Back to Front Page

News From January 1, 2005 to Present Date

CHURCH FOR SALE!

Pinellas Park, Florida

It is no secret that the Consistory in Bound Brook is in dire financial straits and has difficulties meeting its payroll with the extravagant globe-trotting adventures of its Greek bishops. But not to worry! Archbishop Antony of Ieropolis has found his pot-of-gold under the “For Sale” sign.

One of the first parishes on the block appears to be St. Michael’s Parish in Pinellas Park, Florida. This modest parish located on the west coast of central Florida is supported primarily by retirees whose numbers have diminished through attrition. The parish priest, the Reverend Michael Petlak, served the parish for years, but now is succumbing to geriatric incapacity. In recent months he collapsed twice during the liturgical services.

The parishioners appealed to the Consistory for help, since there are a number of retired pastors in the area who are willing to undertake the task, but were summarily turned away. In so many words the parishioners were told that with the departure of Reverend Petlak the parish will be dissolved, its assets sold and handed over to Bound Brook.

The liquidation plans do not seem to stop with Pinellas Park, Florida. Several other parishes have also been warned that, if their numbers do not improve, they will face dissolution.

The parishioners are dumbfounded and are seeking help from anyone who can prevent this atrocity, but their fate seems to be sealed by the calculating demand for cold cash by the Bishop of Ieropolis.

Save Our UOC Committee

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

Парафія Св. Вознесіння

подала відповідь

на апеляцію Баунд Брукцьких Єпископів до Верховного Суду штату Ню Джерзі.

Не погоджуючи з рішенням Апеляційного Суду який признав що УПЦ-США в “релігійних” справах має “ієрapхальну структуру” а нерухоме майно Парафії остаточно лишається в руках теперішньої повноправної управи Св. Вознесіння в Кліфтоні, Консисторія УПЦ-США під керівництвом владики Антонія подала апеляцію цього рішення до Верховного Суду штату Ню Джерзі.

Владика Антоній висловлює і подає апеляцію на підставі......

“Без доступу до цівільного суду, (УПЦ-США) немає можливости досягнути контролю над церковними будинками і майном”

і дальше.....

“індивідуальні підсудні (так звана повноправна Управа і парафіяни Св. Вознесіння) мають вільне право відійти від Парафії Св. Вознесіння і Діоцезії (УПЦ-США). Але Парафія (і все майно) примушене залишитись в Діоцезії (УПЦ-США).”

На вище цитання з офіційних судових документів подано Владикою Антонієм до Верховного Суду, Парафія Св. Вознесіння подала слідуючу відповідь.....

“На підставі безсуперечливих фактів, (ця) суперечка перед цим Судом репрезентує, не внутрішнє сперечання одної релігійної установи а сперечання поміж двома окремими визначними релігійними організаціями, кожна під своїм окремим провідництвом, організаційними структурами і центром управлінням...”

“Клерики-позивачі (єпископи УПЦ-США) були клерики-провідники Української Православної Церкви в Сполучених Штатах Америки....”

“ В 1994 і 1995 р. ці клерики заключили секретні, неправомочні і приховані переговори з Грецьким церковним провідником в Туретчині які довели до приєднання до його юриздикції, їх вибір до офіційних позицій в його церкві і прийняття нових офіційних титулів під його авторитетом. Все це було зроблено без обізнання і згоди Парафій і парафіян УПЦ-США. Ці акти з боку бувших клериків-провідників УПЦ-США визначають залишення їх офіційних посадах в УПЦ-США, зречення всього авторитету в УПЦ-США і в результаті відмовлення зобов’язаности Парафій або парафіян до цих клериків-позивачів які відріклись від УПЦ-США.”

“Леґальні наслідки залишення клериками-позивачами їх офіційні позиції в УПЦ-США є під повноправним переглядом цього Суду.”

To read the entire two (2) transcripts of Holy Ascension reply and appeal go to:

Brief in Opposition to Bound Brooks Bishops

Response to Bound Brooks Bishops Opposition

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

Holy Ascension Church, Clifton, NJ

files official reply to

Bound Brook Bishop’s appeal to

NJ Supreme Court.

Excerpts from official court transcripts of Holy Ascensions reply:

“It is a matter of uncontested fact, however, that the dispute before this Court represents, not an internal dispute within a single religious body, but in fact a contest between two separate and distinct religious organizations, each with their own separate leaders, organizational structures, and headquarters.”

“The clerical Plaintiffs (Bishops of UOC-USA) were clerical officers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the United States of America.…”

“In 1994 and 1995, however, these clerics engaged in secretive, unauthorized and clandestine negotiations with a Greek church authority in Turkey which led to their joining his jurisdiction, their election to official positions within his church, and their assumption of new religious titles under his authority. None of this was done with the knowledge or consent of the Parish or Parishioners, nor any other Parish within the UOC-USA, Inc. These actions on the part of the former clerical leaders of the UOC-USA, Inc., constituted an abandonment of their corporate offices within the UOC-USA, Inc.; a renunciation by them of all forms of corporate authority which they formerly held as officers of the UOC-USA, Inc.; and, consequently, the negation of any obligation of any kind on the part of the Parish or Parishioners to these Plaintiff-Bishops who had abandoned the UOC-USA, Inc.

“The legal consequences of the abandonment by the clerical Plaintiffs of their offices within the UOC-USA, Inc., are within the purview of this Court...”

To read the entire two (2) transcripts of Holy Ascension reply and appeal go to:

Brief in Opposition to Bound Brooks Bishops

Response to Bound Brooks Bishops Opposition

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

First an Episcopalian, then a Roman Catholic,

a Ukrainian Catholic, an Anglican, a Russian Orthodox

and now a Ukrainian Orthodox in UOC-USA ?

Next….. maybe a Rabbi ?

We report…………..……You decide!

Priest from United Kingdom adjusts to life in Monessen Valley, PA

By Stacy Wolford
VALLEY INDEPENDENT
Tuesday, February 8, 2005

MONESSEN - The Rev. Gregory Woolfenden has dedicated his life to serving the church - a career choice that has taken him throughout the United Kingdom.

His life took another path recently though - one that would require him to move out of his native land to a foreign country.

Woolfenden is now presiding over the St. Nicholas Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Monessen, his first assignment in America.

Although he has visited this country over the years, this is the first time Woolfenden has lived anywhere but in the United Kingdom.

It's been a change for me," said Woolfenden, "but a pleasant one."

Woolfenden was born in Liverpool, U.K., and was brought up in the Church of England, an Episcopalian church.

As a young adult, he became Roman Catholic and entered the Venerable English College seminary in Rome.

It was there he received degrees in philosophy and theology and renewed a growing interest in eastern churches by singing in the choir at a Russian college and attending services at St. Josaphat's Ukrainian Catholic Church, where he developed "good and lasting friendships."

Woolfenden said that in "spite of some inner doubts," he was ordained a deacon and priest in the Roman Catholic Church and served in parishes and in campus ministry.

He completed his master's degree at Manchester University, also assisting diocesan administration.

It was during this time he was given a bi-ritual "indult" so he could celebrate Mass for Ukrainian Catholics.

He was then appointed a lecturer in liturgy at the Anglican seminary at Ripon College, Cuddeson, Oxford.

While teaching, he completed his doctorate at London University and was made a member of the faculty of theology of Oxford University.

Woolfenden said it was over the years teaching at Ripon College that he began to think about changing his life once again.

He was eventually received as a priest into the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow's eparchy of Sourozh.

He became a monk last July.

As enrollment started to decline at Ripon College, Woolfenden's future as a full-time teacher became jeopardized and he decided he needed yet another change.

"I had been teaching for so long and I didn't want to become stale," he said. "I had been thinking for awhile about moving to America."

He sought out his longtime friend, the Rev. Bazyl Zawierucha of Rome, who in turn put him in touch with Archbishop Antony of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Bound Brook, N.J.

"He informed me there was a post open in Monessen and now I am here," he said.

He arrived in Monessen Oct. 21.

St. Nicholas Church has a faithful congregation of about 80.

"People here are very nice and dedicated to their church," Woolfenden said.

Woolfenden replaced the Rev. Victor Trotsjke, who is now serving a church in Detroit, Mich.

He said that Monessen is much smaller than the areas of Oxford, but says he is enjoying the sunshine, as weather in the U.K. is often overcast and gray.

He is still getting used to the harsh southwestern Pennsylvania winters, but has ventured around the Mon Valley a little, visiting Cedar Creek Park and Ohiopyle.

"I am looking forward to spring and seeing the other places in the area," he said.

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

Funeral of Victor Yuschenko’s mother officiated by

Patriarch Filaret

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

Ukrainian Orthodox leader raps Russian influence!

On the Catholic World News web site appeared an article in which Patriarch Filaret was quoted…..

“Thanks to the imperial thinking of the so-called Third Rome [Moscow], Ukrainian Orthodoxy remains divided".

He urged the Orthodox people of Ukraine to put aside those divisions, and unite in "a single national Ukrainian Orthodox Church."

To read the complete article on the Catholic World News website go to:

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=34801

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

UOC-USA

Appeal Documents

submitted to

New Jersey Supreme Court!

After notification on January 7, 2005 that an appeal will be made, on January 24, 2005 an official 17 page document titled “Petition for Certification and Appendix” was filed by UOC-USA with the NJ Supreme Court.

It took SEVENTEEN PAGES of legal mumbo jumbo with important sounding legal references for the hierarchs in Bound Brook to state that which, throughout this entire case, was and is most unabashedly obvious, and can be summarized in two short sentences.

We quote from the above noted UOC-USA official court document…….

“Without access to the civil court, the church (UOC-USA) has no means of …..

regaining control over its church building and property”.

and….

“The individual defendants (i.e. the legally elected Church Board and Holy Ascension parishioners) are free to disassociate themselves from the Parish (Holy Ascension Church) and the Diocese. But the Parish (and its property) must remain in the Diocese”.

How much more simpler can it be?

Forget about religion, orthodoxy, canonicity, saving souls, Ecumenical Patriarchate, piety, humility, love and respect, Kyivan Patriarchate, clergy setting good examples, Points of Agreement with Istanbul, Sobors, teaching the word of God, etc. etc. etc…………….

IT IS ALL ABOUT CHURCH BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY

AND NOTHING ELSE!

And, according to Archbishop Antrony of Ierapolis, if the legally, duly elected Church Board and current majority of 300+ family parishioners of Holy Ascension Church in Clifton, NJ do not agree with South Bound Brook they can leave…………

AS LONG AS THE PROPERTY REMAINS IN ARCHBISHOP ANTONY’S HANDS.

That is what it is all about our dear readers and supporters…..church buildings and property.

To read the entire appeal document (in PDF format), please go to appealuocusa. For those who do not have an Adobe PDF Reader you may download a free version at www.adobe.com.

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

ARCHBISHOP ANTONY LAUNCHES

ANOTHER COURT ACTION!

On Christmas Day, January 7, while the parishioners of Holy Ascension Church in Clifton, NJ joyously celebrated the Birth of Our Savior, Archbishop Antony of Ierapolis launched court proceedings in the Supreme Court of New Jersey against them. At stake are the property rights that were unanimously denied him by the Appellate Court. After a decade of intimidation, threats and litigation, the Appellate Court REVERSED the Chancery Court’s decision to hand over the property and finances of Holy Ascension to Archbishop Antony’s surrogates and left the property rights in the care of the duly elected Holy Ascension Church Council.

This action on January 7^th 2005 by Archbishop Antony should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind about his real objectives……He wants direct control of the Holy Ascension property and finances, and he will settle for no less!

While the good Archbishop was manipulating the legal system against his people, the faithful of Holy Ascension enjoyed an open house, the annual parish tradition that follows the bilingual Christmas Divine Liturgy. Bonhomie and caroling filled the hall. Splashes of orange dazzled the eye and the unyielding resound of the mantra from Maidan in Kyiv rang out in the air.

РАЗОМ НАС БАГАТО....….НАС НЕ ПОДОЛАТИ!!

TOGETHER WE ARE MANY…..

…..WE WILL NOT BE VANQUISHED!!

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

APPELLATE COURT DECISION

On December 27, 2004 the Appellate Court Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey issued a decision in the lawsuit of UOC-USA against Holy Ascension Church, Clifton, New Jersey.

The court documents are presently being studied by attorneys for Holy Ascension and complete detailed information of the decisions implications will be provided at the conclusion their review.

For those that are interested in reading the entire 25 page decision of the Appellate Court we are posting a link to the document which is available only in Adobe (PDF) format. Decision 2005. For those who do not have an Adobe PDF Reader you may download a free version at www.adobe.com.

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

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HEALING

AND

MOVING FORWARD!

The clear victory of the Orange Revolution is a giant step in transforming our beloved motherland Ukraine from a muscovite vassal state into an independent and flourishing nation. This historic event provides a unique opportunity for reconciliation and healing across the spectrum of Ukrainian society, including for our enslaved Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Despite the treacherous endorsement of Moscow’s candidate by Metropolitan Mefodij of the UAOC, who is under the spiritual omophor of Metropolitan Constantine of Bound Brook. and the inexcusable, enigmatic position published and circulated by the UOC-USA bishops, the Ukrainian electorate did recognize and did choose between good and evil. How the hierarchs of our church could take the same position as the Moscow Patriarch, and close their eyes to the poisoning, the beheading, etc. is beyond comprehension. Did their desire not to offend their canonical brethren in Moscow and Istanbul outweigh their obligation to stand-up for truth and for the future of Ukraine? They should answer to their flock and the Ukrainian Diaspora for their shameful position.

Regardless of UOC-USA hierarchs’ stance, the Orange Revolution provided our nation with countless courageous and unyielding patriots who stood shoulder to shoulder in defense of our motherland Ukraine. While Bound Brook’s UOAC and the UOC-MP openly supported the Moscow puppet candidate, the Kyivan Patriarch stood unwaveringly behind President Yuschenko. Patriarch Filaret was prominent in the sea of orange on the Maidan, offering prayers, encouragement, support and strength. Privately he prayed with and counseled the new president and nurtured his spirit to persist. His behavior was reminiscent of how our late Patriarch Mstyslav would have responded to this historical event

The time has come to throw off Moscow’s stranglehold on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The time has come to take back all the holy places, the monasteries, the Churches that Kuchma turned over to the Moscow backed UOC-MP. The time has come for the Ukrainian head-of-state to demand (not ask for) recognition by World Orthodoxy of an independent and free Ukrainian Orthodox Church. And the time has come for the bishops of Bound Brook to put aside their differences with the Kyivan Patriarchate and voice their allegiance, support and defense of a Moscow-and-Istanbul free Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

The time has come to be united with our brothers and sisters in Ukraine, and not worry about union or canonicity with Greeks, Turks, Russians or the OCA.

Let us use this opportunity to reconcile, to heal, and to move forward.

We had an Orange Revolution in Ukraine.

Now we need an Orange Revolution in South Bound Brook.

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

News from the City of Orange, Kyiv, Ukraine

On December 6^th Victor Yushchenko told thousands of chanting supporters gathered at Kiev's main square and waving his campaign's orange flags………

"We are witnessing a struggle between forces of good and forces of evil,"

Meanwhile the………….

UOC-USA Bishops take the Low Road

In a November 24, 2004 communication on the election crisis in Ukraine the UOC-USA Bishop proclaimed……

“Neither can we simply say that this is a battle between “good” and “evil”.

That battle has already been won.”

and declared the 1932-33 Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor) as….

“great loss of life in Ukraine for political purpose or principles”.

and………

…. “we cannot simplify the issues by portraying Yuschenko as a friend of the West

and

Yanukovich as a friend of Moscow”.

At a time in Ukrainian history when a firm stand is necessary on the side of freedom, the UOC-USA Bishops take a non-committal position afraid to offend their canonical Moscow brethren.

The November 24^th press release of the Permanent Conference of Ukrainian Orthodox Bishops Beyond the Borders of Ukraine is a fence-straddling communication which is an insult to the hundreds of thousand of freedom loving protesters in Kyiv, Ukraine.

The UOC-USA Bishops declared from the comfort and safety of their “hideout” in So. Bound Brook….

“We, who protested for 75 years about the great loss of life in Ukraine for political purposes or “principles”, cannot justify physical harm or death inflicted upon anyone in this major crisis.”

As a famous “bard” once stated….. “Me thinks that thou protest too much”.

UOC-USA BISHOPS……..

STOP “PROTESTING” AND DO SOMETHING POSITIVE THAT WILL HELP UKRAINE AND HER FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE RESIST THE YOKE OF OPPRESSION THAT THE KUCHMA REGIME IS TRYING TO PLACE ON THEIR NECKS AND DRAG THEM TO MOSCOW!

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

N.J. Appellate Court

Hears

Arguments!

UOC-USA Church Court a “Kangaroo Court”???

On November 17, 2004, the long awaited oral arguments in the case of Archbishop Antony vs. the Holy Ascension Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Clifton NJ. were presented to a three Judge panel of the NJ Court of Appeals in Trenton, NJ.

The presentations for the defendants (Holy Ascension) were first made by Myroslaw Smorodsky, who argued the issues as they related to the facts and complaints of the defendants. Attorney Smorodsky outlined the historical roots of the Ukrainian Church, its constitution and its long standing practices where the Hierarchs oversaw the spiritual needs of the faithful and the congregational needs, ownership of the property and finances was the purview of the parish laity. He pointed out the unique nature of the UOC, its congregational structure, its genesis and continuum into today’s current institution. Attorney Smorodsky outlined the nature of this dispute pointing again to the fact that our Church has always been autocephalous and that the agreement struck by our then Bishops violated our Charter of Incorporation, our constitution and the trust our faithful placed in their previous Bishops. When questioned by the Judges, Attorney Smorodsky pointed out that the Parish of Holy Ascension had no desire to secede from the Diocese and sought to address this issue in an amiable way. Regrettably the rogue Bishops took this matter to a civil court. When asked why did we not avail ourselves of the Church court, the Mr. Smorodsky responded that the question needs to be directed to the Plaintiffs since that was an option they chose not to exercise.

Professor Lanier argued the Case Law pointing out the previous rulings of courts in similar cases, where they were applicable and were they were not. He explained the merits of those decisions as they pertain to this case or conversely why they do not. He emphasized the hybrid nature of the UOC which was founded in 1921 and continued in the USA to the present. He was asked about the expert witness, Professor Byrd. Prof. Lanier pointed out that not only was Prof. Byrd a world renowned expert on Orthodoxy and the Ukrainian Church reborn in 1921, but he was also honored by the Pope for his work on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, of which he is a member.

Attorney Michael Rehill represented Archbishop Antony and essentially repeated his claim from previous appearances, that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was Hierarchical in structure and the issue is clear as to its immunity to civil court action.

When asked repeatedly by the Judges why this issue was not directed to the Church Court, attorney Rehill hesitated to provide a clear response. The Judge asked what does the Church Court represent and who presides over it. Attorney Rehill answered “the Bishops”. One Judge commented, “that is a Kangaroo Court, isn’t it?” The Judges, attorneys and observers were all bemused by the cutting, yet insightful observation.

When pressed with the question of why they, the Bishops, need a civil court’s decision, attorney Rehill responded….

“Because the Bishops have no way of enforcing their decisions. They have no police force; they have no way of making the Faithful follow their commands.”

The Judges were actively engaged in the proceedings and far exceeded the allocated time for the hearing. Unfortunately, no conclusions can be drawn from their actions. A ruling in this protracted court case is not anticipated for a number of months.