St. Michael's UOC, San Francisco,
California
Calm,
Reason and Logic
prevailed
at
St. Michael’s Parish in San Francisco!
On January 25, 2004 parishioners
at St. Michael’s Parish in San Francisco held their Annual General Meeting as
required by their Church Constitution.
Calm, reason and logic prevailed
and a new Parish Board and Supervisory Committee were elected.
As reported to us the new Parish Board consists of 11
members as follows:
George Shuleshko
– President
Katerina Bober
– Vice-President
Natalia Rybiy
– Secretary
Svitlana Weres
– Treasurer
Tatiana Poleshai
– Assistant Treasurer
Maria Kravets
– Financial Advisor
Maria Towstopiat
– Member
Oleksander Moroz – Member
Nicholas Lashenko – Member
Victor Skidanenko
- Member
Petro Hyczar - Member
The Supervisory Committee consists of:
Leonid Lysenko – Chairmen
Michael Tsar
- Member
Vitali Vizir
- Member
As reported the Parish Board and
Supervisory Committee include a majority of members with wisdom of age,
exuberance of youth and love and devotion to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church,
Ukrainian culture, history and traditions.
We extend to the new Parish Board
and Supervisory Committee our sincere best wishes in the coming years in
managing the affairs of St. Michael’s Parish for the good of the entire St. Michael’s
parish membership.
***********************************
“COOKING” THE PARISH MEMBERSHIP BOOKS
IN SAN FRANCISCO??
Parishioners of
St. Michael’s be Aware and Prepare!
From the information that we received from reliable
sources the pro-Archbishop Antony of Ierapolis supporters are busy “cooking”
the parish membership books at St. Michael’s Parish in San Francisco,
California.
We received a complete parish membership roster
(signed by both the Head of Supervisory Committee and Parish Financial Officer)
dated November 1, 2003 showing 84 parish members at St. Michael’s who have paid
all of their parish membership obligations INCLUDING THE $55
YEARLY CONSISTORY DUES.
We have also received a second parish membership
list as prepared by Mr. V. Vizir, Parish Board President, showing a total of 52
parish members. This list also shows a separate count of 13 individuals listed
under the category as “People leaving membership of UOC in the USA”.
What is interesting to note is that the so-called
“Vizir membership list” of 52, includes 3 individuals who are NOT even members
of St. Michael’s Parish while the list of “People leaving membership of UOC
in the USA”
includes 3 individuals who are CONFIRMED long time members of St.
Michael’s.
It is also important to note that the so-called
“Vizir membership list” of 52 includes only 4 Parish Board members out of
a total 11 individuals who are members on the Parish Board. What happened to the other seven
(7) Parish Board Members who are excluded?
BUT IN THE
“VIZIR MEMBERSHIP LIST” THE NUMBERS JUST DO NOT ADD UP TO 84. WHERE ARE THE
MISSING PARISH MEMBERS?
What we see is the start of the “numbers” game
conducted by supporters of Antony of Ierapolis at St. Michael’s Parish in San
Francisco.
In preparation for the Parish Annual meeting to be
held sometime early next year the parish membership roster is being
manipulated. Where have we seen this tactic used before? Where have we seen one
or two individuals attempting to control the parish books in order to remain in
power and control?
Where have we seen almost identical situations????
At St. Michael’s Parish, Uniondale, Long Island…..
at St. Mary Protectress Parish, Rochester, NY…and at St. Mary’s Protection, New
Haven, Connecticut. The scenario is the same except the name of the parish and
city is changed…..parish membership books are manipulated, letters of
“authentication” written by Antony of Ierapolis are directed to his henchmen,
doors are locked, police are summoned.
Manipulation….confrontation….seizure of
parish property…..lock-out….and police. These are the well know tactics that we
have seen before. These are the tactics that the parishioners of St. Michael’s
should prepare to fight.
Other parishes have fought against these
deceitful actions and succeeded and with God’s help so will parishioners of St.
Michael’s.
(The above is
reported to us by a long time member of St. Michael’s Parish in San Francisco)
******************************************************
In Ukrainian
Манипуляція
Парафіальних
Списків
в
Парафії Св.
Михаїла, Сан
Франсиско?
З
інформації
подано
відповідними
джерелами,
підримувачі
Ієропільського
Владики Антонія
вже зайняті з
підробкою і
фальшифікацією
парафіальних
списків Парафії Св.
Михаїла в Сан
Франсиско.
Ми
отримали
повний
список з дати
1-го листопада,
2003р. всіх
повноважних
парафіян Св.
Михаїла який
був
підписаний
головою
Контрольного
Комітету і
Фінансово
Референда.
Парафіальний
список
начислює 84
членів
парафії які
заплатили
річні парафіальні
внески
влючно 55
доларів до
Консисторії
УПЦ-США.
Ми так
само
отримали
ДРУГИЙ
список який
приготовив
Голова
Парафіальної
Управи, п. Віталій
Візір, в
якому
показано 52
члени парафії.
Цей список
так само показує
13 осіб під
рубриком
“Люди які
відходять
від УПЦ-США”.
Інтересно
замітити що
так названий
“Список
Візіра”
ВКЛЮЧАЄ три
особи які
НЕНАЛЕЖУТЬ до
Парафії Св.
Михаїла і
втой самий
час список п.
Візіра
ВИКЛЮЧАЄ три
особи які є
затвержені
довголітні
члени парафії.
Додатково
треба
зауважити
що
“Список
Візіра”
включає
тільки 4
особи з 11-ти
які є в Парафіальній
Управі. А що
сталось з
решта 7 осіб
які є члени
Управи?
В
парафіальнім
списку
приготовлено
п. Візіром
кількість
членів
парафії
незходяться
з реальністю.
Де поділись
решта членів
парафії?
Що ми
бачим з цієї
події?
Початок манипуляції
і
перекручення
парафіальних
списків
підримувачами
Ієропільського
Владики
Антонія.
В
приготовці
до Загальних
Зборів
Парафії Св.
Михаїла які
відбудуться
на початку весни
2004р.
парафіальні
списки вже
маніпулюють.
Де ми бачили
таку саму
тактику? Коли
остатьній
раз ми бачили
одного або
двоє осіб які
хочуть
затримати
контролю в
своїх руках і
вже
розпочинають
підфальшовувати
парафіальні
списки?
Ми це
бачили в
Парафії Св. Михаїла
в
Юніондале......в
Парафії Св.
Покрови в
Рочестері.....в
Парафії Св.
Покрови в Ню
Гайвен.
Тактика та
сама тільки
назва
парафії і назва міста
зміняється........
манипуляція
парафіальних
списків, так
звані листи
“затверження”
переслані
від Владики
Антонія який
фальшиво
підтримує
своїх прибічників,
замикання під ключ церковних
дверей і
викликання
миліції.
Манипуляція.....конфронтація......силою
зайняття
парафіального
майна.....під
ключ закриті церковні
двері.....і
викликання
миліції. На
таку тактику
парафіани Св.
Михаїла в Сан
Франсиско
мусять бути
приготовлені.
Інші
парафії
боролись
проти такого
зухвальства
авторитету і
вигравали в
судовім процесі
і з Божою
ласкою так
само
переможуть
парафіани Св.
Михаїла.
Вище
подана
інформація
приготовлена
довголітним
членом
Парафії Св.
Михаїла, Сан
Франсиско,
Каліфорнія.
****************************************************************
Archbishop Antony of Ierapolis
flexes his
muscled!
"Now
of the lion one need have no fear, the leopard is a gentle creature, and even
the snake you are terrified by is likely to turn in flight; but there is one
thing you must beware of, I assure you. Bad Bishops. Don't be over-awed by the
dignity of the throne. All have dignity, yes; but not all have the Grace.
Discard the outer clothing; watch for the wolf. Words do not convince me; I
must have deeds." - St. Gregory Nazianzus
Thirteen days after Judge Roger F. Mahon issued his
Court Order on September 3, 2003 in the matter of UOC-USA vs. Holy Ascension,
Clifton, NJ, Archbishop Antony fires an
official salvo at parishioners of St. Michael’s Parish, San Francisco,
California.
In a letter dated September 16, 2003 to Mr. Vitalij
Vizir, Board President of St. Michael’s Parish in San Francisco, Archbishop
Antony writes:
“Recent court orders have made abundantly
clear that all member parishes of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA are
bound by her Constitution and that parish constitutions – as stated in the UOC
of USA Constitution- may not contradict the UOC-USA Constitution. There can be
no exception to this rule and our Church will no longer tolerate the
insubordination of individual parish members regarding such matters.
Archbishop Antony of Ierapolis continues ……
“Therefore, I must insist that only those
individuals who have proven their dedication and support for our Holy Ukrainian
Orthodox Church by signing the declaration they have received may participate
in and vote at your upcoming parish meeting on 5 October”.
Do you hear
that parishioners of St. Volodymyr
in Parma
Ohio?
Do you
hear that parishioners of
St. Volodymyr in N.Y.C,
St. Michael’s in Uniondale, LI, Holy
Trinity, Bridgeport, CN
and St.
Nicholas, Cooper City, Fl??
Are these parishes
next in line to receive similar threatening letters???
Thirteen Days after issuance of
a court order in New Jersey, Archbishop Antony “insists” that
parishioners in California sign an oath of loyalty otherwise they cannot
participate.
Thirteen Days after issuance of
a court order in New Jersey, Archbishop Antony is declaring to parishioners in
California that their parish constitution is meaningless, has no legal standing
and is totally subservient to the UOC-USA Constitution.
Thirteen Days after issuance of
a court order in New Jersey, Archbishop Antony is threatening parishioners “our Church will
no longer tolerate the insubordination of individual parish members regarding such matters.”
Thirteen Days after issuance of
a court order in New Jersey, Archbishop Antony is telling parishioners in
California … “I shall pray that committed Christian souls……. will
overcome the demagoguery of those who have personal agendas.”
When will this
end???
When
will the demagoguery and personal agendas of individuals in Bound Brook end???
*******************************************
Continuing information from
parishioners in San Francisco……
In
a letter dated November 18, 2003 to a parishioner of St. Andrew’s Memorial Church
in Bound Brook, Mr. Vitalij Shumakov writes:
“In
San Francisco the situation is inflammatory and as “punishment” (from Bound
Brook) we have not had religious services in over six months. We are relying on
our next annual meeting to discard the “Mankurtiv” since the semi-annual
meeting was totally disrupted by Bound Brook unwelcomed personas of Fr. Diakiw
and UOC-USA Treasurer Emil Skocypec.
There
will be a storm but uncertain as to what type of storm!!”
(Ed.
Note: “Mankurtiv” is a term used to define traitors who willingly oppose, fight
and subjugate their own people.)
****************************************************
Fr. Diakiw warned
of
“Clifton, NJ”
action
against St.
Michael Parish
in San Francisco!
On Sunday October 5, 2003
parishioners of St. Michael’s Parish in San Francisco, California held a
bi-annual meeting. Present at this meeting were representatives from the
Consistory of UOC-USA, Fr. Diakiw and Consistory Treasurer, Mr. Emil Skocypec.
Parish Board President Mr.
V. Visir opened the meeting with the reading of a letter from Archbishop Antony
to the parishioners. In his letter Archbishop Antony stated that any parish
member who does not sign a pledge of loyalty to the Consistory of UOC-USA would
not have a right to vote at this parish meeting.
It was obvious from the
beginning that the main purpose of Fr. Diakiw’s and Mr. Skocypec’s visit was to
support Mr. Visir’s efforts to disrupt the meeting such that no official
business could be conducted. Sometime prior to this meeting Mr. Visir pressured
the parish treasurer not to send in the parish dues even though on September
14, 2003 the Parish Board gave its full authorization to pay in full St.
Michael’s 2003 financial obligation to the Consistory.
From the start of the parish meeting it was obvious
that not more than 10 persons supported Archbishop Antony’s position. At this time Mr. Visir announced
that the meeting would not commence until every member of the parish verbally
expresses his oat of loyalty to UOC-USA, which will be recorded on a tape
cassette. The general membership did not agree with this pronouncement. Fr.
Diakiw explained to the parishioners the actions that the Consistory took in
bringing order within rebellious parishes and threatened St. Michael’s
parishioners with similar actions as was taken at Holy Ascension Parish in
Clifton, NJ. In reply many parishioners stated that in California this is
unacceptable, that they are not interested in listening to these problems and
that they came to this meeting to resolve their own problems.
The parishioners made an appealed to Fr. Diakiw that
since he is a member of the clergy they request his assistance to listen to the
position of the majority in order to have a complete picture why there are
problems and discontent within the life of the parish. Fr. Diakiw replied that
he has no authority to interfere with internal parish matters. The obviously
disturbed parishioners replied…….
“When the Consistory denies the parishioners the right to vote
this is not interference in parish matters but when the people request to be
heard then this is interference in parish matters”?
It became obvious to the parishioners that Mr. Visir
and Dr. Weres with assistance from the two representatives of the Consistory,
Fr. Diakiw and Emil Skocypec, had no intentions of conducting a parish meeting.
The parishioners began posing detailed to Fr. Diakiw and Mr. Emil Skocypec, who
does not understand a word of Ukrainian:
Question: Who
invited you to this meeting and who will pay your travel expenses?
Answer: This is a goodwill mission at the request of the Consistory.
Question: We
have not had religious services for the past 6-8 weeks. We had a funeral for a
member, one of the original organizers
of this parish, and we had no
priest to officiate at this funeral. Where were you at that time and why do we
now have the
honor of both of you being present at our bi-annual parish meeting?
Answer: No
reply was given.
Question:
According to what constitution does the Consistory conducts its affairs
after it changed its identity?
Answer: In
accordance with the Constitution as ratified by the Sobor.
Question: Then
why did Archbishop Antony, contrary to the UOC-USA Constitution, write the
letter just read by Mr. Visir?
Answer: No
reply was given
Question: Do
you agree that today, in front of these parishioners, you are the
representatives of the Consistory?
Answer:
Yes.
Question: In that
case why do you refuse to listen to the opposite point of view? Why are you
disrupting the parish meeting? If you
wanted to resolve the conflict within this parish then your behavior and
actions should be different.
Answer: No
reply was given.
Question: Is
it true that the Consistory paid to Constantinople (Patriarchate of
Constantinople) $200,000.00?
Answer:
No, this is a complete fabrication
Question: We became
members of the Consistory of UOC-USA in 1967 which was ratified by Patriarch
Mstyslav. Why do we
need to become members of the Consistory of UOC-USA all, over again?
Answer:
That is the wish of Archbishop Antony.
Question: In
the event that tomorrow Archbishop Antony would want us to jump of a 20-story
building are we supposed to
comply? Is this not religious slavery in democratic country?
Answer: No
reply was given.
There were many more additional questions posed to
the Consistory representatives who showed their true colors of provocation, confrontation and the moral
degradation of the Consistory. They were not prepared for such intense
questioning and therefore on certain occasion were afraid to speak. Mr. Skocypec left the meeting in order to
avoid any additional embarrassment and confrontation.
Fr. Diakiw was obviously very agitated expressing
his dissatisfaction with the bad press against the Consistory being published
on the Internet.
The parishioners then posed several additional
questions to Fr. Diakiw:
Question: Why
is there no bad press published on the Internet about people who through their
good deeds and actions confirm
their own love and sincerity to God and truth and within their lives
support truthfulness and human rights?
Answer: No
reply was given.
Question: Why
is the Consistory conducting correspondence on questions of importance to our
parish with private individuals and
not with our Parish Board or directly with our parish?
Answer: No
reply was given.
Question: Why
are letters and orders from Archbishop Antony being transmitted to us via
private individuals and not through our
Eparchial Archbishop Vsevolod?
Answer: No
reply was given.
Question: Is
it true that a private conflict, regarding spheres of influence over the
faithful, exists between Archbishop Antony and
Archbishop Vsevolod, which is affecting the basic foundation of UOC-USA?
Answer: No
reply was given.
Question: Is
it true that you are accepting clergy (from other jurisdictions) without
official release documentation?
Answer: No
that is not true. We have official release documentation for everyone.
Question: When
Fr. Levko was assigned to our parish you said that he worked in an orthodox
parish of UOC-KP. But we received
documentation from UOC-KP on several clergy of UOC-USA, including Fr.
Levko, that indicates that these clergy never
worked in
UOC-KP. What were your intentions in lying to us?
Answer:
Fr. Diakiw asked to see that documentation.
When Fr. Diakow was shown the documentation he
wanted to keep it but was refused.
At this point in time the bi-annual meeting of St.
Michael’s Parish broke up with no actions taken or any decision made.
News from St. Michael’s as reported by Maria Kravets
**********************************************************
Additional News from St.
Michael’s Parish, San Francisco, California.
In accordance with the decision of the previous St.
Michael’s Annual Meeting, whereby a delegation of five (5) individuals were
authorized to consult with an attorney, a meeting was held with attorney Alex
Weisman. The purpose of the meeting was to retain his consulting services,
appraise Mr. Weisman of the situation within St. Michael’s Parish, and to
provide him with necessary documentation for his review in terms of California
statutes and the constitution of UOC-USA.
Following is a summary of the October 10, 2003 correspondence
sent to St. Michael parishioners by Mr. Alex Weisman in which he noted:
…..Payment
of dues to the Consistory are NOT the obligation of each individual
parishioner but the obligation of
the Parish of St. Michael’s. In accordance
with UOC-USA constitution (Article II par. 76) the general parish
membership has to authorize the Parish Board to make such payments.
…..Further
it states in Article XVI par. 112 of UOC-USA constitution that payment of
parish dues to UOC-USA,
including the One Dollar Fund, and any additional dues is approved by
the parish membership at a general
Parish
Meeting.
…..In
addition to the above I must advise you not to make any additional mistakes that
may hurt the legal position
of your parish.
…..Please remember that any
requests for your signature on any documentation concerning the Consistory,
concerning membership in the Consistory or any other questions
concerning the Consistory are not binding and
not in accordance with St. Michael’s constitution or UOC-USA
Constitution.
In conclusion one thought
comes to mind: Why did representatives of the Consistory travel to your
bi-annual parish meeting? Why create a disruption of the parish meeting which
was called to authorize the Parish Board to make payment of St. Michael’s
obligations to the UOC-USA Consistory?
************************************************************
The rest of the
story as
reported by
the “putative”
Dr. Oleh Weres
to Antony of
Ierapolis
The story behind our following headline…..
“Antony of Ierapolis
takes aim at St. Michael’s Parish in San Francisco”
is quite
reveling and explains the August 22, 2003 detailed letter of instructions
issued by Archbishop Antony to his henchmen at St. Michael’s Parish.
Following are excerpts from a letter to Archbishop
Antony dated August 19, 2003 written by the “putative” Dr. Weres:
Your Excellency:
An “Extraordinary General Meeting” of
our Parish was called by the putative Secretary of our Parish Board, Mrs.
Natalia Rabiy, based on a telephone canvass of putative Parish Board members.
It is my understanding that six putative Board members were contacted by her by
telephone and agreed to call the meeting. Neither Mr. Vizir, President of the
Parish Board, nor I were consulted. Subsequently, a meeting notice was
distributed to the putative membership of the parish….
The meeting took place Sunday August
10. Pursuant to Article 32 of our Parish Constitution…….I called the meeting to
order, and read your letter to Mr. Vizir where you noted that any changes to
the Parish Constitution must be approved by the Consistory, and that persons
who refused to pay their national dues to the Consistory are not members of the
Parish.
…. forty-three people were present at
the meeting…….
…. I asked the people (who had paid their national dues to the
Consistory) to stand up. In addition to myself
just three people stood up.
…. I stated that in accordance with (Archbishop Antony’s letter of July
18th) only these three people in
addition to myself could vote at the meeting and
that….any decisions made by the meeting would be
advisory only, with no legal affect
The meeting purported to make four decisions:
1. The draft of the
new Parish Constitution was discussed and amended to omit any reference to the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA or to our Parish’s inclusion in the
Church.
2. A substantial
majority of the people present voted to ratify the draft Parish Constitution as
amended …….
3. Mrs. Kravets
announced that an attorney advised her that the Parish’s Articles of
Incorporation should be amended as well. …….. (the) amendments to the Articles
were quickly approved; in particular the Church’s reversionary interests in the
property of the Parish, in case of the Parish’s dissolution or surrender of its
charter as a Parish of the Church, was deleted.
4. Mr. Vizir’s
performance in office and my own were roundly criticized, and a vote of no
confidence was taken against us. Our performance is to be discussed at the
upcoming mid-year general meeting, with the understanding that we may be voted
out of office if found wanting.
I am writing to request the
Consistory’s guidance and immediate assistance in two respects.
A. I request an
official ruling from the Consistory regarding the legitimacy of the “General
Meeting” that took place August 10, and the validity of several decisions that
this meeting purported to make.
B. Based on
recent events, I believe that some fraction of the putative membership of our
Parish may soon try to disaffiliate our Parish from the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church of the USA. Therefore, I petition the Consistory to immediate proceed
with such measures as may be needed to foreclose this possibility, and to
restore order in our Parish……..
Signed,
Dr. Oleh Weres, Vice-President of the
Parish Board
*****************************************
And
that folks is the “Rest of The Story”…..
……..Forty
three people present at the extraordinary general parish meeting
……..Only
“four” are recognize to vote on parish matters
……..Decisions
made by the “substantial majority” are declared invalid
……..If
you pay your parish membership dues BUT disagree with the Consistory’s
actions or decisions you are not a
member of the Parish of St. Michael’s
And
now the general membership of St. Michael’s Parish are waiting for Antony of
Ierapolis “to proceed with such measures as may be needed….to restore order….”
St.
Michael’s, Uniondale, Long Island, New York or
St. Mary’s,
New Haven Connecticut????
######################################################################
Antony of
Ierapolis
takes aim at
St. Michael’s
Parish in
San Francisco
One week prior to official publication of the court
decision in the Holy Ascension Church, Clifton, NJ case Archbishop Antony of
Ierapolis states his demands to the parishioners of St. Michael’s Parish in San
Francisco, California.
All
parishioners of St. Michael’s Parish must sign a Declaration of Loyalty:
·
“to show humility in respect to the internal order of the
Church”
·
“to show respect towards the Heirarchy of the Church”
·
“to abstain from actions meant to separate St. Michael’s
Parish from UOC-USA”
In
a letter dated August 22, 2003 to Dr. Oleh Weres, Assistant to parish board
president, Archbishop Antony of Ierapolis sent the following instructions:
1)
The General Parish meeting of August 10, 2003 was illegal.
2)
All decisions made at this meeting are not binding and do not
have any standing either in our canonical church court or any civil court.
Therefore…… continues Archbishop Antony:
1)
The Parish Constitution remains unchanged.
2)
The Articles of Incorporation of St. Michael’s Parish remain
unchanged.
3)
Demands by the general parish membership for Mr. Weresh and
Mr. Vizir to account for their actions is without basis and should be ignored.
Following
are additional instructions directed at Dr.. Oleh Weres by Archbishop Antony:
1)
You are to immediately to make a list of all members of St. Michael’s
Parish.
2)
Each Parish member is to sign a declaration of loyalty (as attached)
within 14 days.
3)
When you receive replies from your general membership you are to
forward this list to us.
4)
Anyone who does not sign the declaration of loyalty is to be immediately dismissed from the
parish and removed from any Parish Board positions or any Supervisory Board
positions.
5)
Any individual in control of church funds, church property or
membership lists and who does not sign the loyalty oath is to be dismissed.
6)
In the event of need I will sent you an official letter directed to
your local bank designating individuals who will have authority to access St.
Michael’s accounts.
7)
Please inform your parishioners that the St. Michael’s Parish holds its
real property in trust for UOC-USA.
8)
The Consistory of UOC-USA has no intentions or aims for the parish
property.
9)
The Consistory of UOC-USA will take possession of St.
Michael’s real property and accounts only in the event of a) dissolution of the
parish as voted by 90% of the membership or b) the parish decides to leave the
jurisdiction of UOC-USA.
10) Since there is no method by
which the parish can leave the jurisdiction of UOC-USA this second reason
becomes mute and cannot be realized.
11)In the event that the parish
ceases to function UOC-USA would sell all church buildings and all funds
would be
held in a California account. UOC-USA would attempt to create a new parish in
the same area
with
the same membership. Under these circumstances all funds would re returned to
the newly created
parish.
I, ________________________________________
declare:
q I consider myself to be a
member of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA whose Consistory is located
in South Bound Brook, NJ., and a member of the Parish of St. Michael in San
Francisco, California, which is a constituent part of this Church. I am bound
by the Constitution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA and the lawful
Constitution of St. Michael’s Parish, and promise to carry out all of my
responsibilities according to these documents, which include: (1) showing
humility in respect to the internal order of the Church, (2) showing respect
towards the Hierarchy of the Church, and (3) abstaining from acts harmful to
the Church; for example, actions meant to separate St. Michael’s from the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA. I ask the Parish Board to send the
Consistory of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA the appropriate part of
the dues which I have paid to the Parish in fulfillment of my financial
obligations as a member of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA.
q I do not consider myself to
the (sic) be subject to the Constitution or internal order of the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church of the USA.
Please
check one of the boxes above, sign this declaration, and return it using the
enclosed envelope. Your response must be received no later than September 16,
2003. Members now traveling have 7 days to respond following their return.
*****************************************************
On May 25, 2003 at an Extraordinary
Parish meeting convened by the Supervisory Committee of St. Michael’s UOC
Parish in San Francisco, the parishioners voted overwhelmingly (97%) to accept
the Constitutional Changes proposed by the Constitutional Committee. The
proposed Constitutional changes, among others, included the provision for the
parishioners to decide the religious jurisdiction to which they wished to
belong.
In addition, the parishioners voted
overwhelmingly to continue to withhold their financial obligation to the
Consistory of UOC-USA until such time as the hierarchs of UOC-USA “returned” to
the Ukrainian Church in Ukraine.
Since Easter Sunday the
parishioners of St. Michael’s have been deprived of the pastoral services of
Fr. Jacob who has been forbidden, for unknown reasons, by Archbishop Antony to
serve his parishioners. Letters from the Parish Board and numerous telephone calls
to the Consistory did not do any good to withdraw the decision made by
Archbishop Antony. As the May 7th letter from Archbishop Antony to
Dr. Oleh Veres stated:
“The official reply to the letter from the
parish board as to retraction of the decision to remove Fr. Jacob from his
pastoral duties is negative, that is, a retraction of the decision will not be
made.”
The Parish Board, in a letter dated May 8, 2003 to
the parishioners of St. Michael’s, responded by declaring…..
“We must leave the jurisdiction of a foreign Consistory (which is now not Councilliar but Syno