St. Vladimir's Parish - Parma, Ohio
On
February 4, 2003 in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Civil
Division, William and Maria Turchyn filed a 56-page lawsuit, which included 201
complaints. This is an amended compliant which included new defendants and
demands for a jury trial.
The
Plaintiffs, William Turchyn and Maria Turchyn, allege that beginning in 1994
and continuing to the present date, the defendants engaged in a “pattern of
corrupt activity” as defined by ORC 2923.31 (I).
In
the complaint William and Maria Turchyn demand judgment and seek remedies as
follows:
a)
Damages
in an amount reasonably calculated to compensate the plaintiffs for their
injuries which the plaintiffs believe exceed $250,000.00;
b)
Damages
in an amount reasonably calculated to punish and make the defendants an example
in an effort to deter further criminal and wrongful acts;
c)
Treble
damages;
d)
Reasonable
attorney fees;
e)
The
costs of litigation;
f)
Interest;
g)
Order
the return of all Antimines and holy relics to St. Vladimir’s from the
possession of defendant, Constantine;
h)
Permanently
enjoin defendants, Constantine, Antony, Estocin, Nakonachny, Steliac, Mahlay
and Kristof from the use and benefit of St. Vladimir’s property and facilities;
i)
Order
an independent audit by a reputable firm or agency of St. Vladimir’s finances
commencing from March 12, 1995 to current date to determine (a) the amount of
corporate wealth depleted from St. Vladimir’s as a result of a pattern of
corrupt activity and (b) the beneficiaries of depletion as a result of the
pattern of corrupt activity;
j)
Order
the return of any St. Vladimir’s wealth depleted through unjust enrichment
and/or pattern of corrupt activity to St. Vladimir’s from the beneficiaries of
the depletion;
k)
….
l)
….
m) Order the alleged merger of
UOCA (Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America, ed.) and the UOC-USA Diocese (of
the Church of Constantinople, ed.), and affiliated parishes thereof, to be null
and void in the State of Ohio for failing to follow statutory pre-requisites of
ORC 1715;
n)
Order
the reinstatement of William Turchyn as a member in good standing of St.
Vladimir’s and the UOC-USA Dioces with an apology to plaintiffs, William Turchyn
and Maria Turchyn, for any unjust acts as the Honorable Court deems just;
o)
Any
other remedies this Honorable Court deems just and proper.
The
29 named defendants in this complaint are:
Metropolitan Constantine Helen Greenleaf Eugene Boyko
Archbishop Antony Geofrey Greenleaf Michael
Dobronos, Sr
Rev. Frank Estocin Greeleaf Capital Mgt. Co. Hans Harasimchuk
Rev. John Nakonachny Michael Kominko Alex Hutnik
Rev. Dennis Kristof Steven Gregory Pawuk Lucy Komichak
Rev. Volodymyr Steliac Paul Burlyj Roman Malysz
Fr. Deacon Ihor Mahlay Jack Burscu Iwan Michailuk
Dr. Anatolij Lysyj Lydia Shkurko Wasyl
Ponomarenko
Michael Heretz Wasyl Kotolewec Olga Samocha
Deborah Sirko-Osadsa Eugene Wrubel
In addition, co-conspirators not named as parties to this lawsuit, but whom plaintiffs, William and Maria Turchyn, believe have actively conspired to engage in the pattern of corrupt activity as “persons” defined in ORC2923.31 (G) include the following John and Jane Does, not known by name:
1.
Members of the Metropolitan Council, UOC-USA Diocese.
2.
Members of Consistory, UOC-USA Diocese.
3.
Members of St. Vladimir’s
4.
Members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America (hereinafter
referred to as the “UOCA”).
5.
Members of the UOC-USA Diocese.
Due
to the extraordinary length of the document we will provide excerpts of only
the most important points of the complaint:
(To
read the full text of the complaint please go to Turchyn Lawsuit page.
…..William Turchyn was a member in good standing of
St. Vladimir’s and of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States, Inc.
(hereinafter referred to as the “UOC-USA Diocese”) until his civil, contractual
and property rights were intentionally violated and his membership was
illegally and fraudulently terminated.
…..William and Maria Turchyn (allege) that the
defendants identified as “persons” often operated in secrecy when engaging in a
pattern of corrupt activity and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of corrupt
activity. The scheme to defraud St. Vladimir’s of property and assets and to
injure plaintiffs….included the use of U.S. Mail and telephones as an essential
part of furthering that scheme.
…..obtaining money or property by means of false or
fraudulent pretenses, representation or promises….
…..the predicate acts of the “persons” involved includes
(a) the dissemination of false and misleading information to members of St. Vladimir’s and participation in deception practices in order to conceal, protect and promote the pattern of corrupt activity;
(b) to usurp the Articles of Incorporation and the Constitution and By Laws of St. Vladimir’s as part of the pattern of corrupt activity;
(c) to replace the congregational policy of St. Vladimir’s with the imposition of a “hierarchical church” structure as part of the pattern of corrupt activity;
(d) to divert the intent of St. Vladimir’s Founders from established purposes as part of the pattern of corrupt activity;
(e) to conceal, protect, and promote the pattern of corrupt activity that the property and assets of St. Vladimir’s members are held “in trust” for the benefit of UOC-USA Diocesan hierarchs and, by extension, to the control, benefit, enjoyment, and possession of the Ecumenical Patriarchate/Church of Consantinople; and
(f) to solicit and receipt of funds from St. Vladimir’s in a pattern of corrupt activity.
…..St. Vladimir’s is a distinct congregation,
totally and strictly independent in polity from other parishes affiliated with
the UOC-USA Diocese. Autonomy of each local congregation is the central
principle of self-government of parishes spiritually affiliated with the
UOC-USA Diocese.
…..St. Vladimir’s never abandoned independence or sovereignty in order to become a subordinate member of any higher church authority and has a spiritual relationship with UOC-USA Diocese that is not compulsory, but rather voluntary, with the right to withdraw parish participation by its own decision at any time. By way of example, but not limitation, the Board of Trustees of St. Vladimir’s voted to withdraw from affiliation with the UOC-USA Diocese in 1971.
…..Following World War I, a Ukrainian national
identity re-emerged. The Autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox was reborn and
re-established in 1921 in Kyiv, the capital city of Ukraine, as the spiritual
center and Mother Church of all Ukrainian Orthodox Christians (hereinafter
referred to as “UOC-Ukraine”). It was the intent of St. Vladimir’s Founders to
be in perpetual spiritual communion with the Mother Church, UOC-Ukraine.
….Authocephaly is defined as the complete and total
independence of the UOC-USA Diocese from any foreign, non-Ukrainian control
and/or the influence of other Orthodox jurisdictions, national churches, or
their intermediaries in all matters of life and government.
…..Sobornopravnist is the unique congregational polity of individual parishes spiritually affiliated with the UOC-USA Diocese whereby the parishes retain the sovereign right to control all matters pertaining to the management of their parishes, including all occupational, administrative, and financial matters, including but not limited to, employing and terminating the services of parish clergy, the control of income, expenses, investments, the sale and disposition and/or maintenance of all property (real and personal) and assets (fixed or other).
….. Sobornopravnist also means government of the UOC-USA
Diocese by a Sobor. A Sobor is a church council that includes both clergy and laity delegates from each parish
with decision making, voting authority.
…..
The uniqueness of Sobornopravnist, in practice, means that the hierarchs of the
UOC-USA Diocese have traditionally dealt with issues of dogma, belief, and
ritual while the temporal non-religious areas of church life are dealt with by
the laity.
…..The
uniqueness of Sobornopravnist government is very distinct from the
Synodal/hierarchical polity found in other Orthodox Churches where local parish
properties are held in trust for the benefit of hierarchical church authority
(i.e. Bishops) and hierarchical church authority can overrule, alter, or annul
local parish decisions.
…..William
Turchyn and Maria Turchyn, state and allege that in aligning themselves with
the Ecumenical Patriarchate/Church of Constantinople, defendants, Constantine
and Antony, not only abandoned the UOC-USA jurisdiction, but also broke the
spiritual communion with the Mother Church in Kyiv, Ukraine, the principle of
Autocephaly, the principle of Sobornopravnist, breached their fiduciary duties
as members of the Metropolitan Council and betrayed 70 years of existence in
the United States of the UOC-USA Diocese.
….Plaintiffs,
William Turchyn and Maria Turchyn, further state and allege that on or about
March 12, 1995, defendants, Constantine, Antony, Nakonachny, Estocin, Lysyj and
others yet to be identified, willfully, intentionally and knowingly finalized
their abandonment of the UOC-USA Diocese and St. Vladimir's for the
jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate/Church of Constantinople and
deceitfully concealed their individual actions from the members of the UOC-USA
Diocese and St. Vladimir's in order to
protect the pattern of corrupt activity which followed the abandonment.
….Plaintiff,
William Turchyn, states and alleges that at least one additional secret
agreement, Protocol No. 937, resulted from the abandonment act of March 12,
1995 between defendants, Constantine, Antony, Nakonachny, Estocin, Lysij and
others yet to be discovered and identified, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate/Church
of Constantinople.
….Plaintiff,
William Turchyn, alleges that Protocol No. 937 is further evidence of
abandonment whereby defendants, Constantine, Antony, Nakonachny, Estocin, Lysyj
and others yet to be discovered and identified, were required by the Ecumenical
Patriarchate/Church of Constantinople
"to formally declare that they would not seek the autocephaly of
the Ukrainian Church".
….Plaintiffs,
William Turchyn and Maria Turchyn, state and allege further that the fraudulent
misrepresentations, subterfuge and trickery in describing events prior to and
after March 12, 1995 by defendants, Constantine, Antony, Nakonachny,
Estocin, Lysyj and others yet to be
identified, was the cornerstone of the
pattern of corrupt activity that has continued to date.
….Plaintiffs,
William Turchyn and Maria Turchyn, state and allege that, by way of example but
not limitation, the fraudulent misrepresentations included declarations by
defendants, Constantine, Antony,
Nakonachn, Estocin and Lysyj,
that the "recognition" of the UOC-USA Diocese by the Ecumenical
Patriarchate/Church of Constantinople was accomplished without infringing upon
the unique identity, constitution, integrity, structure or administration of
the UOC-USA Diocese.
….Plaintiffs,
William Turchyn and Maria Turchyn, state and allege that, by way of example but
not limitation, the fraudulent misrepresentations included declarations by
defendants, Constantine, Antony and Nakonachny, that the Ecumenical
Patriarchate/Church of Constantinople had no rights to church properties as a
result of the "recognition".
….Plaintiff,
William Turchyn, states and alleges that the pattern of corrupt activity……..
scheme to defraud St. Vladimir's members of property and assets…….conspiracy to
defraud……and complicity ….began on March 12, 1995 by defendants, Constantine,
Antony, Nakonachny, Estocin, Lysij, and others yet to be discovered and
identified, when each of them abandoned the UOC-USA Diocese and St. Vladimir's
for the Ecumenical Patriarchate/Church of Constantinople then concealed and
fraudulently misrepresented the facts.
….Plaintiff,
William Turchyn further alleges that defendant, Estocin, admitted the
abandonment on or about June 11/24, 1997 to all the members of the Metropolitan
Council which included defendant, Mahlay.
….Plaintiff,
William Turchyn, states and alleges that defendants, H. Greenleaf and Heretz,
participated in approved activities of the
Metropolitan
Council to "eradicate the concept of congregationalism” and the fraudulent
declaration that the UOC-USA Diocese was a "hierarchical church” which was
expressed in the Consistory newsletter of August, 1999.
….Plaintiff, William Turchyn, states and
alleges that when he asked defendant, Nakonachny, in his capacity as Brotherhood
President and in front of the assembled Brotherhood, "On or about March
12, 1995, did you and the hierarchs of the UOC-USA Diocese voluntarily become
priests and hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople?", defendant,
Nakonachny, replied "No." This reply by defendant. Nakonachny, was
knowingly, intentionally and willfully false in a pattern of corrupt activity.
….Defendants, Constantine and Nakonachny, had
illegally placed plaintiff, William Turchyn, “on Epitimia, a form of spiritual
suspension which surrenders your privilege to receive the Mystery of Holy
Communion”… In fact, plaintiff, William Turchyn, was not suspended, but
excommunicated without cause or due process from the membership of St.
Vladimir's and the UOC-USA Diocese.
….Plaintiff, William Turchyn, states and
alleges that the suspension by defendants, Constantine and Nakonachny, violated
ORC 2923.32 (A)(l) and (A)(2), ORC 2905.22 (extortion), ORC 2923.01
(conspiracy), ORC 2923.03 (complicity), ORC 2905.05 (unlawful restraint) and ORC
2913.05 (telecommunications fraud) in addition to violating plaintiff, William
Turchyn's, first amendment right to freedom of worship.
….Plaintiff, William Turchyn, states and
alleges that defendants, Constantine and Nakonachny, had abandoned the UOC-USA
Diocese that they pretended to serve and concealed that fact when plaintiff,
William Turchyn, was suspended. This was reckless, outrageous and
unconscionable conduct that went far beyond all bounds of decency, atrocious
and utterly intolerable in a civilized community in addition to a pattern of
corrupt activity.
….Plaintiff, William Turchyn, states further that
defendants, Constantine and Nakonachny, had abandoned
the UOC-USA diocese and concealed that fact when plaintiff, William
Turchyn, was suspended. Such reckless conduct
constitutes secular behavior that is so non-religious in nature that no church
or church figure can possibly claim that such an act is accepted practice in
any religious organization in addition to a pattern of corrupt activity.
To
read the full text of the complaint go to Turchyn Lawsuit page
***************************************
LATEST
UPDATE…….We have received word that the $5,750,000.00 lawsuit filed by
William and Maria Turchyn against Rev. Nakonachny et. al. of St. Vladimir
Parish, Parma, Ohio has been withdrawn. The information that we received from
our sources indicate that an amended
lawsuit will be resubmitted shortly.
****************************************************
$5,750,000.00
Lawsuit filed
against Rev. Nakonachny, Fr. Deacon Mahlay, G. Greenleaf and Metropolitan
Constantine, et.al.
by William and Maria
Turchyn, parishioners of St. Vladimir Parish, Parma, Ohio.
In December of 1999 we reported
that a member, Mr. William Turchyn, of St. Vladimir Parish in Parma, Ohio was
placed, by Fr. Nakonachny with approval of Metropolitan Constantine, on Epitimia
– a form of spiritual suspension for the following “transgressions” (actual
quotes from a letter dated November 26, 1999 to the Members of the Board of
Trustees) Fr. Nakonachny writes:
1.
As of
today, a member of the Board of Trustees has been placed on spiritual
suspension.
2.
Two, possibly
three, Board of Trustees members have broken the Oath of Office that they took
before God and their fellow parishioners by their presence at the recent
conference of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyivan Patriarchate – that was
held in Brunswick, Ohio on November 4, 1999.
I believe that our parish constitution was broken in the following
area:
Article 3a: affiliating
oneself with a “subversive organization”
I believe that the movement in Brunswick, with Patriarch Filaret and
others, including some of our parishioners, is subversive and desires to
overthrow our right to a “Sobornopravna” church, in an attempt to claim our
Center in South Bound Brook – and our parishes across the U.S.A. – as their
own.
The actions of the Brunswick council to overthrow our
“Sobornopravnist” is very obvious and evident “subversion” and no Board member
of St. Vladimir’s Cathedral should have been present at that conference.
In another letter dated
November 26, 1999 to Mr. Turchyn Fr.
Nakonachny writes:
“Your attempt
to change the basic tenet that our Church is a hierarchical church…”
“… you use
your position (as a member of the Board of Trustees and as president of the
Brotherhood) to spread false teachings regarding the true structure and purpose
of the Church…”
“Your
secular, un-Orthodox concept of the Church will damage both the spiritual and
physical growth of our St. Vladimir’s parish”.
“…your
infrequent participation in the Divine Liturgy of our parish, together with
your refusal to accept the teachings of the Church, compounded by your
obsession with parish finances….”
“…you use
every opportunity to expound your erroneous concept of our Church to influence
others…”
“Your
obsessive conduct in sowing distrust among our faithful for our bishops – our spiritual
leaders..”
“Therefore,
as a result, after consultation with His Beatitude Metropolitan Constantine,
and with his approval, you have been placed on Epitimia – a form of spiritual
suspension which surrenders your privilege to receive the Mystery of Holy
communion. This Epitimia will remain in effect until there is a clear
manifestation of a transfiguration of heart, followed by a sincere repentance
in confession.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Editorial Comment:
Note
the emphasis on the word ‘hierarchical’ and its commingling with
‘sobornopravnist’. The two concepts in the American legal system are entirely
opposite and mutually exclusive. Hierarchical is a structure like the Roman
Catholic Church, where the Pope has the ultimate spiritual and temporal control
of the church. All parish assets including land and money is entirely under his
control. Our church is and has always been Sobornopravna. That is: the
Hierarchs provide the spiritual leadership and the faithful determine the
temporal administration via church councils and the Sobor.
If our structure has been indeed subverted to “hierarchical”
when the bishops swore allegiance to Constantinople, then the ultimate proprietor of all church assets is
not even Bound Brook but the Patriarch in Istanbul. This travesty is at the
core of the lawsuit brought by the bishops against the Ukrainian Orthodox Holy
Ascension Church in Clifton, NJ.
We
applaud the actions of Mr. and Mrs. William Turchyn in bringing this action
against Fr. Nakonachny and others. It is about time that a parishioner stands
up for his rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution in freedom of speech,
freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. For more details of our previous
posting please scroll down to “Suspension”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Parma Parishioners to NJ Judge…………..
EXCLUDE US FROM THE LAWSUIT
Board of Trustees of St.Vladimir Parish, Parma, Ohio reaffirms it's
loyalty to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the United States of America and
all that it stands for…………Autocephaly and Sobornopravnist.
In a "News From The Board" publication dated February 2000 and
distributed to parishioners of St. Vladimir's Parish, Mr. Geofrey Greenleaf,
President of the Board, indicated that a letter of notification, approved at
the Annual Parish Meeting, was sent to the New Jersey Judge "specifically requesting to exclude us
(St. Vladimir's Parish) from any action in the lawsuit with the Parish Board of the Holy Ascension Church, Clifton, NJ."
It was specifically pointed out that the letter is not to be
reprinted without the express written consent of the Board of Trustees of St.
Vladimir's Parish. The publication continues, "Further, we affirmed our loyalty to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United
States of America…"
Editorial Note: This is a very important point for it shows
total commitment and support of the Board of Trustees and the parishioners of
St. Vladimirs for the principles of Autocephaly and Sobornopravnist, the basic
principles and tenents of UOC-USA.
We applaud the parishioners and the Board of Trustees of St. Vladimirs
for this re-affirmation of support and loyalty to UOC-USA.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SUSPENSION (additional background information)
On November 26, 1999, Father John Nakonachny, Pastor of St. Vladimir's Cathedral, Parma, Ohio, placed a member of the Board of Trustees, Mr. William Turchin, on "Epitimia" a form of spiritual suspension. (See SUSPENSION farther down on this page).
This was done at the direction of Metropolitan Constantine. Herewith we are publishing Metropolitan Constantine's letter of instruction to Father Nakonachny and to the parishioners of St. Vladimir to elect replacements at the next general parish meeting.
November 23, 1999
"To: Very Rev. John Nakonachny, Parishioners, St. Vladimir's UO Cathedral
Our beloved Priest John and parishioners of St. Vladimir's Cathedral:
We are filled with profound sadness when we learned that members of the Board of Trustees and other parishioners of our beloved St. Vladimir's in Parma attended a meeting held by the clergy of the Kyivan Patriarchate in Brunswick, Ohio, without the blessing of the Hierarchy.
It is well known that groups within the United States of America, who are affiliated with the Kyivan Patriarchate, are openly engaged in dividing the faithful and spreading discord. Hence, it is encumbent (sic) upon those who have been called to govern the Holy Orthodox Church to exert vigilance and care in her protection. Each member of the Board of Trustees has foresworn - with as the Psalmist says, "hearths loyal to God" - to protect and diligently work for the good of the Church, and follow her Constitution. Unfortunately, even after placing their hands on the Gospel, these officers broke their holy pledges by attending the meeting in Brunswick. One trembles in fear of God's judgement.
Thus, we can no longer recognize them as members of the Board of Trustees, unless they distance themselves from the group who openly works against the Church, and seek to reaffirm their loyalty to the Holy Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA by publicly re-reading the Induction Pledge. It is our heartfelt prayer that every effort will be made to keep the Unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. If this cannot be accomplished, we instruct the beloved brothers and sisters of our Cathedral of St. Vladimir's to elect replacements at the next general parish meeting. (emphasis added. Ed.)
There were also parishioners - non-Board members - who participated in
the Brunswick meeting. It is our belief that they are seeking a community that
mirrors only their interests and values. To help them find a parish where they
would feel more comfortable, I am instructing Father John to grant them letters
of transfer." (emphasis added. Ed.)
Signed…..+Constantine, Metropolitan
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM YOUR
PASTOR
Recently Father John Nakonachny, pastor of St. Vladimir's Parish in
Parma, Ohio distributed a newsletter with the above title. In this newsletter
he asks and responds to several questions with the purpose of explaining and
clarifying issues to "disturbed" and "confused"
parishioners who have been receiving Save Our Ukrainian Orthodox Church (SOUOC)
material from New Jersey. He stated that the material sent is spreading
"false information". However, unlike the SOUOC newsletter, Father
John does not quote or direct his readers to look at court filings, documents,
etc. He simply states his opinion and assumes that it will pass for and replace
the facts.
From one of our readers we received the following comments providing
additional information and facts to the most pertinent issues raised by Father
John. Wherever possible, the readers are directed to printed and published
documents at http://www.smorodsky.com/holyascension
so that they can draw their own conclusions.
Who is Patriarch Filaret?
In answering this question Father John and everyone else should keep in mind some point of reference. One must remember that prior to declaring its independence Ukraine was full of "bad" communists, KGB agents, sworn enemies of the US and the free world. After its declaration of freedom these same "bad" communists, KGB agents, etc. miraculously converted to "good" freedom loving democrats. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, within the old communist system, in order to achieve any level of success within any government, business or religious organization had to be a card carrying communist. This is a fact and no one hides it in Ukraine. Look at former president L. Kravchuk or current president L. Kuchma who no doubt were card carrying communists. Prior to Ukrainian declaration, if these leaders visited the US we would probably all join in throwing rotten tomatoes at them. But yet, after Ukraine's declaration of independence, we welcomed them with open arms and banquets in the Ukrainian Cultural Center in So. Bound Brook, N.J. The same can be said of Patriarch Filaret. To achieve the level of success that he enjoyed within the Russian Orthodox Church structure he certainly must have had some "friends" within the old communist Politburo. But today this man is fighting for an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church free from foreign domination. Is he without sin… certainly not. Patriarch Filaret cannot walk on water. But Patriarch Filaret is NOT the issue. He like the rest of us will pass on but an independent Church will live forever. The issue is…should we American-Ukrainians be under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch ?
Has our UOC of USA administration changed
since 1995, when our Church was recognized by world Orthodoxy as a canonical
church?
If Father John refers to our present external administration, he may be correct. However, the issue is what did our bishops give up and what did they get in return?
Our Church Constitution states in Section 1, Paragraph 2: The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States of America…..is Autocephalous (independent) in all matters of life and government, and its rights are equal with those of the other Autocephalous Orthodox Churches". I ask Father John to name an Autocephalous Orthodox Church that is under the jurisdiction or omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Even the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece is not under this jurisdiction. The Autocephalous Churches recognize each other, and they are independent in all matters, just like our constitution states.
Another example…… Father John does not mention that Point 6 of the Points of Agreement between the UOC-USA and the Ecumenical Patriarch states: "The Primate or acting primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of USA, after consultation with the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in America, shall submit a slate of candidates for the office of the metropolitan and bishops to the General Council (Sobor)of the UOC-USA for approval in the first instance. The names of those candidates so approved shall then be submitted to the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for canonical election". So now our Church Sobor no longer elects bishops (as stated in our Church Constitution, Section 11, Paragraph 5, point e), it now "approves in the first instance" with canonical election to be made by the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Major change? - you decide.
Are there any secret agreements with
Constantinople?
Father John asks for concrete evidence. I point to the infamous Protocol 937 (letter from the Ecumenical Patriarch to the Moscow Patriarch) which was published in Eastern Journal (Autumn, 1995 Vol.2 No.3). It states:
"Fifth, of course to a certain extent we can comprehend the fears Your Beatitude and your Holy Synod have to the consequences which the settlement of the Ukrainians in the Diaspora could eventually have on the general situation in Ukraine, if proper care had not been taken. In this regard we would like to assure you that the induction of the Ukrainian communities into the canonical order of the Orthodox Church by receiving them under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch will, we believe, finally prove to be beneficial for the relationship between the Most Holy Church of Russia and the faithful in Ukraine. This is so because on the one hand those received were obligated to formally declare that they will not seek autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church, or even a part of it, …On the other hand, it is no longer possible for them to cooperate or commune with schismatic Ukrainian groups which are out of communion with the Orthodox Church without bringing harm to themselves….."
What does "obligated to formally declare" mean to Father John? It certainly means an agreement to me. And since this agreement was not made public until Protocol 937 came to light, it was a secret. Or is Father John maintaining that Protocol 937 doesn't exist, or that the Ecumenical Patriarch is not telling the truth.
Even Dr. Lysyj, a member of the Metropolitan Council (which is the highest
church governing body between Sobors), admitted that he does not know what
agreements were signed in Istanbul in 1995. In his article "The ship of
our Church is guided by people" of August 27, 1999 in the Ukrainian News
he states… "Yes I went to Constantinople in a delegation of 37 people,
but all discussions and negotiations took place at the bishops level and no one
other than the bishops took part in those discussions".
Why is Patriarch Filaret causing such
problems for our Church in the USA?
The problems for our Church in the USA are caused by our bishops entering into a secret agreement, NOT by Patriarch Filaret. This is an obvious attempt to divert attention from the real issues.
Why are some of our parishes involved in this
movement?
What about the obvious reason …… to right a wrong and to defend the principles under which our Church was established.
Did you once support Patriarch Filaret and
ask us to contribute to his seminaries?
I applaud Father John for admitting that he did. As to Patriarch Filaret's statement that Moscow, Constantinople, and South Bound Brook were enemies of his Church, he is correct. I don't believe that anyone would disagree about Moscow. Constantinople recognizes Moscow's canonical jurisdiction over Ukraine, so it is an enemy of the UOC-KP, or any other Ukrainian Orthodox Church. And unfortunately, our bishops have aligned themselves and are under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, which means that they recognize Moscow's jurisdiction over Ukraine and must oppose the UOC-KP.
Does the Church in Ukraine have Sobors?
and
Do laymen play a roll in the Sobors in
Ukraine, as they do in the United States?
Father John should not find fault with the administration UOC-KP. He should again read Point 6 of the Points of Agreement where it states that ……."The names of those candidates so approved shall be submitted to the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for canonical election". From this it is quite clear that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is NOT a Sobor governed body but is governed by a Holy and Sacred Synod.
Will the decision of the Clifton case affect
our parish?
You bet it will and Father John knows that it will, for in the US judicial system any case can be and is used as a precedent for future cases. So the Clifton case resolution has the potential to affect not only Parma, Ohio but every UOC parish in the US.
How did the Clifton situation begin?
Father John's answer is filled with misinformation. The reader should look at http://www.smorodsky.com/holyascension web site and examine the sworn statements of the Clifton Parish board members. Father John conveniently leaves out the decision of Archbishop Antony to forbid Father Mironko to conduct services right before Holy Easter, his unlawful removal of the Antimines, etc. and makes it sound like the board members got together and dismissed the priest. This is NOT what happened.
Also Father John tries to invoke symphaty by stating that the priest assigned by the Diocese serves in a rented hall. Father John must know that the group that is suing Clifton was offered the opportunity to use (share) the Clifton Church, and they refused.
Many other examples / answers can be documented. Interested individuals need
to read the court documents and reach their own conclusion. At a minimum, they
will see contradictions to statements made by our clergy and bishops. Examples
include: who owns the parish property, who is suing whom, is our Church
"sobornopravna", etc. The Save Our
Ukrainian Orthodox Church Committee is not hiding documents or asking for blind
"trust". They ask that you ask questions, become informed and then
decide where the truth lies.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SUSPENSION
On November 26, 1999, at the direction of
Metropolitan Constantine, Father John R. Nakonachny, Pastor of St. Vladimir's
Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral in Parma, Ohio placed a member of the Board of
Trustees, Mr. William Turchyn "on
Epitimia, a form of spiritual suspension which surrenders your privilege to
receive the Mystery of Holy Communion. This Epitimia will remain in effect
until there is a clear manifestation of a transfiguration of heart, followed by
a sincere repentance in confession".
Further, Father Nakonachny states that "two, possibly three, Board of Trustees
members have broken the Oath of Office that they took before God and their
fellow parishioners …… I call upon these individuals to …. participate in the
Holy Mysteries of Confession and Communion, and retake their Oath of Office in
our Cathedral. If not, then for the good of our St. Vladimir's Parish, they
should be removed from office".
Mr. Turchyn's and the 2 or 3 Board of
Trustees TRANSGRESSION ?????? … according to Metropolitan Constantine's
letter dated November 23, 1999 "attending
a meeting held by clergy and laity of the Kyivan Patriarchate in Brunswick,
Ohio on November 4, 1999 without the blessing of the Hierarchy".
The above actions have been taken by Father
Nakonachny at the direction of Metropolitan Constantine in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, land of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and
freedom of ASSEMBLY. This
is NOT the former Soviet Union. Even in the former enslaved
nations of the Soviet Union, TODAY, (with the
exception of Belarus) individuals in each nation enjoy freedom of speech,
freedom of the press and freedom of ASSEMBLY.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++