Mail and Commentary from Our Readers………………..January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003

Mail from Our Readers is our latest feature where we will post e-mail messages and excerpts from the cards and letter that we receive. In all cases e-mail addresses and names will not be published in order to protect the anonymity of the sender.

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

Editorial Note

In the October 2003 edition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Word, a “letter to the editor” was published from Dr. George Krywolap, Secretary of the Metropolitan Council, UOC-USA, responding to a letter from Professor Samijlenko that was originally published in the June 20, 2003 edition of Svoboda. Regular readers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Word know that letters to the editor rarely appear in the Ukrainian Orthodox Word, but when they are published they predictably support, defend, or provide a positive spin to the positions and actions of the hierarchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) in the US.

Previously we published a response to Dr. Krywolap from Mr. Simon Hahnibida under the headline “The Spin Continues..”. Following is a response to Dr. Krywolap, in Ukrainian, from Mr. Vitalij Grechniv, President of the Parish Board, St. Michael’s Parish Uniondale, Long Island, New York.

**********************

(In Ukrainian)

10-го грудня, 2003 р.

Докторе Криволапе,

Висилаю Вам відповідь на “Лист який вимагає відповіді”.

Прошу вжити Ваш авторитет секретаря Ради Митрополії УПЦеркви в США, щоб моя відповідь була опублікована в “Українському Православному Слові”.

Поскільки Ваше “посланіє” пересичене образами “і мертвим, і живим, і ненародженним...”, то моя відповідь є більш тактовна, бо я говорю негативно тільки про живих, які можуть оборонятися.

З належною Вам пошаною,

Віталій Гречнів

P.S.

Роздаю копії всім хто цікавиться церковним життям. Буду вдячний Вам якщо Ви мені в цьому допоможете.

*****************************************

“НА ПОЧАТКУ БУЛО СЛОВО....”

А ПОТІМ ПОЧАЛАСЯ НІСЕНІТНИЦЯ Д-РА КРИВОЛАПА

У своїй статті “Журба, якій немає кінця” опублікованій у тижневнику “Свобода”, професор І. Самійленко запитує”...чи теперішній провід УАПЦ в США дотримується заповіту Патріарха Мстислав? Чи пішов цей провід дорогою Патріарха до нашого Єрусалиму-Києва?” Він робе своє заключення, що цього не сталося!

В Українському Православному Слові появилася стаття “Лист який вимагає відповіді”. Автор якої д-р Юрій Криволап, не зважаючи на заголовок своєї статті, відповіді на запит професора Самійленка не дає! Замість того він використовує статтю щоб ще раз очорнити Патріарха Філарета і бл. п. Патріарха Володимира та образити професора Самійленка. До того ж ще й згадував “не злим, тихим словом” президента Кравчука.

Д-р Криволап, між усіми іншими гріхами Патріарха Філарета, закидає йому те що “...вл. Філарет ніколи в пресі не заявляє про свій вихід з юриздикції Московського Патріархії. То ж виглядає, що був покараний нею як її архирей”. Той факт, що Патріарх Філарет, після проголошення незалежності України не вважав потрібним повідомляти Москву та просити її дозволу на щобуть, я вважаю як доказ прояву патріотизму. Бути покараним та ще й проклятим Московською Патріархією, так само як було зроблене з гетьманом Іваном Мазепою, ставить Патріарха Філарета в історичні ряди борців проти фізичного і духовного поневолення України.

Д-р Криволап декілька разів харектерезує Патріарха Філарета “розвінчаним”, позбавленим сану”. Називає Патріарха “згасаючою зіркою РПЦеркви в Україні”. Так, російська зірка згасла, а натомість яскраво світить зірка незалежної Української Православної церкви.

Д-р Криволап пропонує вибрати “.....на “чільне місце” Київського Патріархату “незаплямленого” якщо хочемо щоб нас “прийняв і визнав православний світ”. Московська Патріархія заплямлює Патріарха Філарета, і ви їй прислужуєтесь в цьому, бо це ж для вас тепер братня Церква з якою ви є в євхаристійному поєднанні, ваш “парвославний світ”.

Професор Самійленко зробив помилку у своїй статті коли назвав теперішній провід у Бавнд Бруці проводом УАПЦ в США. УАПЦ в США, тобто незалежна, перестала існувати.

В продовж десятиліть ми відстоювали незалежність нашої Церкви доки не дочикалися незалежності нашої держави. Професор Самійленко, а з ним і багато нас, тужимо за тим моментом в історії нашої Незалежної Української Православної церкви в діаспорі коли наш владика Мстислав став першим Патріархом УПЦ України. Ми відчували що нарешті роки ізоляції від батьківщини закінчилися. Ми були горді тим, що ми гідно зберегли на чужині незалежною церкву, яку більшовики розтріляли в Україні і стали невід’ємною частиною нашої національної Православної Церкви яку очолив Патріарх Мстислав.

Професор Самійленко дуже тактовно говоре, що провідники церкви з Бавнд Бруку здійснили розрив УАПЦ в США з Київським Патріархатом. Ви прекрасно знаєте, д-ре Криволапе, що це не так, що в дісності це був не розрив а ЗРАДА! Якщо владикам з Бавнд Бруку не подобалось те що робилося в церковному житті в Україні, то вони моглиб затримати УПЦ в США далі незалежною, замість того щоб потайки передати її під зверхність чужинців.

Ви, пане докторе, цитуєте на ст. 72, Протоколу 15-го Собору УПЙ в США слова митрополита Константина: “Ми не будемо завжди під омофором Вселенського Патріарха, а лише до часу, коли буде визнана УПЦ Київського Патрірхату”. Чи Вселенський Патріарх знає про ці плани? В Пунктах Згоди нічого про вихід з під омофору не сказано. Нащо ж ви замилюєте нам очі!

Будьте ласкаві, поясніть читачам “Свободи” як відбуватиметься вихід з під омофору і юриздикції Вселенського Патріархату. Згідно з вашою логікою, митрополит Константин мусить заявити а пресі про свій відхід з юриздикції Вселенської Патріархії і, тоді він не буде покараний як її архієрей. Одне лише може не сподобатись Вселенському Патріархові, а саме, що прийшли до нього тишком-нишком а відходять гучно з заявою в пресі. Звичайно, його цей розголос не дуже розвеселить, але він напевно не накладе анафему на митрополита Константина як це зробила Московська Патріархія з Філаретом. Бачите, Росія боялася цілковито втратити духовний контроль над Україною, а що втратить Вселенська Патріархія коли ви від неї відійдете? Втратить пару розсварених між собою архиреїв та залякані парафії і духовенство – парафії втратою майна, а священики втратою парафій і пенсій.

Припустімо що неймовірне станеться і ви вийдете з під юриздикції Вселенського Патріархату. А що як Україна не захоче пийняти вас, новітніх яничар, і відповість вам словами Т. Шевченка: “Ох, як би то сталось, щоб ви не вертались, щоб і здихали, де ви поросли!” Що тоді ? Для всіх інших це була б велика проблема, але не для вас. Вам буде дуже легко переповзти від Другого до Третього Риму. Москва з радістю прийме всіх блудних синів у свої обійми.

Ви, докторе, чомусь не глянули на сусідню 73-тю ст. Протоколу, де митрополит Константин каже: “УПЦ в США залишилась і надалі існувати як самостійна УПЦерква”. Обидві цитати – одна на 72-ій ст. А друга на 73-ій, є ввічливо кажучи, брехнею.

Якщо УПЦ в США не є адміністративно підпорядковане Істанбулу, то чому ж Бавнд Бруцьким владикам не тільки були надані титули неіснуючих міст в Туреччені, а також від них були відібрані титули незалежної УПЦеркви в США? Ви прекрасно знаєте відповідь! Вживаючи ваші слова: “Як може в тій самій Церкві перебувати на столичній катедрі два єпископи з тим самим титулом...?” І дійсно, як в столиці Вашінгтоні могли бути в той самий час, в тій самій Церкві, два єпископи, Мелітон і Антоній? То ж “старший брат” грек залишився Вашінгтонським єпископом, а наш “самостійний” зрікся цього титулу.

На 65-ій ст. Протоколу подано слідуюче: “В. Гречнів говорить про ‘зраду Україні’ та називає ієрархів зрадниками”. Так, я говорив це тоді і повторюю знов, цей раз вам особиство, докторе Криволапе, ієрархи з Бавнд Бруку зрадили Патріарха Мстислава, зрадили наших батьків, зрадили нас! Заборона духовенству з США молитися з священиками в Україні, хіба що вони Московського Патріархату, є зрада Україні. Отже не треба повертатись до 1915 року щоб якось оправдати теперішній злочин Бавнд Бруцького єпископату.

Віталій Гречнів, Голова

Парафії Св. Михаїла, є

Юніондале, Ню Йорк

Грудень 2003р.

*****************************

15-го грудня, 2003

До Редакції “Українського Православного Слова”

Прошу надрукувати мою відповідь на статтю д-ра Криволапа “Лист який вимагає відповіді”.

Дуже дивно, що д-р Криволап відповідає професору І. Самійленку не у “Свободі”, де була надрукована стаття професора, а в вашій публікації. Д-р Криволап пише “В ім’я правди, дозволю спростувати читачам “Свободи”...”. Невже ж він не знає, що дуже мало читачів “Свободи” читають “Українське Православне Слово”? Мене дивує, чому він не подав свою відповідь до “Свободи”?

Я ж хочу зробити так, як повинно бути. Стаття д-ра Криволапа надрукована в “Українському Православному Слові” – відповідь на неї подаю до “Українського Православного Слова”.

З пошаною,

Віталій Гречнів

Гантінгтон Стейшан, Н.Й.

**********************************

THE SPIN CONTINUES……

In the October 2003 edition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Word, a “letter to the editor” is published from Dr. George Krywolap, Secretary of the Metropolitan Council, UOC-USA, responding to a letter from Professor Samijlenko that was originally published in the June 20, 2003 edition of Svoboda. Regular readers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Word know that letters to the editor rarely appear in the Ukrainian Orthodox Word, but when they are published they predictably support, defend, or provide a positive spin to the positions and actions of the hierarchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) in the US. So the content of Dr. Krywolap’s letter was no surprise. What did surprise me was the writer’s inability to understand or grasp the point of Professor Samijlenko’s original letter.

The Professor’s letter stated the obvious: when Patriarch Mstyslav was alive both the UOC in the US and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine were under his jurisdiction. In other words they were united then but that is no longer the case. Indeed, at this time, not only is the UOC in the US not united with any Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, but the UOC in the US is totally under the jurisdiction of a non-Ukrainian hierarch – the Patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul).

Dr. Krywolap spends many paragraphs explaining how the 1992 Sobor held in Ukraine to unite the UOC-KP and the UOAC was not initiated nor blessed by Patriarch Mstyslav and how Metropolitan Filaret formed the UOC-KP for self-promoting reasons. Dr. Krywopal quotes a proclamation from Patriarch Mstyslav that called for Metropolitans Filaret and Anthony (Masendych) to remove themselves from positions of power, etc. What Dr. Krywolap does not mention are the various Christmas and Easter encyclicals that were jointly signed and issued by Ukrainian bishops from the US and Ukraine, and appeared not only in the Ukrainian Orthodox Word but also in Svoboda and other periodicals.

Dr. Krywolap does not mention, but those of us present at the funeral of Patriarch Mstyslav remember quite well, Metropolitan Constantine and Archbishop Anthony concelebrating the Divine Liturgy with hierarchs from Ukraine (both the UOAC and UOC-KP) at St. Andrew’s Memorial Church. We also vividly remember Bishop Vsevolod and Metropolitan Vasyl (of UOC-Canada) standing outside the altar area with the Ukrainian Catholic bishops, refusing to concelebrate because both were under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul) and both were not permitted to join with their Ukrainian brothers. This was covered extensively in the Ukrainian Orthodox Word.

Nor does Dr. Krywolap mention, that after the demise of Patriarch Mstyslav, a Sobor was held in Ukraine, which elected Patriarch Volodymyr (Romaniuk). Present at this Sobor were representatives from the UOC in the US headed by Archbishop Anthony who was, for a brief time until he removed his name, a candidate for Patriarch. This also was covered extensively in the Ukrainian Orthodox Word.

The point I am making is that the UOC in the US was united with a Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, despite any struggles and differences that existed between the individual hierarchs.

There are many other convenient omissions. For example Dr. Krywolap makes a point that it was impossible to have two Metropolitans of Kyiv (Filaret and Mstyslav), while ignoring the fact that at the same time, according to Bound Brook, there were two presiding Metropolitans of the UOC in the US (Mstyslav and Constantine). I stress this because the UOC-USA hierarchs have repeatedly stated that Patriarch Mstyslav was the Patriarch of the Church in Ukraine, but only the Metropolitan of the UOC in the US. Documents reflect that Metropolitan Constantine was the Metropolitan of the UOC in the US at that same time. I guess this was fine for the US, but impossible for Ukraine.

However, the item that disturbed me the most was the quote attributed to Metropolitan Constantine from the 15^th Sobor (1998) of the UOC in the US stating that the church in the US is under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch only temporarily, until the Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarch is recognized. The obvious, unanswered question is: recognized by whom - the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian government, Rome, Turkey, Moscow? I re-examined the infamous Points of Agreement and did not find any reference to a “temporary jurisdiction” under the Patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul), as both Dr. Krywolap and Metropolitan Constantine would like us to believe. Maybe Dr. Krywolap has access to another signed document or letter that has not been made public. Or maybe Dr. Krywolap and his fellow apologist Dr. Lysyj have brainwashed themselves into believing that by accepting the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul), the UOC in the US has somehow helped or solidified Ukrainian Orthodox independence in Ukraine. After all hasn’t history shown that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has consistently helped to defend, protect and preserve the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and its identity? But history proves that the opposite is the case and there is no reason to believe or hope that this will change in the future. Or maybe both Dr. Krywolap and Dr. Lysyj both believe the unbelievable, otherwise how could they explain their acquiescence, support, and defense of the steps taken by the hierarchy of the UOC in the US.

Unlike Dr. Krywolap and Dr. Lysyj, I believe that the existence, independence, recognition, survival, growth and future of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church both in the US and in Ukraine will be determined and can be guaranteed only by the Ukrainian Orthodox people. Separating the UOC in the US from Ukraine and placing it under the jurisdiction of a non-Ukrainian hierarch weakens us. It threatens the identity and survival of the UOC in the US and it makes the fight for independence from Moscow more difficult for the UOC in Ukraine. I cannot name any other Orthodox Church in the US that has taken a similar action. Why was it done, who benefits from it, and why do individuals, such as Dr. Krywolap and Dr. Lysyj, continue to defend, justify and spin it.

Simon Nahnibida

****************************************************************

E-Mail to Save Our UOC…received November 20, 2003

Sir:

In the October 2003 (Vol. LIII Issue X) issue of the Ukrainian Orthodox Word the editor, in reporting on the 5-year lawsuit against Holy Ascension Church, wrote:

“…hierarchal… means simply that there is a hierarchy of administration in the government of our Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA…”

I completely disagree with this editorial interpretation. The Court ruling of September 3, 2003 clearly stated (and it is quoted on the left side of page 15 of Ukrainian Orthodox Word under item 1a) that “UOC-USA is a hierarchical church”. The court did not state “hierarchy of administration in…government”. You do not have to be a lawyer to understand there is a world of difference between the two statements.

According to the dictionary, the term “hierarch” comes from the Greek hieros (sacred) and archos (ruler). The term “hierarchical church” means one ruled or governed by bishops.

This is not what the UOC-USA is all about. From its inception the UOC-USA was founded on basic democratic principles. The UOC-USA Constitution clearly states that the “Sobor”, and not a hierarch, is the Supreme Organ of Government of the Church. Between the Sobors, which are held every three years, the Metropolitan Council is the Supreme Organ of Government. Both the Sobor and the Metropolitan Council consist of clergy and laypersons. Decisions within and by these two administrative entities are made by a majority vote of both clergy and laypersons. So there is no “hierarchy of administration” within the UOC-USA.

There exists a “hierarchy” or pecking order within the clergy of UOC-USA where a parish deacon reports to a parish priest, who in turn reports to a Dean, who reports to a Bishop (elected and approved by the Sobor), who reports to the Metropolitan. The Metropolitan is the “Spiritual Head” of UOC-USA, elected to that position by the Sobor made up of clergy and laypersons.

This concept may be difficult for a Catholic to understand. And since many of the UOC-USA clergy, including the editor of the Ukrainian Orthodox Word, are former-Catholic seminarians and priests, the Bound Brook Bishops have the support they need to pursue the “hierarchical” organization they desire.

In addition, this same editorial outlines the descending administrative order within the UOC-USA with individual parishes at the bottom. This again is a wrong interpretation. The individual parishes are all equal members of UOC-USA. The parish priest is automatically a delegate to the Sobor and each parish elects two laypersons as delegates (please note that the laypersons are positioned to outvote the clergy). Each parish shares in governing UOC-USA by participating in the Supreme Organ of Government - the Church Sobor. Therefore the parish is not at the administrative bottom of the pecking order, but actually at the top as it votes and makes decisions at the Sobor.

The UOC-USA Constitution can be viewed as a “contract” between each individual parish and UOC-USA. When parishes join UOC-USA, the Constitution provides them with certain rights, obligations, and privileges. This same Constitution also provides UOC-USA with rights, obligations and privileges. Among these is government by a “Sobor” based on democratic principles of church administration. Of equal if not greater importance, is the “Autocephaly” or independence of the UOC-USA from foreign rule, influence or domination.

When any point (term) specifically listed in the constitution or “contract” is violated, the contract is considered broken and stops being binding. In 1995 our hierarchs and the duped lay members of the Metropolitan Council gave up our church’s Autocephaly / independence by signing the infamous Points of Agreement in Istanbul. Clearly this action violated the “contract” (Church Constitution) under which each individual parish agreed to “join” UOC-USA. This gives each parish the right to determine its future course of action, including terminating the contract. It appears that right was denied, and the “contract” deemed not relevant by Judge Roger F. Mahon’s ruling stating that the “UOC-USA is a hierarchical church” and therefore not Sobornopravna (Councilliar).

That is what the 5-year lawsuit with Holy Ascension - Clifton was and still is all about. I hope that, even though the UOC-USA Consistory won the first legal skirmish, the court battle is far from over. I also hope that the other parishes recognize the implications for them if the Bound Brook Bishops succeed in their efforts to have the courts declare our church as being “hierarchical”.

Please… no name, e-mail address or city.

**************************************************************************************

Mr.Simon Nahnybida writes of………….

“ the attempt by the leadership of the UOC-USA to re-write history”

To: Save Our UOC Committee

Gentlemen;

I first noticed the disinformation regarding Patriarch / Metropolitan Mstyslav when Father Estocin's letter appeared in The Weekly stating that Bound Brook was never part of the reborn Ukrainian Autocephalous Church (UAOC) in Ukraine, and that Patriarch Mstyslav was not the Patriarch of the UOC-USA, but only of Ukraine.

Father Estocin further wrote "the letterhead that was utilized by Patriarch Mstyslav throughout his reign clearly indicates that he considered himself to be Patriarch of Ukraine and Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA". I do not understand this conclusion since I believe that the letterhead documents the unity of Kyiv with the UOC-USA by prominently incorporating St. Andrew's Memorial Church in Bound Brook within the boundaries of the Patriarchal seal.

Additional examples are plentiful:

1. The June 7, 1990 directive from the UOC-USA Consistory that "all Father Pastors of the

UAOC in the United States of America and throughout the world are hereby requested to

...commemorate the hierarchy of the UAOC as follows: His Holiness Mstyslav, Patriarch of

the Holy UAOC, Archbishops Constantine (followed by a list of archbishops in Ukraine, Their

Graces Bishops Anthony, Paisiy (followed by a list of bishops in Ukraine)".

2. The Ukrainian Orthodox Word (UOW) report that the 13th Sobor of the UOC-USA was

blessed and presided by Patriarch (not Metropolitan) Mstyslav.

3. The UOW announcement that there was only one world-wide UAOC, and only one Council of Bishops that

embraced both Ukraine and the Diaspora; this Council of Bishops was chaired by Patriarch Mstyslav and included

the hierarchs of the UOC-USA.

4. The sacred antimins used on the UOC-USA parish altars, signed by Patriarch (not Metropolitan) Mstyslav.

5. The elevation of Archbishop Constantine to Metropolitan of the UOC-USA by his acknowledged superior, Patriarch

Mstyslav, and confirmed by the Sobor, thereby replacing Patriarch Mstyslav in his capacity as Metropolitan of the

UOC-USA. How could the UOC-USA have had two simultaneous heads - two reigning Metropolitans?

Patriarch Mstyslav's title was "of Ukraine", with Kyiv as his ecclesiastic center. The Orthodox Churches, after all, are organized along national / ethnic lines. Isn't the Serbian Patriarch the Patriarch for Serbian Orthodox Christians whether they live in Serbia, the US, Canada, China or Tahiti? And what about the Rumanian, Bulgarian, Russian, etc. Ask the Orthodox Diaspora of these nations to name their patriarch and their respective ecclesiastic centers. It will not be Patriarch Bartholomew, and it will not be Istanbul or Constantinople. Ask the hierarchs of the UOC-USA to name their patriarch and their ecclesiastic center. Clearly, it is not Kyiv. But while Patriarch Mstyslav was alive, the answer would have been Kyiv. And therein lies the tragedy of the UOC-USA, and is the reason for the ongoing turmoil in our church.

However, an even greater tragedy is the attempt by the leadership of the UOC-USA to re-write history and to pretend that all of these events did not take place, especially in light of the fact that they were participants.

Simon Nahnybida

June 25, 2003

***********************************************************************

E-mail Received April 19, 2003

Your latest posting on the Holy Ascension at Clifton NJ case mentions that a Determination of Standing will be made in January 2003 by the Court of Judge Mahon in Flemington NJ. Because it is April already, what was the Determination of Standing? Am I missing your posting on this matter for some reason?

Reply: The decision on Determination of Standing has been delayed.

*********************************************************************

E-mail received February 25, 2003

Dear Sirs,

I, like you, share a certain dislike for the attitudes often displayed by both the Greek Archdiocese/Turkish Patriarchate (too Greek and power-hungry) and the OCA (too Russian and deny it, hiding behind the english language). I believe both are quite egocentric and do too much to force themselves on others. I am neither Greek nor Russian and am always made feel like a "lower class" Orthodox by those two groups. However, in reading your website, I'd like to make a couple observations:

1)http://wwww.saveouruoc.com/didyouknow.html
You discuss here the "28th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (451) which extended the EP’s authority to “the dioceses of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, and to the barbarian lands.”" You did misquote the canon. It in fact says in a correct translation that his authority is over the barbarian lands, by name: Asia, Pontius and Thrace. At that time, those were the barbarian lands. There is no mention of North America, therefore the Church of Russia does have the precedence as the closest Church and the first to
send missionaries. (I realize you have issues with the Church of Russia, but this is the fact according to the canons.)

2)http://wwww.saveouruoc.com/scoba.html
In your review of this subject, and the short segments from the article by Archbishop Nathaniel, you make a small but significant error. The Church formerly known as the Russian Metropolia in America was incorporated as "The Orthodox Church IN America". When Archbishop Nathaniel uses the term "the Orthodox Church of America" he is referring to the Orthodox Church in its entirety here in America, not the "OCA". Perhaps the reader of the article is not so familiar with such English nuances, but due to the mistake you are accusing the Archbishop of a message he was not saying. (It would be appropriate for you to revise you

commentary on the issue or to remove it, as your inaccuracy only hurts your credibility.)

I am sympathetic to your cause, but urge you to be as factually correct and intellectually honest as possible in order for others to take you seriously.

A fellow Orthodox Christian in America.

Editors Comment:

We thank “A fellow Orthodox Christian in America” for bringing the above to our attention. Appropriate corrections have been made.

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

E-mail received 01-28-03

Portland, Oregon Update

Antony and Estocin met with the (St. John the Baptist Parish) council on Saturday evening and saw that the well was deep and full of water. They then conveniently cancelled the public meeting that was to have been held on Sunday afternoon. After the Sunday dinner, (they) instead held private audiences with any who wanted to voice their concerns about the future of the parish.

I have it on good authority that during Antony's numerous ongoing telephone sessions to find a way out of the inevitable spectacle for all of the Bound Brook insiders concerned, Antony has consistently probed about my involvement in the parish. He apparently did that at the meeting on Saturday night.

I will provide you with Ukrainian and English texts which will provide historical contexts and an understanding why Antony was so "chemnay" this weekend.

Slawko Kosiwskiy

****************************************

Following are several e-mail’s that we received pertaining to the arrival of Archbishop Antony and Fr. Frank Estocin at St. John the Baptist Parish, Portland, Oregon on January 25, 2002

***************************************

01-23-03 E-mail sent to Archbishop Antony on the occasion of his upcoming visit on January 25 to St. John the Baptist, Portland, Oregon.

Attention: Antony, Archbishop of Hierapolis / Patriarchate of Constantinople

The National Council of Churches website (ncccusa.org), of which the UOC of the USA is a member, incorrectly lists the Church as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America in its MEMBER COMMUNIONS link. That link is found about halfway down the index on the left side of the home page.

I thought that you might want to know but forgot to include a note with the earlier email.

Also, (on your upcoming visit to St. John’s the Baptist Parish) will you be bringing the Portland parish a check for $2871.15 plus compound interest for expenses incurred as the result of the violation of immigration law with respect to the previous pastor's assignment?

See you soon!

****************************************

I am forwarding an email received from St. John the Baptist parish in Portland, OR.

In the Word attachment, you will find the second request for the removal of the Very Rev. Fr. Iwan Michailovich Semko from St. John's parish.

The so called Antony, Archbishop of Hierapolis / Patriarchate of Constantinople will be arriving in Portland on Jan. 25, and will meet with the parish after Divine Liturgy on Sunday. Immediately after that, Antony will be departing for St. Michael's parish San Francisco, CA, presumably also to put out fires and shore up the empire.

Slawko Kosiwskiy

************************************************************************

E-mail received 01-27-03

Literary Review

How about that January 2003 issue of the “new” Ukrainian Orthodox Word? Full color, nice graphics and good quality paper. Not bad from an organization that is in deep financial doo doo and which spends more that 50% of their budget on administrative salaries.

Also TWO pages of advertisement from Scope Travel, Inc. We suppose that is in gratitude to Archbishop Antony for organizing a 40+ group on a “pilgrimage” to Ukraine in October.

Just out of curiosity…how many bishops does UOC-USA have in USA? From the 12 pictures and one portrait of Archbishop Antony in the January 2003 issue you would guess only ONE bishop. Whatever happened to Metropolitan Constantine and Archbishop Vsevolod? Are they still part of UOC-USA?

The only thing missing from the “new” Ukrainian Orthodox Word is literary excellence of the type that was in every issue when the Orthodox Word, under the literary guidance of then Metropolitan Mstyslav, was truly Ukrainian. Now it is nothing but a colorful “rag” without any literary or redeeming qualities whatsoever. And they have the audacity to list a $30.00 yearly subscription price on the inside cover? Not from me they won’t !!

In a nutshell the “NEW” Ukrainian Orthodox Word is colorful, but a “rag” is still a “rag” no matter how may pictures of Archbishop Antony they use.

Name withheld by request of the author.

************************************************************************

Back to Front Page

Back to Mail from Our Readers