Bishop Akakije and Metropolitan Kallinikos

[Lydia]

I apologize if these issues have already been addressed but I'm just trying to learn about the True Orthodox Jurisdictions.

I recently read a blog post from Vladimir Moss which stated that some in the synod of metropolitan Kallinikos were pressing him to defrock Bishop Akakije, due to his leaving without a canonical release.
Also, that Metropolitan Kallinikos has forbidden anyone to take communion in RTOC churches.

I guess that means that GOC and RTOC are not in communion with each other. Since, from what I read, it seems that they have identical ecclesiology, why are they not in communion with each other? Am I missing something?

[Lydia]

Sorry, I posted this in the wrong place.

[jgress]

That's a LONG story. Basically, you're right that the GOC and the RTOC are identical in doctrine, including ecclesiology. The division is based on non-dogmatic differences over administration. The first impediment was the fact that one of the RTOC bishops had been received from the MP by chrismation, but his baptism in the MP was suspect (sprinkling), which upset some zealots in the GOC who believed he should have been baptized.

My opinion is that the zealots are correct on canonical grounds, but also that the decision to exercise economy in such cases rests with each Local Church. It's well known that the Russian Church was formerly extremely lax on these issues, and yet the other Local Churches never used that as a pretext to break communion. I think in our times, what's more important is the unity of the True Orthodox jurisdictions.

The second impediment came when the RTOC consecrated Bishop Akakije, which the GOC considers a schismatic act (although it seems they have not formally deposed him as of this moment). The canonical issues here are pretty complicated; basically, it depends on whether you believe that Serbia ceased to be its own autocephalous jurisdiction when the Belgrade Patriarchate fell into heresy. My opinion is that this is not the case, but I'm uneasy about the way in which Serbian autocephaly was re-asserted by then Father Akakije and his followers in defiance of his canonical superior, Archbishop Kallinikos.

The pretext was that Archbishop Kallinikos was neglecting his flock in ways that should have brought an investigation and trial, e.g. never visiting them as I understand a bishop is bound to do a certain number of times a year. I honestly don't know the truth behind these allegations. The implication, of course, is that if Abp Kallinikos had fulfilled his episcopal duties, the STOC would have been content to remain under Greek jurisdiction. Does this entail that Serbian autocephaly had lapsed?

V Moss has written a great deal from the side of Bishop Akakije. I recommend also reading the side of the GOC.

To answer the second question, yes Tito was a Croat.

[Hieromonk Enoch]

I thought it was by pouring? I've seen photos of MP clergy holding peoples heads over a font (obviously a small one mean for babies), and pouring water over their head; it's still the not the right way to baptize, but, it's not sprinkling (which as far as I understand, has never been acceptable by economy).

I think, in these situations, because of the 'animosity' between different parties everyone will try and portray the other in the worst light, and exaggerate things one step further than the previous bad was. For example, it certainly sounds worse that they were 'sprinkled' instead of poured instead of immersed. That way, people think, 'Hey, these RTOC bishops don't know what they are doing? If they do this, then obviously they are incompetent, or secret this or that."

Here's the problem; if you say baptism by pouring can't be accepted by economy, under any circumstances, then you have real problems? Why? Because Met. Seraphim (Lade) was a Lutheran (1) who was chrismated by the Russian Church in the earlier part of the 20th century. He eventually was made a monk, and then ordained all the way up to bishop. He was made Abp. of Berlin, etc, etc. Anyway, it was Met. Seraphim, the apparently 'unbaptized' Lutheran ho ordained Met. Vitaly (2) (the First Hierarch of the ROCOR), to the Priesthood back in 1940. Now, can anyone tell me who an unbaptized man, whose baptism was not able to be accepted even by the extremes of economy (which some maintain pouring cannot), and was Chrismated by the Russian Church, could even be Chrismated? If you aren't baptized you can't be truly chrismated; and, needless to say, neither can you be ordained. Ergo, if this 'logic' holds, not only were these RTOC priests not truly chrismated, or ordained, in addition, Met. Vitaly was never really ordained to the Priesthood! And, needless to say, how could he have been ordained a Bishop!? Now, does anyone realize where this road would take us? If these men are not Priests because they were received by economy from a non-Orthodox church who baptized them by pouring, with the argument that such baptism cannot be filled by the grace of Chrismation, then, where does that leave us with Met. Vitaly?

Obviously the answer is that we don't need to go down that road because the road is the wrong way, and that the Church can, and has, and does, have the ability by economy to accept non-immersive baptisms. Otherwise, everyone baptized by, chrismated by, or ordained by Met. Seraphim is completely invalid; not to mention all the people baptized by, chrismated by, and ordained by Met. Vitaly, and of course, the effect of all those they ordained who baptized people etc. What happens if we discover that Abp. Seraphim, or Abp. Leonty (who conveyed the gift of the Apostolic Priesthood to Abp. Akakius) should have somone in their past who baptized them who had been originally a Lutheran who was chrismated and then made a priest in pre-Revolutionary Russia?

Like you noted, Jonathan, in these cases you generate more problems than you solve.

In Christ,

Fr. Enoch

(1) See note 111 (http://books.google.com/books?id=Zuoyd6 ... 29&f=false). He was from a Protestant (as I understand from another book, a Lutheran) family; and I can tell you, they didn't baptize Lutherans in Russia in 1903.

(2) (http://stvladimirs.ca/wordpress/his-emm ... an-vitaly/)

[jgress]

Yeah it may have been pouring. I didn't know pouring was different from sprinkling, canonically.

[Hieromonk Enoch]

The point, however, is that, even though the form prescribed has been triple immersion, the Church has received people otherwise, by economy. I don't necessarily want to get into a big discussion about this, because, I don't think it necessarily reflects upon my main point which was the reductio ad absurdum of denying that the Church can receive non-immersive baptismal forms by Chrismation, or economy. Because, if that's so, then, like I pointed out, we have real problems with people who were never given an immersive baptismal form (like Met. Seraphim who derived from the Lutherans and was later chrismated, and the Lutherans didn't baptize by immersion by then) and then later were made bishops, and ordained people bishops and priests (i.e., Met. Vitaly being made priest by Met. Seraphim in 1940).
Ultimately, we have to acknowledge that economy is legitimately able to be used in receiving people; if the Orthodox Church of Russia could receive a Lutheran by Chrismation in 1903, and then later ROCOR have him as a bishop, then, it would seem like RTOC could take in by chrismation three people from the MP whose baptismal form was probably just the same as the Lutherans in 1883.

In Christ,

Fr. Enoch

[Suaidan]

Salient points, Father Enoch.

The only thing I would mention is that sprinking is allowed by St Cyprian for those on a sick bed. Not saying that can should be used normatively, however-- nor pouring.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxv.html

I repeat: I am in no way implying that people should be sprinkled. Simply saying that under certain circumstances the Church can even use this.