LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (02/22/98)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Orthodox faithful respond to letter

Dear Editor:

We address this letter in reply to the Rev. John R. Nakonachny's lengthy letter (February 1) headlined "Orthodox leaders need our support."

The Rev. Nakonachny, as pastor of St. Vladimir Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral, Parma, Ohio, and a member of the Metropolitan Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A., is doing a great disservice to the Ukrainian Orthodox community by disseminating misinformation.

We would like to take this opportunity to provide a rebuttal to the most pertinent points raised by the Rev. Nakonachny.

Regarding the "de-nationalization" of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. (or "Americanization" of the UOC-U.S.A.), we have no doubt whatsoever that this program is in place and is being implemented on various fronts. This is evident in the current practice of commingling the English and Ukrainian languages in various church services, the introduction of English-language lectures at St. Sophia Seminary in South Bound Brook, N.J., and denunciations of nationalism within the UOC-U.S.A. as written by Andrew F. Estocin in his letter (October 26, 1997). This is a subtle internal process to change the character and identity of the Church - nothing as obvious as physically removing "Ukrainian" from every Church structure, but nevertheless profound changes are being implemented.

Regarding the Rev. Nakonachny's comment that "... especially the elderly ... have concerns about our Church's relationship with Constantinople," this is correct. The elderly, who built this Church with their blood, sweat and tears, are truly concerned, but the statement has to be expanded to include the young and middle-aged faithful who also have serious misgivings regarding the agreement reached between the UOC-U.S.A. and Constantinople. It is becoming abundantly clear from all the recent newspaper articles and publications that the winners in this "relationship" are Moscow and Constantinople, and the losers are the UOC-U.S.A. and Ukrainian Orthodoxy in Ukraine. It is quite evident that our Church hierarchs were playing on a field with political "giants," Patriarch Aleksei II and Patriarch Bartholomew. It is quite evident that our Church hierarchs were outmaneuvered politically and are now defending and justifying an untenable position.

The Rev. Nakonachny writes that the Metropolitan Council on January 16 "resolved that our Church supports the reunification of the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches in Ukraine into one Autocephalous Church under the leadership of a patriarch of Kyiv and all Ukraine." This statement is totally ludicrous and cannot possibly be implemented. As proof we offer Protocol No. 937 dated July 11, 1995, from Patriarch Bartholomew to Patriarch Aleksei II in which Patriarch Bartholomew writes "we would like to assure you that the induction of the Ukrainian communities (in the diaspora) into the canonical order of the Orthodox Church by receiving them under the omophorion of the ecumenical patriarch will, we believe, finally prove to be beneficial for the relationship between the Most Holy Church of Russia and the faithful in the [sic] Ukraine. This is so because on the one hand those received were obligated to formally declare that they will not seek the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church or even a part of it."

Patriarch Bartholomew further states that "it is no longer possible for them to cooperate or to commune with schismatic Ukrainian groups which are out of communion with the Orthodox Church."

So much for the pronouncements of "support" cited by the Metropolitan Council of UOC-U.S.A.

We would like to remind the Rev. Nakonachny that in Ukraine there is currently a legitimate heir to the patriarchate created by the union of UOC-U.S.A. with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the first Ukrainian patriarch, Mstyslav I, and subsequently led by Patriarch Volodymyr. That heir is Filaret, patriarch of Kyiv and all of Rus'-Ukraine. Declarations of the Metropolitan Council of UOC-U.S.A. should be directed to support and commune with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate and all their energies should then be employed to unify the other Orthodox Church.

In providing financial support, we totally agree with the Rev. Nakonachny. Financial support must continue - even with the realization that it is a drop of water in an ocean of need. Of much more importance, which cannot be measured in terms of dollars and cents, is the spiritual support and communion that our Mother Church in Ukraine so desperately needs and which the UOC-U.S.A., by agreement with Constantinople, fails to provide. We fail to understand the statement by the Rev. Nakonachny that "the acceptance of UOC-U.S.A. under the spiritual protection of the patriarch of Constantinople was and continues to be a major defeat for Moscow." Where and how is it a defeat for Moscow when the UOC-U.S.A. agreed not to support autocephaly in Ukraine or to cooperate/commune with Ukrainian Churches in Ukraine? On the other hand, the UOC-U.S.A., as part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, can fully commune with the Russian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate. This convoluted logic extends even to the point that our priests and bishops of UOC-U.S.A. are not permitted to celebrate liturgical services with a visiting priest or bishop of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate.

Recently it has been demonstrated that UOC-U.S.A. hierarchs will not tolerate any UOC-U.S.A. priest or parish that supports or communes with UOC - Kyiv Patriarchate. On January 20, four days after the Metropolitan Council "resolved to support" a united Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Ukraine, Bishop Vsevolod (or more correctly Vsevolod, bishop of Scopelos, under his new title from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) suspended Presbyter W. Ilchuk of St. Sophia UOC in Chicago from all sacerdotal Church functions for "serving with hierarchs and clergy of other jurisdictions." Was this suspension done in the same spirit as the proclamation of "support" by the Metropolitan Council on January 16? Where is the victory for the UOC-U.S.A. and the defeat for Moscow Patriarchate when our own bishops suspended our own priests for communing with our Mother Church in Ukraine?

The Rev. Nakonachny is correct that the writing is on the wall, but our Church hierarchs, who are still blinded by the aura of "recognition," fail to see it. In a classic divide-and-conquer strategy this "recognition" is a tremendous victory for Patriarch Aleksei II in a political struggle with Patriarch Bartholomew, for here we have a true "Wag the Dog" situation: Patriarch Aleksei II claims 80 million Orthodox faithful, while Patriarch Bartholomew only 3.5 million (Newsweek, November 3, 1997).

The Rev. Nakonachny states that we "finally found friends and supporters - people with whom we are able to sit around the table and discuss our Church's future." Since 1921, through world wars, famines and persecutions, our Church was able to decide its own future. Now that we have an independent Ukraine, in the name of "recognition," we have spiritually forsaken our religious roots and are looking for advice and counsel from "friends." We, too, remember the protests in the 1950s and 1960s. But our protests were against communion with the visiting Russian clergy and not for joining them in roundtable discussions. We recognized them for what they were: shills of the KGB.

The facts are quite clear: the "recognition" of the UOC-U.S.A. by Constantinople was a tremendous victory for Patriarch Aleksei II. He has, by acquiescence from Patriarch Bartholomew, a free hand in Ukraine without fear of spiritual support and communion from the UOC-U.S.A.

As the Rev. Nakonachny stated, in spite of all of our earthly concerns about our Church, Christ is the head of our Church. Jesus Christ also said, "Forgive them for they know not what they are doing."

Wasyl Kosohor
Crystal Lake, Ill.

The writer is president of the All Ukrainian Committee "Coalition of Parishes in Diaspora for a Kyivan Patriarchate."

About Baiul and role models

Dear Editor:

It is difficult for me to accept the letter of Chrystyna Wynnyk-Wilson as it is written. In my opinion, it is not fair to ignore Oksana Baiul simply because she claims to be Russian. Ukraine's population comprises many ethnic groups and being a good citizen does not necessarily coincide with a person's ethnic background.

Instead, for role models, I would like to see the Ukrainian media focus on individuals who are proud of their Ukrainian heritage or of being citizens of Ukraine, are hard workers, and are law-abiding in addition to being good athletes.

Bohdan M. Slabyj
Brewer, Maine

Shuttle souvenirs still available

Dear Editor:

For those still living in the excitement and euphoria of Col. Leonid Kadenyuk's flight on the space shuttle Columbia, there are two sources of official souvenirs. NASA Mail Order at 1-800-621-9826 carries merchandise based on the official emblem of flight STS-87 (T-shirts, caps, decals, pins, key chains). Very prominent is the Ukrainian flag, Col. Kadenyuk's name and the Columbia striped blue/gold.

Souvenirs specific to the Collaborative Ukrainian Experiment are available from IDENTI-T at 1-800-727-9295 (T-shirt, polo shirt and emblem). I recommend the T-shirt with bold colors and graphics, on the back are the U.S. and Ukraine flags from which emerges a plant-bearing rocket.

Olena C. Boyko
Urbanna, Va.

| Home Page |