St. Mary Protectress
UAOC, Rochester, NY
Parish Life Update
We have been wondering what happens to parish life when a
pro-Archbishop Antony administration “assumes” control of a parish and implements
changes against the wishes of the majority of the parishioners. To get an
updated report we contacted several parishioners at St. Mary’s Parish in
Rochester, NY. We present a composite of their comments.
In addition we are posting an “unsigned” document “Rochester
NY – Ukrainian Orthodox Parish Dies a Slow Death”
that we received. This document provides additional details of what has been
happening at St. Mary’s. We were able to identify the original author of this
document but will not reveal his name for fear of the obvious consequences to
this individual in South Bound Brook.
“Finally,
you asked me the about the situation in our church in Rochester. Well, the
pro-Anthony people are in full control of the Church board and the money -
whatever is left of it. Some of them had a fall-out with Fr.Paul Jagnisz (now
monk Philip in So. Bound Brook) and wrote letters to Archbishop Anthory
requesting his removal from Rochester. Apparently enough of such letters were
received by Anthony because he finally and reluctantly did remove him.
As
a replacement Anthony sent us Fr.Ihor
Krekhovetsky. I am not sure of the correct spelling of his name in English. He
is a newcomer from Ukraine (only about 8 years in the US) who has a wife and
two school age children. Unlike Fr. Paul Jagnisz, he is not controversial but
we doubt that the pro-Anthony people will be happy with him. They wanted to
make our church “more like American churches” and “to attract the young English
speaking people”. Fr. Ihor is not likely to be useful in this particular
demand.
The
majority of parishioners who are against Anthony and pro-Kyiv, are
disappointed, discouraged and resentful at the miscarriage of justice that has
occurred here. Some stopped coming to church services, some stopped paying
church dues and many members quit the church choir. I suspect that the total
church membership decreased significantly. The future of our parish looks bleak
in terms of membership and financial support. For example in the past we used
to have two bingo games per week now there is only one.
Now,
of course, if you ask a pro-Anthony parishioner about our parish, he/she will
tell you that everything is fine and “normal”. In case you do not know,
“normal” is a very popular term used in Ukraine. When one says “normal” what
does it really mean?? Good? Bad? Indifferent? Cannot really tell can you?
However, according to reliable reports, there is a lot of quarrelling within
the parish council which started when some of the council members wanted to get
rid of Fr.Jagnisz while others wanted to keep him. Fr.Jagnisz is out but
quarrelling continues”.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fr. Paul Jagnisz, previously pastor of St. Mary’s in Rochester, NY,
is alive and well and living in South Bound Brook. For a while it was a mystery
as to where he would end up, but it has been reported that he has landed on his
feet in South Bound Brook and conducts English services at the Seminary Chapel.
A “wise” decision was made by the Consistory to recall him. From
all reports from St. Mary’s, Fr. Paul needs extensive “people sensitivity”
training.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First it was Fr.
Mironko
and now it’s
Fr. Paul Jagnisz
in Rochester, NY
Recently
we reported that Fr. Mironko asked and received a release from the jurisdiction
of Archbishop Antony and UOC-USA. And now we learned that Fr. Paul Jagnisz of
St. Mary Protectress Parish in Rochester, N.Y. will be leaving St. Mary parish,
for parts unknown, on September 15,
2002.
Numerous
unsubstantiated rumors are floating around… that he is being transferred… that
he is leaving the jurisdiction of UOC-USA….. that he is going to Ukraine to
join with UOC-KP. The only common denominator in all these rumors is that his
last service at St. Mary’s will be on September 15 and that most of the
parishioners are glad that he is leaving. It appears that Fr. Paul antagonized
both the pro and con Archbishop Antony parishioners and at least in this matter
there appears to be some unity within the parish.
As
soon as the situation becomes clear we will advise our readers.
*************************************************************************************************
News from St.
Mary Protectress Parish, Rochester, NY Annual Meeting
Rev. Paul Jagnisz says:
No Confession and
Communion from Rev. Jagnisz…………….…NO VOTE
Based
on information received from reliable observers at the Annual Meeting of
parishioners at St. Mary Protectress parish the Bishops of Bound Brook have
taught their disciples well………… If you do not have votes on your side to win legitimately then
eliminate or disqualify the votes of the opposition.
That
is precisely what the pro-Antony Parish Council did at the annual meeting in
Rochester, NY.
July 1, 2001 Rochester
Report….
As reported by observers at St. Mary Protectress
Parish Annual Meeting, Rochester, NY
Based
on the recent shenanigans during the June 24, 2001 annual meeting at St. Mary
Protectress parish in Rochester, NY, the Bishops of Bound Brook have taught
their disciples well: If you do not
have votes on your side to win legitimately then eliminate or disqualify the
votes of the opposition.
That is precisely what the pro-Antony Parish Council
did at the St. Mary Protectress annual meeting in Rochester, NY.
Eliminating
or disqualifying votes was made in a variety of ways:
1) Upon request of the
pro-Antony Parish Council, Rev. Paul Jagnisz, (appointed by Archbishop Antony
and until June 24, 2001 has not been approved by the General Assembly as
required by Parish Constitution) obediently supplied the Parish Council a list
of parishioners who did not take the sacraments of confession and communion
from him. (The fact that some of the parishioners did take this sacrament at
St. Mary’s Parish from another priest
during Rev. Jagnisz’s absence, in most
cases that did not count). The list was then used by the Parish
Council to disenfranchise those individuals. This completely new practice at
St. Mary’s parish reminded some parishioners of the situation they experienced
in the former Soviet Union where priests were obliged to report the behavior of
their flock to authorities. The parishioners of St. Mary’s angrily recounted
this to Rev. Jagnisz prior to the meeting.
His reply was “You are nervous, you are exited, please calm down.”
What happened at St. Mary’s, as in the former Soviet Union, a spiritual event (sacraments) was used for political purpose (disenfranchisement).
2) Another method used do disenfranchise some opponents of
the pro-Antony Parish Council was the following:
If a parishioner, opposed to the pro-Antony Parish Council, was an officer of the Brotherhood,
Sisterhood, or the Parish choir and he or she, with the approval by majority vote of their
respective organizations, used their organization’s funds to pay legal expenses
of the “defendants” (all members of the previous Parish Council
and the previous Audit Committee) in a court case launched against them by the
pro-Antony Council, they were
accused of misappropriation of
church funds, threatened with lawsuits and disenfranchised.
But in the same lawsuit the pro-Antony Parish Council
used church funds to pay their own lawyer fees. The first $25,000 of the total
sum was paid with complete disregard of St. Mary’s Constitution which requires
prior approval by the General Assembly.
While the pro-Antony Parish Council (plaintiffs) were using church funds
to pay their lawyer fees it was not considered “misappropriation”.
3)
Still another method:
If a
parishioner was lax in paying his church dues (even though in the recent past
this was traditionally overlooked by the governing council) he or she was not
permitted to vote.
It is
ironic to remember, that at the last year’s Annual Parish meeting, at which
time the pro-Antony Parish Council was fraudulently elected, the presiding
officer Mykola Nechipurenko (a
pro-Antony supporter) publicly admitted
that he was behind in payment of his church dues.
Nevertheless, he was permitted
to continue presiding over the
annual meeting, because the
parishioners goodheartedly
believed it to be a meeting of
“brothers and sisters in Christ” and not a corporate meeting..
Since
then things have changed drastically.
Ever since the pro-Antony Council was imposed on the parish
by a Court order there is no Christian love among parishioners. Now
it’s more like “praise
the Lord and pass the
ammunition” type of behavior
on the part of the pro-Antony
group.
Combined
together, the above methods deprived some 30 parishioners of their voting
rights.
In spite of this development, two resolutions were
prepared for presentation from the floor. However, it became quite clear that
the pro-Antony Parish Council was determined to stay in power, conduct the
meeting according to their own rules and elect their own supporters to the
Parish Council. All this was done with complete disregard for any accepted
rules of conduct.
At the start of the meeting, the first order of
business was to approve the official agenda. Even though the show of hands was
“against” the presented agenda, the pro-Antony parish council announced that
“their” count was “for” approval of the pro-Antony agenda. This immediately set
the “tone” for the annual meeting.
It
was apparent that the pro-Antony Parish Council would use their own unique
methods of conducting the meeting and of counting votes.
No matter what was to be presented from the floor, it would be not be considered or accepted for discussion. It was identical to the way the Extraordinary Parish Meeting was conducted in October 2000.
When a member of
the opposition tried to introduce a simple point of order he was not allowed to
speak
It became immediately obvious that the annual meeting was
going to be nothing but a “sham”, and to insure that the pro-Antony Parish
Council would be in complete command, they hired two plain clothes
policemen to be ready to handle any
deviation from their “plan”.
Seeing
that this was the case, parishioners in opposition to the pro-Antony Parish
Council walked out of the meeting.
This was a sad sequence of events for it shows that,
unless there is a court appointed observer reporting to higher legal authority,
the pro-Antony Parish Council can do anything they wish. Is this not
reminiscent of tactics used during the Soviet era?
If the opposing parishioners are incapable of
launching a legal challenge against the pro-Antony Parish Council, then the
situation has become hopeless and the parish is destroyed.
It seems that the Bishops of Bound Brook have
taught their disciples well!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rochester, NY
Update…Judge
Thomas A. Stander of the State of New York, Supreme Court, County of Monroe,
issued an Order to Show Cause to the Lidya Dzus Parish Council of St. Mary
The Protectress Parish and set the hearing date for March 2, 2001.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rochester
Democrat and Chronicle
In the December 18, 2000 article to the
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, obviously parroting the current council
president of St. Mary The Protectress Ms. Lydia Dzus, Rev. Paul Jagnisz writes:
"Now that the independent Ukrainian Orthodox Churches (in Ukraine,
Ed.) will be under World Orthodoxy, what is the 'Strife' about?"
Both Rev. Jagnisz and Ms. Dzus are referring to
the lawsuit and strife that has torn apart the parishioners of St. Mary The
Protectress in Rochester, NY.
To educate both, Rev. Jagnisz and Ms. Dzus, what
the "strife" and "fight" is really about we suggest they BOTH read our recent reply
to Mr. Taras Hundak. It provides specific details concerning what it is that
the parishioners of St. Mary The Protectress, the parishioners of Holy Ascension
in Clifton, NJ, the parishioners of St. Michael's in Uniondale, NY, members of
Save Our UOC Committee and numerous other parishes and individuals, are
fighting for and trying to "SAVE" here in the United States. Click mail.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rochester
Democrat and Chronicle
The November 18, 2000 issue of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle
published a front page article "Strife
tears area church". This article
outlines in detail the problems and lawsuit in St. Mary The Protectress parish
in Rochester, NY between the pro-Archbishop Antony forces wanting to be under
the omophor of the Church of Constantinople and Ukrainian nationalist/traditionalists
who want stronger ties to their mother church in Ukraine. For those interested
to read the complete article please go to the Orthodox Christian News Service
web page at http://www.orthodoxnews.com/doodad.fcgi?tcode=8
and scroll down to Rochester Democrat and
Chronicle: Strife tears area church.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Archbishop Antony to Rochester Parishioners
Submit or Liquidate and Send me the Money
Not one but TWO
Resolutions were
presented for a Vote
PARISHIONERS
OF ST. MARY THE PROTECTRESS,
HOLD
AN
EXTRAORDINARY PARISH MEETING
In his decision on September 11, 2000 the New York Superior Court Justice
Thomas A. Stander wrote:
"This Court determined that the elections
held on March 19, 2000 were valid...The Parish Council held its First
Organizational Meeting on April 1, 2000. This newly elected Parish Council
decided, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting:
"ALL MEMBERS AGREED THAT WE WILL ASSURE THE
PARISH THAT WE WILL NOT, AS A PARISH BOARD, DECIDE TO WHICH CONSISTORY WE
BELONG - BOUND BROOK OR KYIVAN PATRIARCHATE. WE WILL ASSURE PARISHIONERS THAT
THIS IS ONLY TO BE DECIDED BY THE ENTIRE CHURCH MEMBERSHIP...AT AN
EXTRAORDINARY MEETING, FOR STRICTLY THIS PURPOSE."
Supreme Court Justice, Thomas A. Stander ORDERED that the motion of the
Individual Defendants for relief is GRANTED, as follows:
"That the newly elected Parish Council
shall give proper notice of the scheduling of an Extraordinary Meeting of the
General Assembly within a reasonable time, but such meeting is to be held not
more than 45 days from notice of entry of this Decision and the Order, such
meeting to be held strictly for the purpose of deciding to which Consistory, if
any, St. Mary's shall belong".
Signed: Thomas A. Stander, Supreme Court Justice
Therefore on Sunday October 29, the
Rochester, NY Parish of St. Mary The Protectress held their court ordered
Extraordinary Meeting.
The following issue, as ordered above by
the court and as was submitted to the court by the minutes of the first
organizational Parish Council meeting, was to be decided by the general parish
membership:
"to which Consistory, if any, St.
Mary's shall belong"
No other issue was to be discussed.
However, the pro-Arbishop Antony Parish
Board put to a vote two resolutions.
The two resolutions were as follows
with the following instructions:
Please CIRCLE either A or
B. ONLY CIRCLE ONE
Resolution A: RESOLVED that the
Constitution of St. Mary the Protectress Ukrainian Autocephalous Church of
Rochester, New York, is affirmed and that this Church shall remain a
"subsidiary of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church of the United
States of America whose headquarters are located in South Bound Brook,
NJ…."
Resolution B: RESOLVED, that the
full-fledged members of St. Mary the Protectress Ukrainian Autocephalous
Orthodox Church of Rocester, New York, hereby approve LIQUIDATION of the Church
in order to withdraw from the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church of the
United States of America whose headquarters are located in South Bound Brook,
New Jersey, and the Parish Council acting as liquidation committee is directed
to effectuate this liquidation and the transfer of all Church assets to the
jurisdiction of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church of the United
States of America whose headquarters are located in South Bound Brook, NJ.
Attending the meeting were representatives of Archbishop Antony, Dr. Lysyj,
Dr. Krywolap and Rev. Diakiw. They should not have participated in any way or
taken an active part in the annual meeting since only dues paying members of
St. Mary's were authorized to participate. All three representatives of
Archishop Antony spoke at great length extolling the virtues of Archbishop
Antony and his efforts in trying to bring unity and peace to the Ukrainian
Orthodox Churches in Ukraine. On the other hand parish members were restricted
to comments 3 minutes in length. In addition the Parish Board would not permit
parish members to extend their allotted time to other parish members. It is our
understanding that the latest Save Our UOC
web page i.e., admissions of the Bound
Brook bishops that they are actually bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
Church of Constantinople and that they were never bishops of Patriarch
Mstyslav's church had an impact on those present.
A question was raised from the
floor:
"Is Archbishop Vsevolod indeed
Bishop of Scopelos"
All three representatives of
Archbishop Antony refused to answer.
During the meeting a third resolution, submitted from the floor by
Dr. Roman Tratch, stated the following:
Resolution: Resolved, that we
confirm in accordance with our church constitution (both our parish and UOC
USA) that St. Mary's shall remain autocephalous, sobor governed with equal
rights with all other authocephalous orthodox churches, in spiritual unity with
our mother church UOC-Kievan Patriarchate and that St. Mary's parish shall
retain the sole control of our parish assets.
Unfortunately, the pro-Archbishop
Antony Parish Board refused to admit this resolution for a general membership
vote.
Nonetheless, the Parish Board supported by
Archbishop Antony was not
successful, in forcing a vote on
resolutions A or B.
A final motion was presented from the floor,
seconded by Dr. Roman Tratch and put to a vote:
Motion:
We, members of the Parish of
St. Mary The Protectress consider this meeting invalid.
This motion was passed with 96
votes "for" and 40 "against".
After this vote the meeting was closed.
What is noteworthy is that more than 20 parish members in good standing
were not permitted by the pro-Archbishop Antony Parish Board to vote or
participate in the general meeting under various pretenses of ineligibility.
The attorneys for the majority of the parish
membership announced they would soon be back in court, as the resolutions
presented were contrary to the court order.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WE ARE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS TO THE EVENTS
LEADING UP TO THE CURRENT SITUATION AT ST. MARY THE PROTECTRESS PARISH
In a letter to the parishioners published May 7, 2000 the Parish Board under the leadership of Mr. F. Fedorenko provided the following details. Due to the lengthy nature of the letter we are publishing the most important points translated from Ukrainian.
1. At the annual parish meeting on March 19, 2000, at which 95 out of 260 parishioners participated, new members were elected to the Parish Board.
2. The "New" Parish Board, headed by Ms. Lidia Dzus immediately received a letter of "blessing and acceptance" from Archbishop Antony. In this letter two duly elected members of the Parish Board, Mr. F. Fedorenko and Mr. R. Bodnar were "expelled" from the Parish Board and from the Parish.
3. The "New" Parish Board immediately took the following steps:
a. Using Archbishop Antony's letter, the "New" Board attempted to take full control of Parish assets at the Rochester Federal Credit Union
b. Sent a fax to the local Postmaster advising him not to deliver mail to the Rectory but to hold all mail for pick up.
c. Discontinued telephone service to the Rectory building occupied by Rev. Zhownirovych
At a meeting of the Controlling/Auditing Committee and in a subsequent letter to the parishioners on March 26, 2000, the elections of March 19, 2000 were declared null and void based on the following finding by the Controlling/ Auditing Committee:
"At
the annual Parish Meeting of March 19, 2000 there were present individuals and
individuals who voted, who, in accordance with our Parish Constitution (Section
V, paragraph 1,4,5,8 and 11) did not have the right to vote or to be elected to
any official Parish position. These individuals have not carried out their
Parish obligations, have not paid their annual dues for 1999 and some
individuals are not even members of this Parish. In view of these findings the
Committee will announce a date for an Extraordinary Parish Meeting."
Due to the findings of the Controlling/Auditing Committee the "New" Parish Board was not sworn in as required by the Parish Constitution and until the Extraordinary Parish Meeting takes place the original "legitimate" Parish Board, headed by Mr. F. Fedorenko remained in place.
Due to the upcoming Easter Holidays, May 21, 2000 was set as the date for the Extraordinary Parish Meeting with new elections of a Parish Board.
In view of the above the Rochester Federal Credit Union, under the management of Ms. Tamara Denysenko, and at the advise of their attorney "froze" all Parish accounts. This action denied access to funds not only to the "New" Parish Board but also to the Parish Board headed by Mr. Fedorenko.
On April 21, 2000 four (4) supporters of the "New" Parish Board accompanied by a locksmith and Ms. Lidia Dzus attempted to change the locks on the Church doors and the Rectory building. Local parishioners noticed this action and the local police were summoned. The police reviewed the situation and after studying the letter from Archbishop Antony advised the four "supporters" and Ms. Lidia Dzus that the letter from the Archbishop is insufficient and a court order is required for this action.
In further correspondence from Archbishop Antony, Rev. Zhownyrovych, under threat of legal action, was forbidden to serve liturgy. In a letter to Mr. R. Bodnar he was forbidden to attend any church function at the church hall.
The letter was signed by…….F. Fedorenko, Board President, Mary Medianyk, Secretary, Rev. Zhownirovych, Rector, Members of the Auditing Committee: P. Prokopenko, F. Smolovyk, N. Skripka
This letter of May 7,2000, was addressed to the parishioners of St.Mary's
as well as to the Rochester Ukrainian community at large, and was signed by
F.Fedorenko et al. and also by Brotherhood head Pavlo Prokopenko, Sisterhood
head Nadia Tratch, St.Mary's delegate to the 15th Sobor Roman
Bodnar, and by Dr.Roman Tratch, member of the parish.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE $25,000.00 QUESTION…………..
WHO AUTHORIZED RELEASE OF THESE FUNDS TO THE "NEW"
PARISH BOARD
In a letter dated June 15, 2000 to the Rochester Federal Credit Union, the Parish Board headed by Mr. F. Fedorenko asked for a response to the following questions:
1. On or about the end of April, the Rochester Federal Credit Union "opened" the Parish accounts and transferred $25,000.00 to the attention of the "New" Parish Board. Since the Credit Union attorney advised the account to be temporarily "frozen" in March, who authorized the release of these funds by Ms. Tamara Denysenko, Manager of the Credit Union. Which attorney? Under what circumstances? And why were we not informed that the Parish account was opened?
2. Was there a court order authorizing the Credit Union to transfer $25,000.00 to the "New" Parish Board?
3. Since we are not aware of any court order releasing the Parish funds under whose authority did Ms. Tamara Denysenko release the $25,000.00.
We would appreciate your reply to the above questions.
Signed….. F. Fedorenko, Board President, M. Medianyk, Secretary
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DONATION
On February 10, 2000 the Save Our OUC Committee received an additional
donation of $500.00 from St. Mary's The Protectress UAOC, Rochester, New York.
With sincerity and deep appreciation we extend our THANK YOU.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
January 19, 2000
DONATION
To: Coordinating Committee to Save Our Ukrainian Orthodox Church
From: The Brotherhood of St. Michael's, at St. Mary the Protectress Ukrainian Autocephalic
Orthodox Church, Rochester, New York
Please accept the enclosed check in the amount of $500.00 to cover the costs of your legal battle for righteousness. FIGHT AND YOU WILL PREVAIL.
We are with you.
Signed…….Paul Prokopenko, President
Oleksij Skibisky, Secretary
Stephan Topoluk, Treasurer
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
November 24, 1999
To Myroslaw Smorodsky P.A.
Dear Mr. Smorodsky,
The parish of St. Mary's Protectress UAOC in Rochester, NY 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 New York Charter of Religious Corporation and Society.
Signed ….. Fedor Fedorenko, President
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++