Topic: The exclusive Orthodox canonical status of the OCA in North America

[ialmisry]

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

The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.   

What in particular-SCOTUS has decided a lot.

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

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

Isa has cited Supreme Court cases upholding the legal rights in America of the OCA's corporate predecessors; however, the OCA has not pursued the EP's violation of Canon 14 since one clearly occurred with the Tomos of 1908 and/or even the establishment of GOARCH in 1922.  If a canon has been violated, which spiritual court would hear the case.  Isa thinks that the US Supreme Court is enough.  If so, how would that decision be enforced?

Enough for what? To prevent the implementation of the 1908 Tomos? More than enough.  Enough to restore canonical order in North America? The First and Fourteenth Amendments interfere with SCOTUS ability to finish that job-not to mention the canons against using secular courts to establish canonical order.

As an example:

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

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/426/696/case.html

[ialmisry]

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

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

Remove not the ancient marker which your Fathers have raised.

Well, at least you got St. Nikodemos' name right this time, unlike in the op:  "Apostolic Canon 35 as interpreted by St. Nektarios in the Pedalion."     You corrected and now have right two items, the second being that ROCOR has no claim over the continent (even though you have argued for it all the way through).

If I had, you could cite me, Father, no?

You state that ROCOR did not exist prior to the 1920's.  ROCOR would dispute you on this,

it would, I'm sure, although it could not.

as it claims to be the real continuation of the Russian mission/diocese of that time,

mission? They claim to be the real Russian Church, more Muscovite than the Patriarch of Moscow.

and then would cite your own posts against you.

 
The partisans of the Metropolitans of Kiev and Chisinau would have to explain on what map Ukraine and Romania are in North America.

Lacking any continuity with the bishoprick of Bp. Joasaph and Abp. St. Innocent-all of which Met. Tikhon has, except for the Cathedral at the Time of Troubles, which has been translated into the metochion of the Mother Church under the Tomos of Autocephaly, ROCOR would have no use for the posts. It's not like using a cop's gun against him-it will kill no matter who pulls the trigger. It's like trying to commit identity theft, when you have no personal information of the intended victim.

You are right that it has not claim over the continent.  You are just wrong in unwittingly arguing its point that it does have such a claim (even if you try to divert the claims to the OCA).    

only if one can't distinguish this

from this

Father.

[Father H]

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

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

Remove not the ancient marker which your Fathers have raised.

Well, at least you got St. Nikodemos' name right this time, unlike in the op:  "Apostolic Canon 35 as interpreted by St. Nektarios in the Pedalion."     You corrected and now have right two items, the second being that ROCOR has no claim over the continent (even though you have argued for it all the way through).

If I had, you could cite me, Father, no?

You state that ROCOR did not exist prior to the 1920's.  ROCOR would dispute you on this,

it would, I'm sure, although it could not.

as it claims to be the real continuation of the Russian mission/diocese of that time,

mission? They claim to be the real Russian Church, more Muscovite than the Patriarch of Moscow.

and then would cite your own posts against you.

 
The partisans of the Metropolitans of Kiev and Chisinau would have to explain on what map Ukraine and Romania are in North America.

Lacking any continuity with the bishoprick of Bp. Joasaph and Abp. St. Innocent-all of which Met. Tikhon has, except for the Cathedral at the Time of Troubles, which has been translated into the metochion of the Mother Church under the Tomos of Autocephaly, ROCOR would have no use for the posts. It's not like using a cop's gun against him-it will kill no matter who pulls the trigger. It's like trying to commit identity theft, when you have no personal information of the intended victim.

You are right that it has not claim over the continent.  You are just wrong in unwittingly arguing its point that it does have such a claim (even if you try to divert the claims to the OCA).    

only if one can't distinguish this

from this

Father.

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

Or your could just scroll to the top of the screen, like everyone else who already knew you made this error, but just wanted to see if it was still there.   

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

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

[ialmisry]

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

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

Remove not the ancient marker which your Fathers have raised.

Well, at least you got St. Nikodemos' name right this time, unlike in the op:  "Apostolic Canon 35 as interpreted by St. Nektarios in the Pedalion."     You corrected and now have right two items, the second being that ROCOR has no claim over the continent (even though you have argued for it all the way through).

If I had, you could cite me, Father, no?

You state that ROCOR did not exist prior to the 1920's.  ROCOR would dispute you on this,

it would, I'm sure, although it could not.

as it claims to be the real continuation of the Russian mission/diocese of that time,

mission? They claim to be the real Russian Church, more Muscovite than the Patriarch of Moscow.

and then would cite your own posts against you.

 
The partisans of the Metropolitans of Kiev and Chisinau would have to explain on what map Ukraine and Romania are in North America.

Lacking any continuity with the bishoprick of Bp. Joasaph and Abp. St. Innocent-all of which Met. Tikhon has, except for the Cathedral at the Time of Troubles, which has been translated into the metochion of the Mother Church under the Tomos of Autocephaly, ROCOR would have no use for the posts. It's not like using a cop's gun against him-it will kill no matter who pulls the trigger. It's like trying to commit identity theft, when you have no personal information of the intended victim.

You are right that it has not claim over the continent.  You are just wrong in unwittingly arguing its point that it does have such a claim (even if you try to divert the claims to the OCA).    

only if one can't distinguish this

from this

Father.

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

Or your could just scroll to the top of the screen, like everyone else who already knew you made this error, but just wanted to see if it was still there.  

Nope, nothing there of use to ROCOR. ROCOR's narrative makes this quite easy: they date the OCA from Met. Platon

ROCOR historian Fr. Alexey Young, in his history of the ROCOR, writes: "In the early 1920s, the American Church came under the jurisdiction of the Administration Abroad, which took an active administrative role in overseeing its American 'branch'—particularly on disciplinary questions such as divorce and the establishment of a new See in Alaska" (Young, p. 33). Young then writes that Platon was appointed by the Church Abroad as the leader in North America, but unbeknownst to his fellows in the Synod, "was at the same time seeking official appointment directly from Patriarch Tikhon himself. When the Patriarch refused to interfere in the decision of the Church Abroad, saying he 'did not wish to go over their heads,' Platon suddenly produced an ukaz, allegedly from Tikhon, appointing him as sole and independent head of the Church in America" (ibid.). Young continues, writing, that at first the ROCOR synod accepted the decree in good faith, but its authenticity was called severely into question when in 1924 "an actual decree from the Patriarch in Moscow deposed Platon 'for having engaged in public acts of counter-revolution directed against the Soviet government'" (ibid.). An American court also ruled subsequently that the ukaz produced by Platon was a forgery. "To deal with this embarrassment, Platon convoked the Detroit Sobor in April of the same year, with the purpose of declaring the Russian Church in America 'temporarily autonomous'—that is, free of both Moscow and Karlovci" (ibid.). This sobor is listed in the archives of the OCA as the "4th All-American Sobor."
In 1926 in Karlovtsy, the ROCOR bishops met together. Platon was present and asked to renounce the "temporary autonomy" that had been proclaimed by his council in 1924. Upon his refusal, the assembled bishops condemned the Detroit sobor as "extremely dangerous and harmful for the interests of the Russian Church in America" (quoted in Young, p. 34). Platon responded with another sobor in America in January of 1927 which labelled the ROCOR as "uncanonical." One of Platon's bishops, Apollinary (Koshevoy), dissented, proclaiming his loyalty to the ROCOR, and was expelled from the Metropolia.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA#1921-1926:_Initial_Cooperation
As I indicated above

In contrast, Met. Platon, Abp./Met. St. Innocent's successor and Met. Tikhon of the OCA's predecessor, had his exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America confirmed by the Supreme Church Administration referenced by Ukaz 362, namely Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia:

To the Most Eminent Platon, Metropolitan of
Kherson and Odessa, pro tempore Ruling the
North American Diocese.

By a resolution of the Sacred Synod dated April 14 /27th 1922 Your Eminence were appointed a pro tempore Ruler of the North American Diocese, and the Archpriest Theodore Pashkovsky— bishop of Chicago, to be consecrated in America.
Now having taken cognizance of the situation of the American Church we deemed it necessary to appoint you to rule the North American Church releasing you from ruling the Diocese of Kherson and Odessa.
Signed: TIKHON PATRIARCH of Moscow and All Russia.
September 20th
1923
No. 41
Moscow, Monastery of Don.

Something that ROCOR at the time admitted:

Ukaz from the Provisional Holy Bishops’ Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad.
To His Eminence, the Most Eminent Platon, Metropolitan of Kherson and Odessa.
The Provisional Holy Bishops’ Synod of the“ Russian Orthodox Church abroad, on August 23/ September 5/1922,
HAVE DISCUSSED: the Church affairs in the North American Archdiocese in connection with the letter of the Most Eminent Platon dated 11/24 July 1922. N0. 596, and his short statement dated July 9/22, 1922, No. 595, concerning the situation of affairs in the North American Archdiocese.
Pursuant to the previous discussions
RESOLVED: 1) In view of the will expressed by the Most Holy Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, that the Metropolitan of Kherson and Odessa Platon assume the governing of the North American Archdiocese—which will was communicated by the recently arrived from Moscow Archpriest Th. Pashkovsky, in his report dated July 1/14, 1922, No. 1, and in view of the consent of the North American Archbishop Alexander to transmit temporarily the governing of the Archdiocese to the Metropolitan,——to consider the Most Eminent Platon to be the Provisional Ruler of the North American Archdiocese.
2) To instruct the Eminent Anthony, Bishop of Aleutian Islands and Alaska immediately to leave for the place of his service in Alaska for managing his independent Aleutian Alaskan Diocese.
To send the Ukazes, concerning the above matters to your Eminence and to the Bishop Anthony.
August 27/September 9/1922, Serbia, Szemsky Karlovtsy
Signed: Chairman of the Synod: Metropolitan
        Anthony
         Secretary E. Maharablidze

Unfortunately for ROCOR's mythology, Met. Platon had previously received an ukaz of appointment to the exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America

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

To THE NORTH AMERICAN ECCLESIASTIOAL BOARD
Upon a ukaze of His Imperial Majesty, the Holy Governing Synod considered; a report of the Holy Synod approved by His Majesty on June 8, 1907, that the rector of Kiev Ecclesiastical Academy, Most Reverend Platon, Bishop of Tchigirin, First Vicar of Kiev Diocese Should be appointed the Aleutian and North American Archbishop; ORDERED: that the above mentioned report of the Holy Synod approved by His Majesty be announced by a ukaze to the North American Ecclesiastical Board and the Board be directed to order that the name of the Most Reverend Platon be proclaimed in the churches of the Aleutian Diocese at the divine services, in accordance with the regulations.
June 22, 1907 No. 7368 Over-Secretary (Signature)
Secretary (Signature)

IOW Metropolitan Platon (from whom the OCA did receive the status of Metropolia, and its primate the title of Metropolitan, originally from Platon serving as the Metropolitan and last exarch of Georgia and member of the Most Holy Governing Synod ex officio.) was succeeding himself, making it rather hard for ROCOR to explain how Met. Platon-appointed by Pat. St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution and the restoration of the Patriarchate to have exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America-has no connection with Abp. Platon-appointed by the Most Holy Governing Synod under the Czar before the Revolution to have exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America.

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

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

In contrast, ROCOR had no connection whatsoever to North America.  I'm not even sure if its ruling bishop came here in violation of Apostolic Canon 14.

[ialmisry]

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

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

Optimistic Stance:

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

Pessimistic Stance:

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

Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

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

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

I don't see it happening either, which makes it all the more foolish that the threat was issued.

And if the Episcopal Assemblies survive another year.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going.  Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that.  I remain optimistic.

I don't think Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was one of the strategic funerals often talked about as needed. I do wish Abp. Demetrios many, many years!  His departure can be fatal.

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

Isa doesn't want the Episcopal Assemblies on track, unlike you and I.  He has made it quite clear on several websites including this one that he wants it to implode.  

Au contraire, Father, as Abp. Demetrios (many years!) derailed the EA from the rut the Phanar wanted it to run down, and redirected it towards an Orthodox destination, I have made it quite clear on several websites including the one that I want it to stay on the new track and survive the attempts of the Phanar to implode it.

[ialmisry]

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

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

Optimistic Stance:

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

Pessimistic Stance:

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

Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

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

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

I don't see it happening either, which makes it all the more foolish that the threat was issued.

And if the Episcopal Assemblies survive another year.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going.  Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that.  I remain optimistic.

I don't think Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was one of the strategic funerals often talked about as needed. I do wish Abp. Demetrios many, many years!  His departure can be fatal.

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

I shudder when I remember what succeeded Abp. Iakovos of blessed memory.

[ialmisry]

In contrast, ROCOR had no connection whatsoever to North America.  I'm not even sure if its ruling bishop came here in violation of Apostolic Canon 14.

Before it intruded into North America in response to the OCA's Seventh All American Sobor's cutting off all contact with the Karlovski Synod-now in exile in Munchen-and ROCOR arrogated to itself the authority to consecrate Chrism (a sign of autocephaly in the Russian Church-and Orthodoxy in general. As it turned out, it was the only time, as the Act of Canonical Communion established that ROCOR receives it from Moscow, in contrast to the OCA Tomos, which explicitly states that the OCA can consecrate its own chrism), that is.

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

[Ekdikos]

Has this subject been beaten to death enough times?

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

Petition for what?

What you assert in the OP.

As the Phanar has no jurisdiction over that, it would just be a waste of paper.

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

And why would it be sent to Istanbul?

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

But nothing is being appealed.

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

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

[Ekdikos]

In contrast, ROCOR had no connection whatsoever to North America.  I'm not even sure if its ruling bishop came here in violation of Apostolic Canon 14.

Before it intruded into North America in response to the OCA's Seventh All American Sobor's cutting off all contact with the Karlovski Synod-now in exile in Munchen-and ROCOR arrogated to itself the authority to consecrate Chrism (a sign of autocephaly in the Russian Church-and Orthodoxy in general. As it turned out, it was the only time, as the Act of Canonical Communion established that ROCOR receives it from Moscow, in contrast to the OCA Tomos, which explicitly states that the OCA can consecrate its own chrism), that is.

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

ROCOR intruded North America on basis Metropolia accepted its jurisdiction, at certain point...
Now, purely cannonicaly, neither group was authorised by MP to exercise jurisdiction over North America. And, OCA, not offense meant, is diminutive even in North American Orthodoxy cathegories.

[ialmisry]

In contrast, ROCOR had no connection whatsoever to North America.  I'm not even sure if its ruling bishop came here in violation of Apostolic Canon 14.

Before it intruded into North America in response to the OCA's Seventh All American Sobor's cutting off all contact with the Karlovski Synod-now in exile in Munchen-and ROCOR arrogated to itself the authority to consecrate Chrism (a sign of autocephaly in the Russian Church-and Orthodoxy in general. As it turned out, it was the only time, as the Act of Canonical Communion established that ROCOR receives it from Moscow, in contrast to the OCA Tomos, which explicitly states that the OCA can consecrate its own chrism), that is.

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

ROCOR intruded North America on basis Metropolia accepted its jurisdiction, at certain point...
Now, purely cannonicaly, neither group was authorised by MP to exercise jurisdiction over North America. And, OCA, not offense meant, is diminutive even in North American Orthodoxy cathegories.

Other than the Greek Archdiocese, the OCA is larger than any other in North America. The Antiochians and Serbs come as close third and fourth, and ROCOR a distant fifth (a third of the OCA).
The OCA/Metropolia had accepted to work with, not under, ROCOR. That ROCOR misconstrued that is hardly the OCA's fault.
As for exercising exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction in North America, see above the Ukaz of Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Russian Holy Synod naming Metropolitan Platon "a pro tempore Ruler of the North American Diocese," ("and the Archpriest Theodore Pashkovsky— bishop of Chicago, to be consecrated in America," Met. Platon's eventual successor in that office).

[recent convert]

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

[ialmisry]

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

Yes, it is a bit odd that they belittle American Orthodoxy, and yet demand their piece of its action.

[Ekdikos]

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

[ialmisry]

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

the census of American Orthodoxy, the best available, found 84,900 for the OCA, 68,800 for the Serbs.  The GOARCH, with 476,900, has 6 times the number of total adherents, but in regular attendance, only 3 times the number of the OCA. The OCA makes up just under 10% of American Orthodoxy.
http://www.hartfordinstitute.org/research/2010-USOrthodox-Census.pdf
unfortunately, it does not include the figures for Canada or Mexico.

Metropolitan Platon of North America (as Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Russian Holy Synod put it) did not need to provide any further documents (though he did). He proved it in US court (where the OCA took control of St. Nicholas Cathedral, the Mother Church from 1905, losing it only after reiterating its recognition of the Patriarch of Moscow and the Russian Holy Synod as the Supreme Church Administration, and losing it then to the Patriarch of Moscow, not ROCOR)

That claimed right of the corporation to use and occupancy for the archbishop chosen by the American churches is opposed by appellants who are in possession. Benjamin Fedchenkoff bases his right on an appointment in 1934 by the Supreme Church Authority of the Russian Orthodox Church, to wit, the Patriarch locum tenens of Moscow and all Russia and its Holy Synod, as Archbishop of the Archdiocese of North America and the Aleutian Islands. The other defendant-appellant is a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, also acknowledging the spiritual and administrative control of the Moscow hierarchy.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/344/94
in Canadian court (where his bishop Arseny was recognized as the bishop of Canada, recognized and incorporated by Canadian ordinance in 1903), and was admitted as correct by the Tomos issued by the Patriarch of Moscow and the Russian Holy Synod.

Who was out of communion with most of Orthodoxy?

[SolEX01]

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

The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.   

What in particular-SCOTUS has decided a lot.

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

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

Isa has cited Supreme Court cases upholding the legal rights in America of the OCA's corporate predecessors; however, the OCA has not pursued the EP's violation of Canon 14 since one clearly occurred with the Tomos of 1908 and/or even the establishment of GOARCH in 1922.  If a canon has been violated, which spiritual court would hear the case.  Isa thinks that the US Supreme Court is enough.  If so, how would that decision be enforced?

Enough for what? To prevent the implementation of the 1908 Tomos? More than enough.  Enough to restore canonical order in North America? The First and Fourteenth Amendments interfere with SCOTUS ability to finish that job-not to mention the canons against using secular courts to establish canonical order.

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

[Ekdikos]

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

[Ekdikos]

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...

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

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.

[ialmisry]

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

The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.   

What in particular-SCOTUS has decided a lot.

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

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

Isa has cited Supreme Court cases upholding the legal rights in America of the OCA's corporate predecessors; however, the OCA has not pursued the EP's violation of Canon 14 since one clearly occurred with the Tomos of 1908 and/or even the establishment of GOARCH in 1922.  If a canon has been violated, which spiritual court would hear the case.  Isa thinks that the US Supreme Court is enough.  If so, how would that decision be enforced?

Enough for what? To prevent the implementation of the 1908 Tomos? More than enough.  Enough to restore canonical order in North America? The First and Fourteenth Amendments interfere with SCOTUS ability to finish that job-not to mention the canons against using secular courts to establish canonical order.

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

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

[ialmisry]

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

Btw, Albania and Greece had been the canonical territory of Old Rome-New Rome hasn't contained itself according to its Tomos (actually canon), namely canon 28 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, which restricted New Rome's jurisdiction to Thrace.

[ialmisry]

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

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

The Iconoclast Emperors took it from Old Rome and attached it to New Rome-it was one of the things that led to the schism between Pope St. Nicholas I and EP St. Photios the Great.

[SolEX01]

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

The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.  

What in particular-SCOTUS has decided a lot.

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

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

Isa has cited Supreme Court cases upholding the legal rights in America of the OCA's corporate predecessors; however, the OCA has not pursued the EP's violation of Canon 14 since one clearly occurred with the Tomos of 1908 and/or even the establishment of GOARCH in 1922.  If a canon has been violated, which spiritual court would hear the case.  Isa thinks that the US Supreme Court is enough.  If so, how would that decision be enforced?

Enough for what? To prevent the implementation of the 1908 Tomos? More than enough.  Enough to restore canonical order in North America? The First and Fourteenth Amendments interfere with SCOTUS ability to finish that job-not to mention the canons against using secular courts to establish canonical order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ekdikos]

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?

[Ekdikos]

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

Btw, Albania and Greece had been the canonical territory of Old Rome-New Rome hasn't contained itself according to its Tomos (actually canon), namely canon 28 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, which restricted New Rome's jurisdiction to Thrace.

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

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

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

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

[ialmisry]

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

Btw, Albania and Greece had been the canonical territory of Old Rome-New Rome hasn't contained itself according to its Tomos (actually canon), namely canon 28 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, which restricted New Rome's jurisdiction to Thrace.

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

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

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

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

The Phanar didn't like that no one recognized its jurisdiction there-it had been in the jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Serbia.  It ended up under Moscow after World War II, although I've yet to see a detailed account of the canonical transfer from Serbia to Moscow, and Moscow granted it autocephaly shortly thereafter.  The Phanar issued its own Tomos of Autocephaly decades later, and is now claiming the power to rescind it.

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

[ialmisry]

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

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

[Ekdikos]

The Phanar didn't like that no one recognized its jurisdiction there-it had been in the jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Serbia.  It ended up under Moscow after World War II, although I've yet to see a detailed account of the canonical transfer from Serbia to Moscow, and Moscow granted it autocephaly shortly thereafter.  

Stalin forced Tito to force Synod in Belgrade to release dioceses of Prague and Mukachevo-Prashov to MP....
In 1921, group of former Roman Catholics led by Fr Matej Pavlik petitioned to be recieved in Orthodoxy. On basis the fact that, theoretical Metropolis of Karlovci exercised jurisdiction over all Orthodox in Austro-Hungary, they petitioned Serbian Church. Fr Matej was recieved in Orthodoxy, took monastic wows, and was consecrated as bishop of Prague. He died martyr in 1942, from Nazi hands. In same time, mission of ROCOR and Serbian Church was working on return of Slovakian Greek-Catholic Rusyns to Orthodoxy. Blessed Justin of Ćelije was part of this mission. After initial success, anther Eparchy was established.

The Phanar issued its own Tomos of Autocephaly decades later, and is now claiming the power to rescind it.

Why dont they try to rescind Autocpehaly of Church of Greece? Last time they tried to re-assert authority over Northern Greece, they were ignored, even when they broke Communion...
Besides His All Hollines EP, His Eminenece Met. Elphidoros and Professor Fidas, not a lot people are connvinced in right of Throne of St. Andhrew to unliateraly rescind Autocephaly.

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

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

As your source points out, Met. Platon was posthumesly reconciled to the Patriarchate of Moscow 19 April 1946,

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

and his Metropolia was fully resolved per Ukaz 362 with the Tomos of 1970-for one thing, immediately the OCA was in communion with everyone-except ROCOR.

But it does not mean cnonical status of OCA as sole legitimate jurisdiction in North America was recognised by all... It was recognised by Mother Church, by Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland and Czechoslovak Church...   

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

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


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

[podkarpatska]

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

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

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

[ialmisry]

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

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

They propped up the continued existence of the OCA, and underlined the unorthodoxy of the very idea of "Diaspora." A big road block to the Phanar's path that it wants to drag the rest of us down to itself.

Rarely does one hear them any longer from within the structure of the OCA - usually only online and then by some of the OCA's more zealous lay and clerical advocates.

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

as the antics in the Czech Lands and Slovakia are showing (not to mention the Ukraine situation) being left alone is not an option.

[ialmisry]

The Phanar didn't like that no one recognized its jurisdiction there-it had been in the jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Serbia.  It ended up under Moscow after World War II, although I've yet to see a detailed account of the canonical transfer from Serbia to Moscow, and Moscow granted it autocephaly shortly thereafter.  

Stalin forced Tito to force Synod in Belgrade to release dioceses of Prague and Mukachevo-Prashov to MP....
In 1921, group of former Roman Catholics led by Fr Matej Pavlik petitioned to be recieved in Orthodoxy. On basis the fact that, theoretical Metropolis of Karlovci exercised jurisdiction over all Orthodox in Austro-Hungary, they petitioned Serbian Church.

It was more than theoretical-at the time Czechoslovakia included Carpatho-Russia/Transcarpathia (as you mention below in the post War context), and the ones returning to Orthodoxy had been under Karlovci-Serbian, not ROCOR-in Austria Hungary.  Bukowina, having theoretical jurisdiction in Austria (which at the time included Bohemia, i.e. the Czech Lands) abandoned its claims after it joined into the Patriarchate of Romania. The Carpatho-Russians tipped the Czech-Slovaks into the Eastern Rite, they had been WRO.

Fr Matej was recieved in Orthodoxy, took monastic wows, and was consecrated as bishop of Prague. He died martyr in 1942, from Nazi hands. In same time, mission of ROCOR and Serbian Church was working on return of Slovakian Greek-Catholic Rusyns to Orthodoxy. Blessed Justin of Ćelije was part of this mission. After initial success, anther Eparchy was established.

The Phanar issued its own Tomos of Autocephaly decades later, and is now claiming the power to rescind it.

Why dont they try to rescind Autocpehaly of Church of Greece? Last time they tried to re-assert authority over Northern Greece, they were ignored, even when they broke Communion...
Besides His All Hollines EP, His Eminenece Met. Elphidoros and Professor Fidas, not a lot people are connvinced in right of Throne of St. Andhrew to unliateraly rescind Autocephaly.

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

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

As your source points out, Met. Platon was posthumesly reconciled to the Patriarchate of Moscow 19 April 1946,

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

Pat. Tikhon and the Russian Holy Synod ordered the Karlovski Synod to disband, which in obedience they did.  Having questioned if the Patriarch did so under duress, they reconstituted themselves.  Unfortunately, you cannot unring a bell.
The Ukaz of the Supreme Church Authority as defined by Ukaz 362 put Met. Platon in charge of North America, something the All American Sobor (which had chosen Abp. Alexander previously as primate, confirmed by the same Supreme Church Authority) concurred with.  Is there any question that Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia were under duress in January 1924, particular when issuing ukazes against prelates for "anti-Soviet" activity?
If ukazes issued under duress are valid and binding, what justification did ROCOR have against Met. Sergius' dictates to them? What was Ukaz 362 issued for in the first place?
In 1946 the OCA was going to re-establish direct contact with the Supreme Church Authority in Moscow, for which they broke their ties-or rather, they were broken-with ROCOR. When Moscow demanded Soviet loyalty, showing that the Supreme Churth Authority operated under duress, autonomy as envisioned in Ukaz 362 continued.

and his Metropolia was fully resolved per Ukaz 362 with the Tomos of 1970-for one thing, immediately the OCA was in communion with everyone-except ROCOR.

But it does not mean cnonical status of OCA as sole legitimate jurisdiction in North America was recognised by all... It was recognised by Mother Church, by Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland and Czechoslovak Church...

Which is a plurality. Russia's sole legitimate jurisdiction in the Rus' Lands was not recognized by all until 155 years after the fact.  

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

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

not over North America they didn't.

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

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

[primuspilus]

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

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

Optimistic Stance:

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

Pessimistic Stance:

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

Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

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

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

I don't see it happening either, which makes it all the more foolish that the threat was issued.

And if the Episcopal Assemblies survive another year.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going.  Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that.  I remain optimistic.

I don't think Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was one of the strategic funerals often talked about as needed. I do wish Abp. Demetrios many, many years!  His departure can be fatal.

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

Isa doesn't want the Episcopal Assemblies on track, unlike you and I.  He has made it quite clear on several websites including this one that he wants it to implode.   

The problem with these assemblies is that they talk about doing alot, but actually dont do anything. They meet to talk about future meetings. I find them completely useless.

PP

[ialmisry]

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

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

Optimistic Stance:

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

Pessimistic Stance:

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

Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

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

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

I don't see it happening either, which makes it all the more foolish that the threat was issued.

And if the Episcopal Assemblies survive another year.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going.  Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that.  I remain optimistic.

I don't think Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was one of the strategic funerals often talked about as needed. I do wish Abp. Demetrios many, many years!  His departure can be fatal.

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

Isa doesn't want the Episcopal Assemblies on track, unlike you and I.  He has made it quite clear on several websites including this one that he wants it to implode.   

The problem with these assemblies is that they talk about doing alot, but actually dont do anything. They meet to talk about future meetings. I find them completely useless.

PP

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

[primuspilus]

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

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

Optimistic Stance:

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

Pessimistic Stance:

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

Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

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

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

I don't see it happening either, which makes it all the more foolish that the threat was issued.

And if the Episcopal Assemblies survive another year.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going.  Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that.  I remain optimistic.

I don't think Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was one of the strategic funerals often talked about as needed. I do wish Abp. Demetrios many, many years!  His departure can be fatal.

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

Isa doesn't want the Episcopal Assemblies on track, unlike you and I.  He has made it quite clear on several websites including this one that he wants it to implode.   

The problem with these assemblies is that they talk about doing alot, but actually dont do anything. They meet to talk about future meetings. I find them completely useless.

PP

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

Thats true, but we can still do this without masquerading like this is going to lead to administrative unity (which it wont) or wasting all the money and resources that can be spent elsewhere.

PP

[podkarpatska]

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

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

[Ekdikos]

It was more than theoretical-at the time Czechoslovakia included Carpatho-Russia/Transcarpathia (as you mention below in the post War context), and the ones returning to Orthodoxy had been under Karlovci-Serbian, not ROCOR-in Austria Hungary. 

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

Bukowina, having theoretical jurisdiction in Austria (which at the time included Bohemia, i.e. the Czech Lands) abandoned its claims after it joined into the Patriarchate of Romania.

Metropolis of Bukowina was granted independence, not autocephaly by Austrian Court... they were before 1870 part of Metropolis of Karlovci... also two Eparchies in Dalmatia were attached to it, same with Serbian and Greek parishes in Slovenia and modern Austria... but if I remember correctly, act of Emperor stated that in spiritual matters, Patriarch (since of 1848, Metropolitan of Karlovci claimed Patriarchal title), had supreeme authority in matters of faith... Whatever right over Czechia Metropolis of Bukowina had, it was weak one.

The Carpatho-Russians tipped the Czech-Slovaks into the Eastern Rite, they had been WRO.

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

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

Acctually they did not question, to put it simply they played dummies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ukaz of the Supreme Church Authority as defined by Ukaz 362 put Met. Platon in charge of North America, something the All American Sobor (which had chosen Abp. Alexander previously as primate, confirmed by the same Supreme Church Authority) concurred with.  Is there any question that Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia were under duress in January 1924, particular when issuing ukazes against prelates for "anti-Soviet" activity?

Problem is, Metropolitan Platon found himself isolated not only from Moscow, but from all of others.

If ukazes issued under duress are valid and binding, what justification did ROCOR have against Met. Sergius' dictates to them? What was Ukaz 362 issued for in the first place?

Did I claim that ROCOR was right in their stance? No. But neither OCA is.

In 1946 the OCA was going to re-establish direct contact with the Supreme Church Authority in Moscow, for which they broke their ties-or rather, they were broken-with ROCOR. When Moscow demanded Soviet loyalty, showing that the Supreme Churth Authority operated under duress, autonomy as envisioned in Ukaz 362 continued.

They have no right to grant themselves Autonomy. Also, dont forget, they added new canonical irregularity, they intruded in Metropolis of Japan.

Which is a plurality. Russia's sole legitimate jurisdiction in the Rus' Lands was not recognized by all until 155 years after the fact.  

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

not over North America they didn't.

Oh yes they did. In 1935, Metropolitan Theopil signed Temproary Provision about Russian Orthodox Church Abroad... where it was explicitely stated he was under authority of Karovački Synod...

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

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

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

[podkarpatska]

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

[Orest]

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

To waht exactly you are pointing? In 1448 Russia declared Autocephaly, but Constantinople did not dare to break Communion. Patriarchate of Constantinople transfered Metropolis of Kiev (not original one, which is Patriarchate of Moscow, but Greek Catholic readmitted in orthodoxy after 1470), in 1686...

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

[Ekdikos]

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

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

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

Who said they were?

Metropolis of Bukovina and Dalmatia was established by Austrian Government in 1870. After restructuration of Austrian Empire, Hungarian Government got control over Election of Serbian Patriarch, and Metropolitan of Romanians. Austrians were not willing to let Hungarian Government in control over Orthodox bishops in Austrian part of Federation. Hence establishment o Bukovinian Metropolis... needless to say modern Metropolis of Bukovina in Ukraine has no direct conection with XIX century independent Orthodox Church in Austria.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

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.

[Ekdikos]

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...

[ialmisry]

It was more than theoretical-at the time Czechoslovakia included Carpatho-Russia/Transcarpathia (as you mention below in the post War context), and the ones returning to Orthodoxy had been under Karlovci-Serbian, not ROCOR-in Austria Hungary. 

Well, first it was theoretical in Prague, since we had canonic basis for establishin Parish there, but... we did not have any prior 1921...Patriarchate of Peć, and subsequently Metroplis of Karlovci, had bishoprics in Dalmatia, in Southern Hungary, in Hungary, Transilvania, Croatia... also there were parishes in Austrian Crown Lands (Trieste, Istria, Ljubljana, Wien), but not in Bohemia.

There is no way that the Habsburgs would allow an Orthodox bishop in Bohemia. The Russians did run an parish that seems to have been technically a consulate (it appears, for instance, the public reports of the Ober-Prokurator of the Most Holy Governing Synod). Nor would they admit the fact that Ruthenians and others were returning to Orthodoxy.

Prior to Užgorod Union, I think Orthodox Ruthenians were under Constantinople. Which is bit odd since rest of Kingdom of Hungary was under Serbian Patriarch of Peć then. (1646). Nevertheless, in 1920s.. mission of Serbian Church which was including ROCOR priests (since ROCOR considered herself to be under temporary Jurisdiction of Archbishop of Peć and Patriarch of Serbia, and operated from its headquarters in Kingdom fo Yugoslavia, and First Hierarch of ROCOR was assisting Serbian Patriarch in consecrations of bishops, and one of Serbian bishops participated in consecrations of ROCOR ones...) returned number of Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy.

Patriarch Arsenije III had not yet led the great migrations of Serbs into the Habsburg lands. The Orthodox around Uzhhorod were dependent on the Church in Transylvania and in Moldavia (Galicia had its hands full with the Poles trying to enforce Brest), which were under Ottoman, and hence Constantinople.  Once Patriarch Arsenije had consolidated the Patriarchate of Pec in the Habsburg lands, and Ottoman control receded, then all the Orthodox subjects of the Habsburgs became in the jurisdiction of Patriarch Arsenije.  In truth, it was a default, as the Habsburgs could not do without the Serbs, who insisted on their Orthodoxy, whereas the Habsburgs could eliminate other hierarchies with impunity.
 

Bukowina, having theoretical jurisdiction in Austria (which at the time included Bohemia, i.e. the Czech Lands) abandoned its claims after it joined into the Patriarchate of Romania.

Metropolis of Bukowina was granted independence, not autocephaly by Austrian Court... they were before 1870 part of Metropolis of Karlovci... also two Eparchies in Dalmatia were attached to it, same with Serbian and Greek parishes in Slovenia and modern Austria... but if I remember correctly, act of Emperor stated that in spiritual matters, Patriarch (since of 1848, Metropolitan of Karlovci claimed Patriarchal title), had supreeme authority in matters of faith... Whatever right over Czechia Metropolis of Bukowina had, it was weak one.

The Ausgleich required 2 of everything, and that included an Orthodox authority-exterminating the Orthodox had just plain failed, but not from lack of trying. Bukowina's autocephaly (and yes, it was autocephalous, it was usually referred to as the Church of Austria).  The Hungarians would not countenance a united Orthodox Church for Austria and for Hungary. Which is how the Dalmatian dioceses ended up with the Crown Land of Bukowina, and the other side of the Empire.
Of course it was weak.  Such was the situation of the Orthodox under the loyal sons of the Vatican. It is also how/why a lot of (returning) Orthodox Galicians moved across the border into Bukowina, where the Romanian majority ensured more freedom for the Orthodox, such that the province became more Ruthenian over time.

The Carpatho-Russians tipped the Czech-Slovaks into the Eastern Rite, they had been WRO.

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

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

Acctually they did not question, to put it simply they played dummies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't check that from here. I'll get back to it.

The Ukaz of the Supreme Church Authority as defined by Ukaz 362 put Met. Platon in charge of North America, something the All American Sobor (which had chosen Abp. Alexander previously as primate, confirmed by the same Supreme Church Authority) concurred with.  Is there any question that Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia were under duress in January 1924, particular when issuing ukazes against prelates for "anti-Soviet" activity?

Problem is, Metropolitan Platon found himself isolated not only from Moscow, but from all of others.

So was St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Mark of Ephesus.

If ukazes issued under duress are valid and binding, what justification did ROCOR have against Met. Sergius' dictates to them? What was Ukaz 362 issued for in the first place?

Did I claim that ROCOR was right in their stance? No. But neither OCA is.

OK, fair enough, but the OCA's position has precedence. ROCOR's does not.

In 1946 the OCA was going to re-establish direct contact with the Supreme Church Authority in Moscow, for which they broke their ties-or rather, they were broken-with ROCOR. When Moscow demanded Soviet loyalty, showing that the Supreme Churth Authority operated under duress, autonomy as envisioned in Ukaz 362 continued.

They have no right to grant themselves Autonomy. Also, dont forget, they added new canonical irregularity, they intruded in Metropolis of Japan.[/quote]
For the same reason. As for the right to autonomy, the situation called for it, just as the situation in 1448 Moscow called for autocephaly.

Which is a plurality. Russia's sole legitimate jurisdiction in the Rus' Lands was not recognized by all until 155 years after the fact.  

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

rumors of ROCOR and their sympathisers. The Supreme Church Authority has been adamantly stating otherwise.

not over North America they didn't.

Oh yes they did. In 1935, Metropolitan Theopil signed Temproary Provision about Russian Orthodox Church Abroad... where it was explicitely stated he was under authority of Karovački Synod...

The All American Sobor was explicit about its autonomy.  If the Karlovski Synod wanted to ignore that, they were just deluding themselves.

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

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

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

The 1970 Tomos did that.  It didn't need any bit more.

[podkarpatska]

It appears that we have alternative histories at play here.

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

Again, if anyone feels passionately that the cause of the OCA is correct and canonical, it seems to me that such folks must by conscience be part of the OCA unless they live in a region where access to an OCA parish is an impossibility.

[ialmisry]

It appears that we have alternative histories at play here.

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

Again, if anyone feels passionately that the cause of the OCA is correct and canonical, it seems to me that such folks must by conscience be part of the OCA unless they live in a region where access to an OCA parish is an impossibility.

In general yes, but not absolutely.

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

[primuspilus]

Administrative unity is not a useless goal

You're right, its a wonderful goal. But having a council that meets solely for the purpose of scheduling more meetings does nothing to further the cause.

Carl, your personal animosity towards me is your personal issue not mine

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

OCA

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

PP