St. Andrew Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Bloomingdale, IL Enters a Schism

[Starlight]

May it be now known that St. Andrew Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Bloomingdale, IL, made a sad and tragic decision to leave Canonical Orthodoxy and to enter into a schism. Symptomatically, the process transpired during the Holy Week and the Bright Week. The pastor, Very Reverend Fr. Mitred Protopriest Bogdan Kalynyuk made a heroic decision not to follow the path of Judas and therefore, he has been immediately fired by the Parish Board after (7) years of dedicated service in this parish. The final stage of a coup d’etat took place on April 27, 2009, (8 ) days after Pascha.

The aforementioned parish invented a brand new anti-canonical situation. They do not want to belong to any jurisdiction. In the official letter to the parishioners, the leaders of the apostasy made up their version of events and also stated establishment only of “the prayerful communion” with UOC-KP. Certainly, UOC-KP is not canonical. However the process in Bloomingdale went even further. Based on previous experience of dealing with Mr. Filaret Denysenko, they became afraid that he will ultimately take over the assets of the parish. Their god is money and they are afraid that Mr. Filaret Denysenko will come and steel a part of their god. So, they do not want to belong anywhere. The leaders of a takeover plan to collect money from bingo, food sales, etc. and keep it in the parish. Possibly, the formal subordination to some vagante group will be officially declared. Of course, any parish needs to have an antimins, signed by a Hierarch, but they do not care. This aspect does not deal with financial gain, and therefore does not deserve their attention.

Actually, this particular parish ignored all responsibilities to the Diocese and UOC-USA for over a decade. Moreover, in the entire history of this “Christian community”, all priests were either fired by the Parish Board or they asked for a transfer because they could not tolerate the attitude any more. No exceptions. Fr. Bogdan Kalynyuk experienced brutal offenses from parishioners for a memorial service at the grave of one of his predecessors, Rt. Rev. Fr. Protopresbyter Orest Kulick (+1989). Also, Fr. Bogdan restored Sunday school and children / youth programs, but he was severely insulted for his attempts to introduce English language to services.

Over these years, Fr. Bogdan really did his best for St. Andrew’s parish. He managed to turn things around and to revitalize the community. His productive labors could be described in a very long list of accomplishments. Now his efforts were hijacked. Not too many people would possess patience to deal with such a group of individuals for so long.

Those parishioners, who supported Fr. Bogdan during the last meetings, were brutally shut down. The junta of the sect called police. Officers arrived in (2) vehicles, but they found nothing illegal, violent, dangerous or suspicious in the actions and speeches of defenders of Canonical Orthodoxy. Then the leaders of the coup d’etat went so far that they even alleged that illegal immigrants are present among their opponents and threatened to call Immigration Service (?!) to the church.

Fr. Bogdan Kalynyuk, a former professional opera singer, who became an Orthodox priest in Ukraine and then immigrated to USA, has a wife and (2) school-age children. He puts his trust in God. For family reasons, he cannot leave Chicago area. Fr. Bogdan is also a handyman and a skilled, knowledgeable auto mechanic, so he decided to work as a manual laborer and to serve in various parishes. He hopes that one day the parish will be back to the Church and he will be back to the parish.

The Consistory of UOC-USA explicitly expressed strong support and sincere care to Fr. Bogdan and his family. It has to be emphasized that such actions were taken right away.

On the contrary, how does the schismatic management plan to function if they just exercised such actions to a fellow human being, who also, wait a minute, happened to be their Pastor?

Vasyl Truhly acts in charge of the takeover. Simultaneously with removal of Fr. Bogdan, the creators of the schism hired a substitute, a priest of UOC-KP from Ukraine, Yaroslav Vasylyk. He is a native of the same town as Fr. Bogdan and now he will imitate the Divine Liturgy in the sanctified altar of St. Andrew’s.

Based on Holy Canons of the Orthodox Church and information above, the Orthodox faithful in the area are advised to become aware of the absurd status of the group, which occupies the premises of St. Andrew Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Bloomingdale, IL. The nearest Canonical Orthodox churches can be located in accordance with the following sources:
http://www.scoba.us/directory.html
http://www.orthodoxyinamerica.org/lr_v10/locator.php

On a personal note, eventually it could be possible to consider for Canonical Orthodox to periodically visit the community upon adequate blessings. The sole reason is that it may become more realistic to heal the schism with persuasion from outside.

Last, but not least. Please remember the ruling Hierarch, His Grace Bishop Daniel, Fr. Mitred Protopriest Bogdan Kalynyuk, his family and those parishioners, who decided to remain in the Church, instead of a schism, in your prayers.

Edited to remove the Sunglasses Smiley of Doom. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator

[SolEX01]

Lord have mercy.

May the Church come to its senses and rectify schism immediately.

Amen!

[HandmaidenofGod]

Can you please cite a source for this information? I mean no offense, but how do we know that this is not just UOC-USA gossip?

[Starlight]

Can you please cite a source for this information? I mean no offense, but how do we know that this is not just UOC-USA gossip?

Sure. This information is based on personal communications with Fr. Bogdan and one of the parishioners at St. Andrew's.

[HandmaidenofGod]

Is there any official statement from the UOC USA backing this up? Furthermore, wouldn't His Grace, +Bishop Daniel remove the antimens from the church as +Bishop Antony did in Clifton, NJ?

[HandmaidenofGod]

I'm sorry if I am coming off as rude, and Mods, maybe you can correct me, but shouldn't there be some sort of official press release or something to back up this kind of information? I mean, at this point this is nothing but hearsay.

[John of the North]

Given the nature of events, there is the strong potential for legal action, in which case the Hierarchy and Consistory are probably evaluating the next steps...

[HandmaidenofGod]

Given the nature of events, there is the strong potential for legal action, in which case the Hierarchy and Consistory are probably evaluating the next steps...

Agreed. My point is that until an "official" statement is released from the diocese, should this be reported in the Christian News section of the forum?

[Heorhij]

Starlight, first of all, may I express my support to you personally, because I know that you have been a faithful member of the St. Andrew parish and you seem to take this situation with sadness. You are in my unworthy prayers.

Second, while I regret about the apparent schism, I remain a very enthusiastic sipporter of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate. I believe that at the end of the day, when the "dust" settles, She will become the canonical Orthodox jurisdiction that unites all Ukrainians, in their home country as well as in the diaspora. It just cannot be otherwise, IMO.

[Heorhij]

Starlight, first of all, may I express my support to you personally, because I know that you have been a faithful member of the St. Andrew parish and you seem to take this situation with sadness. You are in my unworthy prayers.

Second, while I regret about the apparent schism, I remain a very enthusiastic sipporter of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate. I believe that at the end of the day, when the "dust" settles, She will become the canonical Orthodox jurisdiction that unites all Ukrainians, in their home country as well as in the diaspora. It just cannot be otherwise, IMO.

Oops, sorry, I did not read your original post carefully - you were talking about the Bloomingdale, IL parish, not the Jamaica Plain parish.

[Keble]

Oi, the politics.....

[The young fogey]

From this distance it all seems so unnecessary, certainly in the US (this parish isn't in the mother country - what dog do they have in this fight really?) but to give the KP credit they may well end up like the Bulgarian Church, uncanonical, said Constantinople, after it broke with C'ople in the 1800s, as part of independence from the Turks, until 1946; today everybody recognises it as Orthodox. But I think Bulgaria was in communion with the rest of the Orthodox (certainly the Russians) so C'ople's opinion didn't mean much. (That's how Orthodoxy works: no Vatican or even a Lambeth. The Orthodox communion just is.) Not so the KP (or the Macedonian Orthodox Church started by Marshal Tito's government in the 1960s). So again it seems like this parish is wasting time and energy.

Orthodox in America who want Ukrainian-language services and specifically Ukrainian culture have South Bound Brook. That ought to be good enough!

[Heorhij]

From this distance it all seems so unnecessary, certainly in the US (this parish isn't in the mother country - what dog do they have in this fight really?)

I do not know about this particular parish - from Starlight's narrative it does not look good, - but generally speaking, I think, a parish that wants to join the UOC-KP may have the two "dogs": (1) the realization that they as Ukrainians just ought to help the Kyiv Patriarchate to grow and to achieve recognition; and (2) the desire to really, practically work FOR Ukraine in missions, common projects etc.

but to give the KP credit they may well end up like the Bulgarian Church, uncanonical, said Constantinople, after it broke with C'ople in the 1800s, as part of independence from the Turks, until 1946; today everybody recognises it as Orthodox.

Yes, let's hope this will be the way...

But I think Bulgaria was in communion with the rest of the Orthodox (certainly the Russians) so C'ople's opinion didn't mean much. (That's how Orthodoxy works: no Vatican or even a Lambeth. The Orthodox communion just is.) Not so the KP (or the Macedonian Orthodox Church started by Marshal Tito's government in the 1960s). So again it seems like this parish is wasting time and energy.

But WHY is it that no canonical Orthodox jurisdiction is in communion with KP? What's so horrible in KP? I do not think people really believe stories baked in Moscow about Patriarch Filaret being an especially immoral man - look, how come he was officially named by the Moscow Patriarch the only worthy prelate of the Ukrainian "exarchy" in 1990, but so quickly found by the same Moscow Patriarch guilty in all possible crimes in 1991, in just a few months, when the "exarchy" dared to talk about autocephaly? And even if he actually IS the father of illegitimate children - he is 80 years old, and there will be somebody completely different in his place very soon... So, I think the grassroots movement in Ukrainian Orthodoxy outside of Ukraine to help the world recognize the Ukrainian patriarchal see is a legitimate movement and its purpose is very worthy and noble!

Orthodox in America who want Ukrainian-language services and specifically Ukrainian culture have South Bound Brook. That ought to be good enough!

But South Bound Brook is an immigrant-based and an immigrant-oriented jurisdiction. Does it have any missons in Ukraine?

[The young fogey]

Well, let's have another look at Bulgaria: the country and church were breaking with a hostile non-Christian state, the Ottoman Empire.

Likewise the Orthodox communion accepted ROCOR's reason to exist: they thought the Communists would wipe out the church in Russia and ROCOR'd have to rebuild it there, which thankfully wasn't the case.

My guess is... the reason for the KP's (and Filaret's) break just isn't good enough. They're not breaking away from dhimmitude (being second-class citizens under Muslim rule) or 'Sovietude' (the same but under militant atheist rule) but with... the world's biggest Orthodox church and, not with a Muslim or atheist country, but with an Orthodox country. (No need here to get into Ukrainianism vs Russianism.)

Why can't South Bound Brook or this parish send money and other aid to the mother country through the canonical church there, the MP? (With whom South Bound Brook is in communion, так?) Pride?

Yes, South Bound Brook is immigrant. So is this parish. It's not in the mother country. If it wants to be Ukrainian in America it belongs under South Bound Brook.

[observer]

Before we claim schism let's hear the other side of the story.  Mr. Filaret Denysenko - please refrain from addressing clergy in this manner. We are sooo PC about heretics - so let's keep it fair, even if we don't agree!

[The young fogey]

All I'll say now is these splits nothing to do with religion needlessly cause scandal and lead to religious indifference, or why I understand there are more Ruthenian Methodists in America today than Greek Catholics or Orthodox and why the historian of Ruthenians, Paul Magocsi, is an agnostic who goes to a Protestant church because he likes the music (his immigrant family quit the Greek Catholics, then fired an Orthodox priest, and ended up all-American nothingarians, and Magocsi is proud of that). (Yes, there is a religious difference between Greek Catholics - essentially a Western church that uses an Eastern liturgy - and Orthodox but local splits in America often weren't about that.) Again AFAIK the KP and this parish leaving canonical Orthodoxy are not about religion.

Is this the Christian witness one wants to give the sovietised/secularised Ukrainians?

[ialmisry]

From this distance it all seems so unnecessary, certainly in the US (this parish isn't in the mother country - what dog do they have in this fight really?) but to give the KP credit they may well end up like the Bulgarian Church, uncanonical, said Constantinople, after it broke with C'ople in the 1800s, as part of independence from the Turks, until 1946; today everybody recognises it as Orthodox. But I think Bulgaria was in communion with the rest of the Orthodox (certainly the Russians) so C'ople's opinion didn't mean much. (That's how Orthodoxy works: no Vatican or even a Lambeth. The Orthodox communion just is.) Not so the KP (or the Macedonian Orthodox Church started by Marshal Tito's government in the 1960s). So again it seems like this parish is wasting time and energy.

Orthodox in America who want Ukrainian-language services and specifically Ukrainian culture have South Bound Brook. That ought to be good enough!

While looking up a site for the parish, I came across this:
http://www.uocofusa.org/st_andrew_uos.html

Saint Andrew’s Society is an integral organization of faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA. dedicated to supporting:

the spiritual rebirth of the people of Ukraine;
the establishment of universal principles of justice, charity and tolerance;
the re-establishment of churches and religious organizations in Ukraine;
the rebirth of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine as a unified Kyivan Patriachate.

Now, I don't have a problem with any of the above, quite the contrary.  But one of the issues that the Ukrainian parishes agreed when they went under the EP, so one posting says, was that they not get involved in the ecclesiastical situation of Ukraine.  This "integral organization" seems to by pass that.  Again, I don't have a problem with that either: why should they just forget Ukraine?  But given the situation there, things like this are bound to happen with the UOC-KP.

What is "prayerful communion" as a jurisdiction?  Sounds rather Anglican.

That being said, if this parish was such a problem from way back, why wasn't it dealt with when they went under the EP?  They've already, apparently gone through the whole legal battle with Holy Ascension and lost: hasn't it dawned on them that that can be replicated?

[ialmisry]

But WHY is it that no canonical Orthodox jurisdiction is in communion with KP? What's so horrible in KP? I do not think people really believe stories baked in Moscow about Patriarch Filaret being an especially immoral man - look, how come he was officially named by the Moscow Patriarch the only worthy prelate of the Ukrainian "exarchy" in 1990, but so quickly found by the same Moscow Patriarch guilty in all possible crimes in 1991, in just a few months, when the "exarchy" dared to talk about autocephaly? And even if he actually IS the father of illegitimate children - he is 80 years old, and there will be somebody completely different in his place very soon... So, I think the grassroots movement in Ukrainian Orthodoxy outside of Ukraine to help the world recognize the Ukrainian patriarchal see is a legitimate movement and its purpose is very worthy and noble!

How about stories "baked" in Ukraine?

That fact that the UAOC, and supposedly Pat. Msytoslav also treated and treats (+?) Filaret as radioactive should give anyone pause.

Yes, the sooner he is replaced with someone else, the better all around.  He knows that, he could just step down.  But he refuses.  Whom does that benefit?

[HandmaidenofGod]

To preserve cultural ties is one thing; to put money towards creating an autocephelous church in a country you no longer live in is a waste of time and money.

Rather than throwing good money after bad, these people should be working towards jurisdictional unification within the US so that one day we may have one autocephelous American Orthodox Church that preserves the cultural ties of all, and is canonically recognized by all.

[Starlight]

First of all, thank you very much for your attention. The expressed support and provided prayers are really appreciated.

Earlier today, I had a telephone conversation with His Grace Bishop Daniel and he confirmed an existence of a problem in this parish.

The next important thing to say, the views and opinions, provided here are strictly mine only. Also, I really do not want to offend anyone of the respected posters here. Please do not take anything personally, does not matter how broad a disagreement may be.

If and when the official statement will be issued, the every effort will be done in order to provide it here at my earliest convenience. My information here comes from the immediate victims of the schismatic takeover – the members of St. Andrew. Vasyl Truhly supposed to give his presentation at Ukrainian Independent Radio ( http://www.uaradio.com/ ), a Chicago-based Ukrainian language radio service today at 7:00 AM of Central time. Instead, the announcement came up that the program has been postponed until Wednesday in order to give a voice of both sides of Bloomingdale conflict. While the exact time has not been directly said, I just called the radio station and have been informed that the start of the block will be aired approximately around 7:30 AM of Central time on Wednesday, May 27, 2009. Again, please let me remind that the language of the program is Ukrainian - http://uaradio.com/online.php.

Again, no offense intended. But I stand by my previous comments in this topic and other threads about UOC-KP and its status. Based on the style and record of the current leader of UOC-KP, Mr. Filaret Denysenko, it would be very naive to expect real steps from him.

The views, actions and decisions of Filaret back in 1980s were identical to those of Metropolitan Agathangel (Savin), his protégé. In other words, he was equally anti-Ukrainian.

Having said that, I really do not want to demonize the entire KP. Their organization includes many decent individuals. For example, such leaders of the moderate wing of UOC-KP such as Metropolitan Dmitry (Rudyuk), Bishop Evstraty (Zorya), etc., work hard in order to orchestrate to the dialogue with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, UAOC, UOC-MP, even the Patriarchate of Moscow in some cases. It would be definitely better them awesome to see these individuals in proper positions of leadership and authority within the united Local Orthodox Church in Ukraine in communion with all Canonical Orthodox jurisdictions worldwide. Also, there is a lot of cooperation going on between UOC-KP and UOC-MP monasteries in some places in Ukraine. Certainly, many people within UOC-KP would never organize anything similar to the Bloomingdale affair.

If and when dialogue-oriented forces in UOC-MP and UOC-KP will gain more authority, the schism in Ukraine will come to a logical end. UAOC always acted way more acceptive towards reconciliation.


As it has been correctly emphasized by the Young Fogey, we do have a Canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church in USA. Those, who live far away from Ukrainian parishes can found home in another canonical jurisdiction.

Additionally, UOC-USA does not limit itself as an immigrant-based and immigrant-oriented jurisdiction. We are blessed to include great numbers of American-born Ukrainians, American converts of various ethnic and religious backgrounds and converts, who immigrated to USA from other countries. It brings a lot of joy to see converts finding home in UOC-USA. Some of those people joined the ranks of ordained clergy.

UOC-USA cares about Ukraine. Every summer a group of high school and college students comes to orphanages for disable children in Ukraine for work of charity. Most of the summers there were (2) or (3) such groups. The initiator of the aforementioned idea was Hieromonk Daniel (Zelinsky), now Bishop Daniel (Zelinsky), the Ruling Hierarch for the Diocese of Chicago. This has been done in addition to various activities in charity in USA, very often Pan-Orthodox in nature.

We observe an opposite behavior in Bloomingdale. Separately from the essential issue of canonicity, jurisdiction ABC cannot just take over a parish from jurisdiction XYZ because they want so. On top of that, a totally independent Orthodox parish without any Hierarch??? A flock which opted out not to have a Hierarch as their Chief Pastor??? This nonsense goes against thousands years old Canons of the Holy Orthodox Church.

Canonical Orthodox jurisdictions in USA enjoy full Communion with each other. I really cannot understand an urge of anyone in USA, of any nationality if you would, to run like crazy outside of the Church and to seek an absence of Communion, an absence of Christ in the Liturgy.

Yes, the reason why this parish leaves the Canonical Orthodoxy is not about religion.

Again, I strongly hope that no one at OC.net takes these comments personally.

[Starlight]

Yes, the sooner he is replaced with someone else, the better all around.  He knows that, he could just step down.  But he refuses.  Whom does that benefit?

Whom does that benefit?

His pride. Extremists in both KP and MP. Ultimately, the evil one.

[Starlight]

To preserve cultural ties is one thing; to put money towards creating an autocephelous church in a country you no longer live in is a waste of time and money.

Rather than throwing good money after bad, these people should be working towards jurisdictional unification within the US so that one day we may have one autocephelous American Orthodox Church that preserves the cultural ties of all, and is canonically recognized by all.

Efforts for unity and establishment of a canonical autocephalous church in another country and efforts towards jurisdictional unity in USA are not mutually exclusive efforts.

[Orthodoc]

Comment:

But WHY is it that no canonical Orthodox jurisdiction is in communion with KP? What's so horrible in KP? I do not think people really believe stories baked in Moscow about Patriarch Filaret being an especially immoral man - look, how come he was officially named by the Moscow Patriarch the only worthy prelate of the Ukrainian "exarchy" in 1990, but so quickly found by the same Moscow Patriarch guilty in all possible crimes in 1991, in just a few months, when the "exarchy" dared to talk about autocephaly? And even if he actually IS the father of illegitimate children - he is 80 years old, and there will be somebody completely different in his place very soon... So, I think the grassroots movement in Ukrainian Orthodoxy outside of Ukraine to help the world recognize the Ukrainian patriarchal see is a legitimate movement and its purpose is very worthy and noble!


Reply:  You already have been told the answer to this but, once again because you can't seem to separate religion and politics, you let the answer go in one ear and out the other!  The canonical Orthodox churches do not recognize the KP or Filaret because he is a SELF PROCLAIMED PATRIARCH and claims jurisdiction over a self proclaimed jurisdiction.  Neither he nor his jurisdiction were created by the church or by the canons of the church, but by politics and lay people whose religious feelings are questionable.

It's a shame because so many have been taken in by this man who are devout Orthodox Christians.  A man who went from being a Russophile to being a Ukrainophile when he relized he no longer had the backing of the communist party to keep him in power & authority.  In 1990 most Ukrainian bishops were refusing to go under him because of Russophobic reputation!

Orthodoc

[cossack 316]

Wow it is amazing how the facts can be misconstrued. I will address each of these points with the truth, not the warped version posted on this thread. First off, Father Bogdan was not fired as a priest of St Andrew’s but rather he resigned. With the parish board and a majority of the parish wanting to mention the name of Patriarch Filaret in our service and have the Patriarch bless our mosaic in the front of the church, of course Bishop Daniel balked at that request. It is not St Andrews that left, it was the hierarchs of UOC-USA that left the church by waiting until after Patriarch Mystaslav passed away and secretly signing away to Constantinople. The hierachs did it for money. They saw at the time declining membership and dues to the consistory and the hierarchs themselves had grow accustomed to living a life of luxury. The bishops did not in fact bring the issue of whether or not to join the ecumenical-patriarchate with a sobor but rather did it in secret without proper authorization. Remember we are a sobornopravna church not synodonal. It is for that reason that now there are Ukrainian Orthodox Parishes with non-ukrainian priests. Why would an American of non-ukrainian descent become a member of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and not the OCA? Because BoundBrook needs money and are trying to attract non-Ukrainian as due paying members. Now Father Bogdan, whom I always viewed as a decent priest for many years, resigned rather than disobey his bishop. A priest’s loyalty should be to his parish but instead father Bogdan stated, “I am a soldier and the bishop is my general. I can not disobey my general. This statement out of his own mouth says it all, his loyalty was not to his parish but to his bishop. St. Andrews parish had let it be known for years that they did not approve of the bishops leaving the Ukrainian church and wanting to join Kieven-Patriarchate. This is not an isolated incident. 12 parishes have already left Bound Brook over this issue and more are looking to leave. Bound Brook is so desperate for money they are looking to sell parishes. It’s amazing to me because Bound Brook does not “own” the parishes, the people own the parishes. We are NOT Catholic and Bound Brook is NOT  the Vatican. I personally was sad to see him leave but he left, the parish board did not kick him out. As a matter of fact Father Kalynyuk made more money from the parish of St Andrews than he could have elsewhere. It was the parish board who helped get him a new luxurious  home after complaints from Father Bogdan that the house the parish provided him was not up to his standards.
As for the “schism” most of the people who currently now support Father Bogdan are not parishioners and never have been.  In addition the majority of them are illegals and the few parisioners that are siding with Father Bogdan are being told by him that he was kicked out when he infact resigned. In terms of dirty tacticts, Father Bogdan had his supporters call the parents of the children that were going to first confession to not attend the service nor let their children take part in first confession. Now that is what I call trying to create a schism.
It is not surprising that Father Bogdan is telling everyone he was kicked out. The man was foolish to resign and cut his own financial throat. Now because there is no parish near him where he can transfer, he is becoming desperate. I feel sorry for him and begged him not to resign. Remember this, a priest loyalty as well as a bishop should be to their parishioners and faithful, not their own petty interests.
On a side note, 80% of the parish of St. Andrews back joining Kieven Patriacharte. Much of Father Bogdan’s supporters are non parishioners. Both Father Bogdan and Bishop Daniel realize they have no chance. That is why Father Bogdan is threatening to start his own parish in Elk Grove Village. Go ahead father, who is going to pay for your parish? Not Bound Brook, they are broke. Not your followers, most are illegal’s with limited income.

[Veniamin]

There's enough political discussion tangled up in here that at least some of this thread needs to go to Politics.  Therefore, I am locking this temporarily until we can sort out and split off the offending posts to the Politics forum.

[Veniamin]

The political posts have been split and moved here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21490.0.html.

As a general note to everyone, "someone else did it first" is not a valid excuse for political posts; it just means you're both wrong.  Also, if you feel the need to bring politics into it, you don't have to wait on a mod to split the topic for you.  It's perfectly fine to start a new thread in Politics and link back to this one.

That being said, I'm unlocking this so discussion on the parish schism can continue.

Veniamin

[Starlight]

Thank you, everyone, for your attention and support.

Dear Cossack 316,
Thank you for your side of the story.

Wow it is amazing how the facts can be misconstrued.

Yes, Mr. Filaret Denysenko became famous internationally for doing so.

First off, Father Bogdan was not fired as a priest of St Andrew’s but rather he resigned. With the parish board and a majority of the parish wanting to mention the name of Patriarch Filaret in our service and have the Patriarch bless our mosaic in the front of the church, of course Bishop Daniel balked at that request.

Fr. Bogdan could not go outside of the Canonical Orthodox Church.

It is not St Andrews that left, it was the hierarchs of UOC-USA that left the church by waiting until after Patriarch Mystaslav passed away and secretly signing away to Constantinople.

Really? No, they did not wait when Patriarch Mstyslav of blessed memory will die. Very unethical to say so. Instead, the leadership of UOC-USA searched and found the way in order to assure the recognition of our Church in communion with all Canonical Orthodoxy worldwide.

The hierachs did it for money. They saw at the time declining membership and dues to the consistory and the hierarchs themselves had grow accustomed to living a life of luxury. The bishops did not in fact bring the issue of whether or not to join the ecumenical-patriarchate with a sobor but rather did it in secret without proper authorization.

Offensive and incorrect. I have an honor to know all our Hierarchs in UOC-USA and UOCC, by the way. I know their modest life styles and extremely busy schedules. With these Hierarchs and other leaders in clergy and laity, we have converts, reverts and new immigrants coming to our parishes. We have a number of new parishes and missions.

All Sobors / Congresses of UOC-USA since 1995 sent greetings to His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew.

Remember we are a sobornopravna church not synodonal.

Exactly! UOC of USA is a sobornopravna Church, and it has been successfully exercised in our Sobors / Congresses under the omophoron of His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Great Church of Christ.

Instead, UOC-KP is not a sobornopravna Church. Parishes that went into this schism, UOC-KP have to listen and obey all directions of Mr. Filaret Denysenko and his non-canonical Synod.

It is for that reason that now there are Ukrainian Orthodox Parishes with non-ukrainian priests. Why would an American of non-ukrainian descent become a member of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and not the OCA? Because BoundBrook needs money and are trying to attract non-Ukrainian as due paying members.

Wow! Truly shocking! This is agressively attacking racism and chauvinism. Such attitude should not have absolutely any place anywhere in Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.   

"And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make desciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age". Amen". (Matthew, 28:18-20).

We all must welcome converts and other non-Ukrainians and make sure they feel at home. One of many examples how things should be done, can be observed here: http://www.goarch.org/news/ocmcbuilding-2009-05-25

Now Father Bogdan, whom I always viewed as a decent priest for many years, resigned rather than disobey his bishop. A priest’s loyalty should be to his parish but instead father Bogdan stated, “I am a soldier and the bishop is my general. I can not disobey my general. This statement out of his own mouth says it all, his loyalty was not to his parish but to his bishop.

A priest's loyalty should be to the Orthodox Church. A Hierarch, any Hierarch, is the representative of Christ, a father to his flock and an appropriate authority of the Orthodox Church.

In order to emphasize strength of these requirements it can be mentioned that the only imagenable exception in accordance with Canon 15 of Dual Counsel can be applied when a Hierach promotes a known and already disapproved heresy. In other words, such a Hierarch stops to represent the Orthodox Church. Thanks God, it never been applicable in USA in any jurisdiction. In all other cases, a priest has to remain loyal to the Church and to his Hierarch.

Furthermore, on the contrary, the Diocese of Chicago of UOC-USA is truly blessed to have an absolutely wonderful Ruling Hierarch, a man of a extraordinary spirituality, dedication and missionary outreach in person of His Grace Bishop Daniel (Zelinsky). He tirelessly works for the development of the Church.

Holy Canons served the Orthodox Church for thousands of years. This is not our place to re-invent the wheel.

St. Andrews parish had let it be known for years that they did not approve of the bishops leaving the Ukrainian church and wanting to join Kieven-Patriarchate.

So you state the right of a parish to approve or to disapprove the actions of the Hierarchy? It goes against the Canons.

This is not an isolated incident. 12 parishes have already left Bound Brook over this issue and more are looking to leave.

Exaggeration. Incorrect. Instead, St. Mary Proctress Parish in Rochester, NY, came back several years ago. The majority of parishioners of Holy Ascension Parish in Clifton, NY, remained canonical. But they have to serve in the rented premises, because UOC-KP still keeps their beloved church building.

Bound Brook is so desperate for money they are looking to sell parishes.

False. Furthermore, if a parish closes down and sells the assets, money comes to a special Missionary fund. If such a parish re-istablishes itself in (5) years, then this money automatically comes to them for their re-birth and growth. Otherwise, new missions become recepients of aid from the aforementioned fund. Sobors / Congresses of UOC-USA approved this order.

It’s amazing to me because Bound Brook does not “own” the parishes, the people own the parishes. We are NOT Catholic and Bound Brook is NOT  the Vatican.

We are Orthodox, we are not Congregationalists either. We need to act in accordance with the Canons of the Orthodox Church.

I personally was sad to see him leave but he left, the parish board did not kick him out. As a matter of fact Father Kalynyuk made more money from the parish of St Andrews than he could have elsewhere. It was the parish board who helped get him a new luxurious  home after complaints from Father Bogdan that the house the parish provided him was not up to his standards.

As it has been written in the original post, all pastors where pushed out in the history of St. Andrew's Parish in Bloomingdale. No one left enjoying an atmoshepre of Christian spirit, surrounding him.

Fr. Bogdan Kalynyuk learned a number of various skills in his life. How do you know the maximal amount that he could earn? Also, Fr. Bogdan constantly placed a perfect amount of human effort in many labors for the sake of St. Andrew. Some huge parishes in other jurisdictions have capability to provide significantly greater packages of compensation to their clergy and they gladly do so. In any case, a salary should stay as a subject of private metters of a person.

As for the “schism” most of the people who currently now support Father Bogdan are not parishioners and never have been. 

If so, then they belong to the category of people, who aspire to join a canonical parish. And they got drawn to St. Andrew during his pastorate.

In addition the majority of them are illegals and the few parisioners that are siding with Father Bogdan are being told by him that he was kicked out when he infact resigned. In terms of dirty tacticts, Father Bogdan had his supporters call the parents of the children that were going to first confession to not attend the service nor let their children take part in first confession. Now that is what I call trying to create a schism.

It has been repeatedly stated in this thread that to enter into a schism means to leave Canonical Orthodoxy. Such a terrible action took place at St. Andrew. I have not heard about these telephone calls. However, if I was a priest or a parishioner there, I would do the exactly same thing. The first Confession of a child and a following Communion should not occur in schismatic group / sect. This reason appears absolutely identical to the requirement for Orthodox Christian to obstain from receiving a euacharistic Communion in non-Orthodox Churches.

It is not surprising that Father Bogdan is telling everyone he was kicked out. The man was foolish to resign and cut his own financial throat. Now because there is no parish near him where he can transfer, he is becoming desperate. I feel sorry for him and begged him not to resign.

"But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness". (1 Corinthians, 1:23)

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven". (Matthew 5:12)

Actions of martyrs for faith from Roman empire to Soviet Ukraine also looked foolish in the eyes of their persecutors and often of the surrounding population. But during the meeting with God, things suddenly started to look differently.

Blessed will be the confessor of faith, Mitred Protopriest Bogdan, who suffers from persecutions for righteousness's sake. For his is the kingdom of heaven.

Remember this, a priest loyalty as well as a bishop should be to their parishioners and faithful, not their own petty interests.

Please see above.

On a side note, 80% of the parish of St. Andrews back joining Kieven Patriacharte. Much of Father Bogdan’s supporters are non parishioners. Both Father Bogdan and Bishop Daniel realize they have no chance. That is why Father Bogdan is threatening to start his own parish in Elk Grove Village. Go ahead father, who is going to pay for your parish? Not Bound Brook, they are broke. Not your followers, most are illegal’s with limited income.

Several issues. So, you perceieve a creation of a new Orthodox parish as a threat? Next thing, you admit that Fr. Bogdan has enough "followers" in order to start a new parish. Remarks about the immigration status and limited income do not seem charitable. So do the calls to police and threats to call the Immigration Service.

Conclusion:
No God in these actions. And no Christian goals.

[Fr. David]

It is for that reason that now there are Ukrainian Orthodox Parishes with non-ukrainian priests. Why would an American of non-ukrainian descent become a member of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and not the OCA? Because BoundBrook needs money and are trying to attract non-Ukrainian as due paying members.

Lord, have mercy.  What an awful perspective. 

cossack 316, it breaks my heart to see you care more about preserving your Ukrainian identity than about the Gospel and salvation.

We're Orthodox Christians all; the Ukrainian/Greek/Syrian/Russian/Anglo-American/Whatever ethnicity is COMPLETELY secondary.

[ialmisry]

Wow it is amazing how the facts can be misconstrued. I will address each of these points with the truth, not the warped version posted on this thread. First off, Father Bogdan was not fired as a priest of St Andrew’s but rather he resigned. With the parish board and a majority of the parish wanting to mention the name of Patriarch Filaret in our service and have the Patriarch bless our mosaic in the front of the church, of course Bishop Daniel balked at that request. It is not St Andrews that left, it was the hierarchs of UOC-USA that left the church by waiting until after Patriarch Mystaslav passed away and secretly signing away to Constantinople. The hierachs did it for money. They saw at the time declining membership and dues to the consistory and the hierarchs themselves had grow accustomed to living a life of luxury. The bishops did not in fact bring the issue of whether or not to join the ecumenical-patriarchate with a sobor but rather did it in secret without proper authorization.

A valid point.  The problem is how is the sobor that created the UOC-KP going to pass that standard?

Remember we are a sobornopravna church not synodonal. It is for that reason that now there are Ukrainian Orthodox Parishes with non-ukrainian priests.

How about with non-Orthodox priests?

Why would an American of non-ukrainian descent become a member of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and not the OCA?

Closest Church, like the priest, like the choir, like Ukrainians, any number of reasons.  I've known a couple non-Ukrainians who have.

Because BoundBrook needs money and are trying to attract non-Ukrainian as due paying members.

Are you serving Orthodoxy, or ethnicity?  Non-Ukrainian money no good?

Now Father Bogdan, whom I always viewed as a decent priest for many years, resigned rather than disobey his bishop. A priest’s loyalty should be to his parish

That worked soooo well when Aaron's parish told him to make a god when Bishop Moses tarried.

The Bishop provides the antimens: without it you are not a parish.  The parish can't make its own, but again lay ordination is at the root of the UOC-KP's problems.

You got to go Protestant for that to stick.  But then you have to get rid of the mosaics and the other icons, and no Patriarch either.  Protestants don't have those.  And no DL.

but instead father Bogdan stated, “I am a soldier and the bishop is my general. I can not disobey my general. This statement out of his own mouth says it all, his loyalty was not to his parish but to his bishop.

That is how Christ set it up.

St. Andrews parish had let it be known for years that they did not approve of the bishops leaving the Ukrainian church and wanting to join Kieven-Patriarchate.

Then why did they join in the first place?  Why didn't they go off to the KP?

This is not an isolated incident. 12 parishes have already left Bound Brook over this issue and more are looking to leave. Bound Brook is so desperate for money they are looking to sell parishes. It’s amazing to me because Bound Brook does not “own” the parishes, the people own the parishes.

Yes, UOC-USA should have taken care of that.

We are NOT Catholic

Evidently not, as you do not want to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

and Bound Brook is NOT  the Vatican. I personally was sad to see him leave but he left, the parish board did not kick him out. As a matter of fact Father Kalynyuk made more money from the parish of St Andrews than he could have elsewhere. It was the parish board who helped get him a new luxurious  home after complaints from Father Bogdan that the house the parish provided him was not up to his standards.

So Fr. Kalynyuk won't take the 30 pieces of silver.  Many Years!

As for the “schism” most of the people who currently now support Father Bogdan are not parishioners and never have been.  In addition the majority of them are illegals and the few parisioners that are siding with Father Bogdan are being told by him that he was kicked out when he infact resigned. In terms of dirty tacticts, Father Bogdan had his supporters call the parents of the children that were going to first confession to not attend the service nor let their children take part in first confession.

Since you have no valid bishop, of course the children shouldn't partake of empty rituals.

Now that is what I call trying to create a schism.

No, that's pastoral care to avoid schismatics and heretics.

It is not surprising that Father Bogdan is telling everyone he was kicked out. The man was foolish to resign and cut his own financial throat.

What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world an loses his soul?  Someone said that.

Now because there is no parish near him where he can transfer, he is becoming desperate. I feel sorry for him and begged him not to resign. Remember this, a priest loyalty as well as a bishop should be to their parishioners and faithful, not their own petty interests.

EXACTLY.  The clergy's loyalty should be to their faithful and their salvation, not the parishioners' own petty interests.

I remember having to teach my young sons the difference between what you want and what you need.

On a side note, 80% of the parish of St. Andrews back joining Kieven Patriacharte. Much of Father Bogdan’s supporters are non parishioners. Both Father Bogdan and Bishop Daniel realize they have no chance. That is why Father Bogdan is threatening to start his own parish in Elk Grove Village. Go ahead father, who is going to pay for your parish? Not Bound Brook, they are broke. Not your followers, most are illegal’s with limited income.

Christ didn't have a large bank account either.

[PeterTheAleut]

Now Father Bogdan, whom I always viewed as a decent priest for many years, resigned rather than disobey his bishop. A priest’s loyalty should be to his parish but instead father Bogdan stated, “I am a soldier and the bishop is my general. I can not disobey my general. This statement out of his own mouth says it all, his loyalty was not to his parish but to his bishop. St. Andrews parish had let it be known for years that they did not approve of the bishops leaving the Ukrainian church and wanting to join Kieven-Patriarchate.

How does this jibe with the doctrine of St. Ignatius of Antioch that we are to look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself and that we are to do nothing as a church apart from the bishop and presbyters?  Don't you think, then, that the act of a parish to break off relations with their bishop in disobedience to said bishop is itself an act of schism?  ISTM that St. Ignatius had some very harsh words to say about such persons.

Remember this, a priest loyalty as well as a bishop should be to their parishioners and faithful, not their own petty interests.

No, the bishop and his priests owe their loyalty only to Jesus Christ and His holy Church, not to the petty interests of their parishioners and faithful.  If anything, you owe your loyalty to your bishop and to his appointed delegate, your priest, and not the other way around.

[HandmaidenofGod]

It is not St Andrews that left, it was the hierarchs of UOC-USA that left the church by waiting until after Patriarch Mystaslav passed away and secretly signing away to Constantinople. The hierachs did it for money. They saw at the time declining membership and dues to the consistory and the hierarchs themselves had grow accustomed to living a life of luxury.

You obviously have never visited the consistary in South Bound Brook, or you would KNOW they did NOT do it for money. I grew up in the UOC-USA diocese, 15 minutes from the consistary and lived a block away from it for a while. The Bishops of the UOC-USA are far from rich, and the diocese as a whole certainly is not rich. There was no financial gain in going under the EP; the gain was that Ukrainian Orthodox priests in the US could finally canonically serve with other Orthodox priests in the US without question.

Why would an American of non-ukrainian descent become a member of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and not the OCA?

Newsflash: Christ told us to go out and make disciples of ALL nations -- that message applies to all of us, not just members of the OCA. If the UOC-USA waits for boatloads of fresh Ukrainian immigrants to fill its pews, the parishes will die. We as Orthodox Christians have a mandate to serve Christ and His Church; not the yellow and blue.

A priest’s loyalty should be to his parish

You may want to take some time to review canon law concerning that.

It appears to me you are more concerned with waving the yellow and blue than you are about spreading the truth of Orthodoxy.

If you want a Ukrainian social club, then join one, but that’s not what the Holy Orthodox Church is about. It is about spreading the message of salvation that comes through Christ and His Holy Church – REGARDLESS OF ETHNIC BACKGROUND OR NATIONALITY.

Let me ask you this: since the UOC-USA has gone under the Ecumencial Patriarch of Constantinople has the Ukrainian culture been diminished at all in the UOC-USA? Has your relationship with God been negatively impacted? Has your relationship with God been impacted at ALL since going under the EP?

If the answer is NO to these questions, then why in the heck would you support a movement to take your parish away from canonical worldwide Orthodoxy?

My guess is that if no one told you that the UOC-USA was under the EP, you wouldn’t know or care whether or not it was the EP, KP, or MP.
Why? Because in the day to day Orthodox existence, the Patriarch the diocese reports to has so little impact on your daily life, you probably don’t feel it at all.

While I am proud of my Ukrainian heritage, to throw good money after bad in a country that is known for corruption, bad government, and poor use of American funds just seems foolish. Let the Ukrainians in Ukraine worry about their own Patriarch, and worry about working out your own salvation within the bound of canonical Orthodoxy over here.

[cossack 316]

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA is a direct descendant of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church resurrected in 1921 by Metropolitan Vasyl Lypkivsky and brought to these shores by Bishop Ioan Teodorovych from Ukraine in 1924. On the death of Metropolitan Teodorovych, Metropolitan Mstyslav Skrypnyk provided continuity with the Mother Church and in 1990, at the demise of the Soviet empire, was elected Patriarch Mstyslav I of the One Holy Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kyivan Patriarchate in Ukraine. He was succeeded by Patriarch Volodymyr and upon his repose, the Church is now under the spiritual leadership of His Holiness Patriarch Filaret, the Patriarch of Kyiv and all Ukraine.

Following Ukraine's loss of political independence in the early 1920's, the short-lived, resurrected UOC-Ukraine was systematically destroyed by the Russian regime. This "ethnic cleansing" of the UOC-Ukraine (and of Ukraine itself) in the 1920's, and 30's, saw the murder of virtually every one of the bishops and priests of the UOC-Ukraine, and of tens of millions
of Ukrainian Orthodox laity. In the man-made Famine of 1932-33, alone, engineered by the Russian Regime, some 7-10 million Ukrainian Orthodox were killed within a period of several months. Of particular note is the fact that the UOC-Ukraine was targeted by the Russians for annihilation specifically because of its ethnic Ukrainian identity and assertion of independence, and its pivotal, political, social and cultural role in the process of nation-building. As part of this intentional destruction, all assets of the UOC-Ukraine were usurpedby the Russian regime, and then turned over to its agency, the Russian Orthodox Church.
    As a result of the Russian liquidation of the Mother Church, the UOC-USA diocese, as the surviving US diocese of the UOC-Ukraine, was at all times relevant hereto a custodianand trustee of the Principles of the UOC-Ukraine. For more than half a century, the UOC-USA diocese and its bishops resolutely held themselves out to the public as the key diocese of
the UOC-Ukraine in exile, intent on preserving its independence from foreign rule and on the reestablishment of and reunification with its Mother Church in Kyiv, Ukraine. In 1989, the Mother Church was again reborn in Ukraine as a result of the accelerating disintegration of the Russian (Soviet) Empire and the ensuing declaration of independence by Ukraine. In recognition of and as evidence of the UOC-USA diocese's stewardship and trusteeship of the Ukrainian Orthodox principles, and of its status as the spiritual center of the
“UOC-Ukraine in exile" pending Russian rule of Ukraine, the head of the UOC-USA diocese,
    Metropolitan Mstyslav, was elected as Patriarch of the UOC-Ukraine and of its worldwide dioceses, including the UOC-USA diocese, until his death in 1993. However, even during this new period of rebirth of the UOC-Ukraine, the Russian Orthodox Church has continued to claim that it is the only legitimate Orthodox Church in Ukraine and continues to demand
and work for the “liquidation” of the UOC-Ukraine. The Greek Patriarchate Church of Constantinople has continued to support Russia and to be allied with the Russian Orthodox Church in calling for the “liquidation” of the UOC-Ukraine. From the time of rebirth of the UOC-Ukraine, its US diocese, UOC-USA, continually and unequivocally represented itself to be an integral part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Ukraine.
    Following the death of Patriarch Mstyslav, Archbishop Antony [an Archbishop within the UOC-USA] was a candidate at the “Sobor” [conclave] of the Mother Church in Kyiv, Ukraine, to succeed him as Patriarch of the UOC-Ukraine. Archbishop Antony subsequently was unsuccessful in his candidacy, and shortly thereafter, together with other of his followers
within the UOC-USA, clandestinely entered into contracts, agreements, and understandings with the Greek Patriarchate Church of Constantinople. Archbishop Antony and his followers eventually became hierarchs of a different orthodox denomination, assumed Greek Bishop titles, and the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople now claims that the UOC-USA is an administrative part of it.

[HandmaidenofGod]

^^^Yes, we're all familiar with the history of the UOC-USA and how it came under the EP. That still does not justify this parish's actions to cut itself off from worldwide canonical Orthodoxy.

[cossack 316]

Let me ask you this in regards to cannonical??? If Archbishop Antony and Metropaliton Contantine were consecrated by Mystyslav who was the first patriarch of Ukraine and established the KP, does that make them non cannonical since Mystyslav was head of a non cannonical church? Also wouldnt it make most of the priest who were consecrated as priests non cannonical as well since they were consecrated by Antony and Constantine?  My point is its the bishops who left the Ukrainian Church, not the people. When Antony was not elected Patriarch of KP, he left in a huff. Why is it the Bulgarians, Serbians, Greeks, Romanians, Russians, Macedonians, and Coptics have their own Patriarch but bc Filaret doesnt have the blessing of Moscow or Constantinople he is a heretic? Are we to believe the Patriarch of Constantinople and Moscow have the power of the Pope? Is that the goal of Constatinople, have all the Orthodox churches under his authority to rival the Pope?

[Starlight]

The replay #31 from Cossak 316 has been copied and pasted from the official site of Holy Ascension Parish in Clifton, NJ, a church, kidnaped by Filarestist schismatics. The link has not been provided. The policy of the forum requires to do so. It is here:
http://cliftonorthodoxcathedral.org/aboutus.html

Holodomor of 1932-1933 was a huge tragedy of Ukrainian nation. Some of my relatives died in that genocide. It is very unethical to bring this huge tragedy in order to try to justify a schism from Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America, which takes place in 2009.

For more than half a century, the UOC-USA diocese and its bishops resolutely held themselves out to the public as the key diocese of
the UOC-Ukraine in exile, intent on preserving its independence from foreign rule and on the reestablishment of and reunification with its Mother Church in Kyiv, Ukraine.

Albanian Orthodox Diocese in America and Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe have functioned in the Ecumenical Patriarchate for many decades. The same applies to American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese Of course, they remain in the Ecumenical Patriarchate now as well. They brought Gospel and Christian witness to surrounding world (the main goal of the Church) without any damage to the national identity or liturgical tradition.

   Following the death of Patriarch Mstyslav, Archbishop Antony [an Archbishop within the UOC-USA] was a candidate at the “Sobor” [conclave] of the Mother Church in Kyiv, Ukraine, to succeed him as Patriarch of the UOC-Ukraine. Archbishop Antony subsequently was unsuccessful in his candidacy, and shortly thereafter, together with other of his followers
within the UOC-USA, clandestinely entered into contracts, agreements, and understandings with the Greek Patriarchate Church of Constantinople. Archbishop Antony and his followers eventually became hierarchs of a different orthodox denomination, assumed Greek Bishop titles, and the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople now claims that the UOC-USA is an administrative part of it.

Moderate circles within UOC-KP tried to resolve the situation and proposed the candidacy of Archbishop Antony (Shcherba), a man of extraordinary faith and wisdom, a great missionary and an energetic leader. Now many surviving members of these moderate circles left to UAOC, some to UOC-MP or they left to Ukraine and belong to Canonical Orthodoxy abroad. Current moderate circles within UOC-KP consist mainly from younger generation, who need a dialogue and who understand the absurdity and pain of the current condition.

Let me emphasize again, UOC-USA always welcomes non-Ukrainians. It was very painful for me to read these offensive chauvinist and racist remarks. Heresy of phyletism has nothing to do with Orthodox teachings. UOC-KP orchestrates a schism in USA, based not only on greed, chauvinism and lies (awfully enough), but also on heretical grounds.

(23) current and (2) retired Hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate are not ethnically Greek. What is suppression of the national identity are you talking about?

^^^Yes, we're all familiar with the history of the UOC-USA and how it came under the EP. That still does not justify this parish's actions to cut itself off from worldwide canonical Orthodoxy.

Totally agree!

[LizaSymonenko]

I know that the UOC-USA supports the Ukrainian people in Ukraine.  As was mentioned previously, there are groups who travel to Ukraine to give aid.  Moneys are sent.  Clothing and supplies are sent.  Prayers are sent!  To say that the UOC-USA doesn't support Ukraine is a joke! 

Cossack, have you no fear of God to speak so about something you seem to know so little about.

The fact that your church has opted to go against her bishop, is abdominal.  It is sad to see that cliques run a church and can lead people to perdition.  You do not understand Orthodoxy if you think that going against your bishop, being uncivil to others, etc. is acceptable.

The fact that we don't support the KP, is the RIGHT thing to do at this moment. 

I am all for Ukraine having her own church, just as Russia has hers, and Greece has hers, etc. ..but, not like this.  Not with this man leading her.  No way!  In all of Ukraine, we found nobody more worthy to head our church? 

Lord have mercy!

God bless Metropolitan Constantine, Archbishop Antony, and His Grace Bishop Daniel!  The Lord could not have handpicked three more suitable and worthy men to lead His cause!

Cossack, you make the true cossacks cringe in their graves! 

[monkvasyl]

I have several questions.  If Constantinople was in agreement with Moscow, why would they give the UOC of USA Holy Chrism, which His Holiness, Patriarch Mstyslav, before being elected Patriarch, requested of Constantinople?  Also, St. Andrew's, in Boston, celebrated the Millennium in the Cathedral of the Greek Orthodox Diocese of New England, with His Eminence, Methodios as the chief celebrant.  Also why would His Eminence, Archbishop Antony be a candidate for Patriarch and then engineer union with Constantinople, when His Beatitude, Constantine was Metropolitan?  According to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese web site, the UOC of USA is listed as "Other Jurisdictions affiliated (my emphasis) with the Ecumenical Patriarchate".  Note the word is "affiliated".  When I was petitioning for entry into the UOC of USA (by the way, I'm half Ukrainian and half Polish), I was told by the priest to wait until after the Sobor that would or would not ratify the agreement with Constantinople.  So we can see the Sobor of our Church did infact ratify the agreement. I feel we are truly blessed with such wonderful and holy hierarchs.

[Heorhij]

^^I am kind of torn and "in between" the two sides.

On the one hand, yes, of course Christ said, go and make disciples of ALL nations. No one disputes that.

On the other hand, I do have compassion to those people who say, "our grandparents dedicated all their lives to build these UKRAINIAN Churches so that our grandchildren will have just this one last chance not to dissolve their ethnicity, their culture - OUR culture - in this foreign spiritual wasteland... and now we see that these churches are turning into another "garden variety" of culture-less all-American churches with nothing Ukrainian in them..."

I know they exaggerate - but the "vector" is detected correctly, no? I mean, in my "Greek" parish the younger generation of Greeks does not even know any Greek...

So, yes, we have an abominable fact of parishioners rebelling against their priest and bishop. But we also have the circumstances that provide grounds for this "abominable fact."

And we also have Ukraine where the only CONSISTENT pro-Ukrainian, patriotic position is held by the UOC-KP. Yes, splinter, yes, self-proclaimed (if one goes by the letter of the Canons), but nonetheless very popular, and gaining popularity, and, again, really, consistently Ukrainian.

Overall, it is a hard, heartbreaking situation, and I do not want to "scold" any side involved. Lord, have mercy on us all.

[cossack 316]

Liza, I never once said the Antony or Constantine were bad people. Personally I grew up with Constantine as my archbishop at St Volodymyrs in Chicago and served him as an altar boy then sub deacon for 10 years. My own mother was personal friends with Archbishop Antony and went with both Constantine and Antony to Kiev in 1990 for the entthronement of Mystyslav as Patriarch of Ukraine. I believe both to be very devout Orthodox Christians. I have not met Bishop Daniel in person so I can say neither pro nor con on him. However the fact remains they turned their back on the Ukrainian church and left to join Constatinople. The reason St Andrew's waited to leave was a hope, a slim hope that this issue would have been resolved and perhaps would return to church that Mystyslav founded. Apparently there is no hope of that so St. Andrews parish does not view it left UOC USA, it views the UOC USA left the Ukrainian church which it was a part of until 1995.

[Starlight]

Let me ask you this in regards to cannonical??? If Archbishop Antony and Metropaliton Contantine were consecrated by Mystyslav who was the first patriarch of Ukraine and established the KP, does that make them non cannonical since Mystyslav was head of a non cannonical church? Also wouldnt it make most of the priest who were consecrated as priests non cannonical as well since they were consecrated by Antony and Constantine?  My point is its the bishops who left the Ukrainian Church, not the people. When Antony was not elected Patriarch of KP, he left in a huff. Why is it the Bulgarians, Serbians, Greeks, Romanians, Russians, Macedonians, and Coptics have their own Patriarch but bc Filaret doesnt have the blessing of Moscow or Constantinople he is a heretic? Are we to believe the Patriarch of Constantinople and Moscow have the power of the Pope? Is that the goal of Constatinople, have all the Orthodox churches under his authority to rival the Pope?

The diabolic ideology and practice of Communism is responsible that several jurisdictions, which were eventually founded by immigrants became cut off from the administrative Orthodox structures of the mother countries in the areas under Communist control:

Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America now known as Orthodox Church in America
Albanian Orthodox Archdiocese, led by Metropolitan Fan / Theofan (Noli) of blessed memory
Romanian Orthodox Episcopate, led by Archbishop Valerian (Triffa) of blessed memory
Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada
Ukrainian Orthodox Church in USA
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia

They all had their status enhanced in one way or another. As a result, they all enjoy Communion as integral parts of Canonical Orthodoxy. Instead, when UOC-KP founding Sobor was held, such a meeting contradicted the Statutes of both UOC-MP and UAOC. Therefore, legitimacy of UOC-KP does not exist. In particular, Ukrainian Legal Foundation, (Ukrains'ka Pravnycha Funatsia), led by Serhiy Holovaty in that time, came to this conclusion. Patriarch Mstyslav (Skrypnyk) of blessed memory described UOC-KP not as a union of Ukrainian Orthodox but as a union between Filaret and Antony (Masendich). Late Hierarch Antony (Masendich) totally changed views and jurisdictions several times. And he was changing jurisdictions, which did not have Communion with each other.

Also, Orthodox Canon Law does not use a precedent. A Synod has a full authority to use oikonomia (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Economy) and to accept clergy without any need of re-ordination. Furthermore, in some cases, and I strongly believe that cases of jurisdictions listed in beginning of these message all fit this category, the validity of previous ordinations looked so evident, that re-ordinations were not even considered.

Instead, all ordinations in creation of UOC-KP were done without appropriate authority and appropriate blessings. I saw a video on Youtube, when Filaret and Bishop Yakiv (Panchuk) performed re-ordination of Hierarch Antony (Masendich) from UAOC to UOC-KP. How do you like that? Now more news come. They commemorated Patriarch Alexy (Rediger) during the re-ordination. Does it make any remote sense? Does UOC-KP make any remote sense?

UOC-KP is an uncanonical schism, which tries to get its influence all over the world.

[Starlight]

God bless Metropolitan Constantine, Archbishop Antony, and His Grace Bishop Daniel!  The Lord could not have handpicked three more suitable and worthy men to lead His cause!

Amen! Totally agree based on years of my own personal experience!

[Michał Kalina]

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA is a direct descendant of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church resurrected in 1921 by Metropolitan Vasyl Lypkivsky

Made autocephalous can have been but not resurrected. It had not been autocephalous before.

[Starlight]

On one hand, UOC-KP spreads statements, terrible offensive to non-Ukrainians and contradictory to the Bible.

On the other hand, UOC-KP picks violators of canons all over the world. There was a time when Milan Synod, led by Eulogios, a former Roman Catholic priest, anathematized (!!!) in Roman Catholic Church, was a part of UOC-KP. UOC-KP took Archimandrite Chrysostomos (Bakomitros) (http://www.cerkva.info/static/ep_hryzostom.html) from Orthodox Church of Greece and ordained his as a "Bishop" and an "Exarch" in Greece without Communion with Orthodox Church of Greece. What UOC-KP did not know that Orthodoxy exists in Greece? As a result Chrysostomos  has been defrocked. It was a talk to excommunicate him, which would be truly justified, but I am not aware about this decision. The same thing happened in Moldova with Archimandrite Filaret (Panku) of Orthodox Metropolia of Moldova - MP (http://www.cerkva.info/static/ep_filaret.html). He was suspended by Orthodox Metropolia of Moldova - MP for now. In Russia they took Ihumen (?) Ioasaph (Shibayev) - http://www.cerkva.info/static/arhiep_ioasaf.html. Originally, he was an Ihumen in MP, but his biography prior to UOC-KP already raises plenty of red flags. The strangest part - they did not relocate to Ukraine. They continue to reside in Greece, Moldova and Russia.

"Bishop Christopher of Boston" appeared for a very short period of time and then disappeared from the official list of UOC-KP in early 2000s. Canonical Orthodox in Boston have no clue who that schismatic may be.

The same things happened in Ukraine on several occasions with people, coming directly from UAOC or UOC-MP in order to immediately get a panagia and power from Mr. Filaret Denysenko. That included the latest imitation of ordination of Paul (Kravchuk), not listed in the list of Hierarchy of UOC-KP yet.

Of course, all those people did not have blessings of their respective Synods. Instead, when a priest comes to another Local Orthodox Church in order to become a Bishop there, in accordance with canonical procedures, that only benefits.

As it has been previously stated, UOC-KP includes many good people as well. We need to pray for them. If they will take over, the situation in the Church in Ukraine will improve and schisms will cease to exist.

[Heorhij]

As it has been previously stated, UOC-KP includes many good people as well. We need to pray for them. If they will take over, the situation in the Church in Ukraine will improve and schisms will cease to exist.

Completely agree. God help them.

[Starlight]

I feel we are truly blessed with such wonderful and holy hierarchs.

Exactly! Also, we are truly blessed to have you in UOC-USA.

[PeterTheAleut]

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA is a direct descendant of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church resurrected in 1921 by Metropolitan Vasyl Lypkivsky and brought to these shores by Bishop Ioan Teodorovych from Ukraine in 1924. On the death of Metropolitan Teodorovych, Metropolitan Mstyslav Skrypnyk provided continuity with the Mother Church and in 1990, at the demise of the Soviet empire, was elected Patriarch Mstyslav I of the One Holy Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kyivan Patriarchate in Ukraine. He was succeeded by Patriarch Volodymyr and upon his repose, the Church is now under the spiritual leadership of His Holiness Patriarch Filaret, the Patriarch of Kyiv and all Ukraine.

Following Ukraine's loss of political independence in the early 1920's, the short-lived, resurrected UOC-Ukraine was systematically destroyed by the Russian regime. This "ethnic cleansing" of the UOC-Ukraine (and of Ukraine itself) in the 1920's, and 30's, saw the murder of virtually every one of the bishops and priests of the UOC-Ukraine, and of tens of millions
of Ukrainian Orthodox laity. In the man-made Famine of 1932-33, alone, engineered by the Russian Regime, some 7-10 million Ukrainian Orthodox were killed within a period of several months. Of particular note is the fact that the UOC-Ukraine was targeted by the Russians for annihilation specifically because of its ethnic Ukrainian identity and assertion of independence, and its pivotal, political, social and cultural role in the process of nation-building. As part of this intentional destruction, all assets of the UOC-Ukraine were usurpedby the Russian regime, and then turned over to its agency, the Russian Orthodox Church.
    As a result of the Russian liquidation of the Mother Church, the UOC-USA diocese, as the surviving US diocese of the UOC-Ukraine, was at all times relevant hereto a custodianand trustee of the Principles of the UOC-Ukraine. For more than half a century, the UOC-USA diocese and its bishops resolutely held themselves out to the public as the key diocese of
the UOC-Ukraine in exile, intent on preserving its independence from foreign rule and on the reestablishment of and reunification with its Mother Church in Kyiv, Ukraine. In 1989, the Mother Church was again reborn in Ukraine as a result of the accelerating disintegration of the Russian (Soviet) Empire and the ensuing declaration of independence by Ukraine. In recognition of and as evidence of the UOC-USA diocese's stewardship and trusteeship of the Ukrainian Orthodox principles, and of its status as the spiritual center of the
“UOC-Ukraine in exile" pending Russian rule of Ukraine, the head of the UOC-USA diocese,
    Metropolitan Mstyslav, was elected as Patriarch of the UOC-Ukraine and of its worldwide dioceses, including the UOC-USA diocese, until his death in 1993. However, even during this new period of rebirth of the UOC-Ukraine, the Russian Orthodox Church has continued to claim that it is the only legitimate Orthodox Church in Ukraine and continues to demand
and work for the “liquidation” of the UOC-Ukraine. The Greek Patriarchate Church of Constantinople has continued to support Russia and to be allied with the Russian Orthodox Church in calling for the “liquidation” of the UOC-Ukraine. From the time of rebirth of the UOC-Ukraine, its US diocese, UOC-USA, continually and unequivocally represented itself to be an integral part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Ukraine.
    Following the death of Patriarch Mstyslav, Archbishop Antony [an Archbishop within the UOC-USA] was a candidate at the “Sobor” [conclave] of the Mother Church in Kyiv, Ukraine, to succeed him as Patriarch of the UOC-Ukraine. Archbishop Antony subsequently was unsuccessful in his candidacy, and shortly thereafter, together with other of his followers
within the UOC-USA, clandestinely entered into contracts, agreements, and understandings with the Greek Patriarchate Church of Constantinople. Archbishop Antony and his followers eventually became hierarchs of a different orthodox denomination, assumed Greek Bishop titles, and the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople now claims that the UOC-USA is an administrative part of it.

cossack 316,

When copying blocks of text from another web site, you need to also provide a link to the site from which you copied the material.  Otherwise, you're passing off the copied and pasted text as if you wrote it yourself, which is plagiarism.  Starlight already posted the link to a web site containing the text you copied, so I'm not going to ask you to repeat his work.  However, please be aware in the future of this requirement to give credit where credit is due.  Consider this a formal warning.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator

[monkvasyl]

Exactly! Also, we are truly blessed to have you in UOC-USA.

Thanks, I finally feel at home.  I can't tell you how many years I kept trying to get there, but I had to wait until the Good Lord picked the right time.  And when He is ready there will be ONE Church in Ukraine!

[LizaSymonenko]

Amen!

[Νεκτάριος]

Well, let's have another look at Bulgaria: the country and church were breaking with a hostile non-Christian state, the Ottoman Empire.

Likewise the Orthodox communion accepted ROCOR's reason to exist: they thought the Communists would wipe out the church in Russia and ROCOR'd have to rebuild it there, which thankfully wasn't the case.

My guess is... the reason for the KP's (and Filaret's) break just isn't good enough. They're not breaking away from dhimmitude (being second-class citizens under Muslim rule) or 'Sovietude' (the same but under militant atheist rule) but with... the world's biggest Orthodox church and, not with a Muslim or atheist country, but with an Orthodox country. (No need here to get into Ukrainianism vs Russianism.)

Why can't South Bound Brook or this parish send money and other aid to the mother country through the canonical church there, the MP? (With whom South Bound Brook is in communion, так?) Pride?

Yes, South Bound Brook is immigrant. So is this parish. It's not in the mother country. If it wants to be Ukrainian in America it belongs under South Bound Brook.

What on earth are you actually talking about?  The creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate was backed by the Porte and had nothing whatsoever to do with not wanting to ruled by an episcopate living in an Islamic territory.  In fact, the entire territory of the exarchate was within the the Ottoman Empire.  The sole raison d'erte of the Exarchate was to combat hellinisation that was being forced upon Slavic populations within the Southeast Balkans.     

[Fr. David]

Are you serving Orthodoxy, or ethnicity?

Forgive the pedantry, but...

I'm not serving "Orthodoxy," much less ethnicity.  I'm serving Christ, in Orthodoxy.  The distinction is there, and it gets muddled a lot.  I like how HandmaidenofGod put the question (emph mine):

We as Orthodox Christians have a mandate to serve Christ and His Church; not the yellow and blue.

Rabbit trail ended.  Back to the OT. 

[Heorhij]

Are you serving Orthodoxy, or ethnicity?

Forgive the pedantry, but...

I'm not serving "Orthodoxy," much less ethnicity.  I'm serving Christ, in Orthodoxy.  The distinction is there, and it gets muddled a lot. 

I agree. Of course we aren't "serving Orthodoxy." Actually we are serving our neighbor, people, all kinds of them (but that includes our kinsman, see 1 Tim. 5:8 ).



Fixed the dreaded "8 )" smiley of doom...  -PtA

[unity1]

I figured if we want to talk about canonHans Christian Andersen wrote a wonderful tale entitled "The Emperor's New Clothes." Two rogues, claiming to be gifted weavers,
convinced the emperor that they could weave wonderful cloth visible only to those of pure heart and spirit. A grand procession was planned for the emperor to display his new finery. But neither the emperor nor his subjects wanted to be seen as less than pure of heart. So the emperor strode naked down the boulevard while his subjects cheered and clapped. However, the bubble burst when an innocent child loudly exclaimed, for the whole kingdom to hear, that the emperor had nothing on at all. He had no clothes. Patriarch Kirill, leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, recently said that Ukraine is not ready for an independent church. This statement brought back memories of the Danish fairy tale. Indeed, no one wants to tell this "emperor" that - not only does he not have any legal standing or canonical jurisdiction, i.e. "clothes" - over the church in Ukraine, but that he is usurping the authority granted to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1591. Patriarch Kirill, like many of his predecessors, is convinced that the Russian Orthodox Church must be an instrument of Russian national identity, and that the establishment of independent Orthodox churches within the former U.S.S.R. would weaken both the church's and the Kremlin's shared imperialistic ideology. In fact, while still Metropolitan of Smolensk, Kirill once stated that "the Russian Orthodox Church holds de facto first place among all other Orthodox churches…and exercises influence in all other Orthodox churches in the Balkans as well as in those countries where Orthodox faithful represent a minority. We are rightful heirs of Byzantium." This expansionist concept of Moscow's pretensions to primacy and interference in the affairs of other Orthodox churches was expounded by the controversial, ultra-nationalist Metropolitan Ioann after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was to become a mechanism by which the imperialistic ideology of Russia would be maintained and rebuilt. It is based on three major principles/peculiarities: territorial, ethnic/national and pastoral. Constantinople's Patriarch Bartholomew characterized this theory as "foolish, hubristic, and blasphemous..." We need not concern ourselves with all three principles, because only the first is supported by Orthodox canon law and tradition and determines whether Moscow's patriarch has any standing when commenting on Ukraine's readiness for an independent church. The other two are universally rejected by Orthodoxy. Starting from Kyivan Rus in 988 until 1686, the metropolis of Kyiv prospered under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In the 11th century it was the metropolis of Kyiv, not Moscow (a largely unknown entity at the time), that was categorically listed on the 61st position as a separate ecclesial entity in the constitutional record of metropolis, archbishoprics and bishoprics. Even as late as 1591, Moscow laid no claim to the Kyiv See, and accepted the territorial limitations of the Golden Seal Certificate of Constantinople which validated the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate by defining the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church as the Church of Russia and the far northern parts, but excluding the metropolis of Kyiv and Lesser Rus. This territorial limitation of the Russian Church is clear and unambiguous; and remains, to this day, the primary source of the Moscow Patriarchate's authority and jurisdiction. However, after the Treaty of Pereyaslav in 1654, when much of Ukraine was joined with Russia, the Ukrainian church recognized its vulnerability to absorption by the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Kosiv of Kyiv refused to send his entourage to attend treaty ceremonies, and even threatened to fight Muscovite intruders for building fortifications near St. Sophia's Monastery. Many Ukrainian clergymen were prepared to lock themselves in monasteries and "die rather than accept the rule of the Metropolitan from Moscow." Thirty years later, in 1685, Moscow, with the help of hetman Ivan Samoilovych, orchestrated the fraudulent election of Bishop Gideon as head of the Kyiv See - an investiture that was recognized as illegitimate by Ukrainian clergy. Bishop Gideon, in turn, repaid the favor by accepting subordination to Moscow. Immediately after Bishop Gideon's election, Moscow began pressuring Dionisius, Constantinople's patriarch, for ratification of the transfer. At first he refused to condone Moscow's action, but the combination of "sable furs and two hundred gold coins" from the tsar, and pressure from the Ottoman Vizier (who had also received precious Moscow gifts), caused him to cede to Moscow's wishes. Although Patriarch Kirill characterized this scandalous history of fraud, intimidation, and bribery as the "mysterious transformation" of the Kyiv See into the Moscow Patriarchate, he conveniently forgets that - shortly thereafter - the Eastern hierarchs called a Church Council and forced Dionisius to step down because of his consent to the non-canonical transfer. The Council unequivocally declared that the canonical territories of the Moscow Patriarchate include only the lands under its control since its inception – i.e. as of 1589, less Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and the Baltic states. The Ecumenical See of Constantinople never accepted Moscow's authority over Ukraine's Church and still recognizes the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as an integral part of its jurisdiction.

There is one very important element crucial to this discussion. A fundamental Orthodox ecclesiological principle is the territorial-canonical limitation of local churches. According to canons and Holy Tradition, the boundaries of every local Church are strictly defined. It is because of this principle that the Moscow Patriarchate operates as a territorial entity and is prohibited from expansion into the territory of other Orthodox Churches through political or military interference. Thus, Moscow has no canonical jurisdiction in Ukraine and its presence must be viewed as a usurpation of its patriarchal authority of 1591. Ukraine's Orthodox faithful need not fear Patriarch Kirill's displeasure, but should look to their ancestral right – centuries older than Russia's - to regain mastery of their church. After all, when it comes down to issues of canonical authority in Ukraine, Moscow's patriarch truly has no clothes. Yet we are being told that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church -MP is the only canonical church in Ukraine by the UOC-USA because that is what the bishops of Bound Brook are instructed to say by Constantinople. Sounds like the whole logic is flawed and non-canonical.

 plagiarism

Our records show that you have been active on this forum since the last time I formally instructed you to PM me a link to this article, yet I haven't received a PM from you; therefore, you are now on Warned status indefinitely.  If I don't receive a link to an online copy of this article after the next time you log on to this forum, you will be placed on Post Moderation until we receive the required link from you.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator

 unity1--

You need to provide the source as requested by a moderator on this site. Since it is clear that you have logged in after this warning, you will not be able to participate publically until you comply with these instructions.

FrChris
Admin

[Irish Hermit]

The Ecumenical See of Constantinople never accepted Moscow's authority over Ukraine's Church and still recognizes the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as an integral part of its jurisdiction.

Not really. 

"Ecumenical patriarch calls on Russian Church to lead reunification of Ukrainian Churches"

"The leader of the worldwide Orthodox Church, Patriarch Bartholomew, while speaking after he had arrived in Odesa for an international ecological symposium, the culmination of a cruise on the Black Sea to highlight the ecological problems of the region. He said the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople recognizes as canonical on the territory of Ukraine only the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate, which is subservient to the Russian Orthodox Church."

http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/1997/399704.shtml

[ialmisry]

The other two are universally rejected by Orthodoxy. Starting from Kyivan Rus in 988 until 1686, the metropolis of Kyiv prospered under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In the 11th century it was the metropolis of Kyiv, not Moscow (a largely unknown entity at the time), that was categorically listed on the 61st position as a separate ecclesial entity in the constitutional record of metropolis, archbishoprics and bishoprics. Even as late as 1591, Moscow laid no claim to the Kyiv See, and accepted the territorial limitations of the Golden Seal Certificate of Constantinople which validated the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate by defining the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church as the Church of Russia and the far northern parts, but excluding the metropolis of Kyiv and Lesser Rus....Thus, Moscow has no canonical jurisdiction in Ukraine and its presence must be viewed as a usurpation of its patriarchal authority of 1591. Ukraine's Orthodox faithful need not fear Patriarch Kirill's displeasure, but should look to their ancestral right – centuries older than Russia's - to regain mastery of their church. After all, when it comes down to issues of canonical authority in Ukraine, Moscow's patriarch truly has no clothes. Yet we are being told that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church -MP is the only canonical church in Ukraine by the UOC-USA because that is what the bishops of Bound Brook are instructed to say by Constantinople. Sounds like the whole logic is flawed and non-canonical.

One little detail not explained in your argument: the Metropolitan in Moscow WAS the Metropolitan of Kiev.  The Metropolitan of Kiev transferred first to Vladimir and then permanently to Moscow, much link the Patriarch of Antioch now resides (and has for centuries) in Damascus, the Patriarch of the ancient Serbian see of Pec now resides in Belgrad, the Bulgarian Patriarch once at Ohrid now resides in Sophia, the primacy of North America went from Alaska to California to New York, and the popes of Rome spent a century at Avignon.  When the Patriarch of Moscow is enthroned, he receives the staff of St. Peter of Moscow, Metropolitan of Kiev, from the Metripolitan of Kiev: St. Peter transferred the See to Moscow in 1325.
http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?page=44058

[Michał Kalina]

One little detail not explained in your argument: the Metropolitan in Moscow WAS the Metropolitan of Kiev. (...) St. Peter transferred the See to Moscow in 1325.
http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?page=44058

In 1415 Metropolitanate of Kiev was divided on Metropolitanate of Moscow and Metropolitanate of Kiev.

Metropolitans of Moscow officially resigned fro Kiev in 1458

[Αριστοκλής]

Where's that popcorn eating emoticon? This should be a good one.

[ialmisry]

One little detail not explained in your argument: the Metropolitan in Moscow WAS the Metropolitan of Kiev. (...) St. Peter transferred the See to Moscow in 1325.
http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?page=44058

In 1415 Metropolitanate of Kiev was divided on Metropolitanate of Moscow and Metropolitanate of Kiev.

Metropolitans of Moscow officially resigned fro Kiev in 1458

I've seen various dates of the break up, muddled by the events ot the times.  But these dates cannot be.  Isodore of Kiev (actually a Greek from Thessalonica) was appointed Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' in 1437.  He wasn't deposed until 1441. (to show his true stripes, he did a stint as Latin EP).  In 1458 the EP appointed Gregory the Bulgarian, a disciple of Isodore, as Met. of Kiev, Galych and All Rus' and Isodore's successor.

However, the bishops of Rus' elected St. Jonah as Orthodox successor to Isodore, and did not seek approval from apostate Constantinople.  Nor did she break off from Kiev: his title remained Metropolitan of All Rus', including Kiev.  IOW, he continued the line of Metropolitans of Kiev resident in Moscow since St. Peter moved it there in 1325.  Somewhere here I've posted a link to an article on the elevation of the Metropolitan to Patriarch which I think covers that.  It would seem that then, with all the councils going on with all the primates over the elevation to their rank of Moscow, that Kiev was seperated from the new Patriarchate.

[Starlight]

Dear Unity1,
First of all, welcome to the forum.

The tragic history of Ukrainian Orthodox Church is well known. She has many martyrs and many persecutors.

In (15) years with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople we did not loose anything in UOC-USA. We only kept gaining. We gained unquestionable recognition and concelebration, many converts (some of them ordained), youth programs, participation in Pan-Orthodox activities, cooperation of Departments of Religious Education, missionary efforts, partnership in dialogue, etc.

We did not loose our heritage. We did not loose anything else.

Yet we are being told that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church -MP is the only canonical church in Ukraine by the UOC-USA because that is what the bishops of Bound Brook are instructed to say by Constantinople. Sounds like the whole logic is flawed and non-canonical.

As Mrs. Halyna Hrushetsky pointed out during the radio program of Ukrainian Independent Radio on Wednesday, we need to be recognized in the dialogue.

Both UOC-USA and UOC-MP independently maintain contacts with UAOC. Contacts, which grow constantly.

And when He is ready there will be ONE Church in Ukraine!

Amen!

What benefit can be achieved by a parish, which runs away from the worldwide Canonical Orthodox Communion in 2009? Very sad... As it has been said here multiple times, we have excellent Hierarchs in UOC-USA. Why to go to Mr. Filaret Denysenko, who proved his capability to change his position and to hurt Orthodoxy in Ukraine for the sake of his own personal profits? Or to have a status of a totally independent parish?

[PeterTheAleut]

I figured if we want to talk about canonHans Christian Andersen wrote a wonderful tale entitled "The Emperor's New Clothes." Two rogues, claiming to be gifted weavers,
convinced the emperor that they could weave wonderful cloth visible only to those of pure heart and spirit. A grand procession was planned for the emperor to display his new finery. But neither the emperor nor his subjects wanted to be seen as less than pure of heart. So the emperor strode naked down the boulevard while his subjects cheered and clapped. However, the bubble burst when an innocent child loudly exclaimed, for the whole kingdom to hear, that the emperor had nothing on at all. He had no clothes. Patriarch Kirill, leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, recently said that Ukraine is not ready for an independent church. This statement brought back memories of the Danish fairy tale. Indeed, no one wants to tell this "emperor" that - not only does he not have any legal standing or canonical jurisdiction, i.e. "clothes" - over the church in Ukraine, but that he is usurping the authority granted to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1591. Patriarch Kirill, like many of his predecessors, is convinced that the Russian Orthodox Church must be an instrument of Russian national identity, and that the establishment of independent Orthodox churches within the former U.S.S.R. would weaken both the church's and the Kremlin's shared imperialistic ideology. In fact, while still Metropolitan of Smolensk, Kirill once stated that "the Russian Orthodox Church holds de facto first place among all other Orthodox churches…and exercises influence in all other Orthodox churches in the Balkans as well as in those countries where Orthodox faithful represent a minority. We are rightful heirs of Byzantium." This expansionist concept of Moscow's pretensions to primacy and interference in the affairs of other Orthodox churches was expounded by the controversial, ultra-nationalist Metropolitan Ioann after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was to become a mechanism by which the imperialistic ideology of Russia would be maintained and rebuilt. It is based on three major principles/peculiarities: territorial, ethnic/national and pastoral. Constantinople's Patriarch Bartholomew characterized this theory as "foolish, hubristic, and blasphemous..." We need not concern ourselves with all three principles, because only the first is supported by Orthodox canon law and tradition and determines whether Moscow's patriarch has any standing when commenting on Ukraine's readiness for an independent church. The other two are universally rejected by Orthodoxy. Starting from Kyivan Rus in 988 until 1686, the metropolis of Kyiv prospered under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In the 11th century it was the metropolis of Kyiv, not Moscow (a largely unknown entity at the time), that was categorically listed on the 61st position as a separate ecclesial entity in the constitutional record of metropolis, archbishoprics and bishoprics. Even as late as 1591, Moscow laid no claim to the Kyiv See, and accepted the territorial limitations of the Golden Seal Certificate of Constantinople which validated the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate by defining the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church as the Church of Russia and the far northern parts, but excluding the metropolis of Kyiv and Lesser Rus. This territorial limitation of the Russian Church is clear and unambiguous; and remains, to this day, the primary source of the Moscow Patriarchate's authority and jurisdiction. However, after the Treaty of Pereyaslav in 1654, when much of Ukraine was joined with Russia, the Ukrainian church recognized its vulnerability to absorption by the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Kosiv of Kyiv refused to send his entourage to attend treaty ceremonies, and even threatened to fight Muscovite intruders for building fortifications near St. Sophia's Monastery. Many Ukrainian clergymen were prepared to lock themselves in monasteries and "die rather than accept the rule of the Metropolitan from Moscow." Thirty years later, in 1685, Moscow, with the help of hetman Ivan Samoilovych, orchestrated the fraudulent election of Bishop Gideon as head of the Kyiv See - an investiture that was recognized as illegitimate by Ukrainian clergy. Bishop Gideon, in turn, repaid the favor by accepting subordination to Moscow. Immediately after Bishop Gideon's election, Moscow began pressuring Dionisius, Constantinople's patriarch, for ratification of the transfer. At first he refused to condone Moscow's action, but the combination of "sable furs and two hundred gold coins" from the tsar, and pressure from the Ottoman Vizier (who had also received precious Moscow gifts), caused him to cede to Moscow's wishes. Although Patriarch Kirill characterized this scandalous history of fraud, intimidation, and bribery as the "mysterious transformation" of the Kyiv See into the Moscow Patriarchate, he conveniently forgets that - shortly thereafter - the Eastern hierarchs called a Church Council and forced Dionisius to step down because of his consent to the non-canonical transfer. The Council unequivocally declared that the canonical territories of the Moscow Patriarchate include only the lands under its control since its inception – i.e. as of 1589, less Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and the Baltic states. The Ecumenical See of Constantinople never accepted Moscow's authority over Ukraine's Church and still recognizes the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as an integral part of its jurisdiction.

There is one very important element crucial to this discussion. A fundamental Orthodox ecclesiological principle is the territorial-canonical limitation of local churches. According to canons and Holy Tradition, the boundaries of every local Church are strictly defined. It is because of this principle that the Moscow Patriarchate operates as a territorial entity and is prohibited from expansion into the territory of other Orthodox Churches through political or military interference. Thus, Moscow has no canonical jurisdiction in Ukraine and its presence must be viewed as a usurpation of its patriarchal authority of 1591. Ukraine's Orthodox faithful need not fear Patriarch Kirill's displeasure, but should look to their ancestral right – centuries older than Russia's - to regain mastery of their church. After all, when it comes down to issues of canonical authority in Ukraine, Moscow's patriarch truly has no clothes. Yet we are being told that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church -MP is the only canonical church in Ukraine by the UOC-USA because that is what the bishops of Bound Brook are instructed to say by Constantinople. Sounds like the whole logic is flawed and non-canonical.

unity1, please provide a link to the web site from which you copied the above text.  Send it to me in a personal message, and I'll make sure it gets updated to your post.  Thank you.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator

[Orthodoc]

Comment:

Yet we are being told that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church -MP is the only canonical church in Ukraine by the UOC-USA because that is what the bishops of Bound Brook are instructed to say by Constantinople. Sounds like the whole logic is flawed and non-canonical.


Reply:

Not only the UOC-USA and Constantinople BUT THE ENTIRE CANONICAL ORTHODOX WORLD!

Orthodoc

[Michał Kalina]

I've seen various dates of the break up, muddled by the events ot the times.  But these dates cannot be.  Isodore of Kiev (actually a Greek from Thessalonica) was appointed Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' in 1437.  He wasn't deposed until 1441. (to show his true stripes, he did a stint as Latin EP).  In 1458 the EP appointed Gregory the Bulgarian, a disciple of Isodore, as Met. of Kiev, Galych and All Rus' and Isodore's successor.

However, the bishops of Rus' elected St. Jonah as Orthodox successor to Isodore, and did not seek approval from apostate Constantinople.  Nor did she break off from Kiev: his title remained Metropolitan of All Rus', including Kiev.  IOW, he continued the line of Metropolitans of Kiev resident in Moscow since St. Peter moved it there in 1325.  Somewhere here I've posted a link to an article on the elevation of the Metropolitan to Patriarch which I think covers that.  It would seem that then, with all the councils going on with all the primates over the elevation to their rank of Moscow, that Kiev was seperated from the new Patriarchate.

In 1415 Gregory Camblak (Bulgarian) became the Metropolitan of Kiev and St. Photius remained Metropolitan of Moscow - two separate Metropolitanates. But I have to admit that you are right on that they was re-merged and split again in 1458.

My proof for the separation is only the Polish quote:

Obawy owe nie zostały rozwiane mimo oficjalnego zrzeczenia się tytułu metropolii kijowskiej przez metropolitów moskiewskich 1458 r.

from Polish PhD historian Antoni Mironowicz's text.

[ialmisry]

I've seen various dates of the break up, muddled by the events ot the times.  But these dates cannot be.  Isodore of Kiev (actually a Greek from Thessalonica) was appointed Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' in 1437.  He wasn't deposed until 1441. (to show his true stripes, he did a stint as Latin EP).  In 1458 the EP appointed Gregory the Bulgarian, a disciple of Isodore, as Met. of Kiev, Galych and All Rus' and Isodore's successor.

However, the bishops of Rus' elected St. Jonah as Orthodox successor to Isodore, and did not seek approval from apostate Constantinople.  Nor did she break off from Kiev: his title remained Metropolitan of All Rus', including Kiev.  IOW, he continued the line of Metropolitans of Kiev resident in Moscow since St. Peter moved it there in 1325.  Somewhere here I've posted a link to an article on the elevation of the Metropolitan to Patriarch which I think covers that.  It would seem that then, with all the councils going on with all the primates over the elevation to their rank of Moscow, that Kiev was seperated from the new Patriarchate.

In 1415 Gregory Camblak (Bulgarian) became the Metropolitan of Kiev and St. Photius remained Metropolitan of Moscow - two separate Metropolitanates. But I have to admit that you are right on that they was re-merged and split again in 1458.

My proof for the separation is only the Polish quote:

Obawy owe nie zostały rozwiane mimo oficjalnego zrzeczenia się tytułu metropolii kijowskiej przez metropolitów moskiewskich 1458 r.

from Polish PhD historian Antoni Mironowicz's text.

On the official website of the Kiev Church (MP) St. Photios and St. Jonas are both listed as Metropolitans of Kiev, and the date for St. Jonas continues after the date of autocephaly for the Russian Church.
http://orthodox.org.ua/eng/node/3

which agrees with GOARCH's website on St. Jonahs (whose day is coming up June 15.  May his prayers be spread over Cyprus).
http://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints/2335

[Michał Kalina]

Metropolitan Gregory Tsamblak might not be listed as Metropolitan of Kiev because he was not approved by Constantinople.


Hierarchs of Lithuania and Ukraine (supported by duke Vytautas) in 1415 chose him as Metropolitan of Kiev in opposition to St. Photius. Then the letter was send to the Patriarch Euthymius in order to get his blessing (as it was used to) but the Patriarch, convinced by St. Photius's ambassadors, refused to do so. Until 1419 he had been the real Prelate of the Orthodox in Grand Duchy but in 1419 he resigned and Church in GDL was retaken by St. Photius (until 1458).

[cossack 316]

http://cliftonorthodoxcathedral.org/saveouruoc.html

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The UOC-USA diocese was organized in the United States in 1925 as an integral part
of its Mother Church, the autocephalous [i.e. independent] Ukrainian Orthodox Church
established in Kyiv, Ukraine (hereinafter UOC-Ukraine). Among the fundamental features
and principles of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and its US diocese are the following:
 a) Autocephaly, - independence from foreign, non-Ukrainian control or influence,
especially and particularly any control or influence by Russia or any of its agencies, including
but not limited to the Russian Orthodox Church and other churches or institutions allied with
the Russian Orthodox Church, such as the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople;
 b) Ethnicity - preservation and propagation of the specifically Ukrainian cultural,
social and national identity, including but not limited to the diligent promotion of the use of
the Ukrainian language as the determinative factor in that process.
 c) “Sobornopravnist” – the age-old tradition of conciliar self-government and
broadest participation of the laity in church life, as distinct from the hierarchical rule
characterizing the Russian Orthodox Church and other Greek Orthodox Churches.
 d) Local parish level ownership and control of property (real & personal) without any
control by bishops or clergy whatsoever,
 e) The right of parishes to hire and fire priests and pastors.
 The significance of the adherence to the Principles of the UOC-Ukraine, as outlined in
the prior paragraph, is the fact that the UOC-Ukraine has been persecuted by the Russian
Orthodox Church for some 300 years, to the point of complete destruction in Ukraine of its
public manifestation, leaving its survival only underground. Historically, the Russian
annexation and persecution of the UOC-Ukraine was aided and abetted by the Greek
Ecumenical Patriarchate/Church of Constantinople.

Im curious as to members thoughts on this..

[ialmisry]

http://cliftonorthodoxcathedral.org/saveouruoc.html

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The UOC-USA diocese was organized in the United States in 1925 as an integral part
of its Mother Church, the autocephalous [i.e. independent] Ukrainian Orthodox Church
established in Kyiv, Ukraine (hereinafter UOC-Ukraine). Among the fundamental features
and principles of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and its US diocese are the following:
 a) Autocephaly, - independence from foreign, non-Ukrainian control or influence,
especially and particularly any control or influence by Russia or any of its agencies, including
but not limited to the Russian Orthodox Church and other churches or institutions allied with
the Russian Orthodox Church, such as the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople;

Well, they got it.  Neither the Russian nor the Greek Church nor that of Constantinople has this "Ukrainian Orthodox Church" in their diptychs.

b) Ethnicity - preservation and propagation of the specifically Ukrainian cultural,
social and national identity, including but not limited to the diligent promotion of the use of
the Ukrainian language as the determinative factor in that process.

Of course, this is where the phyletism problem comes in, Ukrainian, not the canons nor the Faith being the determinative factor.  Then there's the disconnect under this scheme from the Church of Kiev, which used Slavonic (no, Slavonic is not Old Ukrainian, nor even East Slavic, as is Ukrainian and Russian, and Belarussian).

c) “Sobornopravnist” – the age-old tradition of conciliar self-government and
broadest participation of the laity in church life, as distinct from the hierarchical rule
characterizing the Russian Orthodox Church and other Greek Orthodox Churches.

This is perhaps why you couldn't get a single bishop to go along.  At least a live one.

d) Local parish level ownership and control of property (real & personal) without any
control by bishops or clergy whatsoever,

Now we know why not having an antimens isn't seen as a problem.

The canons presuppose the bishop's control of the assets of the Church.  Part of the reason why they must be celibate, precluding inheritence questions.

e) The right of parishes to hire and fire priests and pastors.

The priests are ordained by the bishop, not elevated by the laity.  In Orthodox Churches with valid Apostolic succession that is.

The significance of the adherence to the Principles of the UOC-Ukraine, as outlined in
the prior paragraph, is the fact that the UOC-Ukraine has been persecuted by the Russian
Orthodox Church for some 300 years, to the point of complete destruction in Ukraine of its
public manifestation, leaving its survival only underground. Historically, the Russian
annexation and persecution of the UOC-Ukraine was aided and abetted by the Greek
Ecumenical Patriarchate/Church of Constantinople.

Im curious as to members thoughts on this..

You should change the name to the Ukrainian Protestant Church.

[PeterTheAleut]

http://cliftonorthodoxcathedral.org/saveouruoc.html

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The UOC-USA diocese was organized in the United States in 1925 as an integral part
of its Mother Church, the autocephalous [i.e. independent] Ukrainian Orthodox Church
established in Kyiv, Ukraine (hereinafter UOC-Ukraine). Among the fundamental features
and principles of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and its US diocese are the following:
 a) Autocephaly, - independence from foreign, non-Ukrainian control or influence,
especially and particularly any control or influence by Russia or any of its agencies, including
but not limited to the Russian Orthodox Church and other churches or institutions allied with
the Russian Orthodox Church, such as the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople;
 b) Ethnicity - preservation and propagation of the specifically Ukrainian cultural,
social and national identity, including but not limited to the diligent promotion of the use of
the Ukrainian language as the determinative factor in that process.
 c) “Sobornopravnist” – the age-old tradition of conciliar self-government and
broadest participation of the laity in church life, as distinct from the hierarchical rule
characterizing the Russian Orthodox Church and other Greek Orthodox Churches.
 d) Local parish level ownership and control of property (real & personal) without any
control by bishops or clergy whatsoever,
 e) The right of parishes to hire and fire priests and pastors.
 The significance of the adherence to the Principles of the UOC-Ukraine, as outlined in
the prior paragraph, is the fact that the UOC-Ukraine has been persecuted by the Russian
Orthodox Church for some 300 years, to the point of complete destruction in Ukraine of its
public manifestation, leaving its survival only underground. Historically, the Russian
annexation and persecution of the UOC-Ukraine was aided and abetted by the Greek
Ecumenical Patriarchate/Church of Constantinople.

Im curious as to members thoughts on this..

That every one of the five points you made helps define an understanding of the local church that is not at all Orthodox.

[PeterTheAleut]

I figured if we want to talk about canonHans Christian Andersen wrote a wonderful tale entitled "The Emperor's New Clothes." Two rogues, claiming to be gifted weavers,
convinced the emperor that they could weave wonderful cloth visible only to those of pure heart and spirit. A grand procession was planned for the emperor to display his new finery. But neither the emperor nor his subjects wanted to be seen as less than pure of heart. So the emperor strode naked down the boulevard while his subjects cheered and clapped. However, the bubble burst when an innocent child loudly exclaimed, for the whole kingdom to hear, that the emperor had nothing on at all. He had no clothes. Patriarch Kirill, leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, recently said that Ukraine is not ready for an independent church. This statement brought back memories of the Danish fairy tale. Indeed, no one wants to tell this "emperor" that - not only does he not have any legal standing or canonical jurisdiction, i.e. "clothes" - over the church in Ukraine, but that he is usurping the authority granted to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1591. Patriarch Kirill, like many of his predecessors, is convinced that the Russian Orthodox Church must be an instrument of Russian national identity, and that the establishment of independent Orthodox churches within the former U.S.S.R. would weaken both the church's and the Kremlin's shared imperialistic ideology. In fact, while still Metropolitan of Smolensk, Kirill once stated that "the Russian Orthodox Church holds de facto first place among all other Orthodox churches…and exercises influence in all other Orthodox churches in the Balkans as well as in those countries where Orthodox faithful represent a minority. We are rightful heirs of Byzantium." This expansionist concept of Moscow's pretensions to primacy and interference in the affairs of other Orthodox churches was expounded by the controversial, ultra-nationalist Metropolitan Ioann after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was to become a mechanism by which the imperialistic ideology of Russia would be maintained and rebuilt. It is based on three major principles/peculiarities: territorial, ethnic/national and pastoral. Constantinople's Patriarch Bartholomew characterized this theory as "foolish, hubristic, and blasphemous..." We need not concern ourselves with all three principles, because only the first is supported by Orthodox canon law and tradition and determines whether Moscow's patriarch has any standing when commenting on Ukraine's readiness for an independent church. The other two are universally rejected by Orthodoxy. Starting from Kyivan Rus in 988 until 1686, the metropolis of Kyiv prospered under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In the 11th century it was the metropolis of Kyiv, not Moscow (a largely unknown entity at the time), that was categorically listed on the 61st position as a separate ecclesial entity in the constitutional record of metropolis, archbishoprics and bishoprics. Even as late as 1591, Moscow laid no claim to the Kyiv See, and accepted the territorial limitations of the Golden Seal Certificate of Constantinople which validated the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate by defining the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church as the Church of Russia and the far northern parts, but excluding the metropolis of Kyiv and Lesser Rus. This territorial limitation of the Russian Church is clear and unambiguous; and remains, to this day, the primary source of the Moscow Patriarchate's authority and jurisdiction. However, after the Treaty of Pereyaslav in 1654, when much of Ukraine was joined with Russia, the Ukrainian church recognized its vulnerability to absorption by the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Kosiv of Kyiv refused to send his entourage to attend treaty ceremonies, and even threatened to fight Muscovite intruders for building fortifications near St. Sophia's Monastery. Many Ukrainian clergymen were prepared to lock themselves in monasteries and "die rather than accept the rule of the Metropolitan from Moscow." Thirty years later, in 1685, Moscow, with the help of hetman Ivan Samoilovych, orchestrated the fraudulent election of Bishop Gideon as head of the Kyiv See - an investiture that was recognized as illegitimate by Ukrainian clergy. Bishop Gideon, in turn, repaid the favor by accepting subordination to Moscow. Immediately after Bishop Gideon's election, Moscow began pressuring Dionisius, Constantinople's patriarch, for ratification of the transfer. At first he refused to condone Moscow's action, but the combination of "sable furs and two hundred gold coins" from the tsar, and pressure from the Ottoman Vizier (who had also received precious Moscow gifts), caused him to cede to Moscow's wishes. Although Patriarch Kirill characterized this scandalous history of fraud, intimidation, and bribery as the "mysterious transformation" of the Kyiv See into the Moscow Patriarchate, he conveniently forgets that - shortly thereafter - the Eastern hierarchs called a Church Council and forced Dionisius to step down because of his consent to the non-canonical transfer. The Council unequivocally declared that the canonical territories of the Moscow Patriarchate include only the lands under its control since its inception – i.e. as of 1589, less Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and the Baltic states. The Ecumenical See of Constantinople never accepted Moscow's authority over Ukraine's Church and still recognizes the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as an integral part of its jurisdiction.

There is one very important element crucial to this discussion. A fundamental Orthodox ecclesiological principle is the territorial-canonical limitation of local churches. According to canons and Holy Tradition, the boundaries of every local Church are strictly defined. It is because of this principle that the Moscow Patriarchate operates as a territorial entity and is prohibited from expansion into the territory of other Orthodox Churches through political or military interference. Thus, Moscow has no canonical jurisdiction in Ukraine and its presence must be viewed as a usurpation of its patriarchal authority of 1591. Ukraine's Orthodox faithful need not fear Patriarch Kirill's displeasure, but should look to their ancestral right – centuries older than Russia's - to regain mastery of their church. After all, when it comes down to issues of canonical authority in Ukraine, Moscow's patriarch truly has no clothes. Yet we are being told that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church -MP is the only canonical church in Ukraine by the UOC-USA because that is what the bishops of Bound Brook are instructed to say by Constantinople. Sounds like the whole logic is flawed and non-canonical.

unity1, please provide a link to the web site from which you copied the above text.  Send it to me in a personal message, and I'll make sure it gets updated to your post.  Thank you.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator

unity1,

Seeing that you have been active on this thread within the few days since I made my initial request for sources, and seeing that I have not yet received a PM from you containing the link I requested, you now have 48 hours to either provide a link to the source from which you copied your article or face stern sanction from the moderator team for plagiarism.

-PeterTheAleut
Moderator

[Heorhij]

http://cliftonorthodoxcathedral.org/saveouruoc.html

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The UOC-USA diocese was organized in the United States in 1925 as an integral part
of its Mother Church, the autocephalous [i.e. independent] Ukrainian Orthodox Church
established in Kyiv, Ukraine (hereinafter UOC-Ukraine). Among the fundamental features
and principles of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and its US diocese are the following:
 a) Autocephaly, - independence from foreign, non-Ukrainian control or influence,
especially and particularly any control or influence by Russia or any of its agencies, including
but not limited to the Russian Orthodox Church and other churches or institutions allied with
the Russian Orthodox Church, such as the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople;
 b) Ethnicity - preservation and propagation of the specifically Ukrainian cultural,
social and national identity, including but not limited to the diligent promotion of the use of
the Ukrainian language as the determinative factor in that process.
 c) “Sobornopravnist” – the age-old tradition of conciliar self-government and
broadest participation of the laity in church life, as distinct from the hierarchical rule
characterizing the Russian Orthodox Church and other Greek Orthodox Churches.
 d) Local parish level ownership and control of property (real & personal) without any
control by bishops or clergy whatsoever,
 e) The right of parishes to hire and fire priests and pastors.
 The significance of the adherence to the Principles of the UOC-Ukraine, as outlined in
the prior paragraph, is the fact that the UOC-Ukraine has been persecuted by the Russian
Orthodox Church for some 300 years, to the point of complete destruction in Ukraine of its
public manifestation, leaving its survival only underground. Historically, the Russian
annexation and persecution of the UOC-Ukraine was aided and abetted by the Greek
Ecumenical Patriarchate/Church of Constantinople.

Im curious as to members thoughts on this..

Дорогий Козачe (Dear Cossack),

If you read my posts on this topic, you perhaps know that I have always been a very staunch proponent of the unified Українська Помісна Цeрква, and I might be the only person on this entire forum who is very sympathetic to the Kyiv Patriarchate. However, your five points do look somewhat strange and bothersome to me. It seems to me that this document was drafted without any participation of Orthodox clergy. Correct me if I am wrong, but, as far as I know, historically, priests in all Orthodox jurisdictions of the whole world were always appointed to their parishes by bishops. Parishes' property has always been legally owned by bishops. So, are you going to set a completely new precedent and initiate some sort of Protestant Reformation in an Orthodox setting? Will it work? Is it a right thing to do? Is it good for Orthodoxy and, particularly, for Orthodox Ukrainians?

It also seems strange to me that in your document, "the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople" is mentioned as some sort of adversary of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and almost like an ally of the Moscow Patriarchate. But this is just plain wrong. First of all, there is no jurisdiction called "the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople" - instead, there are several Greek archdioceses or dioceses in Greece, Germany, USA, Canada and elsewhere, of which some are under the omophore of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and some are not. Second, there is absolutely nothing wrong in being in eucharistic unity (communion) with the Ecumenical Patriarch, and being in such unity absolutely does not mean that "Constantinople" will dictate something to a jurisdiction or "oppress" its authentic life. Third, it seems almost comical to lump together the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow as "allies" in the alleged oppression of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, because in fact there is a tremendous, gigantic, "cosmic" rivalry between these two powerful Orthodox luminaries.

Again, I would be the last person on earth to say that Ukraine is "not ready" for her One, unified, truly Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdiction. Of course she is. But publishing statements like the one you posted and I quoted, statements that were written in haste, emotionally, without regard to the traditions and even the spirit of Orthodoxy will hardly help in making this One unified, truly Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdiction a reality.

[Michał Kalina]

d) Local parish level ownership and control of property (real & personal) without any
control by bishops or clergy whatsoever,

When I was reading this I spitted the tea on a keyboard and couldn't stop laughing for several minutes.

[PeterTheAleut]

d) Local parish level ownership and control of property (real & personal) without any
control by bishops or clergy whatsoever,

When I was reading this I spitted the tea on a keyboard and couldn't stop laughing for several minutes.

Clear evidence that what cossack's party wants is not a church, but a Ukrainian social club.

[LizaSymonenko]

You got that right.

As a Ukrainian, it breaks my heart.

Some people need to realize that one day they will stand before their Creator and answer for their deeds.

I don't think going against one's Bishop will be in their favor.

So sad.

[username!]

d) Local parish level ownership and control of property (real & personal) without any
control by bishops or clergy whatsoever,

When I was reading this I spitted the tea on a keyboard and couldn't stop laughing for several minutes.

Clear evidence that what cossack's party wants is not a church, but a Ukrainian social club.

I find that highly offensive and if you would read the thread completely and take a moment to cut through it all the conclusion is that what Cossack's church wants is utter control and power vis-a-vis owning the property and making every single decision.  The Ukrainian angle of it all is a reason to justify the lust and want for absolute parish council domination.  It is offensive to everyone to be high and mighty and go off and say what you said.  It has nothing to do with being a Ukainian Social club.  It has everything to do with the laity owning the property, the parish council making every decision.. such as hiring and firing priests/treating the priest like an employee, controlling all the money, controlling everything.  Like I said above the means to justify this end in this particular situation/parish is to rally the people around the Ukrainian flag.  In the end it really has nothing to do with anything Ukrainian or Ukraine or things Ukrainian.  It has to do with a power struggle and congregationalism.  This type of power lust by the parish council and church members can be found in any jurisdiction, any demonination and you'll always find a rallying cause to justify this power struggle. 

[Heorhij]

d) Local parish level ownership and control of property (real & personal) without any
control by bishops or clergy whatsoever,

When I was reading this I spitted the tea on a keyboard and couldn't stop laughing for several minutes.

Clear evidence that what cossack's party wants is not a church, but a Ukrainian social club.

I find that highly offensive and if you would read the thread completely and take a moment to cut through it all the conclusion is that what Cossack's church wants is utter control and power vis-a-vis owning the property and making every single decision.  The Ukrainian angle of it all is a reason to justify the lust and want for absolute parish council domination.  It is offensive to everyone to be high and mighty and go off and say what you said.  It has nothing to do with being a Ukainian Social club and everything to do with being protestant congregationalists. 

Well, I am not sure... Maybe the people who wrote the "five-point declaration" do not even realize how Protestant it really is?

[ialmisry]

d) Local parish level ownership and control of property (real & personal) without any
control by bishops or clergy whatsoever,

When I was reading this I spitted the tea on a keyboard and couldn't stop laughing for several minutes.

Clear evidence that what cossack's party wants is not a church, but a Ukrainian social club.

I find that highly offensive and if you would read the thread completely and take a moment to cut through it all the conclusion is that what Cossack's church wants is utter control and power vis-a-vis owning the property and making every single decision.  The Ukrainian angle of it all is a reason to justify the lust and want for absolute parish council domination.  It is offensive to everyone to be high and mighty and go off and say what you said.  It has nothing to do with being a Ukainian Social club.  It has everything to do with the laity owning the property, the parish council making every decision.. such as hiring and firing priests/treating the priest like an employee, controlling all the money, controlling everything.  Like I said above the means to justify this end in this particular situation/parish is to rally the people around the Ukrainian flag.  In the end it really has nothing to do with anything Ukrainian or Ukraine or things Ukrainian.  It has to do with a power struggle and congregationalism.  This type of power lust by the parish council and church members can be found in any jurisdiction, any demonination and you'll always find a rallying cause to justify this power struggle. 

I would say the same of former Met. Filaret's new found Ukrainian nationalism which the parish wants to join.

[Heorhij]

d) Local parish level ownership and control of property (real & personal) without any
control by bishops or clergy whatsoever,

When I was reading this I spitted the tea on a keyboard and couldn't stop laughing for several minutes.

Clear evidence that what cossack's party wants is not a church, but a Ukrainian social club.

I find that highly offensive and if you would read the thread completely and take a moment to cut through it all the conclusion is that what Cossack's church wants is utter control and power vis-a-vis owning the property and making every single decision.  The Ukrainian angle of it all is a reason to justify the lust and want for absolute parish council domination.  It is offensive to everyone to be high and mighty and go off and say what you said.  It has nothing to do with being a Ukainian Social club.  It has everything to do with the laity owning the property, the parish council making every decision.. such as hiring and firing priests/treating the priest like an employee, controlling all the money, controlling everything.  Like I said above the means to justify this end in this particular situation/parish is to rally the people around the Ukrainian flag.  In the end it really has nothing to do with anything Ukrainian or Ukraine or things Ukrainian.  It has to do with a power struggle and congregationalism.  This type of power lust by the parish council and church members can be found in any jurisdiction, any demonination and you'll always find a rallying cause to justify this power struggle. 

I would say the same of former Met. Filaret's new found Ukrainian nationalism which the parish wants to join.

I would not, because I am positive that one cannot find in any of the statements issued by the UOC-KP anything remotely close to what's in the "five-point statement" under discussion. UOC-KP may sound "nationalistic," but it never said that the parishioners should hire and fire priests, or that the entire property of the parish should belong solely to the parishioners, or even that the Ukrainian language and culture must be the sole driving or unifying force in the Church.

[PeterTheAleut]

d) Local parish level ownership and control of property (real & personal) without any
control by bishops or clergy whatsoever,

When I was reading this I spitted the tea on a keyboard and couldn't stop laughing for several minutes.

Clear evidence that what cossack's party wants is not a church, but a Ukrainian social club.

I find that highly offensive and if you would read the thread completely and take a moment to cut through it all the conclusion is that what Cossack's church wants is utter control and power vis-a-vis owning the property and making every single decision.  The Ukrainian angle of it all is a reason to justify the lust and want for absolute parish council domination.  It is offensive to everyone to be high and mighty and go off and say what you said.  It has nothing to do with being a Ukainian Social club.  It has everything to do with the laity owning the property, the parish council making every decision.. such as hiring and firing priests/treating the priest like an employee, controlling all the money, controlling everything.  Like I said above the means to justify this end in this particular situation/parish is to rally the people around the Ukrainian flag.  In the end it really has nothing to do with anything Ukrainian or Ukraine or things Ukrainian.  It has to do with a power struggle and congregationalism.  This type of power lust by the parish council and church members can be found in any jurisdiction, any demonination and you'll always find a rallying cause to justify this power struggle. 

username!,  just because you're right about this [also] being an issue of control and power--yes, I've read this thread, so I know what I'm replying to--doesn't mean I'm wrong.

[Starlight]

http://cliftonorthodoxcathedral.org/saveouruoc.html

Intersting that www.saveouruoc.com used to operate as an independent site, the on-line representation of so called Save Our UOC Committee. By saving, the organizers meant the opposite - going into a schism. Now the aforementioned site ceased to exist independently. The typing of the address results in automatic redirection to the site of that portion of the parish in Clifton, NJ, which took assets into a schism of UOC-KP.

 a) Autocephaly, - independence from foreign, non-Ukrainian control or influence,
especially and particularly any control or influence by Russia or any of its agencies, including
but not limited to the Russian Orthodox Church and other churches or institutions allied with
the Russian Orthodox Church, such as the Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople;

I am 100% for autocephaly of Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The legitimate goals should be achieved by the legitimate methods. This is what UOC-USA strives to do. Instead, a schism is not a legitimate method.

 b) Ethnicity - preservation and propagation of the specifically Ukrainian cultural,
social and national identity, including but not limited to the diligent promotion of the use of
the Ukrainian language as the determinative factor in that process.

As it has been stated multiple times in this thread, UOC-USA values Ukrainian heritage. Chauvinism, phyletism and disrespect to other ethnicities are not tolerated within UOC-USA.

As for the language of services, it should be done in accordance with needs of each particular parish. When we will need more Chinese, for example, it will be most joyful.

c) “Sobornopravnist” – the age-old tradition of conciliar self-government and
broadest participation of the laity in church life, as distinct from the hierarchical rule
characterizing the Russian Orthodox Church and other Greek Orthodox Churches.

An incorrect understanding of Sobornopravnist. Actually, Sobornopravnist works within the Canons of the Orthodox Church and does not contradict them. UOC of USA preserves Sobornopravnist. As it has been indicated by MonkVasyl in Reply #36, the Sobor / Congress did ratify the agreement to join the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

UOC-KP does not recognize Sobornoparvnist'. Those, who go into this group in USA now have to obey the non-canonical Synod in Kyiv.

the Russian Orthodox Church and other Greek Orthodox Churches.

Does this definition make any sense?

 d) Local parish level ownership and control of property (real & personal) without any
control by bishops or clergy whatsoever,

I agree with Mike's reaction so much.

The authors of the document added word "whatsoever" in order to demonstrate their humility, is that correct?

This paragraph demonstrates true colors. Control, power, money... Total contradiction to the Canons.

 e) The right of parishes to hire and fire priests and pastors.

Ridiculous. Shows the level of spirituality. On scale from 0 to 100, it can be rated as 0.

Im curious as to members thoughts on this..

Most definitely, I agree with conclusions of other respected posters that the discussed declaration cannot fit Orthodoxy. Congregationalism in its worst form. I agree it looks like the members of clergy did not participate in creation of this terrible document. Or if some were, then they have to be maximally ashamed of themselves.

We observe a creation of a greed-driven sect.

May be the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed does not work for the organizers of a takeover? Instead, the following formula may be used: "I believe in power, control and money"?

When St. Andrew parish was canonical, around (300) faithful participated in the Liturgies, celebrated by Fr. Bogdan Kalynyuk. The sources in Chicago informed me over the telephone about (25) people, present on May 31, when Yaroslav Vasylyk performed empty rituals (Ialmisry, thank you for definition).

[cossack 316]

I would first like to respond to starlights numbers.....300 people at St Andrew's was for pascha typical service is about 110-120 people. Secondly, our church since father Bogdan left has still has between 80-100 people a service. in addition we have accepted new parisioners since Father Bogdan left so I feel you numbers are off as well as your source. Yes some families have left the parish as a result but more have joined since.

[cossack 316]

In addition to the starlights argument to canon I post this from......
http://www.uaorthodox.info/images/mod_catalog_prod_files/20/DEKLARACIA_ENG.doc

THE CANONS

The internal unity of the Church has external manifestations:
– unity of Orthodox faith, to profess one and the same Symbol of Faith;
– unity of Holy Sacraments and liturgical practices;
– a church hierarchy with apostolic succession;
– unity of hierarchy, church structure, and church canons (Catechism).
The Kyiv Patriarchate professes the Orthodox faith passed through the apostles and dogmas formulated by the Ecumenical Councils, including the Symbol of Faith; its teaching and execution of the Holy Mysteries and liturgical services are the same as the entire Plenitude of the Orthodox Church; its structure is identical to that of the other National Churches; and it acknowledges, and adheres to, all canons of the Orthodox Church. The Kyiv Patriarchate has introduced nothing new either in a dogma, or in practice or execution of Holy Mysteries and liturgical service, or in the canonical order of the ordinary Church life. The external indication of this is the professing of the faith and oath, which each candidate for bishop utters before the act of consecration. The text used to profess the faith and the bishop’s canonical oath are identical to those used, for example, in the Moscow Patriarchate, with the sole exception of the named National Church and the title of its Primate. Therefore, according to every visible indication the Kyiv Patriarchate is a part of the One Holy Universal and Apostolic Church.
For the National Churches, it is imperative to adhere to the foundations of the canonical system that are based on dogmatic teaching; the  importance of the canons is further clarified, because they result from the will or consent of the entire Church with a goal of unity, prosperity and growth. However, when considering the obligation of each canon, it is necessary to take into consideration the following important issue. The canons are not dogmas, in the sense that they are dogmatically applied to constantly changing local life conditions. The canons explicitly determine the independence of National Churches, demanding a complete unity in issues of faith, while allowing for complete freedom in the field of administration.
As could be understood from previous considerations, the canons (church laws and rules) are the external fence of the Church’s life, and are neither the core of its faith nor its internal life. The Orthodox Church lives and unites all in the unified body of Christ by faith and the action of God’s Grace and not by means of canons. For this reason, the canons assume a lower position among the signs of unity of the Church.
The Holy Scripture distinguishes the action of God’s Grace, which sanctifies a person and connects him with God, from the action of law, which guards a man against falling into evil. “What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions… For if a law had been given that could impart life, then the righteousness would certainly have come by the law… So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:19, 24-26). “Therefore, no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the law and the Prophets testify. The righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:20-24). The Russian philosopher V.S. Solovyov wrote: “Law is the lowest verge, the certain minimum of morality that is obligatory for all”. The task of a law, he considered: “is not that the world encircled by evil will transform itself into Heavenly Kingdom, but that in its time would not transform into hell”.
Therefore, the attempts of representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate to declare as its “Constitution” the canons and norms as the foundation of the Church’s life approaches close to the false pharisaic doctrine. Pharisees searched for acquittal through a literal implementation of orders of the God’s Law and the Holy Tradition, but the Holy Scripture clearly testifies, “that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law” (Rom. 3:28), that laws only assist a man on a path to salvation, and do not themselves save him.
The Law of the Old Testament was given by God Himself, but our Savior says that many of His norms were given because of the hardheartedness of people. Therefore, if the value of grace is higher than that of the Law of the Afflatus, then the sign of unity of faith stands incomparably higher than unity in interpretation and application of canons that are identical for the whole Orthodox Church.
The practice of representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate to refer to certain canons as proof of the rightness of its negative attitude toward the Kyiv Patriarchate is a practice in direct imitation of the Pharisees, who explained their lawless actions with reference to a law: “We have a law, and according to the law He must die” (John. 19:7). “Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in Him? No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law – there is a curse on them” (John. 7:48-49). Like the Pharisees, the representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate refuse even to begin a theological dialogue with the representatives of Kyiv Patriarchate: “Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, ‘Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?’ They replied, ‘Are you from Galillee, too?’” (John. 7:50-52). Like the Pharisees, the representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate consider themselves to be the sole authoritative source of interpretations of the canons: “‘You are this Fellow’s disciple! We are disciples of Moses! We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this Fellow, we don’t even know where He comes from’… ‘You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!’ And they threw him out” (John. 9:28-29, 34).
The Kyiv Patriarchate acknowledges all canonical rules whose authority is acknowledged by the Plenitude of the Orthodox Church, and applies them in the growth of practical church life. The Kyiv Patriarchate categorically rejects the accusation that it is “uncanonical”, and provides detailed substantiation of its position in this Declaration. Theology and church law do not even include a concept of a “canonical church” and “uncanonical church” as introduced by representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate as justification of their illegal actions, and to foster religious enmity and hatred against the Kyiv Patriarchate

Because I am not clergy I thought this may clear up some things...

[monkvasyl]

In addition to the starlights argument to canon I post this from......
http://www.uaorthodox.info/images/mod_catalog_prod_files/20/DEKLARACIA_ENG.doc

THE CANONS

The internal unity of the Church has external manifestations:
– unity of Orthodox faith, to profess one and the same Symbol of Faith;
– unity of Holy Sacraments and liturgical practices;
– a church hierarchy with apostolic succession;
– unity of hierarchy, church structure, and church canons (Catechism).

By the above, it would seem possible for any Bishop to form his own canonical church.  But would it be recognized by the other Orthodox churches?  I seriously doubt it.  By the very nature of being canonical and following the canons, we will be following proper and legal due process.

[cossack 316]

Well, its official....

The last appeal by the UOCUSA and Archbishop Antony has failed.

August 19, 2009, Superior Court of New Jersey has dismissed UOC-USA’s appeal.

Source
http://cliftonorthodoxcathedral.org/saveouruoc.html


 

Here are some relevant quotes  from the Court’s August 19, 2009 decision to dismiss UOC-USA’s complaint:
“...there is no dispute that Holy Ascension and not the UOC-USA
has title to the property..”

"As the UOC-USA's constitution reveals, the UOC-USA has no
comparable hierarchical control over the property of its
constituent parishes. Indeed, during the prior litigation, the
parties stipulated that the property of a member parish is under
the control of the parish."

"....no reason for this court to delve into
the question of allocation of authority over property to resolve
the UOC-USA's request to enforce the Church Court order
requiring surrender of keys and records. While courts have an
obligation to adjudicate civil disputes about property, the UOCUSA
has framed its request as one seeking enforcement of the
Church Court's order directing defendants to "immediately turn
over all Holy Ascension parish property, finances, records, keys
and administrative responsibility to the legitimate parish
council of administration and parish Pastor." That order does
not purport to give the UOC-USA any right to possession of Holy
Ascension's property."
 
Now the question is how many more Ukrainian churches will leave UOCUSA. They have already lost 11 parishes with many more nervously awaiting the outcome of the Clifton situation.

[username!]

Hmmmmmm....... a source from a breakaway parish and not a direct source to the court's opinion on this case.  Who are we to believe; a parish website throwing out "quotes" that are said to be from a court opinion OR a direct link to the case brief?  So where is a case brief so the readers on the site can read the court's opinion?

[cossack 316]

as soon as the brief is available online, I will post a link. However due to the fact the decision was made only Wed, nothing has been made available as of yet.

[LizaSymonenko]

Shame on you Cossack!

You chose your nationality over the Orthodox Faith!

...and then you dare to flaunt it at others!

    Matthew 18:7 (King James Version)

     7  Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

I hope and pray that no other parish bows down to your depths and leaves the True Church because of their nationalistic feelings.

I am a proud Ukrainian, but, I am Orthodox first and foremost!

Lord, have mercy on us all!

[HandmaidenofGod]

Shame on you Cossack!

You chose your nationality over the Orthodox Faith!

...and then you dare to flaunt it at others!

    Matthew 18:7 (King James Version)

     7  Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

I hope and pray that no other parish bows down to your depths and leaves the True Church because of their nationalistic feelings.

I am a proud Ukrainian, but, I am Orthodox first and foremost!

Lord, have mercy on us all!

I echo Liza's sentiments.

Lord have mercy!

[cossack 316]

I am still orthodox, just as a Greek Orthodox is part of his GREEK church and a Bulgarian Orthodox is part of the BULGARIAN church. Whether or not you consider the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP cannonical or not is irrelevent. We worship the same god, hold the same holy mysteries, and difference being that the Bishops of Bound Brook left us and we went back to our original Ukrainian church. This cannonical vs non cannonical argument by Bishop Antony's subdeacon is a load of malarkey. Patriarch Mystaslav was considered non cannonical by EP and Moscow yet I dare one Ukrainian to claim he was illegal. The big difference is Filaret was elected and not Antony as Patriarch so Bound Brook decided to join the Greeks. I have no problem with the Greek church as it is the mother church. But her Patriarch is not Ukraine's partriarch. And the bishops have no legal right to parish property. If we were liek the Catholics and had a centralized Vaticanesq structure, then Bound Brook could build their own parishes and have a say. That doesnt exist. So Liza, dont shame me, shame on you for following poor, deceiptful shepards. I dont even live in New Jersey nor attend the Clifton parish. All I want is one Ukrainian church under Ukrainians. Whether you like Filaret or not, he is the sucessor to Mystyslav. What Bound Brook did is no different than the Govenor of Michigan, bc he didnt like Barack Obama, saying we suceed from the US and are joining Canada however we are still US citizens.

[Michał Kalina]

I am still orthodox, just as a Greek Orthodox is part of his GREEK church and a Bulgarian Orthodox is part of the BULGARIAN church.

Greek Orthodox and Bulgarian Orthodox are members of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church. You are not.

Whether or not you consider the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP cannonical or not is irrelevent.

Each and every mainstream EO Church considers you uncannonical.

we (...) hold the same holy mysteries

That is questionable.

A difference being that the Bishops of Bound Brook left us and we went back to our original Ukrainian church.

They went back to original Church.

This cannonical vs non cannonical argument by Bishop Antony's subdeacon is a load of malarkey.

"By majority of EO believers" you wished to write.

But her Patriarch is not Ukraine's partriarch.

Ukraine has a Metropolitan, not a Patriarch.

All I want is one Ukrainian church under Ukrainians.

Which is, according to your logic, 80-year-old.

[ialmisry]

I'm not crazy about this development, but expected it. I wonder how it affects the dynamics of the Episcopal Assmeblies here, because I have a feeling the Ukrainians in UOCUSA might want to distance themselves from being seen as Greek lackies.

[LizaSymonenko]

I would rather be a proud Ukrainian, who is a "Greek lackey" than follow a man who spoke against Ukraine, persecuted Ukrainians, had no respect for her and her people, was excommunicated by the Canonical Russian church and now deems himself worthy to lead the Ukrainian people.

Believe me, I want nothing more than to see a Ukrainian Orthodox Church.  However, this is certainly not the way to that end.

If anything...you make Ukraine look bad in the eyes of Orthodoxy.  We can't even get our own affairs in order...and look at the person we are proud to lead us!

Open you eyes!

...and as for the Shepherds I follow....from my own pastor up to my Metropolitan...you are not worthy to shine any of their shoes!  They are men of integrity, full of God's Grace!

So...watch what you say against any of them! 

Remember, you (and I) will have to answer for everything we say, one day!

[SolEX01]

as soon as the brief is available online, I will post a link. However due to the fact the decision was made only Wed, nothing has been made available as of yet.

Here's the link to the unpublished opinion of the Superior Court.  After 10 days, the decision may be archived at Rutgers Camden Law School Library.

[Starlight]

Hereby, I support Liza's and Mike's conclusions.

Cossack 316, your insults against Liza do not make you look nice at all.

Then, the name of Patriarch Mstyslav  of blessed memory was not spelled as "Mystyslav" or "Mystaslav". The difference between immigrant Orthodox jurisdictions, which functioned outside of administrative bodies of mother Churches and UOC-KP has been already explained in Reply #39 of this thread.

Reply #77 by Cossack 316 provided falsified information as well. In reality, majority of parishioners of St. Andrew under the spiritual guidance of Fr. Bogdan Kalynyuk started a new community, Holy Trinity in Elk Grove Village. When details will become available they will be posted here.

then Bound Brook could build their own parishes and have a say.

As the matter of fact, the Consistory strongly assists the mission parishes.

This cannonical vs non cannonical argument by Bishop Antony's subdeacon is a load of malarkey.

Trying to make it personal? Most importantly, attempts to bring chauvinism in the Orthodox Church is a load of malarkey, inspired by the evil one. Secondly, you confuse me with someone else. I am not a subdeacon, never been one, never claimed to be one.

[John Larocque]

In Canada, we have a Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is affiliated with Constantinople, although oddly enough you won't find any of these parishes on the "find an Orthodox church" on two websites I visited (one is OCA , the other is referenced in the "Why Orthodoxy" thread). The whole canonical situation in Ukraine is sad. The best solution in the long run IMHO in Ukraine is for all four bodies to be affiliated under a single aegis (and I am including the UGCC), in full and complete communion with the rest of Orthodoxy, autocephalous or not. Ukraine as a modern nation is very young, and I don't see this happening any time soon. In the meantime, Protestant sects and American missionaries of various types have already had their impact on the ecclesiastical map. I wish they saw the big picture.

[HandmaidenofGod]

I am still orthodox, just as a Greek Orthodox is part of his GREEK church and a Bulgarian Orthodox is part of the BULGARIAN church. Whether or not you consider the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP cannonical or not is irrelevent. We worship the same god, hold the same holy mysteries, and difference being that the Bishops of Bound Brook left us and we went back to our original Ukrainian church. This cannonical vs non cannonical argument by Bishop Antony's subdeacon is a load of malarkey. Patriarch Mystaslav was considered non cannonical by EP and Moscow yet I dare one Ukrainian to claim he was illegal. The big difference is Filaret was elected and not Antony as Patriarch so Bound Brook decided to join the Greeks. I have no problem with the Greek church as it is the mother church. But her Patriarch is not Ukraine's partriarch. And the bishops have no legal right to parish property. If we were liek the Catholics and had a centralized Vaticanesq structure, then Bound Brook could build their own parishes and have a say. That doesnt exist. So Liza, dont shame me, shame on you for following poor, deceiptful shepards. I dont even live in New Jersey nor attend the Clifton parish. All I want is one Ukrainian church under Ukrainians. Whether you like Filaret or not, he is the sucessor to Mystyslav. What Bound Brook did is no different than the Govenor of Michigan, bc he didnt like Barack Obama, saying we suceed from the US and are joining Canada however we are still US citizens.

If you love Ukraine so much, why don't you catch the next flight leaving Chicago to Kiev? There's a 6:35 AM flight tomorrow morning.

South Bound Brook (Bound Brook is a different town; the Consistary resides in South Bound Brook) went under the Ecumenical Patriarch so that we wouldn't be under the opression of Moscow and would still be in communion with Worldwide Orthodoxy. Rather than pushing for a "Holy Ukrainian Church" you should be working with your brothers in sisters in Christ here in the US for jurisdictional unity instead of this KP nonsense. You talk about how the GREEKS have a GREEK Church and the BULGARIANS have a BULGARIAN Church, well what about AMERICANS having an AMERICAN Church? Or do you not want a part of that?

Canonicity IS relavent, as it is part of the truth of Orthodoxy.

Rather than draping yourself in the Ukrainian flag, why don't you actually read the canons and see for yourself the importance of canonicity?!

[HandmaidenofGod]

And as far as being a "Greek lackey," since the Slavs got their faith from the Greeks in the first place, I'll wear that title with honor any day.

God bless the Greeks!

[Starlight]

And as far as being a "Greek lackey," since the Slavs got their faith from the Greeks in the first place, I'll wear that title with honor any day.

God bless the Greeks!

Absolutely agree!

[PeterTheAleut]

I am still orthodox, just as a Greek Orthodox is part of his GREEK church and a Bulgarian Orthodox is part of the BULGARIAN church. Whether or not you consider the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP cannonical or not is irrelevent. We worship the same god, hold the same holy mysteries, and difference being that the Bishops of Bound Brook left us and we went back to our original Ukrainian church. This cannonical vs non cannonical argument by Bishop Antony's subdeacon is a load of malarkey. Patriarch Mystaslav was considered non cannonical by EP and Moscow yet I dare one Ukrainian to claim he was illegal. The big difference is Filaret was elected and not Antony as Patriarch so Bound Brook decided to join the Greeks. I have no problem with the Greek church as it is the mother church. But her Patriarch is not Ukraine's partriarch. And the bishops have no legal right to parish property. If we were liek the Catholics and had a centralized Vaticanesq structure, then Bound Brook could build their own parishes and have a say. That doesnt exist. So Liza, dont shame me, shame on you for following poor, deceiptful shepards. I dont even live in New Jersey nor attend the Clifton parish. All I want is one Ukrainian church under Ukrainians. Whether you like Filaret or not, he is the sucessor to Mystyslav. What Bound Brook did is no different than the Govenor of Michigan, bc he didnt like Barack Obama, saying we suceed from the US and are joining Canada however we are still US citizens.

What about one holy, catholic, and apostolic Orthodox Church under Jesus Christ?

[ozgeorge]

Imagine a hand reaching out and grabbing one of Our Lord Jesus Christ's fingers, violently bending the finger backwards so the bone snaps, then twisting the broken finger so that the Flesh is torn and the the finger is severed from His Body, loses its blood supply and dies.
That is what a schism is.
Even Satan would not dare to undertake such an assault on the Body of Christ. Yet people today seem to think nothing of it.
Schismatics- that is, those who cause schisms- are behaving in ways which are worse than even the demons.

[Michał Kalina]

Strong words, George, but well written an true.

[HandmaidenofGod]

Strong words, George, but well written an true.

I agree!

[LizaSymonenko]

Very well put, George.

[dirtyharry667]

How wonderful for all of you to have such a love affair with the Greeks, but let me address several different points in this thread:

1.  The Macedonian Orthodox Church wasn't "created" by Marshal Tito.  It had and still has popular support among ethnic Macedonians from both Macedonia and in the diaspora.  Marshal Tito had no more ability to "create" a church without popular support than the Serbian/Greek alliance did to create a Church in Macedonia under their auspices.  You cannot create a church without people.  Anybody familiar with that situation knows there has always been significant consternation among the Macedonian people over their ecclesiastical alliances.  Read the history of the Bulgarian parish in Steelton, PA if you want some idea of what went on in the period leading up to the (re)establishment of the Macedonian Orthodox Church:

http://books.google.com/books?id=iiWs1AMfWasC&lpg=PA317&dq=macedonian%20orthodox%20steelton%20serbian%20bulgarian&pg=PA317#v=onepage&q=macedonian%20orthodox%20steelton%20serbian%20bulgarian&f=false

A death resulted in this particular parish.  It is an interesting read.

2.  You guys are talking out of both sides of your mouths.  On the one hand, one writer mentions that it took almost 150 years for the Bulgarian church to gain official recognition from the Patriarchate.  Yet on the other hand, you guys are fighting against the Ukrainian people for wanting to establish their own national church.  You have to start somewhere.

3.  One writer in this thread mentioned that the Ukrainian churches joined the Patriarchate in order to be canonical yet to escape the yoke of the Greeks.  Can someone please explain to me why a country that is as significant as Ukraine needs to be under anyone's yoke?

4.  Good point about unity in AMERICA.  That said, why does it have to be under the Patriarchate's terms?

5.  Isn't this all supposed to be about Christianity?  Does anybody really think God cares about church bureaucratic issues?  If a church follows the canons of faith, what difference is it if the KP doesn't have the blessing of self-interested existing churches so long as it has the blessing of its people and of god?  Same goes for the Macedonian Chruch and any other Church that has the support of its people.

In fact, one can argue that a church with the support of its people brings those people closer to God and makes them more connected to the church.  Think about a black American and how connected he feels in the White oppressor's church?  Better yet, think of the Africans attending services in American parishes.  Are they not more comfortable in their own jurisdiction and under their own hierarchy?  Why should the Ukranians and Macedonians not have their own?  Because someone else says so?  Because someone else doesn't want to lose territory?  Because someone else needs a sourcrce of financial support?  Sorry to be so crass, but that certainly is part of the issue here.

Bottom line is that if people want a national church, nobody has a right to deny them that.

[ialmisry]

How wonderful for all of you to have such a love affair with the Greeks, but let me address several different points in this thread:

1.  The Macedonian Orthodox Church wasn't "created" by Marshal Tito.  It had and still has popular support among ethnic Macedonians from both Macedonia and in the diaspora.  Marshal Tito had no more ability to "create" a church without popular support than the Serbian/Greek alliance did to create a Church in Macedonia under their auspices.  You cannot create a church without people.  Anybody familiar with that situation knows there has always been significant consternation among the Macedonian people over their ecclesiastical alliances.  Read the history of the Bulgarian parish in Steelton, PA if you want some idea of what went on in the period leading up to the (re)establishment of the Macedonian Orthodox Church:

http://books.google.com/books?id=iiWs1AMfWasC&lpg=PA317&dq=macedonian%20orthodox%20steelton%20serbian%20bulgarian&pg=PA317#v=onepage&q=macedonian%20orthodox%20steelton%20serbian%20bulgarian&f=false

A death resulted in this particular parish.  It is an interesting read.

2.  You guys are talking out of both sides of your mouths.  On the one hand, one writer mentions that it took almost 150 years for the Bulgarian church to gain official recognition from the Patriarchate.  Yet on the other hand, you guys are fighting against the Ukrainian people for wanting to establish their own national church.  You have to start somewhere.

3.  One writer in this thread mentioned that the Ukrainian churches joined the Patriarchate in order to be canonical yet to escape the yoke of the Greeks.  Can someone please explain to me why a country that is as significant as Ukraine needs to be under anyone's yoke?

4.  Good point about unity in AMERICA.  That said, why does it have to be under the Patriarchate's terms?

5.  Isn't this all supposed to be about Christianity?  Does anybody really think God cares about church bureaucratic issues?  If a church follows the canons of faith, what difference is it if the KP doesn't have the blessing of self-interested existing churches so long as it has the blessing of its people and of god?

small case "g" is right.

  Same goes for the Macedonian Chruch and any other Church that has the support of its people.

In fact, one can argue that a church with the support of its people brings those people closer to God and makes them more connected to the church.  Think about a black American and how connected he feels in the White oppressor's church?  Better yet, think of the Africans attending services in American parishes.  Are they not more comfortable in their own jurisdiction and under their own hierarchy?  Why should the Ukranians and Macedonians not have their own?  Because someone else says so?  Because someone else doesn't want to lose territory?  Because someone else needs a sourcrce of financial support?  Sorry to be so crass, but that certainly is part of the issue here.

Bottom line is that if people want a national church, nobody has a right to deny them that.

No one says that they can't.  People can set up any church (lower case "c') they want.  They just can't call it the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I'm not opposed to Ukraine having an autocephalous Church, nor for that matter the Macedonians.  However there are those who want the Ukrainian or Macedonian Church and the One, Holy, CATHOLIC (Universal) and Apostolic be damned.  In both cases there is an Apostlic Church One with the Catholic Church, the Archbishopric of Ohrid and the Metropolinate of Kiev.  Now that's Holy.  And Macedonian and Ukrainian.

[ozgeorge]

Isn't this all supposed to be about Christianity?  Does anybody really think God cares about church bureaucratic issues?  If a church follows the canons of faith, what difference is it if the KP doesn't have the blessing of self-interested existing churches so long as it has the blessing of its people and of god?  Same goes for the Macedonian Chruch and any other Church that has the support of its people.

This theory may work for Hinduism, Islam, Wicca etc, but certainly not for Christianity. You make the mistake of thinking that this is simply about "bureaucrats". It isn't. It's about the Unity of the Body of Christ, which is a basic dogma of Orthodox Christianity enshrined in the Symbol of Faith ("...One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...").
What it boils down to is this: there is no valid reason ever for a schism, and among the least valid reasons for a schism is nationalism given what the Church is supposed to be.

[dirtyharry667]

What it boils down to is this: there is no valid reason ever for a schism, and among the least valid reasons for a schism is nationalism given what the Church is supposed to be.

  Unity of the body of Christ?  So long as there is unity in terms of beliefs and practices, is God really going to care what bishop you report to?  If other countries can have a nationally-based church, you will never get away with denying a nationally-based church to people.  The church can either adapt, or it can lose members of the flock.   

Do you know how the Bulgarian Exarchate was established?  Back in the mid-1800's, Macedonians were upset at the Patriarchate who took over the Ohrid Archbishopric's parishes in 1767.  They were upset that they no longer had their own hierarchs, and upset at the Patriarchate's attempts at Hellenizing people.  Here is a passage from another website which is a generally accurate account of history as I know it:

PAOK

BULGARIAN ACTION IN MACEDONIA .... 131

The Greek Church abuses its power over the Slavs in the Turkish Empire — Slav dissatisfaction — Inability of the
Serbs to fight the Greek Church — The Bulgars, assisted by Russia, open their campaign — The Uniate Church (Greek
Catholicism) among the Bulgars — The Russians, alarmed at the progress of the Uniate Church, increase their
help to the Bulgars — The Greek Patriarch, alarmed at the growth of the Uniate Church, yields to the Bulgars
— The Porte, taking the part of the Bulgars, inter- venes with the Greek Patriarch, and the Sultan declares
the independence of the Bulgarian Church in Turkey — Significance of the creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate
— Detriment caused to the Serbs in Turkey by the creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate — Attitude of the
Greek Church towards the Macedonian Serbs — Macedonians begin to turn Uniate — Russia advises them to
join the Bulgars in their struggle against the Greek Church — Macedonians help Bulgars, but only to free themselves
from the Greek clergy — The Macedo-Roumanians do the same — The Bulgarian Exarchate and Macedonia — Turks side with Bulgars in Macedonia — New Bulgarian bishoprics in Macedonia — Forcible Bulgarization of the Macedonians
— Creation of independent Bulgaria — Propaganda in Macedonia from Bulgaria — Many Macedonian Serbs refuse to
join the Bulgars — Bulgarian terror among Serbian popu- lation of Macedonia-- Bulgarian comitadjis in Macedonia
— Destruction of Serbian records and monuments in Macedonia.

http://www.archive.org/stream/macedonia00orevrich/macedonia00orevrich_djvu.txt

This looks like it was put in the context of Macedonians being pro-Serbian, which I won't comment on, but the bottom line is that Macedonians wanted to get away from alien clergy and were prepared to become uniates to do so.

Put in a context you can better understand, I'm sure you have seen how people turn out at, say, a Greek Church when a bishop comes to visit.  Often times, Ethiopians or other sects attend that church.  How excited are THEY that they go out of their way to see someone else's bishop?  Maybe under an "American" church, this is different, but I somehow doubt it.  Bottom line is, even under a monarchy the people get what they want. 

Nationalism, politics, culture and religion are all intertwined and always have been (how can they not be when the Kings were also the heads of their respective churches)  -- deal with it. 

[dirtyharry667]

No one says that they can't.  People can set up any church (lower case "c') they want.  They just can't call it the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I'm not opposed to Ukraine having an autocephalous Church, nor for that matter the Macedonians.  However there are those who want the Ukrainian or Macedonian Church and the One, Holy, CATHOLIC (Universal) and Apostolic be damned.  In both cases there is an Apostlic Church One with the Catholic Church, the Archbishopric of Ohrid and the Metropolinate of Kiev.  Now that's Holy.  And Macedonian and Ukrainian.

Well, five years after being consecrated your "canonical Archbishopric of Ohrid" has about 200 followers, and don't for a minute think this is anything other than the people voting with their feet.  With that history over there, nobody is going to be a follower of a church run by someone else's stooges (pardon the colorful language) ... especially when, until 1767, we had a church of our own.  If you are truly interested in a canonical church, maybe a historical wrong should be corrected by recognising the Archbishopric of Ohrid and returning its rightful ecclesiastical territory in Northern Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria?  Likewise, maybe Kiev be recognized and maybe its territories returned?  Yeah, I thought so.  This stuff about a canonical church only works for the overlords, doesn't it?

So the question is the same.  Is this about faith or is this about controling people and making sure you empire doesn't shrink?

[LizaSymonenko]

So...what are your thoughts here?  I live in Michigan.  I am proud to be a resident of Michigan. I am Orthodox.  So...now I would like to form a Michigan Orthodox Church.  I'll hire a retired priest, and I will form my own "Orthodox" church.

All Michiganders should be proud to come to my church.  After all, it is Orthodox.  I have icons, and an iconostasis, there's even a bell.

So, would this constitute an official church of the True Church?  Would the sacraments be valid?  Where is the Apostolic succession?

Believe me, I hope and pray that some day soon there will be a True Ukrainian Orthodox Church within Ukraine. 
After all, I lived to see Communism fall in Ukraine without a drop of blood being shed.  Something we thought would never happen.
So, I believe that when the time is right (according to God's will), Ukraine will have her own canonical Orthodox Church.

I've said it before, I prefer Ukrainian to any other church.  However, I prefer to be a member of the Church, rather than a member of a church.

God first, nation second.

[dirtyharry667]

So, I believe that when the time is right (according to God's will), Ukraine will have her own canonical Orthodox Church.

I've said it before, I prefer Ukrainian to any other church.  However, I prefer to be a member of the Church, rather than a member of a church.

God first, nation second.

Is the "club" (canonical versus uncanonical), then, any different from the nation?  Especially given the traditional symbiotic relationship between European churches and the monarchies in the countries they operated?  Do you need to be "canonical" and be an accepted member of the "club" so long as you are following the tenets of the faith?  Especially when considering all of the wrongs committed in the name of that "club"?  I'm willing to bet God doesn't care so long as your intentions are pure.

As to your "Michigan" example, it is not applicable here as there is not a distinct people/identity from the state of Michigan.  There is a distinction between Ukrainian and Russian, Macedonian, Serbian and Bulgarian, among others.  And the problem with the Macedonian Orthodox Chruch is that Macedonians were only forced to become part of the Serbian Chruch only after their incorporation with the Serbian state in 1913.  So, in a way Macedonians are trying to get away from the "Michigan" church they were forced into.

I post the following passage not to stir up passions, or for political reasons, but for everybody to see that there are two sides to every story.  One person's "schism", is another person's not wanting to be subject to overlords they don't particularly want or trust.  I can only speak as to Macedonia, but I'm sure there was similar disputes between the Ukrainians and the Russians ..... but maybe they didn't rise to this level of violence.


Bishop Germanos Karavangelis
The Devil's Disciple

The leaders of the Greek Orthodox Church were the most crazed supporters of the Greek state's plan to eliminate the Bulgarian element from Macedonia. This allegiance to a program of human genocide is typified by the actions of the Metropolitan Bishop Germanos Karavangelis.

Information on Karavangelis's psychotic behaviour is available directly from his very own autobiography "Pinelopa Delta", published in 1959 by the Salonica Institute for Studies. In that work we note the following (and many more) admissions and comments by Karavangelis

He was the first and most fervent champion of the emergence of the andarts' (Greek cut-throats, murderers etc) movement in Macedonia.

For seven years (1900-1907), as Metropolitan Bishop of Kostur, he maintained the slogan "let no Bulgarian remain alive".
Together with Vardas, a Greek army officer, he inspired and helped organise the massacres at Zeleniche (Lerin) and Zagorichane (Kostur). Massacres which shocked the international community by the level of depravity and sadism which occurred.

Karavangelis regularly used assassins to eliminate people he had pre-selected. These killers were paid 5 pounds by Karavangelis, on delivery of the person's severed head. So proud was Karavangelis of his actions, that he had one of these "trophies" photographed and displayed in his office.  (This was confirmed by a British author whose name escapes me at this time).

As the level of andart activity increased, he writes in his autobiography

"I kept regular contact with them through the consulate in Bitola and the Metropolitan bishops. I personally met them and instructed them to kill all priests and Bulgarian teachers."It is surprising that the Greek Church has not sought to canonise Karavangelis for his unswerving duty to God and country. But then perhaps they already have.

=============================

I know there is probably another narrative and/or this narrative might have been exaggerated, but let's for a moment accept that there are people who believe the preceeding narrative.

-Do they allow the Patriarchate to be their overlord?  No way.

-Do they allow the Serbians to be their overlords?  Different language, different people.  Probably not enough historical affinity to make it stick.  Most importantly, Macedonians were never part of the Serbian church until 1913!  The Serbian church was, for practical purposes, imposed upon them at that time.  I don't want to overstate this, as some people did have an affinity for the Serbian church as a lesser of evils, but THE OVERWHELMINING MAJORITY OF PEOPLE SUPPORTED RESTORATION OF THE OHRID ARCHBISHOPRHIC.

-Do they allow the Exarchate to be their overlord?  Similar language, but also a lot of bad blood between Macedonians from what the Bulgarians did during their WWII occupation that hasn't been forgotten.

None of these are acceptable options.  So you are telling me God doesn't accept the Macedonian Church because it isn't part of this "club"?


And please remember, with regard to the Macedonian Orthodox Church, the church declared autonomy from the Serbian Church in 1957, JUST 44 YEARS AFTER BEING FORCED INTO THE SERBIAN CHURCH IN 1913 FOLLOWING THE BALKAN WARS.

In other words, Macedonians have only a 44-year history of being under the Serbian Orthodox Church (not by their own choosing)  yet the "club" uses this as a basis to deny membership?

Do you now see what the problem is with denying people what they want.  Monarchies and even Communism cannot operate without consensus.  One person or a small group cannot rule by fiat unless they have the people on their side.

[LizaSymonenko]

Is the "club" (canonical versus uncanonical), then, any different from the nation? 

Yes, very different.  What ever happened to Apostolic Succession?  Or is that no longer a requirement?

Do you now see what the problem is with denying people what they want. 

My friend, you are preaching to the choir.  My family has lived through the horrors of Communism, exile to Siberia, starvation during Holodomyr (Genocide against the Ukrainian people), getting bayoneted to death because a 5 year old mentioned her grandmother talks with God (during Communism)...so, don't ask me "if" I understand.  I do.

However, having said all that....and knowing the horrors that one people can bestow on another, I would still choose to do things the "right" way.

Believe me I am all for the independence of all nations from their oppressors.  Every people deserves to be free.  Every nation deserves the right to pray in their own language and have heirarchs of their own.

However, there are processes that need to be followed.  You can't just jump up and start a church.  It simply doesn't work that way.

I can't speak to your situation, I can only speak to what I know is going on in Ukraine.

I wish you well.  I wish Ukraine well.  I await the day that Ukraine has a legitimate, canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church!

Lord, have mercy on all nations and all people's who in truth, only wish to serve You!

[dirtyharry667]

Is the "club" (canonical versus uncanonical), then, any different from the nation? 

Yes, very different.  What ever happened to Apostolic Succession?  Or is that no longer a requirement?

I hear what you are saying, but don't agree.  We have relics of St. Clement in our church.  The current priests and bishops and hierarchs were consecrated by others who had this very connection to the apostoles.  The tenets of the church continue to be followed.  This is enough for me.

The Macedonian situation is that of a church that existed from abou 1018-1767, and was disbanded for political reasons.  The territory of the church at one time covered large portions of Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Northern Greece.  The Greek Patriarchate took over most of the Macedonian territory in 1767 but was unsuccessful at hellenizing most of the slavic-speaking population.

In the 1870's the Bulgarian Exarchate was allowed to establish parishes in Macedonia.  In 1913, most of Northern Macedonia was ceded to the Serbian Orthodox Church.  Bottom line is that the Macedonians have NO history of being under the Serbians (1913-1957=44 years), the Bulgarians  (1873-1913=40 years) or Constantinople (1767-1873=106 years) so it should be no surprise that they aren't very keen on accepting any of them as their overlords.

In fact, the Macedonian Orthodox Church has existed longer (1957-2009=52 years) than any connection we had with either the Bulgarian Exarchate (40 Years) or the Serbian Patriarchate (44 years).  Feel free to correct me if my logic is wrong.

[LizaSymonenko]

Like I said, I am not well versed in Macedonian history.

However, I pray that the Lord should grant Macedonia a full fledged canonical Orthodox Church.

It's funny, where I live are 2 Macedonian and 2 Serbian churches all within a range of 20 miles, or so.
One church is labeled as Macedonia/Bulgarian - St. Clement's. 

It is "canonical".....and very beautiful!

[dirtyharry667]

Like I said, I am not well versed in Macedonian history.

However, I pray that the Lord should grant Macedonia a full fledged canonical Orthodox Church.

It's funny, where I live are 2 Macedonian and 2 Serbian churches all within a range of 20 miles, or so.
One church is labeled as Macedonia/Bulgarian - St. Clement's. 

It is "canonical".....and very beautiful!

The "Uncanonical" ones have many beautiful examples ... such as Columbus, Green, Detroit ...

http://faq.macedonia.org/religion/north.america.churches.html

http://www.macedonianchurch.org/index.php?option=com_morfeoshow&Itemid=12&lang=en

[LizaSymonenko]

Actually, my comment about beauty was just a personal comment on appearances.  In truth, all Orthodox churches are beautiful.

I meant to draw attention to the fact that the church was Bulgarian-Macedonian.  I just found it interesting.

[dirtyharry667]

Actually, my comment about beauty was just a personal comment on appearances.  In truth, all Orthodox churches are beautiful.

I meant to draw attention to the fact that the church was Bulgarian-Macedonian.  I just found it interesting.

Much like the Macedonian people .... split.  The older immigrants mostly affiliated with Bulgarian parishes and they are known as Macedono-Bulgarian.  Some of those split off and joined the OCA's Bulgarian Diocese.  Still other communites or people angry at their own congregation attended Serbian parishes.  Macedonians began parishes affiliating with the MOC in 1958 here in the states.  A few random churches here and there are part of ROCOR.  And this is not even counting the Macedonians in northwestern Greece which is another issue altogether.  The MOC and these jurisdictions aren't in communication with each other. 

[Orthodoc]

So...what are your thoughts here?  I live in Michigan.  I am proud to be a resident of Michigan. I am Orthodox.  So...now I would like to form a Michigan Orthodox Church.  I'll hire a retired priest, and I will form my own "Orthodox" church.

All Michiganders should be proud to come to my church.  After all, it is Orthodox.  I have icons, and an iconostasis, there's even a bell.

So, would this constitute an official church of the True Church?  Would the sacraments be valid?  Where is the Apostolic succession?

Believe me, I hope and pray that some day soon there will be a True Ukrainian Orthodox Church within Ukraine. 
After all, I lived to see Communism fall in Ukraine without a drop of blood being shed.  Something we thought would never happen.
So, I believe that when the time is right (according to God's will), Ukraine will have her own canonical Orthodox Church.

I've said it before, I prefer Ukrainian to any other church.  However, I prefer to be a member of the Church, rather than a member of a church.

God first, nation second.

BRAVO Liza!  BRAVO!  I couldn't have said it better.

Orthodoc

[dirtyharry667]

So...what are your thoughts here?  I live in Michigan.  I am proud to be a resident of Michigan. I am Orthodox.  So...now I would like to form a Michigan Orthodox Church.  I'll hire a retired priest, and I will form my own "Orthodox" church.

All Michiganders should be proud to come to my church.  After all, it is Orthodox.  I have icons, and an iconostasis, there's even a bell.

So, would this constitute an official church of the True Church?  Would the sacraments be valid?  Where is the Apostolic succession?

Believe me, I hope and pray that some day soon there will be a True Ukrainian Orthodox Church within Ukraine. 
After all, I lived to see Communism fall in Ukraine without a drop of blood being shed.  Something we thought would never happen.
So, I believe that when the time is right (according to God's will), Ukraine will have her own canonical Orthodox Church.

I've said it before, I prefer Ukrainian to any other church.  However, I prefer to be a member of the Church, rather than a member of a church.

God first, nation second.

BRAVO Liza!  BRAVO!  I couldn't have said it better.

Orthodoc

And as I would say, both of you would make great bureaucrats.  The fact is that you can put your blinders on regarding wheter someone should conduct their activities within the "club" or not, but there are two simple facts you people should understand.

First, there is no way you will ever get into the "club" unless the issue is forced.  These are quasi-political entities and don't give up territory and treasure very easily.

Second, members outside the "club" get along just fine without you.  There is a very vibrant life in these parishes that continues with or without your blessings ... preferably with, but we'll manage just fine without:

http://www.akmpe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=860&Itemid=2

[LBK]

And this is not even counting the Macedonians in northwestern Greece which is another issue altogether. 

Umm, dirtyharry, I don't think the people of Epirus of northwestern Greece would appreciate being called Macedonians. The Greek province of Macedonia is in the northeast.

Carry on.

[dirtyharry667]

And this is not even counting the Macedonians in northwestern Greece which is another issue altogether. 

Umm, dirtyharry, I don't think the people of Epirus of northwestern Greece would appreciate being called Macedonians. The Greek province of Macedonia is in the northeast.

Carry on.

I'm talking about the region west of Edessa (Voden).  Macedonians are still well-represented to the west of there, but they have been largely cleansed out to the east, and (contrary to what my compatriots would say) were never much of a factor in and around Thessoloniki.  The use of the Macedonian language is still common, but not so much in public and no so popular with the young.

[ozgeorge]

  Unity of the body of Christ?  So long as there is unity in terms of beliefs and practices, is God really going to care what bishop you report to? [/quote]
No. But then, not sharing the Chalice is not "unity in practice" is it? If you break Communion with the Church, where is the unity?
"For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread." 1 Corinthians 10:17
Those who break Communion do not partake of that One Bread; they partake of their own bread.

[pious1]

It has come to my attention that the Patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP will be visiting the parish of St. Andrew in Bloomingdale to bless their new mosaic. It is interesting reading these threads on the division between the UOC- under EP and the UOC-KP believers. Those that stress cannon versus non cannon, only the Lord knows what is right or wrong. Personally I hope that all Ukrainian churches unite into one Ukrainian Patriarchy. Unfortunetly with the politics involved, I dont see that happening. I do question this though...before 1995 apparently all the Ukrainian orthodox Churches under Bound Brook were Uncannonical until they sought the ompiphorion of the EP. So my question is this....if I was married in a Ukrainian Orthodox Church before 1995, is my marriage null and void bc the priest and church who preformed the ceremony was uncannonical? Same goes for baptism. My grandparents and great granparents who are dead and buried had their funerals conducted before 1995 by non cannonical priests bc UOCUSA was non cannonical. Patriarch Mystylsav of Blessed Memory was uncannonical and formed an uncannonical church when he became Patriarch of Ukraine in the early 90's Does this mean that Met. Constantine and Archbishop Antony were uncannonical until 1995 and every service they performed was null and void? Rather than hate and throw nasty accusations at one another, shouldnt we in the interest of our church and culture strive to unify?

I do know this much, this nastiness and hate needs to stop. Respect peoples differences and live and let live as long as no damage is done.

[HandmaidenofGod]

So my question is this....if I was married in a Ukrainian Orthodox Church before 1995, is my marriage null and void bc the priest and church who preformed the ceremony was uncannonical? Same goes for baptism. My grandparents and great granparents who are dead and buried had their funerals conducted before 1995 by non cannonical priests bc UOCUSA was non cannonical. Patriarch Mystylsav of Blessed Memory was uncannonical and formed an uncannonical church when he became Patriarch of Ukraine in the early 90's Does this mean that Met. Constantine and Archbishop Antony were uncannonical until 1995 and every service they performed was null and void? Rather than hate and throw nasty accusations at one another, shouldnt we in the interest of our church and culture strive to unify?

As a member of one of those churches that used to be "uncanonical", it is through economia that the sacraments of baptism, marriage, etc., are considered valid.

I do know this much, this nastiness and hate needs to stop. Respect peoples differences and live and let live as long as no damage is done.

While violence is not the answer, neither is "live and let live." As Orthodox Christians we profess faith in One Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. That is where canonicity comes in. You are either part of the Church or you are not. You are either part of the body of Christ or you are not.

Furthermore, the Church in Illinois should not be concerning itself with church affairs in Ukraine, but trying to work with other parishes in the US towards jurisdictional unity.

The Ecumenical Patriarch and the Moscow Patriarch recently met in Kiev with the Met. Philaret. Hopefully this means a resolution is in the not too distant future.

[pious1]

I'm sorry, but what is "econonmia"?

[HandmaidenofGod]

I'm sorry, but what is "econonmia"?

This definition from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economia) actually does a pretty decent job of explaining it:

In the Eastern Orthodox and Greek-Catholic Churches and in the teaching of the Church Fathers which undergirds the theology of those Churches, economy or oeconomy (Greek: οικονόμια, economia ) has several meanings.[1] The basic meaning of the word is "handling" or "disposition" or "management" of a thing, usually assuming or implying good or prudent handling (as opposed to poor handling) of the matter at hand.

As such, the word "economy", and the concept attaching to it, are utilized especially with regard to two types of "handling": (a) divine economy, that is, God's "handling" or "management" of the fallen state of the world and of mankind — the arrangements he made in order to bring about man's salvation after the Fall; and (b) what might be termed pastoral economy (or) ecclesiastical economy, that is, the Church's "handling" or "management" of various pastoral and disciplinary questions, problems, and issues that have arisen through the centuries of Church history.

Economia basically means "grace for the situation." For example, if during Lent a Diabetic cannot follow the rigors of the fast, his/her Spiritual Father will advise them to follow a modified fast, or to give up television or something else instead of food.

In the case of the parishes under the UOCUSA and their sacraments being considered "valid," the Ecumencial Patriarch basically recognized that although the parishes had been outside the communion of Worldwide Orthodoxy, they had maintained the faith of Orthodoxy, followed the practices of Orthodoxy, which then allowed them to come back into communion without everyone having to get baptised, chrismated, and married.

A similar situation occured when ROCOR came back into communion with the Moscow Patrairch.

[pious1]

http://www.prlog.org/10377690-patriarch-of-ukraine-to-visit-usa.html

[Heorhij]

http://www.prlog.org/10377690-patriarch-of-ukraine-to-visit-usa.html

Wonderful news. Welcome, Your Holiness.

[unity1]

What a blessed event this past weekend. The church had 400 for Divine Litugy on Sunday and had in addition to his holiness Patriarch Filaret, patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, his emminence archbishop Alexander of Detroit (UOC KP) an archbishop of the Belarusian Autocephaus Orthodox Church (sorry I dodnt remember his name) 13 priests and 2 visiting priest from St. Joeseph Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Chicago, IL. Pictures and video will be available shortly. In the meantime please check out the link below...

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=331350

[RusUkraine]

Just a correction to the previous post. There were 13 priests. There were no priests from S.t. Joseph Parish but subdeacons who did a wonderful job and support the Kyivan Patriarchal movement. We need our people in every jurisdiction Unfortunately the Ukrainian Greek-Cathoics are unable to concelebrate the Divine Liturgy due to "Canons".  One day priests from St. Joseph the Betrothed Parish may well concelebrate at a patriarchal visitation in the future when there is a unified Ukrainian-Kyivan Independent Church. 

Rome is not our father - Moscow is not our mother

Lets pray for Unity. Lets realize the dream of Patriarch Joseph (Slipyj) and Patriarch Mstyslav (Skrypnyk). It all starts from within ones own home

[PeterTheAleut]

Just a correction to the previous post. There were 13 priests. There were no priests from S.t. Joseph Parish but subdeacons who did a wonderful job and support the Kyivan Patriarchal movement. We need our people in every jurisdiction Unfortunately the Ukrainian Greek-Cathoics are unable to concelebrate the Divine Liturgy due to "Canons".  One day priests from St. Joseph the Betrothed Parish may well concelebrate at a patriarchal visitation in the future when there is a unified Ukrainian-Kyivan Independent Church. 

Rome is not our father - Moscow is not our mother

Lets pray for Unity. Lets realize the dream of Patriarch Joseph (Slipyj) and Patriarch Mstyslav (Skrypnyk). It all starts from within ones own home

Do you want a Ukrainian church, or do you want an Orthodox church.  Fortunately, you can have both.

[AntonI]

I feel I have to jump in and correct some issues...

In respect of the relationship between Bulgaria and Macedonia - the former was one of the first - if not the first - country to recognised its independence in the 1990s but the issue Bulgaria has with the MOC is that the latter has supported the schismatic Alternative Synod and claims Bulgarian history/personages as their own.

Macedonia can call itself whatever it wants and can have its own Church - no problem with that. However, the Ohrid Archbishopric was never 'Macedonian' and Tsar Samuel's empire was never 'Macedonian'.

A really good historian is the late Sir Steven Runciman who was the foremost expert in Byzantine/Orthodox history.

[Apostolos]

@dirtyharry667
spare us with your sensationalistic FYROMIAN propaganda

[LizaSymonenko]

Do you want a Ukrainian church, or do you want an Orthodox church.  Fortunately, you can have both.

I want BOTH!

I want an Orthodox Church...that identifies with Ukrainians and Ukraine.  Where Ukrainians can worship in their own language and have their own priests and bishops!

What we have in Ukraine at the moment is not "it". 

I can wait....for the REAL thing!

 

[ialmisry]

What a blessed event this past weekend. The church had 400 for Divine Litugy on Sunday and had in addition to his holiness Patriarch Filaret, patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, his emminence archbishop Alexander of Detroit (UOC KP) an archbishop of the Belarusian Autocephaus Orthodox Church (sorry I dodnt remember his name) 13 priests and 2 visiting priest from St. Joeseph Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Chicago, IL. Pictures and video will be available shortly. In the meantime please check out the link below...

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=331350

How lovely.  Schism and heresy have sat down to break bread, to the accolades of the secular press.

[ozgeorge]

when there is a unified Ukrainian-Kyivan Independent Church. 

"Independent" of what or whom?

[pious1]

Independent of the Greeks and the Russians.

[pious1]

Liza, tell me how the Kyivan Patriarchate is not what you are looking for? Because they havent recieved cannonical recognition yet? It will happen. Meanwhile the UOC in the US is under the omophoron of the EP. Is the Romanian Church? Is the Serbian? The Russian? No they have their own patriarachats and patriarch. Yes his holiness Patriarch Filaret was in the Russian church til the eraly 90s. Guess what so where ALL Ukrainian clergy as there was no Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine til 1990. So is the logic it better to be under the Greeks until the greek recognize the UOC-KP cannonically then UOCUSa would leave the EP and Join the UOCKP? The UOCUSA bishops are listed as bishops of ancient Greek areas ie Ierepolis. I have no problem with the EP as it is the mother church but I want what you want and we have it...just not the recognition , yet.... When his Holiness Mystyslav was alive and in charge of the UOCUSA we didnt have cannonical recognition either. Does that mean you would have prefered to been under the Greeks then as well?

[ialmisry]

Independent of the Greeks and the Russians.

And the canons it seems.

[pious1]

Independent of the Greeks and the Russians.

And the canons it seems.

I dont know if I like your tone... but how does one become cannonicaly recognized, tell me the requirements...

[HandmaidenofGod]

Liza, tell me how the Kyivan Patriarchate is not what you are looking for? Because they havent recieved cannonical recognition yet? It will happen. Meanwhile the UOC in the US is under the omophoron of the EP. Is the Romanian Church? Is the Serbian? The Russian? No they have their own patriarachats and patriarch. Yes his holiness Patriarch Filaret was in the Russian church til the eraly 90s. Guess what so where ALL Ukrainian clergy as there was no Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine til 1990. So is the logic it better to be under the Greeks until the greek recognize the UOC-KP cannonically then UOCUSa would leave the EP and Join the UOCKP? The UOCUSA bishops are listed as bishops of ancient Greek areas ie Ierepolis. I have no problem with the EP as it is the mother church but I want what you want and we have it...just not the recognition , yet.... When his Holiness Mystyslav was alive and in charge of the UOCUSA we didnt have cannonical recognition either. Does that mean you would have prefered to been under the Greeks then as well?

Yes. Either we believe in One, Holy, Apostolic Church or we don't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Furthermore, as AMERICANS (remember, we are in the USA?) we should be working towards jurisdictional unity to have an American Patriarch; not be going back to the "old country" for our Patriarchs.

[HandmaidenofGod]

And may I ask what is so terrible about being under the Ecumenical Patrairch? What is wrong with reporting to a Greek Bishop? He doesn't impose Greek culture or customs on us. For the most part +Metropolitan CONSTANTINE, +ArchBishop ANTONY, and +Bishop DANIEL are able to run the Diocese as they see fit. (Within the canons of the Church of course.)

Parish's are still able to use Ukrainian or Church Slavonic in the Liturgy. Parish's who wish to remain on the Old Calendar are able to do so, and Ukrainian traditions are upheld. The only time one hears "Greek" in the Liturgy is on Pascha when we say "Christ is risen!" in a multitidue of languages, during an ordination when "Axios!" is proclaimed, and during a Heirarchal Liturgy when "Eis polla, eti despota!" is sung. (There may be a few other Greek phrases I'm forgetting, but these are phrases that are said in every Orthodox Church, regardless of Bishop or jurisdiction.)

So really, how has having a Greek Bishop affected your life? Do you feel less Ukrainian because of it? Do your vareniky or perohie or perogies (or whatever you call them) taste less flavorful? Do feel the desire to dance the Greek sailor dance instead of the Ukrainian Hopka? Or maybe your faith has suffered because of the Greek Bishop we serve? Is the "Oche Nash" no longer satisfactory, and now you must say the "Our Father" in Greek?

I'm really interested in knowing what detrimental effects reporting to the Ecumenical Patriarch has caused, that you feel breaking from the body of Christ is the only solution.

[ozgeorge]

Independent of the Greeks and the Russians.

You mean the Turks and the Russians don't you? As far as I know, Constantinople is not in Greece.

[LizaSymonenko]

Liza, tell me how the Kyivan Patriarchate is not what you are looking for? Because they havent recieved cannonical recognition yet? It will happen. Meanwhile the UOC in the US is under the omophoron of the EP. Is the Romanian Church? Is the Serbian? The Russian? No they have their own patriarachats and patriarch. Yes his holiness Patriarch Filaret was in the Russian church til the eraly 90s. Guess what so where ALL Ukrainian clergy as there was no Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine til 1990. So is the logic it better to be under the Greeks until the greek recognize the UOC-KP cannonically then UOCUSa would leave the EP and Join the UOCKP? The UOCUSA bishops are listed as bishops of ancient Greek areas ie Ierepolis. I have no problem with the EP as it is the mother church but I want what you want and we have it...just not the recognition , yet.... When his Holiness Mystyslav was alive and in charge of the UOCUSA we didnt have cannonical recognition either. Does that mean you would have prefered to been under the Greeks then as well?

Well...where to begin....

Honestly, I am not looking for an argument....and my heart breaks for all the Ukrainians in Ukraine....because of the whole hierarchical chaos.  What's a Ukrainian in Ukraine to do?  Does he go to the Ukrainian Church run by the MP....well, that makes him a bad Ukrainian, doesn't it?  However, the sacraments would be valid, as it is a canonical church.  Does he attend the KP....where he can be a proud Ukrainian and uphold his national pride...and yet...what of Orthodoxy?

It's a horrible, horrible situation!  This is only the devil's work trying to destroy such a God-fearing and Faithful people.  There's no questions about it.  But, we WILL persevere...and Christ WILL win.
In the meantime, however, His sheep are misled, and they are running astray....confused as to which shepherd to follow.

How come you can support P. Filaret so openly and lovingly?

Forget the fact that he was under the Russian Church in the 90's.  That doesn't really matter.  What DOES matter was his suppression of an independent Ukraine and Ukrainian Church.  How convenient that he changed his mind...and became a proud Ukrainian when Russian doors were closed to him.  No?

How is it that a defrocked priest....and an excommunicated man....who is not even allowed to take Holy Communion in an Orthodox Church....has appointed himself as a leader?  How can he be a patriarch?
What insolence and pride on his part?

Honestly, with the whole mess of 3 separate churches vying for power in Ukraine...do you think any are truly concerned about the souls of their followers?  I think not.  If they were, they would work together for an amicable arrangement.  Do you think Moscow is truly concerned for the Ukrainian souls or is it that they want jurisdiction and power of the Ukrainian state.  Be honest. 

I will repeat myself....all three need to go away....and we need to start from scratch.

May God preserve Ukraine and save Ukrainians and the rest of us from the deceptions of the devil, and may He construct a strong, unified, canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church....for it will only happen through His hands.

As for today...I will happily remain "under the EP"...for I choose God before I choose Ukraine....otherwise, what's the point of fighting for a Ukrainian Church...if you don't choose God first?  It's a Church not a social club.

Slava Icycy Christu!
Слава Ісусу Христу!
Glory to Jesus Christ!

[ialmisry]

Independent of the Greeks and the Russians.

And the canons it seems.

I dont know if I like your tone... but how does one become cannonicaly recognized, tell me the requirements...

I concur with Handmaiden and Liza's responses.

As is well known, the OCA is not universally recognized, just by the majority of Orthodox, and it is still in canonical standing with those who do not recognize it.  "Patriarch Filoret" is not universally recognized in a different sense: no canonical Orthodox either recognizes or communes with him.

I'm neither Russian nor Ukrainian (nor for that matter Greek), so I don't have a dog in this fight (except Bucovina, my sons are Romanian) except Orthodoxy as a whole: I have a standard policy against phyletism, and against diaspora mentality and suppression of Churches.  Myself I would want an autocephalous patriarchate in Kiev, but not Filaret.  He brings too much baggage. If the canonical Met. Volodymyr accepted the KP synod, I'd be quite fine with that.  I would hope Moscow figures out how to deal with that.

[ialmisry]

Independent of the Greeks and the Russians.

You mean the Turks and the Russians don't you? As far as I know, Constantinople is not in Greece.

The Turks may be the masters of the Phanar, but it is staffed and financed by Greeks.

[Starlight]

It has come to my attention that the Patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP will be visiting the parish of St. Andrew in Bloomingdale to bless their new mosaic. It is interesting reading these threads on the division between the UOC- under EP and the UOC-KP believers. Those that stress cannon versus non cannon, only the Lord knows what is right or wrong. Personally I hope that all Ukrainian churches unite into one Ukrainian Patriarchy. Unfortunetly with the politics involved, I dont see that happening. I do question this though...before 1995 apparently all the Ukrainian orthodox Churches under Bound Brook were Uncannonical until they sought the ompiphorion of the EP. So my question is this....if I was married in a Ukrainian Orthodox Church before 1995, is my marriage null and void bc the priest and church who preformed the ceremony was uncannonical? Same goes for baptism. My grandparents and great granparents who are dead and buried had their funerals conducted before 1995 by non cannonical priests bc UOCUSA was non cannonical. Patriarch Mystylsav of Blessed Memory was uncannonical and formed an uncannonical church when he became Patriarch of Ukraine in the early 90's Does this mean that Met. Constantine and Archbishop Antony were uncannonical until 1995 and every service they performed was null and void? Rather than hate and throw nasty accusations at one another, shouldnt we in the interest of our church and culture strive to unify?

I do know this much, this nastiness and hate needs to stop. Respect peoples differences and live and let live as long as no damage is done.

Please see the reply #39 in this thread for explanation.

[Starlight]

Yes. Either we believe in One, Holy, Apostolic Church or we don't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Exactly. And Mr. Filaret Denysenko and his followers decided to run outside of One, Holy, Apostolic Church.

[Paladin1]

It's interesting.  So far I haven't seen anyone offer any convincing evidence that the UOC-KP is an uncanonical Church.  There has been a lot of oblique references to the "the canons," but no one has offered any specific canon that renders the UOC-KP uncanonical.

There are three parallel church structures in Ukraine that all claim to be Orthodox.  Their bishops all have Apostolic succession.  They are not separated by doctrine.  The only church structure that is recognized by the Orthodox Church is the UOC (MP).  There is no question that this is an uncanonical situation and that a schism exists, but there is much question about who exactly is to blame for the schism.  Filaret Denysenko is a compromised individual and a convenient scapegoat.

The religious situation in Ukraine following the 1988 Millenium of Orthodox Christianity was quite complicated.  The Ukrainian Greek Catholics, the UAOC under Metropolitan Mstyslav, the UOC-MP under Metropolitan Filaret and the Russian Orthodox Church under Patriarch Alexei ALL made their contributions to the schism.  The schism is about phyletic nationalism (both Russian and Ukrainian), sectarianism and control of parishes.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Welcome to the forum, Paladin1!

[Paladin1]

It has come to my attention that the Patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP will be visiting the parish of St. Andrew in Bloomingdale to bless their new mosaic. It is interesting reading these threads on the division between the UOC- under EP and the UOC-KP believers. Those that stress cannon versus non cannon, only the Lord knows what is right or wrong. Personally I hope that all Ukrainian churches unite into one Ukrainian Patriarchy. Unfortunetly with the politics involved, I dont see that happening. I do question this though...before 1995 apparently all the Ukrainian orthodox Churches under Bound Brook were Uncannonical until they sought the ompiphorion of the EP. So my question is this....if I was married in a Ukrainian Orthodox Church before 1995, is my marriage null and void bc the priest and church who preformed the ceremony was uncannonical? Same goes for baptism. My grandparents and great granparents who are dead and buried had their funerals conducted before 1995 by non cannonical priests bc UOCUSA was non cannonical. Patriarch Mystylsav of Blessed Memory was uncannonical and formed an uncannonical church when he became Patriarch of Ukraine in the early 90's Does this mean that Met. Constantine and Archbishop Antony were uncannonical until 1995 and every service they performed was null and void? Rather than hate and throw nasty accusations at one another, shouldnt we in the interest of our church and culture strive to unify?

I do know this much, this nastiness and hate needs to stop. Respect peoples differences and live and let live as long as no damage is done.

Is your marriage null and void?  Of course not.

The status of the UOCUSA before 1995 wasn't so much "uncanonical" is it was *unrecognized.*  The UAOC was founded in 1942 by hierarchs consecrated by the Orthodox Church of Poland.  When the Red Army reoccupied Ukraine, much of the UAOC hierarchy fled into exile.  It was basically a church without a country (or canonical territory), and as such it occupied the same canonical "grey zone" as ROCOR for several decades.  Like ROCOR, the UAOC was an Orthodox church in exile.

Unrecognized?  Certainly, but not forgotten.  The UOCUSA obtained myrrh from the Ecumenical Patriarchate during those years, which would not have been possible if it was considered outside of Orthodoxy. 

Finally, it has not been the practice of the Orthodox Church to invalidate sacraments performed in other Christian churches.  When converts come to Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic or mainstream Protestant churches, they are not required to be remarried or rebaptized.

[Paladin1]

Welcome to the forum, Paladin1!

Thank you!

[Paladin1]

Forget the fact that he was under the Russian Church in the 90's.  That doesn't really matter.  What DOES matter was his suppression of an independent Ukraine and Ukrainian Church.  How convenient that he changed his mind...and became a proud Ukrainian when Russian doors were closed to him.  No?

How is it that a defrocked priest....and an excommunicated man....who is not even allowed to take Holy Communion in an Orthodox Church....has appointed himself as a leader?  How can he be a patriarch?
What insolence and pride on his part?

Honestly, with the whole mess of 3 separate churches vying for power in Ukraine...do you think any are truly concerned about the souls of their followers?  I think not.  If they were, they would work together for an amicable arrangement.  Do you think Moscow is truly concerned for the Ukrainian souls or is it that they want jurisdiction and power of the Ukrainian state.  Be honest. 

I will repeat myself....all three need to go away....and we need to start from scratch.

You make several good points about Filaret Denysenko.  He became a Ukrainian nationalist when the political winds changed in Ukraine.  He also had children while he served as a "bishop."

He was defrocked by the Holy Synod of the ROC.  Why?  Was it his children?  No, they knew about this when he was the Metropolitan of Kiev for the ROC.  Was it because he organized a sobor of the UOC-MP that unanimously asked the ROC Holy Synod for canonical autocephaly? Yes.  Can you defrock a bishop for doing that?  No (and if someone disagrees, please feel free to cite the relevant canon).

The fact that the ROC defrocked bishops who refused to repudiate their signatures in the 1991 request for autocephaly undoubtedly contributed to the schism that affects the Ukrainian Church to this day.

[Father H]

You have hit the nail on the head Liza.   

How come you can support P. Filaret so openly and lovingly?

Forget the fact that he was under the Russian Church in the 90's.  That doesn't really matter.  What DOES matter was his suppression of an independent Ukraine and Ukrainian Church.  How convenient that he changed his mind...and became a proud Ukrainian when Russian doors were closed to him.  No?

How is it that a defrocked priest....and an excommunicated man....who is not even allowed to take Holy Communion in an Orthodox Church....has appointed himself as a leader?  How can he be a patriarch?
What insolence and pride on his part?...

May God preserve Ukraine and save Ukrainians and the rest of us from the deceptions of the devil, and may He construct a strong, unified, canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church....for it will only happen through His hands.

As for today...I will happily remain "under the EP"...for I choose God before I choose Ukraine....otherwise, what's the point of fighting for a Ukrainian Church...if you don't choose God first?  It's a Church not a social club.

[Orest]

I am still orthodox, just as a Greek Orthodox is part of his GREEK church and a Bulgarian Orthodox is part of the BULGARIAN church. Whether or not you consider the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP cannonical or not is irrelevent. We worship the same god, hold the same holy mysteries, and difference being that the Bishops of Bound Brook left us and we went back to our original Ukrainian church. This cannonical vs non cannonical argument by Bishop Antony's subdeacon is a load of malarkey. Patriarch Mystaslav was considered non cannonical by EP and Moscow yet I dare one Ukrainian to claim he was illegal. The big difference is Filaret was elected and not Antony as Patriarch so Bound Brook decided to join the Greeks. I have no problem with the Greek church as it is the mother church. But her Patriarch is not Ukraine's partriarch. And the bishops have no legal right to parish property. If we were liek the Catholics and had a centralized Vaticanesq structure, then Bound Brook could build their own parishes and have a say. That doesnt exist. So Liza, dont shame me, shame on you for following poor, deceiptful shepards. I dont even live in New Jersey nor attend the Clifton parish. All I want is one Ukrainian church under Ukrainians. Whether you like Filaret or not, he is the sucessor to Mystyslav. What Bound Brook did is no different than the Govenor of Michigan, bc he didnt like Barack Obama, saying we suceed from the US and are joining Canada however we are still US citizens.

If you love Ukraine so much, why don't you catch the next flight leaving Chicago to Kiev? There's a 6:35 AM flight tomorrow morning.

South Bound Brook (Bound Brook is a different town; the Consistary resides in South Bound Brook) went under the Ecumenical Patriarch so that we wouldn't be under the opression of Moscow and would still be in communion with Worldwide Orthodoxy. Rather than pushing for a "Holy Ukrainian Church" you should be working with your brothers in sisters in Christ here in the US for jurisdictional unity instead of this KP nonsense. You talk about how the GREEKS have a GREEK Church and the BULGARIANS have a BULGARIAN Church, well what about AMERICANS having an AMERICAN Church? Or do you not want a part of that?

Canonicity IS relavent, as it is part of the truth of Orthodoxy.

Rather than draping yourself in the Ukrainian flag, why don't you actually read the canons and see for yourself the importance of canonicity?!

I don't understand why it has to be either or.  My family has been in Canada for over 100 years.  I belong to the Ukrainian Othodox Church of Canada, speak Ukrainian, read Ukrainian and am interested in what happens in Ukraine.  Why should I get on a plane and move to Ukraine? You cannot worship in a vacuum.  I like going to a Ukrainan Othodox Church and I like participating in a liturgy sung in Ukrainian.  I am not draping myself in a Ukraiian flag.  canada has a policy of multiculturalism not a melting pot.
As for Filaret, I agree with Liz.  I have concerns about his real spirituality & morality just like the ormer MP before Patriarch Kiril.  Both were accused of being members of the KGB and both carried a lot of baggage from the communist era.  I pray for a united Autocephalous  Ukranian orthodox Church in Ukraine.
And we don't need schism in our Ukranian Orthodox Church in the USA or in Canada under the EP.

[pious1]

Orest,

I think the biggest issue is whether the UOCUSA created schism by leaving the Ukrainian church in 1995 and joining under the omophor of the EP. Some argue that the bishops created a schism but joining the EP since it was before 1995 a member of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kievan Patriachate that Patriarch Msytyslav help create. Many people in many Ukrainian Orthodox parishes in the US believe that the bishops in Bound Brook are the ones that creaeted schism. Personally I belive live let live, it seems another major issue is the Bound Brook just doesnt like nor trust Patriarch Filaret...its a sad state but I support St. Andrews parish for staying with the Ukrainian church and agree with Cossack that KP is the true Ukrainian church. i wonder how many more parishes will leave Bound Brook in the next few years...

[LizaSymonenko]

I support St. Andrews parish for staying with the Ukrainian church and agree with Cossack that KP is the true Ukrainian church.

Therein lies the issue. 

It might be a Ukrainian church, but, it's not an Orthodox church.

_______________________________________________________

I agree with you that Ukraine "deserves" a Ukrainian Orthodox Church...I disagree with your statement about the Bishops of the UOCofUSA.

What's a bishop to do?  Leave his flock to wander about aimlessly?  Is it not better to be a member of the True Orthodox Church than just a facade?

Patriarch Msytyslav had not intended for the Ukrainian Church to be in its current state of affairs for this length of time.  He had not envisioned all the issues that would arise in Ukraine concerning Orthodoxy.  He had not anticipated three separate churches vying for power.  Had there been only ONE, then that ONE would have been recognized by world Orthodoxy long ago.  Since we can't get our own affairs in order, it is best to step back, and let these things work themselves out.  In the meantime, lets not leave our sheep out in the cold amongst the wolves; no, let's get them under a watchful shepherd and keep them safe from harm.  Let's not jeopardize the souls of the faithful for our own pride.

I say it again, it's the devil's work to destroy such a God loving, faithful nation, which has given birth to hundreds of Saints.

Instead of perpetuating and assisting the chaos, it is best to leave it to God.  Believe me, in the end He will win.

I agree with Orest, I too am happy under my UOCofUSA bishops, under the EP.  I am still Ukrainian, going to a Ukrainian church, praying in Ukrainian, receiving valid sacraments, etc.

You are fighting for an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church....don't forget this fight is about Orthodoxy, not Ukraine.

It's not a church building, with a Ukrainian flag waving outside.  It is not the brick and mortar you are fighting for...which is what happened with St. Andrews.  Filaret got himself a building!  He has added to his stockpile of building materials... in the meantime, how many souls have been led astray?

Lord have mercy on all involved!

[Paladin1]

I support St. Andrews parish for staying with the Ukrainian church and agree with Cossack that KP is the true Ukrainian church.

Therein lies the issue. 

It might be a Ukrainian church, but, it's not an Orthodox church.

_______________________________________________________



Patriarch Msytyslav had not intended for the Ukrainian Church to be in its current state of affairs for this length of time.  He had not envisioned all the issues that would arise in Ukraine concerning Orthodoxy.  He had not anticipated three separate churches vying for power.  Had there been only ONE, then that ONE would have been recognized by world Orthodoxy long ago.  Since we can't get our own affairs in order, it is best to step back, and let these things work themselves out.  In the meantime, lets not leave our sheep out in the cold amongst the wolves; no, let's get them under a watchful shepherd and keep them safe from harm.  Let's not jeopardize the souls of the faithful for our own pride.

You underestimate the efforts of the Russian Federation and the Russian Orthodox Church.  They both work to undermine Ukraine's independence and have contributed to the Ukrainian schism.  They are motivated by Pan-Slavist ideology, and the last thing they want to see is a self-governing Ukrainian Church.

[LizaSymonenko]

I certainly do not underestimate the Russian Federation.  Just read some of my previous posts (#139).

To be honest....who's to say that Filaret isn't still working "for" the Russians to undermine Ukrainian independence?  He certainly is not helping the Independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church.  He's just perpetuating the division.  He may have been "sent" in order to destroy the Ukrainian Church "from within".   He despised all things Ukrainian....and now he's leading the Church.  Come on!

Again, I have NOTHING against the Russian Orthodox Church or Russians, just as long as they stay out of Ukraine and Ukrainian affairs.  Ukrainians are not claiming anything Russian for their own, it's Russia who has always tried to take credit for every good thing coming from Ukraine - the poets, the Saints, the food, music, words, Church, etc.

[Heorhij]

Independent of the Greeks and the Russians.

And the canons it seems.

I dont know if I like your tone... but how does one become cannonicaly recognized, tell me the requirements...

Paying 300 pieces of "sobol" skins to the Patriarch, who was deposed one year after for simony. That's how the Moscow Patriarchate became "canonical" and is "canonical" to this day - no?

[DeaconBorislav]

I realize that I am a day late and a dollar short here but it wouldn't hurt to exercise a little Christian charity toward one another...

I find it not the least bit useful to take the history of one or another jurisdiction and use it as a bomb in polemics.  Especially on the internet.  This goes both for the history of the UOCofUSA and the history of the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR.  All are Canonical and respected Jurisdictions in full communion with one another.

As of the so called KP, I would venture a guess that most people who attend KP parishes are wonderful, God-fearing and pious folks who have been led astray by certain individuals who shall remain unnamed.  It is our duty as members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to pray for these people asking God to bring them back to their fathers house.

Finally it would be wonderful if we would always remember that it is much easier to attract people with honey.  We as Christians are called to give our brothers and sisters bread not a brick on the head.

Just my 2 cents...
  

[Ukie]

Well, well.... Let's revisit the situation.  It seems that the UOC of USA parish under rev. Kalynyuk has recently accused him and the president of the parish of embezzlement.  For the second time in a matter of 12 months, the board members resigned and quit the parish.  That's two boards leaving in one year.  As the parishioners explain, the church property and bank accounts were in father Kalynyuk's name, not in the church name.  In addition they were cooking the books and falsifying withdrawals and collection numbers while personally partaking of the funds.  the parishioners asked for Bishop Daniel's help and got even more frustrated when he seemed to support the priest.  Many are so upset they wish to file charges of a class 4 felony for embezzlement.  Most have just left the parish, with the majority going back to St. Andrew UOC-KP apologizing and explaining that they do not consider rev. Kalynyuk a priest.  I hope that both the previous and current boards and auditing committees understand their fiduciary responsibilities because all can be sued for the lost money and the class 4 felony carries a 7-10 year jail sentence.  If the bishop is covering it up he too may fall.......The truth always rises to the top, it just takes some time. 

[LizaSymonenko]

Not doubting your words, but, could you provide proof of your accusations, please?

[ialmisry]

Most have just left the parish, with the majority going back to St. Andrew UOC-KP apologizing and explaining that they do not consider rev. Kalynyuk a priest. 

So they do not consider a UOCUSA priest a priest, but they consider KP a Patriarchate.

OK.

[pious1]

Most have just left the parish, with the majority going back to St. Andrew UOC-KP apologizing and explaining that they do not consider rev. Kalynyuk a priest. 

So they do not consider a UOCUSA priest a priest, but they consider KP a Patriarchate.

OK.

You can be canonnical and still be a crook and thief. (The OCA has proved that time and again)

[Ukie]

It is not a question of whether he is canonical or not, I should have said they no longer call him "rev." due to the financial dealings and his responses to them and the bank statements that they reviewed.  The proof lies with the former members and board members, I do not have access to the documents.  I will try to invite one of those board members to join and explain.

The fiduciary duty of the consistory, hierarch, priest, board members and auditing committee members  was not fulfilled and does break the law,  and all are to blame to some extent.  But the only one of those that had monetary benefit was the priest.  The treasurer and priest are the only ones that were in on the misuse and theft of funds per the past board members. 

The members of the parish both those that stay and those who left have only one option, to file a suit and take it to court.  They also claim that the by-laws that the priest is showing the consistory are not the by-laws approved by the congregation.  There are additions made by the priest without the knowledge of the general membership which voted on the acceptance of by-laws when the parish started.

Now we will see how long it takes for anyone to act appropriately and get to the bottom of the matter.  My prediction is that neither side will do anything, the priest will continue to have a private parish in his name, with access to all funds and many faithful will just stop going to church all together due to the feeling that they got burned...

[Ukie]

Most have just left the parish, with the majority going back to St. Andrew UOC-KP apologizing and explaining that they do not consider rev. Kalynyuk a priest. 

So they do not consider a UOCUSA priest a priest, but they consider KP a Patriarchate.

OK.

You can be canonnical and still be a crook and thief. (The OCA has proved that time and again)

Isn't that the truth!

[Ukie]

Not doubting your words, but, could you provide proof of your accusations, please?

Not my accusations, the parish and former parish board members accusations. 

[LizaSymonenko]

I am certain, that if there's anything "fishy" going on, the consistory will be dealing with it.

Just because it doesn't seem so to us, doesn't mean it is so.

Sometimes, it's of more benefit to do things quietly.

[LizaSymonenko]

So, you mentioned the treasurer was "in" on it.

I am assuming he/she is no longer the treasurer?

[Ukie]

Not only is she still the treasurer but also the president of the parish for the last year holding both posts which is definitely a conflict of interest...

[LizaSymonenko]

So, who is to blame?  I think the parishioners, no?

Don't you have a yearly election?

Someone new should have been voted in.

[LizaSymonenko]

Not only is she still the treasurer but also the president of the parish for the last year holding both posts which is definitely a conflict of interest...

The "both" part just sunk in. 

That is most definitely a no-no.

How has the parish allowed this?

[Orest]

I don't think that we in this discussion group have all the materials or information to discuss this in an informed manner.  What is the point?  If anything illegial is going on the best step is to call in the police and let the legal system deal with it.

[LizaSymonenko]

...although I hate seeing the authorities getting involved in our churches, sometimes it cannot be avoided.

As I stated before, I'm certain if there is an issue, that it will be investigated and handled appropriately.

[Ukie]

Bishop Daniel did visit and it made things worse... The consistory and bishops actually can't do anything about it when it comes to the parish.  The parish is registered in the priest's name, the purchase of the property and outstanding bill are in the priest's name and that makes him the legitimate owner.  The by-laws reconstructed by the priest to his liking are being considered valid by the bishop and consistory etc.  They will kick out the "Dean".  The parishioners asked for a new priest but the consistory can't assign a new priest to property which the priest owns...  

[LizaSymonenko]

I'm sure in time, it will all get worked out.

[Ukie]

The point is to protect unknowing people from giving hard earned money to a parish and priest that are misappropriating it.  Even this is not enough as the immigrant parishioners are not on this forum.  If the bishop would publicly issue a statement and start an investigation, then people would be aware.  I don't count on that happening as with the $300,000.00 stolen from the UOC Sisterhood.  No outcome, they know who took it, they have proof, but no action will be taken.  So, as OCA members can attest, if the consistory does not take action, at least inform others so they don't give their hard earned money away...The parishioners do have rights.

[TheTrisagion]

How does a priest come to own a church building? 

That seems like it would have trouble written all over it from the very beginning.

[LizaSymonenko]

The point is to protect unknowing people from giving hard earned money to a parish and priest that are misappropriating it.  Even this is not enough as the immigrant parishioners are not on this forum.  If the bishop would publicly issue a statement and start an investigation, then people would be aware.  I don't count on that happening as with the $300,000.00 stolen from the UOC Sisterhood.  No outcome, they know who took it, they have proof, but no action will be taken.  So, as OCA members can attest, if the consistory does not take action, at least inform others so they don't give their hard earned money away...The parishioners do have rights.

Why do you state that nothing is happening with the sisterhood theft?  I know that lawyers were hired and the whole thing was taken to court.

As for the bishops investigating....how do you know that they are not?  They don't have do disclose everything to the curious public.  Sometimes these things are better dealt with, with less publicity.

How can the attending new immigrants NOT be aware of what's going on in their parish?  Don't people gather and talk after services?

[pious1]

Shouldn't the fact that the 300K was/is money of paying parishioners around the US be reason enough to disclose the happenings?

[pious1]

Also I have searched sites like Justia.com and other legal sites, there is nothing listed regarding the 300k and possible lawsuit to recover the money. If anyone has any insight or info on where to find this information, it would be much appreciated.

[ialmisry]

Most have just left the parish, with the majority going back to St. Andrew UOC-KP apologizing and explaining that they do not consider rev. Kalynyuk a priest. 

So they do not consider a UOCUSA priest a priest, but they consider KP a Patriarchate.

OK.

You can be canonnical and still be a crook and thief. (The OCA has proved that time and again)

Isn't that the truth!

That it is.

It is also the Truth that operating outside the canonical Church facilitates crooks and thiefs-a whole host of vagantes demonstrate that.

[LizaSymonenko]

Shouldn't the fact that the 300K was/is money of paying parishioners around the US be reason enough to disclose the happenings?

It's not secret.  It was disclosed and mentioned at the last Sobor, however, details were not able to be revealed because the case was in litigation.

I'm sure you are aware that when cases are in court, certain parties are forbidden from speaking about them, until the entire thing is settled.

[pious1]

I know when there is litigation involved and proper legal steps are being taken, that there is some sort of documentation that is made public by the courts, even if it is a simple continuance. Look at when the UOCUSA was suing the parish in Clifton, legal documents were all over the next as the case was proceeding.

[pious1]

300k, imagine how many ten of thousands of hours of countless baba's making verenyky by hand from dawn til dusk that is? You would think especially with the difficulty the UOCUSA consistory has financially with half their parishes not even paying them financial dues that this would be taken very seriously and efforts would be made to recover these funds.

[Ukie]

What's going on??? The president of the board of St. Volodymyr UOC in Chicago has recently quit due to the new priest going to the bank and trying to add his name to the bank accounts.... After Bishop Daniel supported this action the long-time member and parish president has quit.  Seems the root of all evil really is money...

[Ukie]

Exactly!

How does a priest come to own a church building? 

That seems like it would have trouble written all over it from the very beginning.

[ialmisry]

Independent of the Greeks and the Russians.

And the canons it seems.

I dont know if I like your tone... but how does one become cannonicaly recognized, tell me the requirements...

Paying 300 pieces of "sobol" skins to the Patriarch, who was deposed one year after for simony. That's how the Moscow Patriarchate became "canonical" and is "canonical" to this day - no?

No, it is canonical to this day, but it didn't happen that way-Pope Meletius Pegas refused any gifts,  and insisted on a full synod of the Patriarchs to approve the elevation of the Metropolitinate of Kiev and All Rus' to the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Rus'.  The Metropolitanate of Kiev was translated back to Constantinople at the time of Pat. Jeremia III's elevation of Moscow in Moscow.

The reference is to the translation back to Moscow, but is missleading: Patriarchs at the time were deposed quite regularly, and "simony" was the usual charge used to cover the deed.

[Ukie]

It may have been disclosed at the sobor, but was never presented to the general membership.  They are the ones who need to know.  Publish a statement, inform the flock who donated all that money.  There is  no transparency and a lack of fiduciary responsibility.  Covering it up or keeping it quiet makes it look all that much worse.

Shouldn't the fact that the 300K was/is money of paying parishioners around the US be reason enough to disclose the happenings?

It's not secret.  It was disclosed and mentioned at the last Sobor, however, details were not able to be revealed because the case was in litigation.

I'm sure you are aware that when cases are in court, certain parties are forbidden from speaking about them, until the entire thing is settled.

[LizaSymonenko]

What's going on??? The president of the board of St. Volodymyr UOC in Chicago has recently quit due to the new priest going to the bank and trying to add his name to the bank accounts.... After Bishop Daniel supported this action the long-time member and parish president has quit.  Seems the root of all evil really is money...

You leave the hierarchs out of this.  

If there's a crooked priest, than I'm sure the whole thing is being dealt with.

You are simply speculating and spreading rumors.

[LizaSymonenko]

It may have been disclosed at the sobor, but was never presented to the general membership.  They are the ones who need to know.  Publish a statement, inform the flock who donated all that money.  There is  no transparency and a lack of fiduciary responsibility.  Covering it up or keeping it quiet makes it look all that much worse.

Shouldn't the fact that the 300K was/is money of paying parishioners around the US be reason enough to disclose the happenings?

It's not secret.  It was disclosed and mentioned at the last Sobor, however, details were not able to be revealed because the case was in litigation.

I'm sure you are aware that when cases are in court, certain parties are forbidden from speaking about them, until the entire thing is settled.

That is a lie.

The whole reason to have a sobor is to inform the general membership.  Nothing is disclosed at the Sobor and the delegates instructed to keep it hush hush!

Nonsense!

If the general public is not aware of something that was discussed at the Sobor, than the issue lies with the delegates they elected and sent to the Sobor.  It is the delegates responsibility to hold a meeting and share the information with their parish.

Stop trying to make trouble.

[Ukie]

Publish it!

Why so defensive when there is proof of wrong doings.  Put it in writing!  No rumors here, if you think these are rumors, go get the proof for yourself. 

Why don't you publish an article in the UOC Word, or web site informing the membership of what's going on in the church.  There should be no fear or hesitation to do at least that....

[Ukie]

So now its the delegates fault that the people don't know that money was stolen...And, its the parishioners fault that the treasurer and priest misappropriated funds from church accounts, and its the parishioners fault the priest put the church property in his name.... are you kidding? 

Whatever, no use in debating.  The fact is that they (UOC of USA hierarchs,consistory, priests) do not want the general membership to be well informed about any of these matters.  If they did they would publish it and try to prevent it from happening elsewhere. 

Good Luck!

[Ukie]

Hierarchs can't be crooked?  Hmmmm, OCA history show any examples....  No one is immune from responsibility.

What's going on??? The president of the board of St. Volodymyr UOC in Chicago has recently quit due to the new priest going to the bank and trying to add his name to the bank accounts.... After Bishop Daniel supported this action the long-time member and parish president has quit.  Seems the root of all evil really is money...

You leave the hierarchs out of this.  

If there's a crooked priest, than I'm sure the whole thing is being dealt with.

You are simply speculating and spreading rumors.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

What's going on??? The president of the board of St. Volodymyr UOC in Chicago has recently quit due to the new priest going to the bank and trying to add his name to the bank accounts.... After Bishop Daniel supported this action the long-time member and parish president has quit.  Seems the root of all evil really is money...

I do not know about other jurisdictions, but, in my OCA Diocese of the South parish, the uniform parish by-laws stipulates that "Section 3. All expenditures made by check shall be signed by the rector or the priest-in-charge and either the warden or the treasurer. In case there is no assigned priest, the signatures of the warden and the treasurer shall
be required." http://www.dosoca.org/files/DOCUMENTS/RevisedDOSUPB2009.pdf

[LizaSymonenko]

Publish it!

Why so defensive when there is proof of wrong doings.  Put it in writing!  No rumors here, if you think these are rumors, go get the proof for yourself. 

Why don't you publish an article in the UOC Word, or web site informing the membership of what's going on in the church.  There should be no fear or hesitation to do at least that....

Take it easy.  I'm not the one accusing anyone, therefore, what proof do wish for me to publish?

[LizaSymonenko]

So now its the delegates fault that the people don't know that money was stolen...

Absolutely.  If they failed to inform their parish members of what was said openly at the Sobor, it is precisely their fault.  That is the whole point of being an elected delegate.

I went to the Sobor.  Within the next two weeks, we held a special parish meeting, at which we printed off and distributed copies of everything that was said.  Photos were shown, papers where shared.

Parishioners asked questions, and we, the delegates, gave answers.  That's how it works.

If their delegates didn't do this, than they failed as delegates, and should not be elected to that role next time.

And, its the parishioners fault that the treasurer and priest misappropriated funds from church accounts, and its the parishioners fault the priest put the church property in his name.... are you kidding? 

You're letting your anger get the better of you.  I never said any of that, did I?

However, since you do bring it up, where was the auditing committee?  Were they also in cahoots?  Doesn't the parish have a yearly general meeting where everything gets reviewed?

We do.  All the finances are printed up and distributed along with profits, losses, and future budget.  No secrets.

Whatever, no use in debating.  The fact is that they (UOC of USA hierarchs,consistory, priests) do not want the general membership to be well informed about any of these matters.  If they did they would publish it and try to prevent it from happening elsewhere. 

Typical KP rhetoric.  I would expect no less from a KP supporter, then to try to malign the UOCofUSA any chance you get....even if you have to twist the truth.

[Ukie]

Did you not write this? You clearly you think the parishioners are to blame. 

And your comments about expecting this from a KP member are just absurd.  You have a very big chip on your shoulders, perhaps you need to pray so that it may be healed.

And as for the election comment, would it matter if the priest puts in a bunch of names of his confidants....

You are in la-la land.... keep drinking the UOC-USA Kool-Aid

So, who is to blame?  I think the parishioners, no?

Don't you have a yearly election?

Someone new should have been voted in.

[Ukie]

Where is the twisting of truth..... in my statements or in the lack of transparency of the UOC-USA consistory. 

Again, please tell me where I twisted the truth.  I can say by your blame on parishioners, delegates and so forth you twist who is to blame.

I am positive it is not the parishioners nor delegates who oversee the funds and the auditing of those funds....

Hypocrisy