A RTOC Brief Account of the Event

[Suaidan]

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. In Serbia, the TOC were under Archbishop Chrysostomos since 1998 and Archbishop Kallinikos since 2006 as their Ruling Hierarchs and they recognized this through their commemoration in the divine services. It is extremely problematic, if not ecclesiological prelest, to claim that one can commemorate a bishop pro forma.

Actually, such a pro forma route would seem the safest: the alternative would be to commemorate "all Orthodox Bishops". That would be non-sensical if Fr Akakije was ordained by Archbishop Chrysostomos. If, as you correctly point out, the source of all things in the Church is the Bishop, then such a pro forma commemoration would be mandatory. The question would be whether members of a widowed Church appealing to a foreign Bishop are under his spiritual care or full jurisdiction in the normative sense of the canons.

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

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

It is not relativist and this conclusion is absolutely wrong. If the Church in Serbia was treated formally by the GOC of Greece as the "GOC of Serbia" (that is, the Genuine Orthodox Church of Serbia) and referred to Herself as such, as opposed to the "GOC in Serbia" (that is, parishes of the GOC-Kallinikos in Serbia, or a foreign mission) then the actions of the Serbs, based on their arguments and some of the recent hierarchical statements of Bishops of the GOC-Kallinikos, were completely justified, since they were told one thing by the Greek Bishops when another thing was done. If they were treated as the "GOC in Serbia", however, then the current claims of the GOC-Serbians are a deliberate misrepresentation; they would have been lying to the Greek Bishops when they were pretending to be obedient-- in such a case, they are not simply guilty of schism, but conspiracy against their lawful Bishops.

So self-understanding has a lot to do with this situation: if the parishes of then Fr Akakije, et cetera, came to the GOC-Kallinikos to normalize their ecclesiological status with the hope of episcopal elevation, expressed this fully, and the GOC-Kallinikos took them in anyway, such a move to the RTOC would not only be unsurprising, but after 13 years, completely justified. If they simply came because of the GOC's confession and placed themselves under their subjection, your argument would be correct, but I would consider establishing full jurisdiction on recently widowed (and I consider even 100 years, with no establishing territorial redrawing by a council, recent) territory a canonically censurable position anyway, so I suspect that while the final analysis has fault on both sides, we'd have to see how the GOC in Serbia was originally formed, et cetera.

[leonidas]

Actually, such a pro forma route would seem the safest: the alternative would be to commemorate "all Orthodox Bishops" ... If, as you correctly point out, the source of all things in the Church is the Bishop, then such a pro forma commemoration would be mandatory.

You do realize that you are implying that the commemoration of the Bishop is of no essential character but is pure formality in saying this. Of course it is formally required to commemorate the Ruling Hierarch, but it is not done merely for the sake of the form. The invocation of the Bishop's name in the divine services has real, ontological content.

The question would be whether members of a widowed Church appealing to a foreign Bishop are under his spiritual care or full jurisdiction in the normative sense of the canons.

The members of a widowed church are required to be obedient even to a locum tenens. If a locum tenens' jurisdiction were limited or partial, then he would not have any authority to ordain clergy, if the situation required it. All his ordinations would be invalid.

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

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

It is not relativist and this conclusion is absolutely wrong. If the Church in Serbia was treated formally...

Self-understanding is subjective and to assert it as a final criterion is indeed relativist. The point of the canons is to provide objective standards to judge by. Self-understanding represents only a mitigating circumstance that can be taken into account by an ecclesiastical tribunal in the imposition of a prescribed sentence or a lesser alternative.

Both scenarios that you present--that the STOC was either a GOC mission territory or the local autocephalous church apart from the Greek Church--amount the to same thing. Either as the Local Bishop in a missionary diocese or as the locum tenens of a widowed see, Archbishop Kallinikos was the lawful Ruling Hierarch and the Serbian Clergy were all members of a body of which he was the head.

[Suaidan]

You do realize that you are implying that the commemoration of the Bishop is of no essential character but is pure formality in saying this. Of course it is formally required to commemorate the Ruling Hierarch, but it is not done merely for the sake of the form. The invocation of the Bishop's name in the divine services has real, ontological content.

Firstly, this is becoming a digression. I have never read anywhere that the very invocation of the Bishop's name in some way validates the liturgy-- the Bishop's approval validates the liturgy, not the recitation of his name. If a priest says the wrong name by mistake and the Bishop has permitted him to serve, I have never seen it written that his liturgy would be a pseudo-liturgy. Likewise the reverse is true: if someone NOT permitted to serve by the Bishop recites his name in the service, that does not make the liturgy any more valid. The recitation of the name is so that the people know who the True Bishop is who ordained that the liturgy be done, and to my poor knowledge does not "vaildate" or "invalidate" the liturgy: the canon referencing same refers to an intentional deletion of the Patriarch's name for the sake of setting up another altar (1/2nd Synod). Without such a qualification, this sounds like we are heading towards magical incantation.

I am open to correction on the matter, and will research it further. I have learned to question even the more sure-sounding of living people; preferring the unchanging writings of the Fathers on the matter. I will return to this digression, perhaps, in another post.

The members of a widowed church are required to be obedient even to a locum tenens. If a locum tenens' jurisdiction were limited or partial, then he would not have any authority to ordain clergy, if the situation required it. All his ordinations would be invalid.

On the last point, this is largely irrelevant, as Fr Akakije was ordained a priest in Greece, which one would assume would fall within the Archbishop's normative jurisdiction.

Secondly, while this is correct, it does not take into account that a widowed Church needs to have a Bishop restored for it. A locum tenens is by its nature a temporary position. The canons in fact dictate that normatively it is 3 months (Can XXV of Chalcedon). Furthermore, as an outsider, I would need to see the documents establishing the substitution of the Abp of Athens before making a judgment; was this structure erected for the reestablishment of the Church of Serbia or not? I would hope we would agree that if this was not done, that even the creation of a locum tenens for another local Church would be wholly uncanonical; it would mean every Synod would have the right to establish counter-synods in other countries wherever there is a "void" in communion.

Finally, one cannot be the locum tenens of an entire second local Church! One has to be the locum tenens of a see.

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

It is not relativist and this conclusion is absolutely wrong. If the Church in Serbia was treated formally...

Self-understanding is subjective and to assert it as a final criterion is indeed relativist.

I didn't assert it as a final criterion at all; the final arbiter would be the canons themselves. I am not convinced of either side's veracity, though I incline towards the Serbian GOC in this case because frankly I smell dirty politics (of course, that's subjective). My original statement before you wandered off into the question of "self-understanding being subjective" was the following: "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."

I then pointed out that both the canonical treatment and penalties vary depending on which story in this case is the truth. If you are convinced of one side, fine. But I am not. Therefore, the facts are not altogether clear to me, nor how the canons should be applied. If the GOC-Kallinikos stated that their parishes in Serbia constituted the True Orthodox Church of Serbia, or that their administration was temporary, my point is that the GOC-Serbia's actions are canonically justified. Different canonical penalties are applied in either case.

So to restate simply: if the GOC-Kallinikos treated the organization of the GOC of Serbia as the Church of Serbia, albeit without a Bishop, they had definite responsibilities to restore the episcopate. If not, then the GOC Serbia is a schism. (That said, it's a schism from an uncanonically and illegally maintained mission as Serbia is already an ecclesiastical territory!)

Both scenarios that you present--that the STOC was either a GOC mission territory or the local autocephalous church apart from the Greek Church--amount the to same thing. Either as the Local Bishop in a missionary diocese or as the locum tenens of a widowed see, Archbishop Kallinikos was the lawful Ruling Hierarch and the Serbian Clergy were all members of a body of which he was the head.

If he was a locum tenens of a Serbian diocese he was not a "ruling hierarch" at all but a hierarch by proxy; since that is established Synodally, through the remainder of the local Church, or through a local Metropolitan (IN SERBIA). He couldn't assign it to himself, obviously (nor could his Synod assign it to him, as it was outside ALL of their jurisdiction collectively). Certainly the Archbishop cannot claim primacy in two national Churches, one of which he was never a member. Perhaps we are closer to an answer, as it would seem to me that the legitimacy of the erection of a locum tenens depends upon the existence of a community that needs it-- perhaps irrespective of what it says on paper?

And as I have said already, if the claim really is that Serbia was a missionary diocese of the Greek Church, then I need to step away from my desk for a while before I say something uncharitable, which I am unfortunately rather good at.

[leonidas]

Mr. Suiaden,

1. My original point was that the commemoration of a bishop is not a mere formality. I agree: one cannot just use a bishop’s "name" in order to "achieve" valid sacraments. It is the recognition of his authority--even if only provisional in nature--and a declaration of being part of the same body of which he is the head. This is its "ontological content".

2. If the Greek Archbishop never had any real authority in Serbia, as some of Bp Akakios' followers claim, then the ordinations of their clergy were invalid. A bishop cannot ordain clergy outside of his jurisdiction. Conversely, if the ordinations were valid, then his authority as provisional Ruling Hierarch was valid. This conclusion is unavoidable.

3. If a bishop can be the locum tenens of a local diocese, then he can be a locum tenens responsible for a "national" church as well. A diocese as a local church has all the catholicity of the "national" church. A strict distinction is unwarranted, especially during a time of crisis and apostasy. Also, there is no such thing as a hierarch “by proxy”. “By proxy” assumes that the Ruling Hierarch is alive and sends someone in his stead. A locum tenens, again, is a bishop of a neighboring see placed at the head of a widowed local church (yes, by a synod) until such a time when a new local bishop is ordained for the widowed see. He has all the ordinary authority of Ruling Hierarch for a limited tenure and may ordain clergy for that diocese in cases of extreme need. He is, moreover, required to keep the finances of the widowed diocese separate from those of his own diocese. He is in effect at the head of two separate structures. Nonetheless, the position of Metropolitan Pavlos was that, from the perspective of the Serbian Church, Archbishop Kallinikos is the effective—that is, he functions as—their locum tenens. Regarding the assignment, what is significant is the fact that the Serbian Church had no TOC members in 1998 and its restoration was a project begun under the Greek Hierarchy by monks tonsured and ordained in Greece. More on this point below.

4. "Let the ordination of bishops be within three months: necessity however may make the time longer," says the epitome of Canon 25 of Chalcedon. While three months is normative (the 8th Council of Carthage fifty years earlier had said 12 months), it is not absolute. The Greek Bishops cite two justifications for the prolonged provisional administration of the Serbian Church: a) insufficient local organization and b) a lack of unifying candidates.

5. This fact is, I would argue, more relevant to the question than self-understanding: that the recreation of the Serbian Church began ex nihilo with the blessing and paternal supervision of the Greek Hierarchy. This, I believe, comes closer to that at which you aim. Perhaps it would have been different had there been preexisting TOC communities that asked for assistance. But in this specific case the Greek Hierarchy blessed the restoration of the Serbian Church of which there were not any TOC members in Serbia, with the exception of a few monks in Greece. Was Serbia a missionary territory in the same way as North America or Australia? Categorically no. Was it necessary to create communities in Serbia ex nihilo? Yes. Is the Serbian TOC Church the continuation of the historical Serbian Church? Yes, but more in its potentiality than in its actuality. The truth is that the Serbian TOC Church in actuality was in a state between a missionary territory and an historical, local Church--not technically a missionary territory but an historical, local Church without any TOC communities until very recently and now very few at that. This explains the Greek paternalist policies and reveals the special situation that justified the Greek administration of Serbian territory provisionally. Two recent precedents for such an action are the Ukaz of St. Tikhon and even, perhaps, the provisional administration by the Church of Greece of territories of the Ecumenical Patriarchate from 1912 to the present in northern Greece and the eastern Aegean Sea. In times of extreme confusion and general apostasy, it would be foolish to maintain strictly the normative boundaries of the past ecclesiastical organization.

6. The Serbian Restoration was and remains the ultimate goal of the Greek Synod. We should realize that even with Bp Akakios the Serbian Church is not fully autocephalous. Autocephaly requires both the ability to resolve internal matters and the ability to elect, ordain, and install bishops. Bp. Akakios is dependent on the RTOC on both counts. He does not have the ability to convene an ecclesiastical tribunal, nor can he depose clergy on his own, nor can he elect and ordain bishops on his own. At most, the STOC-A must be considered a semi-autonomous diocese of the Russian Church. In contrast, one of the proposed measures submitted by Bishop Photios to the Greek Synod was the popular election and ordination of two bishops for Serbia in whose ordination would participate Greek and Russian bishops. Two bishops would have ensured the Serbs the ability to elect and ordain their own bishops and complete the restoration on their own. This document is currently being prepared for publication. The proposal, which was the product of a dialogue with Serbian TOC members, was revealed to Bp Akakios and the Russian delegation that visited Athens a few days prior to the fateful ordination. My theory is that the Akakians wanted to preempt the Greek Synod lest it elect candidates undesirable to them, in which case the move takes on the characteristics of a coup. (“It is a law of history that a coup happens before democratic elections not after”, according to Gen. Stylianos Pattakos). Finally, a major concern of the Greek Synod was the procedure of election: that it be both canonical and transparent and that the candidates be unifying figures rather than divisive in order to ensure the authority and legitimacy of the restored episcopate in Serbia. There are allusions to this in the Encyclical. Bp Akakios’ election and ordination, on the other hand, was unilateral and opaque. From this perspective the ordination seriously undermined the Serbian Church. We know for a fact that it destroyed its unity.

Finally, I want to say that it saddens me to write on these things. The progress of the Serbian Church was something that we all in the American GOC followed closely with much admiration, joy, and interest. The Akakians are individuals whom we know and love. To watch this temptation unfold was a torture worse than physical. My anguish over this is great.

Mr. Suiaden, if you wish to continue this discussion, contact me privately. I will no longer respond on this matter.

Leonidas

Please address Fr Joseph Suaiden by his proper title. - Admin

[Suaidan]

Removed remark about Leonidas' use of the wrong title, since I believe it was unintentional. - Admin

Removed reference to inflammatory language since it seems to have been a misunderstanding. - Admin

2. If the Greek Archbishop never had any real authority in Serbia, as some of Bp Akakios' followers claim, then the ordinations of their clergy were invalid. A bishop cannot ordain clergy outside of his jurisdiction. Conversely, if the ordinations were valid, then his authority as provisional Ruling Hierarch was valid. This conclusion is unavoidable.

Actually, they would be grounds for deposition on the part of the ordainer, if the diocese wasn't vacant. But I know of no canon that states the ordinations would be invalid. I am open to correction on this and will have to double check it.

3. If a bishop can be the locum tenens of a local diocese, then he can be a locum tenens responsible for a "national" church as well. A diocese as a local church has all the catholicity of the "national" church. A strict distinction is unwarranted, especially during a time of crisis and apostasy. Also, there is no such thing as a hierarch “by proxy”. “By proxy” assumes that the Ruling Hierarch is alive and sends someone in his stead. A locum tenens, again, is a bishop of a neighboring see placed at the head of a widowed local church (yes, by a synod) until such a time when a new local bishop is ordained for the widowed see. He has all the ordinary authority of Ruling Hierarch for a limited tenure and may ordain clergy for that diocese in cases of extreme need. He is, moreover, required to keep the finances of the widowed diocese separate from those of his own diocese. He is in effect at the head of two separate structures.

Specifically, the normative understanding of the canon is that such a locum tenens is a Bishop of a neighboring see under the same Metropolitan (in other words, of the same local Church). Ukaze 362 is a clear example of this. It did not grant authority to bishops of Churches outside Russia to operate.

By proxy means in the place of the intended holder-- meaning the actual Bishop, which until the election of Bp Akakije, there was none. The canon in question (and applying these canons in this fashion is a huge stretch, since normatively, these would be Bishops of the national Church in question, not a neighboring Church).

Nonetheless, the position of Metropolitan Pavlos was that, from the perspective of the Serbian Church, Archbishop Kallinikos is the effective—that is, he functions as—their locum tenens.

You are missing my point. If he is a locum tenens, the position MUST be temporary to begin with. If Metropolitan Pavlos stated otherwise, he's mistaken.

Regarding the assignment, what is significant is the fact that the Serbian Church had no TOC members in 1998 and its restoration was a project begun under the Greek Hierarchy by monks tonsured and ordained in Greece. More on this point below.

This sounds very much like you are saying Serbia was in fact a mission of the Greek Church.

4. "Let the ordination of bishops be within three months: necessity however may make the time longer," says the epitome of Canon 25 of Chalcedon. While three months is normative (the 8th Council of Carthage fifty years earlier had said 12 months), it is not absolute. The Greek Bishops cite two justifications for the prolonged provisional administration of the Serbian Church: a) insufficient local organization and b) a lack of unifying candidates.

I see you found the one-year limit; however, that canon is fairly absolute; since the failure to provide a Bishop is disturbingly clear:

Item, 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.

Obviously, the Serbs have felt differently about both these issues for at least a couple of years. Either way, if they had candidates to be consecrated, they should have been investigated, and elevated. This is where we once again find the conflict. Was Fr Akakije simply a priest of the Greek Church, as others here have argued, then the situation is worse.

5. This fact is, I would argue, more relevant to the question than self-understanding: that the recreation of the Serbian Church began ex nihilo with the blessing and paternal supervision of the Greek Hierarchy. ....Perhaps it would have been different had there been preexisting TOC communities that asked for assistance.... Was it necessary to create communities in Serbia ex nihilo? Yes. Is the Serbian TOC Church the continuation of the historical Serbian Church? Yes, but more in its potentiality than in its actuality. The truth is that the Serbian TOC Church in actuality was in a state between a missionary territory and an historical, local Church--not technically a missionary territory but an historical, local Church without any TOC communities until very recently and now very few at that. This explains the Greek paternalist policies and reveals the special situation that justified the Greek administration of Serbian territory provisionally.

Since you decide to begin this discussion in a flippant manner, I shall see if I can make this clear for you in like manner. I don't really care if the Greek Bishops visited every family on their Slava and gave the children milk and cookies with every visit. We are dealing with a popular revolt (provided for in the canons) in the territory of a local Church (provided for in the canons) in the territory of a deceased Bishop (provided for in the canons). If the GOC-Kallinikos was attempting to establish a missionary territory as though the Serbs were pagans they would be "canonically justified" in their imaginations but if they gave an inkling of understanding that this was an ecclesiastical territory then there are applicable canons that they DID NOT FOLLOW. I am not concerned with their excuses; the canons are very clear. For that matter, I am convinced that if the argument is "behold all the good we have done for them", (and I am increasingly convinced this is the case) the argument is absolutely worthless canonically.

6. The Serbian Restoration was and remains the ultimate goal of the Greek Synod. We should realize that even with Bp Akakios the Serbian Church is not fully autocephalous.

But they are one step closer to canonical exercise of their natural autocephaly, and I am sorry to say this, but that was done without the help of your Synod.

This conversation has been helpful, Leonidas. After reviewing the canons on the treatment of territories without a Bishop through this discussion, I am convinced that, based on my reading of the matter, the formation of the GOC-Serbia was not only canonical, but long overdue.

Mr. Suiaden, if you wish to continue this discussion, contact me privately. I will no longer respond on this matter.

Since this began publicly, there is no reason for it to be private. Obviously these matters are of sufficient public interest. Besides, I have nothing further to add. Unless we can adduce other canons or precedents that can demonstrate they acted in a less than canonical manner, I am fully persuaded of their canonicity.

[Priest Siluan]

At most, the STOC-A must be considered a semi-autonomous diocese of the Russian Church. In contrast, one of the proposed measures submitted by Bishop Photios to the Greek Synod was the popular election and ordination of two bishops for Serbia in whose ordination would participate Greek and Russian bishops.

Leonidas,

I am a little confused, although I heard about this proposal (also, there were people working for from the "Russian party"), what it is very strange and nonsense was that there was not much progress in the negotiations (of course, mainly, thanks the "Greek party") , no date for upcoming concelebration RTOC-GOC.

[jgress]

Fr Joseph, I think you may be overreacting a little. I know Leonidas to be normally a very polite person, so if he addressed you by the wrong title I'm sure it's an innocent mistake. Also, I'm not sure what was inflammatory about the passage you quoted, where you said he was using inflammatory language. As for wishing to continue the discussion in private, I think he means that this whole discussion in the various threads has been generally inflammatory and eristic, with people on both sides more interested in scoring points than in trying to learn about or resolve the issue, and that he regretted taking part publicly, although at the same time he felt the need to correct what he saw to be misunderstandings. I think you certainly have a point that these things should be discussed in public, but I agree with Leonidas that it needs to be done in the right way, in a spirit of peace.