LETTER TO THE EDITOR (05/17/98)

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Rus responds to respondents

Dear Editor:

Space restrictions limit my response to critics of my March 8 commentary. The intolerance reflected in critics' reactions, also characterized the 1995 Sobor. In the August 24, 1995, letter that he mentions, the Rev. John Nakonachny expressed alarm over any dissent at the Sobor. Writing to two Clifton, N.J., parishes, he urged silence, arguing that Sobor approval "is a matter for debate" and that the deal had been finalized half a year earlier.

The issue for the Sobor was accordingly redefined as merely a benign "recognition" by Istanbul. And who should object to that? Furthermore, in its February 3, 1995, resolutions, the Metropolitan Council promised the faithful that a delegation, including a representative of Patriarch Bartholomew, would shortly depart for Ukraine to unite our Church, culminating with its recognition by Constantinople. It was on that very basis that our hierarchs sold the Points of Agreement at the Sobor. But how could that be if three months earlier Patriarch Bartholomew had flown to Moscow, declared the Kyivan Patriarchate as the "church of the devil" and received the highest award of the Moscow Patriarch, the Order of St. Andrew? Who knew about Protocol No. 937, and that our bishops had secretly committed not to support the "Ukrainian schismatics"? Who understood that, contrary to our bishops' delicate description of the relationship with Istanbul as "affiliation" or "spiritual protection," ours was now to be a foreign, non-Ukrainian Church based in Constantinople?

The two Clifton parishes tried to bring these matters to the attention of the faithful. Their mailings to other parishes were intercepted; on the eve of the Sobor the Consistory crudely undermined a meeting of the "opposition" at the Marriott Hotel in Bound Brook, N.J.; Archbishop Antony threatened one of their delegates on the very floor of the Sobor; and this most paramount of issues was buried in one of a multitude of "committees," without open debate on the floor.

The two Clifton parishes wrote: "We have been made to understand that if Constantinople now instructs our hierarchy to travel to Moscow and kiss the Moscow patriarch, it must." Now, the Rev. Nakonachny writes, "Absurd." But he did not then deny, nor does he now dispute, that our bishops handed to Patriarch Bartholomew the authority to do precisely that. The groundwork is being laid. Bound Brook identifies Russians as the ancestors of Ukrainians. The UOC center's bookstore puts the two most prominent apologists for the Russian Orthodox Church front and center. Russian priests are given voice. And Andrew Estocin writes in The Orthodox Word that we are to develop a "common vision" with the Moscow Patriarchate, which "cares for Ukrainian Orthodox Christians and contributes to Ukrainian Orthodox life."

Would the late Patriarch Mstyslav ever have done what our hierarchs did? When Istanbul's emissary came bearing gifts and enticing submission, Patriarch Mstyslav showed him the door. "We are not a deanery! We are a Church!" was his indignant answer. Would the name "Mstyslav" have ever appeared in Protocol No. 937? Since the Rev. Nakonachny tells us we are in the same position as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada - and since its hierarchs, enthralled by "recognition," refused to serve at the late patriarch's funeral because he was "uncanonical" - today the Rev. Nakonachny also wouldn't be able to so serve without dispensation from Istanbul. Is the UOC's commemoration of the 100th anniversary of Patriarch Mstyslav's birth only a sham to pacify the faithful?

Let's hear our hierarchs state unequivocally for the record that there is nothing in their agreements with Istanbul that prevents us from commemorating our Church in Kyiv, and then bring this into everyday reality in our services. Let's hear from our bishops that they are in eucharistic union with the bishops of our Church. Let's see a bishop from Bound Brook actually serve at a funeral in Kyiv, and not simply be "present" for a photo op. Let's see the Rev. Nakonachny and Dr. Anatolyj Lysyj participate in a Sobor of our Church in Kyiv and not "attend" as mere observers.

So what, exactly, have our hierarchs accomplished? The answer must be overwhelming, since it must justify: (a) the voluntarily surrender of the independence of our Church in the U.S.; (b) our subjugation as a constituent part of a foreign, non-Ukrainian Church; (c) our acceptance of the paramount authority of a Turkish citizen; (d) the voluntary prostitution of every last shred of our collective conscience as we embrace him who continues embracing the patriarch of Moscow, the persecutor of our Church and the Church of our Catholic brethren; (e) our committing not to support (what was) our Church, whose promotion and existence for the last 75 years guided the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A.; and (f) our support of Patriarch Bartholomew's campaign to "unite" (what was) our own Church with Moscow.

The answer that we are now "canonical" is spurious. We were viewed as "uncanonical" by our enemies in the aftermath of the patriarch of Constantinople selling us out to Moscow. In the 1920s we raised ourselves out of a sea of blood by our bootstraps, only to be buried even deeper by Moscow. For that, we are "samosviaty" (self-ordained) and, in order to dodge that label, we now anathemize our own Church? The Rev. Nakonachny, with Metropolitan Constantine, Archbishop Antony and the other bishops who agreed to the deal, are all successors to those same "samosviaty." All our clergy vowed before God to support our Church. Archbishop Anthony was elevated to his position by those same "samosviaty" at a Sobor of the Kyiv Patriarchate.

In their rush to join the club, our bishops apparently forgot that we already were canonical. The Rev. Nakonachny recites our Constitution's provision regarding the function of the Sobor, which is "to safeguard the purity of the Faith, Traditions and the canonical Church Order." The Metropolitan Council declared in its February 1995 resolutions - and Bound Brook's own press release after the Odesa fiasco proclaimed - that our Church was uncanonically sold to Moscow by Constantinople. And our bishops themselves have repeatedly said that we always were canonical, and that they were not reconsecrated in Istanbul. Furthermore, if we were "uncanonical" before the Points of Agreement, what of the hundreds of thousands of baptisms, marriages, burials and communions that came before - performed by then "uncanonical" clergy?

The Rev. Nakonachny argues that by surrendering our autocephaly here we hasten its recognition in Ukraine, which will be promoted by Istanbul. Where is the logic in expecting that third parties will abruptly reverse their opposition to our autocephaly? If there is some grandiose scheme at work, let's hear it and put this discussion to rest. Nervously joking about Protocol No. 937 is not the behavior expected from someone who portrays himself as a "simple priest" Can you imagine a "simple rabbi" making light of an analogous matter regarding the Jewish community?

Victor Rud
Upper Saddle River, N.J.