Mail
and Commentary from Our Readers………………..January 1, 2005 to present date.
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 In all cases e-mail addresses and names will not be
published in order to protect the anonymity of the sender.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
E-mail
Commentary Received August 12, 2005
From the President’s Desk
July, 2005 UOC-USA
Consistory Circular
In the latest Consistory Circular, which is issued from the “Office of the President”, meaning penned by His Eminence Archbishop Antony of Ierapolis, one and a half of the six pages are focused on explaining five lawsuits filed against our UOC-USA. I had no knowledge about four of these lawsuits, but I have been paying attention to the proceedings involving the Holy Ascension Church in Clifton, NJ.
I was surprised by the spin the Archbishop gave to
the court decision, but I am not a lawyer and will leave the arguments about
the meaning of the judge’s ruling to the legal experts. What caught my attention was the terminology
used in the opening sentence of the third paragraph written about the legal
issues: “In response to the lawsuit, the former
“parish board members” filed a counterclaim attempting to overturn the
decisions of our Church Sobor concerning our Church’s relationship with the
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and to change the very nature of our
Church from a hierarchal structure to a congregational one, in which each
congregation is an independent entity responsible to no higher authority, which
is completely foreign to Holy Orthodoxy”.
To the best of my knowledge the current and not the
former parish board members filed the lawsuit, and no one was trying to “overturn” any decision of any Sobor, though if one
wants to get technical the Sobor made many decisions and it amazes me how the
Archbishop selectively chooses the ones to follow.
The phrase “our Church’s relationship
with the Ecumenical Patriarch” caused me to pause. What a curious word to use to describe the
subjugation of an independent Church to the authority of a foreign
prelate. Relationship is something I
have with my wife, my children, friends, colleagues, etc. Using that word was just another attempt at
disinformation: almost like saying those “loonies” at Holy Ascension just don’t
want our Church to have a relationship with the Ecumenical Patriarch.
It has been said many times before, but is worth
repeating over and over: what the Holy Ascension parish board objected to, what
many other parishes voiced objection to, what many people have objected to, was
not “a relationship”, not “recognition”, but giving-up, or subjugating, the
independent status of UOC-USA to a foreign prelate. No other non-Greek Orthodox Church in the US, with the exception
of the Carpatho-Russians, is under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Not the Russians, Serbs, Bulgarians,
Romanians, Armenians. In fact even the
Greek Orthodox Church in Greece is not under his jurisdiction. Why are we? – Is our UOC-USA in someway
inferior to the other Churches? Why has
this question never been answered? It
is not going to go away. Winning or
losing lawsuits will not make it go away.
Making trips to visit Ukraine and pictures embracing Mr. Yushchenko will
not make it go away. The question will
continue to be asked – why are we not united with the Orthodox Church in
Ukraine, but have put ourselves under the jurisdiction of a foreign prelate,
and it really doesn’t matter where that prelate sits – Moscow or Istanbul.
Archbishop Antony further writes that Holy Ascension
Church by filing a counter claim attempted “to change the very nature of our Church from hierarchal to a
congregational one”. This statement is a complete absurdity
demonstrating that the Archbishop either has no knowledge or chooses to
completely ignore the UOC-USA Constitution.
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, since 1921, has been “SOBORNOPRAVNA” based on democratic principles where
clergy and laypersons share equal authority in the administrative functions of
the Church. The UOC-USA Constitution states that the Church “Sobor” is the
highest administrative organ of UOC-USA and not the Metropolitan, Archbishop,
Bishop or President of the Consistory. The Constitution provides for the
election of the “Metropolitan Council” consisting of CLERGY
AND LAY PERSONS. The Sobor is convened every three (3) years, but in
between Sobors the Metropolitan Council is the highest administrative
authority. Nowhere in the UOC-USA Constitution does it state that the UOC-USA
is hierarchal.
In its decision the Supreme Court of New Jersey DID NOT re-affirm that the structure of UOC-USA is
hierarchal or reject congregationalism. In essence the Supreme Court
acknowledged that UOC-USA is a “hybrid entity”. This is interpreted that in
matters of religion and Church dogma the Church is “hierarchal”, but in matters
of administration the Church is “Counciliar” or Sobornopravna.
Just one additional comment in closing, how
unbelievable is Archbishop Antony’s statement that the legal fees expended by
the Consistory were “under $15,000.00”. In
today’s world one cannot hire a law clerk for less than $100,000 per year never mind a high priced
legal expert in church litigation such as Mr. Raymond Rehill.
In summary “From the President’s Desk” we continue
to get spin, spin and more spin mixed with half-truths.
S. Taras
August 12, 2005
****************************************************************************************************
E-Mail Received 3-7-05
Myopia
and the Bound Brook Hierarchs!
Am I the only one that is struck
by the irony associated with the frenzy of activity by the Bound Brook hierarchs
brought about by the election of President Yushchenko: letters of
congratulations, sympathy, visits, invitations to come to Bound Brook,
premature announcements that the visit will occur, etc. All this activity from the same hierarchs
who publicly stated in an encyclical that the election in Ukraine was not a
choice between “good or evil” – both candidates were the same type of “nice
people”. All this activity from the
same hierarchs who stated that the UOC-USA has to look after its own interests in
the US and has no business getting involved with the Orthodox Churches in
Ukraine. Indeed if I am not mistaken,
the latter was an integral part of their pledge to their spiritual superior –
the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Now these hierarchs have traveled
to Ukraine to “advise” the President of Ukraine on how to bring about the unity
of the Orthodox Churches. It is common
knowledge that they are pushing the concept of “inviting the Ecumenical
Patriarch” to come to Ukraine and unite the Orthodox Churches. Most likely they are recommending that this
united Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine be under the jurisdiction of the
Ecumenical Patriarch.
I pray that the new President does
not heed their advice. The Ukrainian Orthodox
people do not need outsiders to resolve their internal issues – not Moscow, not
Istanbul, not Jerusalem, not Belgrade, and certainly not Bound Brook. Ukraine is an independent country and the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church must be independent, equal to other Orthodox
Churches, with its own Patriarch and not subservient to any foreign
jurisdiction. By the way, this church
already exists – it is the “unrecognized and un-canonical” UOC-KP.
A few thoughts about the
invitation extended to President Yushchenko to visit Bound Brook. There was a great deal of symbolism when the
first president of Ukraine visited the UOC-USA center in Bound Brook. He was acknowledging the role played by the
Church in preserving the culture, language and identity of Ukraine in the
Diaspora. Also, he was paying homage to
Patriarch Mstyslav for his many years of service and for his unrelenting
defense of the rights of the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church. It is important to point out
that the first president did not pay homage to Bishop Vsevolod nor did he visit
the Ukrainian diocese that was part of the Greek Orthodox Church under the
Ecumenical Patriarch.
The symbolism associated with
Bound Brook was profound. The Memorial
Church stood tall in testament to the sacrifices of our parents and all those
who could not speak to the free world.
All Ukrainians throughout the world understood this symbolism. Everyone understood this except the current
hierarchs of the UOC-USA. Without any
hesitation or remorse, Archbishop Antony publicly denied the reasons Bound
Brook was built in court papers in the lawsuit with the Clifton, NJ Parish.
He denied many facts that were the foundations of forming a distinct and
independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the US. He was never chastised by the Ukrainian community nor was he held
accountable for his statements.
Unfortunately, because of the
myopia and personal self-interests of the Bound Brook bishops, the UOC-UCA
merged with Bishop Vsevolod’s diocese thereby rejecting the ideals that were
integral to the establishment of Bound Brook.
For years, Archbishop Antony and his sycophants have been trying to
Americanize the UOC-USA and separate it from the Ukrainian language and tradition. Pan-orthodoxy, cooperation with the OCA,
becoming a diocese of the Greek Church, are the achieved goals and legacy of
Archbishop Antony and his Bound Brook brother bishops. And now these bishops travel to Ukraine
trying to create an image of being Ukrainian patriots?
Hopefully President Yushchenko
understands these events and when and if he decides to visit Bound Brook he
will make it clear that the visit’s purpose is to pay homage to the late
Patriarch Mstyslav and to the millions of Ukrainians that were killed for the
crimes of wanting their own country, language and destiny. He should make sure that his visit couldn’t
be interpreted as an endorsement of the policies, tactics or vision of the
present hierarchy of the UOC-USA.
And that leads to the all
important question: what is the Bound Brook bishop’s myopic vision for the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine – for it to be subservient to
Istanbul? How and why is that different
than subservience to Moscow? What
advice can Archbishop Antony and his bother bishops possibly give to the
President of Ukraine and why should he listen?
Simon Nahnybida
Basking Ridge, NJ