O. Litwin - October 17
BRUOC, et al.
All these machinations, just cited, only serve to prove that Kanonicity is simply politics, power and money. One couldn't invent anything better, to make this fake canonicity more ridiculous. The leaders in this subterfuge must love it. The "Kanonicity" of the Apostles is soo komplikated! The modern ROC's Kanonicity was granted by Stalin and this ROC has been accepted in its entirety, "lock, stock and barrel" (all portions of the gun) into the exclusive Klub Kanonicity by the EP. You mentioned earlier that Mr. Yelensky had outlined how the purportedly holy Kanonical "church relations" are 99% politics. This is a good example and reminds me of the front-page photo of Metr. John with the smilin' Seraphim.
But in the UOCC, one is up against preconditioned beliefs, not facts. The Herald was careful to not publish the 2003 article by prominent Edmonton lawyer, Eugene Harasymiw's take on Canonicity where he states: "There is nothing in the Charter to indicate that the Church canons are the prerogative of an outside authority." Why not put that to the test? Why do we need to drag that out of the mouth of the Consistory? Isn't it supposed to be the guardian and the mouthpiece for the Charter? Where does the Consistory stand on this issue?
The anathema on Patr. Filaret was meant to cut off Ukraine from accessing the fake Kanonical group and its politics. Good. We want none of it. This was the practical move and hammer-blow of the ROC that set up the opposition forces in Ukraine. Ditto Canada -- and the UOCC took it all in. Emerging from their successful church and their supposed isolation in Canada, some "laggards" of the pan-Orthodox elite clergy continued to believe in the magical powers of the EP's Kanonicity with Moscow.
But the EP had betrayed the Ukrainians on many occasions (when he sold the Kyiv Metropolia, the 1995 Protocol, when he gave away the legacy of the Baptism of Ukraine in Moscow, the examples mentioned in Orest Sametz's "A Legal Analysis...", the recent "Message") and does not care two hoots about such details as the ROC's interpretations on the Holodomor. Today he is muzzled by Moscow against the joint declaration of the Ukrainian religious groups on the Association with Europe (as is the UOCC). Who knows what Putin will order him to say or to do tomorrow? Let us immunize the UOCC from such "instructions".
All one really needs to do is insist on the 1990 Agreement as signed by the EP. If one were simply to force the UOCC to assign the title to the bishop as required in the Agreement, as required in the By-laws, as supported by the commentaries of the clergy -- the whole house of cards would fall apart and the judge would just throw up his hands and say: "ENOUGH!" But the real problem is, that all this baloney with the ROC (as reconstituted by Stalin) and its political ONENESS with the UOCC has already been codified by the kooperative By-laws Kommittees in the UOCC By-laws.
This is where the legal opinions of Mesrs. Orest Sametz (and his esteemed legal colleagues) and the opinion of Eugene Harasymiw (an active member of the UOCC in Edmonton, now deceased) must take over, to up-end the whole process of what the hierarchs have done. The next step would be to ask the court to delete from the By-laws, those items unnecessarily inserted by the Kommittees and let the Church breath again.
Surely we must all be aware by now, that such a legal process of clarification would never be allowed to take place at the Sobor level, because the "provid" is too enamoured with the EP and places complete trust in the EP's decision-making powers as sourced from Moscow. In effect, all UOCC decision-making is now run from abroad because the By-laws are not delineated by a spiritual/secular divide. This uncertainty needs to be cleared up before any other court case can proceed.
O. Litwin
BRUOC, et al.
All these machinations, just cited, only serve to prove that Kanonicity is simply politics, power and money. One couldn't invent anything better, to make this fake canonicity more ridiculous. The leaders in this subterfuge must love it. The "Kanonicity" of the Apostles is soo komplikated! The modern ROC's Kanonicity was granted by Stalin and this ROC has been accepted in its entirety, "lock, stock and barrel" (all portions of the gun) into the exclusive Klub Kanonicity by the EP. You mentioned earlier that Mr. Yelensky had outlined how the purportedly holy Kanonical "church relations" are 99% politics. This is a good example and reminds me of the front-page photo of Metr. John with the smilin' Seraphim.
But in the UOCC, one is up against preconditioned beliefs, not facts. The Herald was careful to not publish the 2003 article by prominent Edmonton lawyer, Eugene Harasymiw's take on Canonicity where he states: "There is nothing in the Charter to indicate that the Church canons are the prerogative of an outside authority." Why not put that to the test? Why do we need to drag that out of the mouth of the Consistory? Isn't it supposed to be the guardian and the mouthpiece for the Charter? Where does the Consistory stand on this issue?
The anathema on Patr. Filaret was meant to cut off Ukraine from accessing the fake Kanonical group and its politics. Good. We want none of it. This was the practical move and hammer-blow of the ROC that set up the opposition forces in Ukraine. Ditto Canada -- and the UOCC took it all in. Emerging from their successful church and their supposed isolation in Canada, some "laggards" of the pan-Orthodox elite clergy continued to believe in the magical powers of the EP's Kanonicity with Moscow.
But the EP had betrayed the Ukrainians on many occasions (when he sold the Kyiv Metropolia, the 1995 Protocol, when he gave away the legacy of the Baptism of Ukraine in Moscow, the examples mentioned in Orest Sametz's "A Legal Analysis...", the recent "Message") and does not care two hoots about such details as the ROC's interpretations on the Holodomor. Today he is muzzled by Moscow against the joint declaration of the Ukrainian religious groups on the Association with Europe (as is the UOCC). Who knows what Putin will order him to say or to do tomorrow? Let us immunize the UOCC from such "instructions".
All one really needs to do is insist on the 1990 Agreement as signed by the EP. If one were simply to force the UOCC to assign the title to the bishop as required in the Agreement, as required in the By-laws, as supported by the commentaries of the clergy -- the whole house of cards would fall apart and the judge would just throw up his hands and say: "ENOUGH!" But the real problem is, that all this baloney with the ROC (as reconstituted by Stalin) and its political ONENESS with the UOCC has already been codified by the kooperative By-laws Kommittees in the UOCC By-laws.
This is where the legal opinions of Mesrs. Orest Sametz (and his esteemed legal colleagues) and the opinion of Eugene Harasymiw (an active member of the UOCC in Edmonton, now deceased) must take over, to up-end the whole process of what the hierarchs have done. The next step would be to ask the court to delete from the By-laws, those items unnecessarily inserted by the Kommittees and let the Church breath again.
Surely we must all be aware by now, that such a legal process of clarification would never be allowed to take place at the Sobor level, because the "provid" is too enamoured with the EP and places complete trust in the EP's decision-making powers as sourced from Moscow. In effect, all UOCC decision-making is now run from abroad because the By-laws are not delineated by a spiritual/secular divide. This uncertainty needs to be cleared up before any other court case can proceed.
O. Litwin
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep your remarks in line and in response to the body of the above letter. Be mindful and respectful. Please be diligent in providing sources to support your response. The aim is to educate one another.