OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 07:08:40 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The exclusive Orthodox canonical status of the OCA in North America  (Read 2058 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« on: August 24, 2014, 12:33:39 AM »

LOL!   I hope that you are not serious on what you wrote.
 
Dead serious as always, Father.
A Metropolia is an ecclesial province Isa.
You seemed unaware of that fact, Father.
Of course I said "province" to cover both Greek and Slavic terminology.
Your problem, unfortunately, lies deeper than mere terms, Father.
Sorry that you don't know that and thought that you had to "correct" me.

I have to correct more than your terminology, Father.
So I will say it in layman's terms so that even you can understand it:  The setting up of a diocese does not make a metropolia beyond it.
 
We could go over this pursuant to canon 1 of Constantionople, and Apostolic Canon 35 as interpreted by St. Nektarios in the Pedalion etc. but to cut to the chase: in 1905 the Russian Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America had his cathedra in New York (where his predecessors had been pastoring and exercising jurisdiction (officially recognized/required by the State of New York since the 1870s) since the 1860s, with suffragans on both coasts and in between (his jurisdiction recognized by the Dominion of Canada in 1903 over the Orthodox parishes-at the time the only Orthodox parishes in Canada) visiting the parishes throughout the USA and Canada beyond the cathedrals of Sitka, San Francisco and Brooklyn and the cathedral parishes forming in Chicago, Boston and Winnipeg. As the local Church per Canon 8 of Ephesus, it consecrated its bishop of Brooklyn-the first consecration of an Orthodox bishop in the New World, and uncanonical under Canon 8 of Ephesus if the Russian Archdiocse of the Aleutians and North America was not the Local Church per the Orthodox canons.

But since the Russian Archdiocese, as indicated above, was the Local Church having jurisdiction over the continent years (plural) before the Phanar even advanced its THEORETICAL jurisdiction in its Tomos of 1908, over a decade before a bishop authorized by that uncanonical Tomos set foot on the continent, and nearly two decades before any jurisdiction was organized and chartered on the uncanonical basis of that Tomos, and decades still before that jurisdiction so formed on that uncanonical basis was able to consolidate: that consecration in March 1904 New York by the Russian bishops of North America (the primate then still in San Francisco as the New York Cathedral was being built) was uncontestably in correct Orthodox canonical form and authority.

I now feel like the calculus teacher who took on an algebra class in favor to a friend and has to deal with an incorrigible student.    
Incorrible student-is that a confession, Father?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,705


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2014, 12:45:48 AM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,436


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2014, 12:46:44 AM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin

That guarantees it will never happen.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,705


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2014, 01:00:47 AM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin

That guarantees it will never happen.

Your bishops have the same problem.   Wink
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,436


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2014, 01:03:47 AM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin

That guarantees it will never happen.

Your bishops have the same problem.   Wink

Oh, really. They could care less for world approval.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,705


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2014, 01:08:58 AM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin

That guarantees it will never happen.

Your bishops have the same problem.   Wink

Oh, really. They could care less for world approval.

When the first Old Calendarist Bishop set foot on US soil, he didn't recognize anyone else's jurisdiction; hence, the GOC-K can claim the entire Americas for themselves, lol.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2014, 01:09:50 AM »

LOL!   I hope that you are not serious on what you wrote.
 
Dead serious as always, Father.
A Metropolia is an ecclesial province Isa.
You seemed unaware of that fact, Father.
Of course I said "province" to cover both Greek and Slavic terminology.
Your problem, unfortunately, lies deeper than mere terms, Father.
Sorry that you don't know that and thought that you had to "correct" me.

I have to correct more than your terminology, Father.
So I will say it in layman's terms so that even you can understand it:  The setting up of a diocese does not make a metropolia beyond it.
 
We could go over this pursuant to canon 1 of Constantionople, and Apostolic Canon 35 as interpreted by St. Nektarios in the Pedalion etc. but to cut to the chase: in 1905 the Russian Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America had his cathedra in New York (where his predecessors had been pastoring and exercising jurisdiction (officially recognized/required by the State of New York since the 1870s) since the 1860s, with suffragans on both coasts and in between (his jurisdiction recognized by the Dominion of Canada in 1903 over the Orthodox parishes-at the time the only Orthodox parishes in Canada) visiting the parishes throughout the USA and Canada beyond the cathedrals of Sitka, San Francisco and Brooklyn and the cathedral parishes forming in Chicago, Boston and Winnipeg. As the local Church per Canon 8 of Ephesus, it consecrated its bishop of Brooklyn-the first consecration of an Orthodox bishop in the New World, and uncanonical under Canon 8 of Ephesus if the Russian Archdiocse of the Aleutians and North America was not the Local Church per the Orthodox canons.

But since the Russian Archdiocese, as indicated above, was the Local Church having jurisdiction over the continent years (plural) before the Phanar even advanced its THEORETICAL jurisdiction in its Tomos of 1908, over a decade before a bishop authorized by that uncanonical Tomos set foot on the continent, and nearly two decades before any jurisdiction was organized and chartered on the uncanonical basis of that Tomos, and decades still before that jurisdiction so formed on that uncanonical basis was able to consolidate: that consecration in March 1904 New York by the Russian bishops of North America (the primate then still in San Francisco as the New York Cathedral was being built) was uncontestably in correct Orthodox canonical form and authority.

I now feel like the calculus teacher who took on an algebra class in favor to a friend and has to deal with an incorrigible student.    
Incorrible student-is that a confession, Father?

Nasty move Isa, but I will put them in context:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,60366.msg1176935.html#msg1176935

« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 01:10:35 AM by Father H » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2014, 06:08:18 PM »

Keeping threads on topic is a nasty move, Father? OK.
"You seemed unaware of that fact"  Lol.  You are hilarious Isa.  The Mediterraneans, of course, use metropolis for a diocese and eparchia for a cluster of them.  The Slavs are the reverse, using "eparchy" for a diocese and "metropolia" for a cluster of them (province).  The term "eparchia" (province) is the canonical term for a cluster of episkopi.  In any case, you did not know this, and I called you out on it, and now you try to cover your tracks with THIS!  Hilarious!
LOL. I called you on your fixation on Alaska, as if the Russian Church froze somewhere in 1840 in Sitka. Even then you would be wrong, as it even then had its flock in California, and the Ludwell family out East.

But since you insist, I shall have to cite the relevant canons, starting with these on the theme of the local Church, at issue here, and following up with others in order of their appearance in the Pedalion (I could cite instead the Kormchaya Kniga, but since only the Phanar and its Slavic sycophants and fellow Phyletists dispute the canonicity of the OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly, citing the Phanar's cited authority gets to the heart of the matter.  Besides, St. Nekodemas the Hagiorite compiled it as the sum of canon law at the time of the OCA's founding as the exclusive Orthoodox canonical jurisdiction in North America, and was adopted by the Phanar as its standard rule just before February 29/March 13 Sunday of the Veneration of the Holy Cross 1904-a date, we shall see, that disposes of the controversy of the exclusive Orthodox canonical status of the OCA in North America)
Apostolic Canon 34
Quote
It behoves the Bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognise him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval: but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own parish and by the territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus will there be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
(cc. VI, VII of the 1st; cc. II, III of the 2nd; c. VIII of the 3rd; o. XXVIII of the 4th; cc. XXXVI, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch.).
Interpretation.
Just as, when the head is unwell and fails to function properly, the other members of the body also are ill disposed or even utterly useless, so and in like manner it may be said that if the one acting as head in the Church does not honor her fitly, all the rest of the body of the Church will be out of order and unable to function. It is for this reason that the present Canon ordains that all bishops of every province ought to know who is the chief among them, i.e., the metropolitan; and ought to regard him as their head, and not to do anything unnecessary without consulting him, as respecting, that is to say, anything that does not pertain to the parishes of their bishoprics, but, extending beyond these limits, have to do with the common condition of the whole province, as, for instance, do questions concerning the dogmas, matters involving adjustments and corrections of common mistakes, the installation and ordination of prelates [i.e. consecration of bishops], and other similar things. Instead, they are to meet with the metropolitan and confer with him in regard to such common matters, and decide in common on what appears to them the best thing to be done. Each of the bishops should do by himself, without consulting his metropolitan, only those things that are confined to the limits and boundaries of his bishopric and to the territories that are subject thereto. But just as bishops should do nothing of common interest without consulting the metropolitan, so and in like manner a metropolitan ought not to do anything of such common interest alone and by himself without consulting all his bishops. For in this way there will be concord and love, both between bishops and metropolitans and between clergymen and laymen. The outcome of this concord and love will be that God the Father will be glorified through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who acquainted men with the name of His Father and laid down the law requiring love, when He said: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for another" (John 13:35). And He will be glorified in His Holy Spirit, which through Its grace has united us in one spiritual association. That is the same as saying that as a result of this concord the Holy Trinity — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — will be glorified, in accordance with the voice of the Gospel which says: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and may glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16).
Concord.
Almost identically the same things are seen to be ordained also in c. IX of Antioch. That is why c. VI of the First Ecumenical Council commands that the ancient customs are to hold; those, that is to say, which had been prevalent in accordance with this Ap. c.; so that the patriarch of Alexandria had control of affairs in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, since such was also the custom in connection with the patriarch of Rome too. Likewise the patriarch of Antioch had control of his own provinces; and, in general, the same privileges were preserved to every Church and Metropolis, so that every metropolitan should have control over the provinces subject to him. Canon VII of the same Council ordains that the patriarch of Aelia, i.e., of Jerusalem, is to have the observance of the ancient honor and the dignity of his own Metropolis, Canon III of the 2nd commands that the patriarch of Constantinople is to have the highest honor. Canon VIII of the 3rd, too, demands that the rights belonging to each province be free from constraint and impurity again even as in the beginning, according to the old custom, and especially as respects those of Cyprus. In addition, c. XXXIX of the 6th confirms the same c. VIII of the 3rd.
Apostolic Canon 35
Quote
A Bishop shall not dare to confer ordinations outside of his own boundaries, in cities and, territories not subject to him. If he be proved to have done so against the wishes of those having possession of those cities or territories, let him be deposed, as well as those whom he ordained.
(c. II of the 2nd; c. VIII of the 3rd; c. XX of the 6th; cc. XIII, XXII of Antioch; cc. Ill, XI, XII of’the Sardican.).
Interpretation.
This Canon too was ordained for the concord and good order of bishops and metropolitans. It says in effect that a bishop ought not to dare to confer ordinations outside of the boundaries of his bishopric, or to perform any other ecclesiastical function in those cities and countries that are not within his own territory (but neither has a metropolitan the liberty to go into the parishes of his bishops and perform ordinations or any other prelatical ceremony). Only then has he the liberty to perform such functions, when he has been invited by the bishop of the region in question. If, nevertheless, it transpire that he did this without the consent and permission of the bishops who control those cities and territories, let him be deposed who ordained men beyond his boundaries, together with those whom he ordained. For in such a case it would appear that there were two bishops in one and the same place, or two metropolitans, which is unlawful and prohibited by c. VIII of the 1st, and by c. XII of the 4th.
Hence, in its c. XX the Sixth Ecum. C. ordains that whoever goes to a strange bishopric and publicly teaches on his own account and of his own accord, without the local bishop’s permission, shall lose his position in the prelacy and shall be allowed to perform only the functions of a presbyter. Perhaps for no other purpose was this provision made than that of preventing the occurrence of this absurd anomaly, to wit, that of having two bishops at the same time in the same bishopric, one wanting this and the other that, which he dared to do. For if that was not the purpose that this council had in mind, why should it degrade the bishop to the rank of a presbyter, at a time when this degradation amounts to sacrilege, according to c. XXIX of the 4th? Besides, if a bishop teaching beyond his boundaries is unworthy, he ought to be unworthy also of the presbytery; but if he is worthy of the presbytery, why should he not be worthy also of the episcopate? So it is apparent that the reason why it reduces him to the rank of a presbyter is to leave one bishop again in one bishopric, and not two. For he sinned immediately against the episcopal office by causing two bishops to be in the same bishopric, on which account he is deposed therefrom; he did not sin, however, against the office of presbyter, since two or more presbyters are not prohibited from being in the same bishopric, wherefore neither is he deposed therefrom (although Zonaras and Balsamon say that anyone that teaches publicly contrary to the will of the local bishop is on this account reduced to the rank of presbyter, in order to humble him, on the ground that he became vainglorious and exalted himself). Hence sacred Photius (Title IX, ch. 11), to do away with the apparent contradiction of the canons — that is, of c. XXIX of the 4th and c. XX of the 6th -, proposed c. VIII of the 1st. Nevertheless, even when it comes to performing the office of a presbyter, a bishop from beyond the boundaries must obtain the permission and consent of the local bishop. If he does not have such permission, he cannot exercise the function; he simply has the standing of a laymen in that case as long as he remains in that foreign region, according to the canons. In order to sum up the entirety of the present Apostolical Canon, we may say thus: A bishop who performs a prelatical service in a strange bishopric, with the consent of the bishop thereof, is not performing it with the power and operation of his own episcopate (for in that case there would be two bishops in one bishopric as though possessing two distinct and separate powers and faculties); but, on the contrary, solely with the episcopal power and faculty of the local bishop (for in this case the two bishops are regarded as one bishop). And if this be so, as indeed it is, anyone that performs a prelatical function against the will of the local bishop, is deposed even from his own episcopal power, which, without possessing it, on the score of his being beyond his boundaries, he exercised; as well as from the strange episcopal power of the local bishop, which he might have possessed with the consent and permission of the latter, but which he stole and appropriated as his own.
Concord.
The same things are ordained also by c. II of the 2nd, wherein the latter prohibits anyone (whether a patriarch or a metropolitan) from meddling in other dioceses beyond his boundaries in order to perform ordinations or to execute other ecclesiastical accomodations. But still more is that true of c. VIII of the 3rd, which ordains that the bishop of Antioch shall not have authority to carry out ordinations in Cyprus, beyond the boundaries of that diocese, which, it says, is contrary to the Apostolical Canons, meaning the present one. Both c. XIII and c. XXIV of Antioch agree in ordaining that no bishop shall dare to meddle in a foreign province and perform any ordinations therein, except only in case he goes there provided with letters of the bishop inviting him; if he do so under contrary circumstances, the ordinations and all other services he may perform shall remain void and invalid. If, however, it so happen that one bishop has lands, say, and substantial property in the province of another bishop, c. XII of the Sardican allows him to go there in order to gather produce, and for three weeks’ duration to attend church in the church that is in the vicinity of his property, but not to go any closer to the city in which the bishop is. That a bishop may not even teach in territory beyond his own boundaries without the consent of the local bishop is stated in c. XX of the 6th above and in c. XI of the Sardican. Canon III of the Sardican, in fact, not only prohibits this, but does not even allow a bishop to go to the province of another bishop without being invited.
First Ecumenical Council of Nicea I canon 6
Quote
Let the ancient customs prevail which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, to allow the bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also the treatment usually accorded to the bishop of Rome. Likewise with reference to Antioch, and in other provinces, let the seniority be preserved to the Churches. In general it is obvious that in the case in which anyone has been made a bishop without the Metropolitan’s approval, the great Council has prescribed that such a person must not be a Bishop. If, however, to the common vote of all, though reasonable and in accordance with an ecclesiastical Canon, two or three men object on account of a private quarrel, let the vote of the majority prevail.
(Ap. c. XXXIV; cc. II of the 2nd; c. VIII of the 3rd; c. XXVIII of the 4th; c. XXXVI of the 6th; c. XIX of Laodicea; c. XIII of Carthage.)
Interpretation.
The present Canon ordains that the old customs of the three Patriarchs are to be kept in vogue, chiefly and mainly as regarding the Patriarch of Alexandria, and secondly as regarding the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Patriarch of Rome, succinctly and comprehensively. (Concerning the Patriarch of Jerusalem the present Council devote special and separate treatment in its c. VII; and concerning the Patriarch of Constantinople the Second Council set forth its views in its c. III). So that the Patriarch (whom it calls a Bishop here, owing to the fact that it had not yet become customary to designate one by calling him the Patriarch) of Alexandria came to have authority over all the bishops and metropolitans in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis. In fact, the same custom also came to prevail with regard to the Patriarch of Rome in that he was allowed to have authority and presidency over all the occidental bishops and metropolitans. Likewise the Patriarch of Antioch is given authority over the bishops and metropolitans of Syria, of Middle Syria, of each of the two regions called Cilicia, of Mesopotamia, and of all the other dioceses subject to his jurisdiction. The present Canon, in fact, commands that not only the privileges of these Patriarchs are to be preserved, but even the privileges of other provinces and churches that are subject to the metropolitans. What is said of the Patriarchs in existence is also true of the independent Patriarchs, then and now — that is to say, the autocephalous Patriarchs, such as those of Asia, of Pontus, of Thrace, of Cyprus, of Africa, and of other countries. (Though others say that the Canon names here also other provinces, embraced, concisely speaking, in the dioceses subordinate to the other two Patriarchs, of Constantinople and of Jerusalem; and that of metropolitans it names only patriarchs. But the first interpretation is better; see also Dositheus, in the Dodecabiblus, pp. 117, 123.) Thus the effect of this Canon is that nothing relating to the administration of church affairs can be done without their consent and approval or sanction. Now, inasmuch as the greatest and chiefest of all ecclesiastical affairs is ordination, the Canon accordingly adds that if anyone is made a bishop without the approval of his own metropolitan, as this great Council has decreed, he is not to be a bishop, because in spite of the fact that the multitude of bishops voted for the bishop, the ratification of the election had to be made by the Metropolitan, and whoever was approved by the Metropolitan had to be made a bishop (and see the footnote to the present Council’s c. IV). Yet if all the bishops in common elect a candidate to an episcopate in accordance with ecclesiastical Canons, but two or three object to his election, not for a good reason and justly, but cavilously and spitefully, the vote of the majority shall decide the matter. Canon XIX of Antioch decrees the same thing. Canon XIII of Carthage says that if any one of those who took part in the voting and signed should afterwards oppose his own confession and signature, he shall deprive himself of the honor of (being) a bishop. Read also the Interpretation of Ap. c. XXXIV.
Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I canon 2
Quote
Bishops must not leave their own diocese and go over to churches beyond its boundaries; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons, let the Bishop of Alexandria administer the affairs of Egypt only, let the Bishops of the East govern the Eastern Church only, the priorities granted to the church of the Antiochians in the Nicene Canons being kept inviolate, and let the Bishops of the Asian diocese (or administrative domain) administer only the affairs of the Asian church, and let those of the Pontic diocese look after the affairs of the diocese of Pontus only, and let those of the Thracian diocese manage the affairs of the Thracian diocese only. Let Bishops not go beyond their own province to carry out an ordination or any other ecclesiastical services unless (officially) summoned thither. When the Canon prescribed in regard to dioceses (or administrative provinces) is duly kept, it is evident that the synod of each province will confine itself to the affairs of that particular province, in accordance with the regulations decreed in Nicaea. But the churches of God that are situated in territories belonging to barbarian nations must be administered in accordance with the customary practice of the Fathers.
(Ap. cc. XXXIV, XXXV; cc. VI, VII of the 1st; c. VIII of the 3rd; c. XXVIII of the 4th; cc. XX, XXX, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch; cc. III, XI, and XII of Sardica.)
Interpretation.
Since, as is attested by Socrates (Book 5, ch. 8 ), officiation beyond the boundaries of one’s own diocese was formerly a matter of indifference on account of persecutions, and, as Theodoret says, blessed Eusebius of Samosata did it as a matter of extraordinary zeal. On this account, when peace reappeared in the Church as a whole, the present Canon was adopted and promulgated. It relates neither to autocephalous Metropolitans alone, as Balsamon interpreted it, nor to Patriarchs alone, but to both these classes of dignitaries alike, according to Dositheus (p. 233 of "Those who have served as Patriarchs"), in order that each of them may serve his own province and diocese, and not interfere in one that is alien, and not confound the rights of the churches; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons (cc. VI and VII, that is to say of the First, and much more in accordance with Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV), that the bishop of Alexandria may manage only the parishes in Egypt (the Council expressly mentioned the bishop of Alexandria because the Bishop of Alexandria with his party cooperated to have Maximus the Cynic ordained in Constantinople, while, on the other hand, great St. Gregory was ousted from office in spite of its being his diocese and parish). The metropolitans of the East are to attend to the affairs of the East, with the proviso that the prerogatives of the bishop of Antioch be duly respected, in accordance with the Canon (sc. VI) of the Nicene Council; and the metropolitans of the Asian, Pontic and Thracian domains are to manage only the provinces belonging to them (these dignitaries, according to c. XXVIII of the 4th, have to be ordained after the bishop of Constantinople). It commands, in addition, that both patriarchs and metropolitans alike refrain from interloping beyond their own dioceses and provinces with the object of ordaining others or performing other ecclesiastical services in the parishes of others, without being invited to do so; and that the synod of each particular province shall manage the ecclesiastical matters of each province of the metropolitans, whether they be elections, or ordinations, or penances, or absolutions, or any other such matters; likewise, as regarding the affairs of each diocese of the patriarchs, the diocesan synod shall govern such matters of the diocese in question, as the Nicene Council has decreed (c. VI). For the same thing is involved in the decree of the Nicene Council that no bishop shall be ordained without the consent of the metropolitan, and in which the present Council says to the effect that the synod of each province (of the metropolitan, that is to say) shall govern the affairs of each province, respectively. As for the churches of God that are situated in the midst of barbarian nations, where there either were not enough bishops to make up a synod, or it was necessary for some scholarly bishop to go there in order to bolster up the Christians in their faith. These churches, I say, ought to be managed in accordance with the prevailing custom of the Fathers. To be more explicit, neighboring and abler bishops ought to go to them, in order to supply what is missing for a local synod. Which, though contrary to Canons, yet as a matter of necessity was allowed by the Council. Read Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV, and c. I of the Sixth.
Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus canon 8
Quote
Our fellow Bishop Reginus, most beloved by God, and with him the most God-beloved Bishops of the province of the Cypriotes Zeno and Evagrius, has announced an innovation, a thing which is contrary to the ecclesiastical laws and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and one which touches the freedom of all. Hence, since common ailments require more drastic treatment, on the ground that they do greater damage, and especially in view of the fact that the Bishop of Antioch, far from following the ancient custom, has been performing the ordinations in Cyprus, according to information given in libelli and by oral statements made by most pious gentlemen who have approached the Holy Council; therefore those who preside over the churches in Cyprus shall retain their privilege unaffected and inviolate, according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers and ancient custom, whereby they shall themselves perform the ordinations of the most reverent Bishops. The same rule shall hold good also with regard to the other diocese and churches everywhere, so that none of the Bishops most beloved by God shall take hold of any other province that was not formerly and from the beginning in his jurisdiction, or was not, that is to say, held by his predecessors. But if anyone has taken possession of any and has forcibly subjected it to his authority, he shall regive it back to its rightful possessor, in order that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, nor the secular fastus be introduced, under the pretext of divine services; lest imperceptibly and little by little we lose the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, has given us as a free gift by His own blood. It has therefore seemed best to the holy and Ecumenical Council that the rights of every province, formerly and from the beginning belonging to it, be preserved clear and inviolable, in accordance with the custom which prevailed of yore; each Metropolitan having permission to take copies of the proceedings for his own security. If, on the other hand, anyone introduce any form conflicting with the decrees which have now been sanctioned, it has seemed best to the entire holy and Ecumenical Council that it be invalid and of no effect.
(Ap. c. XXXV; c. II of the 2nd; c. XX of the 6th; cc. XIII, XXII of Antioch; cc. III, IX, XII of Sardica).
(Ap. c. XXXIV; cc. VI, VII of the 1st; c. XX of the 2nd; cc. XXXVI, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch.)
Interpretation.
Inasmuch as Cyprus, so far as concerned secular administration, was subject to the Duke of Antioch, and was wont to send it an army commander (or general), it came to pass that the Bishop of Antioch, in imitation of this secular and civil form and law, undertook to show authority over that same Cyprus, with regard to both the religious and the ecclesiastical administration, by ordaining the bishops in Cyprus extra-territorially and not as a matter of ancient custom. This, however, was a thing that was contrary to Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV. After receiving Archbishop Reginus of Constantia, which used to be called Salamis but is now known as Amochostos, and the bishops accompanying, namely, Zeno of Cyrene, and Evagrius of Solon, who in writing as well as viva voce reported these facts, the Council decrees by the present Canon that, in accordance with the Canons and in accordance with ancient custom, the Metropolitans of Cyprus are themselves to ordain the bishops in Cyprus, and to be left unmolested and unconstrained by anyone else. But, making the Canon general and catholic, the Fathers of this Council add that this same rule shall hold also in regard to diocese (or administrations) and provinces everywhere else, to the end that no bishop be permitted to usurp and appropriate any other province that has not formerly and from the beginning been subject either to his authority or to that of his predecessors. If, nevertheless, anyone should appropriate it forcibly, he must return it, in order that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, and in order that prelates, under the pretext of sacerdotalism, may not cloak a secret ambition and vainglorious yearning for secular or worldly authority, and hence becoming slaves to injustice lose little by little the freedom which the liberator of all men Jesus Christ has graciously given us with His own blood; it has appeared reasonable to this holy Ecumenical Council that the righteous and just privileges be kept clear and inviolable which formerly and from the beginning as a matter of ancient custom each province has been entitled to. Accordingly, each Metropolitan shall have permission to receive a transcript of the present Canon for security and confirmation of the privileges of his metropolis. If, on the other hand, anyone should come out with a form, i.e., a civil law or royal decree, contrary to the present Canon, it has appeared reasonable to all this holy Council for that civil law to remain invalid and ineffective. Read also the Interpretations of Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV.

I have already posted how Met./Abp./EP/Pope Meletius the many numbered "honored" these canons when he placed the first episcopal foot authorized by the Phanar to step on the rights of the Russian Archdiocese in North America:
The GOA charter rests on a string going back to the 1908 Tomos, upon which basis the deposed Meletios claimed exclusive jurisdiction over North and South America:
Archb. Metaxakis' of Athens speech to the Holy Synod of Greece in 1920 concerning his visit to America:
Quote
The Patriarchal Tome of 1908 directed the immediate assignment of a Greek Bishop in America.   However I learned in America that for a decade, diplomatic pressures prevented the implementation of the Patriarchal Tome.  Upon my arrival, I waited for the Russian Bishop to come to me; however, he did not.  In order to give him the opportunity, I sent Archimandrites Chrysostom and Alexander to him. He, in turn, reciprocated by sending an Archimandrite to visit me.  I then realized that he expected me to visit him, thus recognizing him as the canonical Bishop in America, under whose jurisdiction the Greek Church ought to belong.  I held a press conference with the Greek and English language newspapers, in which I quoted Orthodox teaching relative to lands outside the existing Patriarchal boundaries that canon law places them under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Thus, the Church in America is under the canonical authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and only by its authority can certain actions be taken.    Our presence in America is by virtue of the permission granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Tome of 1908, rendering us the only canonical jurisdiction[emph. in the original] No other such permission has been granted.  We are aware only that the Patriarchate of Antioch requested the permission of the Patriarchate to send the Bishop of Seleucia to America for the needs of the Syrian Orthodox.  Prior to this, Efthymios, who was ordained by the Russians for the Syrians, but never recognized by the Patriarchate of Antioch, was abandoned by the Russians.  This event reinforced our position regarding canonicity in America.  Throughout our presence in America, the Russian Bishop attempted indirectly to impose this position of hegemony, yet never openly or officially
http://books.google.com/books?id=Uh4VnseTNZkC&pg=PA137&dq=Galveston+Orthodox&lr=#PPA137,M1

Change Russian to OCA, and see how little has changed.  The GOARCH was set up, not in ignorance of the Russian Archdiocese, but in defiance of it.
Archbishop Alexander stood on the canons, as does his successor Met. Tikhon of All American and Canada.  The father of the canon 28 lie didn't have a canon to stand on.  His successors in such ludicrous claims still don't.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 06:09:32 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Porter ODoran
Erst Amish Appalachian
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,000


Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy.


« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2014, 09:02:19 PM »

The Slavic situation seems a bit sordid on all sides. Glory be to God he is able to secure his faithful in the midst of any chaos or tragedy.
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2014, 10:19:03 PM »

Now, onto the rest of the canons.
The first has a lot of interpolation by the English translator of the Pedalion. Since the interpolation here is useful, and moreover correct (something not usual), I've left them in.
Quote
A Bishop must be ordained by two or three other Bishops.
(c. IV of 1st C.; c. III of 7th C.).
Interpretation.
The word Bishop primarily and properly is applied, in the divine and holy Scriptures, to God, who supervises and oversees all things in the universe [Note of Translator. — Here, as in many other similar cases, a word of explanation needs to be added in English for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the etymology of words; I observe, therefore, that the corresponding Greek word signifies "overseer."], as Job bears witness, saying: "This is the portion of an impious man from the Lord, and the heritage appointed to him by the Overseer" i.e., by God (Job 20:29). And again: "Thine oversight (or supervision) hath preserved my spirit" (ibid. 10:12). It is also applied to our Lord Jesus Christ, as the premier of Apostles Peter says concerning Him: "For ye were like sheep going astray; but have now returned unto the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" (I Pet. 2:25). But secondarily and by grace this noun is also applied to those who have been designated by God, just as God Himself says concerning Eleazar: "Overseer Eleazar, a son of Aaron the priest" (Num. 4:16). And to Ezekiel God said: "Son of man, I have made thee a watchman over the house of Israel" (Ezek. 3:17). And, in sum, the word Overseers, or Bishops, in the Old Testament refers to supervisors and watchmen of the internal and ecclesiastical administrations and affairs, just as is written concerning the aforenamed Eleazar that he had "The oversight (i.e., supervision) of all the tabernacle" (Num. 4:16), and concerning the high priest Jehoiada that he appointed overseers over the house of the Lord: "And the priest appointed overseers over the house of the Lord" (II Kings 11:18); as well as of the external and civil affairs and administrations as supervisors, just as is written: "And Moses was wroth with the overseers of the host, with the captains over a thousand, and with the captains over a hundred" (Num. 31:14).
Not one, however, of the Apostles was designated or named a bishop, or overseer, during the earthly lifetime of the Lord, who alone is the overseer of our souls; but the only authority they exercised was that of curing every disease and casting out demons (Matt. 10:1; Mk. 3:15). But after the resurrection of our Savior from the dead and His assumption into heaven, the Apostles, who had been sent forth by Him, as He Himself had been sent forth by the Father, into all the world, and had received all authority to bind and to loose and all the gracious gifts of the All-holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, they not only possessed the name of apostle by virtue of the facts themselves, but indeed even the name of bishop, or overseer, as sacred Epiphanius bears witness (Her. 27): "First were Peter and Paul, these two Apostles and Bishops." Likewise did all the rest, as the Fathers affirm. For this reason it was that they ordained, or decreed, that city bishops be ordained by three bishops or two. But also those who were preaching in the country and city, as sacred Clement says, in his first epistle to the Corinthians: "They appointed their firstfruits, trying them with the Spirit, as bishops and deacons of those who were going to believe in the future." Hence, too, Ignatius the God-bearer, in writing to the faithful in Tralles (a Greek city in Asia Minor), commands: "Respect your Bishop, too, like Christ, in accordance with what the blissful Apostles enjoined." Thus much is all we have to say concerning the word bishop.
As for the Greek word corresponding to the English word ordain in the sense of appoint a person to an office, cheirotonia, it is etymologically derived from the Greek verb teino, meaning to stretch (forth the hands, for example); and it has two significations. For the word cheirotonia is used to name the simple action of choosing and designating one to hold a dignity of any kind, which was performed by the people by stretching forth their hands, according to that saying of Demosthenes: "Whomsoever you ordain a general" (in his first Philippic). And especially in accordance with the custom in vogue in the Church in olden days, when the multitudes would crowd together unhindered and ordain, or, more plainly speaking, designate the chief priests, or bishops, by stretching forth their hands, as Zonaras says, though afterwards the council held in Laodicea forbade this in its fifth Canon, wherein it said: "That ordinations, or, in other words, designations, as signified by votes, must not be performed in the presence of listeners." Today, however, the word ordination (cheirotonia) signifies the sacrament involving prayers and an invocation of the Holy Spirit in the course of which a bishop lays his hand upon the head of the ordinee, in accordance with that Apostolic saying: "Lay not hands upon anyone too quickly" And this fact is familiar to all. So this Canon prescribes that every chief priest, or prelate (whether he be a metropolitan, that is to say, or an archbishop or merely a bishop) is to be ordained by two bishops or three. Apparently the figure of speech is that which is called in English "hysteron proteron," but in Greek prothysteron, meaning the placing of what would naturally come first in a later position, and vice versa. For it would have been simpler and more usual to say without the figure of speech: "A bishop must be ordained by three other bishops or (at least) two." Thus the Apostolical Injunctions (which some have inaccurately translated into English as "Apostolical Constitutions") promulgate the same Canon without any figure of speech by saying: "We command that a bishop be ordained by three (other) bishops, or at any rate by at least two."
Concord.
Various other canons are in agreement with this Canon in their legislation. For all the bishops of a province (according to c. IV of the 1st C. and c. Ill of the 7th council and c. XIX of Antioch), or many (according to c. XIII of Carthage) must meet together and ordain a bishop. But since this is difficult, the required number is reduced to three as the minimum, and the rest of them participate in the ordination by means of their letters. In confirming this Ap. c. the c. LVIII of Carthage says that this ancient form shall be kept, in order that no less than three bishops may suffice for the ordination of a bishop, including, that is to say, the metropolitan and two other bishops. The same thing is said in c. I of the local synod held in Constantinople. And c. XII of Laodicea ordains that bishops should be appointed to the eccelsiastical office only with the approval of surrounding bishops. But if, by chance, only one bishop is left in office in any one province, and though invited and asked by the Metropolitan, he refuses to go or to act by letters to ordain a candidate for the prelacy, then the Metropolitan must designate and ordain him by means of bishops drawn from a neighboring foreign (i.e. outside) province, according to c. VI of the Sardican. The Apostolical Injunctions (Bk. VIII, ch. 27), on the other hand, command that anyone ordained by a single bishop be deposed from office along with the one who ordained him, except only in case of persecution or some other impediment by reason whereof a number of bishops cannot get together and he has to be ordained by one alone, just as was Siderius ordained bishop of Palaibisca, according to Synesius, not by three, but by one bishop, Philo, because of the scarcity of bishops in those times.
(c. XIX of Antioch; c. XII of Laodicea; c. VI of the Sardican; and c. I of Constantinople).
This is basic stuff.
It is important to note the issue of a bishop being consecrated by a single bishop as valid, given warranted circumstances, and that the Metropolitan or highest episcopal authority as defined by Apostolic canon 34 can empower a single bishop left alone in a province (or region, if I can interpret it so) to consecrate another bishop in the province, i.e. the jurisdiction, and the requirement of neighboring bishops and the highest episcopal authority be involved in the consecration of a bishop.  But only if they have jurisdiction in the land in question.  All points were involved in the consecration of the OCA episcopate for North America.
Fr. Joasph Bolotov had come in the mission to America in 1794 (it taking nearly a year to arrive in Alaska), reporting to the Church the progress of the mission and to the Court the fur traders' abuse of the natives. In 1796 the Most Holy Governing Synod and the Czar decided to make Fr. Joasaph an auxiliary bishop to the bishop of Irkutsk, the nearest Orthodox bishoprick and the only bishop of the region. It took until 1798 for his appointment to reach him, and the Most Holy Governing Synod, the highest episcopal authority per Apostolic Canon 34 at the time in those lands-there being no other Orthodox bishop anywhere near, no other autocephalous Orthodox jurisdiction for thousands of miles in the Old World side of the Bering Strait and of course none existent on the New World side either (except, Russia again, whose spiritual children the Ludwell-Paradise families lived in Virginia on the other side of the continent, pastored by the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and the London chaplain.  Btw, a friend of the family was the brother of the chief sponsor of the Aleutian mission in St. Petersburg)-ordered Archm. Joasaph to go to Ikutsk. The MHGS had by its authority empowered the bishop of Irkutsk to consecrate Joasaph as his vicar bishop of Kodiak, with jurisdiction over the Aleutians Islands and the adjoining American lands. Consecrate by the bishop of Irkutsk's hands alone, as there were no neighboring foreign bishops at all, and Irkutsk-and Alaska-being too far for the bishops to gather together for the consecration (as especially as St. Petersburg wanted to give Fr. Joasaph authority vis-a-vis the abusive traders ASAP).

To give an idea of the distance, Irkutsk is at the southern tip of the long lake in the map on the left. In the middle map, you can see that not even the Aleutians can be seen in the vicinity.

America might be "barbarian lands," but it was joined by and through episcopal authority to the episcopal see of Irkutsk. Although Bp. Joasaph did not live to be enthroned in America-he perished in a ship wreck returning-his see of Kodiak remained until 1823 (oddly the Most Holy Governing Synod went over the Czar's objection in suppressing the see).  In the meantime, the bishoprick of Irkutsk continued to fulfill its duties under canon II of Constantinople I, sending as ordered by the Most Holy Governing Synod in the begining of 1823, the man destined to succeed Bp. Joasaph, Fr. John Beniamenovich (named by the Irkutsk seminary chief after the recently deceased bishop who consecrated Bp. Joasaph), later Abp. (then Met.) St. Innocent Equal-to-the-Apostles and Enlightener of Alaska and Apostle to America. Met. Tikhon succeeds him in the exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America.

In that, the bishop of Irkutsk demonstrated Apostolic Canon 2:
Quote
2.   A Presbyter must be ordained by a single Bishop, and so must a Deacon and other Clergymen.
Interpretation.
This Canon prescribes that Presbyter and Deacon and all other Clergymen, Subdeacons, that is to say, Readers, and Cantors, etc. shall be ordained by a single Bishop.
as he ordained Fr. John/St. Innocent as priest, and sent him to Unalaska, to pastor to the Orthodox natives there already converted.
A bishop in a land makes, as St. Ignatius said, it the Catholic Church.  For 122 years, that only bishop in the lands of North America were sent by the Russian Church exclusively. A priest cannot ordain his successor nor his colleague, and a lone and iterant priest cannot erect a jurisdiction over a land.  Much less a group of layman.  They can lay the ground work, and evangelize, but their must be followup for a local Church to rise.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 10:41:56 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2014, 10:19:52 PM »

The Slavic situation seems a bit sordid on all sides. Glory be to God he is able to secure his faithful in the midst of any chaos or tragedy.
what Slavic situation?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2014, 10:21:30 PM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin
Petition for what? And why would it be sent to Istanbul?
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 10:21:44 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2014, 11:14:52 PM »

Apostolic Canon 14
Quote
A Bishop shall not abandon his own parish and go outside of it to interlope to another one, even though urged by a number of persons to go there, unless there be a good reason for doing so, on the ground that he can be of greater help to the inhabitants there, by reason of his piety. And even then he must not do so of his own accord, but in obedience to the judgment of many Bishops and at their urgent request.
(Cf. c. XV of the 1st; c. V of the 4th; cc. XVI, XXI of Antioch; cc. I, II of the Sardican; and c. LVII of Carthage.)
Interpretation.
Interloping and intrusion from one province to another is a different matter from transfer and emigration. Thus, interloping is when a bishop actuated by greed and his own preferences leaves his own province (or, not having a province of his own, is without a cure) and grabs another illogically. Such interloping is condemned and is penalized with canonical penances, according to cc. I and II of the Sardican. Transfer, on the other hand is when as a result of great need and for the sake of bolstering up piety at the request of many bishops, a prelate goes from one province to another for greater spiritual benefit to the inhabitants of the latter (and even then perhaps only for a season, and not for the rest of his life). This change is one permitted in certain cases of accomodation. Hence it may be said that the present Canon too ordains that it is not allowable for a bishop to leave his own province greedily and of his own accord, without any reasonable cause, and to interlope into another, even though he be urged to do so by others. It is only when there is a good excuse and a just reason forcing him to take such a step that he may go to another province, be it larger or smaller or vacant; in other words, when he cause the Christians of that province greater profit to the soul, and spiritual benefit, with the pious words of his teaching, than some other bishop. Yet he must not even do this of his own accord, that is to say, on his own initiative, but may do it only in conformity with the judgment and vote of many bishops and at their most urgent request and demand.
Of the many Orthodox bishops in North America in 1918, NOT A SINGLE ONE INVITED Met./Abp./EP/Pope Meletius here, nor his "synodical vicar bishop/exarch" Alexander, deposed with him by the Church of Greece.  Not only did they not increase piety in North America, but they spread schism amongst the Greek Orthodox themselves, let alone attempting to overthrow canonical Orthodox order in North America, as was enjoyed under the exclusive Orthodox canonical status of the Russian Archdiocese of America.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 11:17:28 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2014, 11:28:33 PM »

^So you are a proponent that ROCOR has jurisdiction over America? 
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,705


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2014, 11:35:45 PM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin
Petition for what?

What you assert in the OP.

And why would it be sent to Istanbul?

Isn't that where the EP hears appeals?  If the EP isn't swayed by 49,999 Orthodox Bishops, perhaps he should be in schism.
Logged
Porter ODoran
Erst Amish Appalachian
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,000


Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy.


« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2014, 11:40:58 PM »

The Slavic situation seems a bit sordid on all sides. Glory be to God he is able to secure his faithful in the midst of any chaos or tragedy.
what Slavic situation?

Take your time. It will come to you.
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2014, 11:43:12 PM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin
Petition for what?

What you assert in the OP.

And why would it be sent to Istanbul?

Isn't that where the EP hears appeals?  If the EP isn't swayed by 49,999 Orthodox Bishops, perhaps he should be in schism.

did you know that Isa endorses ROCOR as the only canonical jurisdiction in America before today?   
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2014, 11:45:02 PM »

Headlines in the local newspaper:

"I. Almisry throws OCA under the bus, endorses ROCOR as the sole canonical jurisdiction in America"
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 11:46:05 PM by Father H » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #18 on: August 24, 2014, 11:47:42 PM »

The Slavic situation seems a bit sordid on all sides. Glory be to God he is able to secure his faithful in the midst of any chaos or tragedy.
what Slavic situation?

Take your time. It will come to you.
No, I'm not a mind reader and the 300+ million Slavs are up to a lot, so what you are thinking about won't come to me-I don't offhand remember you posting about anything in particular on them recently.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #19 on: August 24, 2014, 11:48:26 PM »

^So you are a proponent that ROCOR has jurisdiction over America? 
What would make you say that?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #20 on: August 24, 2014, 11:50:23 PM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin
Petition for what?

What you assert in the OP.
As the Phanar has no jurisdiction over that, it would just be a waste of paper.
And why would it be sent to Istanbul?

Isn't that where the EP hears appeals?  If the EP isn't swayed by 49,999 Orthodox Bishops, perhaps he should be in schism.
But nothing is being appealed.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,705


WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 24, 2014, 11:52:37 PM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin
Petition for what?

What you assert in the OP.

And why would it be sent to Istanbul?

Isn't that where the EP hears appeals?  If the EP isn't swayed by 49,999 Orthodox Bishops, perhaps he should be in schism.

did you know that Isa endorses ROCOR as the only canonical jurisdiction in America before today?   

All I could do is change the subject line in this reply.   laugh
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #22 on: August 24, 2014, 11:55:04 PM »

^So you are a proponent that ROCOR has jurisdiction over America? 
What would make you say that?

Because you have just made ROCOR's complete case for domination of NA. 
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,705


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2014, 11:57:31 PM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin
Petition for what?

What you assert in the OP.
As the Phanar has no jurisdiction over that, it would just be a waste of paper.

49,999 Orthodox Bishops weren't required to declare Albania an autocephalous church.  I'm just saying, you would petition the EP like anyone else.

And why would it be sent to Istanbul?

Isn't that where the EP hears appeals?  If the EP isn't swayed by 49,999 Orthodox Bishops, perhaps he should be in schism.
But nothing is being appealed.

Who is more influential - a Bishop or an Archon?  a spiritual power or a temporal power.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #24 on: August 25, 2014, 12:07:16 AM »

The Slavic situation seems a bit sordid on all sides. Glory be to God he is able to secure his faithful in the midst of any chaos or tragedy.
what Slavic situation?

Take your time. It will come to you.

You may need to give him hints, like "ABC news, NBC news, Fox news, CNN, virtually any news outlet on the internet, etc." 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2014, 12:15:26 AM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin
Petition for what?

What you assert in the OP.

And why would it be sent to Istanbul?

Isn't that where the EP hears appeals?  If the EP isn't swayed by 49,999 Orthodox Bishops, perhaps he should be in schism.

did you know that Isa endorses ROCOR as the only canonical jurisdiction in America before today?  

All I could do is change the subject line in this reply.   laugh
Apostolic Canon 14
Quote
A Bishop shall not abandon his own parish and go outside of it to interlope to another one, even though urged by a number of persons to go there, unless there be a good reason for doing so, on the ground that he can be of greater help to the inhabitants there, by reason of his piety. And even then he must not do so of his own accord, but in obedience to the judgment of many Bishops and at their urgent request.
(Cf. c. XV of the 1st; c. V of the 4th; cc. XVI, XXI of Antioch; cc. I, II of the Sardican; and c. LVII of Carthage.)
Interpretation.
Interloping and intrusion from one province to another is a different matter from transfer and emigration. Thus, interloping is when a bishop actuated by greed and his own preferences leaves his own province (or, not having a province of his own, is without a cure) and grabs another illogically. Such interloping is condemned and is penalized with canonical penances, according to cc. I and II of the Sardican. Transfer, on the other hand is when as a result of great need and for the sake of bolstering up piety at the request of many bishops, a prelate goes from one province to another for greater spiritual benefit to the inhabitants of the latter (and even then perhaps only for a season, and not for the rest of his life). This change is one permitted in certain cases of accomodation. Hence it may be said that the present Canon too ordains that it is not allowable for a bishop to leave his own province greedily and of his own accord, without any reasonable cause, and to interlope into another, even though he be urged to do so by others. It is only when there is a good excuse and a just reason forcing him to take such a step that he may go to another province, be it larger or smaller or vacant; in other words, when he cause the Christians of that province greater profit to the soul, and spiritual benefit, with the pious words of his teaching, than some other bishop. Yet he must not even do this of his own accord, that is to say, on his own initiative, but may do it only in conformity with the judgment and vote of many bishops and at their most urgent request and demand.
Of the many Orthodox bishops in North America in 1918, NOT A SINGLE ONE INVITED Met./Abp./EP/Pope Meletius here, nor his "synodical vicar bishop/exarch" Alexander, deposed with him by the Church of Greece.  Not only did they not increase piety in North America, but they spread schism amongst the Greek Orthodox themselves, let alone attempting to overthrow canonical Orthodox order in North America, as was enjoyed under the exclusive Orthodox canonical status of the Russian Archdiocese of America.
Hard to tell how the Karlovsky Synod of bishops abandoning (willingly or unwillingly) their sees having no jurisdiction in North America would have exclusive Orthodox canonical status in North America.

In contrast, Met. Platon, Abp./Met. St. Innocent's successor and Met. Tikhon of the OCA's predecessor, had his exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America confirmed by the Supreme Church Administration referenced by Ukaz 362, namely Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia:
Quote
To the Most Eminent Platon, Metropolitan of
Kherson and Odessa, pro tempore Ruling the
North American Diocese.

By a resolution of the Sacred Synod dated April 14 /27th 1922 Your Eminence were appointed a pro tempore Ruler of the North American Diocese, and the Archpriest Theodore Pashkovsky— bishop of Chicago, to be consecrated in America.
Now having taken cognizance of the situation of the American Church we deemed it necessary to appoint you to rule the North American Church releasing you from ruling the Diocese of Kherson and Odessa.
Signed: TIKHON PATRIARCH of Moscow and All Russia.
September 20th
1923
No. 41
Moscow, Monastery of Don.
Met. Platon had been verbally appointed to return to his see (he had exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America (1907-14) as Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America, succeeding Abp. later Pat. St. Tikhon there) and had been confirmed by the All American Sabor-an institution instituted by St. Tikhon on his departure preparing for Abp. Platon's arrival-in 1923.  
Again, Arbp. Platon had exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America BEFORE the Phanar even issued its THEORETICAL claim to jurisdiction in North America in 1908, and he had returned to North America when the Church of Greece had deposed its Metropolitan Meletios and his supposed exarch the deposed bishop Alexander-the full Synod of all the Bishops of the Church of Greece gathering to hold the canonical acts of the two as utterly void-and in exile the two organized their Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, amongst the other Greek splinter groups in the States.  Not in ignorance of the exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction of Met. Platon, but in opposition to it.
ROCOR wasn't even in the running.

Btw, the uncanonical charter that the deposed Archbishop of Athens turned ethnarch of the Phanar (there are plenty of canons against such a thing, btw) named four dioceses. Two-New York and San Francisco-had bishops already from the exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction in North America.  Chicago was named a third.  Per the order of Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia-who had exclusive jurisdiction in North America, exercised by its Metropolitan Platon of All America and Canada-Theodore Pashkovsky (who had served in the US and came back with Abp. St. Tikhon, serving with him in Poland until his elevation as Patriarch) was consecrated as Bishop Theophilos of Chicago December 3, 1922.  The following year the Greeks uncanonically consecrated the bishop called for in their charter.  Bishop Theophilos would go on to succeed Met. Platon as Met. Theophilos.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 12:30:52 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #26 on: August 25, 2014, 12:16:40 AM »

The Slavic situation seems a bit sordid on all sides. Glory be to God he is able to secure his faithful in the midst of any chaos or tragedy.
what Slavic situation?

Take your time. It will come to you.

You may need to give him hints, like "ABC news, NBC news, Fox news, CNN, virtually any news outlet on the internet, etc." 
are they covering the fires of schism the Phanar is fanning in the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,705


WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2014, 12:28:04 AM »

Reply #25: What spiritual court is going to hear the EP's 106 year old violation of Canon 14?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #28 on: August 25, 2014, 12:31:39 AM »

Reply #25: What spiritual court is going to hear the EP's 106 year old violation of Canon 14?
The Supremest Court has already heard it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,705


WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 25, 2014, 12:34:35 AM »

Reply #25: What spiritual court is going to hear the EP's 106 year old violation of Canon 14 and enforce what the Supreme Court of the USA has already decided?
The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.   Smiley

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #30 on: August 25, 2014, 12:39:52 AM »

^So you are a proponent that ROCOR has jurisdiction over America? 
What would make you say that?

Because you have just made ROCOR's complete case for domination of NA. 
Bravo! A tautology and ludicrous claim all in one Father!

By definition, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia abandoned their sees as condemned by Apostolic Canon 14-is that too obvious, Father?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #31 on: August 25, 2014, 12:41:35 AM »

Reply #25: What spiritual court is going to hear the EP's 106 year old violation of Canon 14 and enforce what the Supreme Court of the USA has already decided?
The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.   Smiley
What in particular-SCOTUS has decided a lot.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #32 on: August 25, 2014, 12:43:36 AM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin
Petition for what?

What you assert in the OP.

And why would it be sent to Istanbul?

Isn't that where the EP hears appeals?  If the EP isn't swayed by 49,999 Orthodox Bishops, perhaps he should be in schism.

did you know that Isa endorses ROCOR as the only canonical jurisdiction in America before today?  

All I could do is change the subject line in this reply.   laugh
Apostolic Canon 14
Quote
A Bishop shall not abandon his own parish and go outside of it to interlope to another one, even though urged by a number of persons to go there, unless there be a good reason for doing so, on the ground that he can be of greater help to the inhabitants there, by reason of his piety. And even then he must not do so of his own accord, but in obedience to the judgment of many Bishops and at their urgent request.
(Cf. c. XV of the 1st; c. V of the 4th; cc. XVI, XXI of Antioch; cc. I, II of the Sardican; and c. LVII of Carthage.)
Interpretation.
Interloping and intrusion from one province to another is a different matter from transfer and emigration. Thus, interloping is when a bishop actuated by greed and his own preferences leaves his own province (or, not having a province of his own, is without a cure) and grabs another illogically. Such interloping is condemned and is penalized with canonical penances, according to cc. I and II of the Sardican. Transfer, on the other hand is when as a result of great need and for the sake of bolstering up piety at the request of many bishops, a prelate goes from one province to another for greater spiritual benefit to the inhabitants of the latter (and even then perhaps only for a season, and not for the rest of his life). This change is one permitted in certain cases of accomodation. Hence it may be said that the present Canon too ordains that it is not allowable for a bishop to leave his own province greedily and of his own accord, without any reasonable cause, and to interlope into another, even though he be urged to do so by others. It is only when there is a good excuse and a just reason forcing him to take such a step that he may go to another province, be it larger or smaller or vacant; in other words, when he cause the Christians of that province greater profit to the soul, and spiritual benefit, with the pious words of his teaching, than some other bishop. Yet he must not even do this of his own accord, that is to say, on his own initiative, but may do it only in conformity with the judgment and vote of many bishops and at their most urgent request and demand.
Of the many Orthodox bishops in North America in 1918, NOT A SINGLE ONE INVITED Met./Abp./EP/Pope Meletius here, nor his "synodical vicar bishop/exarch" Alexander, deposed with him by the Church of Greece.  Not only did they not increase piety in North America, but they spread schism amongst the Greek Orthodox themselves, let alone attempting to overthrow canonical Orthodox order in North America, as was enjoyed under the exclusive Orthodox canonical status of the Russian Archdiocese of America.
Hard to tell how the Karlovsky Synod of bishops abandoning (willingly or unwillingly) their sees having no jurisdiction in North America would have exclusive Orthodox canonical status in North America.

In contrast, Met. Platon, Abp./Met. St. Innocent's successor and Met. Tikhon of the OCA's predecessor, had his exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America confirmed by the Supreme Church Administration referenced by Ukaz 362, namely Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia:
Quote
To the Most Eminent Platon, Metropolitan of
Kherson and Odessa, pro tempore Ruling the
North American Diocese.

By a resolution of the Sacred Synod dated April 14 /27th 1922 Your Eminence were appointed a pro tempore Ruler of the North American Diocese, and the Archpriest Theodore Pashkovsky— bishop of Chicago, to be consecrated in America.
Now having taken cognizance of the situation of the American Church we deemed it necessary to appoint you to rule the North American Church releasing you from ruling the Diocese of Kherson and Odessa.
Signed: TIKHON PATRIARCH of Moscow and All Russia.
September 20th
1923
No. 41
Moscow, Monastery of Don.
Met. Platon had been verbally appointed to return to his see (he had exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America (1907-14) as Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America, succeeding Abp. later Pat. St. Tikhon there) and had been confirmed by the All American Sabor-an institution instituted by St. Tikhon on his departure preparing for Abp. Platon's arrival-in 1923.  
Again, Arbp. Platon had exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America BEFORE the Phanar even issued its THEORETICAL claim to jurisdiction in North America in 1908, and he had returned to North America when the Church of Greece had deposed its Metropolitan Meletios and his supposed exarch the deposed bishop Alexander-the full Synod of all the Bishops of the Church of Greece gathering to hold the canonical acts of the two as utterly void-and in exile the two organized their Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, amongst the other Greek splinter groups in the States.  Not in ignorance of the exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction of Met. Platon, but in opposition to it.

So what?  You jump over the part where, if you claims are true prior to the 1920's, ROCOR gets the whole shebang in the late 20's, 30's, and beyond.  

Now I, on the other hand, am more of a friend to the OCA than you.  I claim that it was a canonical mess, that the OCA was a faithful jurisdiction despite the canonical mess, and that it did some good, and that is it a legitimate Orthodox jurisdiction in NA today.  

Your argument, however, would give ROCOR sole jurisdictional authority in the US.  Good luck with that.  
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,705


WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 25, 2014, 12:48:53 AM »

Reply #25: What spiritual court is going to hear the EP's 106 year old violation of Canon 14 and enforce what the Supreme Court of the USA has already decided?
The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.   Smiley
What in particular-SCOTUS has decided a lot.

The EP may have "friends" in high places but the OCA has the law on her side.  The OCA has chosen not to enforce the violations of Canon 14 for the betterment of Orthodoxy - hoping that the EP and Chambesy would restore canonical order.  Except in the era of the 24 hour news cycle - these things don't occur overnight.

Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #34 on: August 25, 2014, 01:01:08 AM »

Reply #25: What spiritual court is going to hear the EP's 106 year old violation of Canon 14 and enforce what the Supreme Court of the USA has already decided?
The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.   Smiley
What in particular-SCOTUS has decided a lot.

The EP may have "friends" in high places but the OCA has the law on her side.  The OCA has chosen not to enforce the violations of Canon 14 for the betterment of Orthodoxy - hoping that the EP and Chambesy would restore canonical order.  Except in the era of the 24 hour news cycle - these things don't occur overnight.



Ok but what is the reference?  Isa was asking a legitimate question.  I would like to hear the answer myself. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #35 on: August 25, 2014, 01:02:43 AM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin
Petition for what?

What you assert in the OP.
As the Phanar has no jurisdiction over that, it would just be a waste of paper.

49,999 Orthodox Bishops weren't required to declare Albania an autocephalous church.  I'm just saying, you would petition the EP like anyone else.
Like Greece, Albania didn't petition the Phanar for autocephaly, it took it.  And it was born of the OCA-in the Boston Cathedral where Fr.-later Metropolitan (and Prime Minister) in Albania-served the first Albanian DL in history under the exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America. Ironically, just over a week before the Phanar issued its first THEORETICAL claim to jurisdiction over North America in its 1908 uncanonical Tomos.

The Phanariots wasted no time howling throughout the Old World from the New. From "Pharos," the official organ of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, quoting the press in Greece"
Quote
“The “Pan-Hellenic Power/State” nonetheless [the quotation comes after the discussion by the professor of International Law at the National University of Greece on the then recent 1908 Tomos] taking as a starting point from the retention of the Russian bishop in Alaska, expresses the opinion “that Ecumenical Patriarchate did wrong, both to the canons of the Church and according to [the fact] that it had no right to transfer to the Church of Greece the privilege furnished it by the Ecumenical Councils.” But it asks “for what justification does the Russian Church retain its jurisdiction over the Church of Alaska and after the Cession of it to the United States, if the Tomos of the Great Church requires among the Greek Churches in the diaspora, in order that the jurisdiction of the Sacred Synod of Greece be extended over them? And this certainly—adding further—if uncanonical, would be the lesser evil. Scandalousness yet results from the establishment of this Russia bishop of Alaska in the United States and the extension of his spiritual authority automatically and besides the justification of no one over the whole of America. And most rightly whenever the bishop thus shall make an ordination of priests and ‘ founding churches independently as it committed some time before through the ordination of the Albanian Noli a priest of the “independent Orthodox Albanian Church in the United States and Canada” creating the employment of the Albanian language in its rites and this be regarded scandal amid other Orthodox Churches of the New World, which according as Greeks, and further by the new Tomos were already brought under under the spiritual rule of the Church of Greece, required to commemorate the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch; to receive from him the holy chrism, to receive his blessings and to offer some quantiy for the fund of the Patriarchate. We believe that “this issue will be regarded the earnest position of the discussion in the Sacred Synod of the Great Church, and so quite rightly so, as much as besides the Russian bishop of Alaska having ordained Mr. Noli entitled as priest of the Orthodox Albanian episcopacy of the United States and Canada and in the choice, this wrought in Boston in Albanian, dealing irreverently towards the Patriarch and promised that independent Albanian and Orthodox Church will be founded everywhere gearing up to ordain a bishop also.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=YqpCAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA4-PA79&lpg=RA4-PA79&dq=%CE%A4%CE%BF+%C2%AB%CE%A0%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%AE%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD+%CE%9A%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82%C2%BB+%E1%BD%85%CE%BC%CF%89%CF%82,+%CE%AC%CF%86%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%AE%CE%BD+%CE%BB%CE%B1%CE%BC%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BD+%CE%B5%CE%BA+%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82+%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%81%CE%AE%CF%83%CE%B5%CF%89%CF%82+%CF%81%CF%8E%CF%83%CE%BF%CF%85+%CE%B5%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%85+%CE%B5%CE%BD&source=bl&ots=-iYjmxjyNB&sig=VwutxmJV9_yobHSALxZHRJt01nQ&hl=en&ei=MM00TJ_oMZKUnQfcrPXWAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
And why would it be sent to Istanbul?

Isn't that where the EP hears appeals?  If the EP isn't swayed by 49,999 Orthodox Bishops, perhaps he should be in schism.
But nothing is being appealed.

Who is more influential - a Bishop or an Archon?  a spiritual power or a temporal power.
an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,705


WWW
« Reply #36 on: August 25, 2014, 01:13:14 AM »

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly.  After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,705


WWW
« Reply #37 on: August 25, 2014, 01:19:22 AM »

Reply #25: What spiritual court is going to hear the EP's 106 year old violation of Canon 14 and enforce what the Supreme Court of the USA has already decided?
The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.   Smiley
What in particular-SCOTUS has decided a lot.

The EP may have "friends" in high places but the OCA has the law on her side.  The OCA has chosen not to enforce the violations of Canon 14 for the betterment of Orthodoxy - hoping that the EP and Chambesy would restore canonical order.  Except in the era of the 24 hour news cycle - these things don't occur overnight.



Ok but what is the reference?  Isa was asking a legitimate question.  I would like to hear the answer myself. 

Isa has cited Supreme Court cases upholding the legal rights in America of the OCA's corporate predecessors; however, the OCA has not pursued the EP's violation of Canon 14 since one clearly occurred with the Tomos of 1908 and/or even the establishment of GOARCH in 1922.  If a canon has been violated, which spiritual court would hear the case.  Isa thinks that the US Supreme Court is enough.  If so, how would that decision be enforced?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #38 on: August 25, 2014, 01:21:26 AM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin
Petition for what?

What you assert in the OP.

And why would it be sent to Istanbul?

Isn't that where the EP hears appeals?  If the EP isn't swayed by 49,999 Orthodox Bishops, perhaps he should be in schism.

did you know that Isa endorses ROCOR as the only canonical jurisdiction in America before today?  

All I could do is change the subject line in this reply.   laugh
Apostolic Canon 14
Quote
A Bishop shall not abandon his own parish and go outside of it to interlope to another one, even though urged by a number of persons to go there, unless there be a good reason for doing so, on the ground that he can be of greater help to the inhabitants there, by reason of his piety. And even then he must not do so of his own accord, but in obedience to the judgment of many Bishops and at their urgent request.
(Cf. c. XV of the 1st; c. V of the 4th; cc. XVI, XXI of Antioch; cc. I, II of the Sardican; and c. LVII of Carthage.)
Interpretation.
Interloping and intrusion from one province to another is a different matter from transfer and emigration. Thus, interloping is when a bishop actuated by greed and his own preferences leaves his own province (or, not having a province of his own, is without a cure) and grabs another illogically. Such interloping is condemned and is penalized with canonical penances, according to cc. I and II of the Sardican. Transfer, on the other hand is when as a result of great need and for the sake of bolstering up piety at the request of many bishops, a prelate goes from one province to another for greater spiritual benefit to the inhabitants of the latter (and even then perhaps only for a season, and not for the rest of his life). This change is one permitted in certain cases of accomodation. Hence it may be said that the present Canon too ordains that it is not allowable for a bishop to leave his own province greedily and of his own accord, without any reasonable cause, and to interlope into another, even though he be urged to do so by others. It is only when there is a good excuse and a just reason forcing him to take such a step that he may go to another province, be it larger or smaller or vacant; in other words, when he cause the Christians of that province greater profit to the soul, and spiritual benefit, with the pious words of his teaching, than some other bishop. Yet he must not even do this of his own accord, that is to say, on his own initiative, but may do it only in conformity with the judgment and vote of many bishops and at their most urgent request and demand.
Of the many Orthodox bishops in North America in 1918, NOT A SINGLE ONE INVITED Met./Abp./EP/Pope Meletius here, nor his "synodical vicar bishop/exarch" Alexander, deposed with him by the Church of Greece.  Not only did they not increase piety in North America, but they spread schism amongst the Greek Orthodox themselves, let alone attempting to overthrow canonical Orthodox order in North America, as was enjoyed under the exclusive Orthodox canonical status of the Russian Archdiocese of America.
Hard to tell how the Karlovsky Synod of bishops abandoning (willingly or unwillingly) their sees having no jurisdiction in North America would have exclusive Orthodox canonical status in North America.

In contrast, Met. Platon, Abp./Met. St. Innocent's successor and Met. Tikhon of the OCA's predecessor, had his exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America confirmed by the Supreme Church Administration referenced by Ukaz 362, namely Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia:
Quote
To the Most Eminent Platon, Metropolitan of
Kherson and Odessa, pro tempore Ruling the
North American Diocese.

By a resolution of the Sacred Synod dated April 14 /27th 1922 Your Eminence were appointed a pro tempore Ruler of the North American Diocese, and the Archpriest Theodore Pashkovsky— bishop of Chicago, to be consecrated in America.
Now having taken cognizance of the situation of the American Church we deemed it necessary to appoint you to rule the North American Church releasing you from ruling the Diocese of Kherson and Odessa.
Signed: TIKHON PATRIARCH of Moscow and All Russia.
September 20th
1923
No. 41
Moscow, Monastery of Don.
Met. Platon had been verbally appointed to return to his see (he had exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America (1907-14) as Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America, succeeding Abp. later Pat. St. Tikhon there) and had been confirmed by the All American Sabor-an institution instituted by St. Tikhon on his departure preparing for Abp. Platon's arrival-in 1923.  
Again, Arbp. Platon had exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America BEFORE the Phanar even issued its THEORETICAL claim to jurisdiction in North America in 1908, and he had returned to North America when the Church of Greece had deposed its Metropolitan Meletios and his supposed exarch the deposed bishop Alexander-the full Synod of all the Bishops of the Church of Greece gathering to hold the canonical acts of the two as utterly void-and in exile the two organized their Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, amongst the other Greek splinter groups in the States.  Not in ignorance of the exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction of Met. Platon, but in opposition to it.

So what?  You jump over the part where, if you claims are true prior to the 1920's, ROCOR gets the whole shebang in the late 20's, 30's, and beyond.  

Now I, on the other hand, am more of a friend to the OCA than you.  I claim that it was a canonical mess, that the OCA was a faithful jurisdiction despite the canonical mess, and that it did some good, and that is it a legitimate Orthodox jurisdiction in NA today.  

Your argument, however, would give ROCOR sole jurisdictional authority in the US.  Good luck with that.  
ROCOR didn't exist at all prior to the 1920's, and was ordered by Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia to disband after its first meeting in Karlovski, which it did.
It did reconstitute itself afterwards, but on its own authority-as the canons show, a big no-no.

None of the canons quoted thus far give ROCOR jurisdiction or canonical authority over North America. In fact, not a one of the Sacred Canons can be cited in support of ROCOR's claims. They're in even a worse shape there than the Phanar, its fellow maker of that canonical mess you refer to, which resulting from ignoring the canons and the OCA's exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America. As St. Nikodemus points out, the canons which form the basis of and uphold the OCA's exclusive canonical jurisdiction over North America were laid down by the Fathers to prevent just that canonical mess you refer to.

Remove not the ancient marker which your Fathers have raised.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2014, 01:25:16 AM »

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly.  After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?
Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

It will be interesting-and telling-what happens with the Phanar threatening now to revoke the autocephaly of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. And if the Episcopal Assemblies survive another year.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,705


WWW
« Reply #40 on: August 25, 2014, 01:32:53 AM »

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly.  After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?
Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

It will be interesting-and telling-what happens with the Phanar threatening now to revoke the autocephaly of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

I don't see such a thing happening.  I can't explain why; I can't imagine an autocephaly being revoked over trivial things.

And if the Episcopal Assemblies survive another year.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going.  Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that.  I remain optimistic.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #41 on: August 25, 2014, 01:39:26 AM »

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly.  After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?
Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

It will be interesting-and telling-what happens with the Phanar threatening now to revoke the autocephaly of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

I don't see such a thing happening.  I can't explain why; I can't imagine an autocephaly being revoked over trivial things.
I don't see it happening either, which makes it all the more foolish that the threat was issued.
And if the Episcopal Assemblies survive another year.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going.  Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that.  I remain optimistic.
I don't think Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was one of the strategic funerals often talked about as needed. I do wish Abp. Demetrios many, many years!  His departure can be fatal.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2014, 01:41:52 AM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin
Petition for what?

What you assert in the OP.

And why would it be sent to Istanbul?

Isn't that where the EP hears appeals?  If the EP isn't swayed by 49,999 Orthodox Bishops, perhaps he should be in schism.

did you know that Isa endorses ROCOR as the only canonical jurisdiction in America before today?  

All I could do is change the subject line in this reply.   laugh
Apostolic Canon 14
Quote
A Bishop shall not abandon his own parish and go outside of it to interlope to another one, even though urged by a number of persons to go there, unless there be a good reason for doing so, on the ground that he can be of greater help to the inhabitants there, by reason of his piety. And even then he must not do so of his own accord, but in obedience to the judgment of many Bishops and at their urgent request.
(Cf. c. XV of the 1st; c. V of the 4th; cc. XVI, XXI of Antioch; cc. I, II of the Sardican; and c. LVII of Carthage.)
Interpretation.
Interloping and intrusion from one province to another is a different matter from transfer and emigration. Thus, interloping is when a bishop actuated by greed and his own preferences leaves his own province (or, not having a province of his own, is without a cure) and grabs another illogically. Such interloping is condemned and is penalized with canonical penances, according to cc. I and II of the Sardican. Transfer, on the other hand is when as a result of great need and for the sake of bolstering up piety at the request of many bishops, a prelate goes from one province to another for greater spiritual benefit to the inhabitants of the latter (and even then perhaps only for a season, and not for the rest of his life). This change is one permitted in certain cases of accomodation. Hence it may be said that the present Canon too ordains that it is not allowable for a bishop to leave his own province greedily and of his own accord, without any reasonable cause, and to interlope into another, even though he be urged to do so by others. It is only when there is a good excuse and a just reason forcing him to take such a step that he may go to another province, be it larger or smaller or vacant; in other words, when he cause the Christians of that province greater profit to the soul, and spiritual benefit, with the pious words of his teaching, than some other bishop. Yet he must not even do this of his own accord, that is to say, on his own initiative, but may do it only in conformity with the judgment and vote of many bishops and at their most urgent request and demand.
Of the many Orthodox bishops in North America in 1918, NOT A SINGLE ONE INVITED Met./Abp./EP/Pope Meletius here, nor his "synodical vicar bishop/exarch" Alexander, deposed with him by the Church of Greece.  Not only did they not increase piety in North America, but they spread schism amongst the Greek Orthodox themselves, let alone attempting to overthrow canonical Orthodox order in North America, as was enjoyed under the exclusive Orthodox canonical status of the Russian Archdiocese of America.
Hard to tell how the Karlovsky Synod of bishops abandoning (willingly or unwillingly) their sees having no jurisdiction in North America would have exclusive Orthodox canonical status in North America.

In contrast, Met. Platon, Abp./Met. St. Innocent's successor and Met. Tikhon of the OCA's predecessor, had his exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America confirmed by the Supreme Church Administration referenced by Ukaz 362, namely Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia:
Quote
To the Most Eminent Platon, Metropolitan of
Kherson and Odessa, pro tempore Ruling the
North American Diocese.

By a resolution of the Sacred Synod dated April 14 /27th 1922 Your Eminence were appointed a pro tempore Ruler of the North American Diocese, and the Archpriest Theodore Pashkovsky— bishop of Chicago, to be consecrated in America.
Now having taken cognizance of the situation of the American Church we deemed it necessary to appoint you to rule the North American Church releasing you from ruling the Diocese of Kherson and Odessa.
Signed: TIKHON PATRIARCH of Moscow and All Russia.
September 20th
1923
No. 41
Moscow, Monastery of Don.
Met. Platon had been verbally appointed to return to his see (he had exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America (1907-14) as Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America, succeeding Abp. later Pat. St. Tikhon there) and had been confirmed by the All American Sabor-an institution instituted by St. Tikhon on his departure preparing for Abp. Platon's arrival-in 1923.  
Again, Arbp. Platon had exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America BEFORE the Phanar even issued its THEORETICAL claim to jurisdiction in North America in 1908, and he had returned to North America when the Church of Greece had deposed its Metropolitan Meletios and his supposed exarch the deposed bishop Alexander-the full Synod of all the Bishops of the Church of Greece gathering to hold the canonical acts of the two as utterly void-and in exile the two organized their Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, amongst the other Greek splinter groups in the States.  Not in ignorance of the exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction of Met. Platon, but in opposition to it.

So what?  You jump over the part where, if you claims are true prior to the 1920's, ROCOR gets the whole shebang in the late 20's, 30's, and beyond.  

Now I, on the other hand, am more of a friend to the OCA than you.  I claim that it was a canonical mess, that the OCA was a faithful jurisdiction despite the canonical mess, and that it did some good, and that is it a legitimate Orthodox jurisdiction in NA today.  

Your argument, however, would give ROCOR sole jurisdictional authority in the US.  Good luck with that.  
ROCOR didn't exist at all prior to the 1920's, and was ordered by Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia to disband after its first meeting in Karlovski, which it did.
It did reconstitute itself afterwards, but on its own authority-as the canons show, a big no-no.

None of the canons quoted thus far give ROCOR jurisdiction or canonical authority over North America. In fact, not a one of the Sacred Canons can be cited in support of ROCOR's claims. They're in even a worse shape there than the Phanar, its fellow maker of that canonical mess you refer to, which resulting from ignoring the canons and the OCA's exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America. As St. Nikodemus points out, the canons which form the basis of and uphold the OCA's exclusive canonical jurisdiction over North America were laid down by the Fathers to prevent just that canonical mess you refer to.

Remove not the ancient marker which your Fathers have raised.

Well, at least you got St. Nikodemos' name right this time, unlike in the op:  "Apostolic Canon 35 as interpreted by St. Nektarios in the Pedalion."   laugh   You corrected and now have right two items, the second being that ROCOR has no claim over the continent (even though you have argued for it all the way through).  You state that ROCOR did not exist prior to the 1920's.  ROCOR would dispute you on this, as it claims to be the real continuation of the Russian mission/diocese of that time, and then would cite your own posts against you.  You are right that it has not claim over the continent.  You are just wrong in unwittingly arguing its point that it does have such a claim (even if you try to divert the claims to the OCA).    
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 01:43:30 AM by Father H » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,705


WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 25, 2014, 01:50:35 AM »

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly.  After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?
Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

It will be interesting-and telling-what happens with the Phanar threatening now to revoke the autocephaly of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

I don't see such a thing happening.  I can't explain why; I can't imagine an autocephaly being revoked over trivial things.
I don't see it happening either, which makes it all the more foolish that the threat was issued.
And if the Episcopal Assemblies survive another year.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going.  Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that.  I remain optimistic.
I don't think Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was one of the strategic funerals often talked about as needed. I do wish Abp. Demetrios many, many years!  His departure can be fatal.

Archbishop Demetrios is north of 85 and continues to maintain a hectic schedule with frequent trips to Istanbul.  Hopefully the new blood that will replace Archbishop Demetrios keeps the Episcopal Assemblies on track.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #44 on: August 25, 2014, 01:57:35 AM »

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly.  After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?
Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

It will be interesting-and telling-what happens with the Phanar threatening now to revoke the autocephaly of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

I don't see such a thing happening.  I can't explain why; I can't imagine an autocephaly being revoked over trivial things.
I don't see it happening either, which makes it all the more foolish that the threat was issued.
And if the Episcopal Assemblies survive another year.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going.  Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that.  I remain optimistic.
I don't think Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was one of the strategic funerals often talked about as needed. I do wish Abp. Demetrios many, many years!  His departure can be fatal.

Archbishop Demetrios is north of 85 and continues to maintain a hectic schedule with frequent trips to Istanbul.  Hopefully the new blood that will replace Archbishop Demetrios keeps the Episcopal Assemblies on track.

Isa doesn't want the Episcopal Assemblies on track, unlike you and I.  He has made it quite clear on several websites including this one that he wants it to implode.   
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #45 on: August 25, 2014, 02:08:56 AM »

Reply #25: What spiritual court is going to hear the EP's 106 year old violation of Canon 14 and enforce what the Supreme Court of the USA has already decided?
The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.   Smiley
What in particular-SCOTUS has decided a lot.

The EP may have "friends" in high places but the OCA has the law on her side.  The OCA has chosen not to enforce the violations of Canon 14 for the betterment of Orthodoxy - hoping that the EP and Chambesy would restore canonical order.  Except in the era of the 24 hour news cycle - these things don't occur overnight.



Ok but what is the reference?  Isa was asking a legitimate question.  I would like to hear the answer myself. 

Isa has cited Supreme Court cases upholding the legal rights in America of the OCA's corporate predecessors; however, the OCA has not pursued the EP's violation of Canon 14 since one clearly occurred with the Tomos of 1908 and/or even the establishment of GOARCH in 1922.  If a canon has been violated, which spiritual court would hear the case.  Isa thinks that the US Supreme Court is enough.  If so, how would that decision be enforced?
Enough for what? To prevent the implementation of the 1908 Tomos? More than enough.  Enough to restore canonical order in North America? The First and Fourteenth Amendments interfere with SCOTUS ability to finish that job-not to mention the canons against using secular courts to establish canonical order.

As an example:
Quote
The Serbian Orthodox Church, one of the 14 autocephalous, hierarchical churches which came into existence following the schism of the universal Christian church in 1054, is an episcopal church whose seat is the Patriarchate in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Its highest legislative, judicial, ecclesiastical, and administrative authority resides in the Holy Assembly of Bishops, a body composed of all Diocesan Bishops presided over by a Bishop designated by the Assembly to be Patriarch. The Church's highest executive body, the Holy Synod of Bishops, is composed of the Patriarch and four Diocesan Bishops selected by the Holy Assembly. The Holy Synod and the Holy Assembly have the exclusive power to remove, suspend, defrock, or appoint Diocesan Bishops. The Mother Church is governed according to the Holy Scriptures, Holy Tradition, Rules of the Ecumenical Councils, the Holy Apostles, the Holy Faiths of the Church, the Mother Church Constitution adopted in 1931, and a "penal code" adopted in 1961. These sources of law are sometimes ambiguous and seemingly inconsistent...During the late 19th century, migrants to North America of Serbian descent formed autonomous religious congregations throughout this country and Canada. These congregations were then under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church, but that Church was unable to care for their needs, and the congregations sought permission to bring themselves under the jurisdiction of the Serbian Orthodox Church. n 1913 and 1916, Serbian priests and laymen organized a Serbian Orthodox Church in North America. The 32 Serbian Orthodox congregations were divided into 4 presbyteries, each presided over by a Bishop's Aide, and constitutions were adopted. In 1917, the Russian Orthodox Church commissioned a Serbian priest, Father Mardary, to organize an independent Serbian Diocese in America. Four years later, as a result of Father Mardary's efforts, the Holy Assembly of Bishops of the Mother Church created the Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America and Canada and designated a Serbian Bishop to complete the formal organization of a Diocese...The fallacy fatal to the judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court is that it rests upon an impermissible rejection of the decisions of the highest ecclesiastical tribunals of this hierarchical church upon the issues in dispute, and impermissibly substitutes its own inquiry into church polity and resolutions based thereon of those disputes. Consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, "civil courts do not inquire whether the relevant [hierarchical] church governing body has power under religious law [to decide such disputes]. . . . Such a determination . . . frequently necessitates the interpretation of ambiguous religious law and usage.the First and Fourteenth Amendments permit hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own rules and regulations for internal discipline and government, and to create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters. When this choice is exercised and ecclesiastical tribunals are created to decide disputes over the government and direction of subordinate bodies, the Constitution requires that civil courts accept their decisions as binding upon them...Civil judges obviously do not have the competence of ecclesiastical tribunals in applying the "law" that governs ecclesiastical disputes, as Watson cogently remarked, 13 Wall. at 80 U. S. 729: "Nor do we see that justice would be likely to be promoted by submitting those decisions to review in the ordinary judicial tribunals. Each of these large and influential bodies (to mention no others, let reference be had to the Protestant Episcopal, the Methodist Episcopal, and the Presbyterian churches), has a body of constitutional and ecclesiastical law of its own, to be found in their written organic laws, their books of discipline, in their collections of precedents, in their usage and customs, which as to each constitute a system of ecclesiastical law and religious faith that tasks the ablest minds to become familiar with. It is not to be supposed that the judges of the civil courts can be as competent in the ecclesiastical law and religious faith of all these bodies as the ablest men in each are in reference to their own. It would therefore be an appeal from the more learned tribunal in the law which should decide the case, to one which is less so."
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/426/696/case.html
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #46 on: August 25, 2014, 02:29:18 AM »

ROCOR didn't exist at all prior to the 1920's, and was ordered by Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia to disband after its first meeting in Karlovski, which it did.
It did reconstitute itself afterwards, but on its own authority-as the canons show, a big no-no.

None of the canons quoted thus far give ROCOR jurisdiction or canonical authority over North America. In fact, not a one of the Sacred Canons can be cited in support of ROCOR's claims. They're in even a worse shape there than the Phanar, its fellow maker of that canonical mess you refer to, which resulting from ignoring the canons and the OCA's exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America. As St. Nikodemus points out, the canons which form the basis of and uphold the OCA's exclusive canonical jurisdiction over North America were laid down by the Fathers to prevent just that canonical mess you refer to.

Remove not the ancient marker which your Fathers have raised.

Well, at least you got St. Nikodemos' name right this time, unlike in the op:  "Apostolic Canon 35 as interpreted by St. Nektarios in the Pedalion."   laugh   You corrected and now have right two items, the second being that ROCOR has no claim over the continent (even though you have argued for it all the way through).
If I had, you could cite me, Father, no?
You state that ROCOR did not exist prior to the 1920's.  ROCOR would dispute you on this,
it would, I'm sure, although it could not.
as it claims to be the real continuation of the Russian mission/diocese of that time,

mission? They claim to be the real Russian Church, more Muscovite than the Patriarch of Moscow.
and then would cite your own posts against you.
 
The partisans of the Metropolitans of Kiev and Chisinau would have to explain on what map Ukraine and Romania are in North America.

Lacking any continuity with the bishoprick of Bp. Joasaph and Abp. St. Innocent-all of which Met. Tikhon has, except for the Cathedral at the Time of Troubles, which has been translated into the metochion of the Mother Church under the Tomos of Autocephaly, ROCOR would have no use for the posts. It's not like using a cop's gun against him-it will kill no matter who pulls the trigger. It's like trying to commit identity theft, when you have no personal information of the intended victim.
You are right that it has not claim over the continent.  You are just wrong in unwittingly arguing its point that it does have such a claim (even if you try to divert the claims to the OCA).    
only if one can't distinguish this

from this

Father.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #47 on: August 25, 2014, 02:40:15 AM »

ROCOR didn't exist at all prior to the 1920's, and was ordered by Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia to disband after its first meeting in Karlovski, which it did.
It did reconstitute itself afterwards, but on its own authority-as the canons show, a big no-no.

None of the canons quoted thus far give ROCOR jurisdiction or canonical authority over North America. In fact, not a one of the Sacred Canons can be cited in support of ROCOR's claims. They're in even a worse shape there than the Phanar, its fellow maker of that canonical mess you refer to, which resulting from ignoring the canons and the OCA's exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America. As St. Nikodemus points out, the canons which form the basis of and uphold the OCA's exclusive canonical jurisdiction over North America were laid down by the Fathers to prevent just that canonical mess you refer to.

Remove not the ancient marker which your Fathers have raised.

Well, at least you got St. Nikodemos' name right this time, unlike in the op:  "Apostolic Canon 35 as interpreted by St. Nektarios in the Pedalion."   laugh   You corrected and now have right two items, the second being that ROCOR has no claim over the continent (even though you have argued for it all the way through).
If I had, you could cite me, Father, no?
You state that ROCOR did not exist prior to the 1920's.  ROCOR would dispute you on this,
it would, I'm sure, although it could not.
as it claims to be the real continuation of the Russian mission/diocese of that time,

mission? They claim to be the real Russian Church, more Muscovite than the Patriarch of Moscow.
and then would cite your own posts against you.
 
The partisans of the Metropolitans of Kiev and Chisinau would have to explain on what map Ukraine and Romania are in North America.

Lacking any continuity with the bishoprick of Bp. Joasaph and Abp. St. Innocent-all of which Met. Tikhon has, except for the Cathedral at the Time of Troubles, which has been translated into the metochion of the Mother Church under the Tomos of Autocephaly, ROCOR would have no use for the posts. It's not like using a cop's gun against him-it will kill no matter who pulls the trigger. It's like trying to commit identity theft, when you have no personal information of the intended victim.
You are right that it has not claim over the continent.  You are just wrong in unwittingly arguing its point that it does have such a claim (even if you try to divert the claims to the OCA).    
only if one can't distinguish this

from this

Father.

"If I had, you could cite me..."   I did.  I cut and pasted from the op.  Here it is, if you don't remember writing it less than 48 hours ago: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,60450.msg1176932.html#msg1176932

Or your could just scroll to the top of the screen, like everyone else who already knew you made this error, but just wanted to see if it was still there.   
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,933



« Reply #48 on: August 25, 2014, 08:32:28 AM »

I must say that Isa laid out his case most convincingly; his case is logical, clearly laid out, thorough and utterly convincing.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #49 on: August 25, 2014, 09:56:31 AM »

ROCOR didn't exist at all prior to the 1920's, and was ordered by Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia to disband after its first meeting in Karlovski, which it did.
It did reconstitute itself afterwards, but on its own authority-as the canons show, a big no-no.

None of the canons quoted thus far give ROCOR jurisdiction or canonical authority over North America. In fact, not a one of the Sacred Canons can be cited in support of ROCOR's claims. They're in even a worse shape there than the Phanar, its fellow maker of that canonical mess you refer to, which resulting from ignoring the canons and the OCA's exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America. As St. Nikodemus points out, the canons which form the basis of and uphold the OCA's exclusive canonical jurisdiction over North America were laid down by the Fathers to prevent just that canonical mess you refer to.

Remove not the ancient marker which your Fathers have raised.

Well, at least you got St. Nikodemos' name right this time, unlike in the op:  "Apostolic Canon 35 as interpreted by St. Nektarios in the Pedalion."   laugh   You corrected and now have right two items, the second being that ROCOR has no claim over the continent (even though you have argued for it all the way through).
If I had, you could cite me, Father, no?
You state that ROCOR did not exist prior to the 1920's.  ROCOR would dispute you on this,
it would, I'm sure, although it could not.
as it claims to be the real continuation of the Russian mission/diocese of that time,

mission? They claim to be the real Russian Church, more Muscovite than the Patriarch of Moscow.
and then would cite your own posts against you.
 
The partisans of the Metropolitans of Kiev and Chisinau would have to explain on what map Ukraine and Romania are in North America.

Lacking any continuity with the bishoprick of Bp. Joasaph and Abp. St. Innocent-all of which Met. Tikhon has, except for the Cathedral at the Time of Troubles, which has been translated into the metochion of the Mother Church under the Tomos of Autocephaly, ROCOR would have no use for the posts. It's not like using a cop's gun against him-it will kill no matter who pulls the trigger. It's like trying to commit identity theft, when you have no personal information of the intended victim.
You are right that it has not claim over the continent.  You are just wrong in unwittingly arguing its point that it does have such a claim (even if you try to divert the claims to the OCA).    
only if one can't distinguish this

from this

Father.

"If I had, you could cite me..."   I did.  I cut and pasted from the op.  Here it is, if you don't remember writing it less than 48 hours ago: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,60450.msg1176932.html#msg1176932

Or your could just scroll to the top of the screen, like everyone else who already knew you made this error, but just wanted to see if it was still there.  
Nope, nothing there of use to ROCOR. ROCOR's narrative makes this quite easy: they date the OCA from Met. Platon
Quote
ROCOR historian Fr. Alexey Young, in his history of the ROCOR, writes: "In the early 1920s, the American Church came under the jurisdiction of the Administration Abroad, which took an active administrative role in overseeing its American 'branch'—particularly on disciplinary questions such as divorce and the establishment of a new See in Alaska" (Young, p. 33). Young then writes that Platon was appointed by the Church Abroad as the leader in North America, but unbeknownst to his fellows in the Synod, "was at the same time seeking official appointment directly from Patriarch Tikhon himself. When the Patriarch refused to interfere in the decision of the Church Abroad, saying he 'did not wish to go over their heads,' Platon suddenly produced an ukaz, allegedly from Tikhon, appointing him as sole and independent head of the Church in America" (ibid.). Young continues, writing, that at first the ROCOR synod accepted the decree in good faith, but its authenticity was called severely into question when in 1924 "an actual decree from the Patriarch in Moscow deposed Platon 'for having engaged in public acts of counter-revolution directed against the Soviet government'" (ibid.). An American court also ruled subsequently that the ukaz produced by Platon was a forgery. "To deal with this embarrassment, Platon convoked the Detroit Sobor in April of the same year, with the purpose of declaring the Russian Church in America 'temporarily autonomous'—that is, free of both Moscow and Karlovci" (ibid.). This sobor is listed in the archives of the OCA as the "4th All-American Sobor."
In 1926 in Karlovtsy, the ROCOR bishops met together. Platon was present and asked to renounce the "temporary autonomy" that had been proclaimed by his council in 1924. Upon his refusal, the assembled bishops condemned the Detroit sobor as "extremely dangerous and harmful for the interests of the Russian Church in America" (quoted in Young, p. 34). Platon responded with another sobor in America in January of 1927 which labelled the ROCOR as "uncanonical." One of Platon's bishops, Apollinary (Koshevoy), dissented, proclaiming his loyalty to the ROCOR, and was expelled from the Metropolia.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA#1921-1926:_Initial_Cooperation
As I indicated above
In contrast, Met. Platon, Abp./Met. St. Innocent's successor and Met. Tikhon of the OCA's predecessor, had his exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America confirmed by the Supreme Church Administration referenced by Ukaz 362, namely Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia:
Quote
To the Most Eminent Platon, Metropolitan of
Kherson and Odessa, pro tempore Ruling the
North American Diocese.

By a resolution of the Sacred Synod dated April 14 /27th 1922 Your Eminence were appointed a pro tempore Ruler of the North American Diocese, and the Archpriest Theodore Pashkovsky— bishop of Chicago, to be consecrated in America.
Now having taken cognizance of the situation of the American Church we deemed it necessary to appoint you to rule the North American Church releasing you from ruling the Diocese of Kherson and Odessa.
Signed: TIKHON PATRIARCH of Moscow and All Russia.
September 20th
1923
No. 41
Moscow, Monastery of Don.
Something that ROCOR at the time admitted:
Quote
Ukaz from the Provisional Holy Bishops’ Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad.
To His Eminence, the Most Eminent Platon, Metropolitan of Kherson and Odessa.
The Provisional Holy Bishops’ Synod of the“ Russian Orthodox Church abroad, on August 23/ September 5/1922,
HAVE DISCUSSED: the Church affairs in the North American Archdiocese in connection with the letter of the Most Eminent Platon dated 11/24 July 1922. N0. 596, and his short statement dated July 9/22, 1922, No. 595, concerning the situation of affairs in the North American Archdiocese.
Pursuant to the previous discussions
RESOLVED: 1) In view of the will expressed by the Most Holy Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, that the Metropolitan of Kherson and Odessa Platon assume the governing of the North American Archdiocese—which will was communicated by the recently arrived from Moscow Archpriest Th. Pashkovsky, in his report dated July 1/14, 1922, No. 1, and in view of the consent of the North American Archbishop Alexander to transmit temporarily the governing of the Archdiocese to the Metropolitan,——to consider the Most Eminent Platon to be the Provisional Ruler of the North American Archdiocese.
2) To instruct the Eminent Anthony, Bishop of Aleutian Islands and Alaska immediately to leave for the place of his service in Alaska for managing his independent Aleutian Alaskan Diocese.
To send the Ukazes, concerning the above matters to your Eminence and to the Bishop Anthony.
August 27/September 9/1922, Serbia, Szemsky Karlovtsy
Signed: Chairman of the Synod: Metropolitan
        Anthony
         Secretary E. Maharablidze
Unfortunately for ROCOR's mythology, Met. Platon had previously received an ukaz of appointment to the exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America

Quote
UKAZE OF HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY THE AUTOCRAT OF
  ALL RUSSIA—BY THE HOLY GOVERNING SYNOD

To THE NORTH AMERICAN ECCLESIASTIOAL BOARD
Upon a ukaze of His Imperial Majesty, the Holy Governing Synod considered; a report of the Holy Synod approved by His Majesty on June 8, 1907, that the rector of Kiev Ecclesiastical Academy, Most Reverend Platon, Bishop of Tchigirin, First Vicar of Kiev Diocese Should be appointed the Aleutian and North American Archbishop; ORDERED: that the above mentioned report of the Holy Synod approved by His Majesty be announced by a ukaze to the North American Ecclesiastical Board and the Board be directed to order that the name of the Most Reverend Platon be proclaimed in the churches of the Aleutian Diocese at the divine services, in accordance with the regulations.
June 22, 1907 No. 7368 Over-Secretary (Signature)
Secretary (Signature)
IOW Metropolitan Platon (from whom the OCA did receive the status of Metropolia, and its primate the title of Metropolitan, originally from Platon serving as the Metropolitan and last exarch of Georgia and member of the Most Holy Governing Synod ex officio.) was succeeding himself, making it rather hard for ROCOR to explain how Met. Platon-appointed by Pat. St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution and the restoration of the Patriarchate to have exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America-has no connection with Abp. Platon-appointed by the Most Holy Governing Synod under the Czar before the Revolution to have exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America.

And it just gets worse for the ROCOR claims: Platon's successor Met. Theophilos had served in North America before Abp. Platon's arrival in 1907 under Abp. St. Tikhon, who took Fr. Theophilos (then Theodore) back to serve with him in Poland and then appointed and sent him back to North America at the repose of his wife, to be consecrated as bishop of Chicago in the Cathedral Abp. St. Tikhon had founded and consecrated.  

He in turn was succeeded by Met. Leonty, who also served as a married priest in North America under Abp. St. Tikhon, who had brought Fr. Leonty over to serve as rector of the seminary Abp. St. Tikhon had founded in Minneapolis, at the time the only Orthodox seminary in North America.  Abp. St. Tikhon appointed Fr. Leonty to preside over the First All American Sobor, and Fr. Leonty, then dean of the primate's Cathedral St. Tikhon consecrated as seat of the bishop having exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over all North Ameria, represented the North America diocese in the All Russian Sobor which restored the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Rus and elected St. Tikhon Patriarch.  Until Met. Leonty reposed in the Lord on May 14, 1965, the OCA was headed by primates all directly connected and present in North America before the Revolution during the Golden Age of Abp. St. Tikhon's tenure here.

In contrast, ROCOR had no connection whatsoever to North America.  I'm not even sure if its ruling bishop came here in violation of Apostolic Canon 14.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 10:25:54 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #50 on: August 25, 2014, 10:22:19 AM »

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly.  After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?
Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

It will be interesting-and telling-what happens with the Phanar threatening now to revoke the autocephaly of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

I don't see such a thing happening.  I can't explain why; I can't imagine an autocephaly being revoked over trivial things.
I don't see it happening either, which makes it all the more foolish that the threat was issued.
And if the Episcopal Assemblies survive another year.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going.  Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that.  I remain optimistic.
I don't think Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was one of the strategic funerals often talked about as needed. I do wish Abp. Demetrios many, many years!  His departure can be fatal.

Archbishop Demetrios is north of 85 and continues to maintain a hectic schedule with frequent trips to Istanbul.  Hopefully the new blood that will replace Archbishop Demetrios keeps the Episcopal Assemblies on track.

Isa doesn't want the Episcopal Assemblies on track, unlike you and I.  He has made it quite clear on several websites including this one that he wants it to implode.  
Au contraire, Father, as Abp. Demetrios (many years!) derailed the EA from the rut the Phanar wanted it to run down, and redirected it towards an Orthodox destination, I have made it quite clear on several websites including the one that I want it to stay on the new track and survive the attempts of the Phanar to implode it.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 10:23:10 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #51 on: August 25, 2014, 10:25:05 AM »

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly.  After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?
Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

It will be interesting-and telling-what happens with the Phanar threatening now to revoke the autocephaly of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

I don't see such a thing happening.  I can't explain why; I can't imagine an autocephaly being revoked over trivial things.
I don't see it happening either, which makes it all the more foolish that the threat was issued.
And if the Episcopal Assemblies survive another year.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going.  Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that.  I remain optimistic.
I don't think Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was one of the strategic funerals often talked about as needed. I do wish Abp. Demetrios many, many years!  His departure can be fatal.

Archbishop Demetrios is north of 85 and continues to maintain a hectic schedule with frequent trips to Istanbul.  Hopefully the new blood that will replace Archbishop Demetrios keeps the Episcopal Assemblies on track.
I shudder when I remember what succeeded Abp. Iakovos of blessed memory.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #52 on: August 25, 2014, 11:35:43 AM »

In contrast, ROCOR had no connection whatsoever to North America.  I'm not even sure if its ruling bishop came here in violation of Apostolic Canon 14.
Before it intruded into North America in response to the OCA's Seventh All American Sobor's cutting off all contact with the Karlovski Synod-now in exile in Munchen-and ROCOR arrogated to itself the authority to consecrate Chrism (a sign of autocephaly in the Russian Church-and Orthodoxy in general. As it turned out, it was the only time, as the Act of Canonical Communion established that ROCOR receives it from Moscow, in contrast to the OCA Tomos, which explicitly states that the OCA can consecrate its own chrism), that is.

Met. Anastasy of Chisinau-AFAIK he never took the title of an American see-retired almost a year before Met. Ireney reposed, and Met. Anastasy reposed just over a week later after Met. Ireney on May 22, 1965.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #53 on: August 25, 2014, 11:41:04 AM »

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.   Grin
Petition for what?

What you assert in the OP.
As the Phanar has no jurisdiction over that, it would just be a waste of paper.

49,999 Orthodox Bishops weren't required to declare Albania an autocephalous church.  I'm just saying, you would petition the EP like anyone else.

And why would it be sent to Istanbul?

Isn't that where the EP hears appeals?  If the EP isn't swayed by 49,999 Orthodox Bishops, perhaps he should be in schism.
But nothing is being appealed.

Who is more influential - a Bishop or an Archon?  a spiritual power or a temporal power.

If few hundred of other Orthodox bishops would not recognise EP Synod decision, it would be empty letter. Since you insist, between two World wars, EP for few years was recognising deposition of Saint Tihon of Moscow, by  renovationist "Living Church"... furthermore,EP was in full Communion with Living Church.... None of other bishops considered Russian renovationists as anything but dangerous sect... Seems EP word is not counted that much... not even in Greece or Cyprus. In short, His All Hollyness Bartholomew of Constantinople, with His Eminence Metropolitan of Pursa, and with professor Fidas could claim a lot... and generally being ignored by most, and directlly contradicted by Patriarchate of Moscow.
Logged

Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #54 on: August 25, 2014, 11:46:53 AM »

In contrast, ROCOR had no connection whatsoever to North America.  I'm not even sure if its ruling bishop came here in violation of Apostolic Canon 14.
Before it intruded into North America in response to the OCA's Seventh All American Sobor's cutting off all contact with the Karlovski Synod-now in exile in Munchen-and ROCOR arrogated to itself the authority to consecrate Chrism (a sign of autocephaly in the Russian Church-and Orthodoxy in general. As it turned out, it was the only time, as the Act of Canonical Communion established that ROCOR receives it from Moscow, in contrast to the OCA Tomos, which explicitly states that the OCA can consecrate its own chrism), that is.

Met. Anastasy of Chisinau-AFAIK he never took the title of an American see-retired almost a year before Met. Ireney reposed, and Met. Anastasy reposed just over a week later after Met. Ireney on May 22, 1965.
ROCOR intruded North America on basis Metropolia accepted its jurisdiction, at certain point...
Now, purely cannonicaly, neither group was authorised by MP to exercise jurisdiction over North America. And, OCA, not offense meant, is diminutive even in North American Orthodoxy cathegories.

Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #55 on: August 25, 2014, 12:20:13 PM »

In contrast, ROCOR had no connection whatsoever to North America.  I'm not even sure if its ruling bishop came here in violation of Apostolic Canon 14.
Before it intruded into North America in response to the OCA's Seventh All American Sobor's cutting off all contact with the Karlovski Synod-now in exile in Munchen-and ROCOR arrogated to itself the authority to consecrate Chrism (a sign of autocephaly in the Russian Church-and Orthodoxy in general. As it turned out, it was the only time, as the Act of Canonical Communion established that ROCOR receives it from Moscow, in contrast to the OCA Tomos, which explicitly states that the OCA can consecrate its own chrism), that is.

Met. Anastasy of Chisinau-AFAIK he never took the title of an American see-retired almost a year before Met. Ireney reposed, and Met. Anastasy reposed just over a week later after Met. Ireney on May 22, 1965.
ROCOR intruded North America on basis Metropolia accepted its jurisdiction, at certain point...
Now, purely cannonicaly, neither group was authorised by MP to exercise jurisdiction over North America. And, OCA, not offense meant, is diminutive even in North American Orthodoxy cathegories.
Other than the Greek Archdiocese, the OCA is larger than any other in North America. The Antiochians and Serbs come as close third and fourth, and ROCOR a distant fifth (a third of the OCA).
The OCA/Metropolia had accepted to work with, not under, ROCOR. That ROCOR misconstrued that is hardly the OCA's fault.
As for exercising exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction in North America, see above the Ukaz of Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Russian Holy Synod naming Metropolitan Platon "a pro tempore Ruler of the North American Diocese," ("and the Archpriest Theodore Pashkovsky— bishop of Chicago, to be consecrated in America," Met. Platon's eventual successor in that office).
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 12:23:09 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,923


« Reply #56 on: August 25, 2014, 12:22:45 PM »

The irony seems to be that most of these factions quarreling over control of America don't seem to care one bit about America except to ridicule the fragmented Christianity that is a portion of its culture.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #57 on: August 25, 2014, 12:24:24 PM »

The irony seems to be that most of these factions quarreling over control of America don't seem to care one bit about America except to ridicule the fragmented Christianity that is a portion of its culture.
Yes, it is a bit odd that they belittle American Orthodoxy, and yet demand their piece of its action.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #58 on: August 25, 2014, 01:17:01 PM »

OCA claim to have less than  30,000 faithfull. Its about 3% of NA Orthodoxy... if you add Non-Chalcedonians, its even more unsignificant. I really dont meant to be disrespectfull, but mine Archpresbeterate has more faithfull.
Metropolitan Platon of Odessa did not provide any documents to further his claims. In end you are just trying to advocate OCA's misconstruction, which is legitimate, yet, you fail to prove it. They accepted Karlovački Sinod jurisdiction. Not cooperation. Also they were out of Communion with most of Orthodoxy before that point...
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #59 on: August 25, 2014, 01:47:39 PM »

OCA claim to have less than  30,000 faithfull. Its about 3% of NA Orthodoxy... if you add Non-Chalcedonians, its even more unsignificant. I really dont meant to be disrespectfull, but mine Archpresbeterate has more faithfull.
Metropolitan Platon of Odessa did not provide any documents to further his claims. In end you are just trying to advocate OCA's misconstruction, which is legitimate, yet, you fail to prove it. They accepted Karlovački Sinod jurisdiction. Not cooperation. Also they were out of Communion with most of Orthodoxy before that point...
the census of American Orthodoxy, the best available, found 84,900 for the OCA, 68,800 for the Serbs.  The GOARCH, with 476,900, has 6 times the number of total adherents, but in regular attendance, only 3 times the number of the OCA. The OCA makes up just under 10% of American Orthodoxy.
http://www.hartfordinstitute.org/research/2010-USOrthodox-Census.pdf
unfortunately, it does not include the figures for Canada or Mexico.

Metropolitan Platon of North America (as Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Russian Holy Synod put it) did not need to provide any further documents (though he did). He proved it in US court (where the OCA took control of St. Nicholas Cathedral, the Mother Church from 1905, losing it only after reiterating its recognition of the Patriarch of Moscow and the Russian Holy Synod as the Supreme Church Administration, and losing it then to the Patriarch of Moscow, not ROCOR)
Quote
That claimed right of the corporation to use and occupancy for the archbishop chosen by the American churches is opposed by appellants who are in possession. Benjamin Fedchenkoff bases his right on an appointment in 1934 by the Supreme Church Authority of the Russian Orthodox Church, to wit, the Patriarch locum tenens of Moscow and all Russia and its Holy Synod, as Archbishop of the Archdiocese of North America and the Aleutian Islands. The other defendant-appellant is a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, also acknowledging the spiritual and administrative control of the Moscow hierarchy.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/344/94
in Canadian court (where his bishop Arseny was recognized as the bishop of Canada, recognized and incorporated by Canadian ordinance in 1903), and was admitted as correct by the Tomos issued by the Patriarch of Moscow and the Russian Holy Synod.

Who was out of communion with most of Orthodoxy?
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 01:50:23 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,705


WWW
« Reply #60 on: August 25, 2014, 03:04:00 PM »

Reply #25: What spiritual court is going to hear the EP's 106 year old violation of Canon 14 and enforce what the Supreme Court of the USA has already decided?
The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.   Smiley
What in particular-SCOTUS has decided a lot.

The EP may have "friends" in high places but the OCA has the law on her side.  The OCA has chosen not to enforce the violations of Canon 14 for the betterment of Orthodoxy - hoping that the EP and Chambesy would restore canonical order.  Except in the era of the 24 hour news cycle - these things don't occur overnight.



Ok but what is the reference?  Isa was asking a legitimate question.  I would like to hear the answer myself. 

Isa has cited Supreme Court cases upholding the legal rights in America of the OCA's corporate predecessors; however, the OCA has not pursued the EP's violation of Canon 14 since one clearly occurred with the Tomos of 1908 and/or even the establishment of GOARCH in 1922.  If a canon has been violated, which spiritual court would hear the case.  Isa thinks that the US Supreme Court is enough.  If so, how would that decision be enforced?
Enough for what? To prevent the implementation of the 1908 Tomos? More than enough.  Enough to restore canonical order in North America? The First and Fourteenth Amendments interfere with SCOTUS ability to finish that job-not to mention the canons against using secular courts to establish canonical order.

Besides spiritual courts and ecumenical councils, what other canonical processes exist to assert the OCA's claims?
Logged
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #61 on: August 25, 2014, 03:36:34 PM »

http://www.drevo-info.ru/articles/11437.html
 Short Chronology of Metropolitan Platon after Bolshevik revolution.
In 1920, Metropolitan of Chersoness and Odessa Platon emigrated in Greece, where he was apointed as chief of Russian Embassy Church. Patriarch Tikhon and Synod were considering to apoint Metropolitan Evlogiy of Chorsun as afministrator of Aleutian and North American Eparchy, but Evlogiy declined, and proposed Metropolitan Platon, who previously was diocesan of North American diocese. Higher Eclesiastical Governance Council (future Karlovački Synod) released Platon from duty in Athens, and gave him temporary leave with instructions to take administration in his hands. Metropolitan Platon, arrived 1921, in US, without decree of Patriarch, quite countrary, his oponents-to-be under Metropolitan Antoniy, sent him. Later Patriarch confirmed this. Synodal decree is dated 27th of April 1922. Platon, Metropolitan of Cherssones and Odessa was apointed locum tenens of North Amercan Eparchy.  Same year, 3rd of September, Synod of ROCA (future ROCOR) apointed Met. Platon as administrator of Eparchy, and Third All-American Council, elected him as Eparch. This Sobor took place between 7th and 9th November. Only 23rd of September next year St. Tihon and his Synod confirmed this two resolutions. In same time, he was released of administration over Eparchy of Cherssones and Odessa. But, allready 16th of January St. Tikhon and Patriarchal Synod, released Metropolitan Platon from administration of North American and Aleutian Eparchy... which he refused to acknowledge.... De facto, he was out of Communion with Mother Church from thi point. In 1926, he left Karlovački Synod, which meant, he and Metropolia found themselves out of Communion with Constantinople, Jerusalem and Belgrade in same time. In 1924, Sobor of Metropolia declarey itself Autonomous, untill Regular Assembly of Bishops of MP could be held. In 1933, Metropolitan Sergiy, locum tenenens of locum tenens of MP, forbid Platon from priesthood.
I dont think this put OCA in good standing... for period...
Logged

Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #62 on: August 25, 2014, 04:35:58 PM »

PS, since much of emphasis was put on Albanian Autocephaly... lets not forget, it was cqnonical territory of EP, same goes with Greece. Why would anyone defend rights of Jurisdiction of EP against EP himself? Not verry sound argument for Vlasios Fidas' theory endorsed by EP, about EP having right to grant/abolish autocephaly to any jurisdiction...
Logged

Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,933



« Reply #63 on: August 25, 2014, 06:51:03 PM »

PS, since much of emphasis was put on Albanian Autocephaly... lets not forget, it was cqnonical territory of EP, same goes with Greece. Why would anyone defend rights of Jurisdiction of EP against EP himself? Not verry sound argument for Vlasios Fidas' theory endorsed by EP, about EP having right to grant/abolish autocephaly to any jurisdiction...

The only diocese in Europe that was given to Constantinople by the Fourth Council at Chalcedon (Canon 28) was Thrace. Albania was not part of Thrace (and never has been) but of the Prefecture of Illirucum that consisted of the Dioceses of Dacia, Macedonia and Achaia. If at any point in history it was part of Constantinople, it was not because of conciliar decree but by a firman.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #64 on: August 25, 2014, 10:30:08 PM »

Reply #25: What spiritual court is going to hear the EP's 106 year old violation of Canon 14 and enforce what the Supreme Court of the USA has already decided?
The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.   Smiley
What in particular-SCOTUS has decided a lot.

The EP may have "friends" in high places but the OCA has the law on her side.  The OCA has chosen not to enforce the violations of Canon 14 for the betterment of Orthodoxy - hoping that the EP and Chambesy would restore canonical order.  Except in the era of the 24 hour news cycle - these things don't occur overnight.



Ok but what is the reference?  Isa was asking a legitimate question.  I would like to hear the answer myself. 

Isa has cited Supreme Court cases upholding the legal rights in America of the OCA's corporate predecessors; however, the OCA has not pursued the EP's violation of Canon 14 since one clearly occurred with the Tomos of 1908 and/or even the establishment of GOARCH in 1922.  If a canon has been violated, which spiritual court would hear the case.  Isa thinks that the US Supreme Court is enough.  If so, how would that decision be enforced?
Enough for what? To prevent the implementation of the 1908 Tomos? More than enough.  Enough to restore canonical order in North America? The First and Fourteenth Amendments interfere with SCOTUS ability to finish that job-not to mention the canons against using secular courts to establish canonical order.

Besides spiritual courts and ecumenical councils, what other canonical processes exist to assert the OCA's claims?

there's always the court of public opinion.  Not sure how the canons feel about that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #65 on: August 25, 2014, 10:34:07 PM »

PS, since much of emphasis was put on Albanian Autocephaly... lets not forget, it was cqnonical territory of EP, same goes with Greece. Why would anyone defend rights of Jurisdiction of EP against EP himself? Not verry sound argument for Vlasios Fidas' theory endorsed by EP, about EP having right to grant/abolish autocephaly to any jurisdiction...
Btw, Albania and Greece had been the canonical territory of Old Rome-New Rome hasn't contained itself according to its Tomos (actually canon), namely canon 28 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, which restricted New Rome's jurisdiction to Thrace.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #66 on: August 25, 2014, 10:35:32 PM »

PS, since much of emphasis was put on Albanian Autocephaly... lets not forget, it was cqnonical territory of EP, same goes with Greece. Why would anyone defend rights of Jurisdiction of EP against EP himself? Not verry sound argument for Vlasios Fidas' theory endorsed by EP, about EP having right to grant/abolish autocephaly to any jurisdiction...

The only diocese in Europe that was given to Constantinople by the Fourth Council at Chalcedon (Canon 28) was Thrace. Albania was not part of Thrace (and never has been) but of the Prefecture of Illirucum that consisted of the Dioceses of Dacia, Macedonia and Achaia. If at any point in history it was part of Constantinople, it was not because of conciliar decree but by a firman.
The Iconoclast Emperors took it from Old Rome and attached it to New Rome-it was one of the things that led to the schism between Pope St. Nicholas I and EP St. Photios the Great.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,705


WWW
« Reply #67 on: August 25, 2014, 10:53:33 PM »

Reply #25: What spiritual court is going to hear the EP's 106 year old violation of Canon 14 and enforce what the Supreme Court of the USA has already decided?
The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.   Smiley
What in particular-SCOTUS has decided a lot.

The EP may have "friends" in high places but the OCA has the law on her side.  The OCA has chosen not to enforce the violations of Canon 14 for the betterment of Orthodoxy - hoping that the EP and Chambesy would restore canonical order.  Except in the era of the 24 hour news cycle - these things don't occur overnight.



Ok but what is the reference?  Isa was asking a legitimate question.  I would like to hear the answer myself.  

Isa has cited Supreme Court cases upholding the legal rights in America of the OCA's corporate predecessors; however, the OCA has not pursued the EP's violation of Canon 14 since one clearly occurred with the Tomos of 1908 and/or even the establishment of GOARCH in 1922.  If a canon has been violated, which spiritual court would hear the case.  Isa thinks that the US Supreme Court is enough.  If so, how would that decision be enforced?
Enough for what? To prevent the implementation of the 1908 Tomos? More than enough.  Enough to restore canonical order in North America? The First and Fourteenth Amendments interfere with SCOTUS ability to finish that job-not to mention the canons against using secular courts to establish canonical order.

Besides spiritual courts and ecumenical councils, what other canonical processes exist to assert the OCA's claims?

there's always the court of public opinion.  Not sure how the canons feel about that.

If the Greeks haven't clouded 60 Minutes objectivity, the following is suggested....

Hello, 60 Minutes, I am Metropolitan Tikhon, ruling primate of the Orthodox Church in America.  We would like our autocephaly to be recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate; you know, the one who said he felt crucified being in Turkey resulting in divine services being performed in places that were off limits to Orthodox Christians for centuries.  We would like to tell our story, beginning with bringing the gospel to the Aleut in what is now Alaska which is on the North American continent.  According to Canon 28, we are the first Orthodox Jurisdiction in the Americas.  The Ecumenical Patriarchate, in violating Canon 14, claimed jurisdiction in the Americas for itself....

There's one court of public opinion....

Disclaimer: I don't know which Ecumenical Councils and Synods produced Canon 28 and Canon 14....

« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 10:54:08 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #68 on: August 25, 2014, 11:43:17 PM »

PS, since much of emphasis was put on Albanian Autocephaly... lets not forget, it was cqnonical territory of EP, same goes with Greece. Why would anyone defend rights of Jurisdiction of EP against EP himself? Not verry sound argument for Vlasios Fidas' theory endorsed by EP, about EP having right to grant/abolish autocephaly to any jurisdiction...

The only diocese in Europe that was given to Constantinople by the Fourth Council at Chalcedon  (Canon 28) was Thrace. Albania was not part of Thrace (and never has been) but of the Prefecture of Illirucum that consisted of the Dioceses of Dacia, Macedonia and Achaia. If at any point in history it was part of Constantinople, it was not because of conciliar decree but by a firman.

Good grief.... dont you think there is 1200 years gap in your logic? Unless you were proposing to ask Roman pontiff about giving autocephaly to Albanian Orthodox Church...

By your logic, autocephaly of Archbishopric of Ochrid means nothing, since it was Emperor Basil II Bugarofigon who granted autocephaly to Ohrid. And Leo III who gave territory to See of New Rome in 732. Lets all of us petition to Pope to confirm our Autocephalies.  But fact is none Ecumenical council lied out Illyricum as part of Western Patriarchate nor facts after 1054, render his opinion relevant...  Now, you have some other point to share?
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 11:50:02 PM by Ekdikos » Logged

Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #69 on: August 26, 2014, 05:30:28 AM »

PS, since much of emphasis was put on Albanian Autocephaly... lets not forget, it was cqnonical territory of EP, same goes with Greece. Why would anyone defend rights of Jurisdiction of EP against EP himself? Not verry sound argument for Vlasios Fidas' theory endorsed by EP, about EP having right to grant/abolish autocephaly to any jurisdiction...
Btw, Albania and Greece had been the canonical territory of Old Rome-New Rome hasn't contained itself according to its Tomos (actually canon), namely canon 28 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, which restricted New Rome's jurisdiction to Thrace.

And what is your point here exactly?
As you know, in 732, Emperor Leo III take out Diocese of Illyricum from jurisdiction of Roman Pope, and transfered it to Patriarchate of New Rome. Even before this, jurisdiction of Rome over Archbishop of Thessaloniki was most the time nominal. At Chalcedon, bishops of this Diocese were questioning Orthodoxy of Saint Leo the Great. In 519, they were refusing to enter in Communion with Rome even under military threath...
Counncil of 879/880 confirmed jurisdiction of Constantinople over Balkans, despite protest of Roman legates. And finaly, in 1054, Patriarch of Old Rome went in Schism with Catholic Church.
This would solve any doubts over Greece.

In 1018, Emperor Basil II confirmed independence of Archbishop of Ochrid, previously dubbed Patriarch, after defeat of Bulgarian tsar Samuel. But some hsitorians dispute that Archbishopric of Ohrid was fully autocephalous, since it was practice that Patriarch and Emperor chose Archbishops from Constantinopolitan monks. After 1204, under sponsorship of Despots of Arta, Archbishopric was claiming full independence, but, in best affair was muddy. Yet, in 1766/7, Ottoman Government, abolished Serbian Patriarchate of Peć, and Archbishopric of Ohrid, altough, save first, all Archbishops were Greeks and Phanariots. In any case, Albania was from 1767 canonical territory of Constantinople, although this could be achieved through anti-canonical means.

In any case, no Orthodox Autocephaolous Church in 1830s and 1850s questioned right of Constantinople over Greece (Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, nor Russian Governing Synod, nor Archbishopric of Cyprus, nor Serbian Metropolis of Karlovci, which survived in Austria after 1766, and was recognised as autocpehalous even by New Rome...). Also in 1930s nobody claimed jurisdiction over Albania, save Serbian Church which claimed parts of Northern Albania, but finally recognised EP's decision.

But, EP did not exercise anything special... it was their terriotry so nobody bother. Why EP did not take any role in granting of Autopceply to Church of Czech and Slovak Lands?
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #70 on: August 26, 2014, 06:03:14 AM »

PS, since much of emphasis was put on Albanian Autocephaly... lets not forget, it was cqnonical territory of EP, same goes with Greece. Why would anyone defend rights of Jurisdiction of EP against EP himself? Not verry sound argument for Vlasios Fidas' theory endorsed by EP, about EP having right to grant/abolish autocephaly to any jurisdiction...
Btw, Albania and Greece had been the canonical territory of Old Rome-New Rome hasn't contained itself according to its Tomos (actually canon), namely canon 28 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, which restricted New Rome's jurisdiction to Thrace.

And what is your point here exactly?
As you know, in 732, Emperor Leo III take out Diocese of Illyricum from jurisdiction of Roman Pope, and transfered it to Patriarchate of New Rome. Even before this, jurisdiction of Rome over Archbishop of Thessaloniki was most the time nominal. At Chalcedon, bishops of this Diocese were questioning Orthodoxy of Saint Leo the Great. In 519, they were refusing to enter in Communion with Rome even under military threath...
Counncil of 879/880 confirmed jurisdiction of Constantinople over Balkans, despite protest of Roman legates. And finaly, in 1054, Patriarch of Old Rome went in Schism with Catholic Church.
This would solve any doubts over Greece.

In 1018, Emperor Basil II confirmed independence of Archbishop of Ochrid, previously dubbed Patriarch, after defeat of Bulgarian tsar Samuel. But some hsitorians dispute that Archbishopric of Ohrid was fully autocephalous, since it was practice that Patriarch and Emperor chose Archbishops from Constantinopolitan monks. After 1204, under sponsorship of Despots of Arta, Archbishopric was claiming full independence, but, in best affair was muddy. Yet, in 1766/7, Ottoman Government, abolished Serbian Patriarchate of Peć, and Archbishopric of Ohrid, altough, save first, all Archbishops were Greeks and Phanariots. In any case, Albania was from 1767 canonical territory of Constantinople, although this could be achieved through anti-canonical means.

In any case, no Orthodox Autocephaolous Church in 1830s and 1850s questioned right of Constantinople over Greece (Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, nor Russian Governing Synod, nor Archbishopric of Cyprus, nor Serbian Metropolis of Karlovci, which survived in Austria after 1766, and was recognised as autocpehalous even by New Rome...). Also in 1930s nobody claimed jurisdiction over Albania, save Serbian Church which claimed parts of Northern Albania, but finally recognised EP's decision.

But, EP did not exercise anything special... it was their terriotry so nobody bother. Why EP did not take any role in granting of Autopceply to Church of Czech and Slovak Lands?
The Phanar didn't like that no one recognized its jurisdiction there-it had been in the jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Serbia.  It ended up under Moscow after World War II, although I've yet to see a detailed account of the canonical transfer from Serbia to Moscow, and Moscow granted it autocephaly shortly thereafter.  The Phanar issued its own Tomos of Autocephaly decades later, and is now claiming the power to rescind it.

As for the rest, I was just pointing out that Constantinople questioned the expansion of any other Church, when it has violated the rules as it states them now in expanding.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 06:04:47 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #71 on: August 26, 2014, 06:26:18 AM »

http://www.drevo-info.ru/articles/11437.html
 Short Chronology of Metropolitan Platon after Bolshevik revolution.
In 1920, Metropolitan of Chersoness and Odessa Platon emigrated in Greece, where he was apointed as chief of Russian Embassy Church. Patriarch Tikhon and Synod were considering to apoint Metropolitan Evlogiy of Chorsun as afministrator of Aleutian and North American Eparchy, but Evlogiy declined, and proposed Metropolitan Platon, who previously was diocesan of North American diocese. Higher Eclesiastical Governance Council (future Karlovački Synod) released Platon from duty in Athens, and gave him temporary leave with instructions to take administration in his hands. Metropolitan Platon, arrived 1921, in US, without decree of Patriarch, quite countrary, his oponents-to-be under Metropolitan Antoniy, sent him. Later Patriarch confirmed this. Synodal decree is dated 27th of April 1922. Platon, Metropolitan of Cherssones and Odessa was apointed locum tenens of North Amercan Eparchy.  Same year, 3rd of September, Synod of ROCA (future ROCOR) apointed Met. Platon as administrator of Eparchy, and Third All-American Council, elected him as Eparch. This Sobor took place between 7th and 9th November. Only 23rd of September next year St. Tihon and his Synod confirmed this two resolutions. In same time, he was released of administration over Eparchy of Cherssones and Odessa. But, allready 16th of January St. Tikhon and Patriarchal Synod, released Metropolitan Platon from administration of North American and Aleutian Eparchy... which he refused to acknowledge.... De facto, he was out of Communion with Mother Church from thi point. In 1926, he left Karlovački Synod, which meant, he and Metropolia found themselves out of Communion with Constantinople, Jerusalem and Belgrade in same time. In 1924, Sobor of Metropolia declarey itself Autonomous, untill Regular Assembly of Bishops of MP could be held. In 1933, Metropolitan Sergiy, locum tenenens of locum tenens of MP, forbid Platon from priesthood.
I dont think this put OCA in good standing... for period...

As your source points out, Met. Platon was posthumesly reconciled to the Patriarchate of Moscow 19 April 1946, and his Metropolia was fully resolved per Ukaz 362 with the Tomos of 1970-for one thing, immediately the OCA was in communion with everyone-except ROCOR.  Same thing happened for ROCOR with the Act of Canonical Communion.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #72 on: August 26, 2014, 08:00:13 AM »

The Phanar didn't like that no one recognized its jurisdiction there-it had been in the jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Serbia.  It ended up under Moscow after World War II, although I've yet to see a detailed account of the canonical transfer from Serbia to Moscow, and Moscow granted it autocephaly shortly thereafter.  
Stalin forced Tito to force Synod in Belgrade to release dioceses of Prague and Mukachevo-Prashov to MP....
In 1921, group of former Roman Catholics led by Fr Matej Pavlik petitioned to be recieved in Orthodoxy. On basis the fact that, theoretical Metropolis of Karlovci exercised jurisdiction over all Orthodox in Austro-Hungary, they petitioned Serbian Church. Fr Matej was recieved in Orthodoxy, took monastic wows, and was consecrated as bishop of Prague. He died martyr in 1942, from Nazi hands. In same time, mission of ROCOR and Serbian Church was working on return of Slovakian Greek-Catholic Rusyns to Orthodoxy. Blessed Justin of Ćelije was part of this mission. After initial success, anther Eparchy was established.

The Phanar issued its own Tomos of Autocephaly decades later, and is now claiming the power to rescind it.
Why dont they try to rescind Autocpehaly of Church of Greece? Last time they tried to re-assert authority over Northern Greece, they were ignored, even when they broke Communion...
Besides His All Hollines EP, His Eminenece Met. Elphidoros and Professor Fidas, not a lot people are connvinced in right of Throne of St. Andhrew to unliateraly rescind Autocephaly.

As for the rest, I was just pointing out that Constantinople questioned the expansion of any other Church, when it has violated the rules as it states them now in expanding.

They are, despite they do not want to admitt, powerless...

As your source points out, Met. Platon was posthumesly reconciled to the Patriarchate of Moscow 19 April 1946,
It points out Patriarch Aleksiy I, lift suspension of Met. Platon posthumously, and allowed panihidas to be held for Met. Platon. Yet, it means nothing on canonicity of Metropolia... they remained renegade jurisdiction. Untill 1970. And by no meanse they were legitimate heirs of Patriarch St. Tikhon... he himself released Met. Platon from administration of Metropolia... which Platon disoobeyed and went in Schism.

and his Metropolia was fully resolved per Ukaz 362 with the Tomos of 1970-for one thing, immediately the OCA was in communion with everyone-except ROCOR.
But it does not mean cnonical status of OCA as sole legitimate jurisdiction in North America was recognised by all... It was recognised by Mother Church, by Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland and Czechoslovak Church...   

Same thing happened for ROCOR with the Act of Canonical Communion.

ROCOR untill 1945, was pretty much in Communion with everyone save Moscow... though, despite their claim to operate under Locum tenens Metropolitan Peter, Patriarch St. Tikhon, dissolved Higher Ecclesiastical Governing Body. They organised, after that under authority first of EP, and later of Patriarch of Serbia. Also, from 1935 and 1946, Metropolia (future OCA) was recognising jurisdiction of Karlovački sinod.... in 1937, 6th All American Sobor, recognised jurisdiction of ROCOR.


Sitting:
Metropolitan Teophil of Alaska and North America, Metropolitan Antoniy of Kiev and Galich, Archbishop of Peć, Metropolitan of Karlovci  and Patriarch of Serbia Varnava, Metropolitan of Khorsun Evlogiy, and Metropolitan of New York and Eastern America Anastasiy...
 
Also, ROCOR, never was out of Communion with Jerusalem and Serbia... but in 1926-1935 OCA was pretty much looked with suspicion.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,815


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #73 on: August 26, 2014, 10:19:32 AM »

I said that I wasn't going to post but this thread causes me to do so...

Most of us in North America who are not in the OCA will never, I repeat NEVER, unilaterally accept the current structure of the OCA as the sole and legitimate Orthodox Church in America or its Primate as the Primate of an American Church by virtue of his, or his successors', title. (That is not to say that Metropolitan Tikhon could NOT be such a Primate of a truly unified Church, merely that he would not accede to the the position by virture of his current eccesistical office.) That is the only court of public opinion that counts. All of the academic and historical arguments are interesting and rather besides the point. The same arguments were rather high handedly bandied about throughout the 1970's by the OCA following the Tomos and now, forty years later we have made little if any progress to resolving the dilemma. Rarely does one hear them any longer from within the structure of the OCA - usually only online and then by some of the OCA's more zealous lay and clerical advocates.

One thing I have never understood are passionate defenses of the OCA's position by those who choose to remain in parishes not under her omophorion. I've seen it over the decades in my own jurisdiction and never got it. If one believes that the only legitimate, canonical Church in North America is the OCA, by all means walk across the street and worship there for the sake of one's own salvation I suppose.




Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #74 on: August 26, 2014, 11:33:24 AM »

I said that I wasn't going to post but this thread causes me to do so...

Most of us in North America who are not in the OCA will never, I repeat NEVER, unilaterally accept the current structure of the OCA as the sole and legitimate Orthodox Church in America or its Primate as the Primate of an American Church by virtue of his, or his successors', title. (That is not to say that Metropolitan Tikhon could NOT be such a Primate of a truly unified Church, merely that he would not accede to the the position by virture of his current eccesistical office.) That is the only court of public opinion that counts. All of the academic and historical arguments are interesting and rather besides the point. The same arguments were rather high handedly bandied about throughout the 1970's by the OCA following the Tomos and now, forty years later we have made little if any progress to resolving the dilemma.

They propped up the continued existence of the OCA, and underlined the unorthodoxy of the very idea of "Diaspora." A big road block to the Phanar's path that it wants to drag the rest of us down to itself.
Rarely does one hear them any longer from within the structure of the OCA - usually only online and then by some of the OCA's more zealous lay and clerical advocates.

One thing I have never understood are passionate defenses of the OCA's position by those who choose to remain in parishes not under her omophorion. I've seen it over the decades in my own jurisdiction and never got it. If one believes that the only legitimate, canonical Church in North America is the OCA, by all means walk across the street and worship there for the sake of one's own salvation I suppose.
as the antics in the Czech Lands and Slovakia are showing (not to mention the Ukraine situation) being left alone is not an option.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #75 on: August 26, 2014, 12:04:21 PM »

The Phanar didn't like that no one recognized its jurisdiction there-it had been in the jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Serbia.  It ended up under Moscow after World War II, although I've yet to see a detailed account of the canonical transfer from Serbia to Moscow, and Moscow granted it autocephaly shortly thereafter.  
Stalin forced Tito to force Synod in Belgrade to release dioceses of Prague and Mukachevo-Prashov to MP....
In 1921, group of former Roman Catholics led by Fr Matej Pavlik petitioned to be recieved in Orthodoxy. On basis the fact that, theoretical Metropolis of Karlovci exercised jurisdiction over all Orthodox in Austro-Hungary, they petitioned Serbian Church.
It was more than theoretical-at the time Czechoslovakia included Carpatho-Russia/Transcarpathia (as you mention below in the post War context), and the ones returning to Orthodoxy had been under Karlovci-Serbian, not ROCOR-in Austria Hungary.  Bukowina, having theoretical jurisdiction in Austria (which at the time included Bohemia, i.e. the Czech Lands) abandoned its claims after it joined into the Patriarchate of Romania. The Carpatho-Russians tipped the Czech-Slovaks into the Eastern Rite, they had been WRO.
Fr Matej was recieved in Orthodoxy, took monastic wows, and was consecrated as bishop of Prague. He died martyr in 1942, from Nazi hands. In same time, mission of ROCOR and Serbian Church was working on return of Slovakian Greek-Catholic Rusyns to Orthodoxy. Blessed Justin of Ćelije was part of this mission. After initial success, anther Eparchy was established.

The Phanar issued its own Tomos of Autocephaly decades later, and is now claiming the power to rescind it.
Why dont they try to rescind Autocpehaly of Church of Greece? Last time they tried to re-assert authority over Northern Greece, they were ignored, even when they broke Communion...
Besides His All Hollines EP, His Eminenece Met. Elphidoros and Professor Fidas, not a lot people are connvinced in right of Throne of St. Andhrew to unliateraly rescind Autocephaly.

As for the rest, I was just pointing out that Constantinople questioned the expansion of any other Church, when it has violated the rules as it states them now in expanding.

They are, despite they do not want to admitt, powerless...

As your source points out, Met. Platon was posthumesly reconciled to the Patriarchate of Moscow 19 April 1946,
It points out Patriarch Aleksiy I, lift suspension of Met. Platon posthumously, and allowed panihidas to be held for Met. Platon. Yet, it means nothing on canonicity of Metropolia... they remained renegade jurisdiction. Untill 1970. And by no meanse they were legitimate heirs of Patriarch St. Tikhon... he himself released Met. Platon from administration of Metropolia... which Platon disoobeyed and went in Schism.
Pat. Tikhon and the Russian Holy Synod ordered the Karlovski Synod to disband, which in obedience they did.  Having questioned if the Patriarch did so under duress, they reconstituted themselves.  Unfortunately, you cannot unring a bell.
The Ukaz of the Supreme Church Authority as defined by Ukaz 362 put Met. Platon in charge of North America, something the All American Sobor (which had chosen Abp. Alexander previously as primate, confirmed by the same Supreme Church Authority) concurred with.  Is there any question that Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia were under duress in January 1924, particular when issuing ukazes against prelates for "anti-Soviet" activity?
If ukazes issued under duress are valid and binding, what justification did ROCOR have against Met. Sergius' dictates to them? What was Ukaz 362 issued for in the first place?
In 1946 the OCA was going to re-establish direct contact with the Supreme Church Authority in Moscow, for which they broke their ties-or rather, they were broken-with ROCOR. When Moscow demanded Soviet loyalty, showing that the Supreme Churth Authority operated under duress, autonomy as envisioned in Ukaz 362 continued.
and his Metropolia was fully resolved per Ukaz 362 with the Tomos of 1970-for one thing, immediately the OCA was in communion with everyone-except ROCOR.
But it does not mean cnonical status of OCA as sole legitimate jurisdiction in North America was recognised by all... It was recognised by Mother Church, by Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland and Czechoslovak Church...
Which is a plurality. Russia's sole legitimate jurisdiction in the Rus' Lands was not recognized by all until 155 years after the fact.  
Same thing happened for ROCOR with the Act of Canonical Communion.
ROCOR untill 1945, was pretty much in Communion with everyone save Moscow... though, despite their claim to operate under Locum tenens Metropolitan Peter, Patriarch St. Tikhon, dissolved Higher Ecclesiastical Governing Body. They organised, after that under authority first of EP, and later of Patriarch of Serbia. Also, from 1935 and 1946, Metropolia (future OCA) was recognising jurisdiction of Karlovački sinod.... in 1937, 6th All American Sobor, recognised jurisdiction of ROCOR.
not over North America they didn't.

Sitting:
Metropolitan Teophil of Alaska and North America, Metropolitan Antoniy of Kiev and Galich, Archbishop of Peć, Metropolitan of Karlovci  and Patriarch of Serbia Varnava, Metropolitan of Khorsun Evlogiy, and Metropolitan of New York and Eastern America Anastasiy...
 
Also, ROCOR, never was out of Communion with Jerusalem and Serbia... but in 1926-1935 OCA was pretty much looked with suspicion.
After 1970, ROCOR was in Communion only with Jerusalem and Serbia.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,594


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #76 on: August 26, 2014, 12:16:03 PM »

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly.  After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?
Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

It will be interesting-and telling-what happens with the Phanar threatening now to revoke the autocephaly of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

I don't see such a thing happening.  I can't explain why; I can't imagine an autocephaly being revoked over trivial things.
I don't see it happening either, which makes it all the more foolish that the threat was issued.
And if the Episcopal Assemblies survive another year.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going.  Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that.  I remain optimistic.
I don't think Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was one of the strategic funerals often talked about as needed. I do wish Abp. Demetrios many, many years!  His departure can be fatal.

Archbishop Demetrios is north of 85 and continues to maintain a hectic schedule with frequent trips to Istanbul.  Hopefully the new blood that will replace Archbishop Demetrios keeps the Episcopal Assemblies on track.

Isa doesn't want the Episcopal Assemblies on track, unlike you and I.  He has made it quite clear on several websites including this one that he wants it to implode.   
The problem with these assemblies is that they talk about doing alot, but actually dont do anything. They meet to talk about future meetings. I find them completely useless.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #77 on: August 26, 2014, 12:35:23 PM »

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly.  After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?
Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

It will be interesting-and telling-what happens with the Phanar threatening now to revoke the autocephaly of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

I don't see such a thing happening.  I can't explain why; I can't imagine an autocephaly being revoked over trivial things.
I don't see it happening either, which makes it all the more foolish that the threat was issued.
And if the Episcopal Assemblies survive another year.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going.  Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that.  I remain optimistic.
I don't think Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was one of the strategic funerals often talked about as needed. I do wish Abp. Demetrios many, many years!  His departure can be fatal.

Archbishop Demetrios is north of 85 and continues to maintain a hectic schedule with frequent trips to Istanbul.  Hopefully the new blood that will replace Archbishop Demetrios keeps the Episcopal Assemblies on track.

Isa doesn't want the Episcopal Assemblies on track, unlike you and I.  He has made it quite clear on several websites including this one that he wants it to implode.   
The problem with these assemblies is that they talk about doing alot, but actually dont do anything. They meet to talk about future meetings. I find them completely useless.

PP
not completely useless: the register of Orthodox bishops-so we know who is and who isnt', and more importantly, we can direct the non-Orthodox inquirer to it-and of parishes is alone worth it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,594


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #78 on: August 26, 2014, 01:10:34 PM »

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly.  After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?
Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

It will be interesting-and telling-what happens with the Phanar threatening now to revoke the autocephaly of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

I don't see such a thing happening.  I can't explain why; I can't imagine an autocephaly being revoked over trivial things.
I don't see it happening either, which makes it all the more foolish that the threat was issued.
And if the Episcopal Assemblies survive another year.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going.  Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that.  I remain optimistic.
I don't think Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was one of the strategic funerals often talked about as needed. I do wish Abp. Demetrios many, many years!  His departure can be fatal.

Archbishop Demetrios is north of 85 and continues to maintain a hectic schedule with frequent trips to Istanbul.  Hopefully the new blood that will replace Archbishop Demetrios keeps the Episcopal Assemblies on track.

Isa doesn't want the Episcopal Assemblies on track, unlike you and I.  He has made it quite clear on several websites including this one that he wants it to implode.   
The problem with these assemblies is that they talk about doing alot, but actually dont do anything. They meet to talk about future meetings. I find them completely useless.

PP
not completely useless: the register of Orthodox bishops-so we know who is and who isnt', and more importantly, we can direct the non-Orthodox inquirer to it-and of parishes is alone worth it.
Thats true, but we can still do this without masquerading like this is going to lead to administrative unity (which it wont) or wasting all the money and resources that can be spent elsewhere.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,815


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #79 on: August 26, 2014, 01:45:11 PM »

Administrative unity is not a useless goal, it is needed to forge a unified identity as Orthodox Christians - the problem remains what it has always been - on what terms and at what speed. Perhaps the history of American Major League Baseball of all things might be instructive.

Professional baseball began with one league, the National League prior to 1900. Around 1910 a second league - the American League was formed to compete. Same game, more or less the same rules - two different administrative structures. A third league tried to pop up from time to time (the Federal League in the post world war one era and another attempt when the Brooklyn and New York national league teams moved to the west coast in the 1950's.) which were assimilated in part into one of the two 'major leagues'. (The two major leagues expanded to include new cities and regions as the population of the country shifted - even into Canada.) Scandal and issues over rules and money caused the two leagues to make peace in the 1920's and they formed a cooperative venture known today as Major League Baseball headed by a Commissioner, with two leagues retaining their own identity and some minor rule variations. (Not to mention that each ballpark has its own peculiarities and quirks - they all are legal though. Attempts to make 'cookie cutter' playing fields in the 1970's failed and those parks have all bee replaced. (Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Cincinnati etc...) As race barriers broke down, the 'Negro Leagues' were also eliminated in the 1950's and its players were absorbed by the 'major leagues.' Up until 2000 or so each of the two 'major leagues' had their own President who served under the Commissioner and their own officiating crews, called umpires. Those operations were merged about five years ago. The moral of the story is that this took more than a century and through it all - even including regular interleague play - the American and National leagues retain their own distinct identity and fan base. To an outsider unfamiliar with baseball it might seem confusing and the differences which fans here argue endlessly about in sports blogs and forums are puzzling as they hardly seem to be a cause of great discussion or passions.
Logged
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #80 on: August 26, 2014, 03:56:07 PM »

It was more than theoretical-at the time Czechoslovakia included Carpatho-Russia/Transcarpathia (as you mention below in the post War context), and the ones returning to Orthodoxy had been under Karlovci-Serbian, not ROCOR-in Austria Hungary. 
Well, first it was theoretical in Prague, since we had canonic basis for establishin Parish there, but... we did not have any prior 1921...Patriarchate of Peć, and subsequently Metroplis of Karlovci, had bishoprics in Dalmatia, in Southern Hungary, in Hungary, Transilvania, Croatia... also there were parishes in Austrian Crown Lands (Trieste, Istria, Ljubljana, Wien), but not in Bohemia. Prior to Užgorod Union, I think Orthodox Ruthenians were under Constantinople. Which is bit odd since rest of Kingdom of Hungary was under Serbian Patriarch of Peć then. (1646). Nevertheless, in 1920s.. mission of Serbian Church which was including ROCOR priests (since ROCOR considered herself to be under temporary Jurisdiction of Archbishop of Peć and Patriarch of Serbia, and operated from its headquarters in Kingdom fo Yugoslavia, and First Hierarch of ROCOR was assisting Serbian Patriarch in consecrations of bishops, and one of Serbian bishops participated in consecrations of ROCOR ones...) returned number of Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy.
 

Bukowina, having theoretical jurisdiction in Austria (which at the time included Bohemia, i.e. the Czech Lands) abandoned its claims after it joined into the Patriarchate of Romania.
Metropolis of Bukowina was granted independence, not autocephaly by Austrian Court... they were before 1870 part of Metropolis of Karlovci... also two Eparchies in Dalmatia were attached to it, same with Serbian and Greek parishes in Slovenia and modern Austria... but if I remember correctly, act of Emperor stated that in spiritual matters, Patriarch (since of 1848, Metropolitan of Karlovci claimed Patriarchal title), had supreeme authority in matters of faith... Whatever right over Czechia Metropolis of Bukowina had, it was weak one.

The Carpatho-Russians tipped the Czech-Slovaks into the Eastern Rite, they had been WRO.
Hm, not quite right. Before joining Serbian Church, Fr Matej's group (future St. Hieromartyr Gorazd of Prague), belonged to Czechoslovak National Church, RCC renegade grupation. Its leader Karel Farsky was Arian... hence Serbian Church refused his request for ordination... Group of Orthodox minded ex-RCC priests, and laity decided to go directly to Bishop Dositej of Niš, and they were recieved in Serbian Church. From verry begining, liturgical books of SOC were translated in Czech. So, in no time, Bishopric of Prague, future Metropolis, was WRO...
Fr Matej Pavlik was recieved in Orthodoxy 20th september of 1921, through confession, as ordained priest. Next day, he was tonsured monk, and 22th he was made Archimandrite and Igumen of Monastery Grgeteg (in Serbia). He was Ordained Bishop of Prague by Patriarh Dimitrije, Metropolitan Antoniy of Kiev, and seven Serbian bishops. From that time, he established parishes who exclusively used Byzantine rite, in Church Slavonic, and later in Czech. It should be noted that EP was happy to mess into and ordain Svatiy Vrabec (Orthodox Czech, grwon and educated in Russia), in 1923 as Archbishop of Czechoslovakia, but Czech peopla and State refused to acknowledge Abp Savatiy.. 
If you are interested run this through Google Translate:
http://www.pravoslavlje.rs/broj/1009/tekst/sveti-gorazd-ceski/


Pat. Tikhon and the Russian Holy Synod ordered the Karlovski Synod to disband, which in obedience they did. Having questioned if the Patriarch did so under duress, they reconstituted themselves.  Unfortunately, you cannot unring a bell.
Acctually they did not question, to put it simply they played dummies.

Quote
1. Во исполнение Указа его Святейшества Святейшего Тихона Патриарха Московского и всея Руси и Святейшего при нём Синода от 24 апреля (5 мая) 1922 года за № 348 существующее Высшее Русское Церковное Управление упразднить;

In accordance with Ukaz of His Holliness the Most Holy Tihon, Patriarch of Mosocw and Entire Rus', and Most Holy Synod in session with him, from 24th of April (5th of May) of 1922 year, № 348, existing Higher Russian Eclesiastical Governance body is to be abolished.

2. Для организации новой Высшей церковной власти созвать Русский Всезаграничный Собор 21 ноября 1922 года;

With goal of establishment of new Supreeme ecclesiastical government, Russian Abroad Sobor is to be convoced for 21st of November of 1922.

3. В целях сохранения правопреемства Высшей Церковной власти образовать Временный Заграничный Архиерейский Синод РПЦ за границей с обязательным участием митрополита Евлогия, каковому Синоду и предать все права и полномочия Русского Церковного Управления за границей;
<…>

With goal of preservation Supreme Ecclesiasitacal governance Temporary Synod of Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is to be established, with mandatory participation of Metropolitan Evlogiy, and therefore to this Synod all rights and authority of Russian Ecclesiastical Governance Body are going to be transfered.

6. Об образовании Временного Архиерейского Синода довести до сведения Святейшего Патриарха Тихона и всех глав Автокефальных церквей, а также российских посланников

Most Holy Patriarch Tihon and all heads of Autocephalous Churches are to be informed about establishment of Temproary Sobor of Hierarchs, and together with them all Russian Ambasadors

http://nature.web.ru/db/msg.html?mid=1188521

The Ukaz of the Supreme Church Authority as defined by Ukaz 362 put Met. Platon in charge of North America, something the All American Sobor (which had chosen Abp. Alexander previously as primate, confirmed by the same Supreme Church Authority) concurred with.  Is there any question that Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia were under duress in January 1924, particular when issuing ukazes against prelates for "anti-Soviet" activity?
Problem is, Metropolitan Platon found himself isolated not only from Moscow, but from all of others.

If ukazes issued under duress are valid and binding, what justification did ROCOR have against Met. Sergius' dictates to them? What was Ukaz 362 issued for in the first place?
Did I claim that ROCOR was right in their stance? No. But neither OCA is.

In 1946 the OCA was going to re-establish direct contact with the Supreme Church Authority in Moscow, for which they broke their ties-or rather, they were broken-with ROCOR. When Moscow demanded Soviet loyalty, showing that the Supreme Churth Authority operated under duress, autonomy as envisioned in Ukaz 362 continued.
They have no right to grant themselves Autonomy. Also, dont forget, they added new canonical irregularity, they intruded in Metropolis of Japan.

Which is a plurality. Russia's sole legitimate jurisdiction in the Rus' Lands was not recognized by all until 155 years after the fact.  
To waht exactly you are pointing? In 1448 Russia declared Autocephaly, but Constantinople did not dare to break Communion. Patriarchate of Constantinople transfered Metropolis of Kiev (not original one, which is Patriarchate of Moscow, but Greek Catholic readmitted in orthodoxy after 1470), in 1686...
Anyway, I dont think situation is similar. In 1686, three Eastern Patriarchs were only amening what Constantinople said, similarily with Archbishopric of Cyprus. Patriarchate of Peć and Catholicosate of Mchet had no substantial interest in matter. Also, I think Russian Church offered to OCA, to return under omophorion of Patriarch of Moscow, recently on basis autocpehaly is not recognised, and even disputed.

not over North America they didn't.
Oh yes they did. In 1935, Metropolitan Theopil signed Temproary Provision about Russian Orthodox Church Abroad... where it was explicitely stated he was under authority of Karovački Synod...

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/documents/polozhenie1936.html



After 1970, ROCOR was in Communion only with Jerusalem and Serbia.

It does not make OCA's standing any bit more canonical...
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,815


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #81 on: August 26, 2014, 04:20:51 PM »

^Ekdikos's summary points are consistent with what our late Metropolitan Nicholas would teach his students and represents pretty much our (ACROD's) understanding of Orthodox history in our ancestral homelands. It is interesting to remember that the Uzghorod Eparchy was under Constantinople prior to the Unia and many of the practices ridiculed as Latininzation by the Russian Mission priests in America during the early 20th century were actually vestigial remants of earlier Constantinopolitan practice which prevailed in those regions prior to the impostition of the Unia across what was then Austria Hungary. It is a complex situation with centuries of misunderstanding and passion which makes any simple effort to unravel it a hopeless endeavor. (Even to the present day, the Greek Catholic Eparchy of Mucachevo/Uzghorod is NOT part of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, much to the consternation of many ethnic Ukrainians in the region. It maintains a separate patrimony and identity - one which is more familiar to the Orthodox than that of the general practice of modern Ukrainian Greek Catholics.)
Logged
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 999


« Reply #82 on: August 26, 2014, 04:22:20 PM »

I understand that English is not youir first language but this text does not make sense:
Quote
To waht exactly you are pointing? In 1448 Russia declared Autocephaly, but Constantinople did not dare to break Communion. Patriarchate of Constantinople transfered Metropolis of Kiev (not original one, which is Patriarchate of Moscow, but Greek Catholic readmitted in orthodoxy after 1470), in 1686...

By the way the University pf Toronto Library has the newspaper of the metropolitan of Bukovyna on Microfiche and any Orthodox exisiting in Czechia were not part of its jurisdiction.
Logged
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #83 on: August 26, 2014, 04:31:30 PM »

I understand that English is not youir first language but this text does not make sense:

In 1448, Russian Church declared Autocephaly. Since being compromised by recent Union, Church fo Constantinople, did not react at any manner, and Russia achieved de facto Autocephaly. It was  Original Metropolis of Kiev established in X century. Seet of this Archdiocese was transfered in Vladimir (of Zalesye, city in Russia), and finaly in Moscow. Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev, who lapsed in Union at Florence, was with support of Polish and Lithuanian Governments, siezed jurisdiction over eparchies in modern Ukraine and Belarus. His successor, Gregory the Bulgar, returned to Orthodoxy and was  admitted in jurisdiction of OP. After Russia achieved control of Eastern Ukraine, in 1656, Patriarch of Constantinople released Metropolis of Kieve to Patriarch of Moscow.
Who is original Metropolitan of Kiev by lineage...
By the way the University pf Toronto Library has the newspaper of the metropolitan of Bukovyna on Microfiche and any Orthodox exisiting in Czechia were not part of its jurisdiction.
Who said they were?

Metropolis of Bukovina and Dalmatia was established by Austrian Government in 1870. After restructuration of Austrian Empire, Hungarian Government got control over Election of Serbian Patriarch, and Metropolitan of Romanians. Austrians were not willing to let Hungarian Government in control over Orthodox bishops in Austrian part of Federation. Hence establishment o Bukovinian Metropolis... needless to say modern Metropolis of Bukovina in Ukraine has no direct conection with XIX century independent Orthodox Church in Austria.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 04:42:03 PM by Ekdikos » Logged

Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,933



« Reply #84 on: August 26, 2014, 05:16:04 PM »

PS, since much of emphasis was put on Albanian Autocephaly... lets not forget, it was cqnonical territory of EP, same goes with Greece. Why would anyone defend rights of Jurisdiction of EP against EP himself? Not verry sound argument for Vlasios Fidas' theory endorsed by EP, about EP having right to grant/abolish autocephaly to any jurisdiction...

The only diocese in Europe that was given to Constantinople by the Fourth Council at Chalcedon  (Canon 28) was Thrace. Albania was not part of Thrace (and never has been) but of the Prefecture of Illirucum that consisted of the Dioceses of Dacia, Macedonia and Achaia. If at any point in history it was part of Constantinople, it was not because of conciliar decree but by a firman.

Good grief.... dont you think there is 1200 years gap in your logic? Unless you were proposing to ask Roman pontiff about giving autocephaly to Albanian Orthodox Church...

By your logic, autocephaly of Archbishopric of Ochrid means nothing, since it was Emperor Basil II Bugarofigon who granted autocephaly to Ohrid. And Leo III who gave territory to See of New Rome in 732. Lets all of us petition to Pope to confirm our Autocephalies.  But fact is none Ecumenical council lied out Illyricum as part of Western Patriarchate nor facts after 1054, render his opinion relevant...  Now, you have some other point to share?

I think that there is a significant distinction between decisions of councils and decrees/firmans of emperors. As Isa pointed out above, the iconoclast emperors gave the extra dioceses to Constantinople, while the Ottoman Sultan did one better and gave all of Orthodox Christians to the same. Forgive me but I do not see the Holy Spirit's work in any of this. And, it is truly strange that you unwittingly approve of the actions of heretics and Muslims. Even if the best was made of an irregular situation in the 1200 years since Chalcedon, we should not hesitate to go back to the decisions of the councils. I think this disagreement between us has to do with your view of the Church as being always right and whatever beliefs and practices that we have to be normative without any possible change and revision. I submit to you that you are engaging in circular reasoning: the current praxis is right because it is the praxis of the Church. I submit to you that this reflects the view of Cardinal Newman of the RCC much more than orthodox Orthodoxy, where we are bound to be as Apostolic in praxis as we know how. Claiming that Constantinople has jurisdiction beyond the three dioceses given to her by the Fourth Council just because this happened later is not a good enough justification for continuing to perpetuate error.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 05:17:08 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #85 on: August 26, 2014, 05:33:41 PM »

PS, since much of emphasis was put on Albanian Autocephaly... lets not forget, it was cqnonical territory of EP, same goes with Greece. Why would anyone defend rights of Jurisdiction of EP against EP himself? Not verry sound argument for Vlasios Fidas' theory endorsed by EP, about EP having right to grant/abolish autocephaly to any jurisdiction...

The only diocese in Europe that was given to Constantinople by the Fourth Council at Chalcedon  (Canon 28) was Thrace. Albania was not part of Thrace (and never has been) but of the Prefecture of Illirucum that consisted of the Dioceses of Dacia, Macedonia and Achaia. If at any point in history it was part of Constantinople, it was not because of conciliar decree but by a firman.

Good grief.... dont you think there is 1200 years gap in your logic? Unless you were proposing to ask Roman pontiff about giving autocephaly to Albanian Orthodox Church...

By your logic, autocephaly of Archbishopric of Ochrid means nothing, since it was Emperor Basil II Bugarofigon who granted autocephaly to Ohrid. And Leo III who gave territory to See of New Rome in 732. Lets all of us petition to Pope to confirm our Autocephalies.  But fact is none Ecumenical council lied out Illyricum as part of Western Patriarchate nor facts after 1054, render his opinion relevant...  Now, you have some other point to share?

I think that there is a significant distinction between decisions of councils and decrees/firmans of emperors. As Isa pointed out above, the iconoclast emperors gave the extra dioceses to Constantinople, while the Ottoman Sultan did one better and gave all of Orthodox Christians to the same. Forgive me but I do not see the Holy Spirit's work in any of this. And, it is truly strange that you unwittingly approve of the actions of heretics and Muslims. Even if the best was made of an irregular situation in the 1200 years since Chalcedon, we should not hesitate to go back to the decisions of the councils. I think this disagreement between us has to do with your view of the Church as being always right and whatever beliefs and practices that we have to be normative without any possible change and revision. I submit to you that you are engaging in circular reasoning: the current praxis is right because it is the praxis of the Church. I submit to you that this reflects the view of Cardinal Newman of the RCC much more than orthodox Orthodoxy, where we are bound to be as Apostolic in praxis as we know how. Claiming that Constantinople has jurisdiction beyond the three dioceses given to her by the Fourth Council just because this happened later is not a good enough justification for continuing to perpetuate error.

Carl, your personal animosity towards me is your personal issue not mine. Just in case you did miss point, Isa and I do not disagree over fact Constantinople had canonical jurisdiction over Albania and Greece at time when granted them Autocephaly. Now, in case you did not notice by now, History is bit more complicated than copy pasting of Wikipedia articles and engaging in pointless discussions over things you seem not understand properly, such as Eecclesiology, and Canon Law.

Now, if you did not notice by now, you invoking 28th Canon of Council of Chalcedon, means nothing. Since it was not envisioned that borders laid out there would be perpetual.  Fact that Leo III misapropriated Diocese of Illyricum from Roman Pope, means nothing, since jurisdiction of Rome over Illyricum was never confirmed as unchangable article of faith, nor was defined as matter of Discipline by Canons of Ecumenical councils. Furthermore, since you so insist on Guidance of Holy Spirit... have you had chance to hear about oikonomia? There should be article about it on Wikipedia...
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #86 on: August 26, 2014, 06:00:10 PM »

It was more than theoretical-at the time Czechoslovakia included Carpatho-Russia/Transcarpathia (as you mention below in the post War context), and the ones returning to Orthodoxy had been under Karlovci-Serbian, not ROCOR-in Austria Hungary. 
Well, first it was theoretical in Prague, since we had canonic basis for establishin Parish there, but... we did not have any prior 1921...Patriarchate of Peć, and subsequently Metroplis of Karlovci, had bishoprics in Dalmatia, in Southern Hungary, in Hungary, Transilvania, Croatia... also there were parishes in Austrian Crown Lands (Trieste, Istria, Ljubljana, Wien), but not in Bohemia.
There is no way that the Habsburgs would allow an Orthodox bishop in Bohemia. The Russians did run an parish that seems to have been technically a consulate (it appears, for instance, the public reports of the Ober-Prokurator of the Most Holy Governing Synod). Nor would they admit the fact that Ruthenians and others were returning to Orthodoxy.
Prior to Užgorod Union, I think Orthodox Ruthenians were under Constantinople. Which is bit odd since rest of Kingdom of Hungary was under Serbian Patriarch of Peć then. (1646). Nevertheless, in 1920s.. mission of Serbian Church which was including ROCOR priests (since ROCOR considered herself to be under temporary Jurisdiction of Archbishop of Peć and Patriarch of Serbia, and operated from its headquarters in Kingdom fo Yugoslavia, and First Hierarch of ROCOR was assisting Serbian Patriarch in consecrations of bishops, and one of Serbian bishops participated in consecrations of ROCOR ones...) returned number of Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy.
Patriarch Arsenije III had not yet led the great migrations of Serbs into the Habsburg lands. The Orthodox around Uzhhorod were dependent on the Church in Transylvania and in Moldavia (Galicia had its hands full with the Poles trying to enforce Brest), which were under Ottoman, and hence Constantinople.  Once Patriarch Arsenije had consolidated the Patriarchate of Pec in the Habsburg lands, and Ottoman control receded, then all the Orthodox subjects of the Habsburgs became in the jurisdiction of Patriarch Arsenije.  In truth, it was a default, as the Habsburgs could not do without the Serbs, who insisted on their Orthodoxy, whereas the Habsburgs could eliminate other hierarchies with impunity.
 
Bukowina, having theoretical jurisdiction in Austria (which at the time included Bohemia, i.e. the Czech Lands) abandoned its claims after it joined into the Patriarchate of Romania.
Metropolis of Bukowina was granted independence, not autocephaly by Austrian Court... they were before 1870 part of Metropolis of Karlovci... also two Eparchies in Dalmatia were attached to it, same with Serbian and Greek parishes in Slovenia and modern Austria... but if I remember correctly, act of Emperor stated that in spiritual matters, Patriarch (since of 1848, Metropolitan of Karlovci claimed Patriarchal title), had supreeme authority in matters of faith... Whatever right over Czechia Metropolis of Bukowina had, it was weak one.
The Ausgleich required 2 of everything, and that included an Orthodox authority-exterminating the Orthodox had just plain failed, but not from lack of trying. Bukowina's autocephaly (and yes, it was autocephalous, it was usually referred to as the Church of Austria).  The Hungarians would not countenance a united Orthodox Church for Austria and for Hungary. Which is how the Dalmatian dioceses ended up with the Crown Land of Bukowina, and the other side of the Empire.
Of course it was weak.  Such was the situation of the Orthodox under the loyal sons of the Vatican. It is also how/why a lot of (returning) Orthodox Galicians moved across the border into Bukowina, where the Romanian majority ensured more freedom for the Orthodox, such that the province became more Ruthenian over time.
The Carpatho-Russians tipped the Czech-Slovaks into the Eastern Rite, they had been WRO.
Hm, not quite right. Before joining Serbian Church, Fr Matej's group (future St. Hieromartyr Gorazd of Prague), belonged to Czechoslovak National Church, RCC renegade grupation. Its leader Karel Farsky was Arian... hence Serbian Church refused his request for ordination... Group of Orthodox minded ex-RCC priests, and laity decided to go directly to Bishop Dositej of Niš, and they were recieved in Serbian Church. From verry begining, liturgical books of SOC were translated in Czech. So, in no time, Bishopric of Prague, future Metropolis, was WRO...
Fr Matej Pavlik was recieved in Orthodoxy 20th september of 1921, through confession, as ordained priest. Next day, he was tonsured monk, and 22th he was made Archimandrite and Igumen of Monastery Grgeteg (in Serbia). He was Ordained Bishop of Prague by Patriarh Dimitrije, Metropolitan Antoniy of Kiev, and seven Serbian bishops. From that time, he established parishes who exclusively used Byzantine rite, in Church Slavonic, and later in Czech. It should be noted that EP was happy to mess into and ordain Svatiy Vrabec (Orthodox Czech, grwon and educated in Russia), in 1923 as Archbishop of Czechoslovakia, but Czech peopla and State refused to acknowledge Abp Savatiy.. 
If you are interested run this through Google Translate:
http://www.pravoslavlje.rs/broj/1009/tekst/sveti-gorazd-ceski/


Pat. Tikhon and the Russian Holy Synod ordered the Karlovski Synod to disband, which in obedience they did. Having questioned if the Patriarch did so under duress, they reconstituted themselves.  Unfortunately, you cannot unring a bell.
Acctually they did not question, to put it simply they played dummies.

Quote
1. Во исполнение Указа его Святейшества Святейшего Тихона Патриарха Московского и всея Руси и Святейшего при нём Синода от 24 апреля (5 мая) 1922 года за № 348 существующее Высшее Русское Церковное Управление упразднить;

In accordance with Ukaz of His Holliness the Most Holy Tihon, Patriarch of Mosocw and Entire Rus', and Most Holy Synod in session with him, from 24th of April (5th of May) of 1922 year, № 348, existing Higher Russian Eclesiastical Governance body is to be abolished.

2. Для организации новой Высшей церковной власти созвать Русский Всезаграничный Собор 21 ноября 1922 года;

With goal of establishment of new Supreeme ecclesiastical government, Russian Abroad Sobor is to be convoced for 21st of November of 1922.

3. В целях сохранения правопреемства Высшей Церковной власти образовать Временный Заграничный Архиерейский Синод РПЦ за границей с обязательным участием митрополита Евлогия, каковому Синоду и предать все права и полномочия Русского Церковного Управления за границей;
<…>

With goal of preservation Supreme Ecclesiasitacal governance Temporary Synod of Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is to be established, with mandatory participation of Metropolitan Evlogiy, and therefore to this Synod all rights and authority of Russian Ecclesiastical Governance Body are going to be transfered.

6. Об образовании Временного Архиерейского Синода довести до сведения Святейшего Патриарха Тихона и всех глав Автокефальных церквей, а также российских посланников

Most Holy Patriarch Tihon and all heads of Autocephalous Churches are to be informed about establishment of Temproary Sobor of Hierarchs, and together with them all Russian Ambasadors

http://nature.web.ru/db/msg.html?mid=1188521
I can't check that from here. I'll get back to it.
The Ukaz of the Supreme Church Authority as defined by Ukaz 362 put Met. Platon in charge of North America, something the All American Sobor (which had chosen Abp. Alexander previously as primate, confirmed by the same Supreme Church Authority) concurred with.  Is there any question that Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia were under duress in January 1924, particular when issuing ukazes against prelates for "anti-Soviet" activity?
Problem is, Metropolitan Platon found himself isolated not only from Moscow, but from all of others.
So was St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Mark of Ephesus.
If ukazes issued under duress are valid and binding, what justification did ROCOR have against Met. Sergius' dictates to them? What was Ukaz 362 issued for in the first place?
Did I claim that ROCOR was right in their stance? No. But neither OCA is.
OK, fair enough, but the OCA's position has precedence. ROCOR's does not.

In 1946 the OCA was going to re-establish direct contact with the Supreme Church Authority in Moscow, for which they broke their ties-or rather, they were broken-with ROCOR. When Moscow demanded Soviet loyalty, showing that the Supreme Churth Authority operated under duress, autonomy as envisioned in Ukaz 362 continued.
They have no right to grant themselves Autonomy. Also, dont forget, they added new canonical irregularity, they intruded in Metropolis of Japan.[/quote]
For the same reason. As for the right to autonomy, the situation called for it, just as the situation in 1448 Moscow called for autocephaly.
Which is a plurality. Russia's sole legitimate jurisdiction in the Rus' Lands was not recognized by all until 155 years after the fact.  
To waht exactly you are pointing? In 1448 Russia declared Autocephaly, but Constantinople did not dare to break Communion. Patriarchate of Constantinople transfered Metropolis of Kiev (not original one, which is Patriarchate of Moscow, but Greek Catholic readmitted in orthodoxy after 1470), in 1686...
Anyway, I dont think situation is similar. In 1686, three Eastern Patriarchs were only amening what Constantinople said, similarily with Archbishopric of Cyprus. Patriarchate of Peć and Catholicosate of Mchet had no substantial interest in matter. Also, I think Russian Church offered to OCA, to return under omophorion of Patriarch of Moscow, recently on basis autocpehaly is not recognised, and even disputed.
rumors of ROCOR and their sympathisers. The Supreme Church Authority has been adamantly stating otherwise.
not over North America they didn't.
Oh yes they did. In 1935, Metropolitan Theopil signed Temproary Provision about Russian Orthodox Church Abroad... where it was explicitely stated he was under authority of Karovački Synod...
The All American Sobor was explicit about its autonomy.  If the Karlovski Synod wanted to ignore that, they were just deluding themselves.

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/documents/polozhenie1936.html


After 1970, ROCOR was in Communion only with Jerusalem and Serbia.

It does not make OCA's standing any bit more canonical...
The 1970 Tomos did that.  It didn't need any bit more.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,815


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #87 on: August 26, 2014, 06:56:09 PM »

It appears that we have alternative histories at play here.

But as I have said over and over and over again, most of the above narrative matters nought in the long run as it is not going to solve the problems of jurisdiction here in America.

Again, if anyone feels passionately that the cause of the OCA is correct and canonical, it seems to me that such folks must by conscience be part of the OCA unless they live in a region where access to an OCA parish is an impossibility.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #88 on: August 26, 2014, 11:39:31 PM »

It appears that we have alternative histories at play here.

But as I have said over and over and over again, most of the above narrative matters nought in the long run as it is not going to solve the problems of jurisdiction here in America.

Again, if anyone feels passionately that the cause of the OCA is correct and canonical, it seems to me that such folks must by conscience be part of the OCA unless they live in a region where access to an OCA parish is an impossibility.
In general yes, but not absolutely.

Btw, seeing in the school system the close relationship between history, indoctrination and action, it matters a great deal which narrative is pursued.  For one thing, many narratives hold that there isn't a problem to solve.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,594


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #89 on: August 27, 2014, 09:47:25 AM »

Quote
Administrative unity is not a useless goal
You're right, its a wonderful goal. But having a council that meets solely for the purpose of scheduling more meetings does nothing to further the cause.

Quote
Carl, your personal animosity towards me is your personal issue not mine
Its not personal animosity. If Constantinople could have exercised her "rights" to the lands above and beyond those given in the 4th council, she would have done so LONG ago.

Quote
OCA
As much disdain as I have for the OCA (which is alot, admittedly) they have a stronger case than ROCOR.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #90 on: August 27, 2014, 11:33:54 AM »

Well, first Austro-Hungary divided Orthodoxy in three Churches. In 1848, they Separated three dioceses to form Romanian Metropolis, and in 1870, they made Metropolis of Bukovina. In 1878, Serbian Metropolitanates in Bosnia (under EP) found themseles under K. und K. which masterfully usd every chance to divide Orthodoxy within A-H borders.
Russian consulate parish in Prague was not able to cover entire Bohemia and Moravia... later Serbian diocese was. But, I think this enough coriosities about History of Orthodoxy in Czech Republic.

My point is, and I am quite sure I proved so, OCA between 1924 and 1970 was in Schism. Not only with Patriarchs Sergius and Aleksiy I, but with Saint Tikhon and Met. Peter of Krutitse. Cosmetic stories about continuation of Patriarchal Church do not hold water. Act of Schism is serious bussiness. Also, ROCOR, does not claim jurisdiction over NA,... only EP and OCA believe its their exclusive right... one claim is based on wishfull interpretation of 28th canon of Fourth EcumenicalCouncil, other on wishfull interpretation of History... Despite giving Autocephaly to its Metropolia, MP did continue to administer faithfull in Northern America...
Now, I dont have anti-OCA agenda, I simply doubt their claim. Same goes for GOARCH...
Logged

Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,933



« Reply #91 on: August 27, 2014, 11:44:31 AM »

PS, since much of emphasis was put on Albanian Autocephaly... lets not forget, it was cqnonical territory of EP, same goes with Greece. Why would anyone defend rights of Jurisdiction of EP against EP himself? Not verry sound argument for Vlasios Fidas' theory endorsed by EP, about EP having right to grant/abolish autocephaly to any jurisdiction...

The only diocese in Europe that was given to Constantinople by the Fourth Council at Chalcedon  (Canon 28) was Thrace. Albania was not part of Thrace (and never has been) but of the Prefecture of Illirucum that consisted of the Dioceses of Dacia, Macedonia and Achaia. If at any point in history it was part of Constantinople, it was not because of conciliar decree but by a firman.

Good grief.... dont you think there is 1200 years gap in your logic? Unless you were proposing to ask Roman pontiff about giving autocephaly to Albanian Orthodox Church...

By your logic, autocephaly of Archbishopric of Ochrid means nothing, since it was Emperor Basil II Bugarofigon who granted autocephaly to Ohrid. And Leo III who gave territory to See of New Rome in 732. Lets all of us petition to Pope to confirm our Autocephalies.  But fact is none Ecumenical council lied out Illyricum as part of Western Patriarchate nor facts after 1054, render his opinion relevant...  Now, you have some other point to share?

I think that there is a significant distinction between decisions of councils and decrees/firmans of emperors. As Isa pointed out above, the iconoclast emperors gave the extra dioceses to Constantinople, while the Ottoman Sultan did one better and gave all of Orthodox Christians to the same. Forgive me but I do not see the Holy Spirit's work in any of this. And, it is truly strange that you unwittingly approve of the actions of heretics and Muslims. Even if the best was made of an irregular situation in the 1200 years since Chalcedon, we should not hesitate to go back to the decisions of the councils. I think this disagreement between us has to do with your view of the Church as being always right and whatever beliefs and practices that we have to be normative without any possible change and revision. I submit to you that you are engaging in circular reasoning: the current praxis is right because it is the praxis of the Church. I submit to you that this reflects the view of Cardinal Newman of the RCC much more than orthodox Orthodoxy, where we are bound to be as Apostolic in praxis as we know how. Claiming that Constantinople has jurisdiction beyond the three dioceses given to her by the Fourth Council just because this happened later is not a good enough justification for continuing to perpetuate error.

Carl, your personal animosity towards me is your personal issue not mine. Just in case you did miss point, Isa and I do not disagree over fact Constantinople had canonical jurisdiction over Albania and Greece at time when granted them Autocephaly. Now, in case you did not notice by now, History is bit more complicated than copy pasting of Wikipedia articles and engaging in pointless discussions over things you seem not understand properly, such as Eecclesiology, and Canon Law.

Now, if you did not notice by now, you invoking 28th Canon of Council of Chalcedon, means nothing. Since it was not envisioned that borders laid out there would be perpetual.  Fact that Leo III misapropriated Diocese of Illyricum from Roman Pope, means nothing, since jurisdiction of Rome over Illyricum was never confirmed as unchangable article of faith, nor was defined as matter of Discipline by Canons of Ecumenical councils. Furthermore, since you so insist on Guidance of Holy Spirit... have you had chance to hear about oikonomia? There should be article about it on Wikipedia...

Personal animosity? No. However, I do think you are one of those people who is knowledgeable without real understanding and wisdom. Perhaps your age? What I feel is sorrow for your family and flock, should you be ordained and assigned a parish.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #92 on: August 27, 2014, 12:35:13 PM »

Well, first Austro-Hungary divided Orthodoxy in three Churches. In 1848, they Separated three dioceses to form Romanian Metropolis, and in 1870, they made Metropolis of Bukovina. In 1878, Serbian Metropolitanates in Bosnia (under EP) found themseles under K. und K. which masterfully usd every chance to divide Orthodoxy within A-H borders.
Russian consulate parish in Prague was not able to cover entire Bohemia and Moravia... later Serbian diocese was. But, I think this enough coriosities about History of Orthodoxy in Czech Republic.

My point is, and I am quite sure I proved so, OCA between 1924 and 1970 was in Schism. Not only with Patriarchs Sergius and Aleksiy I, but with Saint Tikhon and Met. Peter of Krutitse. Cosmetic stories about continuation of Patriarchal Church do not hold water. Act of Schism is serious bussiness. Also, ROCOR, does not claim jurisdiction over NA,... only EP and OCA believe its their exclusive right... one claim is based on wishfull interpretation of 28th canon of Fourth EcumenicalCouncil, other on wishfull interpretation of History... Despite giving Autocephaly to its Metropolia, MP did continue to administer faithfull in Northern America...
Now, I dont have anti-OCA agenda, I simply doubt their claim. Same goes for GOARCH...
Patriarch Alexi I was the one who signed the Tomos of Autocephaly. The OCA's delegates had come to Moscow to participate in his election-the cause of what ROCOR claims was schism as ROCOR continued to refuse to recognize the Moscow Patriarchate.  The delegates only pulled back when the Soviets tried to get submission to them through the Patriarch.  The OCA lost St. Nicholas Cathedral through the recognition of the Patriarch.
Quote
St. Tikhon’s grant of temporary self-administration was subject to “confirmation” by the Central Church Authority “when it is reestablished.” Had the Metropolia withheld recognition of the Moscow authorities as a true Central Church Authority, they could have argued that St. Tikhon’s stipulation was not yet operative — that a real Central Church Authority hadn’t been established. But as soon as the Metropolia recognized the Moscow Central Church Authority, they activiated the “confirmation” element of St. Tikhon’s decision.

From a legal standpoint, in my opinion, the Metropolia’s strongest argument against Moscow’s claim of authority would have been that Moscow had no legitimate Central Church Authority, and thus St. Tikhon’s grant of self-administration was still in force. This would have given the Supreme Court the necessary justification for rejecting Moscow’s argument of hierarchical superiority — the argument that ultimately won the case, since the Court defers to the judgment of the higher authorities in a hierarchical church.

But given the actual circumstances — given that the Metropolia did recognize Moscow as a legitimate Central Church Authority — the Court’s hands were tied. The Metropolia’s recognition meant that the Metropolia was subordinate to Moscow, and even New York property law cannot trump Russian Church law when both parties are part of the Russian Church.
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2011/05/27/moscow-v-the-metropolia-part-4-initial-impressions/

As for being in schism from Pat. St. Tikhon, in reality that would be only if the Bolshevik Politburo had the power to bind or lose.
Quote
on May 5, 1922, a tri-lateral decree (O 347) from Patriarch Tikhon, the Holy Synod, and the Higher Church Council in Moscow was issued, ordering the disbandment of ROCOR as the “Higher Church Authority” authorized in Ukaze 362. All ROCOR parishes in Europe were to be placed under Met. Evlogy directly as he was the only bishop in Europe that was on the canonical territory of his own diocese – the other bishops of the HCA (ROCOR) were all bishops of dioceses in Russia, which they were unable to occupy at the time due to the Soviet occupation of those places. Archbishop Nikon (Rklitskii), in his series of books on the life of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), the first First Hierarch of ROCOR, records a letter from Metropolitan Evlogy to Metropolitan Anthony which states: “Regarding this document, I do not recognize any mandatory power, even though it was definitely written and signed by the Patriarch. The document has a political character, not an ecclesiastical one. Outside the Soviet government, it does not have meaning for anyone, anywhere.” (See Kostur, pp. 30-1)
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2011/06/15/rocor-oca-episcopal-concelebration/
and yet the Karlovski Synod did in fact disband (but then reconstituted itself, in direct violation of the Ukaz it just had obeyed, claiming authority under Ukaz 362 which Ukaz 347 denied them and mandated they disband, which they obeyed).
Met. Platon had received his equivalent to Ukaz 347, and simply saw it for the fraud it was, although definitely written and signed by the Patriarch.  He just did de jure what ROCOR did de facto-except Met. Platon had a canonical basis to do so.
"ROCOR, does not claim jurisdiction over NA" LOL. That is the only basis for its claim that Met. Platon was in schism.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #93 on: August 27, 2014, 01:43:13 PM »

One part that gets ignored in discussions of ROCOR's authority under Ukaz 362, is what "Russia" looked like the year before it was issued 20/7 November 1920

A lot the the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was in Russia, or at least within the boundaries of the former Russian Empire.
 
ROCOR claimed to be the "Free" part of the Russian Orthodox Church, and claimed the OCA on that basis.

Finland was free (and a state Church), but not part of ROCOR.

Estonia was free – in fact Patriarch Alexei of blessed memory was raised in it – but not in ROCOR.

Latvia was free, but not in ROCOR. In fact, blessed Abp. John of RIga and All Latvia, leaving when Stalin reasserted control over it, joined the OCA, as bishop of Chicago: his adopted son Fr. Sergei long served at its Cathedral after the archbishop’s repose, and after Fr. Sergei’s wife’s repose, he has entered the monastery in the Russian Church in Russia to care for the Tikhvin Mother of God, as he and his adopted father did in the OCA Cathedral so many years (where, btw, Pat. Alexei venerated it in 1994 – I still have the nifty icon they gave out at the occasion, complete with riasa).

Lithuania and Poland, the old diocese of Pat. St. Tikhon before and after his tenure in North America, was free, but not in ROCOR. In fact, soon it would claim autocephaly, and be recognized as such by the Phanar, the same authority which recognized Met. Anthony's Temporary Higher Church Authority of South-East Russia  "for the purpose of the service of the population ... and to oversee the ecclesiastic life of Russian colonies in Orthodox countries a temporary committee (epitropia) under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate"
 
Ukraine for a while was free – in fact when Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) was elected as Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia, but never was confirmed and enthroned as he antagonized the Ukrainians needlessly with Russian chauvinism (something that Abp. Alexander did in North America: in Abp. Alexander it was a direct about face in policy – he had been forming the see of Winnipeg and All Canada into a Ukrainian diocese – but with Met. Anthony it might have a life long affliction, but I’m not sure what was the nature of his problems with the locals in Kharkiv when he was enthroned there under the Czar. Wasn’t it you who mentioned once (or twice, or more) that the OCA couldn’t get along?). He attended the All Ukraine Sobor (as did Met. Platon) in 1918, when Ukraine was free, and addressed the Ukrainians as Russians in Russian.  The Ukrainian free state set up an autocephalous Church, but the bishops of Ukraine followed Met. Anthony in preferring exile as Russians than residence as Ukrainians in Ukraine, as they were free to do. This freedom was used to form the “Temporary Higher Church Authority of South-East Russia” – though on what canonical basis is not clear – the precursor of ROCOR, although its lack of canonical foundation appeared when it dissolved with the removal to Constantinople.

The Church in Ukraine in Galicia and West Ukraine was free, but under the Polish Orthodox Church-the same Poles who freed the imprisoned Met. Anthony of Kiev-not under ROCOR-except for the part under the Czechoslovak Orthodox Church free under Serbia, who did allow ROCOR the freedom to work in Transcarpathia.

Moldova was free, not under ROCOR, but under the Romanian Orthodox Church in Romania, to which Bessarabia returned to the constituent region of Moldavia. Met. Anastasy didn’t like that he couldn’t play Russian Lord when the Romanians were masters of – or should I say “in” (happily Romanian combines both in one preposition “din”) – their own house, and so he abandoned his see, though, like the unenthroned Met. Anthony “of Kiev and Galicia”, kept the title of a see occupied by someone else, so he could be the “Metropolitan of Kishinev (or rather, Chișinău) and Khotin (or rather Hotin/Khotyn)” Outside of Chișinău and Hotin, to take his place on the Holy Synod of the Synod without sees, without their primate, outside their jurisdiction.

Japan was free, but not under ROCOR – they stayed with Bolshevik occupied Moscow, which elevated its Archbishop Sergius to Metropolitan in 1931. The submission to ROCOR came when the Imperial authorities banned foreigners to head Church organizations, and a faction ironically turned to the Russian Church Outside of Russia to keep the Japanese Church inside Japan in Japanese hands: the ROCOR insistence on Church freedom being laid aside so it could collude with the Imperialist authorities and consecrate a Japanese, Archpriest John Ono, in Harbin (i.e. outside of Japan, but under Japanese Shinto domination) as Archbishop Nicholas Ono of Tokyo. To match the irony, the legitimate Archbishop and Metropolitan Sergius used the monstrous model of the Most Holy Governing Synod (the de facto model of the Karlovci Synod) and appointed a layman as the Torii, the Japanese equivalent of the Ober-Prokurator of the MHGS, and circumvented the law. At ithe fall of the Imperialist regime, Abp. Nicholas submitted to the Moscow Patriarchate, but later reconciled to Abp.& Met. Sergius’ canonical successor, Abp. Benjamin (Basalyga) (an interesting combination, as Abp. Nicholas was the first Japanese born Orthodox bishop, and Abp. Benjamin was the first American born Orthodox bishop): Met. Platon’s former personal secretary in the early 1920′s, Abp. Benjamin had attended the Karlovci “All Russian” Sobor” in 1938 as a delegate of the OCA. In 1951 OCA consecrated Ireney Bekish – who grew up free of the Bolsheviks but not under ROCOR, in Poland – as successor to Abp. Benjamin (who returned to his original see of Pittsburgh). Two decades latter, as successor and heir to Met. Leonty and the generation of Abp.-Pat. St. TIkhon, he received the Tomos of Autocephaly from Moscow, whose terms included the return of Japan to Moscow’s jurisdiction, which granted it autonomy: does ROCOR not recognize that autonomy?

And of course, North America was free of the Bolsheviks, but not under ROCOR. The only domination the Bolsheviks had was in US courts – the same ones that ROCOR seeks to prove its narrative. The Canadian courts (and many US ones) found the truth in the OCA’s case.

Btw, does your concern about being “free” extend to the UGCC and the other Eastern Catholics that the Bolsheviks forced into Orthodoxy?

Forbidden pejorative removed to something more acceptable in the public forum
-Mina

 Isa, you know the rules better than this.  You have been told before not to use the word "Uniate", but instead "Eastern Catholics".  I'm issuing a warning for 10 days.  Please remember where you are posting common polemical usages in your discussions.

If you would like to appeal this, PM me.

God bless you.

Mina
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 02:50:50 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #94 on: August 28, 2014, 08:49:59 AM »


Personal animosity? No. However, I do think you are one of those people who is knowledgeable without real understanding and wisdom. Perhaps your age? What I feel is sorrow for your family and flock, should you be ordained and assigned a parish.

Sure this is not ad hominem. This is impartial analysis about person you only know from second side of LCD monitor.

Now on serious note. You go and pick one isolated fact, and without even trying to look it in context of rest historical events or other canonical rules, you go ant try to further your current politcal and ecclesiastical agenda. Also, you are constantly trying to impute me something I didnt say...

As for wisdom and age, I didnt saw your age did something to improve your subtility, your power of deduction and and certainly not your manners, mr. Carl Craeff. Wink
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 08:50:52 AM by Ekdikos » Logged

Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #95 on: August 28, 2014, 09:08:57 AM »

One part that gets ignored in discussions of ROCOR's authority under Ukaz 362, is what "Russia" looked like the year before it was issued 20/7 November 1920

A lot the the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was in Russia, or at least within the boundaries of the former Russian Empire.
Ok... but not exactly relevant here.

ROCOR claimed to be the "Free" part of the Russian Orthodox Church, and claimed the OCA on that basis.
Well, I only pointed for 1922-1926 and 1935-1946, OCA was willing to accep it. Which is undeniable fact. In 1935, Met. Theophil signed agreement whihc make him ex officio member of Karloački Synod, and put himself and his Metropolia in ecclesiastical, dogmaitc and jurisdictional subordination to ROCOR.... Unpleasant fact which current OCA advocates try to ignore, avoid and re-interpret...

Finland was free (and a state Church), but not part of ROCOR.
Yes...

Estonia was free – in fact Patriarch Alexei of blessed memory was raised in it – but not in ROCOR.
Aleksey II (von Ridiger), not Aleksey I (I dont doubt you know it, I am just putting it not to avoid people reading us).
But again... irrelevant... I do not try to say ROCOR was right, nor Met. Eulogiy nor OCA... all were wrong... same as Met. Sergius and re-established MP. Neither side could calim they were working in legitimate manner.


Latvia was free, but not in ROCOR. In fact, blessed Abp. John of RIga and All Latvia, leaving when Stalin reasserted control over it, joined the OCA, as bishop of Chicago: his adopted son Fr. Sergei long served at its Cathedral after the archbishop’s repose, and after Fr. Sergei’s wife’s repose, he has entered the monastery in the Russian Church in Russia to care for the Tikhvin Mother of God, as he and his adopted father did in the OCA Cathedral so many years (where, btw, Pat. Alexei venerated it in 1994 – I still have the nifty icon they gave out at the occasion, complete with riasa).

Lithuania and Poland, the old diocese of Pat. St. Tikhon before and after his tenure in North America, was free, but not in ROCOR. In fact, soon it would claim autocephaly, and be recognized as such by the Phanar, the same authority which recognized Met. Anthony's Temporary Higher Church Authority of South-East Russia  "for the purpose of the service of the population ... and to oversee the ecclesiastic life of Russian colonies in Orthodox countries a temporary committee (epitropia) under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate"
Yes...

Ukraine for a while was free – in fact when Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) was elected as Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia, but never was confirmed and enthroned as he antagonized the Ukrainians needlessly with Russian chauvinism
He was annoying Government instaled by Germans... because he did not want to lift excommunication of Mazepa... problem with Mazepa was not that much fact he brake oath, but he that he had intercourse with his god-daughter...

 (something that Abp. Alexander did in North America: in Abp. Alexander it was a direct about face in policy – he had been forming the see of Winnipeg and All Canada into a Ukrainian diocese – but with Met. Anthony it might have a life long affliction, but I’m not sure what was the nature of his problems with the locals in Kharkiv when he was enthroned there under the Czar. Wasn’t it you who mentioned once (or twice, or more) that the OCA couldn’t get along?). [/quote]
Kharkov was not that much against Metropolitan Antoniy... St. John of Shangai, his disciple, mand who deeply repsect him was born there...
I understand you think all people in Ukraina were 125% behind Pel'tura, but its not true... In fact many of sounding Russian nationalists and ROCOR types were Ukrainians... (St. John of Shangai, Igor Sikorsky's father)...

He attended the All Ukraine Sobor (as did Met. Platon) in 1918, when Ukraine was free, and addressed the Ukrainians as Russians in Russian.  
Yes and? Wht it has to do with Northern America and who is right who is not?


The Ukrainian free state set up an autocephalous Church, but the bishops of Ukraine followed Met. Anthony in preferring exile as Russians than residence as Ukrainians in Ukraine, as they were free to do.
You mean group of priests who consecrated one among them? I udnerstand not evene under this board's rule people who think priest could consecrate bishop would be accpeted here as Orthodox...

This freedom was used to form the “Temporary Higher Church Authority of South-East Russia” – though on what canonical basis is not clear – the precursor of ROCOR, although its lack of canonical foundation appeared when it dissolved with the removal to Constantinople.

The Church in Ukraine in Galicia and West Ukraine was free, but under the Polish Orthodox Church-the same Poles who freed the imprisoned Met. Anthony of Kiev-not under ROCOR-except for the part under the Czechoslovak Orthodox Church free under Serbia, who did allow ROCOR the freedom to work in Transcarpathia.
Transcarpathia was not under Russian Church under 1946...


Moldova was free, not under ROCOR, but under the Romanian Orthodox Church in Romania, to which Bessarabia returned to the constituent region of Moldavia. Met. Anastasy didn’t like that he couldn’t play Russian Lord when the Romanians were masters of – or should I say “in” (happily Romanian combines both in one preposition “din”) – their own house, and so he abandoned his see, though, like the unenthroned Met. Anthony “of Kiev and Galicia”, kept the title of a see occupied by someone else, so he could be the “Metropolitan of Kishinev (or rather, Chișinău) and Khotin (or rather Hotin/Khotyn)” Outside of Chișinău and Hotin, to take his place on the Holy Synod of the Synod without sees, without their primate, outside their jurisdiction.
Ok.... but it is still irrelevant here, as much as rest ton of information.


Japan was free, but not under ROCOR – they stayed with Bolshevik occupied Moscow, which elevated its Archbishop Sergius to Metropolitan in 1931. The submission to ROCOR came when the Imperial authorities banned foreigners to head Church organizations, and a faction ironically turned to the Russian Church Outside of Russia to keep the Japanese Church inside Japan in Japanese hands: the ROCOR insistence on Church freedom being laid aside so it could collude with the Imperialist authorities and consecrate a Japanese, Archpriest John Ono, in Harbin (i.e. outside of Japan, but under Japanese Shinto domination) as Archbishop Nicholas Ono of Tokyo. To match the irony, the legitimate Archbishop and Metropolitan Sergius used the monstrous model of the Most Holy Governing Synod (the de facto model of the Karlovci Synod) and appointed a layman as the Torii, the Japanese equivalent of the Ober-Prokurator of the MHGS, and circumvented the law. At ithe fall of the Imperialist regime, Abp. Nicholas submitted to the Moscow Patriarchate, but later reconciled to Abp.& Met. Sergius’ canonical successor, Abp. Benjamin (Basalyga) (an interesting combination, as Abp. Nicholas was the first Japanese born Orthodox bishop, and Abp. Benjamin was the first American born Orthodox bishop): Met. Platon’s former personal secretary in the early 1920′s, Abp. Benjamin had attended the Karlovci “All Russian” Sobor” in 1938 as a delegate of the OCA. In 1951 OCA consecrated Ireney Bekish – who grew up free of the Bolsheviks but not under ROCOR, in Poland – as successor to Abp. Benjamin (who returned to his original see of Pittsburgh). Two decades latter, as successor and heir to Met. Leonty and the generation of Abp.-Pat. St. TIkhon, he received the Tomos of Autocephaly from Moscow, whose terms included the return of Japan to Moscow’s jurisdiction, which granted it autonomy: does ROCOR not recognize that autonomy?
OCA's intrusion in Japan does not hel their case... plitical free/ensalved does not play as card in canon law...

And of course, North America was free of the Bolsheviks, but not under ROCOR. The only domination the Bolsheviks had was in US courts – the same ones that ROCOR seeks to prove its narrative. The Canadian courts (and many US ones) found the truth in the OCA’s case.
ROCOR had bishops there, besides, it was ROCOR to whom Platon belonged, and worked under... and in end in 1935 OCA submitted to them.

Btw, does your concern about being “free” extend to the UGCC and the other Eastern Catholics that the Bolsheviks forced into Orthodoxy?

Hm.... do you really think I care for freedom of Eastern Catholics? You are one concerned with free/enslaved.

Forbidden pejorative removed to something more acceptable in the public forum
-Mina


 I have warned ialmisry 10 days for using the word "Uniate".  You saw and read my warning in his post.  You can also see I changed the word into "Eastern Catholic", and you still used the word "Uniate".  You had 13 days left from your previous warning.  I'm giving you another 10 days added to that.  So 23 days of a warned status starting today.  If you wish to appeal this decision, you must only do so through PMing me.

God bless.

Mina
« Last Edit: August 29, 2014, 02:01:47 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #96 on: August 28, 2014, 09:25:15 AM »

Patriarch Alexi I was the one who signed the Tomos of Autocephaly. The OCA's delegates had come to Moscow to participate in his election-the cause of what ROCOR claims was schism as ROCOR continued to refuse to recognize the Moscow Patriarchate.  The delegates only pulled back when the Soviets tried to get submission to them through the Patriarch.  The OCA lost St. Nicholas Cathedral through the recognition of the Patriarch.
So when OCA went in Schism Patriarch St Tikhon was censoring Platon and lifting him from Eparchy, he was under Bolshevik pressure, when Aleksey I granted them Autocephaly.. it was free and valid.  Roll Eyes


St. Tikhon’s grant of temporary self-administration was subject to “confirmation” by the Central Church Authority “when it is reestablished.” Had the Metropolia withheld recognition of the Moscow authorities as a true Central Church Authority, they could have argued that St. Tikhon’s stipulation was not yet operative — that a real Central Church Authority hadn’t been established. But as soon as the Metropolia recognized the Moscow Central Church Authority, they activiated the “confirmation” element of St. Tikhon’s decision.


Lets see Ukaz #362.

Quote
1) В случае, если Священный Синод и Высший Церковный Совет по каким-либо причинам прекратят свою церковно-административную деятельность, епархиальный Архиерей за руководственными по службе указаниями и за разрешением дел, по правилам, восходящим к Высшему Церковному управлению, обращается непосредственно к Святейшему Патриарху или к тому лицу или учреждению, какое будет Святейшим Патриархом для этого указано.
http://drevo-info.ru/articles/6102.html

OCA's case has no case.

In the case if Sacred Synod, or or Higher Ecclesiastica Council in whatever cases stop their eclsaistial-adminstrative work...
In moment when Metropolia went in Schism there was active Patriarch and Synod, which released Met. Platon from post of Diocesan bishop...



From a legal standpoint, in my opinion, the Metropolia’s strongest argument against Moscow’s claim of authority would have been that Moscow had no legitimate Central Church Authority, and thus St. Tikhon’s grant of self-administration was still in force.

Professor, we are here discussing Canon law, not secular laws.

This would have given the Supreme Court the necessary justification for rejecting Moscow’s argument of hierarchical superiority — the argument that ultimately won the case, since the Court defers to the judgment of the higher authorities in a hierarchical church.
Supreeme Court of United States means nothing here. And its opinions....

« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 09:25:35 AM by Ekdikos » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #97 on: August 28, 2014, 12:22:45 PM »

Patriarch Alexi I was the one who signed the Tomos of Autocephaly. The OCA's delegates had come to Moscow to participate in his election-the cause of what ROCOR claims was schism as ROCOR continued to refuse to recognize the Moscow Patriarchate.  The delegates only pulled back when the Soviets tried to get submission to them through the Patriarch.  The OCA lost St. Nicholas Cathedral through the recognition of the Patriarch.
So when OCA went in Schism Patriarch St Tikhon was censoring METROPOLITAN Platon and lifting him from Eparchy, he was under Bolshevik pressure, when Aleksey I granted them Autocephaly.. it was free and valid.  Roll Eyes
If anyone knows anything about the situation in the Soviet Union in general and about the status of the Church in particular, in 1924 versus 1970, they wouldn't ask that question. Roll Eyes
For one thing, in the Ukaz against Met. Platon specifies he was removed for "anti-Soviet" activity, and was followed up by a demand that he come to Moscow to stand trial. In 1970 no demand was put on the OCA to refrain from "anti-Soviet" activity nor loyalty to the Soviet Union (another demand of the 1920s, and the cause of the failure in 1946 to mend links with Moscow)-indeed, the whole idea of a Tomos of Autocephaly would free the OCA from any Soviet control, while the Ukaz against Met. Platon asserted Soviet control over the Church in North America: that could be seen by the fact that Met. Platon and his successors continued to have possession of St. Nicholas Cathedral as long as they denied control by the Soviets through Moscow.  As soon as the OCA recognized the Patriarchate of Moscow Alexei I as the Supreme Church Authority, they lost the Cathedral.
In 1970 the Supreme Church Authority was at least as free as under the Bolsheviks-they allowed the Patriarch to be elected and enthroned, the Czars dared to abolish the office and set an Ober-Procurator over the Holy Synod.
St. Tikhon’s grant of temporary self-administration was subject to “confirmation” by the Central Church Authority “when it is reestablished.” Had the Metropolia withheld recognition of the Moscow authorities as a true Central Church Authority, they could have argued that St. Tikhon’s stipulation was not yet operative — that a real Central Church Authority hadn’t been established. But as soon as the Metropolia recognized the Moscow Central Church Authority, they activiated the “confirmation” element of St. Tikhon’s decision.
Lets see Ukaz #362.

Quote
1) В случае, если Священный Синод и Высший Церковный Совет по каким-либо причинам прекратят свою церковно-административную деятельность, епархиальный Архиерей за руководственными по службе указаниями и за разрешением дел, по правилам, восходящим к Высшему Церковному управлению, обращается непосредственно к Святейшему Патриарху или к тому лицу или учреждению, какое будет Святейшим Патриархом для этого указано.
http://drevo-info.ru/articles/6102.html

OCA's case has no case.
So you keep asserting, and yet haven't started proving.
For those who do not know Russian
Quote
1) In the event that the Holy Synod and the Supreme Ecclesiastical Council for any reason whatever terminate their ecclesiastical administrative activity, the diocesan bishop, for instructions in directing his ministry and for the resolution of cases in accordance with rules which go back to the Supreme Church Administration, turns directly to His Holiness the Patriarch or to that person or institution indicated by His Holiness the Patriarch.
although I'm not sure of the relevance of that clause in this case. The Ukaz goes on
Quote
2) In the event a diocese, in consequence of the movement of the war front, changes of state borders, etc., finds itself completely out of contact with the Supreme Church Administration, or if the Supreme Church Administration itself, headed by His Holiness the Patriarch, for any reason whatsoever ceases its activity, the diocesan bishop immediately enters into relations with the bishops of neighboring dioceses for the purpose of organizing a higher instance of ecclesiastical authority for several dioceses in similar conditions (in the form either of a temporary Supreme Church government or a Metropolitan district, or anything else).
3) Care for the organization of a Supreme Church Authority is the objective of an entire group of dioceses which find themselves in the position indicated in paragraph 2, is the indispensable obligation of the senior bishop of such a group.
4) In the case of the impossibility of establishing relations with bishops of neighboring dioceses, and until the organization of a higher instance of ecclesiastical authority, the diocesan bishop takes upon himself all the fullness of authority granted him by the canons of the Church, taking all measures for the ordering of Church life and, if it appear necessary, for the organization of the diocesan administration, in conformity with the conditions which have arisen, deciding all cases granted by the canons to episcopal authority, with the cooperation of existing organs of diocesan administration (the diocesan assembly, the diocesan council, et al, or those that are newly organized); in case of the impossibility of constituting the above indicated institutions, he is under his own recognizance.

5) In case the state of affairs indicated in paragraphs 2 and 4 takes on a protracted or even a permanent character, in particular with the impossibility for the bishop to benefit from the cooperation of the organs of the diocesan administration, by the most expedient means (in the sense of the establishment of ecclesiastical order) it is left to him to divide the diocese into several local dioceses, for which the diocesan bishop:  
a) grants his right reverend vicar bishops, who now, in accordance with the Instruction, enjoy the rights of semi-independent bishops, all the rights of diocesan bishops, with the organization by them of administration in conformity to local conditions and resources;  
b) institutes, by conciliar decision with the rest of the bishops of the diocese, as far as possible in all major cities of his own diocese, new episcopal Sees with the rights of semi-independent or independent bishops.
6) A diocese divided in the manner specified in paragraph 5 forms an ecclesiastical district headed by the bishop of the principle diocesan city, which commences the administration of local ecclesiastical affairs in accordance with the canons.
10) All measures taken in places in accordance with the present instruction, afterwards, in the event of the restoration of the central ecclesiastical authority, must be subject to the confirmation of the latter.
The Tomos of 1970 confirmed the acts of Met. Platon and his successors.  Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the central ecclesiastical authority of the Patriarchate of Moscow has done nothing but reiterate its confirmation in the Tomos, and the 30 year canon of limitations by anyone's count is soon to expire, if it hasn't already.  In the extreme, 2037 is the end date by ROCOR's reckoning.
In the case if Sacred Synod, or or Higher Ecclesiastica Council in whatever cases stop their eclsaistial-adminstrative work...
In moment when Metropolia went in Schism there was active Patriarch and Synod, which released Met. Platon from post of Diocesan bishop...
By the time that that Ukaz had been issued the Sacred Synod/Higher Ecclesiastical Council were compromised by the Patriarch being deposed, the office abolished again, and the Synod taken over by the "Living Church," Patriarch St. Tikhon being forced to publicly "repent" of his "anti-Soviet" activities. Constantinople dropped Pat. St. Tikhon from the diptychs. If this is your definition of an "active Patriarch and Synod," I'd hate to see your definition of disfunctional.

From a legal standpoint, in my opinion, the Metropolia’s strongest argument against Moscow’s claim of authority would have been that Moscow had no legitimate Central Church Authority, and thus St. Tikhon’s grant of self-administration was still in force.
Professor, we are here discussing Canon law, not secular laws.
In this case, secular US law follows canon law.  The kangaroo canonical court that deposed Patriarch Tikhon discussed Canon law, and its results are still void.

One of the results of the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion was that all lawsuits by ROCOR against the Patriarchate (a big issue for instance not only in the US, but in Palestine) had to be withdrawn.
This would have given the Supreme Court the necessary justification for rejecting Moscow’s argument of hierarchical superiority — the argument that ultimately won the case, since the Court defers to the judgment of the higher authorities in a hierarchical church.
Supreeme Court of United States means nothing here. And its opinions....
The Moscow Patriarchate subjugated itself in this matter to the U.S. Supreme Court when it appealed to it to enforce its rights, besides documenting the Church's case by canon law-which is dispostive in US law-in the court papers.

ROCOR makes much of the judgement-in error-of some US courts that Met. Platon's Ukaz of appointment by Patriarch Tikhon was a forgery and fraud (other US courts and the Canadian court rightly found otherwise-as the Patriarchate of Moscow itself substantiated in 1957 in its official organ on its take over of St. Nicholas Cathedral).

And the judgment of the higher authorities in the hierarchal Russian Orthodox Church was rendered finally in the Tomos of 1970, per Ukaz 362.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 12:29:00 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,815


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #98 on: August 28, 2014, 12:48:59 PM »

Others might argue though that that state of the Church in the Soviet Union, while surely different in 1970 than in 1924, was far from ideal and that reality of the state of Russian Orthodoxy and the Patriarchate during the Breznev era has much to do with why we are even entertaining this debate four decades later. I remember well how my seminarian friends and I (a mere law student at the time) would argue long into the night in the early 1970's about such things....heck, two of them went into the OCA and became Bishops which should say something while the others remained either in the ACROD or the GOARCH eventually. If I had possessed Nixon's taperecording devices at the time on my college phone, I suspect the transcripts would make interesting reading today - and make most of us rather uncomfortable in the process given how life worked out.......)
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 12:50:24 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #99 on: August 28, 2014, 03:16:38 PM »

Others might argue though that that state of the Church in the Soviet Union, while surely different in 1970 than in 1924, was far from ideal and that reality of the state of Russian Orthodoxy and the Patriarchate during the Breznev era has much to do with why we are even entertaining this debate four decades later.
The state of the Church in 1904 was far form ideal, as the All Russian Sobor finally was held after its preparation for reform started a decade earlier. At least during the Breznev era, there was a Patriarch.

I don't know of many idea Councils that do not engender debate decades later. Perhaps that is the problem with the ever-upcoming "Great and Holy Synod": they are looking for perfect, ignoring that that is not of this world.

The state in 1970 surely meets the de minimus standard set by the Phanar since at least 1453.
I remember well how my seminarian friends and I (a mere law student at the time) would argue long into the night in the early 1970's about such things....heck, two of them went into the OCA and became Bishops which should say something while the others remained either in the ACROD or the GOARCH eventually. If I had possessed Nixon's taperecording devices at the time on my college phone, I suspect the transcripts would make interesting reading today - and make most of us rather uncomfortable in the process given how life worked out.......)
Some are uncomfortable with the state of the Church today.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #100 on: August 28, 2014, 03:32:35 PM »

Professor al Misry, I know thing or two about state of Russian Church in 1970. If you wanted to imply in 1970 Patriarchate of Moscow was more free... try again. In 1924, despite support of Lenin' murderers for various revivalist groups, despite murders of bishops and arrests... bishops did have  vertebra. After Khruschev's laws in sixty Church was restricted in internal freedom. Irony is, one of loudest advocates of OCA protopresbyter baron Ioann von Meyendorff (John Meyendorff) left us testemony... Without consent of Soviets there would no be autocephaly of OCA... its magical circle.

Clause 1 of Ukaz is pretty clear... if Patriarch, Synod and Higher Council do not function anymore.. but it was Patriarch and Synod who suspended Platon... then he went to invoke Ukaz... its lost case to try to justify him.

Also, decisions of all Synods are subject to acceptance of Body of Christ... Tomos of Patriarch Alexey I is not exception... What pertains all should be confirmed by all...
Logged

Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #101 on: August 28, 2014, 03:38:44 PM »

PS, since it seems you advocate arkeivia... according Canons, Metropolitan Platon could be anathematized (prescribed penalty for Schism)... I think it is better not to push to much on Canonicity of OCA. They are canonical (in sense as being accepted by Church as part of her), but their claim to Autocephaly is controversial... Besides... why dont you go in OCA?
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,815


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #102 on: August 28, 2014, 04:04:03 PM »

Others might argue though that that state of the Church in the Soviet Union, while surely different in 1970 than in 1924, was far from ideal and that reality of the state of Russian Orthodoxy and the Patriarchate during the Breznev era has much to do with why we are even entertaining this debate four decades later.
The state of the Church in 1904 was far form ideal, as the All Russian Sobor finally was held after its preparation for reform started a decade earlier. At least during the Breznev era, there was a Patriarch.

I don't know of many idea Councils that do not engender debate decades later. Perhaps that is the problem with the ever-upcoming "Great and Holy Synod": they are looking for perfect, ignoring that that is not of this world.

The state in 1970 surely meets the de minimus standard set by the Phanar since at least 1453.
I remember well how my seminarian friends and I (a mere law student at the time) would argue long into the night in the early 1970's about such things....heck, two of them went into the OCA and became Bishops which should say something while the others remained either in the ACROD or the GOARCH eventually. If I had possessed Nixon's taperecording devices at the time on my college phone, I suspect the transcripts would make interesting reading today - and make most of us rather uncomfortable in the process given how life worked out.......)
Some are uncomfortable with the state of the Church today.

Some (many) would regard the Russian Church and its leaders of that era as subservient to the demands of the ruling Communist Party. (Just as many regarded the actions of the EP under the Sultans.) While I am sypathetic to the conditions under which the Church of the Communist era was forced to operate under (one must concede that the steadfast efforts of its leaders did preserve the church's patrimony for what is, while not perfect for what on earth is perfect, a brighter day), I have a difficult time in accepting at face value all of the decisions made by (or 'for' ) them while under the yoke of the Soviets.

Ekdikos sums it up succinctly (if not dismissively) as many a European educated churchman are likely to do (at least the ones I've known!) :  "They (the OCA) are canonical (in sense as being accepted by Church as part of her), but their claim to Autocephaly is controversial... " That is the understatement of all time here on oc.net!
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 04:08:42 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #103 on: August 29, 2014, 12:52:41 AM »

Professor al Misry, I know thing or two about state of Russian Church in 1970. If you wanted to imply in 1970 Patriarchate of Moscow was more free... try again. In 1924, despite support of Lenin' murderers for various revivalist groups, despite murders of bishops and arrests... bishops did have  vertebra.
Then why the complaint of Patriarch Sergius taking over in 1926? Was the state of the Church so much better in 1924 than 1926? In less than two years the decline from grace-filled to graceless?
After Khruschev's laws in sixty Church was restricted in internal freedom.
And what did Czar Peter's Spiritual Regulations do for two centuries to the Church?

When and where, pray tell, besides the OCA, has the Church enjoyed complete internal and external freedom?

Irony is, one of loudest advocates of OCA protopresbyter baron Ioann von Meyendorff (John Meyendorff) left us testemony... Without consent of Soviets there would no be autocephaly of OCA... its magical circle.
A wide chasm separates autocephaly coming with the consent of the Soviets  and autocephaly coming because of the Soviets. No irony, as always Fr. Meyendorf of blessed memory simply was stating the facts.

What, pray tell, was the great gain to Soviet plans by granting autocephaly to the OCA? It had spent decades, as ROCOR had, to trying to take it over.  What did the Church lose and the Soviets gain by the grant of autocephaly?

Clause 1 of Ukaz is pretty clear... if Patriarch, Synod and Higher Council do not function anymore.. but it was Patriarch and Synod who suspended Platon... then he went to invoke Ukaz... its lost case to try to justify him.
And there was a Synod which deposed the Patriarch, abolished the office, restored the Holy Governing Synod.


On the "functioning of the Supreme Church Authority at the time, the New York Superior Court summed it up nicely
...The apparent forebodings of Patriarch Tikhon, which prompted this ukase, proved accurate, for in the spring of 1922 he was arrested and imprisoned. The Russian Government, then, for its own purposes, as later became evident, permitted a group of priests to visit Tikhon and they procured from him a letter authorizing the transfer of certain business papers of the church to a named archbishop (Agathangel) who was to be his representative. Instead  of doing that, the recipients of the letter - members of a radical group styling themselves the "Living" or "Renovated" church - declared themselves to be the Supreme Authority of the Russian Orthodox Church and purported to authorize and summon the pseudo-sobor of 1923. Patriarch Tikhon later referred to them as "ambitious and wilful men" who took advantage of the situation "to usurp the highest clerical power of the Orthodox Russian Church which did not belong to them", and he denounced their statements as "nothing but lies and deception". It is now conceded here that this was a schism which is now extinct. Nevertheless, while Tikhon was still in prison, this schismatic group purported to call another sobor of the church although power so to do resided only in the Patriarch Tikhon, as we have seen. There is evidence that they were aided and abetted in their plan by the Russian Government which permitted them to proceed while killing, arresting or exiling those members of the church who objected. This new pseudo-sobor met in 1923 1. Tikhon was roundly and vehemently condemned by all the speakers. The patriarchate was dissolved and Tikhon, reviled and denounced as an apostate and traitor, was unfrocked. The church created by the pseudosobor of 1923 was called the "Living Church" or the "Renovated Church". It was schismatic and had no canonical validity. That fact, it should again be noted, is conceded by all the interested parties here.

The minutes of its deliberations contain frequent obsequious expressions of praise of and devotion to the Soviet Government. Lenin was referred to as "the world's leader" and the Soviet Government was said to be "the only one in the world of all time of the existence of mankind, to fight actually for good and equality." A resolution was adopted which declared that the world was divided into two classes - the capitalist exploiters and the proletariat - and continued: "The Christians cannot be indifferent spectators of that battle. The Sobor declares capitalism to be a mortal sin, and a battle with capitalism to be holy to Christians. In Soviet Authorities the Sobor sees a world's leader for fraternity, equality and peace of nations. The Sobor stigmatizes the international and national counter-revolution and condemns it with all its religious and moral authority." Christians "through the entire world" were called upon to "bring into life the principles of the October Revolution."

The turmoil and the turbulence with which the Russian Orthodox Church was beset in Russia was not without its echoes in this country. Bishop Alexander of Canada became acting head of the diocese by designation of Archbishop Evdokim (see p. 6, herein). Several conventions were held in this country at which the status and fate of the North American Diocese were discussed and measures were proposed to preserve it from disintegration or the usurpation of pretenders. Archbishop Platon, who had ruled the diocese from 1907 to 1914, in proper canonical succession, returned to this country in 1921. He succeeded in restoring peace and order in the diocese, and prominent churchmen of the diocese urgently petitioned Patriarch Tikhon to reappoint him formally as archbishop of the diocese. This was just before Tikhon was actually imprisoned. While he was technically at liberty, his visitors in Moscow were being watched and interrogated carefully, and his correspondence, especially with Americans, was systematically searched. The American entreaties regarding Archbishop Platon were relayed to the Patriarch by a representative of the Y.M.C.A. who was in Moscow.The Patriarch, in the presence of another witness, Bishop Pashhovsky, assured him that Platon would be appointed the ruling bishop of the diocese and that he would issue papers to that effect. The Patriarch asked that Platon be notified immediately, but it was agreed that it would not be possible at that moment to put the appointment in writing because of the constant surveillance of the civil authorities and the fear that any such communication, if seized, would endanger the safety or the life of the Patriarch. The Patriarch's intention and will were transmitted to  Archbishop Platon by the Y.M.C.A. representative and Bishop Pashhovsky. Alexander, the acting archbishop, recognized in writing Platon's appointment as ruling bishop of the diocese, as did the bishops of the church outside Russia. Tikhon was imprisoned by the Soviet Government immediately after making this oral appointment. A diocesan convention was held at Pittsburgh in October, 1922, and after investigating the situation Platon was acknowledged as the ruling bishop. Platon accordingly took possession of St. Nicholas Cathedral and exercised administrative supervision over the diocese.

Patriarch Tikhon was released from prison in the latter part of 1923, after the pseudo-sobor of that year had completed its work. Under date of September 20, 1923, from a monastery, he signed an order directed to Platon advising him that, with the concurrence of the Sacred Synod, "having taken cognizance of the situation of the American Church we deemed it necessary to appoint you to rule the North American Church".

Meanwhile, one John Kedrovsky, a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church in this country, had, in 1918, commenced an action in this State on behalf of himself and other priests against the association or corporation known as the Archbishop and Consistory, which was a managing and advisory group handling the affairs of the diocese. In that complaint Kedrovsky asserted that he was one of the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America; that it was a religious denomination of about 300 churches with about 300,000 members organized in various unincorporated parishes or bodies throughout North America; that his lawful archbishop was Archbishop Evdokim (Meschersky) who had departed from the United States for Russia about August 6, 1917, and had since remained there; that Alexander (Nemolovsky)  was then a bishop of the church in Canada and had been assuming to act as the acting archbishop of the church pursuant to a cablegram from the lawful Archbishop Evdokim but that in truth no such appointment had been made by Archbishop Evdokim and that Alexander was therefore a usurper.

After the institution of that action, but before trial, the aforementioned psuedo-sobor of 1923 was held in Moscow. It created the "Living Church" or "Renovated Church", which, as noted, is now conceded to have been schismatic and uncanonical. Kedrovsky, the same priest who in his 1918 action had asserted that he was subject to Archbishop Evdokim as the true archbishop of the North American Diocese,  procured from this "Renovated Church" certain credentials in the latter part of 1923. One document purported to consecrate him as North American archbishop and to excommunicate and condemn Archbishop Platon. The other documents contained Kedrovsky's formal appointment as archbishop of the North American Diocese and a full power of attorney to act for the church.

In March, 1924, he commenced another action, this time asserting that he was the lawful archbishop of the North American Diocese, in order to gain control of St. Nicholas Cathedral, the subject premises in the case at bar, which he then conceded had been possessed by Bishop Alexander in 1919 "as the de facto or acting archbishop". As noted, Archbishop Platon was occupying the cathedral in 1924 by virtue of his oral appointment by Patriarch Tikhon and the written confirmation thereof in September, 1923.

In March of 1924, immediately prior to the institution of the cathedral action by Kedrovsky, a document, dated February, 1924, appeared in the newspapers here purporting  to have been issued by the Patriarch Tikhon accusing Platon of engaging "in public acts of Counter-Revolution directed against the Soviet power and of disastrous consequences to the Orthodox Church". It provided for the dismissal of Platon "from the day on which this Present Decision is announced to him", by a new ruling bishop who was to be chosen. The publication of this decree, dated less than five months after the patriarchal order confirming Platon and the legal action instituted by Kedrovsky, caused bewilderment among the members of the diocese. A North American sobor was called and held at Detroit in April of 1924 to consider the situation, excerpts from the minutes of which appear in the record

The purported new order of the Patriarch was compared with his recent decree confirming Archbishop Platon, the language of the new order was analyzed and found to be couched in terms similar to those used by the schismatic Kedrovsky, and there were comments upon the very serious condition of the Patriarch's health. (He did, in fact, die the next year, in April of 1925.) It was concluded that "somebody in Moscow is extracting decrees from the sick Patriarch and is using those decrees against him", and in particular that the decree of February, 1924, was "undoubtedly forced by the Soviet power". Another speaker stated: "The fact that the Soviet power still tolerates Patriarch Tikhon is only because he is an achievable means of influencing opinion at home and public opinion abroad. I have not the slightest doubt that all that the Patriarch now does to administer the Patriarchate he is doing under duress. Over there it is done very simply: he is summoned to the respective commissariat and presented with decrees prepared beforehand which he is 'to execute'. As everything is done to 'consolidate the conquests of the revolution' his refusal to comply with the demands of the Soviet power will be openly called counter-revolution and sabotage." It was said that if such forced acts of the Patriarch continued, the North American Diocese would be subject to "all kinds of surprises, which could basically undermine that church order and peace which have with such great labor already been practically arranged" by Archbishop Platon, and "would involve our Church here in a condition of that same anarchy under the banner of which church life in Russia exists at present. We must create our own firm Church administration, completely insured against possibility of the direct or indirect influence of the Soviet power."

Also, decisions of all Synods are subject to acceptance of Body of Christ... Tomos of Patriarch Alexey I is not exception... What pertains all should be confirmed by all...
You are buying the Phanar's view of things.  Autonomy and granting autocephaly are internal matters of a Church. Other than holding to Orthodoxy, what Moscow and the OCA do is their own business and pertains to themselves, as it is with any of the other 13 Orthodox Churches.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #104 on: August 29, 2014, 07:52:07 AM »

Then why the complaint of Patriarch Sergius taking over in 1926? Was the state of the Church so much better in 1924 than 1926? In less than two years the decline from grace-filled to graceless?
I am not donatist, I am not Old Calendarist, and I am not ROCOR advocate... Problem is not grace, but lack of respect to legitimate authority in Church. Something OCA was breaching.

And what did Czar Peter's Spiritual Regulations do for two centuries to the Church?
Strawman. I did not claim Emperor Peter's Regulament to be ideal, nor good, nor I was defending them in any way, nor I mentioned it, for that mater, nor it is relevant here.

When and where, pray tell, besides the OCA, has the Church enjoyed complete internal and external freedom?
Problem is, in 1924, Patriarch Tihon went out of jail, declared all actions of restorationist Higher Ecclesiastical Council to be null and void, and himself appointed Synod... and this Synod... despite being persecuted by Soviets, quite openly, did have courage to contradict them. And that Synod dismissed Platon... Claiming that in 1970, Russian Church was free, or somehow more free than in 20's of last Century, is simply not true.

A wide chasm separates autocephaly coming with the consent of the Soviets  and autocephaly coming because of the Soviets.
They were opportunists in Politics...


What, pray tell, was the great gain to Soviet plans by granting autocephaly to the OCA? It had spent decades, as ROCOR had, to trying to take it over.
 
Patriarch Atenagoras was not willing to follow Soviet lead like his immediate predcessors. Besides, Metropolitan Nikodim had personal race with His All Holiness, who will do more to get Union with RCC... 

What did the Church lose and the Soviets gain by the grant of autocephaly?
What Orthodox Church gained on OCA's insistence not to accept authority of Moscow, of ROCOR, of anyone? And demanding of Autocephaly just on virtue they tough they are entitled on it? I really ask what?
Besides, it might be interesting in 1967, two bishops of EP took part in consecration of future Metropolitan Theodosius (Lazor)

And there was a Synod which deposed the Patriarch, abolished the office, restored the Holy Governing Synod.
No. Platon was deposed by Tihon's Synod.

On the "functioning of the Supreme Church Authority at the time, the New York Superior Court summed it up nicely
Relevancy of SCOTUS's decisions here is worth of rat's arse. Same like Soviet's do not have right to impose regulation on Church, neither US have.

You are buying the Phanar's view of things.
No. Phanariots represented by professor Fidas, consider that EP has right to grant and suspend autocephaly... I am thinking it is matter of all Churches.

Autonomy
Yes.


and granting autocephaly are internal matters of a Church.
No.


 Other than holding to Orthodoxy, what Moscow and the OCA do is their own business and pertains to themselves, as it is with any of the other 13 Orthodox Churches.

Why did Ecumenical Counicls were deciding about Autocephaly ? Why, Patriarchs still send their synodikons to heads of Other Churches?
Its just internal affair...  Wink
« Last Edit: August 29, 2014, 08:00:08 AM by Ekdikos » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #105 on: August 29, 2014, 11:48:50 AM »

Then why the complaint of Patriarch Sergius taking over in 1926? Was the state of the Church so much better in 1924 than 1926? In less than two years the decline from grace-filled to graceless?
I am not donatist, I am not Old Calendarist, and I am not ROCOR advocate... Problem is not grace, but lack of respect to legitimate authority in Church. Something OCA was breaching.
LOL. No different than ROCOR then, except that Met. Platon, being a bishop in his diocese, had a canonical basis for his dispute and ROCOR did not.
If it was legitimate authority of the Supreme Church Administration in 1924, it most certainly was legitimate authority of the Supreme Church Administration in 1970.  The converse, however is not true.
Quote
On 12 May 1922, even before the Patriarch was entirely deprived of freedom, under circumstances which have yet to be fully explained, Patriarch's Tikhon's consent to a temporary transfer of the supreme administration of the Church to another hierarch was wrested from him. On that day, a group of clergymen, consisting of Archpriest Vvedensky, the priests Krasnitsky and Kalinovsky, and the precentor Stadnik, presented themselves to the Patriarch at the Metochion of the Holy Trinity Lavra and had an lengthy discussion with him. The gist of the discussion was a demand that Patriarch Tikhon convoke a Local Council, the purpose of which was supposedly to place the Church in good order, and that Patriarch divorce himself entirely from the administration of the Church until the Council reached a decision. As a moral torture intended to "influence" the decision of the Patriarch, the following device was used by this group of "revolutionary clergy": the Patriarch was shown that after the just concluded trial conducted by the Moscow Provinical Military Tribunal (in a case involving opposition to the confiscation of church valuables), eleven men were sentenced to death.
If the Patriarch agreed to the suggestion that he renounce his authority, these eleven men would not be executed. After this torturous conversation, the following was published in the News of the VTsIK: "The group of clergymen demanded of Patriarch Tikhon that he convoke a Local Council to set the Church in good order, and that he divorce himself completely from the administration of the Church. As a result of this conversation, after some hesitation, the Patriarch signed the abdication, transferring his authority to one of the senior hierarchs until the Local Council could be called."

The eleven men who received the death sentence were not executed. The Patriarch appointed the 70-year old Metropolitan Agafangel as his locum tenens. But the Soviet regime refused to allow Metropolitan Agafangel to leave Yaroslavl', and he was subsequently arrested. Not long before the arrest of Metropolitan Agafangel, a delegation from the "Living Church" went to him, promising their support if he would recognize the "Living Church" and participate in its work. The Metropolitan refused and soon after was arrested.

Not satisfied with all they had succeeded in accomplishing as a result of the imprisonment of the Patriarch, early in May of 1923 the Soviet regime convoked a pseudo-Church Council consisting of representatives of the clergy and laity obedient to it. With the help of devices unsurpassed for their cynicism, all unsatisfactory elements at the "elections" at the "Council" were excluded. One of the "resolutions" of this "Council" was the deposition of the Patriarch, merely to enable the Soviet regime to condemn the Head of the Church as a simple layman. With great sorrow and holy indignation one should note that the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople expressed his solidarity with the Soviet regime regarding the question of the condemnation of Patriarch Tikhon. At the same time, on the part of the Western world, in the person of a whole series of prominent social and political figures in Europe, serious attention was shown the trial and fate of Patriarch Tikhon--attention which did not fail to have an influence on the Soviet regime (see the roster and account of all the Appeals to the Soviet Government lodged by various governments, in The Black Book of A. A. Valentinov [Paris, 1925]).
The proposed trial of the Patriarch, of which all the Soviet newspapers wrote at length, many times, and maliciously, with advance agitation for the death sentence, did not take place. The Soviet regime used the Patriarch's imprisonment to organize a new ecclesiastical authority, the so-called "Living" or "Renovationist" church, which, with the help of propaganda, terror and violence, began to spread throughout the whole country, all the while cruelly and pitilessly persecuting the so-called Tikhonites, i.e. those who remained faithful to His Holiness, Patriarch Tikhon.

Reading the newspapers in prison, His Holiness, Patriarch Tikhon became increasingly horrified with each passing day, seeing how the "Living Churchmen" and "Renovationists" were taking into their own hands control of all the churches and the entire supreme ecclesiastical authority in Russia. With great sorrow one should not that even prominent hierarchs (e.g., Metropolitan Sergy [Stragorodsky] of Nizhegorod, who at one time had embraced Renovationism, but later repented), were tempted and fell during the time of persecutions.

At that time, the moral tortures to which the Patriarch was subjected in prison were intensified. Before His Holiness was dangled the possibility of disbanding the entire "Red Church" and the easing of the indescribable sufferings of the true believers, if only he would compromise with the atheist regime. The problem that confronted him was: under what conditions is the legalization of the Orthodox Church under a godless and atheistic government possible?

The Patriarch had to use his own prestige and fame as a martyr to sacrifice, if required, all possibilities for the good of the Church, without doing anything to compromise the prestige of the Orthodox Church itself, Christian morality in general, or the mood of the people and clergy of the Church, and without violating the canons of the Church. To this end, in addition to issuing Epistles and Statements acceptable to the Soviet regime, Patriarch Tikhon duly attempted to mollify it by introducing the New Calendar (after this had been done by the Ecumenical Church of Constantinople), to establish around him a Supreme Ecclesiastical Administration which included an agent (a certain archpriest) of the Bolsheviks, and to propose the commemoration of the authorities during the divine services.

But when the hierarchy, clergy and people loyal to the Patriarch refused to accept these measures on the local level, the Patriarch willingly and gladly canceled his directives. Seeing the iniquitous dominion of the Renovationists, achieved with the help of the Soviet regime; seeing the sea of blood, and hearing from every quarter the groans wrested from the faithful during their unbelievable tortures; seeing how, one by one, even the elect were falling and stumbling (e.g., Metropolitan Sergy of Vladimir, later of Nizhegorod, who addressed an archpastoral appeal for all to unite with those who had unconditionally submitted to the Supreme Ecclesiastical Administration of the "Living" "Renovationist" Church), His Holiness, Patriarch Tikhon decided to consent to that series of concessions and compromises with the Soviet regime which might have cast a shadow over the moral personality of the Patriarch himself, but which not only did not bring spiritual harm to the Church, but even preserved its spiritual freedom.

His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon agreed to sign an Epistle in which he condemned any infringement of the Soviets' authority, and dissociated himself from all counter-Revolution. On 26 June 1923, a terse statement on the release of the Patriarch from prison was published, stunning everyone with its unexpectedness. In the 29 June 1932 issue of the News of the VTsIK, the Epistle of the Patriarch, which he had issued the evening before, was published, under the heading "Among the Churchly": "To the archpastors, pastors and flock of the Orthodox Church." In it, the Patriarch refused to recognize the sentence pronounced on him by the "Living Church Council," and refuted the accusations made against him by the "Council"; he was innocent of political counter-revolution, since, already by 1919, he had given the Church precise orders not to meddle in politics. "Of course," wrote the Patriarch, "I do not present myself as such a partisan of the Soviet authorities as the Renovationists declare themselves to be, nor am I such a counter-revolutionary as the "Council" presents me." Here the Patriarch declares: "I resolutely condemn all infringement against the Soviet authorities, from wherever it might come."...All of this forced the Soviet regime gradually and radically to alter its religious policy and to adopt new methods to demoralize the Church. The atheists began to search for such a "canonically correct" bishop, who might agree, without violating the canons, to serve the satanic regime of Antichrist. All the concessions made by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon did not satisfy the Soviet government. The Patriarch had not surrendered the spiritual freedom of the Church. In all his "repentances" and so-called "acts," the canonically correct Patriarch had not agreed to "serve" the Soviet regime as it required. And those of the bishops who had agreed to such service had violated the canons.

For this reason, the principal objective of the Soviet regime with regard to the Church was the attempt to form, in a canonically correct way, the "servile" Church it required. Twice attempts were made on the life of the Patriarch. One day, a certain supposedly "insane" man threw himself at a bishop as he was leaving the sanctuary, but seeing that this was not the Patriarch, he did the bishop no harm. On 9 December 1923, at 8:00 P.M., Iakov Pozolov, the Patriarch's attendant, was murdered. According to the testimony of a friend of Patriarch Tikhon, Bishop Maxim (in secular life, Dr. M. A. Zhizhilenko), at the time of the murder of his attendant, the Patriarch was in the same room, sitting in an arm-chair; but the murderer didn't see him.
Moral tortures, in the form of endless, clandestine, private "conversations" between the secret police and the Patriarch, continued. It is difficult to imagine how the Patriarch suffered. They brought him to the point where, though by nature he was a very calm man, he trembled in agitation and annoyance when informed of the arrival of a secret police agent. In the spring of 1924, Patriarch Gregory of Constantinople tried to meddle in the affairs of the Church of Russia with the aim of "reconciling" the "Tikhonites" and the "Living Churchmen."
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/english/pages/articles/pattikhontrial.html
The appointment of Met. Platon predates these events.  His "dismissal" (but not the order to ROCOR to disband) came in their wake.

And what did Czar Peter's Spiritual Regulations do for two centuries to the Church?
Strawman. I did not claim Emperor Peter's Regulament to be ideal, nor good, nor I was defending them in any way, nor I mentioned it, for that mater, nor it is relevant here.
If you hold the Church of 1970 to the Donatist standard, you have to hold the Church of 1924 to it as well, as well as the Church headed by Czar Peter's monstrosity.
When and where, pray tell, besides the OCA, has the Church enjoyed complete internal and external freedom?
Problem is, in 1924, Patriarch Tihon went out of jail, declared all actions of restorationist Higher Ecclesiastical Council to be null and void, and himself appointed Synod... and this Synod... despite being persecuted by Soviets, quite openly, did have courage to contradict them. And that Synod dismissed Platon... Claiming that in 1970, Russian Church was free, or somehow more free than in 20's of last Century, is simply not true.
Oh? And Patriarch Alexei had someone burst in his residence and the would be assassin kill his personal assistant before his eyes in February 1970? Did he extract a pledge of loyalty to the Soviets from the OCA?  Did the Soviets threaten to kill a dozen persons if Pat. Alexei did not sign the Tomos? Was Patriarch Alexei II, who signed the Tomos and upheld it until his last breath, not the valid possessor of the Supreme Church Administration of the Patriarchate of Moscow?
At 1924 did the Holy Synod even have the 12 bishops the canons require to depose a bishop from his see?
Is total annihilation vs. subjugation as a goal too subtle a difference?
A wide chasm separates autocephaly coming with the consent of the Soviets  and autocephaly coming because of the Soviets.
They were opportunists in Politics...
The Greeks (and the Vatican) say the same about the Russian Church of 1458.  How is your assertion different?

What, pray tell, was the great gain to Soviet plans by granting autocephaly to the OCA? It had spent decades, as ROCOR had, to trying to take it over.
 
Patriarch Atenagoras was not willing to follow Soviet lead like his immediate predcessors. Besides, Metropolitan Nikodim had personal race with His All Holiness, who will do more to get Union with RCC...
You mean this EP Athenagoras?

Given that a HUGE component of the OCA constitution comes from returning to Orthodoxy and renouncing allegiance to the Vatican, I don't know why you brought up EP Athenagoras or Met. Nikodim.  If they were going to serve the Church up to the Vatican, the Tomos of Autocephaly to a Church arising in large part from repudiation of the Vatican would put a wrench in those works.
What did the Church lose and the Soviets gain by the grant of autocephaly?
What Orthodox Church gained on OCA's insistence not to accept authority of Moscow, of ROCOR, of anyone? And demanding of Autocephaly just on virtue they tough they are entitled on it? I really ask what?
For one, a bulwark against the heretical construction of "Diaspora."  The Mandate and Great Commission to "Make disciples of all nations" means just that. Not plant colonies and live in ghettos.

The Phanar sees the danger in the Tomos-it effectively repudiates its canon 28 myth.  And because of that, Moscow isn't going to repudiate its Tomos.

As for "just [by] virtue [that] they t[h]ough[t] they [were] entitle [to] it," that's not what the Patriarchate of Moscow said:
Quote
For a number of years, the Russian Orthodox Church has observed with maternal love and concern the development of the Orthodox Church which she planted on the American continent. In the last few decades she has sorrowfully witnessed the unfortunate appearance there of a pluralism of ecclesiastical jurisdictions, a temporary phenomenon, and by no means a permanent norm of the canonical organization of the Orthodox Church in America, since it is contrary to the nature of Orthodox canonical ecclesiastical unity.

The Holy Russian Orthodox Church, striving for the good of the Church, has directed her efforts toward the normalization of relations among the various ecclesiastical jurisdictions in America, particularly by negotiating with the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America, concerning the possibility of granting autocephaly to this Church in the hope that this might serve the good of the Orthodox Church in America and the glory of God. In her striving for the peace of Christ, which has universal significance for the life of man; desiring to build a peaceful and creative church life, and to suppress scandalous ecclesiastical divisions; hoping that this act would be beneficial to the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ and would make possible the development among the local parts of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of such relations which would be founded on the firm ties of the one Orthodox Faith and the love that the Lord Jesus Christ willed; keeping in mind that this act would serve the welfare of universal, mutual cooperation; taking into consideration the petition of the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolitanate of North America, which expressed the opinion and desire of all her faithful children; acknowledging as good for Orthodoxy in America the independent and self-sustaining existence of said Metropolitanate, which now represents a mature ecclesiastical organism possessing all that is necessary for successful further growth...
WHEREAS, the Eastern Orthodox faith has existed on the continent of North America for over 175 years and is now the faith of millions of native Americans; and

WHEREAS, that faith has grown from a seed implanted by missionaries of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the first Diocese of the faith in America was established by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church; and

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the continued growth and well being of the faith in America will be promoted through the autocephaly of the Metropolia...As the result of the agreement, hereinafter set forth, between the Patriarchate and the Metropolia, the Metropolia, as a branch of the Russian Orthodox Church (in 1793 – Orthodox Mission, in 1858 – Vicariate on the Sitka Island, in 1870 – the Aleutian and American Diocese, in 1900 – the Aleutian and North American Diocese, in 1907 – “Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in North America in the hierarchical jurisdiction of the Russian Church”) shall be declared an Autocephalous Church and shall have as its name “The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America.”
http://oca.org/history-archives/autocephaly-agreement
http://oca.org/history-archives/tomos-of-autocephaly

Besides, it might be interesting in 1967, two bishops of EP took part in consecration of future Metropolitan Theodosius (Lazor)
Evidently the OCA was not out of communion as you previously claimed. Btw, that also goes for earlier, as OCA bishops were invovled in the consecration of Antiochian and Alexandrian bishops as well.
And there was a Synod which deposed the Patriarch, abolished the office, restored the Holy Governing Synod.
No. Platon was deposed by Tihon's Synod.
After there was a Synod which deposed the Patriarch, abolished the office, restored the Holy Governing Synod.
On the "functioning of the Supreme Church Authority at the time, the New York Superior Court summed it up nicely
Relevancy of SCOTUS's decisions here is worth of rat's arse. Same like Soviet's do not have right to impose regulation on Church, neither US have.
The court is just going on Church documents and statements by her spokesmen. After the mark that Iconoclast Emperors, Emperors in submission to the Vatican and Muslim Sultans left on the Church, dismissing the views of SCOTUS is not an option on the table. Particularly when it is right by the standards of the Chruch.
You are buying the Phanar's view of things.
No. Phanariots represented by professor Fidas, consider that EP has right to grant and suspend autocephaly... I am thinking it is matter of all Churches.
That is the position of the Phanariots, there false syllogism running that since it is a matter for all the Churches, it comes under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Autocephaly, barring extenuating circumstances (e.g. the independence of Greece from the Ottoman Empire, the restoration of the autocephaly of Ohrid, Georgia, Serbia, Bulgaris, etc), is a local matter.

and yet that is disputed.

and granting autocephaly are internal matters of a Church.
No.
And what do you do with Orthodox (or schismatic, following your "logic") Kiev/Moscow 1458-1593.  That's 145 years.  The OCA autocephaly is only 44 years.

 Other than holding to Orthodoxy, what Moscow and the OCA do is their own business and pertains to themselves, as it is with any of the other 13 Orthodox Churches.
Why did Ecumenical Counicls were deciding about Autocephaly ? Why, Patriarchs still send their synodikons to heads of Other Churches?
Its just internal affair...  Wink
Only the whole Church had the authority to divide a Church (as she did to the Patriarchate of Rome in creating the Patriarchate of Constantinople), intervene between two Churches (as Cyprus versus Antioch).  The creation of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem was brought up in the context of the bishops deposed and the Patriarch divided at Ephesus II.  Like the last example, Nicea only recognized what was already in place in Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.  Antioch granted autocephaly to Georgia in c. 470, but the Phanar did not recognize it until the 1990's.  The Russian Church uncanonically suppressed it, and then Georgia a century later reasserted it.  All outside of the Ecumenical Councils.
The letters of enthronement do not ratify the enthronement, they announce it:otherwise a Church would have to wait for ratification from all 14.  AFAIK, Met. Tikhon sent his irenikon to the Phanar. If HB was in schism, then the Phanar should have nothing to do with the Churches of Russia, Georgia, Bulgaria, Poland and the Czech Lands and Slovakia either, as they have ratified and commemorate that "schism." qui tacet consentit.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2014, 11:52:18 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #106 on: August 29, 2014, 11:55:20 AM »

Others might argue though that that state of the Church in the Soviet Union, while surely different in 1970 than in 1924, was far from ideal and that reality of the state of Russian Orthodoxy and the Patriarchate during the Breznev era has much to do with why we are even entertaining this debate four decades later.
The state of the Church in 1904 was far form ideal, as the All Russian Sobor finally was held after its preparation for reform started a decade earlier. At least during the Breznev era, there was a Patriarch.

I don't know of many idea Councils that do not engender debate decades later. Perhaps that is the problem with the ever-upcoming "Great and Holy Synod": they are looking for perfect, ignoring that that is not of this world.

The state in 1970 surely meets the de minimus standard set by the Phanar since at least 1453.
I remember well how my seminarian friends and I (a mere law student at the time) would argue long into the night in the early 1970's about such things....heck, two of them went into the OCA and became Bishops which should say something while the others remained either in the ACROD or the GOARCH eventually. If I had possessed Nixon's taperecording devices at the time on my college phone, I suspect the transcripts would make interesting reading today - and make most of us rather uncomfortable in the process given how life worked out.......)
Some are uncomfortable with the state of the Church today.

Some (many) would regard the Russian Church and its leaders of that era as subservient to the demands of the ruling Communist Party. (Just as many regarded the actions of the EP under the Sultans.) While I am sypathetic to the conditions under which the Church of the Communist era was forced to operate under (one must concede that the steadfast efforts of its leaders did preserve the church's patrimony for what is, while not perfect for what on earth is perfect, a brighter day), I have a difficult time in accepting at face value all of the decisions made by (or 'for' ) them while under the yoke of the Soviets.

Ekdikos sums it up succinctly (if not dismissively) as many a European educated churchman are likely to do (at least the ones I've known!) :  "They (the OCA) are canonical (in sense as being accepted by Church as part of her), but their claim to Autocephaly is controversial... " That is the understatement of all time here on oc.net!
By that standard the autocephaly of Moscow was "controversial" for 144 years, Constantinople for 633-936 years, and Georgia perhaps over a millenium and a half.

44 years is nothing, just a little more than the Church of Greece had to wait.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,815


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #107 on: August 29, 2014, 12:55:27 PM »

Isa would be the first to remind us all of the rejection of Florence by the power of the laity and the failure of the agreed upon pronouncements of that council to stick' should the Panorthodox  Council of 2015 or 16 (if it even takes place)determine something contrary to his view of history.

Culture and Orthodoxy are inextricably intertwined. When the culture one does not like or understand is in the ascendency, the cries of 'phyletism' ring out. And vice versa.

Methinks that more than a fair share of legalistic scholasticism is at play in some of the attempts to 'prove' the claim. Just sayin... Wink

Have a great last weekend of northern hemi summer! Off to Philadelphia....
« Last Edit: August 29, 2014, 12:56:49 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #108 on: August 29, 2014, 07:43:48 PM »

PS, since it seems you advocate arkeivia... according Canons, Metropolitan Platon could be anathematized (prescribed penalty for Schism)...

in that case, Met. Anthony is in a worse position....his schism lasted twice as long....and spread to all sorts of jurisdictions not his...then there is Patriarch Barbana, who would be guilty of promoting said schism...

I think it is better not to push to much on Canonicity of OCA. They are canonical (in sense as being accepted by Church as part of her), but their claim to Autocephaly is controversial... Besides... why dont you go in OCA?
See my remark about about the 144 years of Russia's "controversial" autocephaly. As to why I'm not in the OCA, I've posted that a lot before, and am too tired right now to retype it.  Maybe later. Btw, I was chrismated in the OCA, was at Met. Tikhon's chrismation into the Church, and his godmother is a fellow parisioner. I'm not in the OCA due to family circumstances.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #109 on: September 01, 2014, 01:23:20 PM »

Apostolic Canon 15
Quote
If any Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone at all in the Sacerdotal List, abandoning his own province, departs to another, and after deserting it entirely, sojourns in another, contrary to the opinion of his own Bishop, we bid him to officiate no longer; especially if his Bishop summons him to return, and he has not obeyed and persists in his disorderliness, he may, however, commune there as a layman.
(Cf. cc. XV, XVI of the 1st; cc. V, X, XX, XXIII of the 4th; cc. XVII, XVIII of the 6th; cc. X, XV of the 7th; c. Ill of Antioch; cc. XV, XVI, XVII of the Sardican; and cc. LXIII, XCVIII of Carthage.).
Interpretation.
Canon VI of the Fourth Council commands that a presbyter, or a deacon, or any other clergyman is not to be ordained simply and indefinitely in every church, but is to be appointed to the church of some town, or village, or monastery. So, in the case of any person being so ordained, the present Apostolical Canon ordains that he is not to leave the appointed church and go to another in a strange province, without the consent and a dimissory letter of his own bishop. But if he should so do, it commands that he abstain from officiating there in the church in any priestly or clerical function; and especially if he should have happened to have been summoned or invited by his bishop to return and remains in his disorderliness and obstinacy, and has failed to obey by returning, in such a case let him have the right, however, to pray along with the Christians of that church and let him partake of communion with them. Read also the Canons referred to in the margin.
This is important as many (but not all) of the clergy not under the Russian Archdiocese/OCA came without leave from their Mother Church nor an invitation from the bishop to come here.  This-and Ottoman law-prevented the Greek colony of New Smyrna in Florida from receiving an Orthodox priest. But then the wife-herself a Greek in submission to the Vatican-of the colony's proprietor obtained the services of one of the Vatican's Latin priests, and only one Orthodox appears in the records of the colony.

Conversely, Apostolic Canon 1:
Quote
If, on the other hand, the Bishop with whom they are associating, admits them as clergymen in defiance of the deprivation prescribed against them, he shall be excommunicated as a teacher of disorder.
(Cf. cc. VII, XVIII of the 6th; c. III of Antioch; and cc. LXIII, LXIV of Carthage.).
Interpretation.
Only the bishop of Carthage has a right to take clergymen from wherever he chooses, in accordance with an accepted and ancient custom (though in any case from bishops subject to him), and to allocate them to the churches of his own province, in accordance with c. LXIV of the same council. But as for other bishops, they are never given such a right. On this account the present Apostolical Canon, being dependent on the above Canon, both as respecting the phraseology and as respecting the meaning, says: "But if the bishop in whose province these foreign clergymen are dwelling, notwithstanding that he is aware that they have been suspended from office in accordance with the Canons by their own bishop, should admit them as clergymen performing their duties as such — any duties, that is to say, of the clergy — let such bishop be excommunicated, for the reason that he is becoming a teacher of disorderliness and of scandals
The Russian/OCA primate would fill the role of the bishop of Carthage, the head mentioned in Apostolic Canon 34. As such, the bishops of San Francisco (the see during the crucial period in question) did receive clergy from other Churches, but there seems no record of them accepting clergy-even "contract clergy" (not officially attached to the Archdiocese)-without proper credentials.  Hence the US government enlisted the help of the Russian/OCA bishops in vetting those entering the country claiming to be Orthodox clergy, a system that broke down because of Greek congregationalist opposition.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.677 seconds with 137 queries.