O. Litwin - October 3, 2013
Dear All,
We are quick to blame Moscow for the sorry condition of Ukraine and for diaspora problems but often overlook our own foibles that have helped cause such negative results. Since 1453 and the destruction of Constantinople, Moscow has aspired to become the third Rome. The methodology of using the old and established symbols of the EP within the newer structures of the Russky Mir is the latest religio-political ideology being employed by Moscow.
When the EP was forced to accept Moscow as leader of the kanonical klub, the resultant Kanonical Orthodoxy became an extension of the ROC -- a religion without sanctity overflowing with politics. In 1990 the UOCC gave the EP and Moscow free access to express the "foreign influences" that were much feared and opposed by previous Sobors. In his "Message" the EP has encouraged the UOCC members to submit to Moscow.
Following this line, the UOCC Metropolitan has been co-opted as an officer of the EP into supporting the sham kanonicity by shaming himself and shunning Patr. Filaret and disallowing him access to congregational property, an act contrary to the UOCC Charter. The unsuspecting and well-meaning UOCC Metropolitan is convinced that he is acting correctly and has allowed his position as an officer of the EP define his approach to the UOCC, while encroaching on the secular aspect of the UOCC Charter.
Thus, an impasse has been created and the true meaning and value of Ukrainian religious expression during the Church Service has been blocked for the UOCC member by the strength of the influence of Moscow, the collusion of the EP and the submission of the UOCC through its misguided leadership and the quagmire of a misunderstood, perceived-as-necessary, canonicity requirement (already granted, by its own statement in the Charter). All positions have dug in (with their own interests at stake) and are unlikely to be moved by logic: Third Rome (Moscow), day-to-day survival (EP), fear of loss of administrative control to the KP (UOCC).
There is no one in the UOCC, other than the BRUOC, that has the fortitude and the means to address the above problem. The European Parliament has recognized the problem, but the UOCC leadership does not. First in line are the hierarchs, who refuse to comprehend that, had they been around in 1918, there would be no UOCC today, because the ROC rejected the ONENESS with the UOCC (so valued today) and refused to accept the UOCC as a member of the Canonical group, or even to accept Ukrainians as part of a nationality. THE ROC HAD REJECTED THE ONENESS but the Ukrainians had already forgotten this and the EP was able to convince the ROC (his 1995 Letter) that the ROC was assured of becoming the beneficiary over the Ukrainian serfs who are slow to understand (or to remember) what others in Europe, already know.
O. Litwin
Dear All,
We are quick to blame Moscow for the sorry condition of Ukraine and for diaspora problems but often overlook our own foibles that have helped cause such negative results. Since 1453 and the destruction of Constantinople, Moscow has aspired to become the third Rome. The methodology of using the old and established symbols of the EP within the newer structures of the Russky Mir is the latest religio-political ideology being employed by Moscow.
When the EP was forced to accept Moscow as leader of the kanonical klub, the resultant Kanonical Orthodoxy became an extension of the ROC -- a religion without sanctity overflowing with politics. In 1990 the UOCC gave the EP and Moscow free access to express the "foreign influences" that were much feared and opposed by previous Sobors. In his "Message" the EP has encouraged the UOCC members to submit to Moscow.
Following this line, the UOCC Metropolitan has been co-opted as an officer of the EP into supporting the sham kanonicity by shaming himself and shunning Patr. Filaret and disallowing him access to congregational property, an act contrary to the UOCC Charter. The unsuspecting and well-meaning UOCC Metropolitan is convinced that he is acting correctly and has allowed his position as an officer of the EP define his approach to the UOCC, while encroaching on the secular aspect of the UOCC Charter.
Thus, an impasse has been created and the true meaning and value of Ukrainian religious expression during the Church Service has been blocked for the UOCC member by the strength of the influence of Moscow, the collusion of the EP and the submission of the UOCC through its misguided leadership and the quagmire of a misunderstood, perceived-as-necessary, canonicity requirement (already granted, by its own statement in the Charter). All positions have dug in (with their own interests at stake) and are unlikely to be moved by logic: Third Rome (Moscow), day-to-day survival (EP), fear of loss of administrative control to the KP (UOCC).
There is no one in the UOCC, other than the BRUOC, that has the fortitude and the means to address the above problem. The European Parliament has recognized the problem, but the UOCC leadership does not. First in line are the hierarchs, who refuse to comprehend that, had they been around in 1918, there would be no UOCC today, because the ROC rejected the ONENESS with the UOCC (so valued today) and refused to accept the UOCC as a member of the Canonical group, or even to accept Ukrainians as part of a nationality. THE ROC HAD REJECTED THE ONENESS but the Ukrainians had already forgotten this and the EP was able to convince the ROC (his 1995 Letter) that the ROC was assured of becoming the beneficiary over the Ukrainian serfs who are slow to understand (or to remember) what others in Europe, already know.
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.