The Milan Synod and the UAOC

Often- and repeatedly-- we are asked about the status of the UAOC (Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church) vis-a-vis the Milan Synod. It’s a fairly complex question, and one that cannot be reduced to a simple blessing or condemnation for a number of reasons. This paper will outline the short history of the relations between the UAOC and the Milan Synod and, hopefully, clear up some of the misconceptions concerning the current level of spiritual unity-- or lack thereof-- between Milan and the UAOC both in the context of history and the present.

The formation of the UAOC. For all intents and purposes, we can skip past the “dead-hand” period in the UAOC’s history (a period in which the “Bishops” of the UAOC had been “ordained” through priestly prayers and a set of relics). No current diocese of the Milan Synod has ever had relations with the UAOC when this was the case and there is nothing further that can be said on the matter, which itself was resolved when the last of the “dead-hand” Bishops was reconsecrated in 1942.

The “Sobornopravna” controversy. Perhaps the most confusing period in the history of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church, the period surrounding 1947 is most confusing, when the concept of Sobornopravna (literally “Council-ruling”) was being stretched to its extreme throughout the Ukrainian Church. The origins of this movement can be traced back to the “dead hand” movement, considering their rejection of the canonical regularization of the Ukrainian Church and modernist demand that the Church be democratized.1

It is during this period when the most extreme abuses of Sobornopravnist religious doctrines were anathematized in Council by the Bishops of the UAOC, and the sole Bishop supporting the movement, Bishop Hrihorij (Ohichuk), was removed as well as seven supporting priests2. The Sobornopravnist faction moved to America and Canada, to gain a foothold amongst Ukrainians there3. During this period, Archbishop Palladios (Rudenko) was already a Bishop of the UAOC, but apparently had nothing to do with either the Sobornopravnists nor the Council which condemned their excesses and excommunicated their leaders. He acted in neither administration.4

Insofar as the American Archdioceses of the Milan Synod-- which were received by the latter in 1997-- were originally blessed by Archbishop Palladios in 1967, there can be some claim to unity with --and orignally succession from --the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church, but certainly we were not in formal communion with a large part of them, and had nothing to do with the Sobornopravnists, nor is there any evidence to this author’s knowledge of Archbishop Palladios supporting their cause. While many Ukrainian writers make mention of the ideals of Sobornopravna, these concepts are largely theoretical and isolated from ecclesial reality.

1 For a detailed list of protocols of the Ukrainian Church detailing this fact see Isajiw,Boshyk, Senkus, The Refugee experience: Ukrainian displaced persons after World War II, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, University of Alberta, Edmonton,1992, p. 179, cf. p.164.

2 Ibid, p. 164. 3 Ibid, p. 165.4 Ibid, p. 179.

Later recognition of the UAOC. During the period after the death of Archbishop Palladios, there was limited formal communication with the Bishops of the Milan Synod with the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church, although there were positive contacts between Metropolitan Evloghios and Metropolitan (later Patriarch) Mystyslav of the UAOC. However, until 1993, none of these communications were formal or official. At the time, the American Archdioceses of the Holy Synod were originally constituted as the Synod of Orthodox Bishops of the Western Rite5. Until the death of Archbishop Auxentios in 1994, the Milan Synod had for the most part remained in communion with the Old Calendar Church of Greece under Archbishop Auxentios. The acceptance of the HOCNA proved to make such communion publicly difficult, and after the death of Archbishop Auxentios, virtually impossible. It was at this point communications were revived with the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church, and communion was informally established with both Patriarchs Mystyslav and his successor, Patriarch Volodymyr (Romaniuk). This resulted in the issuance of a second tomos detailing how the autonomy of the Milan Synod was to be retained. In some ways, the Tomos limited the autonomy of the Milan Synod by framing it in the formal terms of autonomy as understood versus autocephaly, which is how the Milan Synod practically existed since 1984.

Since 1997. Between 1994 and 1997, therefore, the Milan Synod acted as an autonomous Synod with rank below the Patriarchate of Kyiv (illogical in terms of order, but a simple result of the fact that they petitioned Kyiv and not the reverse.)6.

Unfortunately such limitations would be used be used by the Soviet-Church, former Moscow Patriarchate prelate Filaret Denisenko to attempt to tear the Milan Synod apart for its properties between 1996 and 1997. The ruse failed, and the Milan Synod ceased further communications with the UAOC-KP, although there was a schism involving two Bishops. Since 1997, therefore, we have seen a sort of evolution in ranking. Some see us as Greek. Some see us as Ukrainian. And an increasing number of people see us simply in terms of the restored Western True Orthodox Church, which is what the canons themselves assume, and what, de facto, we have been for years.

How, then, to view the UAOC? Since even before that time, the Sobornopravnists under Hrihorij and his succesors Andrei (Praszky) and others have continued to splinter. With the accession of Filaret, the UAOC proper began to splinter as well. Are there Bishops with legitimate succession who have preserved the true faith? Yes, but they are few. That a few old-guard Bishops independently consecrated pious men was-- and remains their only spiritual hope. For this reason I believe that there are True Orthodox Bishops among the Ukrainians still, perhaps a few “the world has not yet known”. Yet, accepting any of the current Ukrainian bodies as real Churches is an unwise move.

The official UAOC in all its forms is fully mired in ecumenism, though we hope that many of them turn aside this perverse thinking. The head of the UAOC, Metropolitan Methody Kuriakov, has meetings with Constantinople for national recognition7 and seeks to appear linked to the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate8. The “head” of the UAOC in America under the same Metropolitan 5 Unfortunately, since the incorporation of the Western-rite Synod into the Autonomous Western Church, certain independent groups which formed later claimed the use of the title.6 See the Tomos of Patriarch Volodymyr, 1994, cited in full in Lux Veritatis: A History of the Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of Western Europe and the Americas.7 http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=49838 http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=mosaic&div=312

Methody is an open homosexual who has assisted in the formation of communities which favor same-sex marriages9. Their “sister-Church”, the Vycheslav pseudo-RTOC (the RTOC under Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk being a perfectly legitimate True Orthodox body), again finds similar moral transgressions littering the hierarchy and has received in people of questionable quality as clergy. The “Kyiv Patriarchate” is headed by a former Soviet agent who has been formally censured by our Synod. Unfortunately, nothing tops the UAOC-Canonical, which is unfortunately also linked to the above mentioned individuals.

The “UAOC-Canonical” is anything but, having been formed by a “Bishop” who was consecrated by another “Bishop” who left Ukraine to avoid a conviction on theft of Church goods and built a network of beautiful little churches financed with bingo halls10. According to his original consecrator, he was consecrated privately in a parking lot because he didn’t have any “proof" he was made a Bishop11. To correct that mistake, he was then consecrated by Bishop Alexis (Nizza), who almost immediately thereafter abandoned monasticism and married. After installing their pseudo-Bishop in Ukraine12, they broke from him to join Metropolitan Methody Kuriakov.

Thus, true Bishops of the UAOC in all its forms are decreasing in number, because they are married to a nationalistic worldview which has less interest in the truth than in the nation. Such shall be easily deluded by antichrist, who-- as the Fathers have taught consistently since the preaching of the apostles-- shall be a real man, who shall “solve” all the problems of the nations, in exchange for a mark, without which none shall buy or sell.

9 Evidence of this is collected here: http://fakeorthodox.blogspot.com/2009/08/champion-de-estados-unidos-ahora.html10 “Metropolitan” Stephan (Petrovich), according to the testimony of numerous witnesses cross-jurisdictionally.11 This information came from a testimony of Archbishop Andrei (Brennan) in 1999 to the author.12 http://www.brama.com/news/press/021101uaoc.html