Dearest in Christ,
As those of you who have read any of my messages will know, I am not good at condensing my thoughts. I therefore ask your patience, as I try to share my perspective on some of the points raised above, including some of the specific details given by Subdeacon Borislav.
1. Concelebration
Although my memory is that in the original agreement between the hierarchy of the UOC-USA and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the US hiearchs did promise not to concelebrate with any Ukrainian church claiming to be autocephalous, that provision fell, at least in practice, "into oblivion" very quickly.
In 2002, Archbishop Antony officially confirmed that "the UOC-U.S.A. clergy are allowed to concelebrate liturgy with the clergy of any Orthodox Church in Ukraine" (
http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/2002/520208.shtml ), and when I first met Bishop (then Priest) Daniel in 2006, he told me very clearly that in Ukraine he would never celebrate with anyone from the UOC-MP, but only with the UOC-KP and UAOC clergy.
I personally have concelebrated with UOC-USA clergy at four UOC-USA churches in two states, and I know that in at least three of those instances this was cleared in advance by the bishop or dean. Clergy from the UOC-USA do concelebrate with UOC-KP clergy in Ukraine, and in the US.
Therefore, while it is true that there is no formal communion between the UOC-USA and the UOC-KP, I do not believe it is correct to write that it is a "fact that none of our [UOC-USA] clergy are allowed concelebrate with KP".
2. Election of Hieararchs
Metropolitan Filaret (1991)
After Ukraine regained independence in 1991, a national Sobor of the UOC (the newly renamed ROC archdiocese in Ukraine) was held over three days in November 1991. This Sobor had been called five months in advance, in accordance with all rules of the UOC constitution, and was attended by all UOC bishops, clergy and lay delegates of every diocese, and representatives of all monasteries, seminaries, and recognized lay brotherhoods. The Sobor was televised so that a record exists. In addition to unanimously passing a resolution stating that going forward the UOC would operate as an autocephalous church, the Sobor also affirmed the church's desire to be led by Metropolitan Filaret.
Metropolitan Vladimir (1992)
The UOC Synod communicated this decision to the ROC Synod, asking that it give its final blessing on this legal decision, and also called upon the UAOC to unite with the UOC. The ROC Synod ignored the resolution of the UOC Sobor for some time, and then in 1992, took two actions, the first being secretly organizing a "Synod" in the border city of Kharkiv at which, behind closed doors, a number of bishops of the UOC recanted their votes and elected Bishop Vladimir (the ROC representative in Ukraine, and therefore not even a UOC bishop) as Metroplitan of Kyiv.
Patriarch Filaret (1995)
In 1992 a Unification Sobor was held between the UAOC and that portion of the UOC which remained loyal to Metropolitan Philaret. Most bishops in the UOC did not attend (although more than "two" did), and a portion of the UAOC delegates refused to participate, most citing their unwillingness to work with Metropolitan Filaret and other bishops from the Soviet Era. Those delegates that did attend formed the UOC-KP under Patriarch Mystyslav, who formally accepted this structure under his protection. Hence, from this time there were three churches, the UAOC (which subsequently split into three entities), the UOC(MP) (the church with the most buildings), and the UOC-KP (the church with greatest popular support).
Upon the repose of Patriarch Mystyslav in 1993, the Sobor elected Volodymyr (Romaniuk) as the second Patriarch of Kyiv (Archbishop Antony of the UOC-USA was also a candidate), and in 1995, after the death of the second Patriarch of Kyiv, Volodymyr, Metropolitan Filaret was elected Patriarch by a vote of 160 to 5.
However one may feel about Patriarch Filaret or Metropolitan Vladimir, those representing the majority of Orthodox in Ukraine twice elected Patriarch Filaret in open free elections.
3. "Swearing on Gospel and Cross"
This, one of the most oft-repeated accusations, has been denied by both Patriarch Filaret and Bishop Yakiw, who was also present on April 2 1992 Synod meeting, and has never once been confirmed by anyone actually at that meeting. This story has, at the very least, evolved over time:
The minutes of the April 2, 1992 ROC Synod themselves state that the Holy Synod had resolved that: “The Council of Bishops took into account the statement of the Most Reverend Filaret, Metropolitan of Kyiv and of All-Ukraine, that for the sake of church peace, at the next Council of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, he will submit a request to be relieved from the position of the Primate of the UOC. Understanding of the position of Metropolitan Filaret, the Council of Bishops expressed to him its gratitude for the long period of labor as Archbishop of the See of Kyiv and blessed him to serve as Archbishop at another cathedral of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.”
Then, a month later, after the Kyiv Synod had rejected Metropolitan Philaret's resignation and re-affirmed him has legitimate Primate of the UOC, the minutes of the meeting of the Full Synod of the ROC of May 7, 1992 indicate that a report was received stating that: “Metropolitan Filaret agreed with the criticism addressed to him and, before the Cross and the Holy Gospel, gave his word as a bishop, that he would convene in Kyiv the Council of Bishops of the UOC, at which he will submit a petition of his retirement from the position of the Primate.” This was the first time that there was any mention of "swearing" "before the Cross and the Holy Gospel". Who provided this report is not indicated, nor, as I note above, has anyone actually present ever come forward to either support or deny this statement.
4. Two General Thoughts
This opinion expressed by Fr. Ihor Kutash of the UOCC in 2006 seems to accurately reflect the attitude that I personally have most often encountered among Ukrainian Orthodox Faithful in the United States:
"I should also note, particularly with regard to the Ukrainian Orthodox communions, that all is not quite as it seems. As regards canonicity we are in communion with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOCMP) which is in the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow, but we are much more in sympathy with the other two branches of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - the Kyivan Patriarchate (UOCKP) and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) which although as yet separate from each other, nonetheless hold a view common to ours, i.e. that the Church of Ukraine ought to be one, in communion with world Orthodoxy and headed by its own canonically elected Patriarch rather than dependent upon the Patriarch of another Orthodox Church. We find it particularly tragic that the Church of Ukraine should be dependent upon Moscow which has pursued or supported a policy of subjugation and assimilation quite in keeping with the politics of colonialism and imperialism but not in the interests of the people of Ukraine." (
http://www.ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/questions/2006/jurisdiction.htm )
For the benefit of those who like numbers, the most recent independent survey of the Ukrainian population, one conducted in June and July of 2007 by the Ukrainian Sociological Service, Ukrainians identified their own church affiliation as follows:
UOC-KP 32.4%
Non-religious 23.0%
UOC-MP 20.9%
Greek Catholic 10.3%
Believer, but no affiliation 9.7%
"Other" 1.8%
UAOC 0.8%
Roman Catholic 0.6%
Protestants 0.2%
Jewish 0.1%
Muslim 0.0% (less than 0.1%)
5. "Poaching"
There are many Ukrainian Orthodox in the United States, especially those who devoted their lives to keeping alive the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in the Diaspora, who feel that the UOC-USA should have remained under Kyiv, or at least stood back while calling for the unity of the UAOC and UOC-KP, rather than taking the step that Patriarch Mystyslav always rejected, renouncing autocephaly and submitting to Constantinople, Moscow, or Syosset. The majority of Faithful in Clifton are among these, and have resisted attempts by the UOC-USA to gain control of their church. I do not see how anyone was "tricked" or "poached", and it was Bound Brook, not Kyiv or Clifton, that filed suits in civil courts.
6. Plea to Subdeacon Borislav
I see that you are from west Ukraine; my father is from Volyn (the cathedral in Lutsk was among the first to join the UOC-KP), and my mother from L'viv, so some of our relatives may be neighbors.
My brother in Christ, you make a number of other accusations, most of which I read for the first time. Unlike some of your other statements, such as those I comment on above, I am not certain how much weight to give these. Like all who became bishops in the Soviet Union, Patriarch Filaret has a history, but the Orthodox Faithful, the Holy Synod, and the Sobors of the UOC-KP, who represent the majority of our Orthodox brothers and sisters in Ukraine, have by now had ample chance to weigh every accusation; that is enough for me.
We may disagree about some things, but I strongly believe that the overwhelming majority of the Faithful in the UOC-USA, UOC-KP, UAOC, and UOC-MP (and UGCC!) are good Christians, each trying to decide what is best based on the limited perspective each of us has. It is possible that what is best in Boston or Bound Brook may not be best for Clifton, or Tokyo, or Lutsk, or Kyiv. As we all do pray for the unity of our church, let us try to be respectful and civil, so that, if God in His mercy heals this schism while we both are yet alive on this Earth, we can go forward from there, rather than revive old wounds.
Again, I apologize for my inability to write things briefly.
Yours in Christ,
(Rev.) Paul Koroluk,
St. Jude Ukrainian Orthodox Mission, Tokyo
http://www.stjude.jp
