RTOC consecrated a Bishop for Serbian TOC

[jgress]

I doubt the anti-Greek feelings of the Serbs are the products of reading Edward Gibbon, but rather on the history of Greek interference in Serbian territory, e.g. when the Ecumenical Patriarchate unilaterally abolished the Patriarchate of Pec in the 18th century. But I'll let Despotovac speak for himself.

On the other hand, I would agree that, regardless of Serbia's traditional autocephaly, the fact remains that Fr Akakios was in obedience to Abp Callinicus and that, as far as I know, he can't leave Abp Callinicus for another bishop without a canonical release (unless Abp Callinicus were preaching heresy, but no one I think has claimed that). That being said, Despotovac somewhere claimed that there is a canon which deals with the matter of temporary administration by a bishop outside a given canonical territory. This canon states that such temporary administration is conditional upon consecrating a new bishop for the canonical territory within a year; failing that, the faithful of the territory are encouraged, perhaps obligated, to find another group of bishops who will consecrate a bishop for them. Perhaps Despotovac would like to cite the canon again here for us so that we can determine the value of this argument.

[leonidas]

The canon the Akakians appeal to is the 74th Canon of Carthage. This is the text they quote:

“… however it has happened that these bishops, who should have preserved love among the people and facilitated the choice of a new bishop, only for the sake of their own personal interests provoked disorder and fed quarrels in order for the church to stay without a permanent bishop, so that they could be in authority for as long as possible. In order to prevent such misuse, the Carthaginian fathers forbid a bishop to be in charge of a widow church for longer than a year, and if during that time he does not succeed to put in order everything necessary, a new bishop must be put up; the canon orders that the bishop should be removed from this rule and that a new bishop should be elected. “ (Canons of the Orthodox Church, Bishop Nikodim Milash, Novi Sad, 1896)"

The actual text of the 74th Canon is this:

Latin: Constitutum est, ut nulli Intercessori licitum sit cathedram, cui Intercessor datus est, quibuslibet populorum studiis vel seditionibus, retinere, sed dare operam, ut intra annum eisdem Episcopum provideat. Quod si neglexerit, anno exempto <Intercessor> alius tribuatur.

Greek: Ὁμοίως ὡρίσθη, ὥστε μηδενὶ ἐξεῖναι μεσίτῃ τὴν καθέδραν κατέχειν, ᾗ τινι μεσίτης δέδοται, διὰ οἱασδήποτε τῶν λαῶν σπουδὰς ἢ διχοστασίας, ἀλλὰ σπουδάζειν ἐντὸς ἐνιαυτοῦ τοῖς αὐτοῖς προνοεῖσθαι ἐπίσκοπον· εἰ δὲ περὶ τοῦτο ἀμελήσοι, μετὰ τὴν περαίωσιν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἕτερος ψηφισθῇ μεσίτης.

English: It has been decreed that it is not lawful to any intercessor to retain the see to which he has been appointed as intercessor, by any popular movements and seditions; but let him take care that within a year he provide them with a bishop: but if he shall neglect to do so, when the year is done, another intercessor shall be appointed.

What is clear is that the Akakians' text is actually a commentary on the canon and not the actual text itself. Furthermore, a close look at the text of the canon in all three languages shows that the main verb (tribuatur) of the apodosis of the conditional sentence at the end the canon is in the passive subjunctive (jussive) with the agent omitted. The question at hand: Who is the proper agent? The answer is obvious when one takes into account the spirit of all of the other Carthaginian canons: the agent of the passive jussive subjunctive verb is the Metropolitan (i.e. the Metropolitan of Byzacena) and his Synod or the Metropolitan's Exarch (i.e. the Archbishop of Carthage) and his Synod. Nowhere is it implied that the presbyters or laity can do this on their own. Nor is it stated that Metropolitans from other local churches across the sea can intervene. The Fathers were no democracts but rather were the champions of order. Moreover, the canon provides for "Intercessor alius", another intercessor (which is taken to mean "locum tenens" or "provisional administrator"), to be appointed. It does not provide an absolute time limit to the provisional administration of a diocese.

Regarding the anti-Greek feelings, I don't think the supposed "Greek interference" of the 18th century is relevant, especially since it is the Serbian Church of the 19th century that represents an exemplar case and model for obtaining canonical autocephaly. Rather, I think the "Greek interference" card is being played as a red herring to divert attention away from the problems with the RTOC intervention and the Akakian ordination.

Leonidas

[jgress]

Thank you, Leonidas. That the implicit agent is the Metropolitan, i.e. the First Hierarch of the Local Church, or the Synod of the Local Church, is at first glance a strong argument against the Akakian interpretation. I suppose the next question is: what happens when there is no First Hierarch or Synod, as with the Serbian Church today? The Carthaginian canon, I believe, was addressing specifically the situation where a single bishopric is widowed, but there remains a Local Synod with authority. If we are to interpret this canon according to the spirit, and not just the letter, how would we apply it to the situation in Serbia now? I think we all agree that, de jure, the GOC under Abp Callinicus does not constitute the Local Synod of Serbia, and so does not constitute the implicit agent of the verb tribuatur, were we to apply this canon literally to the Serbian situation. I think you yourself pointed out that the GOC has never claimed its authority in Serbia to be anything but temporary and provisional. But perhaps the GOC of Greece constitutes the de facto Local Synod in Serbia, for the very reason that the True Orthodox faithful of Serbia appealed to it for aid? In any case, your point that the implicit authority to determine an intercessor is the lawful local hierarchy continues to raise questions about who exactly the lawful local hierarchy are in Serbia.

[leonidas]

The following points suggest that right now the lawful and legitimate ruling hierarch for Serbia is Archbishop Kallinikos:

A) The fact that until the day before Fr. Akakios' ordination the whole Serbian Church was commemorating Archbishop Kallinikos in their services, serving on antimensia provided by the Greek Church, and were all ordained by Greek bishops;

B) The first point cited by Metropolitan Palvos in his letter to Fr. Akakios: "Let me firstly state that the authority of the Church of Greece in the historical territories of the autocephalous Church of Serbia is based on the ancient tradition of the Church that provisionally extends the pastoral jurisdiction of a bishop over the canonical territory of a widowed neighboring see until such a time when a new bishop is canonically elected. Our God is a God of order and this inspired prescription aims at the orderly and peaceful restoration of a local episcopate, avoiding the blameworthy extremes of disorder, strife, and schism. It was in this spirit that our Church, looking forward to the eventual restoration of the Serbian episcopate, took up the provisional administration of the Church of Serbia after its hierarchy abandoned its calling and joined itself to the apostasy of the panheresy of ecumenism."

The Metropolitan further clarifies:

"As long as the Church of Greece is charged with the provisional administration of the Church of Serbia, the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece is the effective locum tenens of the Serbian primacy and therefore the ruling hierarch throughout the historical territories of the Serbian Church."

The same principle is applied in points 7-8 of St. Tikhon's famous Ukas 362:

"7. If, in the situation indicated in paragraphs 2 and 4, there is found a diocese lacking a bishop, then the Diocesan Council or, in its absence, the clergy and laity, turns to the diocesan bishop of the diocese nearest or most accessible to regards convenience or relations, and the aforesaid bishop either dispatches his vicar bishop to administer the widowed (i.e. vacant) diocese or undertakes its administration himself, acting in the cases indicated in paragraph 5 and in relation to that diocese in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6, under which, given the corresponding facts, the widowed diocese can be organized into a special ecclesiastical district.

"8. If for whatever reason an invitation from a widowed diocese is not forthcoming, the diocesan bishop indicated in paragraph 7 undertakes the care of its affairs on his own initiative."

I should mention that the Church of Greece and the Church of Serbia are contiguous. The only other candidate would have been the Romanian TOC, but that was precluded on account of their communion with the Cyprianites.

Leonidas

[MoscowIs3rdRome]

Please pray for me and my throwing fuel onto a fire. I have been careless.

In my heart, I have allowed myself to take a side while pretending to be sincere in my questions and concerns. In my heart, I already made a decision; that this act was uncanonical. I have been a hypocrite and worse. I do not even know the Canons. Please forgive me Father Siluan and please pray for me. God has allowed me to see a different side of RTOC. I must confess that in the wicked spirit of malice, in my heart, I began to tear you down Father for calling "Tryphon" and "sava" out for their accusations and insults. It was wrong of me and I ask for your forgiveness.

Brother Stephendaniel,

it's a blessing from God for you to realize, that we shouldn't take sides, when we feel passionate impact during the conversation with different point of view people. We shouldn't trust ourselves, when we see mixture of passions and ''our own truth''.

Father Siluan has right, for rebuking shameless Sava's and Tryphon's post.

Read this for a better explanation:

http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/a ... not-judge/

...

First, it is important not to confuse judging in the sense of passionate condemnation with rebuking or reproving. +Blessed Theophylact+ writes: “He forbids condemning others, but not reproving others. A reproof is for another’s benefit, but condemnation expresses only derision and scorn. You may also understand that the Lord is speaking of one who, despite his own great sins, condemns others who have lesser sins of which God will be the judge.”

[MoscowIs3rdRome]

Canonically, the illicit nature of the unilateral actions of the RTOC and the Akakian Faction remains, whether the Metropolitan had written to them or not.

Bitter words your mounth spill from your heart, witch are the mirror of your reckless for peace and fast to judge spirit. Repeat prayers to come down from anger.

The fact that the Metropolitan did write to the Akakian Faction and warned them of the consequences of such an action two months before increases the moral responsibility they now bear.

The only Faction in here is yours neoromanidist, rightwing-matthiewite like Fraction of GTOC, which is, thank God, a small number of hardcore nationalists (sad for the many, in command of GTOC for a while), living in denial of present times, sentimentally reminiscing great times of Byzantium and trying to desperately apply hegemony in the present. That sickness gave the fruits of many of the 20-40 divisions among Greek people, big shame on the glorious name of all True Orthodox around the world.

My question is: did not the RTOC realize/recognize these points for themselves?

Thank God, RTOC clergy has far different spirit and discernment form you, and like you people. They are aware much more than you can even imagine, in fact they gave to GTOC present apostolic succession. I now see, why saint Philaret of New Your repented for giving you succession and hyrotesia.

An appeal to a vague, emotional, and subjective attachment to the plight of slavic brethren cannot absolve them objectively of a criminal contempt for canonical order and a shameful callousness to the unity of the Church, locally and universally.

I think that you are unaware of canonical disorder by your own fraction in GTOC. Before you speak about this and only one (by your opinion) ''criminal contempt'', say to visitors of EC at least 5 of your own during 1990-1999.

What would responsible and reasonable hierarchs have done in such a case?

They all ready did consecration of Serbian Bishop, no need to constantly ask about something that all normal people know.

They would have mediated between the Serbs (Serbian Church, my correction of your ignorance) and the Greek Church to resolve the matter in an ordered and canonical way,

We try that for 15 years, with no help from your side. You don't know or don't want to know about situation in Serbia, witch is far different from yours there in USA.

as the unity of the Church would have been their first principle and major premiss.

Of witch church, Serbian or Greek? Your unity, was paid in price of our own disunity and distrust, made by arcbishop Kalinikos ''double and phone call blessings'', given without any personal insight of the situation in Serbia. Didn't even had a skype report to see just one small part of Serbian condition.

Instead they let themselves be swayed, it seems, by the abstruse and dubious arguments of a capricious layman that convinced them

Now you, who were never in Serbia, know ??? who gave whom convictions and ideas? Didn't know you have a gift of spiritual view, like the old holy fathers, from a half-globe distance.

that seeking unity with the Greeks was not only futile--citing the "long delays" as unmediated evidence for deceit--but also dangerous in that, supposedly, the Greek First-Hierarch was bent on subordinating all of Slavia Orthodoxa to some kind of Imperium Graecorum--charges which are not only unfounded but slanderous.

Your cynical and slandering review is picturing the truth, just needs separation from her. Yes 15 years is a long delay, hegemony has it historical and practical verification.

In this spirit they sacrificed the hopes of many and,

Those ''many'' in Serbia, is actually 20-25 people (from about 400), deceived by advices both from ecumenists, and also new Romanidist Fraction in GTOC. Far from entering in analysis their spiritual condition, witch is sad and often clinically sick.

worse still, the commandment of our Lord for all to be one.

One in the God's truth (fallowed by peace and joy, like there in Lesna, France, in august 15 2011), not in your own stance.

I am saddened to say that the "Akakian Affair", as it were, has greatly diminished the status and reputation of the RTOC hierarchy.

I think its the GTOC reputation that's lowered, because, some of you claiming that RTOC isn't True OC, but KGB-a agenda etc... Try to imagine Russian faces, when they heard such accusations from your own bishops and theirs layman PRs.

My only hope now is that this episode is only a temporary set back in the quest for a much desired end.

All TO Christians hope for unity of RTOC, GTOC and STOC, only you and few like you, hope for punishment and repeating the old, 15years spoken story. Live with it, it has changed, and will never be back where you wanted.

Let us pray that the Lord enlighten our hearts and that He calm these waves, generated so wantonly at the start of this holy fast, for the salvation of our souls and the unity of His Church.

We do that all the time, try starting by yourself.

Leonidas

This pagan name, really pictures your spirit and ''discernment''.

[jgress]

MoscowIs3rdRome, your personal attacks on Leonidas are not acceptable. Firstly, his name is not pagan. In fact there is a St Leonidas of Alexandria:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09179a.htm

You do not have to agree with Leonidas. You do have to respect him (and be sure I will look at everyone to make sure they respect each other).

In XC

Jonathan