The Ship of our Church is Guided by People
In (Ukrainian newspaper)
“Svoboda” (9th of July, 1999) an article was written by Dr. Peter
Shajenko “From Kyiv I will not turn away…” and at the end of the article the
respected author directs his comments to my attention in his pronouncement…”You
were one of those that carried on discussions in Constantinople and one of the
most informed in these matters. Please outline for us the situation as it
appeared to you then and how it appears to you today”.
First I must clarify to the respected
Dr. Shajenko and to many others that I was never “one of those that carried on
discussions with Constantinople”. This is a misapplied error. Yes, I did travel
to Constantinople in a group of 37 persons but all discussions and negotiations
were conducted at the bishops’ level and no one else, other than the bishops
participated in them. Other than myself, the delegation consisted of other
lay-members of the Metropolitan Council, Dr. Jurij Krywolap, Engineer
Sviatoslav Lychuk, Dr. Heil Wolechak, Valentina Kysmuch, Dr. Harry Orehon and
Wasyl (William) Pastyshok. The balance of the delegation consisted of clergy
with their wives. With us was also, of blessed memory, Mr. Volodymyr Mazyr. All
of us paid for this trip with our own finances. After conclusion of discussions
we were invited to participate in the official Patriarchal reception where we
were able to directly verbalize our greeting to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Our
discussions with him concerned itself exclusively with the Church in Ukraine.
He replied that he understands our concerns but we must have patience.
I
could have ended my reply (to Dr. Shajenko) with this short clarification, but
seeing the respected Dr. Shajenko’s question, which must be very painful to him
and many other readers of “Svoboda”, I cannot stop with such a short response.
Therefore, I will continue. I want to immediately assure the respected author
that I have never turned away or will turn away from Kyiv, that is, the
Patriarchal center of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. Furthermore, being a member of the
Metropolitan Council of UOC-USA, I do not know of any member of the Council,
including members of the episcopacy that would turn away or forsake Kyiv.
Therefore, making statements to the contrary, I regard misleading, untruthful and
insulting.
On
more than one occasion I verbalized my viewpoint, in Ukrainian Diaspora press
releases and in Ukraine, on the current inter-church relationships. Being a
representative of UOC-USA in Ukraine for several years, I have considerably
important archival material that, should it be made public, will show the hard
work and effort extended by UOC-USA to achieve normalization of inter-church
relations in Ukraine, that in the process we should achieve a common goal – the
entry of Ukrainian Orthodox Church into the family of independent world
churches, to gain recognition and forever throw off the shackles of the Russian
Orthodoxy in Ukraine.
With
reference of acceptance of the spiritual omofor of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
this should be to all known, that this act was not a secret. UOC-USA, before
accepting this decision, consulted (with enthusiasm) with all other Ukrainian
Churches in the Diaspora and, most important, with UOC-KP and UAOC in Ukraine.
This has been confirmed by appropriate documentation, which was timely
publicized in press releases of UOC-USA. For example, important document
“Resolution of Metropolitan Council of UOC-USA. Yearly session 2-4 February
1995” states…. “After consultation of our hierarchs with hierarchs of Ukrainian
Orthodox Churches in Ukraine – His Holiness Volodymyr, Patriarch of Kyiv and
All Rus-Ukraine, Kyivan Patriarchate and His Holiness Dimitrij, Patriarch of
Kyiv and All Ukraine, UAOC, as well as after consultation with all hierarchs of
Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Diaspora, who verbalized their full agreement and
support, we, members of the Church Council, Metropolia of UOC-USA, fully
support (the) decision to lead Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Diaspora under the
omofor of His Holiness Bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarch, and at the same time
remain in full communion with all Churches of World Orthodoxy”.
We
must note that, in examining the hierarchs and churches noted in this document,
we do not see UOC-Canada, who, similarly, accepted the omofor of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate 5 years earlier but did not come under the fire of such
criticisim. At that time, Patriarch Volodymyr (Romanjuk), with his deputy
Metropolitan Filaret and 14 bishops of UOC-Kyivan Patriarchate pronounced: “(Their) satisfaction with the decision of
the Bishops Council of Ukrainian Orthodox Church in USA and the Diaspora that
the Eucharistic union with Ecumenical Orthodoxy will have a positive influence
on the matter of unity of churches in independent Ukraine and assure (the)
strengthening of the Kyivan See as a spiritual center of our Mother-Church of
(all) Orthodox Ukrainians not only in Ukraine but also beyond its acknowledged
and recognized borders”. Therefore, this step (by) UOC-USA was supported (by)
all hierarchs of Ukrainian Orthodox Churches in the world.
Why
was this so? Because UOC-KP and UAOC at that time considered that UOC-USA and
Diaspora with this action created a path for them to all world orthodoxy. These
expectations were strengthened by so (the) called “Estonian Variation” that
brought conflict between the Ecumenical and Moscow Patriarchs that at that time
was especially very beneficial to us. (The) Moscow Patriarchate strongly
criticized the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarch with reference to the
(omofor) decision of UOC-USA and Diaspora. Truthfully though, (the) Patriarchs
quickly made peace and our expectations were transposed into disappointment.
Our
contacts with UOC-KP and the UAOC continued with regularity. Delegations from
UOC-USA traveled to the funeral of Patriarch Volodymyr, to the Sobor of UOC-KP,
and to the All Ukrainian Forum for
discussions with President Kuchma. Every time there were meetings and
discussions with representatives of Ukrainian Churches. As a representative of
UOC-USA in Ukraine, I regularly met with the Patriarch of UOC-KP and UAOC and
twice in the last two years I had (unproductive) meetings with Metropolitan
Volodymyr (Sabodan) of UOC-Moscow Patriarchate. With regret, our main goal –
prepare the foundation for the union and creation of one Ukrainian Orthodox
Church in Ukraine – was not achieved.
Patriarch Filaret, in our discussions, recounted that visiting people from USA expressed the desire of their parishes to join with Kyivan Patriarchate. He also recounted that some parishes have appealed to him with such requests. He assured (me) that he has no desire to damage relations with UOC-USA and their hierarchs. Contrary, he desires creating a closer and more effective relationship and (establish) more intensive contacts. In an interview on 5 June 1997, Patriarch (Filaret) noted: We, that is Kyivan Patriarchate, wish to safeguard good relationship with Ukrainian Orthodox Church in USA, Western Europe and generally in Diaspora. But we know, that not all parishes are in agreement with the UOC-USA joining the Constantinople Patriarchate. And separately, not in agreement that questions of property rights which might be decided not to the benefit of Ukrainians in Ukraine. These questions we must decide together with the leadership of UOC-USA for the benefit of Ukraine and all Ukrainians, that we should not argue at a time when all energies must be directed toward creating one Church that would enter into the family of independent Orthodox Churches”. Those were the thoughts of Patriarch (Filaret) in 1997. If questions of so-called property rights are excluded, in which can be seen a large amount of untruthful information that he receives from USA, his thoughts of cooperation between UOC-USA and UOC-KP can be readily (accepted). In addition, having close to 3000 parishes in UOC-KP, he always noted that adding 2 or 3 parishes from Diaspora, to him, will have no important significance.
But
further events, in our relationship with Ecumenical Patriarchate, brought
doubts and disillusionment. We are referring, for example, to the events in
Odessa, to the correspondence with Moscow Patriarchate, to the intransigence,
vacillation and obvious dependence in their decisions upon the posturing in
Moscow. Our relations and even individual visits and discussions (Archbishop
Antony after Odessa) did not result in expected reactions. During the
Ecumenical Patriarchates visit to Bound Brook in October 1997, our hierarchs
had discussion with him in the presence of the Ukrainian Presidents’
representative, Mr. Victor Bondarenko. The Ecumenical Patriarch requested a
letter from the President of Ukraine to intercede into Church affairs in
Ukraine and to bring into union all Churches into one Ukrainian Patriarchate in
Kyiv. Regretfully, even though it was promised, such a document from the
President was never received. Again these discussions did not bring forth the
desired result. This alarmed us and continues to alarm us. Therefore in my
mind, the time has not arrived to break all relations, as some have demanded.
We should count the positive Eucharistic union with the Ecumenical Patriarchate
in contrast to those moments that trouble us. Further, remaining in spiritual
union with other world orthodox churches, UOC-USA will continue its struggle
towards one of its primary goals: to help Ukraine and its churches to create
one National Orthodox Church in Ukraine. But let us not forget that the church
is a religious and not a political institution and therefore we have to jointly
seek a harmonious union of our spiritual needs with the social interests of the
Ukrainian nation.
And
now about the current situation. The Church reality is not ideal either (over)
there or here. In Ukraine, two national churches UOC-KP and UAOC, cannot find a
common dialog between them. There exists an open aggressiveness between them.
The third force – Moscow’s’ Orthodox Church – in numbers exceeds by twice the
numbers of the other two. This third one, entrenched through the centuries, has
a great influence on the general population and the government administration,
primarily the President (of Ukraine). The perception should be that the main
focus of attention of both national churches would be directed towards this
problem in Ukraine. And there is immeasurable amount of work to be done.
Therefore why fight among ourselves? Why enter into conflicts cutting all ties
with UOC-USA when 6000 parishes in our dear fatherland are under control of an
enemy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church?
Several
days ago I had an opportunity to view a video film of the situation that
occurred in Marioupole. I saw a crowd of our orthodox “chachliv” (slang for
Ukrainians) in unison with Moscow’s clergy chanting “anathema” against
(Patriarch) Filaret. These, “chachly in clerical garb”, forcefully entered the
county administration offices demanding expulsion of Patriarch Filaret. There,
presidential representatives, genuflecting before Moscow’s clergy, promised,
“all will be taken care of”.
In
March I was in the Carpathian region where I distributed aid from UOC-USA to
those suffering the recent floods. In the Carpathian region there is not one
parish of UOC-KP or UAOC. Should this not be a priority for our church
administration in Ukraine?
In
front of me are four books titled “Discussions of Contemporary Fears”… a
serialized collection of UAOC Patriarch Dimitrij’s speeches to the Ukrainian
people. The books are translated, reprinted and distributed here in USA. They
all deal with the theme of “Filaret Schism”. There is not one good word
regarding the other Ukrainian Patriarch. Where does this lead? And why is this
“literature” now distributed by us….Orthodox Ukrainians in Diaspora who till
today lived in peace and harmony, building and strengthening our Church and
even assisted Ukraine? Is this not the creation of another front between
us, UOC-KP and UAOC?
Four
years has elapsed from the time of acceptance of the omofor of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate. Almost from the start there appeared concerns among our parishes
regarding the facts surrounding this act. Many of the faithful of UOC-USA had
reservations, demanding information and details concerning this action. What
was signed? With what type of responsibilities were accepted? Additional
clarifications did not help for the (questioners) were un-convincable. In this
there was a weakness in the news administration of UOC-USA.
The
15th Sobor took further step towards clarifying questions that were
of concern to a number of delegates, accepting resolutions from Committee on Inter-church
affairs and defeating the proposed changes to the (Church) constitution. It
would appear that the decision of the Sobor, accepted by the majority, should
peacefully be accepted by all in a church structure based on sobornopravnist
(councilliar governing). But, Sobornopravnist is repeatedly used for individual
benefit….if not in accordance with my position, then this is not
Sobornopravnist. Those unsatisfied with the decision continue to elicit
mistrust to the hierarchs.
Doubts
as to the execution of the Sobor declarations further cast oil upon the fires.
It became more obvious that actions were started not for joining UOC-KP but for
the weakening and destruction of UOS-USA from within. In this action there are
distribution of letters, pamphlets and journals full of untruths and insults.
New specialists from Ukraine strengthen old but well-known methods. Lets
remember the bitter (pill) swallowed by Patriarch Mstyslav from these
“dedicated orthodox”.
We
remember previous letters and brochures, full of insults directed against
Mstyslav that were distributed in the same manner as done today. Now they are
using the name of Mstyslav for their benefit. From previous anti-Mstyslav
factions they converted to Mstyslav supporters.
Personally
I am not against several parishes of UOC-USA joining UOC-KP or UAOC if this is
their desire. But why can’t this be
done in peace and quiet and without insults and (curses)?
One united national
Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the center of Ukraine…Kyiv…is my desire towards
which I will strive to the end of my days. Currently Kyivan Patriarchate
symbolizes such a Church. We should remember that the divisions among our
Churches in Ukraine are deeply complicated. Of importance to the expansion and
strengthening of our churches here and in Ukraine is the achievement of unity
among us as well as achieving understanding of common support, finding a common
dialog and common grounds for constructive relations between us. We are all
Christians and blood brothers in faith. That is why I am against the
destruction of our churches, against falsehoods, against spreading hatred,
against fighting among ourselves, against self-destruction, for this weakens
us, not only here but over there (in Ukraine).
From
the time of acceptance of the omofor of the Ecumenical Patriarchate there
occurred 2 Sobors…14th and 15th. The first confirmed the acceptance
of the omofor (with only 32 out of 206 delegates opposing). The second…15th
Sobor…rejected the proposed changes to the (Church) constitution, leaving in
place the previous structure where UOC-USA continues to be Sobornopravna
(councillar) and an independent church. And further, the Sobor accepted the
decision to directly address the Ecumenical Patriarch for clarifications of his
position regarding the Ukrainian Church. Answers to letters, that were supposed
to have been written by (our) Metropolitan (Constantine), to this day have not
been received.
The
Metropolitan Council at the last meeting 15-17 July 1997 decided to take
several other decisive steps in our desire to help our brothers in Ukraine.
With this goal, the Metropolitan Council directed a letter to the Ecumenical
Patriarch requesting clarifications of his position regarding the Church in
Ukraine and in September a delegation from the Metropolitan Council will travel
to Constantinople with the intent of having direct discussions with Patriarch
Bartholomew. And maybe we will reach the decision that the time for delicate
diplomacy has ended.
Therefore
our work for the good of the Church here and (in Ukraine) continues. It is
fully understood that to reach our goal we must have unity and cooperation.
Examples from the last Sobor demonstrate that achieving the desired (goal) can
only be accomplished by a unified laity and clergy of our Church. Therefore,
self-expulsion of fully recognized members of the Church, due to non-compliance
with statutory obligations brings a loss of a voice at a time when it is most
needed. Parishes that through this action suspend themselves from the Church
structure loose their rights to participate in Church Sobors. And those not
present do not have a voice!
Expectations
are that my viewpoints and thoughts regarding the current situation in (our)
Orthodox Church will help understand the complicated as well as critical
position of inter-church relationships. Review of actions presented in this
article is not a search for some “apology” proposed by Dr. P. Shajenko. In
church politics, as well as in general politics, cold facts, though sometimes
are not successful, should take priority before emotional outbursts of our
desires or expectations.
The
above-enumerated facts are only a small part of the work of Ukrainian Orthodox
Church in USA in its historical directive to be in the forefront of worldwide
Ukrainian Orthodoxy. I am certain that a thoughtful reader will find in the
above, answers to some of his concerns or uncertainties.
I
want to again underscore that from Kyiv we never turned away nor will we ever
turn away. And the ship of our church will sail in that direction controlled by
people at the bridge. Those that in panic are jumping from the ship into the
water will not have an influence on its course.
Dr.
Anatolij Lysyj
Minneapolis