The Importance of Sobornopravnist in Church = Government

From: Subject: The Importance of Sobornopravnist in Church Government Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:58:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.uaoc.org/conciliarism.html X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 The Importance of Sobornopravnist in Church = Government Conciliarity in Orthodoxy and the Independence of the Ukrainian=20 Church:
The Importance of Sobornopravnist in Church Government =

by

Rev. Dr. Gary Widmer

Edited with preface = and=20 comments by
Archbishop Michael J. Champion, DD., MA Th.

__________________________________________=20

Contents of Article:
Preface=20
Part I. = Conciliar=20 Principles in Orthodox Ecclesiology
a. = Introduction=20
b.=20 Conciliarism in the Early Church

__________________________________________=20

Preface

During these chaotic = times in=20 our Ukrainian Orthodox Church it is more important than ever, that our = faithful,=20 laity and clergy alike be thoroughly familiar with both the historical = and=20 theological background upon which the Ukrainian Church was founded and = has=20 operated over the past millennium, especially in the last century, which = witnessed the heroic "re-birth" of our church after a long period of = domination=20 from the "outside." The principles of theology which our ancestors in = the faith=20 used as an inspiration to them in those exciting times of the = re-emergence of=20 the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church from the dark ages of = subjugation to=20 the Patriarch of Moscow and his representatives are as valid today as = they were=20 nearly one hundred years ago. They speak with an even more urgent voice, = to=20 those who wish to take their faith seriously and honestly and to defend = it,=20 rather than follow the "status quo" voiced through the ignorance of so = many in=20 Orthodoxy, who chose to be influenced by meaningless and out-sung = apologetics=20 and irrelevant repetitions of a theology which represents more the = imperialistic=20 and autocratic models of the church. Such ideas come to us from an age = in which=20 the community of believers and their hierarchy were indeed an instrument = of the=20 state and of monarchs who saw in it, the opportunity to control the = masses of=20 their subjects through the cooperation of church leaders of their day. A = similar=20 episode of this was witnessed during the decades of communist domination = of=20 Ukraine as well.

Those who wish to perpetuate this anachronistic = model,=20 possess neither a real understanding of the principles of ecclesiology = or a fair=20 judgment of the "signs of the times" which continue to inspire Ukrainian = and=20 other Orthodox who have the courage to stand up for the truth and bring = about a=20 lasting change in the life of the church. Contrary to the sentiments of = far too=20 many ill-informed people who use the Orthodox Church to escape from = having to=20 deal with issues effecting their own personal faith and lack of self = confidence,=20 the church is not a vacuum in which one can hide from everyday life and = in which=20 there can be no change or development of a personal relationship with = God or=20 communal interaction with other believers. On the contrary, while = holding fast=20 to those articles of faith which form the nucleus of our life in Christ, = the=20 church is called to continually respond to the working of the Holy = Spirit, the=20 great Comforter and Treasury of Blessings, who is always calling the = community=20 of the faithful to new levels of commitment, where God wishes to inspire = his=20 people to live anew the mysteries of their salvation.

Just as it = was one=20 hundred, fifty and even ten years ago, our church and people must deal = with the=20 attacks waged on them from those adhering to the stagnant and = self-serving=20 philosophies described above. Therefore, as I began this preface, we = must all be=20 ready to defend our faith in the face of adversity and to do this, we = must=20 continually learn more, read materials which remind us of the facts, not = just=20 speculation or restating of issues, and develop anew in our own hearts = and=20 minds, a great love for and dedication to the way of our church. =

To help=20 all of you to continue to develop a strong and solid foundation of faith = and=20 knowledge, with the encouragement and upon the recommendation of our = Primate,=20 His Beatitude, Metropolitan Stephan, I asked one of our very capable and = scholarly priests, the Rev. Dr. Gary Widmer of Dallas, Texas, to prepare = an=20 article which outlines the principles upon which our Ukrainian = Autocephalous=20 Orthodox Church is grounded, in order that our faithful could have a = deeper=20 appreciation of and familiarity with both the theological and historical = perspectives which affect the Ukrainian Church. A professor of Patristic = theology in our seminary program, Fr. Widmer possesses a deep = understanding of=20 and love for the writings of the Fathers of the Church, upon which the = bulk of=20 Orthodox theology has developed. The purpose of the following essay is = to=20 demonstrate how the theology of "sobornopravnist" or "conciliarism" is = firmly=20 rooted in the doctrines expressed by the Church Fathers and how it is = most=20 applicable to an ecclesiology for today, as lived and professed by the = Ukrainian=20 Orthodox Church. May this article speak to each of us of beauty of the = Orthodox=20 understanding of the church and renew our love and appreciation for the = great=20 treasure that our ancestors suffered to preserve and have lovingly = passed on to=20 us. I wish to thank personally, Father Widmer and his Pani Matka, Mary, = for=20 their time and devotion to our Metropolia and for their love of God and = his=20 church.

The seed of the faith is planted and sustained by the = blood of=20 the martyrs, and indeed, those founding fathers of our Ukrainian = Autocephalous=20 Orthodox Church had to endure much suffering, even to the sacrifice of = their own=20 lives, in order to guarantee a bright future for us, their posterity. We = owe it=20 to them, to ourselves and those who will come after us, to continue to = fight the=20 good fight, ensuring that there is a future for our Ukrainian Church in = which=20 the freedoms of today's world will commingle with the dedication of our=20 faithful, to build a strong church for generations to come.=20

September 8/21, 2001
The Feast of the Nativity of the = Mother of=20 God, Protectress of the Ukrainian People.

+ARCHBISHOP MICHAEL =
Archbishop of Cleveland
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox = Church in=20 the USA

CONTENTS=20

__________________________________________

I.=20 Conciliar Principles in Orthodox Ecclesiology

a. = Introduction

Orthodoxy is based on conciliar principles. = Anything of=20 a subordination nature is totally foreign, indeed, completely repugnant, = to it.=20 Orthodoxy doesn=92t have a pope, a neo-pope, doesn=92t recognize a = magisterium.=20 Power doesn=92t run from the top down in a dictatorial or autocratic = mode. There=20 is a hierarchal structure, but it is a framework designed in Christ=92s = love. All=20 the Christian faithful =97 hierarchy, clergy, and laity alike =97 are = subject to the=20 revealed truth of the church. None of these is a law unto itself. =

The=20 Orthodox Church recognizes:

"neither a pope as its visible head, = nor=20 arbitrary personal opinions as authoritative (emphasis supplied) = dogmas,=20 but only the Bible and the science which interprets it, and to both = these it=20 ascribes absolute validity and authority. It is neither a single human = being,=20 nor a multitude of human beings taken together collectively; neither is = it any=20 centralization or decentralization; but on the contrary, it is the truth = alone=20 that recommends unity, . . . The criterion of saving knowledge is the=20 definitions and dogmas of the seven Ecumenical Councils; accordingly, if = anyone=20 keeps in line with this view, he is also within the truth" [see = Cummings, D.,=20 The Rudder* (Pedalion) of the Holy Orthodox Christians or All the = Sacred and=20 Divine Canons, Chicago, The Orthodox Educational Society, 1957 , p. = xxxiv].=20

The fact that the majority of so-called orthodox concur in and = practice=20 untruths does not make them Orthodox. In St. Athanasius=92 time, only = Athanasius=20 the Great and a relatively few others were steadfast against the Arian = heresy,=20 but the few were spiritually correct. The majority were false, = being=20 drawn in by satanic forces:

If we consider the epoch of the = Arians,=20 during which only Athanasius the Great and a few others remained = uncontaminated=20 by the Arian cacodoxy, whereas most of the church leaders of that time = concurred=20 in the Arian tenet, and if, with these facts in mind, we seek = infallibility in=20 accordance with the foregoing false assumption that infallibility = resides in the=20 majority of the church, we shall have to adopt the view that it resided = among=20 those who were adherents of Arius and who were in the majority, and not, = of=20 course, among those who were adherents of Athanasius the Great and who = were=20 altogether in the minority. [id., p. xvii.]

CONTENTS=20

b. Conciliarism in the Early = Church=20

Conciliarity is the key to unlocking the wisdom of the New = Testament=20 Church and Orthodoxy. The church functions through the exercise of = conciliarity=20 and consensus, while seeking, receiving guidance from, and accepting the = grace=20 of, the Holy Spirit. Conciliarity was very much in evidence when the = Apostolic=20 Council was held in Jerusalem with James the Just presiding, the issue = being=20 whether the Gentiles needed to be circumcised after the Law of Moses; = otherwise,=20 they could not be saved. After the spiritual =92evidence=92 had been = presented and=20 considered, James delivered the Apostles=92 decision [Acts. 15: 13-21]. = Although=20 the decision was rendered by James, it was a collective, conciliar = decision.=20

This emphasis on conciliarity and consensus is carried forward=20 throughout Orthodoxy. No finer or clearer statement can be found than = the=20 following from The Rudder:

=93Since it is a fact that the = dogmas of=20 the faith are not created in the Councils, but are formulated from = correlation=20 and logical arrangement and assembly of the divine truths contained in = the Holy=20 Scriptures, leading to a consensus of faith and uniform confession as a = result=20 of the conciliar definition, it is logically evident therefore that the=20 Ecumenical Councils are to be characterized as authoritative bodies = charged with=20 the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures for the purpose of putting an = end to=20 emergent dissensions and scandals in the church. Nevertheless, their=20 authoritative interpretation is to be judged by the word of God; for = over and=20 above the voice of the Councils there is the word of the Holy = Scriptures to=20 serve as the criterion of the truth, in accordance with which are to = be=20 judged ever the definitions themselves, and the decisions of the = Councils=94=20 [The Rudder, p. xix.].

The church is our spiritual home, = and=20 Christ is its spiritual Head and will never cease to be:

=93I am = with you=20 always, even unto the end of the world=94 [Matt. 28:20]. =

Christ=92s Orthodox=20 Church is conciliar and defined as the:

=93community = (emphasis=20 supplied) of men in faith founded upon the New Man and His rights, and = ruled by=20 the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit according to the most perfect = moral=20 Gospel law, through called and chosen instruments, consecrated to the = service of=20 the Holy Spirit=94 [The Rudder, p. xxix.].

A conciliar = Ecumenical=20 Council guided by the Holy Spirit is the final judge against popes and=20 patriarchs. The Ecumenical Council is in the same logical relationship = to the=20 church as the emperor is to the state. It, not the Holy Bible, is the = final=20 judge of ecclesiastical matters as long as the Holy Spirit guides its=20 deliberations. Its vote is not subject to appeal to any other tribunal. = [The=20 Rudder, Prolegomena of the First Holy Ecumenical Council, fn 1, = p.157 and=20 see c. VI of the 2nd Ecum. C.] Such an infallible council judges = everyone=20 without exception and is superior to a patriarch, pope or bishop, = because it can=20 depose him, e.g., Pope Honorius of Rome was condemned by the Sixth = Ecumenical=20 Council. At the Sixth Ecumenical Council, not only was the Pope of Rome=20 condemned for heresy but so were seven patriarchs, four of = Constantinople, one=20 from Alexandria and two from Antioch, plus a host of other = metropolitans,=20 archbishops and bishops. [see Father Christopher Birchall (tr.),The = Life of=20 our Holy Father Maximus the Confessor, Holy Transfiguration = Monastery,=20 Boston, Massachusetts, 1982, p.62.]

CONTENTS=20

c. The Definition and Function of = Ecumenical=20 Councils

What then is considered a =93valid=94 = council?=20

An Ecumenical Council is considered valid if its =91actions=92 = are=20 infallible and God-inspired:

=93Hence it is to be concluded that = those=20 councils are valid and command respect in the church whose decrees, when = judged=20 by the infallible law of the Holy Scriptures and of tradition are found = to be=20 consonant and similar and to vary there from neither in the direction of = an=20 excess nor by way of a deficiency, in the least manner whatsoever. Their = dogmas=20 bear an obligatory character, and are obligatory upon all the church.=20 Accordingly, these councils are called infallible and=20 God-inspired=94(emphasis supplied) [The Rudder, p. xvi.]. =

The=20 Orthodox Church is the church of =93true councils inspired by the Holy = Spirit=20 which conform to the church=92s catholic consciousness=94 [Father = Michael=20 Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Fn 19, p.36.]. However, = there are=20 no new Christian truths to be revealed through time [id., = pp.41-42].=20

In the teaching of the faith, it is the thinking of the holy = Apostles=20 that was and remains the standard of the fullness and wholeness of the = Christian=20 world view. A Christian of the twentieth century cannot develop more = completely=20 or go deeper into the truths of the faith than the Apostles. Therefore, = any=20 attempt that is made-whether by individuals or in the name of dogmatic = theology=20 itself=96 to reveal new Christian truths, or new aspects of the dogmas = handed down=20 to us, or a new understanding of them, is completely out of place. = [id.]=20

Divinely-revealed truth is handed down. It is not to be tampered = with by=20 popes, patriarchs, metropolitans, archbishops, bishops, priests, or = laity.=20 Ukrainian Orthodox should bear this in mind as they contemplate their = future,=20 not only in Ukraine but throughout the worldwide Diaspora. There is not = one kind=20 of Orthodoxy for Ukrainians in the =91old country=92 and another for = "foreigners" in=20 the United States (for example). There is also no validity to the view=20 propagated by =92slick orthodoxy=92 [e.g., SCOBA and its counterparts] = that to be=20 orthodox one needs their =92recognition.=92 Neither Ukrainians nor any = other=20 Orthodox are =91required=92 to be in communion with the Ecumenical = Patriarchate in=20 order to be Orthodox. This concept is a subordination principle, an = autocratic=20 concept, completely foreign to Orthodoxy and the conciliarism of the = Ecumenical=20 Councils. It smacks of papism and is an usurpation of authority. =

CONTENTS=20

___________________________________________ =

Part II. The Apostolic Ukrainian Church, = Conciliarism/Sobornopravnist=20 and Church Government

a. The Apostolic = Origin of the=20 Ukrainian Church

The Ukrainian Church is of Apostolic origin = tracing=20 its roots to the preaching of the First-Called St. Andrew on its soil. = Exactly=20 where and when St. Andrew finally arrived is not as important as the = strong=20 tradition and belief that he did. Metropolitan Ilarion referred to early = Greek=20 accounts proving unanimously that St. Andrew preached the Gospel =93even = in the=20 far barbarian Scythia,=94 the first being from the father of church = history,=20 Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. [see Metropolitan Ilarion** = (prefaced=20 & edited by Fr. Stephan Jarmus; translated by Orysia Ferbey), The = Ukrainian Church, Outlines of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (In Two=20 Volumes), Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada Millennium Central = Committee,=20 Winnipeg, MN, Canada, 1986, p.9.]. In Book III. 1., Eusebius states:=20

=93Such then was the plight of the Jews. Meanwhile the holy = apostles and=20 disciples of our Savior were scattered over the whole world. Thomas, = tradition=20 tells us, was chosen for Parthia, Andrew for Scythia (emphasis = supplied),=20 John for Asia, where he remained till his death at Ephesus. Peter seems = to have=20 preached in Pontus, Galatia and Bithynia, Cappadocia and Asia, to the = Jews of=20 the Dispersion. Finally, he came to Rome where he was crucified, head = downwards=20 at his own request. What need be said of Paul, who from Jerusalem as far = as=20 Illyricum preached in Rome under Nero? This is exactly what Origen tells = us in=20 Volume III of his Commentary on Genesis.=94

[Eusebius, = The=20 History of the Church from Christ to Constantine (tr. G.A. = Williamson;=20 revised & edited by Andrew Louth), Penguin Books Classics, 1965, = revisions=20 & new editorial matter, 1989, p.65.] Metropolitan Ilarion points to = this=20 fourth century recorded evidence as indicating that the account of = Andrew=92s=20 Ukrainian =91roots=92 (preaching in Scythia) =93reaches far back into = the earliest of=20 days, perhaps into the apostolic times=94. [op. cit., p.9.] The = monk=20 Epiphany (end of the eighth and early ninth century) related that the = apostle=20 Andrew completed three voyages, the third one covering the eastern and = northern=20 Black Sea coasts. Epiphany stated he was writing =93on the authority of = the=20 ancient church writers.=94 He had also personally walked the entire = Black Sea=20 coast hearing local stories about St. Andrew and =93had seen churches, = crosses,=20 and images of St. Andrew.=94

Metropolitan Ilarion drew several=20 conclusions:

(1) the knowledge of Andrew=92s preachings on the = northern=20 (Ukrainian) Black Sea shores had already been widespread during = Epiphany=92s time.=20

=93Therefore, it is an established fact that Apostle Andrew = indeed did=20 preach the Gospel on the shores of the Black Sea, the sea, which from = the times=20 of antiquity has been called the Rus=92 sea. We know, too, that from the = end of=20 the first century, Christianity was indeed known in the towns here.=94 =

(2)=20 Andrew preached to the Scythians possibly ascending the Dnieper as far = as Kyiv=20 particularly since his goal was to spread Christianity [It is perhaps = difficult=20 to be exact regarding how far Andrew traveled north, but this doesn=92t = change the=20 essential fact that the Saint was there!].

(3) Andrew had his = disciples=20 from the northern region of Scythia, who had continued to teach and = baptize many=20 Scythians, the martyrs Inna, Ryma and Pinna =97 these were the first = Ukrainian=20 saints and suffered martyrdom tied to tall poles and submerged in water = thus=20 freezing to death. [id., pp. 9-11].

It is clear that the=20 Ukrainian Church has a rich history stretching back into apostolic = times, thus=20 giving it a rightful independent claim to its own spiritual destiny. = Ukrainians=20 have a right to believe in their claim to spiritual autocephaly! =

CONTENTS=20

b. Ukrainian Orthodoxy: = Distinct=20 Characteristics

All Ukrainian Churches are independent and = separate=20 in administrative structure and they are local churches, national = churches.=20 Central administration, anything papal or neopapal, is totally foreign, = indeed=20 repugnant to the conciliarity of Holy Orthodoxy. Ukrainians are a proud = people=20 boasting a rich history of a separate, independent Ukrainian Church. =

The=20 following is a brief synopsis of the distinctive features of the = Ukrainian=20 Church as delineated by Metropolitan Ilarion in chapter three of his = =93popular=20 account of the age-old ideology of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, its = historical=20 fate, and its characteristics as the Church of the Ukrainian nation =96 = a=20 national and conciliar church=94 [id., Foreword, p. xi.].=20

Conciliarism:

=93The most outstanding feature of = the ancient=20 church was its conciliarism (emphasis supplied) - none of the = hierarchs had=20 absolute rule, none of the clergy came to a community uninvited, because = every=20 church office was elective. Conciliarism was nurtured by the Ukrainian = Church=20 throughout its entire independent life . . . [id., p.74].=20

Nowhere in the Ukrainian Church is conciliarism more evident = than in=20 church government =96 at all levels. The Ukrainian Church was = governed by=20 the Regional or National Sobor (council), assembled to deal with matters = as the=20 need arose. The Chronicles note National Ukrainian Sobors from = =93the=20 earliest times, from 1147 (the election of a Ukrainian metropolitan, = Klym=20 (Clement), rather than a Greek). These Sobors governed the Ukrainian = Church=20 until the abolition of its independence in 1686=94 [id.]. =

Eparchial=20 affairs were governed by the Eparchial Sobor, usually held on the first = Sunday=20 of Lent, or when especially convened [id.]. At these Sobors, the = bishops=20 and clergy became better acquainted and the bishops instructed their = spiritual=20 agents.

It is very significant that:

"In all = (emphasis=20 supplied) Sobors, national and eparchial, a large number of laymen also=20 participated with a right to a divisive vote, as was generally the case = in the=20 Old Christian Church" [id.].

All church offices were = elective=20 from highest to lowest, the metropolitan was elected by the National = Sobor, the=20 bishop by the Sobor of Bishops with representatives of lay people, the = parish=20 church administration by the parish =97 the parish elected the candidate = for=20 ordination, but the bishop blessed and ordained him. All church offices = were=20 held by people of Ukrainian origin, and the election of church offices = brought=20 the church and nation closer. [id., pp. 74-75]. =93The lay = element in the=20 church created a remarkable and interesting church organization =97 the = church=20 brotherhood, which led a broad church-cultural and educational = development and=20 staunchly defended the Ukrainian Church=94 [id., p.75].=20

Conciliarism was not just theory in the Ukrainian Church. It = permeated=20 every church organ:

=93Neither the metropolitan nor the bishops = governed=20 the church with absolute power, nor alone =97 they were constantly = associated with=20 the Church Institution, the so-called =91krylos,=92 which was composed = of a few=20 members (=91kryloshany=92), elder priests of the city and its districts. = The=20 =91krylos,=92 under the direction of the bishop, decided all eparchial = affairs until=20 the assembly of the Eparchial Sobor=94 [id.].

CONTENTS=20

c. Separate and National Identity=20

The Ukrainian Church from its inception has been a separate = national=20 church:

=93Many of the Ukrainian clergy and church = intelligentsia=20 purposely avoid the term =91Ukrainian Church=92 and replace it with the = phrase=20 =91Church of the Ukrainian Nation,=92 as if there is no separate = Ukrainian Church=20 and cannot be. This view is basically false [emphasis supplied], = for all=20 Orthodox Churches are national. Thus, it is my objective in this work to = demonstrate that the Ukrainian Church has developed throughout its many=20 centuries of existence, so many of its own peculiar features to mark its = separate identity that it is strongly distinguishable (emphasis = supplied)=20 from all other Orthodox Churches, including the Russian Church; in other = words,=20 it is truly a Ukrainian Church, an independent church=94 = (emphasis=20 supplied) [id., p.70].

Some confuse Ukrainian with = Russian=20 Orthodoxy, but they are quite different =91kettles of fish.=92 Ukrainian = Orthodoxy=20 is only =93dogmatically similar=94 to the Russian, but different in all = other=20 respects:

=93The Ukrainian Church has existed for many centuries = as a=20 church independent from Russia and it established its own concept of = Orthodoxy,=20 which is based on the Holy Scriptures, old dogmas, and true church = traditions=94=20 [id., p. 70].

This concept of Orthodoxy is consistent = with and=20 follows the conciliar truths of Orthodoxy as confirmed by the First = Seven=20 Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers and as accepted by the true = church=20 through the ages.

CONTENTS=20

d. Canonical Independence =

Early=20 Christian tradition maintains that Apostle Andrew =93taught near the = Rus=91 Sea,=20 sojourned in Korsun, and from here ascended the Dnieper and arrived at a = place=20 where Kyiv soon arose. =93Do you see those hills?=94 said the Apostle to = his=20 disciples. =93On those hills will shine the grace of God, a great city = will arise=20 here, and God will build many churches=94 [id.].

This = established=20 the Ukrainian Church as =93an Apostolic Church and the First-Called, and = established its place beside the first great churches of the world=94=20 [id.]. It would seem to this humble writer that there is no need = at all=20 for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to seek =93recognition=94 from = others when=20 the Lord Jesus Christ sent His Apostle Andrew to establish it.=20

Christianity spread visibly to Ukrainian cities in the eighth = and ninth=20 centuries. Initially, the first Ukrainian Church hierarchy came from the = Greeks.=20 However, Metropolitan Ilarion states that the 28th Article of the = Ecumenical=20 Council, which had given the Patriarchate of Tsargrad (Constantinople) = the right=20 to establish bishops in the new barbarian lands, including Slavic ones, = was=20 =93doubtful and unclear, and did not become Ecumenical Law, because = it was not=20 accepted by all the churches of the time (emphasis supplied). It is = because=20 of this, in fact, that the Muscovite Church broke relations with the=20 Constantinople Church in 1589 and became autocephalous, having itself = chosen its=20 own patriarch=94 [id., p. 71]. The cradle of Christianity in the = East,=20 Kyiv, became the =93center of Ukrainian church life from the tenth = century=94=20 [id.].

As time passed, canonical dependency on = Constantinople=20 lessened, =93The Ukrainian Church began to live its own life, = particularly from=20 1458, forming its own individualities=94 [id., p. 72]. Such = dependency was=20 in name only =93Usually, Tsargrad only blessed and consecrated the = individual that=20 was sent as metropolitan to Ukraine=94 [id.]. After = Constantinople fell to=20 the Turks in 1453, this dependency was even less [id.].

A = distinguishing factor from the very beginning of the Ukrainian Orthodox = Church=20 was that it established =93only the apostolic canonical order for itself = and lived=20 independently (emphasis supplied) from the secular power. This, in fact, = is what=20 most influenced the establishment of the separateness of the Ukrainian = Church=20 and enabled it to foster those good features by which it was = distinguished and=20 by which it shone throughout the ages of its independent (emphasis = supplied)=20 life=94 [id.].

Ukrainian Orthodoxy has shone brightly through = the ages=20 precisely because of its Sobornopravnist.

CONTENTS=20

III. Comment on Today's Situation=20

Ukrainians and Ukrainian-Americans in the Diaspora, must = compare the=20 true Ukrainian conciliar sobornopravna church with the current state of = affairs.=20 There is no room in conciliar sobornopravna Ukrainian Orthodoxy for = behavior=20 such as locking out parishioners from Christ=92s Church [What would He = say?],=20 assigning clergy against the will of the parish and/or without = consultation or=20 consideration, =93secret ballots,=94 making =93agreements=94 subjugating = the Apostolic=20 Orthodox Church of St. Andrew the First-Called to yet again another = foreign=20 power (authority), and filing lawsuits in secular courts to oust = parishes from=20 church property.

In the last century, brave and valiant leaders=20 accomplished the re-birth of the true and independent Ukrainian Orthodox = Church,=20 beginning with the revered Sobor of 1921. It was not without opposition = that=20 this was done, and for the brief periods of freedom that Ukraine = enjoyed, the=20 church too was allowed to flourish as a free institution, true to its = apostolic=20 and conciliar origins. This free church was kept alive and flourished in = the=20 Diaspora, in the United States and throughout the Americas, in Western = Europe=20 and areas to which Ukrainians migrated to escape the persecution that=20 continually tried to destroy their church in the Ukrainian homeland. =

At=20 one time, any and all who call themselves Ukrainian Orthodox would have = without=20 question, considered this sobor, the "Sobor of 1921" to be the single, = defining=20 moment of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Sadly, today, in the circles of = "canonical orthodoxy" one who has such beliefs and reverence for the = 1921 Sobor=20 faces persecution and perhaps even the much threatened = "excommunication." Those=20 who keep the traditional mentality that permeated from this Sobor are = seen as=20 rebels, self-proclaimed "autocephalists" and/or, at very least, they are = seen as=20 those who ascribe to a wrong ecclesiology (theology of the church). But = nothing=20 could be further from the truth and it is the opposite of this belief = that is=20 the historical reality. For those who still see themselves as members of = an=20 independent and self-governing, conciliar (sobornopravna) Ukrainian = Orthodox=20 Church, the Sobor of 1921, which liberated the Ukrainian Church from = hundreds of=20 years of foreign domination and set Metropolitan Wasyl Lipkivskyj to = lead this=20 re-born church to renewed levels of self-actualization, is not only = something to=20 be remembered as important but it is "normative" for the entire = existence of=20 Ukrainian Orthodoxy.

Today, this free and self-governing = Ukrainian=20 Church faces a high risk of being totally oblivated, in favor of = integration=20 into the so-called "world Orthodoxy" a new and alien concept not only to = Ukrainians but to all of the Christian faithful who comprise the various = local=20 Orthodox Churches. This theory rings of the centralization of church = government=20 so highly criticized in the Roman Church and to which Orthodox have = continually=20 voiced their fear and opposition, if unity between the churches ever did = take=20 place. Along the road to unity, Orthodox may well not need to accept any = new=20 "papal" doctrines or forms of government, if they are allowed to = permeate=20 Orthodoxy itself before any unity ever occurs. If a great portion of = Orthodox=20 churches follow down upon the road that they are currently walking, then = a=20 strong and heavy-handed form of "Eastern papacy" will be the result and = will=20 take over the church before most of the faithful even realize it. One of = the=20 last strongholds of true, active and living conciliar church government = rests in=20 the Ukrainian Church, but already, large portions of Ukrainian Orthodox = have=20 abandoned this historical characteristic of their church and followed = along the=20 band wagon of the Greek or Russian papacies that, (although obviously = denied by=20 their perpetrators) have grabbed hold of Ukrainian Orthodoxy in the past = decades. Unfortunately, once lost, the historical and theologically true = rights=20 and freedoms of the church are most difficult to regain. What will be = the result=20 for Ukrainian Orthodox people? Will they act while there may still be = time or=20 will they, (as so often is the sad case) sit by and passively allow the = minority=20 to bring about changes that they do not agree with?

The "bottom = line"=20 lies in these simple statements and the questions they bring up:=20

Ukrainians have a right to their rich history of conciliar = Orthodoxy, to=20 their separate Ukrainian Church. It is fully consistent and consonant = with the=20 Orthodoxy of the Holy Fathers of the Church as confirmed by the First = Seven=20 Ecumenical Councils. The question is =97 will Ukrainians resist the = devil, the=20 evil one, the call of this world, and follow true conciliar = (sobornopravna)=20 Orthodoxy, the Orthodoxy of St. Athanasius the Great and all the = Fathers? Will=20 they stand up for the rights of their church and for the preservation of = the=20 true and theologically correct ways that had always been kept intact by = the=20 Ukrainian Church?

Or, will it be a capitulation to = Constantinople and/or=20 the likes of SCOBA? Will the need for power and control on behalf of = some=20 hierarchs and members of their clergy and laity that they have been able = to=20 convince and control, prevail over the correct and respected course that = Ukrainian Orthodoxy had always followed until recently? Will the = continued use=20 of "scare tactics" and threats force the Ukrainian Orthodox population, = either=20 in Ukraine and/or throughout the "foreign" Diaspora to accept a manner = of church=20 government that is contrary to centuries old tradition and to the very = core of=20 the Ukrainian spirit? Will the sufferings and martyrdom of those = outstanding=20 church leaders, who, since the Sobor of 1921, stood for the apostolic = rights and=20 prerogatives of their people, in the face of vicious persecution from = outside=20 authorities, be in vain, as we watch an independent and self-governing = Ukrainian=20 Orthodox Church fade into the remote recesses of history?

[We = must, of=20 course, love these people as our neighbors as Christ commanded us to do, = misguided as they are. However, their orthodoxy is not that of the = Conciliar=20 Orthodoxy of the early church. That does not change the fact that we = must love=20 them and hope they see the error of their ways and repent. Once upon a = time, it=20 happened to a man named Saul . . .].

CONTENTS=20

*** The section above ("Comment on Today's Situation") is = the=20 work of a collaboration between the author of this article, Father Gary = Widmer=20 and Archbishop Michael J. Champion, who is also the editor of the work.=20

*The Sacred Handbook of the divine and sacred canons = called=20 The Rudder was first printed in Leipzig, Germany in 1800 A.D. and = embodies=20 the Holy Tradition of the Church, the Sacred Canons of the Apostles, the = Seven=20 Ecumenical and Local Councils, the Canons of the Holy Fathers and the = commentary=20 of the most holy Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (Mt. Athos). It was by = Agapius,=20 a hieromonach and Nicodemus, a monk. At the instance of the Synod, it = was=20 revised and published a second time in Athens in 1841, a third edition = was=20 published in Zante in 1864, a fourth edition issued by Anthony St. = Georgiou. The=20 fifth edition was published in Athens, Greece in 1908. =

**Some=20 chapters were written in 1917-1918, first published in 1925, other = chapters were=20 written in the 1930s and 1940s. The entire work was published in two = volumes in=20 1942.

CONTENTS=20

Back to = Metropolia Main=20 Page.

=CF=EE=E2=E5=F0=ED=F3=F2= =E8=F1=FF =E4=EE =E3=EE=EB=EE=E2=ED=EE=BF =F1=F2=EE=F0=B3=ED=EA=E8=20 =CC=E8=F2=F0=EE=EF=EE=EB=B3=BF. =