Is it easier to receive permission or to ask for
forgiveness?
That is the question usually pondered by
astute high school and college students but in the reported case of St.
Volodymyr's (New York City) "letter of permission" fiasco this is not
a high school or teenage matter.
We are referring to a reported letter
written by the Board of Trustees of St. Volodymyr's Cathedral, NYC to
Archbishop Antony requesting "permission" to receive and host, at St.
Volodymyr's Cathedral, the UOC-KP delegation headed by Patriarch Filaret on his
visit of September 23-25. (Due to developments in Ukraine the Office of the
Kyiv Patriarchate subsequently canceled the trip on September 18).
It has been further reported that the Board
of Trustees received a written reply from Archbishop Antony "denying"
the Boards request. According to Archbishop Antony no parish within the UOC
in USA will be permitted to receive and host any delegation from UOC-KP
until the UOC-KP returns the UOC-USA parishes that have defected from UOC-USA.
The real issue here is not asking
permission, or after the fact, asking for forgiveness. The real question here
is WHY? Why was permission even
contemplated? Archbishop Antony of Hierapolis, Bishop Vsevolod of Scopelos and
Metropolitan Constantine of Eirenopolis are hierarchs of a foreign church.
If someone does not believe this let them look at the web pages of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. They are not bishops of UOC in USA.
They were elected, on March 12, 1995, by the Ecumenical Patriarchate Synod as Bishops
of the Church of Constantinople.
Permission was not required nor should it have been sought. For by asking permission you are acknowledging authority of a foreign church over St. Volodymyr's Cathedral. This is the same St. Volodymyr''s Cathedral that 50 years ago provided the prodigal sons with clear purpose and direction in resurrecting a unified Ukrainian Autocephalic (independent) Orthodox Church. It was at St. Volodymyr's that Archbishop Mstyslav left the Ecumenical Patriarchate to join with the independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church in USA. (See short dissertation and historical note on St. Volodymyr's Cathedral). Click: historyofstvolodymyr.htm
In this sad comedy of errors staged by
certain misguided members of the Board of Trustees of St. Volodymyr's, is the
reported controversy regarding the actual "letter of permission". It
has been reported that the Board of Trustees had lengthy discussions regarding
Patriarch Filarets visit and the consensus was to extend a letter of
"invitation", in a spirit of Church unity, to Archbishop Antony to
participate with Patriarch Filaret in liturgical ceremonies at St. Volodymyr.
The letter of "invitation" miraculously turned into a letter of
"permission". In typical Ukrainian fashion, one or two individuals
took it upon themselves to make a decision contrary to the wishes of the
majority of the Board of Trustees. It does not require a major leap in
intellect to see that a process of appeasement was put in place.
What was these individuals motivation? Was
it a calculated attempt to undermine the decision of the Board of Trustees? Or
was it a case of "I know what is best"? A philosophy of presumption
which is so typical of our Ukrainian leaders. Or, if we give them the benefit
of doubt, a misguided although sincere attempt, against the wishes of the
majority, to placate all sides, avoid any uncomfortable unpleasantness and keep
peace in the family no matter how disingenuous that peace may be.
In typical Ukrainian fashion, it is a
position of "Let's try to appease everyone" without taking a real
stand. This way whoever "wins", we will be assured of being on the
winning side". However sincere, this position is one of cowardice, and
neither honorable or honest. Haven't we seen this philosophy of cowardice over
and over again in our Ukrainian organizations and parishes? Haven't we seen
this act of cowardice in Mr. Michael Heretz, President of St. Andrew's Society,
infamous letter to his membership, where he states "I
am sitting on a fence". Haven’t
we seen, time and time again, when a few individuals take control and "Do
their own thing?"
Isn't it time for St. Volodymy'r
Cathedral and all other UOC-USA parishes to get off this fence of appeasement
and cowardice? Isn't it time to hit the foreign "Bishops of Bound
Brook" in the only place where it hurts…the pocketbook? Some parishes have
taken this step without fear of reprisal. Other parishes have been suspended
(i.e. Bridgeport, CT) but their priest remains in place and continues to serve
the fateful, and as such "nothing has truly changed". Some parishes
have fallen, perhaps unwittingly, into the "Lets placate everyone"
syndrome and do not realize the purpose of this action. Our sister parish, St.
Mary's in Clifton, NJ, for example, was courageous enough to withhold their
annual dues BUT neglected to inform the Bishops of Bound Brook as to the
reasons for their action. Do the parish elders realize that taking this type of
insurance policy just in case things go either way completely negates the
beneficial impact of their decision in the first place? And still other
parishes, like Holy Ascension in Clifton have absorbed the full fury and wrath
of the Consistory in their litigation exactly over this matter. But very few parishes, even those that have been withholding
their annual Consistory dues, realize why Holy Ascension was picked by the
Bishops of Bound Brook for litigation. For if the Bishops of Bound Brook
succeed in their attempts to subjugate a prominent parish like Holy Ascension,
and take control of their assets, then all other parishes will automatically
fall in line without so much as a mouse squeak of protest.
It is time to stand up and put up a solid wall of
resistance.
It is time to stop asking for permission from the
foreign
Bishops of Bound Brook
As for forgiveness, the Bishops of Bound
Brook should seek it from the Ukrainian Orthodox faithful for their five years
of deceptions, half-truths and outright lies.