St. Mary's Protection UOC, New Haven
Connecticut
“(Your) church is
satanical”
declared
Rev. Jakiw Norton, Dean of New England and representative of Archbishop Antony
and UOC-USA
Update
on the situation at St. Mary’s Protection Parish, New Haven, CT
In a reply to Archbishop Antony’s letter certifying the
so-called “election” of Mr. Denysenko, the parishioners of St. Mary’s
Protection in New Haven, CT were outraged at the behavior, conduct and verbal
abuse that emanated from Rev. Jakiw Norton.
An excerpt from the parishioners response
to Archbishop Antony…………..
“Furthermore, we would not
be remiss not to report Reverend Jakiw Norton’s……. conduct. It was appalling.
Not five minutes into the meeting Reverend Norton instructed his son to call
the police for absolutely no reason. Two squad cars arrived at our church.
Several of the parish members along with Reverend Norton and Reverend Hanas
went out into the hallway of the church to talk to the policeman. Reverend
Norton explained that a couple of the parishioners at the meeting raised their
voice and this is the reason he called the police, however, he failed to
mention that his voice was the loudest and that he banged a soda bottle on the
table. The police were astonished by the call and stated that they had more
important things to take care of. Before leaving the church they reminded
Reverend Norton, Reverend Hanas and those present in the hallway that this was
a House of God. This incident was totally uncalled for, embarrassed and shamed
our church. The members of our parish were overwhelmed, in shock and saddened
by the uncalled for arrival of the police, but not nearly as much as when Reverend Norton
pronounced our church to be satanical.”
*********************************************
From recent history we recall
that on November 30, 1996 at a parish meeting in Chicago Archbishop Antony
proclaimed:
“To Ukraine……… we
are being called by the devil”.
It has been confirmed in New
Haven that the disciples have learned well from their teacher.
The events at St. Mary’s in New Haven began on March
24, 2002 at which time an election was held to elect a new Parish Board. The
voting followed prescribed rules as outlined in the church constitution. The
majority of the parishioners voted to keep in place the existing Board due to
their exemplary work during the past term. The opposition, headed by Mr.
Denysenko, lost the election. Immediately there was a protest. The votes were
counted and re-counted again and again. The results were the same…. Mr. Denysenko
lost the election. Not being satisfied with the results and several re-counting
of the ballots, Mr. Denysenko lodged a written or verbal appeal to Archbishop
Antony.
The response from the Archbishop of Hierapolis was
immediate and identical to the response he made at St. Michaels in Uniondale,
LI, N.Y. (Go to: uniondale)
and St. Mary’s in Rochester, N.Y (Go to: stmaryrochester ) …………………..
An official
letter circumventing the will of the majority by “certifying” the losers.
****************************************************
THESE ARE NOT RELIGIOUS
PEOPLE.
THESE ARE MANIPULATORS PURE
AND SIMPLE AND THEY ARE NOT AFRAID TO SHOW THEIR TRUE COLOR WHICH IS RED EXCEPT THE HAMMER AND
SICKLE IS MISSING.
AND WE ALL THOUGH THAT TOTALITARISM DIED
WITH THE SOVIET UNION?
HOW WRONG WE ARE!
TOTALITARISM IS
LIVING AND BREATHING IN SO. BOUND BROOK IN THE FORM OF AN ARCHBISHOP OBSESSED
WITH POWER, INFATUATED WITH RECOGNITION AND SATURATED WITH SELF IMPORTANCE. A
CALCULATING, DEVIOUS MAN NOT WORTHY OF A BISHOPS MITER NOR EVEN THE GARB OF A
SIMPLE PRIEST.
**********************************************************************
Parishioners
letter of response to Archbishop Antony’s letter certifying the losers in the
Parish Board elections.
Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Of Saint Mary’s Protection
50 Fowler
St.
July 17, 2002
Archbishop Antony, Consistory President
Consistory of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
PO Box 495
South Bound Brook, NJ 08880
Your Excellency Archbishop Antony:
Glory to Jesus Christ!
We are responding to your
letter dated July 2, 2002 in which you “affirm”, on the basis of the votes taken
at the 24 March, 2002 General Parish Council….the valid election of Mr. Wasyl
Denysenko as president of the Parish Council of said parish…” of which copies
were distributed to parishioners on July 7, 2002 after liturgy, as well as the
events that transpired during this meeting presided by Reverend Jakiw Norton,
Dean of New England.
We were astonished at the
content of your letter since the General Parish Meeting held on March 24, 2002
adhered to the constitution and the bylaws of our church and Mr. Denysenko did
not win the election as described in the bylaws of St. Mary’s Protectress
Ukrainian Orthodox Church Section 10, Paragraph 17. We can only surmise that you responded to a complaint that you
obviously received from some of our parishioners who were not satisfied with
the results of this election.
If
you did receive a complaint, we understand that it is your duty to investigate
the issues as outlined in the Constitution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the
USA, Article VI, Paragraph 3m; Article VIII, Paragraph 4, and Article IX,
Paragraph 31. After much deliberation we fail to see Your Excellency’s
compliance to the aforementioned articles and paragraphs of the Constitution of
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA.
We are therefore respectfully
requesting the following:
and
We are appealing that you provide us with the information
requested no later than August 1, 2002.
We believe that we are
exercising our rights as described in the Constitution of the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church of the USA, Article III, Paragraph 5.
Additionally we find that Mr.
Denysenko was in violation of the bylaws of St. Mary’s Protectress Ukrainian
Orthodox Church Section 10, Paragraph 7 by calling a meeting of the
parishioners of the church. If Mr. Denysenko disputes the election he should
have followed the appropriate procedures as outlined in our constitution.
Moreover, according to the bylaws of St. Mary’s Protestress Ukrainian Orthodox
Church, Section 11, Paragraph 4, Mr. Denysenko does not meet with the
qualifications to assume the position of President of the Parish Council.
Furthermore, we would not be
remiss not to report Reverend Jakiw Norton’s, the consistory’s representative
presiding over this meeting, conduct. It was appalling. Not five minutes into
the meeting Reverend Norton instructed his son to call the police for
absolutely no reason. Two squad cars arrived at our church. Several of the
parish members along with reverend Norton and Reverend Hanas went out into the
hallway of the church to talk to the policeman. Reverend Norton explained that
a couple of the parishioners at the meeting raised their voice and this is the
reason he called the police, however, he failed to mention that his voice was
the loudest and that he banged a soda bottle on the table. The police were
astonished by the call and stated that they had more important things to take
care of. Before leaving the church they reminded Reverend Norton, Reverend
Hanas and those present in the hallway that this was a House of God. This
incident was totally uncalled for, embarrassed and shamed our church. The
members of our parish were overwhelmed, in shock and saddened by the uncalled
for arrival of the police, but not nearly as much as when Reverend Norton
pronounced our church to be satanical.
We ask you, is this
appropriate behavior for a Dean? Section XI, Paragraph 5 of the constitution of
the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA states that the Dean shall act at the
direction of his Eparchial Bishop and promote the development of religious life.
Additionally, did Reverend Norton’s conduct comply with the constitution
Article I, Paragraph 2 and 3? We would hope that he did not act at the
direction of his Eparchial Bishop, if
he did our church is in a very sad state of affairs.
As previously mentioned we are
requesting that you respond to all our concerns, questions, and request in
writing no later than August 1, 2002.
We pray that Christ our Lord
and Savior bestow His blessing on you, provides you with good health,
spirituality, love and wisdom to restore peace and love amongst all of our
clergy and parishioners here and in Ukraine and lead us on a path of
righteousness in the glory of God.
With Love in Christ,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Archbishop
Antony’s letter certifying the “losers” in the Parish Board elections.
Consistory
of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
of the USA
Mr. Wasyl Denesenko, Parish Council President
Saint Mary Protectress Ukrainian Orthodox Church
And the honorable parishioners of the Parish
50 Fowler Street
New Haven. CT 06515
Dear Mr. Denysenko and the beloved members of Saint Mary
Protectress Ukrainian Orthodox:
Glory to Jesus Christ!
This is to certify that I, the undersigned Archbishop and
President of the Consistory of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA,
affirm, on the basis of the votes taken at the 24 March, 2002 General Parish
Assembly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Parish of Saint Mart Protectress Church, 50
Fowler Street, New Haven, CT, a parish of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the
USA, the valid election of Mr. Wasyl Denysenko as president of the Parish
Council of said parish and recognize his authority to convoke ordinary and
extraordinary meetings of the Parish Board of Administration for the glory of
God and the good estate of the parish community.
This recognition of the validity of Mr. Denysenko’s
election to the office of President of the Parish Council is based on the
roster of those present, indicating the vote of each member and is filed and
recorded in our Consistory Office.
Reiterating our recognition of the validity of Wasyl
Denysenko’s election, we call upon all members of the parish the blessing of
God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one in All Holy and Consubstantial
trinity.
In the all-encompassing love of Christ our Lord and
Savior,
+Antony
By the Grace of God, Archbishop, Consistory President
******************************************************************
It is
Uniondale,
Long Island, N.Y.
All Over Again!!!
But this time it is
happening in
New Haven, Connecticut!
According to reports that we received, Archbishop Antony
of Hierapolis is at it again, but this time he selected St. Mary Protectress
Parish in New Haven, CT.
We are in the process of
acquiring full details to determine exactly what has happened but preliminary
reports indicate that a small group of parish dissidents did not agree with the
majority of the parishioners at the annual Parish Board elections, appealed to
Archbishop Antony, received a letter of certification based on false
allegations and documentation, assumed by force control of church buildings and
property, called the police and chained the front entrance to the church.
This occurred within a time
frame of 2 weeks with the full participation of V. Rev. Jakiw Norton, Dean of
New England Deanery and Rev. Volodymyr Hanas, Pastor of St. Mary Protectress
Parish.
These are IDENTICAL tactics
that were used at St. Michaels Parish in Uniondale, LI, N.Y. and St. Mary
Protectress Parish, Rochester, NY. (Go to: stmaryrochester
)
If Archbishop
Antony of Hierapolis does not approve of the outcome of a parish election, he
certifies the minority dissidents, calls out the police and chains the front
entrance to the church property.
It is “De Javu”
all over again but this time in New Haven, Connecticut
As soon as full details are
available, including copies of documentation, we will publish the information
immediately.
****************************************************************
November 24, 1999
To Myroslaw Smorodsky P.A.
Dear Mr. Smorodsky,
The parish of St. Mary's Protection UOC in New Haven, Connecticut disagrees and does not support Archbishop Antony's decision or action of filing a civil court suit against the Board Members and the parishioners of Holy Ascension UOC in Clifton, New Jersey.
We protest, object and disapprove of Archbishop Antony of the Consistory filing the lawsuit in the name of UOC in the USA as plaintiffs in this action. This would include our parish as well as other parishes belonging to the UOC in USA.
We affirm that our parish emphatically refuses to consider itself as a plaintiff in the action filed by Archbishop Antony against the parishioners of Holy Ascension in Clifton, NJ.
Therefore, we reaffirm that "sobornopravnist" are the guiding principles of our church(es) and that individual parishes have the exclusive right and responsibility for the administration, management, control and operation of their properties and finances. The assets are the sole property of the parish and may be disposed of by the parish in accordance with the parish Constitution and under the Connecticut State Charter of Religious Corporations and Society.
Signed…. Peter Kornienko, President and Ivan Dankiwsky, Secretary