A RTOC Brief Account of the Event

[Ekklisiastikos]

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.

It is not conspiracy theories. Read again the encyclical. The Akakians along with the Russians didn't have the patience to wait one more day for the Synod to decide. They were determined for this ordination long ago..

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.

No evidence at all ! They keep pleading the panslavic sentimentality and emotional ethnic criteria for their actions (their appeal to RTOC) instead of theological and canonic criteria. The Holy Canons are against them and that's it! All this time we hear from fr. Stephan and fr. Akakios only attacks for the schisms occured in the history of the GOC from ambitious clerics like them (Kyprianos, Makarios, Paicius etc). No arguments so far. As for the slanders that Mr. Moss points in his bully-letter to the British, the GOCs never spread around such things about fr. Akakios. We are informed about these from his letter for the first time.

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.

We have provide evidence for every single thing we have stated.

[jgress]

Well the "Slav" interpretation is that the Synod had previously failed to fulfill its obligations to provide the Serbs with a bishop, which they argue is precisely what the canons enjoin: Serbia was a widowed church, and the Greek GOC's authority in Serbia only lasts as long as they fulfill their obligations to provide the Serbs with a bishop within a certain period (the canon as interpreted by Bishop Nikodim says a year). I'm not saying this is the right way to apply it to the case in Serbia (e.g. the Serbian TOC does seem to be very small to function practically as an autocephalous church), but I think the principle of the Slavic argument is sound. For instance, I am not convinced that we can say Abp Callinicus is the functioning locum tenens of the Serbian Patriarchate (though I would be happy to see more arguments from precedent that this is an accurate description of the situation).

So I don't think it's reasonable to accuse Fr/Bp Akakije of personal ambition. You can say he did the wrong thing for the right reasons, but I am not prepared to tolerate defamation of his character. I know of nothing in his life that would suggest he would do anything except for what he saw was the good of the Church.

[leonidas]

Jonathan,

I have a few comments germane to your post.

A) Ecclesiologically, there is a problem in claiming that the commemoration of a bishop is merely of instrumental value or that it is done pro forma--a position that approaches a "magical" understanding of the Church and liturgy. On the contrary, the bishop is the beginning and end of all things in the Church. He is the head, the summary, and the source of all. You cannot receive ordination, chrism, and antimensia from a bishop and commemorate him and then claim that you are a body apart from him. Thus the whole claim that a group of priests--even if it were all of them--represented the catholic body of the autocephalous Serbian Church apart from their bishop is seriously flawed.

B) Metropolitan Pavlos' phrase "effective locum tenens of the Serbian Primacy" does not mean that Archbishop Kallinikos was the locum tenens of Belgrade, Pec, or Karlovic in an ordinary sense; rather,that he was the one Ruling Hierarch of the Serbian Church not only a canone--although St. Tikhon's Ukaze does foresee such a case and therefore represents a precedent--but also, in this case, by petition, as Serbian faithful came themselves to the Greek Church. He was in effect the placeholder of the Serbian Primacy until the time when the Serbian episcopate is canonically restored. Finally, all this is evidenced further by the fact that his name was commemorated in all True Orthodox parishes and monasteries throughout the territories of the Former Yugoslavia and that all clergymen in those territories were ordained or received by him.

C) Finally, there is no canonically mandated time limit to a temporary ecclesiastical administration.

[Priest Siluan]

However, I lowly think GOC, STOC, RTOC still have time to solve this problem and humbly return to dialogue, nothing is more important than Christian love among the true Orthodox brothers, we should show demonstrate this great virtue to ecumenists and every from our detractors.

[stephendaniel]

EDIT: Ignore my original post. Speaking out of turn again. I am sorry.

[Suaidan]

A) Ecclesiologically, there is a problem in claiming that the commemoration of a bishop is merely of instrumental value or that it is done pro forma--a position that approaches a "magical" understanding of the Church and liturgy. On the contrary, the bishop is the beginning and end of all things in the Church. He is the head, the summary, and the source of all. You cannot receive ordination, chrism, and antimensia from a bishop and commemorate him and then claim that you are a body apart from him. Thus the whole claim that a group of priests--even if it were all of them--represented the catholic body of the autocephalous Serbian Church apart from their bishop is seriously flawed.

Well, that's not exactly true, otherwise any Florinite Bishops made would have been, properly, Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad.

A more important question is what was the GOC-Serbia's self understanding. Did it understand itself as the GOC of Serbia or as the GOC of Greece in Serbia? When did this self-understanding develop? Without answering this question, we cannot really frame a rational context for the situation. If the Serbs were asking for a Bishop because the GOC of Serbia needed a Bishop all along, then they were completely justified in their actions. If, as is implied in some posts, they simply applied to the Greek Church for lack of a Bishop and were willing to accept a foreign national jursidiction, that's a different story.

However, I lowly think GOC, STOC, RTOC still have time to solve this problem and humbly return to dialogue, nothing is more important than Christian love among the true Orthodox brothers, we should show demonstrate this great virtue to ecumenists and every from our detractors.

This is unacceptable after the fact. Considering the broken communion involved, both sides have a moral obligation to explain their positions. If the Greek Bishops are right, Bp Akakije is a schismatic. If Bp Akakije is right, then the GOC-Kallinikos Synod basically is taking the position that it has jurisdiction well past its traditional boundaries and can effectively establish its own jurisdiction everywhere. Both sides deny each other's accusations. Furthermore, this all occurred within 30 days.

To discuss a loving dialogue without regard to the truth is simply absurd. Both sides' denunciations have had a hostile tone, but a review of the canons and their application produces at least rational justifications for both positions. The question of applicability depends on how close the described circumstances are to reality.

Jonathan and Leonidas have both cited the canons in their most recent posts. And their review is the only way this conundrum can get solved. We've had way too many "washings over" of the rule of the Church in the history of True Orthodoxy, so while the desire for a proper analysis is still fresh, it should be done before any hardenings of respective positions.

[leonidas]

A) Ecclesiologically, there is a problem in claiming that the commemoration of a bishop is merely of instrumental value or that it is done pro forma--a position that approaches a "magical" understanding of the Church and liturgy. On the contrary, the bishop is the beginning and end of all things in the Church. He is the head, the summary, and the source of all. You cannot receive ordination, chrism, and antimensia from a bishop and commemorate him and then claim that you are a body apart from him. Thus the whole claim that a group of priests--even if it were all of them--represented the catholic body of the autocephalous Serbian Church apart from their bishop is seriously flawed.

Well, that's not exactly true, otherwise any Florinite Bishops made would have been, properly, Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. I'll start by stating that the Florinites never placed themselves under a ROCOR bishop nor had they ever commemorated a ROCOR bishop pro forma. There was simply no bishop in Greece from 1955 until the ordination of Archbishop Akakios. Secondly, the basic unit of the Church is the local diocese--the eucharistic gathering presided by a bishop or by a priest with authority delegated to him by the bishop. Where the bishop is, there is the Church; and bishop, priests, and laity are joined as members of the Church as are the members of a body. The unity is complete and perfect. It is extremely problematic, if not ecclesiological prelest, to claim that one can commemorate a bishop pro forma and that the bishop is not essential to the body of the Church but merely accidental.

A more important question is what was the GOC-Serbia's self understanding.

This is relativist. Self-understanding is not a final criterion of canonicity. To claim that it is is to invite anarchy and disorder--that is, schism.