LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (07/19/98)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

We should demand real recognition

Dear Editor:

As evidenced by the many letters published in The Weekly, the "recognition" of the UOC-U.S.A. by the patriarch of Constantinople and subsequent events have caused great concern to many individuals and parishes. In reality this was not a recognition, but a subordination, which effectively made the UOC-U.S.A. a metropolia or diocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Bound Brook sold this "recognition" by stating that in return it has achieved what the late Patriarch Mstyslav always wanted: recognition. This claim was and is a gross falsehood. The late patriarch wanted recognition of an independent UOC, or UAOC to be precise. He had many opportunities to accept the jurisdiction of the ecumenical patriarch (and others) and refused them all.

To further underscore the vast difference between recognition and subordination, note that there are many recognized Orthodox Churches in the diaspora: Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian, etc. None of these are under the jurisdiction of the ecumenical patriarch. In fact, even the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece is not under his jurisdiction. All of the aforementioned Churches are either autochephalous (totally independent) or under the jurisdiction of the Church in their native land. Only the Ukrainians and the Carpatho-Rusyns have achieved "recognition" by accepting a foreign jurisdiction.

Compounding the "recognition" reality, Protocol 937 came to light, the Odesa meeting between Patriarchs Alexei and Bartholomew, and it became painfully obvious that in spite of our "recognition" Moscow was still viewed as the only canonical jurisdiction in Ukraine. In fact, when individuals directly objected to the ecumenical patriarch, they were informed that Patriarch Alexei is "Ukraine's friend" that "he is not responsible for history," and that until we learn to love our enemies we do not deserve an independent church.

Bound Brook's response (not officially, but via the Rev. John Nakonachny) has been: everything is a lie; Bound Brook supports our Church in Ukraine; who's paying attention to Protocol 967 anyway?; trust your hierarchs; the individuals voicing concerns are troublemakers and friends of Moscow; Bound Brook is not responsible for what occurs in Ukraine; etc.

Perhaps Bound Brook did not officially respond to the voiced questions and objections because it was confident that the concerned individuals and parishes could not do much. Where could they go? Also, it knew that planned changes to the Church Constitution would further incapacitate the faithful, for these changes moved the UOC-U.S.A. towards a synodal Church structure.

However, recent developments in Ukraine have placed the UOC-U.S.A. in a precarious situation. Specifically two major events have occurred: 1) two out of the three major jurisdictions of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine have signed a proclamation stating their intent to unite, and 2) the UOC-KP has changed its previous stance and has started to accept parishes from the diaspora under its jurisdiction.

In April of this year Patriarch Dimitri (UOAC) and Patriarch Filaret (UOC-KP) formally declared their intention to create one Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. (In a recent interview broadcast on Kontakt, Patriarch Dymytri claims to have backed away from declared intentions - Ed.] Within the past few weeks, more than a dozen parishes in the diaspora (four from the U.S.) were formally accepted into the jurisdiction of the UOC-KP. Now the parishes that want spiritual communion with Kyiv have an option.

The parishes that left the jurisdiction of Bound Brook did so with reluctance, but did so because their concerns, objections, and questions were criticized, unanswered and ignored. How many other parishes will leave? Are we destined to have two Churches in the U.S., one under the ecumenical patriarch and the other an independent "unrecognized" Church under a Ukrainian primate?

If this sounds familiar, it should because this is precisely the situation we had for decades, except Bound Brook was the independent "unrecognized" Church. This "unrecognized" Church had the most parishes, the most clergy, and the greatest number of faithful. It built the Memorial Church, opened a seminary, museum, etc. For decades this "unrecognized" church nurtured the Ukrainian Orthodox spirit and tradition not only in the U.S. but for the entire diaspora. And in its hallowed ground lie thousands of Ukraine's faithful sons and daughters, including its first "unrecognized" Patriarch.

The healing and noble option is for the hierarchs of the UOC-U.S.A. to admit that they were sold a bill of goods, to demand real recognition, to leave the jurisdiction of the foreign Church, and to enter into spiritual communion with our mother Church in Kyiv. This would prevent a major split in the UOC-U.S.A. and would allow Ukrainian Americans to worship with their brothers and sisters in Ukraine. In addition, it would ensure that Bound Brook remains the symbol of Ukrainian Orthodox spirit and tradition in the diaspora.

The other options are simply too tragic for our Church and community.

Simon T. Nahnybida
Basking Ridge, N.J.

About alliances and political realities

Dear Editor:

Many letters have been published in The Ukrainian Weekly concerning the alliances of the Kyivan Churches. I am sure some grumble, "much ado about nothing." On the contrary, these non-political alliances focus our perspective on political realities.

What homage must we (Ukrainians) continue to pay for "legitimacy" from the three hierarchs of the old empires: Rome, Constantinople and Moscow? Each of our Churches' alliances must be scrutinized for their costs and ramifications.

Prolonged alliances with, and loyalty to, centers of old empires bring forth a variety of questions for which our Ukrainian community in America has The Ukrainian Weekly to moderate discourse on these topics and to serve as a forum to question, analyze and discern. Thank you, Ukrainian Weekly.

Michael Jula
Carnegie, Pa.

The Ukrainian Weekly welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typed (double-spaced) and signed; they must be originals, not photocopies.

The daytime phone number and address of the letter-writer must be given for verification purposes.