Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. completes 15th Sobor (11/08/98)

Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. completes 15th Sobor

by Irene Jarosewich

The proceedings of the Sobors of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. are not open to the press, therefore The Ukrainian Weekly did not directly observe the sessions. However, with the approval of Metropolitan Constantine and member of the Metropolitan Council, the Rev. John Nakonachny, staff spoke with delegates outside the sessions and joined the banquet. At press time, no final official information about the Sobor proceedings was received by this publication, though the information about the motions was confirmed by Rev. William Diakiw, vice-president of the Church Consistory. This article is compiled from discussions with delegates and available printed information. Many delegates and guests were willing to offer their thoughts, but asked not to have their names printed.

SOUTH BOUND BROOK, N.J. - Delegates to the 15th annual Sobor of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. claimed that the wisdom of the Blessed Mother of God, Ukraine's Protectress, whose feast day was celebrated only days before the Sobor began, helped guide her Ukrainian Orthodox children back from the brink of an abyss, from anguish to an uneasy calm.

Gathered here at the Church's headquarters on October 13-19, the 222 delegates and almost 50 guests began the Sobor with apprehension, but concluded the conclave, if not with a full sense of peace, then at least with a sense of relief.

Tension permeated the atmosphere at the beginning of the Sobor. For the delegates, at issue were several topics of immediate concern: the nature of the relationships of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. (UOC-U.S.A.) with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, as well as with the patriarchs in Ukraine, proposed changes to the UOC-U.S.A. Constitution, and fears that parishes would leave the UOC-U.S.A.

The tensions, however, reflected a deeper concern: With the advent of an independent Ukraine, and on the eve of the third millennium of Christianity, how does one understand the mission of Ukrainian Orthodox faithful, and their Church, in America?

Visions of Church's mission

For one woman from Pennsylvania, the mission of the Church is to help provide her family a Christian home and with respect and love for her Ukrainian Orthodox heritage, but at the same time to reach out to other Churches, seek new possibilities and become part of a larger spiritual community.

Added another woman, "I think it is important that we build here. We're too small to take care of Ukraine, we need to take care of ourselves. ... And I don't want our Church to belong to the uncanonical Patriarch [Filaret]."

Some delegates felt that the Church in America must fulfill its moral obligation to bear witness to those who struggled, risked and lost their lives for an independent Church and must ensure that an Autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine become a recognized Church within world Orthodoxy. "No one can ever deny we are canonical" said Valentina Makohon, a delegate from Rochester, N.Y. "We have been martyrs for our faith."

"Our pain is always being ignored, trivialized, forgotten - why?" asked a delegate from Maryland, "Are we less worthy? The suffering of our people, our memory, should not be subsumed to greater ecumenical interests. The memory of our people must be respected from generation to generation. Others should come to us with respect, not we to them in submission."

Many believe it is the unique mission of the Ukrainian Church to bear witness to the painful history of suffering and annihilation not just of the Church, but of the Ukrainian people, and that the survival of an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church is essential for the survival of an independent Ukrainian nation. Their vision of Church and Ukraine blend into one.

And many others reject the split in focus between Ukraine and America, the separation between "us" and "them," between the "past" and the "future" as false dichotomies. For these delegates, the vision of their Orthodox Church is a complex of nuances, a bridge where others see a divide.

Omophorion of the ecumenical patriarch

The prism through which all the visions and divisions of Ukrainian Orthodoxy in America is being refracted is the decision made in March 1995 by the hierarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. to accept the "omophorion" (spiritual authority) of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Unlike the Catholic Church, which is more or less united and recognizes the jurisdiction of the primate in Rome, the Orthodox Church is not simply one Church. Rather, it is many independent Churches recognizing many primates, usually tied to a specific territory; sometimes several Orthodox Churches exist on the same territory.

However, the domination of Ukraine by Russia and by the Russian Orthodox Church, and the dominant role of the Russian Church in the Orthodox world meant that autocephalous, independent Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, whether on the territory of Ukraine or abroad, were often rejected by other Orthodox Churches. Over the years, this lack of acceptance often left Ukrainian Orthodox on the fringe, fueling distress in some, fiery independence in others.

Among Ukrainian Orthodox faithful in America, the decision by the UOC-U.S.A. hierarchs to accept the omophorion of Constantinople provoked severely different reactions.

There are those who feel this decision was a long overdue, essential for the future survival of the Orthodox Church in America, that the hierarchs were correct. Another group feels that this was a tactically necessary decision, only insofar as it helps the Church in Ukraine. Still others feel that while world leaders in economics and politics have decided to reinforce an independent Ukraine, the time has come for religious leaders, including the ecumenical patriarch, to do the same.

Some don't want to doubt the wisdom of the hierarchs and Metropolitan Council, yet are unsure about the implications of this decision. And yet another group definitely doubts the wisdom of their hierarchs and council and feels that the decision to accept the omophorion was incorrect. Their descriptions of the decision vary from "arrogant," "short-sighted," "unwise" and "a colossal blunder," to "immoral" and "treasonous."

In fact, citing "zrada" (betrayal) four parishes have already left the UOC-U.S.A. to join the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate. There was speculation prior to the Sobor that if certain changes to the UOC-U.S.A. Constitution proposed by the hierarchs were implemented, then several more parishes would leave.

In turn, some delegates stop just short of accusing the Kyiv Patriarchate of stealing American parishes, and insist that Patriarch Filaret should be more concerned with bringing parishes in Ukraine into his fold, rather than focusing on the "easy pickings" of U.S. parishes and sowing divisiveness among the Church in America.

A great deal of the confusion surrounds the word "omophorion" and the privileges and obligations that this relationship implies. In the Points of Agreement, the document offered by the hierarchs at the 14th Sobor in the autumn of 1995 as the basis on which Church hierarchs assert the relationship between the UOC-U.S.A. and Constantinople, the first point states: "The Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A., upon accepting the canonical authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, will continue to maintain its present distinct internal structure and organization and shall be considered an ecclesiastical entity directly under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate."

During both the 14th and 15th Sobors, delegates heard, and in turn offered, various interpretations of "omophorion": spiritual authority, jurisdiction, submission, recognition, protection, Eucharistic unity, loyalty.

"Omophorion means protection, not submission," according to Dr. Anatole Lysyj of Minneapolis, a member of the Church's Metropolitan Council, and one of the Church's representatives who traveled with the delegation to meet with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in Istanbul. "It is a Eucharistic unity, not a financial or administrative one. ... We were invited by the ecumenical patriarch to accept his omophor. ... Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew promised to work towards recognition of independent Orthodox Church in Ukraine. ... Archbishop Antony traveled to Patriarchs Volodymyr and Dymytryi [in Ukraine] and to bishops in Europe, and they all agreed. The 14th Sobor accepted the Points of Agreement between our Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate."

"We did this to help the Church in Ukraine. ... Our goal still is to have a recognized Autocephalous Church in Ukraine. ... And though we [the Church in America] were always canonical, we were not recognized by world Orthodoxy. Now we are both," he explained.

This recognition, according to the Rev. William Diakiw, vice-president of the UOC-U.S.A. Consistory, will help bring awareness to the situation of the Church in Ukraine by allowing Ukrainian Orthodox hierarchs from America to legitimately participate in larger Orthodox conclaves, citing the recent participation of Archbishop Antony of the UOC-U.S.A. in such a meeting, which allowed him to present the situation of the Church in Ukraine to a sympathetic audience. As well, this recognition is essential for the future of the Church in America, "where we must minister to our children and grandchildren. ... The omophor of the ecumenical patriarch allows us opportunities to both assist Ukraine, opportunities that we did not have before, as well as care for our Church here."

Victor Rud, a delegate from Clifton, N.J., had a different view. "This is not an issue of recognition, but of submission. Our Church in the United States was transformed overnight from being an integral part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to being an integral part, a diocese, of the Church of Constantinople. Even the bishops concede this. And when I posed the question at the Sobor and the meeting of the Inter-Church Relations committee 'what exactly is it that Bartholomew committed to and where is the evidence of this?' not a single person was to provide an answer to such a basic question," he said. "The UOC-U.S.A. was established as a metropolia of the one holy Autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church. It was our Church in exile. ... Instead of speaking of a united Ukrainian Orthodox Church worldwide, it's being torn apart. ... Patriarch Mstyslav is being portrayed by the hierarchs as the patriarch only for Ukraine, and not as he really was, the patriarch of all Orthodox Ukrainians," he added.

"Every country has its own independent Church, its own patriarch, except Ukrainians. How much longer should this go on?" asked Roman Bodnar of Rochester, N.Y. "Let's say we have Eucharistic unity, not financial or administrative - ultimately our Eucharistic unity should be with Kyiv. What we have is not acceptable. For their patriarchs, some Ukrainians accept Moscow, some Rome, some Constantinople, some Kyiv, some nobody - what is this? We're entering the 21st century."

John Kosogof, a delegate from Silver Spring, Md., has doubts that the hierarchs in America even represent the Ukrainian Orthodox Church anymore or that the procedure of acceptance was valid: "They willingly became bishops of Constantinople in March 1995, before getting the approval of the Sobor. In fact, they left our Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Our Constitution says we are "sobornopravni" - ruled by the Sobor. You can't do something like this, accept a foreign patriarch on behalf of the Church, and then present it basically as a done deal. This type of decision requires discussion by the Sobor before - and not after - the fact. ... According to the minutes of the 14th Sobor, there is no direct evidence of a vote by the Sobor approving a motion to accept the omophorion of the ecumenical patriarch, only support for a resolution offered by the Metropolitan Council as a counter offer to the ecumenical patriarch's offer. That's not 'acceptance' of an offer."

"Don't pay attention to the noise in the background," said Vera Schulechko of San Francisco, Calif., "Ukrainians worldwide comprise the largest group of Orthodox. More than 75 percent of the Russian Orthodox parishes are in Ukraine. The end result is that the single largest Orthodox jurisdiction in the world, the Ukrainians, is being dismembered precisely at a time and under circumstances when it shoud have coalesced. Now we're divided in Ukraine, and divided in the diaspora."

Discussion, meditation, motions

While a number of delegates had clear points of view in direct conflict with those of other delegates, many simply had questions. The doubt and confusion added to the tension of the first days.

Even during the first few minutes of the Sobor, tension was heightened. Bishop Vsevolod, formerly the hierarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America, a Church that had always been under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, was being elevated to archbishop of the UOC-U.S.A. In front of all the delegates, the new archbishop verbally confronted a priest; for what reason was unclear to witnesses. This incident unsettled many delegates from the start. However, after the first few intense hours and throughout the duration of the Sobor, tension was dissipated by a combination of discussion, postponement of decisions, meditation and acceptance by the Sobor of several motions.

Changes in the Sobor agenda allowed for numerous plenary discussions and several workshops during the five days. In addition, at the recommendation of the committee in charge of the Constitution, the main agenda item, discussion of changes to the Church Constitution, many of which were contentious, was postponed until the next Sobor.

Three major motions were passed by the Sobor:

to contact the ecumenical patriarch with a request for written clarification of the relationship between Constantinople and the UOC-U.S.A., including commitment to an Autocephalous Church in Ukraine as the Mother Church for all Orthodox Ukrainians;
to continue discussions with both Patriarchs Filaret and Dymytryi about Church unity in Ukraine; and,
to confirm that only the ecumenical patriarch can grant autocephaly to a Church in Ukraine and that the Church in the U.S. will never belong to any Church controlled or influenced by Moscow.

[In accordance with the second motion, hierarchs of the UOC-U.S.A. met with Patriarch Filaret on October 23, shortly after his arrival in New York. The patriarch is traveling throughout several cities in the U.S. for several weeks at the invitation of his parishes here.]

Both the Rev. Diakiw and Dr. Lysyj confirmed that Metropolitan Constantine stated during the proceedings that if there is an independent, united Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Ukraine, one that is not controlled by Moscow, then the UOC-U.S.A. will go under the omophorion of the patriarch in Kyiv, one that is recognized by the ecumenical patriarch. This position was reassuring to many delegates.

Besides the open discussion and the postponement of the contentious changes to the Constitution, the Rev. Diakiw, Dr. Lysyj and the Rev. Nakonachny all noted that this Sobor was unique in its program of spiritual development.

"There is no doubt that this is the most spiritual Sobor that I have ever attended," said the Rev. Diakiw, "This Sobor included a different approach than before. It included many liturgies, prayers and meditations. The vast majority of the participants were spiritually elated, and this was reflected in the proceedings of the Sobor."

"We should remember always," said Mrs. Makohon, "that we are first and foremost under the omophor of the Blessed Mother, Protectress of the Ukrainian Church and the Ukrainian people. We can never really depend on help from north, or south, or east, or west, but only on the protection of our Mother from above."

| Home Page |