THE RUSSIAN IS THE SERB’S FRIEND FOREVER?

[Despotovac]

It should be noted that having a Serbian bishop does not mean autocephaly of Serbian Church automatically. Absolutely not, since independence of a Church can be considered when there are at least 3-4 bishops giving it capability to ordain its next new bishop itself! But from first bishop on, the Church is entering the serious process towards its potential independence (autocephaly). In this process it is very important which canonical TOC Synod will back up that first bishop and with what intentions: with aspirations towards Serbian territory or without them. That is very important for future development of Serbian TOC.

[Mark Templet]

As I said previously, I have no problem with a TO Church being established (restored) to Serbia, if fact I would welcome that as I am sure it would persuade many of the WO clergy there to leave and come to them. However, I just think that we in the TOC need to carefully weigh each decision like this and make the priority not to scandalize the other churches. Unity must begin to be prized.

Everyone here knows that despite the good an STOC would be, if it sets relations back decades for everyone else concerned then we all know that this is just ammunition for those in the WO who want to leave, but look at the TOC as a bunch of in-fighting nuts. Just because the Serbs have a right to their restored national church doesn't mean that they should seize it at any cost as soon as possible, in my opinion.

Believe me, I agree that everywhere possible there should be local synods that handle the affairs of the locality they are in without have to check local decisions against a mother country with bishops who have no clue what they are actually dealing with. This is the Orthodox Church, not central committees ruling from on high. However, we also need to realize that this is an organic process of maturation of the local church. It needs to become apparent that a given country, or area, such as Serbia or North America, has so many people, clergy, monasteries and such that they need their own synods to oversee their affairs. But this takes many years to develop. I think it is backwards to do it the other way around, especially if it causes estrangement.

In summary, my issue is not a matter of whether it is right to have an STOC, but how and when that should come about.

PS thank you moderators!

[Fr. Steven Allen]

At one point in this article, the author, Fr. Alexei Lebedev, writes

The "cunning" of the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos is obliquely confirmed by the recent passing over into it of two bishops of the Boston Synod of the TOC. For a long time their hierarchy was proclaiming that they were conducting negotiations on mutual recognition, and that the negotiations were proceeding successfully, but in May, 2011 the Chrysostomites simply received two bishops, although earlier they had promised not to do this, and broke off the negotiations.

This badly misrepresents what actually occurred. I was on the committee of GOC clergymen appointed to make preparations for the dialogue - which actually never occurred - and therefore, unlike Fr. Alexei Lebedev, I witnessed firsthand what actually did occur. The assertion that "negotiations" were "proceeding successfully" on the basis of "mutual recognition" is simply untrue. There never occurred a single meeting other than off-the-record conversations between individuals, and "mutual recognition" was never promised by our Synod and could not be, since our Synod's public, oft-stated, and well-known position has never changed: they are the canonical synod of the Church of Greece, and HOCNA is a schism from the Church of Greece.

At any rate, to point to our Synod's dealings with HOCNA as an example of the cunning of "the Greeks" when dealing with non-Greeks does not make sense, since the HOCNA leadership - the gerontocracy of Holy Transfiguration Monastery acting through it puppet bishops - are also Greeks and have certainly never shown themselves lacking in cunning. What actually happened was that our Greek bishops did almost nothing, and the very UN-Greek Met. Moses (an Irish-American) took the bull by the horns, acted openly, directly, and forthrightly like the "true Israelite without guile" which he is, and did the right thing, which was simply to apply to join the canonical Synod of the Church of Greece. We clumsy, naive, utterly un-cunning Americans had to badger our Greek bishops into receiving him, because they preferred to finesse the situation in a more "Greek" fashion. This, however, simply became impossible, not because of anything we did, but because HTM's cunningly orchestrated propaganda campaign to divide and conquer Met. Moses' flock went into high gear long before any formal dialogue could occur. If the GOC Synod had not received Met. Moses when they did, HTM would have destroyed him and his metropolis.

Shortly afterward, the Toronto clergy with their large flock fled HOCNA because of Met. Ephraim's absurd insistence on their publicly proclaiming his - to put it politely - idiosyncratic speculations about posthumous conversion as a dogma of the Church. HOCNA imploded without our lifting a finger. We did our best to ask them to stay together as long as we could, until this became impossible. It is unfortunate that Fr. Alexei Lebedev did not ask us directly what had occurred before giving this gravely misleading interpretation to these events.

Fr. Steven Allen
St. Spyridon Church
Detroit, Michigan

[Priest Siluan]

It should be noted that having a Serbian bishop does not mean autocephaly of Serbian Church automatically. Absolutely not, since independence of a Church can be considered when there are at least 3-4 bishops giving it capability to ordain its next new bishop itself! But from first bishop on, the Church is entering the serious process towards its potential independence (autocephaly). In this process it is very important which canonical TOC Synod will back up that first bishop and with what intentions: with aspirations towards Serbian territory or without them. That is very important for future development of Serbian TOC.

Of course, every step for re-establishing a canonical and real autocephaly should be done correctly and seriously. It would be a long process.

[Ephrem]

It should be noted that having a Serbian bishop does not mean autocephaly of Serbian Church automatically. Absolutely not, since independence of a Church can be considered when there are at least 3-4 bishops giving it capability to ordain its next new bishop itself! But from first bishop on, the Church is entering the serious process towards its potential independence (autocephaly). In this process it is very important which canonical TOC Synod will back up that first bishop and with what intentions: with aspirations towards Serbian territory or without them. That is very important for future development of Serbian TOC.

Forgive me, I'm confused. So the Serbians don't consider themselves to be independent? I thought the RTOC already recognized Serbian autocephaly. If the serbs aren't independent, then who are they dependents of?

[Priest Siluan]

It should be noted that having a Serbian bishop does not mean autocephaly of Serbian Church automatically. Absolutely not, since independence of a Church can be considered when there are at least 3-4 bishops giving it capability to ordain its next new bishop itself! But from first bishop on, the Church is entering the serious process towards its potential independence (autocephaly). In this process it is very important which canonical TOC Synod will back up that first bishop and with what intentions: with aspirations towards Serbian territory or without them. That is very important for future development of Serbian TOC.

Forgive me, I'm confused. So the Serbians don't consider themselves to be independent? I thought the RTOC already recognized Serbian autocephaly. If the serbs aren't independent, then who are they dependents of?

IMHO this Autocephaly is de jure just like the Russian Church today, but there are not a autocefalous Russian Church today.

[Ephrem]

IMHO this Autocephaly is de jure just like the Russian Church today, but there are not a autocefalous Russian Church today.

Well, all the Russian groups act autonomously, though, based on the Ukaze No. 362. So it is not only de jure independence, but de facto, since they are actually capable of functioning that way.