A RTOC Brief Account of the Event

[Despotovac]

Brother Sava seems that you have very good learned the course of mr. Goebbels. Repeating....

[sava]

From now on I forbid unsupported accusations that Dr. Moss instigated this affair. All we know is that he was involved in the negotiations, but the ordination remains the responsibility of Fr/Bp Akakije and the hierarchy of the RTOC.

The picture speaks for itself!

I am just wondering what was Mr. Moss doing in Odessa? Is he a member of Arch. Tykhon Synod?...http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2011/08/t ... -rtoc.html

[sava]

Brother Sava seems that you have very good learned the course of mr. Goebbels. Repeating....

As I have already posted the Akakian Schism is left without arguments!By this type of replays dear despotovac you are just confirming my words...

You (the Akakians) made an unjustified schism and by answering the Synodal letter's questions you will understand why!

Dear Despotovac I think you have to read more carefully the Synodal letter and pay attention to the following paragraphs:

''..What is more, in the document of their rebellion the severed brethren express their gratitude in words for everything that the Church of the G.O.C of Greece has provided them. But because we did not ordain for them as bishop the one whom a small group desired at the time that that group demanded, they decided to appeal to the Russians. What a concept of gratitude and obedience. They pay no heed to the bishops that ordained them because they will not promote a specific person among them. They set fire to their mother’s house and harm their brethren who remain faithful to her and then they utter into their mother’s ear, “thank you”.

They say, moreover, that the Greek Exarch did not visit Serbia for an entire decade. They are silent, however, on the fact that between 1998 and 2006 the Exarch of Eastern Europe was the late Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens, who, on account of his advanced age, asked assistance from then-Metropolitan Kallinikos of Achaia in ordaining and training priests and supplying them with Holy Chrism and antemensia. In addition, Abbess Euphrosyni as well on 8 October 2003 declared before Bishop Chrysostom of the Serbian Patriarchate, “the genuine Serbian Orthodox Church is the Church of the GOC of Serbia and I only obey the true Archbishop of the Greek Old Calendarists, Chrysostomos.” The Abbess’ good witness was the cause for the eviction of the nuns from the Holy Monastery of Stjenik. In 2006, at the request of the late Archbishop Chrysostomos, the Exarchate of Eastern Europe was combined with the Exarchate of Central and Western Europe having as its Exarch then-Metropolitan Kallinikos of Achaia, who from that point began to visit Serbia or to send another Bishop in his place. They say, as well, in their documents that the Greek Exarch caused a division between the Serbian GOC. You all know better than any what caused the division among you and simultaneously the attempts of your Archpastor at reconciliation, as well as who refused to concelebrate with other Serbian clergy and perpetuated in this way the division.

We too desire the rebirth of Orthodoxy in Serbia and the restoration of the autocephalous local Church of Serbia, understood in the genuine Orthodox sense. As we have declared in the past in writing, we have no plan to absorb the local Genuine Orthodox Church of Serbia. Moreover, in the memorandum our currently separated brethren submitted to us this past January, we did not set the small size of population as an impediment for the ordination of a bishop, but merely specified [as a condition] the better organization of the community of GOC of Serbia through the implementation of a Governing Council in which would be heard all views and which would truly express your voices. The separated brethren did not agree. They did not desire to have dissenters with them in this body. Why not, if they represented the majority? How would it have mattered, if there were a minority view? Did they fear that they really represented a minority view rather than the view of the majority? This is what in the end proved to be true. The system of sending away dissenters and of establishing deliberative bodies that prove to be merely cheerleaders of a leader suggests the totalitarian regimes of the past.

Our separated brethren and children attempt to make a parallel between their case and the case of the Greek GOC, when they found themselves without bishops in 1955. This parallel is incongruous. In 1955, the Church of the GOC of Greece was fully organized and formed as an organization and the 66 priests (with all of those able present) elected a twelve-member Council (Governing Ecclesiastical Council) through a transparent democratic process for their administration until they found Bishops. The term of office of the members of the Council was renewed every year by election. They chose their Episcopal candidates through an absolutely transparent process and secret ballot.

What elementary process did our estranged brethren follow that authorized them to speak for the Serbian Genuine Orthodox Church as they claim? They formed an exclusive group excluding those that disagreed with them; that is, they formed a faction (a transgression of the canons: Canon 18 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and Canon 34 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council) and arbitrarily proceeded to make decisions without consulting with you and, certainly, without Episcopal sanction. This is another difference between the cases of the Greek GOC in 1955-1960 and the Serbian GOC in 2011. You today, through the grace of the Lord, are not deprived of your bishops on account of persecution, as the Greek GOC were then. Accordingly all the activity of the priests of the GOC of Serbia should have been undertaken with Episcopal blessing, in that, as St. Ignatius the God-bearer writes: “The one who does anything behind the bishop’s back serves the devil”. (Epistle to the Smyrneans 9.1) Some priests ignore this maxim; but when they are ordained bishops they invoke it. Your bishops did not refuse to ordain a bishop for your better pastoral care. This, however, needed to happen at the right time and through canonical procedures. One cannot build a roof at the moment the foundations are laid. It is necessary, at least, to erect the columns to support the roof. The “columns” of the Serbian Church of the GOC are its better organization.

This action of our estranged brethren is even more condemnable in that they knew that on the agenda of the Synodal Meeting of August 3rd was a proposal for the Synod to adopt a time table for the ordination of a bishop of your choosing and the reorganization of the Serbian Church of the GOC immediately after the union with the Russian Synod under Archbishop Tikhon, with, moreover, the cooperation of Greek and Russian bishops. They did not wait at all the result of the Synod, but the eve of August 3rd they ran to make their plan a accomplished fact through their coup. ...''

The Synodal letter raises questions which are still not answered neither by fr. Akakios nor by Mr. Moss (your ''Patriarch'' in shadow)

[Suaidan]

From now on I forbid unsupported accusations that Dr. Moss instigated this affair. All we know is that he was involved in the negotiations, but the ordination remains the responsibility of Fr/Bp Akakije and the hierarchy of the RTOC.

Based on his letter, it appears he is forcing his parish's hand in England.

[Suaidan]

From now on I forbid unsupported accusations that Dr. Moss instigated this affair. All we know is that he was involved in the negotiations, but the ordination remains the responsibility of Fr/Bp Akakije and the hierarchy of the RTOC.

The picture speaks for itself!

I am just wondering what was Mr. Moss doing in Odessa? Is he a member of Arch. Tykhon Synod?...http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2011/08/t ... -rtoc.html

As the general editor of NFTU, I'd like to note we took that picture from another website. Vladimir Moss has, on many occasions, visited Odessa and if you follow NFTU, you'd see he sometimes speaks at their local councils and meetings.

[jgress]

From now on I forbid unsupported accusations that Dr. Moss instigated this affair. All we know is that he was involved in the negotiations, but the ordination remains the responsibility of Fr/Bp Akakije and the hierarchy of the RTOC.

Based on his letter, it appears he is forcing his parish's hand in England.

What I got from the letter is that he is threatening to withdraw support from the "Greeks" IF the Greeks try to prevent the "Slavs" from using the church. He's not actually saying he is going to move that support is withdrawn from Fr Augustine if he or the parish decides to stay with Abp Callinicus, but only if after that they decide to prevent him or other supporters of Bp Akakije from using the church.

[jgress]

In general, I'm trying to keep a lid on all the conspiratorial language being used in this debate. On the one side, you have the "Greeks" saying that Vladimir M is machinating behind the scenes, or that Bp Akakije is ambitious and eager for power etc. On the other side, you have the "Slavs" accusing the Synod and Abp Callinicus of plotting to absorb the Serbian Church and indeed every other local church, of trying to sabotage union with the RTOC etc, without any substantive evidence that these are the intentions of the GOC synod. The point is not that there may not be some truth in either interpretation, but that so many people are just throwing these accusations around without bothering to provide evidence. I'm going to take a tough line on this: don't attribute evil intentions to the other side without providing good evidence. That ought to reduce the volume considerably.