As we have previously outlined, SCOBA (Standing
Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of America), to which the
UOC-USA hierarchs belong since 1995, continues to work toward the unification
of all of North America into one non-ethnic, generic, American church. Such
Russian theologians as Schmemann, Meyendorff, as well as Kallistos Ware, and
other SCOBA members (who also, you should be aware, have always denied the existence
of Ukraine, espousing the “Kyivan Russia” revisionist view of history)
spearheaded this effort. Now books by
these individuals, and others propagating these same views, grace the
shelves of the Consistory Bound Brook bookstore.
Who or What is OCA
(Orthodox Church of America)
and
What does it Stand for?
The OCA was, until 1973, known
as the Russian Orthodox Church of America, "The Metropolia". It was
clearly and undeniably the American arm of the Moscow Patriarchate. The Russian
Orthodox Church in Exile, remained as the minority and still claims that
they are the true representatives of their mother Church.
Moscow gave the OCA
Autocephaly in 1973, and with
that, eliminated the word
"Russian" from the name, to make it more palatable to other ethnic groups. But they still,
to this day, remain in
“close cooperation”
with Moscow.
They recently opened a church and a representatives
office in Moscow. Most of the
clergy and hierarchy remain Russian and certainly they are russophiles and anti-Ukrainian.
How “CLOSE” and What Do The OCA Clergy Think Of
Ukrainians read
further:
Keep in mind that these are the same clergy that serves liturgies with OUR clergy. These are the same clergy that are the “canonical” brothers of the hierarchs of Bound Brook.……
Excerpt
from the OCA news:
Metropolitan
THEODOSIUS, Primate of the Orthodox Church in America, in a meeting with
Metropolitan KIRILL of Smolensk, head of the Department of External Church Relations
of the Russian Orthodox Church--November 9, 2000...Excerpts from his speech:
..."In his remarks at the reception, Metropolitan THEODOSIUS spoke of the years of cooperation between the OCA and the Moscow Patriarchate and reaffirmed the close bond which has developed between the two autocephalous Churches. "Metropolitan KIRILL (MP) thanked Metropolitan THEODOSIUS (OCA) for his remarks and noted that he cannot imagine the relationship between the OCA and the Moscow Patriarchate being any closer than it is at the present time." ... source-http://www.oca.org/pages/news/news.asp?ID=2
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is some more……it will make you
angry if not sick to your stomach.
Vladyka Tikhon - Archbishop of San
Francisco, OCA August 23, 2000.
...."First, the
Prototype Autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Wasyl Lipkiwsky whose
Apostolic Succession was a farce and a comedy....."
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Haven’t had enough?
Then read some more from an OCA “Monk” Father
James Silver at Drew University-NJ on August 21, 2000 (Editors Note: The following is
reproduced exactly as received in an e-mail)
Dear
Friends --
I'm
getting tired of this thread, which seems to have more to do with some
extremely nationalistic Ukrainian self-understanding (self-misunderstanding?)
than with anything of the Church. That notwithstanding (you *knew* this was
coming [[;-)33 ), I'd like to point out three things.
First, the
very name of a place which means only 'at the border' suggests that it was
defined not by itself, but by the two (or more) nations at whose thresholds it
lies. This is not a good place, geographically or conceptually, from which to
start asserting notions of separate, independent, identity. Several
20th-century concessions to something like definable Ukrainian borders -- and
their reconfigurations -- are modern political conveniences and have nothing to
do with historical identities. Language seems not to have been exempted from
these political conveniences; in fact, many Ukrainian terms appear to be
transparent exercises in 'political correctness': I found _realna politika_ in
my Ukrainian dictionary as a 'translation' of the handy German 'Realpolitik'.
None of these words is based on a Slavic root. In a similar vein, I seem to
recall that Ukrainian prefers _dolhovizhnik_ for 'television set', thereby
hoping to avoid the 'Russian' _televizor_ -- never appearing to appreciate the
fact that the first particle of the 'Russian' word is actually Greek, meaning
'far'. But more on the purely linguistic issue in the next section.
Second, it
is generally agreed among linguists that Ukrainian, Belorusian, and Russian are
*dialects* of the _same_ East Slavic language, mutually intelligible if
sometimes a little strange -- or even humorous-sounding -- to the others. As an
attempt at an American paradigm for the same concept, we might consider the
dialect employed by Mark Twain to express rural southern speech, or the
'Ebonics' which some modern novelists use to represent the speech of urban
American Black English. Nobody takes these substandard regionalisms or
barbarisms to be anything like a 'language' independent of the Modern American
English being spoken all around literary characters, yet that is exactly what
modern Ukrainian nationalists expect us to do. Yet even they admit that no
author bothered to write in this dialect (as an intentional literary form)
until Taras Shevchenko did it in the middle of the 19th century. His use of the
Southwestern Russian dialect in his work did *not* confer the status of an
independent language in that dialect. To native speakers of Modern Russian, it
still sounds like 'Mountain William' is talking when they hear he Ukrainian
dialect. It took me (As a native speaker of Modern American English) until I
heard _batko nasho_ as the opening of a Ukrainian rendering of 'Our Father' to
wake up to this reality.
Third, it
seems to me to be a false dichotomy to distinguish Kievan Rus' from Russia.
These cultures grew up side by side, in so far as they could be considered to
be separate at all. The wars somehow construed (by our contemporary Ukrainian
nationalists) to have been fought between Kievan Rus' and Moskva need to be
redefined in terms of conflicts between/among various *city states* rather than
'nations' (by any definition), as, e.g., the conflicts between Moskva and Kazan
(then under the Tatars), or between Vladimir and Suzdal'. The whole 'Ukrainian thing' reminds me of
nothing so much as the occasionally heard assertion that 'Texas is a whole
'nother country'. Texas is different -- anyone will concede that -- but it's
certainly a real, vital, and important part of the USA. And 'The Borderland' is
just as much a part of Russia as it has always been.
When we
bring nationalism into the Church, it falls under the heading of 'phyletism',
and is rightly condemned as heretical.
No more
phyletism, please.
Peace and
blessings to all.
Monk James
Reply-To:
Orthodox Christianity <ORTHODOX@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU> Sender:
Orthodox
Christianity <ORTHODOX@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU> From: "[Fr James
Silver]"
<FrJSilver@AOL.COM> Subject: Re: Language Question in Ukraine
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If that was not enough then you should have attended on March 11, 2001 Sunday services at St. Andrews Memorial Church in Bound Brook. Distributed with the weekly Bulletin was an insert titled:
Excerpts
and Summary from the five-part study for youth by the Orthodox
Church in America (OCA)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++