OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 12:11:51 AM *
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 1715 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 6,865



« 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
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,960



« 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
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,960



« 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
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,960



« 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
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,572


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
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,960



« 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
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,572


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
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,960



« 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
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,960



« 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
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,960



« 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
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,572


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
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,960



« 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
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,960



« 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 0.201 seconds with 47 queries.