come to America and unite our various jurisdictions under his wings. The Greek remnant in Istanbul can be shepherded by an exarch who would represent the ecumenical throne. The Ecumenical Patriarch will preserve his traditional role in the world regardless of where he resides. We have unlimited opportunities in this free land, but if we do not move forward with faith and courage, our Church on this continent will remain an insignificant dot on the margin of history. Finally, I would like to conclude this sermon with the words of the late Alexander Schmemann. "One can almost visualize the glorious and blessed day when forty Orthodox bishops of America will open their first Synod in New York, or Chicago or Pittsburgh with the hymn, 'Today the grace of the Holy Spirit assembled us together,' and will appear to us not as 'representatives' of Greek, Russian or any other 'jurisdictions,' and interests but as the very icon, the very 'Epiphany' of our unity within the Body of Christ; when each of them and all together will think and deliberate only in terms of the whole, putting aside all particular and national problems, real and important as they may be. On that day, we shall 'taste and see' the oneness of the Orthodox Church in America." Metropolitan PHILIP was the celebrant and speaker at the Sunday of Orthodoxy Liturgy, sponsored by the Council of Eastern Orthodox Churches of Central Massachusetts, on March 11, 1984.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Who or What is

“SCOBA”(1)

and

What does the future hold for the UOC-USA?

 

Some thoughts from an OCA hierarch...

 

Preface: SCOBA (Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of America, to which the UOC-USA hierarchs belong since 1995) continues to work toward the unification of all of North America into one non-ethnic, generic, American church. Such Russian theologians as Schmemann, Meyendorff, as well as Kallistos Ware, and other SCOBA members (who, also, you should be aware, have always denied the existence of Ukraine, espousing the “Kyivan Russia” revisionist view of history) spearheaded this effort.  Now books by these individuals and others propagating these views grace the shelves of the Bound Brook bookstore. Didn't the UOC-USA spend a lifetime defending against this?

 

Where will it all lead?  Bishop Nathaniel of the OCA(2) (Orthodox Church of America), former diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate and one with whom our bishops so gleefully now "fellowship” within SCOBA provides us with a glimpse of what the future will hold…. We quote:

 

“.... The Standing Conference of Orthodox Canonical Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA), which is representation by "ethnic" principle, is incapable of becoming the Synod of the American Church. ...We propose that the present jurisdictional administrative structures remain in existence in favor of the unification of all hierarchs into one Synod which, together with the clergy and faithful of the united Orthodox Church of America, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will determine the future territorial basis for dioceses. There is no doubt that the Greek, Antiochian, Serbian, Ukrainian and Romanian dioceses would not be prepared, AT THIS TIME, to disassemble their administrative structures as a "sine qua non" to have one bishop in one city nor for the formation of a unified Synod. Would it not be plausible, however, that they would accept the unification of all hierarchs into one Synod and that the present administrative entities continue under their hierarchs. AS TIME GOES ON, this Synod will review and, with the entire American Church, shape future diocesan jurisdictions. Thus, in place of an "Ethnic SCOBA" there would be a Synod of metropolitanates, working together in one Synod. With the formation of the Holy Synod, a Patriarch would be elected and the Orthodox Church of America would begin to "self-resolve" the discrepancies, which presently exist within her.... "

+NATHANIEL, Bishop of Detroit /Episcopate of the Orthodox Church in America

 

COMMENTARY:  In the democratic, free countries of the West, the Ukrainian Orthodox faithful fervently prayed and worked toward the day when they would help Ukraine shed Moscow's yoke and join with us in one free and independent Church.   Isn't it ironic, that although Ukraine may finally rid herself of Moscow's yoke, (and hopefully ANY foreign entity), the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the US & the Diaspora not only gave up her independence so willingly, but, indeed, if  Bishop Nathanial’s plans hold true, the UOC-USA may in the future, indirectly fall under the very Moscow Patriarchate's control that the UOC-USA fought against?  Have we forgotten the heeding of our spiritual father, Patriarch Mstyslav (then Metropolitan) at the 37th UOL Convention of 1984, when he forewarned,  "Let us not forget that the enemy of Christ and of our devout people would want to drown our Holy Ukrainian Orthodox Church in an international sea and erase from our memory the image of our pious ancestors and those who suffered martyrdom for the Martyr-Church--the Holy Ukrainian Orthodox Church.  In particular let us remember that atheistic Moscow which uses diverse means does all which it can to drown our Church outside of the fatherland in an international sea."

 

Dr. Lysyj, DR. Krywolap, Mr. Heretz,

and

Metropolitan Council members, past and present,

ask yourselves,

is this the legacy you want to leave behind?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Footnotes:

 

[1] What is SCOBA? The Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA), established in 1960 with Archbishop Iakovos (Greek Orthodox Church of America, Ecumenical Patriarchate) as Chairman brings together the “canonical” hierarchs of the Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. The former Russian Metropolia, (now the OCA, Orthodox Church of America) plays a prominent role in this organization. For decades, SCOBA refused to “recognize” the UOC-USA unless they agree to certain conditions: (1) officially recant the Church’s claim of autocephaly (independence), and (2) the disavowal of the founding fathers of our Church, the bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church of the 1920’s (this included Lypkivsky and John Teodorovich, the UOC-USA ‘s first Metropolitan).  The SCOBA 1962 minutes attest to this. Meyendorff discusses this issue at length in his various writings. Needless to say, Patriarch Mstyslav would not agree.  The “official” purpose of the Conference (as per orthodoxonline is: to make the ties of unity among the canonical Orthodox Churches and administrations stronger and more visible.  SCOBA has spearheaded the movement toward one generic Church as one can see by the late 1994 SCOBA Resolution, (then presided over by Archbishop Iakovos), which declared that "...all of our efforts should be coordinated within an overall ecclesiastical framework…to allow us to organically become an administratively united Church."

 

2 The Orthodox Church of America, despite its formal name change in 1971 which eliminated the word “Russian” from their title, remains closely tied with the Moscow Patriarchate and has recently opened its first representative office and church in Moscow.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Excerp from a luncheon address of Archbishop Spyridon at his enthronement in 1996.

 

“This morning I also spoke of the future realization of one Orthodox Church here in America, and here I echoed the thoughts of His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew. We must move forward toward that bright new day when all Orthodox in this country-Greeks, Russians, Ukrainian, Serbs, Arabs, and all the many others- must be united, for it is only as one Church that we will fulfill the prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ when, as it is told to us in the 17th chapter of John, he prayed that his entire flock be one. Indeed, we can even extend our hopes for this unity to our partners in the ecumenical movement, although to achieve it will be a long and complicated process, as the history of ecumenical relations in this century has shown. Still, it is a hope and a goal to which I, and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomes, are deeply committed indeed, if the 20th century has been called the “ecumenical century”, why can’t we dream of our great-grandchildren one day looking back on the next century as the “century of unity”?

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

WHERE IS THE UOC-USA HEADING..

UNDER A GREEK or RUSSIAN EXARCH ?????

Excerpts from The Hellenic Times, published June 30, 2000

Our faith and sacred tradition: The Pan-Orthodox understanding of the term, Diaspora

By Rev. Dr. George D. Dragas

June 30, 2000 (THT) -- The occasion of the 35th Clergy-Laity Conference of the Sacred Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, a great event in the life of the Church, invites all Greek Orthodox American Christians to pause and consider who we really are in the context of America, especially within the wider context of world Orthodoxy.

(The Greek Orthodox Archdioces of America) is really a minority Church…… Even if we were to form a unified ecclesiastical jurisdiction with the other ethnic Orthodox Churches here, the Orthodox would still be a very small minority in America.

In 1995 the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission (IOPC)….. has proposed a plan for solving the so-called canonical problem which exists in the Orthodox Diaspora (i.e., the parallel existence of separate ethnic Orthodox jurisdictions in the same regions which arguably undermines their Orthodox unity and weakens their Orthodox witness).

This plan envisages the formation of "Regional Episcopal Assemblies" with all the existing Orthodox Bishops in each Diaspora Region.

The regulations stipulate that these Assemblies will be presided by the Exarchs of the Autocephalous Churches which are present and active in these regions, according to the established order of seniority of these Churches. Other executive officials of these Assemblies will be appointed on the same basis.

This means that our Archbishop, as Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the United States of America, will preside over all other Metropolitans and Bishops of all jurisdictions operating in America.

The plan draws from, and builds upon, the existing SCOBA (i.e., Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in America) and reveals the worldwide concern and wisdom of the Orthodox Church.

It appears that, as far as world Orthodoxy is concerned, this plan is on the move, and America may be the first country to really put it to the test, inasmuch as pioneering work has been already done in America through SCOBA, which has been used as an actual model for developing this provisional scheme.

Various groups of the Orthodox Diaspora have organized themselves into various jurisdictions according to their ethnic ecclesiastical background. To some extent, this was inevitable, but it created a problem which concerns worldwide Orthodoxy.

This problem has many sides to it, many of which have been spelled out and are well known. The most obvious among them is the existence of separate Orthodox Episcopal Jurisdictions in the same place or region.

This arrangement is rightly seeing as a direct contradiction to the Orthodox Tradition because the unity of the local Church under one local Bishop is the core of Orthodox ecclesiology.

The American Diaspora is indeed the one which exhibits the whole spectrum of Diaspora problems……. it is also here in America where the solution to the entire problem can and should be worked out. It seems that the eyes of the whole Orthodox world are on us. They all talk about us and expect us to set the example.

Our Archdiocese, being the largest and most vibrant Church of the Orthodox Diaspora, will definitely play the leading role for which it has been prepared by its distinguished leaders, under the guidance of the Mother Church.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

As far back as 1960 the ethnic unification process was put into place.

 
Read the following 1960 press release and keep in mind that the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) was Archbishop Vsevolods church.

 

The Church Life Bulletin [Holy Trinity Cathedral, San Francisco, CA], December 1960

 

ALL-ORTHODOX UNION IN AMERICA His Grace, Bishop JOHN OF SAN FRANCISCO has given us the following news

for release.

 

This fall has taken place the third meeting of the CANONICAL ORTHODOX BISHOPS in this country. The first two meetings took place at the residence of the Greek Archbishop in New York, the third one at the residence of the Syrian Archbishop of Brooklyn, the fourth shall take place early next year at the residence of our Metropolitan in New York. These meetings of the hierarchy are to be a constant instrument of the Orthodox Church in America.  Those participating are the Russian Orthodox Metropolia, the Greek and Syrian archbishoprics, the Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian and Albanian bishoprics, and the Ukrainian Church under the Ecumenical Patriarch (of Istanbul). No representatives of the Exarchate of the Patriarch of Moscow or of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad take part in these deliberations.

 

At the last meeting this body of bishops decided that this union will be called THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA.  This united Orthodox body will discuss the current questions arising before the Orthodox Church in America, where the Orthodox cannot remain separated as they face so many dynamic non-Orthodox organizations. We cannot but recognize the spiritual importance of this beginning of really united work of the Orthodox hierarchs. 

The Church Life Bulletin [Holy Trinity Cathedral, San Francisco, CA], December 1960

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

From the Archives we dug up the following “expression” of sorrow:

 

From Patriarch Alexey I (Simansky):

"To the Council of Ministers of The USSR:

 

In the name of the Russian Orthodox Church and in my own I express my most deep and most sincere condolences on the occasion of the repose of the unforgettable Iosif Vissarionovich STALIN, the great builder of people's happiness. His repose is also a great sorrow for our Fatherland, for all the people that populate it. His passing is being felt with great sorrow by all the Russian Orthodox Church, which will never forget his benevolent attitude toward ecclesiastical needs. His radiant memory of him will live on, inerasable, in our hearts. With a special feeling of never-ending love, our Church intones to him "Memory Eternal." Alexey, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia" (Izvestia, March 10, 1953)

 

Would you like to read some more? Then read the following eulogy of Patriarch Alexey I on the day of Stalins funeral.

 

Eulogy of Patriarch Alexey I, in the Patriarchal Cathedral on the day of Stalin's funeral:

 

"The Great Leader of our people, Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin, is no more. A great force has disappeared, both a moral and civic one; a force, by which he guided himself in his constructive efforts and measures, with which he gratified himself during many years. There is not an area into which the deep gaze of the Great Leader did not penetrate. People of science were amazed at his deep scientific knowledge in the most varied disciplines, his generalizations were of genius; military people -- by his military genius; people of all different types of labor unfailingly received from him mighty assistance and valuable advice. As a man of genius, he discovered in each thing that which was invisible and unreachable for the common mind.  About his concentrated concerns and struggles [podvigi] during the Great Patriotic War, about his direction of military actions with genius, which gave us victory over a powerful enemy and against fascism in general; about his multi-faceted unencompassable everyday labors in administration, in the directing of governmental affairs, it has been widely and convincingly written in the press, and especially expressed during today's final parting at his funeral, by his closest associates. His name, as a fighter for peace in the whole world and his glorious deeds will live into the ages.  We, also, who have gathered here for prayer about him, cannot pass with silence about his always benevolent, participatory attitude toward our ecclesiastical needs. There was not one question that we directed to him that was refused by him; he satisfied all our requests. And much that is good and beneficial, thanks to his high authority was done for the Church by our Government.

 

In these days that are so sad for us, from all the parts of our Fatherland, from hierarchs, clergy and the faithful, as well as from abroad from the Heads and representatives of Churches, both Orthodox and heterodox, I continue to receive a large number of telegrams, in which are reported prayers for him and expressions of condolences on the occasion of this loss, so sorrowful for us.  We prayed for him when we received word of his grave illness. And now, when he is no more, we pray for the peace of his immortal soul.  Yesterday, a special delegation, consisting of the Most Reverend Metropolitan Nikolai; the representative of the hierarchy, clergy and faithful of Siberia, Archbishop Palladiy; the representative of the hierarchy, clergy and faithful of the Ukraine, Archbishop Nikon, and Protopresbyter Fr. Nicholas, placed a wreath at his coffin and bowed down in the name of the Russian Orthodox Church to his remains.  Prayer which is filled with Christian love, rises up to God. We believe that our prayer, as well, about the one who reposed, will be heard by the Lord.  And to our beloved and unforgettable Iosif Vissarionovich we prayerfully, with deep, fervent love intone "Memory Eternal."  (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1953, No. 3)

 

Again, comments are not necessary.

With love in Christ,

Fr. Alexander

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

“ Бавнд-Брук горить, а Владики на Скрипку Грають”.

 

Приводом для оприлюднення цих моїх роздумів послугував глибокий душевний біль. Усім нам відома  складна ситуація з українським православ’ям в Україні й, можна сказати, катастрофічна з нашою Церквою, тут, в Америці.  Поштовхом же взятися за перо стала стаття  члена Ради Митрополії УАПЦ в США , доктора Анатолія Лисого “Собери нас, соборе!”, котра видрукувана у “Свободі” 20-го жовтня цього року.

 

Поява  ж статті знаного в Україні і у нас в громаді політичного, громадського, а тепер вже більше релігійного діяча, викликана відповіддю на матеріал українського журналіста Юрія Дорошенка з однойменною назвою, котрий був  опублікований в газеті “Україна молода” у номері за 18 вересня поточного року. Як пише доктор А. Лисий про статтю київського журналіста:

 

“Тон її песимістичний. Він є наслідком  багатолітніх розчарувань, спричинених невідрадними взаєминами в між церковному житті православної України”.

 

Роблячи такий вступ пан-доктор у своїх роздумах намагається довести протилежне і особливо підкреслюю тут провідну роль УПЦ в США. Розвиваючи цю думку доктор А. Лисий завершує свою статтю висновком, котрий взагалі відводить роль Бавнд-Бруку  новітньої Месії

 

“... тоді можемо сказати, що місія УПЦ в США, яка почалась в 1995 році, завершується успіхом”.

 

Яку ж місію має на увазі автор такого пасажу? Коли допомога  у творенні  справді Єдиної Помісної Української Православної Церкви, то тут я б вважав дії  офіційної УПЦ в США, особливо в останні часи, якраз абсолютно протилежними. Наївно сподіватися якусь вирішальну роль УПЦ в США. Будь-які її дії в принципі можуть мати лише дорадчий характер як для матірної Церкви, а тим більш для Константинополя.

 

Тим більш, що на радість українських патріотів з усіх усюд, та незважаючи на різкі протести Московської Патріархії, процес об”єднання українського православ”я і створення Помісної Української Церкви, визнаної вселенським православієм, розпочався під егідою Вселенської Константинопольської Церкви. Це, зокрема, зазначив у своїй доповіді Патріарх Київський і всієї Руси-України Філарет на Помісному соборі з нагоди 2000 - ліття Різдва Христового, котрий провадив свою роботу 9-10 січня цього року. Отож, наші брати по вірі й крові в Україні очевидно без допомоги Бавнд-Бруку  прямують до Богом та історією визначеного рішення. 

 

 А зі статті доктора А. Лисого виглядає так, що сьогодні у офіційного Бавнд-Бруку лише й турбот щодо релігійної ситуації в Україні. Ані слова, ані згадки про біду у власному церковному домі. Воістину як  у відомому історичному переказі, коли на згарищах стародавнього Риму Нерон грав на скрипку.

 

Як це не сумно, але ми маємо реальний розкол і в Українській Православній Церкві в США. Лише декілька цифр. Двадцять дві (22) парафії з близько ста офіційно висловили протест проти політики Консисторії у Бавнд-Бруці. Ця ж кількість відмовилася підтримувати Владику Антонія у суді проти парафії в Кліфтоні. Гадаю, що вже вісім українських православних парафій повністю відійшли від підпорядкування Бавнд-Брукові.

 

З кожним місяцем більшає кількість судових процесів поміж вірними  УПЦ в США та їх  ієрархами. З далекої Австралії прийшли вістки що і там розпочав Владика Антоній судовий процес проти парафії УПЦ. Що ж це як не розкол? Що ж це як не трагедія нашого церковного життя? За судовими пристрастями і  обопільними образами ми якось загубили суть того що діється. А вона страшна. Владика Антоній, ієрархи офіційного Бавнд-Бруку згідно церковних канонів та християнських традицій є духовними батьками своїх вірних, вони повинні дбати не лише фізичне, а в першу чергу моральне, здоров’я своєї пастви.

 

Натомість у запалі багатомісячної судової тяганини з парафійою Св. Вознесіня в Кліфтоні, Владика Антоній патетично заявляє про те, що він скорше згоден опинитися у в’язниці, аніж поступиться у з’ясуванні  стосунків з парафією. Де ж пастирська мудрість?! Зрештою, християнське всепрощенство?! Скидається, розгубив ці благодаті наш Владика подорожуючи вигідними американськими гайвеями на дорогих автомобілях.

 

Але, мене як українця у діаспорі, найбільше хвилює навіть не це. Ми всі смертні. І не лише прості вірні, а митрополити й патріархи. Минеться з часом й ініційоване Консисторією протистояння зі своїми ж вірними. Але кожного разу буваючи у Бавнд-Бруці я подумки дякую Господа за те, що допоміг нашому мудрому Патріархові Мстиславові  збудувати отаке диво на чужині. Бавнд-Брук для кожного свідомого українця – це не лише просто  український цвинтар і церковно-меморіальний комплекс в США . Це  символ нашого духу, нашої нескореності, нашої віри в те що Україна була ,є й буде завжди! Саме так, до речі, розглядають Бавнд-Брук  і наші свідомі брати в Україні.

 

Віддати ж на поталу, байдужим до наших батьківських почуттів, бавнд-бруківським  владикам наші святині на чужині ми не маємо морального права. Цим ми зрадимо не лише себе, а й зрадимо пам’ять тих мільйонів  закатованих українців, котрі боролися супроти червоних і білих імперій, супроти різного роду поневолювачів заради нашої мови,  культури, віри, заради взагалі існування самої  нації. Для когось це просто слова. Для мене ж стан душі. І на щастя, нас таких ще багато, тут, на еміграції.

 

Мені  надзвичайно прикро, коли доктор А. Лисий, який так багато, на загал, робив і робить для української справи, не розуміє або не хоче це зрозуміти. Адже відкинувши усі нашарування, котрими за роки обріс конфлікт, поміж офіційним Бавнд-Бруком та патріотично налаштованими вірними, його суть полягає в одному – ми хочемо й далі залишатися українцями на чужині, а владики з Консисторії воліли б, на кшталт комуністичних вельмож, бачити нас населенням без роду й племені.

 

Прикладів тому, що це саме так я б міг навести безліч. Пошлюся лише на останній. Він також досить промовистий. Нещодавно Консисторія прийняла рішення про перенесення  Українського музею з церкви-пам’ятника у інше місце. І нині унікальні експонати, зібрані трудами тисяч українських патріотів, як непотріб скидані на купу.