THE RUSSIAN IS THE SERB’S FRIEND FOREVER?

[Ephrem]

I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer as to the exact circumstances surrounding the departure of your Bishop Andrei from his former synod, the GOC of Greece (Matthewite), formerly under the presidency of Andreas, Archbishop of Athens and all Greece, and currently under Abp. Nicholas.

Did you ever have a chance to contact Bishop Andrew yourself? If you'd like, his contact information can all be found on the ROAC website.

[Cyprian]

Fr. Mark Templet mentioned on this forum that the reason for Vladyka Andrei's departure from his former synod had been explained to his satisfaction. If Vladyka Andrei had justifiable reasons for his departure, then Fr. Mark should have no problem passing along that satisfactory explanation to me. It should not be any secret.

There are really only five possibilities that I can determine. By all means, if I have overlooked any other possibility, inform me.

1) Fr. Michael was given a blessing to depart from communion with his bishop/synod
2) Fr. Michael justifiably departed from his bishop and synod because they publicly preached heresy
3) Fr. Michael justifiably departed from his bishop and synod because he came to regard his synod as schismatic, and he desired to not follow any schism in the Church.
4) Fr. Michael justifiably departed because he was unable to obtain justice from his bishop and synod
5) Fr. Michael departed without the blessing of his bishop or synod, for no justifiable reason, or was expelled.

Now, if his departure was due to the first reason, there would not be any need for secrecy about the matter. Fr. Mark and others would simply say that Vladyka Andrew left with the full blessing of his hierarch/synod. So I consider this possibility to be the least likely.

If (the then) Fr. Michael departed for either the second, third, or fourth reasons, once again there would be no need for secrecy. Fr. Michael would necessarily have had to address any alleged heresy, schism, or injustice by those whom he swore obedience to, before departing. He would have had to write letters, or make public pronouncements, or confront his hierarch(s) in some fashion or another. There would be a record of this.

So that leaves the fifth possibility, which seems most likely. The fact that members of ROAC, who know why Vladyka Andrei left, refuse to disclose publicly the reason, leads any rational-thinking person to believe that there is something to hide.

I don't see why it is necessary to call up your bishop, a man I've never met before, and burden him with questions such as these. I do not think the bishop would appreciate someone he has never met or even heard of, calling him up and asking these probing questions right away.

These questions are best left answered by folks such as Fr. Mark Templet, who has been given authority to speak on behalf of his bishop, who also informs us that he has been given a satisfactory explanation. There is no logical reason why he cannot forward that satisfactory explanation on to me, if it truly is satisfactory.

The president has a press secretary to answer many questions. It is not necessary to go straight to the top to get answers heard. That's why congressmen and senators, CEO's etc., have staff members and such.

Anyway, the only reason I brought this up again in this thread, is because Fr. Mark seems insistent that the Serbian clergy ought to be in complete obedience and submission to the will of their hierarch, since they confess him to rightly divide the word of truth, and willingly chose to place themselves under obedience to him.

One should understand that Fr. Mark's bishop (at the time a priest) also willingly petitioned to join the GOC Synod of Abp. Andreas, and agreed to submit to his synod in obedience as well. The then Fr. Michael was with the Matthewites for approximately six years before leaving under circumstances which still have not come to light.

I think Fr. Mark should first explain to us why his bishop departed from obedience to his former hierarchy, before he starts challenging the TOC Serbian clergy on why they must unquestioningly submit to theirs.

Folks in glass houses...

[Ephrem]

Does anyone know if there has been any communication between the RTOC and the GOC on this issue?

[Mark Templet]

Once again Cyprian has hijacked another thread, and as usual it is to beat the same dead horse as always; nothing to do with the subject at hand. As usual he will not listen to anyone, nor will he address his own situation.

Moderators: Someone please redact his insipid comments and allow everyone here to have a logical and respectful conversation. So long as Cyprian is in this thing, I am out.

Cyprian,
You have Vladyka Andrei's phone number, grow some courage and call him if you are so concerned.

[Despotovac]

Serbia, Serbian Church and faithful children of Serbian Church have their religious needs and lead a struggle for their Serbian Church. In the beginning, they sought help from sister-Church of Greece, not suspecting that Greeks will spread their intentions to another Churchesterritory which is non-canonical act if done without invitation from local Church on the territory. They were called to help, but ONLY TO HELP, not to arbitrarily take over total control in canonical borders of another Churches territory since that is unlawful act! When Serbs understood the direction of these acts of Greek Church and where this lead them to, many times asked that this unnatural and no canonical situation be changed and, when they received no positive answer, they turned for help to another local Church - to RTOC. Serbs have no obligation to Greeks aside moral one: gratitude for so-far given help-which will always stand, as well as Greeks never had no obligation to Russian Church Abroad which helped them to restore episcopate and that is very clear. Serbs cannot be considered members or clergy of Greek Church, so turning for help to another local TOC is no theme for discussion whether this act is canonical or not. Greek bishops who helped Serbian Church cannot be lawful hierarchs of Serbian Church and to acquire right for their behavior on this basis. From the very beginning the status of Greeks was clearly stated: TEMPORARY HELP until the Serbs get their bishop. Clerics (ordained for Serbian Church) with monastic’s and faithful flock who lead struggle for revival of Serbian Church have the right for self-determination both morally and canonically since they are members of their separate Local Church. Greek Archbishopry cannot impose itself to be Mother-Church to Serbian Church like it was Constantinople Patriarchate. This Greek behavior caused disillusion among Serbs and reluctance to ask ordination of a bishop from them, for the consequences of such help are unpredictable.

[jgress]

I agree with Fr Mark. This thread is for discussion of the canonical situation of the Serbian TOC. Discussion of other jurisdictions that is not immediately relevant to this topic is banned.

[Priest Siluan]

Who are anyone to deprive the Serbians (or any historical Local Church) from their just and old right to be independent?

ROCOR Bishops did not do with Greeks... And it is interesting that in that time it was not did with the ROCOR Synodal approval, but through the good will and on grounds of conscience of Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago (first) and Archbishop Leonty of Chile (later)