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

[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

[mike]

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

[mike]

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

[mike]

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.

[mike]

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.

[mike]

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.