COMMENTARY: About the commentary on recognition and union with the patriarch of Constantinople (03/22/98)

COMMENTARY

About the commentary on recognition
and union with the patriarch of Constantinople

by the Rev. John R. Nakonachny

As always, it is with great interest that I read all articles published in The Weekly pertaining to current church matters. I thank the staff of The Weekly for printing all sides of the issue and hope that this will stimulate an increase in subscriptions to make up for all the headaches that you no doubt have to endure regarding this very sensitive topic.

There have been a number of letters to The Weekly written in response to my original letter from February 1. There is only so much that can be answered to every letter. However, allow me to give a rebuttal to only a few of the points that have appeared, not in legalistic language, but in the words of a simple priest.

Repeatedly we read that, since the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. was recognized by Constantinople, our clergy can only serve with clergy of the pro-Moscow Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Ukraine. This is simply and absolutely not true. I have visited Ukraine five times and on each and every visit I have served in either a Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church or in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate. I also take financial assistance to, and speak to, the seminarians of these Churches and jokingly ask them, "Can you see any difference in me from my last visit? Body size doesn't count." I proceed to inform them that, during my last visit, I was considered "uncanonical" by others - today, I'm "canonical." "Be strong," I tell them. "That same recognition of an autocephalous Church will come to Ukraine. It took us, in America, over 70 years to gain that recognition. God willing, for you it will come more quickly."

As for comments that priests from the autocephalous Church in Ukraine are not able to serve or pray in our Church, again, that is not true. Last Easter, quite unexpectedly, Father Viacheslav Dubliansky, a priest of the UAOC from the Khmelnyskyi Oblast of Ukraine, visited friends in Parma. During that visit, he served with me for four weeks, delivering sermons and drawing smiles from parishioners every time he greeted them with "Christ is Risen!" in English. The only Sunday on which he did not serve with me was when he traveled to South Bound Brook, N.J., to participate at the St. Thomas Sunday services at our Church center.

If this is not enough proof that we continue to have a close relationship with clergy from Ukraine, then ask the parishioners of over 10 parishes in our diocese in the U.S. whose pastors are either from the UAOC or UOC-KP No priest in our Church has ever transferred from the pro-Moscow Ukrainian Orthodox Church and, to my knowledge, no priest from the United States has ever served in a pro-Moscow church in Ukraine. Because of our moral and financial assistance to the autocephalous Church in Ukraine, in the eyes of the pro-Moscow Ukrainian Orthodox Church, we are still uncanonical, so they would never allow concelebration.

As for the suspension of priests in the U.S. for serving with clergy from Ukraine, your readers have been given only a partial picture. Your readers were not told that a priest or parish cannot institute its own external church policies. There is something called "church order" and "discipline." When a priest accepts another priest into his parish, as an assistant, without proper assignment from the Consistory and bishop, this goes against "church order" and cannot be tolerated.

When a priest or parish allows a bishop who is not Ukrainian, who speaks little or no Ukrainian, and has never had anything to do with Ukrainians, but who suddenly claims allegiance to the UOC-KP to serve in our churches in the United States with the possible intention of taking parishes and clergy from our diocese to his, there must be some consequences. This is strictly forbidden by Orthodox canon law and no Church would tolerate this conduct. Unfortunately, your readers have been made aware of only part of the story; namely, that clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. were suspended for serving with clergy from Ukraine. If such were simply the case, I would have been suspended years ago for the many times that I have concelebrated with clergy from Ukraine.

In his letter of February 22, Wasyl Kosohor writes that there is "currently a legitimate heir to the Patriarchate created by the union of the UOC-U.S.A. with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the first Ukrainian Orthodox patriarch, Mstyslav I." And Mr. Kosohor claims that I am disseminating misinformation! At what Sobor of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. did the delegates vote to unite with Ukraine? It never happened! It was never discussed! Metropolitan Mstyslav was elected Patriarch of Ukraine - in Ukraine - for Ukraine. When asked at a meeting of the Metropolitan Council, following his election as patriarch, when we would be electing a new metropolitan to replace him, the late Patriarch Mstyslav himself stated that he was Patriarch of Ukraine and that he would continue to serve as the metropolitan of the Church in the U.S.A. Several years later, as his health began to fail, he agreed at a Sobor to proclaim Archbishop Constantine as metropolitan.

Unfortunately, in June 1992, before Patriarch Mstyslav's death, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church in Ukraine divided into two branches: the UAOC and UOC-KP. Patriarch Mstyslav was torn between the two, and both sides claimed to have had his full support. At his funeral in South Bound Brook, two bishops from Ukraine attended - one from each branch, Archbishop Petro from the UAOC and Archbishop Roman from the UOC-KP - each side claiming to be heir-apparent to the late patriarch. Archbishop Petro brought a priest from Ukraine with him to the funeral and requested that our hierarchs consecrate this priest in South Bound Brook as proof, upon his return to Ukraine, that his Church, the UAOC - and not the UOC-KP - was the rightful successor to Patriarch Mstyslav. Our hierarchs and the Metropolitan Council turned down this request. Archbishop Petro then asked if he and an unnamed bishop could use the Memorial Church themselves to consecrate the priest and this too was rejected.

Subsequently, in September and October of 1993, two patriarchs, Dimitri and Volodymyr, were elected to head their respective Churches. On this issue, our Church has taken a position of neutrality, hoping and praying for the union of the two Churches.

I found the statement about the "de-nationalization of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. (or Americanization of the UOC-U.S.A.)" to be quite intersting. "We have no doubt whatsoever that this program is in place and is being implemented on various fronts," wrote Mr. Kosohor.

Although the English language has been used in our church services for 50 years, it seems that now, more than ever, some individuals have selected the issue of language to sow dissension among the faithful. For example, the following headline appeared in a Ukrainian newspaper: "Following death of Patriarch Mstyslav, American hierarchs accelerate use of English language in church services." Indeed, we do use English in our services and, most likely, will use more of it in the next century. Why? Quite simply, because we need to communicate with the faithful in a language that they understand or else they will look elsewhere. This necessity has come about mainly as a result of mixed marriages. Nine out of 10 marriages in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church are to non-Ukrainian partners and the one in 10 who are both Ukrainian are primarily recent arrivals from Ukraine. English is the language of communication for the vast majority of our youth, by their choice. In order to continue to exist, in order to teach the faith to the faithful - in order to survive - we must use the language that is most comprehensible and comfortable to them.

Unfortunately, we are a very stubborn lot at times and fail or choose not to understand this.

A few years ago, St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Church in Parma had an open house for the local clergy. While visiting, I asked a woman what language was used in their church. With a very heavy Egyptian accent, she replied, "Coptic-Egyptian and, for our young people, English." This parish is only 10 years old and its people have come to the full realization that, if they want to keep their young people, they must teach them in the language that they understand.

By comparison, at a recent parish meeting, one of our churches voted against having a second liturgy in English to meet the needs of parishioners who did not understand Ukrainian. The people who voted against having the English liturgy would never have attended it, anyway. They stated simply that they did not want English used in "their church building."

It has been my pastoral experience that these same people the "leaders" who are so vocal at church meetings, whose attitudes and demeanor discourage so many potential future leaders from wanting to become involved in their parishes and the Ukrainian community - go home to their non-Ukrainian sons- and daughters-in-law and grandchildren and speak to them only in English. To be sure, these are the people who fill our churches on Christmas and Easter, when they go to "baba and dido's church" but are not seen any more after their grandmother and grandfather pass away.

As a teacher of religion in our Saturday Ukrainian School, I have learned that, although many of the children can speak conversational Ukrainian, they understand almost nothing in the liturgy, Gospel and the Ukrainian sermons. The language used in Church is beyond their comprehension. We are not feeding the souls of our youth and, when they become spiritually hungry, they will go elsewhere - or nowhere.

For those who are concerned about the possibility of having one American Orthodox Church, don't worry. With the loss of our children and grandchildren due to a lack of comprehension and education, I don't think that is a decision many of our parishes will have to face.

As a member of the Consistory, I would like to lay to rest the fears of those who are concerned about the workers of the Consistory or seminary speaking in English. Almost all of the employees at the Consistory are bilingual. Certainly, no Ukrainian-speaking person who goes there will ever have a problem finding someone with whom to communicate. However, there are a few who do not speak Ukrainian. Is that so tragic? I know many non-Ukrainian-speaking individuals who love and serve the Church and Ukrainian causes with more sincerity and depth than those individuals who are fluent in Ukrainian. We should be grateful for them and to them that, in spite of verbal abuse that is often heaped on them for not speaking Ukrainian, they continue to serve our Church and our community.

Personally, I did not learn Ukrainian until I went to St. Andrew's College in Winnipeg in the 1960s and I remember my Ukrainian teacher telling me that "if you have a Ukrainian heart, but don't speak the language, you are still Ukrainian." He added, "there are many Ukrainians who speak the language but don't have a Ukrainian heart." Some of us still remember the contribution of a dedicated Ukrainian who served as president of our leading national organization and had only limited knowledge of Ukrainian.

I find people in Ukraine to be much more tolerant on this subject than we are in the United States. In May 1992 I was in Kyiv when Patriarch (then Metropolitan) Filaret broke from Moscow. A special meeting was called in his defense, which was then broadcast on the radio. I remember listening to numerous speakers, speaking Russian, defending the creation of a canonical Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church and an independent Ukraine. No one booed the speakers. No one questioned their right to make their statements because they spoke Russian. Rather they were applauded for supporting the cause. It is time that we became more tolerant of a situation that we have little control over, or suffer the consequeces which, ultimately, will be non-existence.

Much has been written about events that go back centuries, with Constantinople and Rome, Poland and Russia. We know our sad history. We know what Ukraine's neighbors have done. How does it serve the present-day government of Ukraine to keep reminding those governing what Ukraine's neighbors have done in the past; what happened 400 years ago? It serves no purpose.

We read about Protocol No. 937 between Moscow and Constantinople. Whatever one chooses to make of it, it has had no effect on our Church's external policies. Otherwise, we would not be collecting money for seminaries and seminarians, bells, books, etc. for the UOC-KP. It obviously had no effect on the fact that Bishop Paisij, of blessed memory, traveled to Kyiv to represent our Church at Patriarch Volodymyr's funeral only a few months after the agreement with Constantinople. I remember him telling me how he and then-Metropolitan Filaret sat together waiting for the grave to be dug on the sidewalk of St. Sophia's Cathedral, while tear gas was being sprayed at them. He also escaped injury when the special forces attacked the crowd. His miter, which served him as a helmet, was damaged by a club-swinging soldier.

One week following the Sobor in 1995, Dr. Anatolyj Lysyj and I, at the request of our bishops, attended the Sobor of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarch in Kyiv. (Oops! Our bishops must once again have forgotten about, or ignored, Protocol No. 937). At that Sobor, I greeted the delegates on behalf of our Church and, following the enthronement of Patriarch Filaret, had a meeting with him at which he expressed his joy at our recognition by Constantinople. Why? Patriarch Filaret told me that in 1942 Moscow excommunicated the Ukrainian Orthodox bishops who had been consecrated through the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Poland, among them Patriarch Mstyslav - the consecrator of our present-day bishops. Our recognition by Constantinople was a clear sign to Moscow that they did not recognize that excommunication. With this recognition, Patriarch Filaret felt that there is hope also that all bishops of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, excommunicated by Moscow in the 1990s, will someday be recognized.

Regarding our recognition, our bishops have denied any secret agreements with Constantinople. I certainly put more faith in the statements of our bishops than of individuals, many of whom are not members of our Church, who for decades opposed Metropolitan Mstyslav and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A. and today declare themselves to be such strong supporters of the late patriarch.

Our Church openly and vehemently opposed the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew to Odesa and the statements he made, which certainly were not in the best interest of Ukraine. No one is going to argue that point. However, it is in the best interest of both our Church in the U.S.A. and Ukraine to continue in a canonical relationship with other Orthodox Churches, to give us a forum to speak in support of an Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

It was recently reported in Svoboda that Patriarch Aleksei of Moscow met with representatives from the Vatican and that the matter of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in Ukraine was discussed, without any representation from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. I am sure that there is a protocol number to that meeting. Should the Ukrainian Catholic faithful now begin writing letters to The Weekly, urging Ukrainian Catholics to leave Rome? I wonder, will their bishops and priests be called traitors if they choose to remain loyal to the Vatican?

Finally, of all the letters written on this subject, the most bizarre statements came from Victor Rud's commentary in the March 8 issue of The Weekly. So many words and so little substance! I will comment on only two points.

How shameful (and uninformed) that Mr. Rud writes that the Society of St. Andrew - not the Consistory in South Bound Brook - is collecting money for the bells for St. Michael Cathedral in Kyiv. The Society of St. Andrew has done a tremendous job supporting soup kitchens for the elderly, as well as collecting funds for seminarians of the UOC-KP and is now raising funds for the bells. I strongly urge all readers to support this organization.

In writing about the society, Mr. Rud fails to inform his readers that this organization has become a church-affiliated organization. Like the United Ukrainian Orthodox Sisterhoods and the Ukrainian Orthodox League (UOL), the Society of St. Andrew sends a representative to the Metropolitan Council meetings and will have a representative at the upcoming Sobor. As with other church-affiliated organizations, the metropolitan has assigned a priest to serve as spiritual advisor to the society. How distasteful for Mr. Rud to write that Bound Brook, the center of his Church, "has put in place a mechanism for capitalizing on parishioners' donations." He tries to divide people by using the concept of "them" and "we" when, in fact, "we" are all one.

When one of my parish organizations donates to a seminary in Ukraine, the donation goes through the parish board of trustees so that, within our parish, the proper records of charitable donations may be kept and so that credit is given to the organization making the donation. The board, in turn, sends the money to the Consistory again for proper record-keeping and the Consistory sends the donation to the Society of St. Andrew, which forwards it to Ukraine to the seminary designated by the donating organization. The seminary in Ukraine then acknowledges the parish's donation directly. This system works wonderfully because there is trust and because we are all working in harmony for the glory of God and His Church.

In 1992, the Ukrainian Orthodox League undertook a major campaign to raise funds for the purchase of medicine for hospitals in Kyiv, Kharkiv and Lviv. Two million dollars worth of medical supplies were shipped to Ukraine. At the request of the Church hierarchs, I traveled with three doctors and members of the Ukrainian Orthodox League to represent the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. when the shipment was transported and delivered. Never did anyone say that the Church was '"capitalizing" on a UOL project. Why not? Because the Ukrainian Orthodox League is - and knows that it is - a vital part of the Church and its purpose is to work for the good of the Church in harmony and with trust in its leadership.

It is only a small number of individuals who are always trying to disrupt the normal order and, although they often use the term "democracy" they cannot accept the fact that their positions - ideas, insinuations and, yes, lies - are often rejected by the organization or parishioners in a truly democratic manner, namely, with a vote. Such instigators then proceed to work against the majority - taking it, I think, as a personal rejection, rather than the rejection of a single idea. This only reaffirms my belief that we, indeed, assist our enemies in weakening us.

This leads to my final comment and an issue that is never mentioned in any article that is written against the Church's agreement with Constantinople. We have read of so-called "secret documents" - agreements made by the bishops and ratified by the Metropolitan Council. But we never read about the decision of the Church Sobor regarding this issue.

In the summer of 1995, a group of individuals began a campaign to nullify and void the agreement with Constantinople at the upcoming Sobor in October of 1995. The individuals sent letters to all parish boards in an attempt to enrage the faithful. For example, in one such letter, they made statements that said that our bishops could be instructed to "travel to Moscow to kiss the Moscow patriarch" and that the property of our parishes "could become the property of the Greek Orthodox Church and even Moscow." The absurdity continues in a statement that "Greek bishops will be sent to chair our Sobors; to approve all resolutions." Supposedly intelligent Ukrainians, living in America, were putting out these lies, all for the purpose of destroying the canonical recognition of our Church.

When anyone replied to these hateful letters - including our parish in Chester, Pa. - the respondents were denounced as being puppets of the bishops and it was suggested that, most likely, the bishops had written the letter for them. I guess that those individuals who wrote the hateful letters felt they were the only ones who were in possession of the truth and that no one else was capable of thinking for themselves. Those who opposed unity with Constantinople then proceeded to organize a meeting in Clifton, N.J., for those of the same mind - to prepare for the Sobor, with a resolution to withdraw from unity with Constantinople.

On August 24, 1995, I wrote to that committee, asking them to stop their destructive work and to withdraw their resolution. Shortly after I sent my letter, I received a phone call from Mr. Rud. Like his letter and, I suppose, mine, it was a lengthy conversation. Among other things, I reminded him that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada had accepted the same recognition in 1989 and that nothing in their Church had changed. They were still as much Ukrainian as ever and had lost none of their autonomy. Needless to say, we did not change each other's minds, and I ended by saying that we would just have to let the Sobor decide. Neither Mr. Rud, nor anyone else who has written to The Weekly, has ever mentioned that Sobor. Why not?

For your readers' information, a Sobor is defined in the Church Constitution, Article 5, as follows: "The supreme organ of government of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States of America shall be its Church Sobor that shall convene every third year and upon an emergency (an extraordinary Sobor) for the following purposes:

a) To safeguard the purity of the Faith, Traditions and the canonical Church Order;

b) To promote and develop the life of the Church and the religious life;

c) To have care of the affairs pertaining to administration and to religious education, and of the financial needs of the Church;

d) To pass, final decisions on cases of a judiciary nature."

According to the Constitution, the 14th Sobor of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. was convened in the Church Center in South Bound Brook, N.J., on October 11-15, 1995. As written in the November 1995 issue of the Ukrainian Orthodox Word, almost 200 delegates and 100 guests, representing over 90 percent of eligible parishes, participated - "eligible" meaning that the parish had fulfilled all financial obligations to the diocese. Normally, the pastor and two lay delegates, elected from their respective parishes represent each parish.

The issue of the agreement with Constantinople was fresh in the minds of many - and because there were many questions that the delegates wanted answered - the discussion took up a great deal of time and stirred the emotions of some delegates. As co-chairman of the sessions, I recall many speakers lining up at the microphone for recognition and a chance to air their thoughts and questions. When I had to tell them that their allotted time was up, some went back to the end of the line to get another chance to complete their discussion on the topic. Although the sessions were lengthy, they were, orderly, and we were able to adhere to proper protocol for running meetings.

When a vote was finally called for, the following resolution was almost unanimously approved; approximately 25 delegates opposed it. As printed in the November 1995 issue of the Ukrainian Orthodox Word, page 12, the resolution reads:

"The 14th Sobor of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A., wholeheartedly accepts the resolution of the Metropolitan Council to bring the entire Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the Diaspora under the omophorion of His All Holiness Bartholomaios 1, Ecumenical Patriarch, while retaining our existing constitutional integrity and administrative independence. We believe, along with our brethren in Ukraine, that the unity of our Church in Ukraine is attainable with the participation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the Mother Church of our Kyivan Holy Ukrainian Orthodox Church and that the recognition of our Church in Ukraine can be granted and received only from the Mother Church. The Sobor accepts the Points of Agreement between our Hierarchs and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of December 6, 1994, jointly with the explanation provided by the Metropolitan Council on August 26, 1995."

How did the small minority of delegates handle the defeating vote? Together with certain individuals who never belonged to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A., they are now publishing magazines with slanderous lies and writing letters to editors.

With no documentation to back up their statements, they claim that important information was withheld from the delegates and that, had this "important information" been revealed, the vote would have been different. These very same people who always speak of "buried sobornopravnist" (the will of the Sobor) refuse to recognize the true will of the Sobor, as evidenced by a democratic vote.

Does Mr. Rud consider his fellow Ukrainian Orthodox Christians, who exercised their "right of sobornopravnist" as the "raby" (serfs) of our Church simply because they voted against the minority opinion and chose to follow the Church leaders? He and people of like mind make claim to our center in South Bound Brook. The same people who built our Church Center in South Bound Brook indicated, through their vote at the Sobor, the direction that our Church should be taking into the next millennium. Let us stop destroying ourselves and, yes, assisting the enemy. Let us give up our sad tradition of "makhnovschyna" "otamanschyna" "sam sobi pan."

Your readers may ask, three years after recognition of our Church by Constantinople, when none of the major changes (disasters) that were predicted are occurring, why is this issue again being stirred up? The answer is really very simple: another Sobor is scheduled to be held in October. The same individuals who were unsuccessful at the last Sobor are trying once again, with the aid of lawyers who masterfully manipulate the facts and print outright lies, to frighten and confuse the faithful to achieve their goal. Their definition of "sobornopravnist" is actually "the will of the Sobor only when it goes the way I want it to."

This truly serves Moscow's dreams of destroying the Ukrainian community in the United States and, with it, its support of the Ukrainian Church in Ukraine. I can see these articles in our papers going to St. Nicholas Russian Orthodox Cathedral in New York City which, in turn, faxes them to Moscow, where some confrontation with Patriarch Bartholomew will be planned before our Sobor, so that it can fuel the fire in our parishes in the United States.

I would not be surprised, also, if Moscow and the Vatican continue to discuss issues regarding the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, without the participation of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic bishops, in the hopes that this also will develop into turmoil in that Church. With the weakened Ukrainian Orthodox and Ukrainian Greek- Catholic Churches and the possible election of more Communist and pro-Moscow deputies in the upcoming election in Ukraine, everything will be set for a tragic final scene. Are we not our own worst enemies? Why can't we work together and shake off that curse of "otamanschyna?"

But, for the sake of discussion, let us imagine that we vote to sever ties with Constantinople and we go back to our former isolation from all other Orthodox Churches. Would our problems be solved? No way! Those parishes that enjoyed a canonical relationship with their neighbors, especially the smaller, rural communities with fourth- and fifth-generation Ukrainians will, possibly, leave the diocese because they consider themselves more American than Ukrainian. "Fine, let them go! Now, we'll return to our Mother Church in Kyiv and have peace," some will exclaim! But wait just a minute: with which Church in Ukraine should we unite? The UOC-KP? The UAOC with a patriarch? Or the UAOC without a patriarch? One side says we must go with the UOC-KP - it's the largest and strongest. But then again, our parishes have priests and parishioners from the UAOC who absolutely will have nothing to do with UOC-KP because they don't support the UOC-KP patriarch and the UOC-KP does not use the word "autocephalous." The supporters of the UOC-KP remind the supporters of the UAOC that use of that word is redundant when you have a patriarch. "No way!" say the supporters of the UAOC. "Our bishops and faithful died in the 1920s for that word."

So a Sobor is called. The UOC-KP wins and the opposition leaves the diocese and writes letters to newspapers denouncing their opponents as traitors. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A. - now considerably smaller - rejoices that it is no longer under the jurisdiction of the "Greeks" but the Mother Church of Kyiv. The Church in the U.S., however, needs a bishop, so a Sobor is called for this purpose.

"Wait a minute," says Kyiv. "We are solely responsible for the appointment of your bishops. The Synod of bishops in Ukraine will elect a bishop for you, as is the Orthodox tradition here - not the priests and laity."

"But our Church Constitution gives us the right to govern our Church," cries America.

"The Mother Church doesn't recognize your Church Constitution and, by the way, control by the parish board must also be curtailed. The parish priests, with two or three laymen, will be in control. That's the ancient Ukrainian Orthodox way."

"But that's not the American way!"

"You left the American way years ago," replies Kyiv.

Now the small number of parishes in the United States contemplate what to do. Perhaps things weren't really all that bad in 1998, as some would have had us believe. The "Greeks" never interfered in our internal Church operations. We controlled our own destiny.

Then someone says, "Let's go back to the way it used to be."

"We can't," replies another. "We have no youth, we're old, and we don't even have anyone to write letters to The Ukrainian Weekly."

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear! "

The Rev. John R. Nakonachny is a member of the Consistory of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.