Cracks in the Coalition?

assembly-crackedWell, it looks like the Episcopal Assembly’s high point was the first year it met seems to me. Sixty-five bishops attended if memory servers. Every year since it has gotten fewer and fewer attendees. True, the Central American and Canadian bishops went off and formed their own Assemblies (as was logical). But even then we’re talking nine or ten bishops at most subtracted from the initial sixty-five. Also, the OCA has three vacancies, so that leaves at least fifty who should have been there.

According to the Assembly’s website, there were “more than thirty bishops there.” (The next day they revised it upward to “more than thirty-five.”) Well, that’s pretty pathetic if you ask me. It reminds me of the pettifogginess that we are used to getting from the GOA in past; i.e. “Archbishop Demetrios, spiritual leader of over 1.5 million Orthodox Christians,” or “Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, spiritual head of 350 million Orthodox Christians throughout the world,” etc. Such special pleading is unbecoming of a mature Church. Regardless, this downward trajectory was predicted five years ago by many on this blog (as well as others.)

Now please understand, we may just be talking about growing pains here. Last year ROCOR more or less said “thanks, but no thanks” to the entire process and the patriarchate of Antioch ordered all its bishops worldwide to pull out of all Assemblies. They’re now back, whether chastened or with some concessions in their back packet I honestly can’t say. Still, the optics of this last conference didn’t look good. Besides the radical diminution in the number of the bishops, the Question-and-Answer session was heavily scripted. Only five bishops were chosen to respond to some carefully-screened softball questions. And none of the bishops were from the OCA.

This is not usually the sign of a going concern. If I had to guess, I’d say that some bishops –and jurisdictions–are voting with their feet.

Moreover, the video address by Patriarch Bartholomew leads me to believe that things aren’t all that rosy as far as the Great Synod is concerned. 2016 is, as they say in politics, an eternity away. If (as rumored) it is true that Istanbul plans to grab all of Ukraine as its canonical territory then we could be talking schism here. This card may have been taken out of the Phanar’s deck however. The EU/US mishandling of Ukraine has been so disastrous that the Maidan Junta has lost all legitimacy. The plan was that the Ukrainians would rise up as one in indignation against the evil Putin leaving the patriarchate of Moscow with ashes in its mouth. Well, the people of the eastern part of Ukraine wouldn’t play along with the West’s schemes. Now, if Bartholomew pulled a stunt like that the outrage would be deafening.

Anyway, that’s all speculation. For its part, the Holy Synod of the OCA has issued its own response to the latest Assembly (Hat-tip to Timothy Wearing). You can read it here for yourself and come to your own conclusions. http://oca.org/news/headline-news/oca-holy-synod-issues-preliminary-response-to-canonical-restructuring-propo . To be honest, I didn’t think that Syosset had the courage to issue such a declaration given its internal –and self-inflicted–troubles. Its census is pathetic and its financial situation is dire. Then there is the case of Fr Leonid Kishkovsky, whose fervent desire has always been to bring the OCA under the patriarchate of Constantinople. Perhaps his star has fallen? Perhaps Syosset is signalling Moscow that a rapprochment is possible. We shall see.

Regardless, the OCA has laid down some significant markers regarding what an American Orthodox Church should look like. I agree with its declaration. Despite its many foibles, somebody in Syosset understands what a mature ecclesiology looks like and the neither-fish-nor-fowl-make-it-up-as-we-go Plan A that Bartholomew and his GOA minions have concocted is dead in the water if the OCA sticks to its guns. The question now is, are they going to hold to the autocephalist position (Plan B) or are they going to fold like a house of cards?

Comments

  1. Michael Kinsey says

    Very, very, well above my pay grade, obviously. But, the tone of this article reflects another useless worldly vanity, which the standard ( follow the money) concerns seem to be the principle focus. Enlighten me otherwise, if my assessment seems a little sharp. I genuinely would like to look up to these leaders entrusted with guiding us to receive Eternal Life, which is in pure honesty, my principle focus. I am 67, getting old.

    • Virginia Dean says

      Michael K-precisely ! None of this nonsense is salvific. It’s Byzantine and political and military ( seize and hold). Who will be the latter day Orthodox Martin Luther?

    • nancy forderhase says

      principal, principal (not principle) fingernails on a blackboard. . . . .

  2. In Spanish, at least in Mexico, there’s a proverb: ‘La mayor dificultad es la poca voluntad’: Our greatest obstacle is a lack of will-power.

    It’s (at least) my own impression that the various canonical orthodox ‘jurisdictions’ in America have no great motivation urging them to full administrative unity.

    Additionally, I expect that any form of administrative unity (american autocephaly) which does not coalesce under the direction of Constantinople will not be deemed worthy of approval by the upcoming Great and Holy Synod.

    I’m reminded at this juncture of the feckless Bp Vsevolod Maydanskiy (Ukrainians under C-pole) and Met. Nicholas Smishko (ACROD) who betrayed the consensus of the Ligonier conference in 1993 and lied to the EP about american sentiments toward administrative unity, thus setting back the cause at least fifty years.

    We Orthodox in the USA haven’t yet sloughed off the residue of that scurrilous misadventure, but it’s the lies which C-pole believes, not the truth.

    So I’m not optimistic. At least not yet. May the grace of God inform and guide our bishops, evaporate the church politics, and prove me wrong.

    • George Michalopulos says

      That may be true Monk James (Constantinopolitan “direction”) but that all depends on other factors. I mentioned one: a power grab by C’pole of the Ukraine. There’s another one, how far C’pole will continue to go down the secularist/humanist path laid out by George Soros and his ilk.

      True, last year Bartholomew came out with a good defense of traditional marriage and pro-life. I congratulated him unequivocally. However l fear that this may have been an effort at triangulation. The various GOA parishes’ websites during the Francis/Bartholomew pilgrimage to Jerusalem led many to suppose that the East and the West were in Communion.

      thank you for reminding us of the actions of bishops Vsevolod and Nicholas of sorrowful memory in the Massacre at Ligonier. And you are right, short of active persecution, their actions did set back administrative unity by at least fifty years.

      I’m more charitable, I give it 30 years. Of course that all depends on whether we’ve devolved into separate sects at which case it will be impossible for all time.

    • Timothy Wearing says

      M. James:

      Still wanting to know where your monastery is. Anyway, there will be no “Great & Holy Council” and certainly not on the grounds of Hagia Sofia. There may be a Greek Council of some sort with “some” slav bishops, but the coronation of + Bart as an Eastern Pope with all the Ep. Ass’ all over the world taking direction from him is a Greek pipe dream. These gatherings of bishops are nice & good, but to what REAL end? Certainly not an autocephalous American Church where ALL the American bishops partake. If + Bart REALLY wants an autocephalous American Church, then just grant it. If the bishops REALLY want an autocephalous church in America, then JUST DO IT! There are NO canons stating who can or cannot grant autocephaly!

      • I’ve been a solitary monk since 1983 or so.

        While I’m unaware of any previous questions from Timothy Wearing concerning my pedigree, I’ll state it here again for the umpteenth time that the OCA monastery for which I was tonsured no longer exists, and that I’ve been in direct obedience to the OCA’s primate for the last eighteen years.

        • Timothy Wearing says

          Dear M. James,

          Orthodox Canon Law is quite clear. We don’t have monks running around “at large.” Either you are IN a monastery under the direct supervision of an Abbot or you are to be layacized. There are exceptions where a bishop may request a monk to assist him in his work, but this is an “exception.” Monks belong in monasteries or don’t call yourself a monk. Even the idea of monk priests serving parishes is totally wrong.

          • George Michalopulos says

            Orthodox Canon Law is also clear on every other practice that we have distorted here in the states. Let’s begin with “one bishop, one city…” and then go from there.

            For the record, I am shutting down all further discussion on Monk James’ status. All further concerns about his state should be made to Syosset. Unless I hear differently, Monk James is a monk and should be treated as such.

          • Estonian Slovak says

            Dear Mr. Wearing,
            Canon Law is quite clear. We don’t allow twice married priests to continue serving. Oh, unless you happened to be a favorite of the late Metropolitan Philip. We don’t allow homosexual clergy. Oh, but there’s the OCA Archdeacon who married a man, but still serves. Canon Law says a presbyter must attain age 30 before ordination. But there’s the Serbian bishop who was made a priest before his 20th birthday! Do you see where I’m going with this?

    • Gail Sheppard says

      Curious as to why no mention was made of the withdrawal of Metropolitan Philips’s troops. Even more curious as to when they rejoined:

      The Most Rev. Metropolitan Joseph
      First Vice Chairman
      Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

      The Rt. Rev. Bishop Basil
      Secretary
      Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

      Seems to me that would be “news.” I probably just missed it. When did THAT happen?

  3. Quote from the Preliminary Response:

    “In His High Priestly Prayer in St. John’s Gospel, our Lord Jesus Christ prays to the Father and asks that “they may be one, as we are”. How is this to be realized if we place limits on our responsibility to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?”

    I don’t want to be overly critical. Given the current climate, those who seek administrative unity have reason to be heartened by the fact that that there were proposals at all to which a preliminary response could be made.

    However, it should be noted that the question at the end of the above quotation reveals an understanding of ecclesiology that is simply wrong-headed and highly un-Orthodox. It is an expression of the same gross misunderstanding of Christ’s prayer that is at the core of every false ecumenism that exists.

    • Oh, no! This is a great misunderstanding!

      The full-on, real, and practical understanding of ecclesiology in the authentically orthodox catholic christian Tradition is EUCHARISTIC.

      Among us Orthodox, we have and have always had that, a few missteps notwithstanding.

      But we have NEVER had that with the heterodox. Not one single local orthodox church has EVER re-established eucharistic communion with any heterodox group — not with the RCs, not with the non-chalcedonian churches, and especially not with the anglican and protestant churches.

      • “Among us Orthodox, we have and have always had that…”

        We have indeed. And to be clear, it was not my intention to accuse the OCA of false ecumenism in it’s preliminary response – only to point out that we have this gift of unity because Christ’s high-priestly is already answered in our midst. Being one as the Holy Trinity is one cannot be conceived of in administrative categories. Perhaps this is what the author intended when he/she used the word “realized” in the context of discussing administrative unity. If so, I apologize fully and sincerely. But if/when discussions of unity center on how our actions can ‘bring about’ unity and become the answer to Christ’s prayer, they are – and always will be – wrong-headed, false, and dangerous.

      • Antiochians commune Jacobites and vice versa. This may be characterized as something other than full communion, but it is shared communion nonetheless.

    • Yes, it is an echo of the drivel coming from the Vatican. The Church is one. Christ prayed it and it is a reality, not an aspiration. “I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” – not that “there should be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”.

      There is. It is the Orthodox Church.

  4. WCC bodies including Orthodox participate in climate summit and statement signing:

    http://www.interfaithclimate.org/the-statement

  5. There is no need for some centralized administrative unity in this country at this time, especially given the modernist and ecumenist bent of some of the jurisdictions. Thank God we don’t have it! We DO have full Eucharistic unity. This is the glory we should be emphasizing to the heterodox. The American Orthodox Church is happening in real time, parish by parish.

    • Timothy Wearing says

      “… modernist and ecumenist bent of some of the jurisdictions.”

      As opposed to ROCOR pretending they are living in 1800 Russia isolated from the world? It’s called “sectarianism.” Thank God most of the Orthodox in America aren’t living in some pretend world. We in the Church, are living in the World to bring the world into the Church. This isn’t done via isolationism nor parading around looking like long bearded, pony-tailed, black-cassocked uneducated nuts.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Timothy, I think that’s unfair. If they really behaved that way, then they wouldn’t be evangelizing all over the world. (Although come to think of it, the ROC in the 1800s was doing a bang-up job evangelizing.)

      • Michael Bauman says

        (Sarcasm on)”And your grandmother wears army boots”(sarcasm off) Mr Wearing, your knee-jerk response which is nothing but a tiresome straw man is very wearing on me.

        Put away the infantile nonsense. Same for the ecumenists who just screech the word and expect hell fire to engulf them.

        Grow up.

      • Robert Romero says

        @ Timothy Wearing,

        What a terribly uncharitable comment you have cast at our brothers and sisters in ROCOR. It is obvious that you consider another “style” of Orthodoxy in America to be preferable. May I ask what “style” do you prefer? Such an uncharitable mindset sets back greater Orthodox cooperation in America. Your comment greatly saddened me.

      • Estonian Slovak says

        That’s right, Timothy, bring on the bigotry! For years, you all blubbered that we in ROCOR were out of communion with “World Orthodoxy.” Now we’re in communion and you continue the bigoted attacks. As my late “Hunky” father-in-law used to say, “Even if Christ came down from the Cross, you’d still want more…”

      • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

        RE: ROCOR clergy “parading around looking like long bearded, pony-tailed, black-cassocked uneducated nuts”

        Mr. Wearing, I do not have a long beard or a ponytail, nor am I uneducated or, according to most of my family and friends, nuts. And I would not describe my standing, walking, and other physical movements as tantamount to a parade. But you got me with the “black-cassocked” charge, although I generally prefer gray.

        Anthropologist Margaret Mead wrote, “Instead of being presented with stereotypes by age, sex, color, class, or religion, children must have the opportunity to learn that within each range, some people are loathsome and some are delightful.”

        Try to be delightful next time.

      • Sean Richardson says

        Timothy, contrary to what others on here have suggested, you have articulated the way many people view ROCOR. The times I’ve attended liturgy, with friends, in a ROCOR parish, I felt that the whole experience was an effort to rekindle a romantic nostalgia for a Russia that never existed. Yes, there are many who love this approach to Orthodoxy, but it’s not one that appeals to me, and is not designed to be evangelical, to bring the Gospel of Christ to America. It’s designed to bring the people back to Russia, which is why it appeals to so many immigrants.

        • Sean, your perception is not true. There’s a strong English speaking covert movement in ROCOR which has little to no interest in the Russian land; only her Saints, liturgical practices and piety. This is evidenced by Jordanville now including seminary courses in English, as well as regular liturgies in English.

          • Sean Richardson says

            ROCORthodox (I like your name, by the way, very creative); I hope that this is true, but from the experiences I have had, which are almost entirely on the West Coast, I just haven’t seen it. There is no doubt that Russia has a shining history of saints and piety. This I would never discount. On the other hand, Russia also has a history that is not quite so pious. I pray that every church, priest and lay person is open to piety and Christian outreach.

        • Engaged observer says

          Sean,

          Please visit our ROCOR English-language parish in Texas, or any ROCOR English-language parish for that matter. Only about 15-20% of our parish has any Russian blood at all.

          Yes, we pray for Pat. Kirill and for Vladikas Hilarion, Alypy, and Peter, as we are under their loving spiritual guidance, but we long for Christ, not for Russia. And we are building up our church here in America, not in Russia. Many in our parish are current or former members of the US military — you don’t get much more American than that.

          It’s a silly notion that in order to be “American” one must be in an “American” jurisdiction. I’m thankful that Saint Herman of Alaska and St Innocent of Alaska did not feel that way. Roman Catholics are not under an “American” jurisdiction.

          Even the urban, Russian ROCOR parishes are changing — I’ve been to the ROCOR cathedral in SF to venerate the relics of St John Maximovitch and yes, while it’s heavily Russian, I worshipped at their 50% English vigil service. From what I hear, they have an English-language Divine Liturgy on Sundays also. Furthermore, the ROCOR diocese of Chicago and Midwestern America is one of the fastest growing Orthodox dioceses in the United States.

          Depicting ROCOR in America as those who “parade around looking like long bearded, pony-tailed, black-cassocked uneducated nuts” is a straw-man argument that is really meant to shut down all discussion. You may as well just start calling us racists because the goal is the same thing: to reinforce the notion that ROCOR offers nothing to our Church in America. Those who are aware of the reality of Orthodoxy in America know this straw-man argument is ridiculous and is the opposite of the truth.

          • Honest question: I know of only a few English-language ROCOR parishes in the US. Where would you say are the largest ones?

            Thanks for your thoughts.

            • Michael Bauman says

              Michael C. I don’t know about size but most of the ROCOR parishes in the middle of the country (from Texas north) list English as, at least, their primary liturgical language. There is one in Texas that lists their liturgical languages as English, Church Slavonic and Spanish.

              We need to pay less attention to the northeast and the west coast.

              The prairie states have long had a way of dissolving troglodytic ethnocentrism. The space alone is often enough to open minds and hearts. Frequently social, political and religious movements finally become American here, a part of the soil and fabric of the cultural life.

              Right now most of that work seems to be concentrated in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. IMAO at least.

              So, those that want to be “free of foreign bishops” you might try coming here (if you are not already).

              The only thing that will allow us to grow beyond our beginnings is to be founded in this land, not just resting on top of it. That will bring many cosmetic changes that died in the wool ‘traditionalists’ probably won’t like but that is where discernment must be applied.

        • The resentment stems from Americanization. If you look at ROCOR’s practices contrasted with those of the modernist jurisdictions, ROCOR’s practices were largely universal before the end of the nineteenth century. Or, to put it another way, in resenting ROCOR, they are resenting the Church as it existed for about 19 centuries.

          But no matter, modern America is the norm, just like the heterodox here.

          • Isa Almisry says

            “The resentment stems from Americanization. If you look at ROCOR’s practices contrasted with those of the modernist jurisdictions, ROCOR’s practices were largely universal before the end of the nineteenth century. Or, to put it another way, in resenting ROCOR, they are resenting the Church as it existed for about 19 centuries.”
            ROCOR would like to think that, but no.

            • Hmmm . . .

              Open space rather than pews

              Women covering their heads

              Observing the Church Calendar

              Priests with “that furry look”

              Moral clarity rather than equivocation

              Eucharistic discipline

              Decided separation from the heterodox

              I could go on about things great and small but, of course, you know I’m right. Actually what I asserted is quite demonstrably true and every honest person who has experience of both modernist and traditionalist jurisdictions knows it to a certainty, whether they admit it to themselves or not.

              • Isa Almisry says

                The Antiochian parish where I go has no pews-we had to take them out because it was a Lutheran Church (we joked about having a bon fire with them in the yard, but decided to donate them to a Protestant Church instead). Nor did we have them in my previous OCA Church (consecrated by Pat. St. Tikhon himself, and served by St. John Kuchorov). The local Serbian Cathedral has them-I notice them always being packed.
                http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2014/01/06/22/15/WTix4.St.4.jpeg

                Most if not all the women in our Church cover their heads (there is a basket by the door with veils, if one is missing one), and I seem to recall a lot in the OCA Church too. But I don’t notice such things so much: being around veiled women a lot who I know are hiding something, I don’t get so easily impressed.

                “Observing the Church Calendar” You mean like celebrating all the Feasts? Did/do that at both Churches. As for pretending the sun isn’t in the sky, the Fathers didn’t do that, so why would we?

                “Priests with “that furry look”” back home that would be a sheikh. Knowing that the priests risk their necks, I don’t pay attention to their beards (though my Antiochian priest has one, as did the OCA priest-at present he’s the guardian of the Tikhvin Mother of God in Russia, as he was in America). Just because a goat has a beard, doesn’t make him an archimandrite (though I’ve known a lot of pious and good ROCOR priests who had them. Beards, that is. Not goats).

                “Moral clarity rather than equivocation” Can’t argue with that. Although what is moral can be debated-it doesn’t include restoration of the Romanovs, for instance.

                “Eucharistic discipline” Can’t argue with that either, although I might ask for some specifics. Avoiding communion to a minimum of once a year, if that, falls under abuse rather than discipline.

                “Decided separation from the heterodox”
                I prefer the term “heretic.” Again, details. Pulling out of the WCC? Fine. No concelebration with the Vatican? That’s fine too. But when it comes to issues of intermarriage and co-ordination in society for common goals and fighting common enemies….we need details of the red line.

                19th century Russia is too modernist for me-no traditional Orthodox society would have come up with that Erastian Protestant inspired monstrosity of the “Spiritual Regulations” and its Ober-Prokurator and his Most Holy Governing Synod.

                • Well, I’m glad that we are in full agreement about everything other than the Calendar. I dare say most Antiochian and most OCA parishes do have pews and that, at most, covering is an option in both jurisdictions, not mandatory as St. Paul commanded and as the Church observed before modernism.

                  As to that, the Church has spoken on its calendar, the New Calendarists simply dislike it since it does not correspond to the practice of the “heretics” you mention. That was clearly and incontrovertibly the intent of Pat. Meletios IV. And it is/was shameful. I’m not sure what the sun has to do with it either. If the Church had adopted a revised calendar, fine. It never did. It was divisive and foolish and the foolishness continues in the name of ecumenism and modernity.

                  Thank you once again for asserting that I was wrong and then proving my point. Also, thank you for confirming that you are a rank hypocrite for asserting the autocephaly of the OCA on the one hand and, on the other, rejecting it with your belonging to an Antiochian parish, a jurisdiction ruled from Damascus which, according to you, has no canonical claim to operate an entire Metropolitan Archdiocese here in America overlapping bishops of the territory of another “autocephalous” church.

      • I prefer to look like a long bearded, pony-tailed, black-cassocked educated nut. Here in the South, it’s a great conversation starter.

      • Yeah, right Timothy. ROCOR has built a strong and GROWING global network of Churches based on your false assertions of nutty, uneducated pretending.

        How about build upon God’s blessing, as well as the New Martyrs, St. John of SF and many other Saintly intercessors. Miracles are being reported as well through Fr. Seraphim Rose of thrice blessed memory, not to mention the incorrupt relics of Metropolitan Philaret.

        The more modernism, scandals of homosexuality and its endorsement, etc, etc, etc, etc, that keep coming out, the more ROCOR grows! Yes, the American Orthodox Church is happening right here, right now.

    • Rather odd-or should I say ironic-that someone from a jurisdiction that prides itself as adhering to the canons as strictly as possible dismisses something that the canons embraced as a central principle.

      We are One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not several. Christ has a Bride, not a multi-cultural harem.

      • Isa, there is only One Church. Full Eucharistic communion is the proof of this, not administrative guidelines which can and have changed. Dogma is non-negotiable; administrative guides serve the Church. The hierarchs are choosing to exercise their rightful authority in this matter as they see fit in this country.

      • Christ gave the power to bind and loose, to administer canon law, to the episcopacy. They are exercising it. They also have a responsibility to adhere to orthopraxis within their dioceses and synods, to evangelize and, generally, to help their flocks “acquire the Holy Spirit”.

        Administrative unity in a country which has never really fully enjoyed it seems to be a more remote concern to those charged with the responsibility of deciding the issue.

        Thank God.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Misha, while I agree with you on so many issues, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that the bishops are exercising their canonical authority. You would be right if you singled out certain jurisdictions but no evidence at all in making such a general statements. If anything, the EAUSA has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into making even the most tepid declarations on anything.

        • “Administrative unity in a country which has never really fully enjoyed it”
          What country would that be?

          • I think recently it has been fairly well established that the Greeks were never really on board with the Russian mission in America. Serbs and Arabs sometimes came in and out. Before the Bolshevik Revolution there was some semblance of unity under Moscow, except that the Greeks, though on rare occasions saluting in that direction, were essentially congregationalists in the early period.

            After the Bolshevik Revolution, of course, unity became a thing of the past, even in semblance. But the influx of Orthodox to the United States has coincided with the great period of disunity. Early on, there was only a trickle. Well, that’s all relative of course. The number of Orthodox Christians in this country as a percentage of the population is still miniscule.

            • “I think recently it has been fairly well established that the Greeks were never really on board with the Russian mission in America.”

              Our fellow Bishop Reginus, most beloved by God, and with him the most God-beloved Bishops of the province of the Cypriotes Zeno and Evagrius, has announced an innovation, a thing which is contrary to the ecclesiastical laws and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and one which touches the freedom of all. Hence, since common ailments require more drastic treatment, on the ground that they do greater damage, and especially in view of the fact that the Bishop of Antioch, far from following the ancient custom, has been performing the ordinations in Cyprus, according to information given in libelli and by oral statements made by most pious gentlemen who have approached the Holy Council; therefore those who preside over the churches in Cyprus shall retain their privilege unaffected and inviolate, according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers and ancient custom, whereby they shall themselves perform the ordinations of the most reverent Bishops. The same rule shall hold good also with regard to the other diocese and churches everywhere, so that none of the Bishops most beloved by God shall take hold of any other province that was not formerly and from the beginning in his jurisdiction, or was not, that is to say, held by his predecessors. But if anyone has taken possession of any and has forcibly subjected it to his authority, he shall regive it back to its rightful possessor, in order that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, nor the secular fastus be introduced, under the pretext of divine services; lest imperceptibly and little by little we lose the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, has given us as a free gift by His own blood. It has therefore seemed best to the holy and Ecumenical Council that the rights of every province, formerly and from the beginning belonging to it, be preserved clear and inviolable, in accordance with the custom which prevailed of yore; each Metropolitan having permission to take copies of the proceedings for his own security. If, on the other hand, anyone introduce any form conflicting with the decrees which have now been sanctioned, it has seemed best to the entire holy and Ecumenical Council that it be invalid and of no effect.

              The Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, Canon 8.

              The following interesting facts also must not be omitted, although since we are dealing here with only Greek communities they must be consigned to a footnote: In Chicago in 1882 a Slavo-Hellenic union was formed and called a Greek-born priest of Russian education to minister to all the Orthodox churchmen there. In Seattle about the same date the Greek sailors who had settled there placed themselves under the Russian bishop, who provided a Greek priest, graduate of a Russian seminary. Also in Galveston, Texas, some Greek sailors established a church, but being unable to support it, gave it over to the Russian bishop, and the Divine Liturgy was celebrated in both languages. But in all these places, as soon as the Greeks became numerous enough, they established their own purely Greek church communities under the jurisdiction of Constantinople or Athens.

              Greeks in America: An Account of Their Coming, Progress, Customs, Living and Aspirations” by Thomas Burgess (1914)

              You can hold that one can put up shop in someone else’s territory, but you have to contradict the Canons and Scripture (
              The OCA Cathedral of San Francisco was incorporated in 1867 (having been in existence from the remnants of Fort Ross who settled there, along with immigrants from Alaska, then a foreign state) with the Greek Consul George Fisher and the Russian plenipotentiary in the transferal of Alaska to the US, Alexis Peschurov, signing on as members with the earlier established Orthodox Society of SF. The Greeks of SF did not become numerous enough to establish their own purely Greek church until 1903, and then still sought the blessing of the bishop of North America, Bp. St. Tikhon. The next year, St. Tikhon consecrated Bp. St. Raphael for the Antiochians in America, an act forbidden under Canon 8 unless St. Tikhon had jurisdiction over North America. The first consecration of an Orthodox bishop in the New World. It would be 3 more years until the Phanar would make a claim over North America-too late-and another 10 before a Greek bishop would set foot in the New World making a claim on the basis of the infamous Tomos of 1908, and four more years until the Greeks would organize a separate jurisdictional organization, with fourth bishops-all of which were preceded by bishops of the Russian Mission/OCA.

              Estonia, Moldova, Ukraine, the ROCA in Russia….by your standard the Patriarchate of Moscow doesn’t really enjoy administrative unity.

              “The number of Orthodox Christians in this country as a percentage of the population is still miniscule.”
              Administative disunity isn’t going to beef the numbers up any.

              • And all of the above is supposed to prove that the Greeks in America saluted toward Moscow up to the Bolshevik Revolution? And if not, what is your point, if you have one?

                • Isa Almisry says

                  The OCA went on without the Greeks, like the Patriarchate of Moscow went on without ROCOR.

                  • Except that the Greeks are dramatically more numerous than the OCA which claims jurisdiction over them when they never asked for autocephaly.

                    Again, a joke.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “Except that the Greeks are dramatically more numerous than the OCA which claims jurisdiction over them when they never asked for autocephaly.”
                      Rather odd, given your strident demands on the continuance of the shrinking Russian minority in Ukraine’s control of the Church there.

                      America has about 3 million Greeks, and Canada over a quarter million, but the GOARCH has only less than half a million members, and the Metropolis of Toronto even less. The latter is especially the Greek Orthodox Church Outside of Greece, not reconciling itself to what continent it is located on. Why would they ask for autocephaly, when they deny that they have left mom’s apron strings?

                      “Again, a joke.”
                      Well, the Patriarchate of Moscow, which was and remains dramatically more numerous than ROCOR, got the last laugh. The regular attendees of GOARCH outnumber the regular attendees of the OCA only 3 to 1.

                    • “Well, the Patriarchate of Moscow, which was and remains dramatically more numerous than ROCOR, got the last laugh.”

                      What last laugh? They were slaves of the communists until Gorbachev. They spent years purging collaborators. When it appeared wise, ROCOR reunited with them. No one was laughing about anything except with joy at the reunification of the Russian Church.

                      “The regular attendees of GOARCH outnumber the regular attendees of the OCA only 3 to 1.”

                      Quit digging. You keep proving my points. I think you feel obligated to shoot back even though you have no ammo.

    • Fr. Peter Dubinin says

      ROCORthodox – could you explain this for me please – “There is no need for some centralized administrative unity in this country at this time, especially given the modernist and ecumenist bent of some of the jurisdictions. Thank God we don’t have it! We DO have full Eucharistic unity…”

      To me this is doublespeak. How can I as an Orthodox Christian praise God there is no administrative unity because of the modernist and ecumenist bent of some of the jurisdictions and then say praise God we have full Eucharistic unity”?

      Christians being united in the Eucharist means we hold all things in common; thus the reason we do not participate with non-Orthodox in the Eucharist. If we do not as Orthodox Christians have all things in common (agreement in understanding and practice re: ecumenism, modernism), then Eucharistic unity is a joke. On the other hand, if we have Eucharistic unity then we must have one local territorial Church – how else are we going to address any anomalies or false teachings, leanings which are against the Church of Jesus Christ.?

      • Fr. Peter, very simply: the modernists have their perspective on how clergy should be dressed, how and why the liturgy should be altered, the calendar, fasting, etc, etc, etc. They have their arguments in support of their positions, and are as dedicated to them as those who disagree. In spite of those differences, we do confess the same Creed. As such, we have full Eucharistic communion. I believe forcing some central administrative body upon this unique situation would actually jeopardize our Eucharistic communion. This is why I praise God there is no central administration in this country. We just don’t need it. Let the local customs persist where they are found. ROCOR is not for everybody, nor are the Antiochians, etc. Let everyone find what benefits them, while at the same time enjoy the benefits of being in FULL Eucharistic communion with their other Orthodox brothers and sisters.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Your line of reasoning is seductive. I more or less subscribe to it at this point, at least for the time being. We need another generation in the wilderness for the current crop of bishops to pass away and/or endure persecution. Fr Peter’s line of reasoning however is the correct one.

          Put it this way: we’ll share the Body and Blood of Christ but we won’t share the real estate. I ask: which is trivial and which is important?

          • I would add to this that I would not want to see any attempt at “administrative unity” until the situation in Istanbul is straightened out. I believe the “ecumenical patriarch” to be an excellent example of an anachronism. Constantinople is long dead, and yet we have a bishop (with less than 2,000 souls under his care I understand) who is an “ecumenical patriarch”, and appoints many “metropolitan’s” under him with titles of cities that the muslims purged and renamed centuries ago. Because of cannon law that is quite literally more than a 1000 years old and very obviously meant for a different political and geographic situation, he has various privileges that he simply should not have. To top it all off, he and his predecessors have been desperately trying to make themselves relevant, by dubiously putting forth negative types of ecumenism and political posturing (e.g. “climate change”). In point of fact, his acceptance of Rome’s “two lungs” ecclesiology may even make him a de facto uniate.

            Is the rest of world Orthodoxy ready to face up to Istanbul and right the ship? If not, do we really need a “great council” right now? Without satisfactory answers to these questions any attempt at “administrative unity” in america will have the dark stamp of Istanbul all over it…

        • Fr. Peter Dubinin says

          ROCORthodox – I’m not convinced you grasp what an autocephalous Church is. When you make statments such as these, it makes me wonder – “Full Eucharistic communion is the proof of this, not administrative guidelines which can and have changed..” and “I believe forcing some central administrative body upon this unique situation would actually jeopardize our Eucharistic communion.” and “There is no need for some centralized administrative unity…” From this it seems you understand autocephaly as administrative guidelines, central administrative body, etc. At the very least an autocephalous Church is one in which there is one bishop in one city for one geographical portion of the Church; with these bishops together comprising one Holy Synod within the larger geographical territory from which a first hierarch is elected. On a practical matter, it is within this construct that local problems confronting the Church are addressed. And all of this because as those who are in Eucharistic communion we hold all things in common – to include the problems confronting us as Orthodox Christians. From the Didache (c. 1st Century – Then in connection with the piece [broken off the loaf]: “We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have revealed through Jesus, your child. To you be glory forever. “As this piece [of bread] was scattered over the hills and then was brought together and made one, so let your Church be brought together from the ends of the earth into your Kingdom. For yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.” The unity in the Eucharist was always understood by the Church to be reflected in one Church. We are not dualists believing in a disembodied, ethereal, “mystical” church as O so many protestants; thinking that and convincing ourselves that we don’t need to have a visible unity because we have some kind of “spiritual” unity.

          • George Michalopulos says

            Thank you Fr Peter. If I may add this caveat: a truly autocephalous church would have autonomous dioceses as well. I don’t like the looks of increased centralization even if it takes place in Syosset.

          • “At the very least an autocephalous Church is one in which there is one bishop in one city for one geographical portion of the Church; with these bishops together comprising one Holy Synod within the larger geographical territory from which a first hierarch is elected.”

            If this is so, OCA is not autocephalous. It has overlapping ethnic dioceses:

            http://oca.org/dioceses/romanian-episcopate

            http://oca.org/parishes/diocese/AL

            http://oca.org/dioceses/bulgarian-diocese

            Perhaps it is you who do not understand what an autocephalous church is. The only ones who are not acting in accordance with their stated positions are Moscow and the OCA. Moscow has split the difference between ROCOR and the OCA, and the OCA has disregarded its own asserted principles of diocesan integrity within itself as well as made recognition of its autocephaly optional for any jurisdiction that asserts a presence on its claimed territory.

            That is not autocephaly at all.

            • Fr. Peter Dubinin says

              Misha – you assume, incorrectly, that when I insist the Orthodox Churches in the US must come together in an autocephalous Church, I am saying that they must do so within the structure of the OCA. If the alleged autocephaly of the OCA is “the” problem preventing an autocephalous Church in the US, then get rid of it; get it out of the way. Because of the history of the Orthodox in the US, no one jurisdiction is going to make autocephaly happen. I look to the local, territorial, canonical Orthodox Churches to make autocephaly a reality in America. As such, an autocephalous Church in the US will not take place in my life time, but that does not equate to it is somehow permissible or acceptable to not pray for and pursue it – now. The longer we remain divided in the US the more entrenched the “wierdness” in our Orthodox Churches will become and the more difficult coming together in one autocephalous Church will be in the future. God provides to us an opportunity as Orthodox in America to be the place where the “wierdness” can be brought to an end; because all the “wierdness” which exists in various places throughout the world, converge in the US. We could in fact take the lead….. In reality however, we will in all likelihood perpetuate and deepen the divide among us until we are completely irrelevant (irrelevant from God’s perspective, not from the world’s which already considers us irrelevant). In which case, it just won’t matter one way or the other.

              • George Michalopulos says

                Regrettably Father, I must agree with you even though I find myself on the side of those who would rather true, autocephalic unity wait until the current crop of bishops –from Bartholomew on down (particularly in the GOA)–passes from the scene.

                • Fr. Peter Dubinin says

                  I just don’t see how waiting for the current crop of bishops to pass from the scene will increase the probability for a “true, autocephalic unity” to occur. Nor do I see how ‘time” will improve the conditions for an autocephalous Church because we are not ready now for autocephaly in the US. Let’s face it, we are no better than and in most instances worse than the protestants we love to castigate for the regularity by which so many are able in their minds justify schism. For us, it is the reverse. Let’s see how many ways we can justify and rationalize not being obedient to Christ in His requirement to us His disciples to express a visible unity as the expression of our Eucharistic communion. Our sin is the greater, and yes, I said sin (at the very least – disobedience to Christ) because to whom much is given much is required. It can be said of us as St. John the Baptist said of those who came to him for baptism – “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.”

              • “Misha – you assume, incorrectly, that when I insist the Orthodox Churches in the US must come together in an autocephalous Church, I am saying that they must do so within the structure of the OCA.”

                No, I don’t. Please reread what I wrote below:

                “Sin presumes a sinner. In saying the lack of an autocephalous church here is a sin, you are implying that all who do not belong to the one alleged autocephalous church here are sinning by not joining it or by not joining some larger autocephalous body composed partly of the OCA. Otherwise, you have no point.”

                If you would kindly show me from Scripture, the Fathers, the Councils or the canons where the granting of autocephaly is somehow a burning issue after a territory acquires X number of believers, or some other clear criterion, I might agree with you. But you can’t. Lack of autocephaly in America is a purely manufactured, imaginary crisis. It is not only fine not to pray or hope for it, it is insignificant. “Sin” should not come into the vocabulary when discussing the issue.

                Now, overlapping jurisdictions arguably are a serious issue. I believe there is ample precedent for some of what has gone on in America; however, it is an open question. Few would challenge the idea that, ideally, one bishop should rule in one given territory. That is not the case here, however, either outside the OCA or inside the OCA. That might be a matter to address before we even begin to talk about autocephaly.

                Father, the reason autocephaly is a burning issue with some is that a handful of activists in the Metropolia decided in the late 60’s that autonomy under Moscow would not be enough for them. It was somehow “time” for an autocephalous American church. Why is this? Personally, I ascribe it to pride, ambition, arrogance, and a number of other unseemly motives centering around the fact that they wanted their own independent little show and they were not willing to take “no” as an answer from anyone. They were already committed, being effectively under no one since 1946 and, moreover, having ethnic hostility (i.e., the Carpatho-Rus) toward their mother church.

                But the American church has a number of ethnic jurisdictions, the largest being larger than the alleged “autocephalous” OCA, both then and now. Also, our numbers here are fairly tiny if one is honest about counting them. So if someone wants to unify the American church, we can have that discussion. I would side with ROCOR’s position that orthopraxis must be agreed upon beforehand since that is much more important to acquiring the Holy Spirit than is the name of the jurisdiction on the Church to which one belongs.

                But autocephaly is a canard. Agree on practice, agree on disbanding the OCA’s ethnic dioceses. Then begin a plan for unifying each diocese under one bishop, the most senior in the proposed diocese, with other bishops in that diocese to continue as auxiliaries to assist him, succeed him, or become missionary bishops in new dioceses. Toward the end of this process, the decision might be made to unite under Moscow or Constantinople or even to proclaim autocephaly with the blessings of the patriarchs.

                But “autocephaly now” is a chimera. It is a cure for nothing. All the same problems will remain. Unite in practice, solve the diocesan problems, then autonomy or autocephaly will come in time. Heck, with all being on the same synod of an autonomous church, then even a self-proclamation of autocephaly would be easier than at present.

                But all this high and mighty, “failure to pursue autocephaly is a sin” has to stop. It’s just not true.

                • Fr. Peter Dubinin says

                  Misha: Now we’re getting somewhere. You know we are not as far apart as one might think. Bless you my son, or would that be pulling “rank”?

                • “But all this high and mighty, ‘failure to pursue autocephaly is a sin’ has to stop. It’s just not true.”

                  Agreed. It is ridiculous. While I disagree with some of your earlier statements in this post, the rest is excellent. However, I must disagree with the Carpatho-Rus statement. There is one long-standing parish that is MP in the US (i.e. stayed with Moscow after the OCA tomos), that in recent years was “labeled” as “Carpie.” So Abp Justinian decided this had to stop. They cleared out all the “troublemaker Carpies” and replaced them with Muscovites. The unfortunate thing that most Muscovites don’t understand is that most Carpies that are “Russian” (i.e. in the OCA) really consider themselves Russian. They react against a change in what they know as received practice, but this has nothing to do ethnic discord. In fact, most of these simple people just feel that Moscow is innovating on authentic Russian practice (as they know it) and react against it.

                  • Protopappas,

                    This is very difficult to believe given the divergence in practice between ROCOR and the OCA. Walking into most OCA parishes one would see pews, uncovered women, etc. Walking into most Russian churches or most ROCOR parishes, one would not. Now, as to which vestiments are appropriate for Christmas or Pascha, it’s not a burning issue with me. I think the typikon actually just differentiates between light and dark.

                    Of deeper significance is the air of worldliness. I’ve been to some fairly pious OCA parishes, and I’m sure there are some hopelessly worldly ones. However, the air of reverence of the non-touchy-feelly variety in a Russian temple is priceless. I feel it in Serbian churches as well. Probably the same on Athos, though I’ve never been.

                    On the objective level, Fr. Alexis Toth brought a large contingent of Eastern Catholics into the Russian mission in America. That’s just history. What is also true is that they were unable to get along with the Synod of the Free Russian Church, adopted the “New Calendar”, adopted westernized attire and practices, etc.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “What is also true is that they were unable to get along with the Synod of the Free Russian Church, adopted the “New Calendar”, adopted westernized attire and practices, etc.”
                      Why not blame the Arabs?

                      “Synod of the Free Russian Church”
                      You mean the émigré who fled their sees and intruded on the dioceses of others? The one hell bent on repeating the mistakes of the Russian Church, when the Russian Church had learned better?

                    • No, Isa.

                      The ones who were involuntarily forced from their sees, sometimes following their flocks, who enjoyed the blessing of the last halfway responsible Patriarch to form their synod in exile. No doubt ROCOR was ordered to disband, as was the Metropolia, but that was the Cheka/NKVD talking.

                      As to intruding on the dioceses of others, this is impossible since the Metropolia was an integral part of ROCOR, which it considered the supreme authority in the Russian Church, announcing this to its own faithful, and petitioning it to consecrate bishops as I have demonstrated repeatedly here. But I’m sure there are dishonest persons out there who will object. Such is the truth, the opinions of the Great [yet unconsecrated] Oracle of the only correct interpretation of canon law notwithstanding.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “The ones who were involuntarily forced from their sees”
                      That would not include their first first hierarchs (is that even a canonical title?). Met. Anthony never was accepted in Kiev, because he insisted on making it known that he would use the position to undermine the Ukrainians and revive efforts to Russify them, and so had no see to flee, involuntary or not.
                      Met. Anastasy refused to join the Church of Romania-Moldavia was, and is, Romanian-and so voluntarily accepted election to the Holy Synod of Russia. Canonical order and justice being re-established in Chișinău under Romania, he chose his nationality over his see, and stayed in Russia, where Chișinău was not.
                      Not having learned the lesson over prioritizing their politics over piety, and confusing the two, they issued the call for the defunct Romanovs, leading to their disbandment by Pat. St. Tikhon. I don’t know of any calls by St. Tikhon and March 14/2, 1917 to restore the monarchy and impose it on Russia-do you?

                      “As to intruding on the dioceses of others, this is impossible since the Metropolia was an integral part of ROCOR”
                      The OCA/Metropolia was an Archdiocese as the Canons define one. ROCOR…it had no canonical basis for its existence. You can’t be “integral part” of a non-entity, at least you can’t be and be Orthodox. The Apostolic Canons mandate recognition of the head of the nation. ROCOR did not, nor does not, fit that description-in fact, with the denial of its “first hierarch” as Patriarch of All Russia (hence, the futility to appeal to the example of the Church of Cyprus), it never really claimed to.

                      You have repeated ROCOR’s assertions-including those that have been disproven (e.g. the accusation of forgery of Met. Platon’s ukaze). Whatever that demonstrates, it’s neither history nor Orthodox ecclesiology.

                    • Ah, Isa, wrong all the way around. It’s getting boring. Look at the excerpt on Met. Antony I posted for Vladyka Tikhon.

                      More OCA pseudo-history. Is it any wonder they have few fans? Very American though, “us against the evil world.”

                    • By the way, Met. Platon’s letter/ukase was indeed a forgery, this has not even been called into question, the dicta of a Canadian court deciding another issue notwithstanding.

                      It’s interesting, in the bizarro-world of Isa, Isa alone seems to understand the actual status of all of these people much better than they themselves did, whether Metropolia hierarchs who asserted their unity under ROCOR, or the five professors who agreed on that fact, or the hierarchs of the Metropolia who requested approval of episcopal ordinations from ROCOR. All of these clergy, et al. were daft and Isa alone, relying on his own authority to bind and loose, perceives the “true” canonical reality all, known only to him and to God.

                      Or maybe Isa is daft and simply wants reality to be otherwise than it was or is, twisting things into a shape the actual participants at the time would have ridiculed.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “Ah, Isa, wrong all the way around. It’s getting boring. Look at the excerpt on Met. Antony I posted for Vladyka Tikhon.”
                      I did. Wrong all the way around the point. And boring.

                      “Very American though, “us against the evil world.”
                      LOL. Very odd, given the borderline “faithful remnant” claims made by many in ROCOR. Talk about “pseudo-history.”

                      “By the way, Met. Platon’s letter/ukase was indeed a forgery, this has not even been called into question”

                      Of course not: its validity has been vouched for, besides by the OCA 1970 Tomos per Ukaz 362, by the Patriarchate of Moscow, the OCA, the US Superior Courts (including IIRC SCOTUS), the above mentioned Canadian court, etc. If ROCOR wants to grasp at the straws of a few inferior courts (and its own creative mythology of Kiev 1907), it can’t complain when its hands are burned when the strawman goes “poof!”.

                      “It’s interesting, in the bizarro-world of Isa”
                      In Isa’s world the calendar says October 4, 2014. Not March 14 (much less 1) 1917. If you find that bizarre, well….

                      “Isa alone seems to understand the actual status of all of these people much better than they themselves did, whether Metropolia hierarchs who asserted their unity under ROCOR”
                      Not that hard. Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia called Platon the Metropolitan of North America, and that was ratified with finality by the Patriarch of Moscow and the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia and the Orthodox Church in America in the 1970 Tomos, with crystal clarity. Knowing how to see through claims made by the Vatican and the Phanar makes it quite easy to understand the claims of ROCOR too.

                      “the five professors who agreed on that fact”
                      And who was this pentarchy?

                      “the hierarchs of the Metropolia…”
                      Abp. Apollinary did not get the Sobor of Winnipeg, nor the Cathedral of San Francisco, nor that of Sitka, nor St. Nicholas in NYC. Not at that time. Not his successors now.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “The ones who were involuntarily forced from their sees, sometimes following their flocks, who enjoyed the blessing of the last halfway responsible Patriarch to form their synod in exile. ”
                      Btw, I think I pointed out that the Free Russian Bishops and parishes in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Czechoslovakia never joined that “synod in exile.” For one thing, they were not in exile. They stayed in their sees.
                      Like the bishops in North America. With that Patriarch’s blessing.

                    • Carl Kraeff says

                      Misha writes “…divergence in practice between ROCOR and the OCA. Walking into most OCA parishes one would see pews, uncovered women, etc…Of deeper significance is the air of worldliness. I’ve been to some fairly pious OCA parishes, and I’m sure there are some hopelessly worldly ones. However, the air of reverence of the non-touchy-feelly variety in a Russian temple is priceless. I feel it in Serbian churches as well. Probably the same on Athos, though I’ve never been.”

                      If cannot think of a better example of a “holier than thou” attitude. Sad, really.

                • “Lack of autocephaly in America is a purely manufactured, imaginary crisis.”
                  The problem is America has autocephaly. Denying that has created the crisis, in which the Phanar images that it can revoke any Church’s autocephaly (and that includes Moscow’s), others imagine that Church in the New World isn’t the same as in the Old World and so doesn’t have to follow the rules that the Fathers laid down in Ecumenical Council, and others imagine that they are in the Old World/Country.

                  “Sin” should not come into the vocabulary when discussing the issue.”
                  Heretical ecclesiology-and the deniers of of autocephaly ALL depend on their own flavor of heretical ecclesiology-should be called its name-sin.

                  “If you would kindly show me from Scripture, the Fathers, the Councils or the canons where the granting of autocephaly is somehow a burning issue after a territory acquires X number of believers, or some other clear criterion…”
                  Once granted-and it has been in North America-the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Councils and the Canons are ablaze with the issue, e.g. Canon 8 of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, which specifically says:”Our brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellow beloved of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province of Cyprus, have reported to us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the ecclesiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and which touches the liberties of all…Wherefore, since injuries affecting all require the more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and particularly when they are transgressions of an ancient custom…The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere…lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood….every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is here determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.”
                  North America is part of “everywhere.”

                  “They were already committed, being effectively under no one since 1946 and, moreover, having ethnic hostility (i.e., the Carpatho-Rus) toward their mother church.”
                  The Carpatho-Rus have always gotten on well with the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. What are you talking about?
                  Or is this the Ukrainian/Carpatho-Rus conspiracy nonsense raising its ugly head again? Once again, those Carpatho-Rus hostile to the imposition of Great Russian tradition (not a sin, btw) were in ACROD. Those who EMBRACED it were in the OCA.
                  To put names to the accusations: both Schmemann and Meyendorf were Great Russians. So much for conspiracies.

                  “I would side with ROCOR’s position that orthopraxis must be agreed upon beforehand since that is much more important to acquiring the Holy Spirit than is the name of the jurisdiction on the Church to which one belongs.”
                  The Scriptures, the Fathers, the Councils and the Canons condemn Donatism.
                  Either you are in, or you are out of, communion with the Orthodox bishops of the diptychs of the Catholic Church. If ROCOR’s position was correct, the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Councils and Canons would not be filled with their condemnation of schism: any schism in the name of purity would be OK.
                  We know of course that ROCOR wants the orthopraxis of Moscow-or, rather the heavenly Moscow, Jordanville-to be agreed on, if not imposed. Get it adopted in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Bucharest and Athens, before worrying about Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Washington, Motreal and Toronto. Again, the New World plays by the same rules as the Old World.

                  “But “autocephaly now” is a chimera. It is a cure for nothing. ”
                  It cures LARP ecclesiology.

                  • Most of world Orthodoxy either rejects the autocephaly of the OCA or behaves as if it is not a serious proposition. Thus the issue of whether there is an autocephalous church in America is an open question. Once the Orthodox world agrees on that autocephaly, then it’s a fact. Yet that is not the case today. Diktats from the KGB do not create autocephaly for Orthodox Christians.

                    Now, that being said, there is no apparatus with any detail in place in canon law, etc. for when autocephaly should be granted. Thus a crisis presumed to exist because there is no autocephaly for the American church has no basis whatsoever in anything Orthodox.

                    Comparing ROCOR to Donatism is beneath contempt. It borders on willful lying. In fact, for someone as well read as you, it is willful lying. There is no rebaptizing the lapsed. There is no asceticism or extreme purity practiced that would not have been universally received as normative within the Orthodox world 100 years ago. Nor does ROCOR refuse to receive lapsed Christians back into the fold.

                    I stand by every word I wrote above and you have shown me nothing but a dishonest twisting of history to oppose it. Let OCA rectify its own “heretical” ecclesiology (ethnic dioceses) before saying a word to the rest of us. Or they could cease being cowards and attempt to enforce their autocephaly on their own territory. If there is sin at work, their cowardice in not walking the walk is foremost among the offenses.

                    Btw, Isa, are you in the OCA? You speak sometimes as though you are under Antioch. If so, your comments are truly comical considering the status you assert for the OCA.

                    • “To put names to the accusations: both Schmemann and Meyendorf were Great Russians. So much for conspiracies.”

                      I assert no conspiracies, only proclivities. And, “to put a name” to describe “Great Russians” who exploited the ethnic resentments of others in pursuit of self aggrandizement, I would choose “opportunists”.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “I assert no conspiracies, only proclivities.”
                      You indulge yourself in the prejudice of your stereotypes. Dragging the Ukrainians/Carptho-Russians into a intra-Russian/Philorussian matter to scapegoat them doesn’t hide ROCOR’s lack of canonical foundation to exploit the resentments of émigrés in pursuit of self aggrandizement as THE Russian Church.

                      The Russian Church faced the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union.

                      If the Carpatho-Russians of the OCA resented the Great Russians, they would have been in A.C.R.O.D.

                      And it is not resentment that makes one realize they are in North America, not Russia. It’s geography.

                    • Back to the dictionary, Isa. “Conspiracy” implies they did their dirty work behind the scenes, like the current crop in charge in Syosset. The earlier generations did much of it openly out in front of God and everybody, though they lied pathologically about it as is done presently.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “The earlier generations did much of it openly out in front of God and everybody”
                      Well then, you should have no problem producing the documentation of those deals between the OCA and the KGB and Politburo, now, should you?

                    • Isa,

                      I see. Surely you are not asserting that the KGB did not, at the very least, approve or disapprove every move the ROC made during the Soviet period? Even the current ROC will state as much. Or perhaps you are taking issue with the words of the OCA Met. Theodosius:

                      “In the June/July 1995 issue of the official newspaper of the OCA, The Orthodox Church, there were a number of articles written celebrating the 25th anniversary of autocephaly. In the article signed by the Metropolitan himself, he candidly admits to the connection between autocephaly, the OCA, and the KGB. Metropolitan Theodosius writes, “Personally, given the political situation of the Soviet Union at that time, I am amazed that the autocephaly was granted at all. How the Russian Church was able to do this, how it negotiated with the Soviet Government’s Council on Religious Affairs— these are things I did not ask'”

                      I’m not sure what deals you are referring to. I don’t think there were any deals at all. The ROC had nothing to bargain with. It was dictated to by the Soviet government and it had no choice but to obey or die – – many obeyed, and many died. But the ROC’s decisions under the Soviets were Soviet decisions. Again, I’m not aware of anyone today, even in the current ROC, who challenges this fact.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “I’m not sure what deals you are referring to.”
                      For one:”in exchange for a bribe to the KGB (Church of Japan)”
                      look familiar?
                      https://www.monomakhos.com/cracks-in-the-coalition/#comment-82741

                    • You want a bill of sale that says, “In exchange for Metropolia autocephaly, the KGB hereby receives the Church of Japan.”? How drole!

                      But seriously, this futile little exchange did set me onto something interesting. I just barely began to scratch the surface regarding the research done on the Russian Church during the Soviet period. Apparently, very good records were kept of government controls, directions and interaction with the ROC during much of this period. I read some fascinating stuff regarding the Stalinist period.

                      I’m hoping Soviet records will shed some light on the very answer to Metropolitan Theophius’ rhetorical question: “Why in the world did the KGB direct the ROC to grant autocephaly to the OCA?” The obvious answer, exchanged at the time, would be the Church of Japan. However, perhaps there was more to it even than that. I’m sure inquiring minds in GOARCH, ROCOR, etc. would like to know.

                      I’d never really bothered with such stuff until now. Thank you for the impetus.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “Comparing ROCOR to Donatism is beneath contempt. It borders on willful lying. In fact, for someone as well read as you, it is willful lying”
                      Well, then, explain the relevance of the KGB in this:
                      “Surely you are not asserting that the KGB did not, at the very least, approve or disapprove every move the ROC made during the Soviet period?”
                      or here
                      “Diktats from the KGB do not create autocephaly for Orthodox Christians.”
                      or the reference to Communists here:
                      “The patriarchates which were slaves of the communists and are now largely free do most certainly pay lip service to OCA’s autocephaly”
                      or the reference to militant atheists and the KGB here
                      “So a minority of Orthodox here in America obtained their alleged “autocephaly” on behalf of the entire American church, in exchange for a bribe to the KGB (Church of Japan), from a completely compromised Church ruled by militant atheists – both outside it as masters and within it as collaborators”
                      And what do they all have to do with the Tomos of Autocephaly granted the OCA-in 1970, 2014 or 2022?
                      (there’s more to the Donatist charge, but I want to focus).

                    • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

                      What ignorance! Further, it is outright stupidity to mindlessly declare that everything
                      had to be approved or disapproved by anybody, let alone the KGB. the KGB always was able to refrain from agreeing or disagreeing; in other words, they had a third alternative: to ignore or have no interest whatsoever.

                    • Isa,

                      I was merely stating what is obvious to everyone else. If the KGB had not approved MP’s purported grant of autocephaly to the Metropolia, it would never have happened. Perhaps your quarrel is with the former Metropolitan of the OCA who stated as much. And what did they have to gain from this?

                    • Well, Vladyka,

                      I will refrain from opining as to whether you are “stupid” or simply “ignorant” having long ago dismissed you as a fool. What I will say though is that most people who have any familiarity with the situation of the Church under the Soviet government know that it was thoroughly infiltrated by collaborators and agents. Thus the Soviet government had a hand in originating Church policy from within the Church as well as approving/disapproving officially.

                      The MP was a creature of the Soviet government during the period in question – owned and operated; lock, stock and barrel.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “And what did they have to gain from this?”
                      What indeed. Moscow had fought so long to keep the OCA, what benefit would the KGB get from letting it go.

                      Btw, I had been told that a lot of the negotiations took place in elevators, to limit the minders. So your quote is neither the first nor the only detail on the KGB I’ve known.

                      But the relevance. You seem to think it all important. Give us your proof. Or is Donatism its own proof?

                      So I repeat:what do they all have to do with the Tomos of Autocephaly granted the OCA-in 1970, 2014 or 2022?

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “I was merely stating what is obvious to everyone else. If the KGB had not approved MP’s purported grant of autocephaly to the Metropolia, it would never have happened. ”
                      Maybe I should state the obvious to everyone: saying the KGB approved the MP’s grant of autocephaly does not prove a thing that the KGB forced the MP to grant autocephaly.
                      As I point out to the Vaticanistas, just because the KGB approved of the reunion of the UGCC to the Patriarchate of Moscow does not mean the KGB forced the Patriarchate to accept them back into the fold. But if it is, as Misha alleges, then we have to concede all moral authority to the Vatican on that, and the PoM would have to drop its objection to the Vatican’s handling of it and give all the properties to their “Patriarch”Shevchuk with profuse apologies.
                      We would also have to give Estonia back to the Phanar, with interesting implications: as the EP pointed out to the Estonian born, bred, baptized, ordained and consecrated Patriarch Alexei II (who signed both the OCA Tomos, and the Act of Canonical Communion), it was in the Phanar’s jurisdiction until KGB forced the Patriarchate of Moscow to take it.

                    • Tim R Mortiss says

                      No doubt the bloody Borgia Popes could appoint valid Roman Catholic bishops, and the KGB-infiltrated Patriarchate of Moscow could issue valid Tomoses (Tomi, Tomoiai?) Were the works of the Holy Synod, created by Peter the Great, “valid”? I assume they were.

                    • “. . . saying the KGB approved the MP’s grant of autocephaly does not prove a thing that the KGB forced the MP to grant autocephaly.”

                      Does it not “prove a thing” or does it “not prove that the KGB forced the MP”, or both, or neither?

                      In any case, both you and Bishop Tikhon fail to see that there was no separation between the KGB/Soviet Government and the ROC. It was thoroughly infiltrated. Forced? Does a higher directorate of the KGB have to “force” a lower one? Silly. Murders, tortures and thorough infiltration of agents and collaboraters made the concept of “force” unnecessary.

                      As to you point about the uniates, the ROC’s point has always been that what was returned to them was what belonged to them since it had been taken from them long ago.

                      Claims that the KGB and the MP were two separate entities are almost facetious. The MP spent quite a bit of time in the 1990’s sifting through collaborators as opposed to cooperators as opposed to agent imposters.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      ““. . . saying the KGB approved the MP’s grant of autocephaly does not prove a thing that the KGB forced the MP to grant autocephaly.”

                      Does it not “prove a thing” or does it “not prove that the KGB forced the MP”, or both, or neither?”
                      It proves nothing, says nothing. It resembles saying that the grant of autocephaly was given by mortal men. OK. And?

                      “In any case, both you and Bishop Tikhon fail to see that there was no separation between the KGB/Soviet Government and the ROC.”
                      I can’t speak for His Grace, but I didn’t fail to see anything-I see the irrelevance to the point. I don’t see your proof that the Tomos was granted because the KGB forced it on the ROC.

                      ” It was thoroughly infiltrated. Forced? Does a higher directorate of the KGB have to “force” a lower one? Silly. Murders, tortures and thorough infiltration of agents and collaboraters made the concept of “force” unnecessary.”
                      Besides failing to show a distinction between this KGB as ROC you posit, and the Church of the Spiritual Regulations, run by a Synod of collaborators (as you put it) under the Ober-Procurator, the agent of that heterodox modernist monstrosity, you still fail to show the KGB ever thought of granting autocephaly, let alone suggesting it to the ROC.

                      “As to you point about the uniates, the ROC’s point has always been that what was returned to them was what belonged to them since it had been taken from them long ago.”
                      Putting them aside for a moment (I’ll get back to them elsewhere), alas! for you the ROC long ago made known its plans for North America.

                      Her [Equal-to-the-]Apostle[s] St. Innocent, Archbishop of Russian America and member of the Most Holy Governing Synod, after Alaska had been turned over to America and when the next month his mentor Met. St. Filoret reposed and he was elected to succeed him, wrote to the Ober-Procurator

                      Rumor reaching me from Moscow purports that I wrote to someone of my great unhappiness about the sale of our colonies to the Americans. This is utterly false. To the contrary, I see in this event one of the ways of Providence whereby Orthodoxy will penetrate the United States (where even now people have begun to pay serious attention to it). Were I to be asked about this, I would reply:
                      A. Do not close the American vicariate – even though the number of churches and missions there has been cut in half (i.e., to five).
                      B. Designate San Francisco rather than New Archangel the residence of the vicar. The climate is incomparably better there, and communications with the colonial churches are just as convenient from there as from New Archangel (if not more so).
                      C. Subordinate the vicariate to the Bishop of St. Petersburg or some other Baltic diocese, for once the colonies have been sold to the American Government, communications between the Amur and the colonies will end completely and all communications between the headquarters of the Diocese of Kamchatka and the colonies will have to be through St. Petersburg – which is completely unnatural.
                      D. Return to Russia the current vicar and all clergy in New Archangel (except churchmen) and appoint a new vicar from among those who know the English language. Likewise, his retinue ought to be composed of those who know English.
                      E. Allow the bishop to augment his retinue, transfer its members and ordain to the priesthood for our churches converts to Orthodoxy from among American citizens who accept all its institutions and customs.
                      F. Allow the vicar bishop and all clerics of the Orthodox Church in America to celebrate the Liturgy and other services in English (for which purpose, obviously, the service books must be translated into English).
                      G. To use English rather than Russian (which must sooner or later be replaced by English) in all instruction in the schools to be established in San Francisco and elsewhere to prepare people for missionary and clerical positions.

                      http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/08/25/st-innocents-vision/
                      In fact, Abp. (then Met.) St. Innocent’s vicar bishop in Sitka, Bp. Paul, was recalled to Russia, but not before sending a priest immediately to San Francisco, to meet up with the Orthodox organized there, setting up what is now Holy Trinity OCA Cathedral, which became the Cathedral of North America under his successor Bp. John a few years later. On Bp. Paul’s departure to Russia from New York City, he consecrated the Orthodox Chapel there, celebrating a Thanksgiving (in the American sense-i.e. Turkey Day) Divine Liturgy at which the President of the United States was prayed for (a practice that Bp. John continued by using the prayer in the BCP of the Protestant Episcopalian Church of the United States of America). He returned to take up his duty for the part of St. Innocent’s Archdiocese which remained in the Russian Empire, from which he directed St. Nicholas of Japan’s mission-St. Innocent having received jurisdiction over Japan when he was consecrated bishop of America.

                      Btw, the Cession Treaty left the Orthodox Church with jurisdiction, much like the Cuban-American Treaty left the US with jurisdiction over Guantánamo Bay (although Cuba has sovereignty). That Orthodox Church has continuously been identified as the OCA.

                      In 1905 the ROC, finally getting the permission from the Czar and his Ober-Procurator to assemble in synod (which, however, would not happen until after both were removed from power in 1917), to shed the modernist and heterodox Spiritual Regulations and re-establish Orthodox Tradition, asked its bishops to send their thoughts on reform to the Most Holy Governing Synod. From that San Francisco Cathedral Bp. Tikhon wrote

                      The diocese of North America must be reorganized into an Exarchate of the Russian Church in North America. The diocese is not only multi-national; it is composed of several orthodox Churches, which keep the unity of faith, but preserve their peculiarities in canonical structure, in liturgical rules, in parish life. These particularities are dear to them and can perfectly be tolerated on the pan-orthodox scene. We do not consider that we have the right to suppress the national character of the churches here; on the contrary, we try to preserve this character and we confer on them the latitude to be guided by leaders of their own nationality. Thus, the Syrian Church here received a bishop of its own (the Most Rev. Raphael of Brooklyn), who is nominally the second auxiliary to the diocesan bishop of the Aleutian Islands, but is almost independent in his own sphere (the bishop of Alaska having the same position). The Serbian parishes are now organized under one immediate head, who for the time beign is an archimandrite, but who can be elevated to the episcopacy in the nearest future. The Greeks also desire to have their own bishop and are trying to settle the matter with the Synod of Athens. In other words, in North America a whole Exarchate can easily be established, uniting all orthodox national Churches, which would have their own bishops under one Exarch, the Russian Archbishop. Each one of them is independent in his own sphere, but the common affairs of the American Church are decided in a Synod, presided by the Russian Archbishop. Through him a link is preserved between the American Church and the Church of Russia and a certain dependence of the former on the latter. It should be remembered however that life in the New World is different from that of the old; our Church must take this into consideration; a greater autonomy (and possibly autocephaly) should therefore be granted to the Church of America, as compared with the other Metropolitan sees of the Russian Church.[emphasis added] The North American Exarchate would comprise: (1) the archdiocese of New York, with jurisdiction over all Russian Churches in the United States and Canada. (2) the diocese of Alaska, for the orthodox inhabitants of Alaska (Russians, Aleutians, Indians, Eskimos). (3) The diocese of Brooklyn (Syrian). (4) the diocese of Chicago (Serbian). (5) The bishopric (?) of the Greeks.

                      http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/10/21/st-tikhons-vision-1905/
                      Bp. St. Tikhon’s title had been changed five years earlier from “bishop of the Aleutians and Alaska” (the Alaska part having made part of the title with the American sale and organization as a US territory named Alaska; the Aleutians were the only North American territory named when St. Innocent was consecrated “Bishop of Kamchatka, the Kurile and Aleutian Islands”) to “bishop of the Aleutians and North America.” That year he was elevated to Archbishop of the Archdiocese of the Aleutians and North America (a title his successor, Platon, would inherit). As he noted, the year before the Church exercised (and proved) its jurisdiction over North America per canon 8 of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus by consecrating Bishop St. Raphael, the first in North America. The following year, the Most Holy Governing Synod replied to Abp. St. Tikhon’s predecessor’s report a decade before that “the commemoration of the Emperor and the Reigning House during the divine services brings forth dismay and apprehension among Orthodox in America of non-Russian background” by issuing an Ukaz that the President of the United States, and not the Czar, should be commemorated by name in the Divine Services. That year Abp. St. Tikhon and Bp. St. Raphael consecrated St. Tikhon monastery (the namesake of St. Tikhon, the resting place of St. Raphael, and the home of Met. Tikhon of the OCA, to which it belongs) and St. Tikhon blessed the English translation of the Divine Services done by the Episcopalian Hapgood (his predecessor having given her a complete set of the Slavonic Liturgical books to translate), and the following year, when the reform synod was not forthcoming in Russia, Abp. St. Tikhon went ahead and held his own, instituting the First All American Sobor (which continues as the All American Council of the OCA), naming as its chair Fr. Leonid Turkevich (i.e. the future Met. Leonty of the OCA, whom St. Tikhon had recruited as rector of the North American seminary when Abp. Tikhon of North America served in Russia on the Most Holy Governing Synod as his predecessor Abp. St. Innocent of the Aleutians had). Afterwards St. Tikhon left for Russia (or rather Poland-where the future autocephalous Met. Ireney of the OCA graduated from the seminary of St. Tikhon’s diocese, going on to serve as Archbishop of Tokyo under the OCA) but Fr. Leonid stayed at the NYC Cathedral as advisor to Abp. St. Tikhon’s successors there, but followed St. Tikhon to Russia to represent the North American Archdiocese at the All Russia Sobor finally held in 1917, where St. Tikhon restored the Patriarchate of Moscow. On the basis of that Sobor’s decisions (and Ukaz 362) Fr. Leonty led the Fourth All American Sobor of Detroit in 1924 to proclaim autonomy and “temporary self-government” and confirm the election of Met. Platon at the Third All American Sobor, already confirmed by Pat. St. Tikhon himself.

                      Sooooooo we see before the establishment of the “Soviet enslavement” the ROC’s intentions of setting up what we see in the Tomos of 1970-starting with St. Innocent of Alaska and Moscow, over a century before.

                      What we DON’T see is the ROC envisioning back in the days of St. Tikhon a jurisdictionless self proclaimed synod of mis/displaced bishops passing judgement from the safety of the West on the Patriarchate of Moscow, like

                      Claims that the KGB and the MP were two separate entities are almost facetious.

                      Careful, your Donatism is showing.

                      “The MP spent quite a bit of time in the 1990’s sifting through collaborators as opposed to cooperators as opposed to agent imposters.”
                      Then it didn’t do such a good job according to you, as they elected a signer of the Tomos, Agent “Drozdov,” as Patriarch. His successor was not yet a bishop (but a KGB agent), but he was the right hand man and successor of another signer (the third one, right after the Patriarch Alexei I and the soon-to-be Patriarch Pimen), Met. Nikodim (interesting how “Adamant” could be KGB agent and BFF with the Vatican at the same time).

                      As the KGB=MP, do you commemorate Agent “Mikhailov” as Patriarch? Did Met. Laurus of blessed memory sign the Act of Canonical Communion with Agent “Drozdov” of blessed memory?

                      The ROC hasn’t changed its opinion. It remains after the fall of communism-now over 20 years and counting down to the 30 year canon of limitations-as it was before the Bolsheviks rise. At least according to the ROC official spokeman:

                      Metropolitan Hilarion affirmed the Russian Orthodox Church’s commitment to uphold its granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in America in 1970
                      The first episcopal see in America was established by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1840, but the ruling bishop of this diocese, St Innocent (Veniaminov), future Metropolitan of Moscow, lived in Novoarchangelsk. In 1872, five years after the sale of Alaska to America, the see of the Russian bishop was transferred to San Francisco. From 1898 to 1907 St Tikhon, future Patriarch of Russia, governed the diocese. During his time the see was transferred to New York. It was he who organized the all-American council of 1907, which renamed the diocese as the “Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in North America”. Thus began the future autocephalous American Orthodox Church….If events had continued according to the plan outlined by St Tikhon, a Local Orthodox Church in America could have been created in the 1920s, headed by one metropolitan, under whom bishops of various nationalities would be in submission, with each caring for the flock of his own ethnic background, be it Russians, Ukrainians, Greeks, Antiochians, Romanians etc….In 1970 the Russian Orthodox Church, inspired as before by the vision of St Tikhon, who dreamed of a single Orthodox Church on the American continent, granted autocephaly to that part of American Orthodoxy which was previously under its canonical authority.

                      http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/oca-summarizes-met-hilarions-visit/
                      http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles-2009/Hilarion-Orthodox-Mission-In-The-21st-Century.php

                    • While that may be a fascinating history lesson for someone who gives a flying rats tail, it has nothing at all to do with the question at hand.

                      “‘Claims that the KGB and the MP were two separate entities are almost facetious.’

                      Careful, your Donatism is showing.”

                      I’m fairly well convinced at this point that you have no idea what Donatism is.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “While that may be a fascinating history lesson for someone who gives a flying rats tail, it has nothing at all to do with the question at hand.”
                      You mean, your inability to produce a shred of evidence that the KGB forced the Tomos of Autocephaly on the ROC.
                      Living in a world where ROCOR legitimized the ROC, and not the other way around, I can see why you have no use for history. But alas, heaping anticommunist epithets into a pile does not an argument make.

                      “I’m fairly well convinced at this point that you have no idea what Donatism is.”
                      Denial soothes the cognitive dissonance of a jurisdictionless jurisdiction.

                      And I’ll repeat: what does your parroting “KGB! KGB! KGB!” all have to do with the Tomos of Autocephaly granted the OCA-in 1970, 2014 or 2022?

                    • “You mean, your inability to produce a shred of evidence that the KGB forced the Tomos of Autocephaly on the ROC.”

                      The fact I have never produced a document from the KGB directing the ROC to grant the Metropolia a Tomos is meaningless. If you’re denying that the Soviet government ran the ROC as a department of state or denying that the KGB had agents actively placed at high levels in the ROC, then no sheds will satisfy you. Your next defense would be that the KGB ordered the ROC to do what it wanted to do anyway.

                      The thing that escapes your meager abilities of perception is that the Soviet government was the ROC. It operated it from within. It had broken it to the whip long ago and had many agents within it directing its affairs from both within and without.

                      In that context, no orders from the KGB or GenSec are necessary, though given Soviet proclivities and the frank statement of the OCA Metropolitan I quoted elsewhere, it is safe to say that external authorities would want final approval or disapproval of policy, even if they had a hand in originating it from within.

                      Soviet policy could and did arise from within the ROC. We saw that with condemnations from the MP of those hierarchs who asserted Soviet religious repression. Now, I ask you, did these hierarchs lie? Can you produce a Soviet directive ordering the ROC to condemn them? Did the MP actually believe there was no repression? Or did the MP do what the Soviet government wanted them to do because they were run from inside and from the outside by the Soviet government?

                      Your entire position is utter nonsense based on abysmal ignorance or denial of what everyone familiar with the period in Soviet history takes for granted about their control of the Church..

                    • But Isa, by all means, don’t take my word for it:

                      https://www.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/demokratizatsiya%20archive/01-04_armes.pdf

                      “The opening of some KGB archives since August 1991 has made available for the first time clear evidence of the subordination of the Orthodox hierarchy to the Soviet government.”

                      “In particular, the KGB affiliation of three prominent hierarchs is now established: the recently deposed Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev (codename “Antonov”), Metropolitan Yuvenali of Krutisk and Kolomna, who was head of the foreign relations department of the patriarchate (codename “Adamant”), and Metropolitan Pitirim of Volokolamsk and Yurev, head of the publishing department of the patriarchate (codename“Abbat”). It is also established that the present patriarch, AleksiII, served the KGB under the poetic name “Blackbird” (Drozdov).”

                      “Investigations carried out in the KGB archives by Lev Ponomarev, chairman of the short-lived Russian Supreme Soviet Commission to Investigate the Causes and Circumstances of the Putsch, and Father Gleb Yakunin, who served as a member of that commission, make it clear that the chain of command for controlling the church ran directly from the Politburo through the CPSU Central Committee Department of Agitation and Propaganda, to the USSR Council of Ministers ‘Council on Religious Affairs, and finally to the KGB, which had a special subdivision (Fourth Department of the Fifth Administration) for religion.”

                      “The patriarchate’s External Affairs Department consisted almost entirely of KGB agents. The department’s main ideologist, Buevsky, a KGB officer now venerable least wise in years, has been responsible for writing the patriarch’s public statements and encomia on successive national leaders since 1946.”

                      “There is indisputable evidence that in recent months Patriarch Aleksi lied in denying charges that, in November 1991, he had approached a U.S. undersecretary of state to put pressure on Voice of America to change its programming about the Russian Orthodox Church.13 The patriarch felt impelled to make this extraordinary démarche by his concern about the “bias against the patriarchate” displayed in programs produced by a prominent priest of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Father Viktor Potapov.”

                      That is just a taste. It is a fascinating article. More to come.

                      “We do not know why this new freedom would come to us at a time when the existence of the church there is much more dangerous than it was even before… For some reason the Church in Moscow was enabled to act now. It is certain that it had to have the approval of the Communist government in order to do his.” – Fr. John Meyendorff, Washington Post (1970) – http://remnantrocor.blogspot.com/2010/06/truth-about-oca-autocephaly.html

                      I’ll take a stab at it: The ROC was a department of the Soviet government, run by Soviet KGB agents. Thus, the reason is that it was the will of the KGB/MP.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      I was merely stating what is obvious to everyone else. If the KGB had not approved MP’s purported grant of autocephaly to the Metropolia, it would never have happened.

                      Maybe I should state the obvious to everyone: saying the KGB approved the MP’s grant of autocephaly does not prove a thing that the KGB forced the MP to grant autocephaly.

                      I should have also asked: I can’t speak for the Metropolitan or Father Meyendorff of blessed memory, but I believe in miracles-when did Misha lose his faith in them?

                      “you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good”-Genesis 50:20.

                  • Jim of Olym says

                    I’m an American, son of pilgrims on both sides, and have no fight with Carpats, Rusins, Greeks, Arabs or any other ethnic Orthodox heritage, as far as I know. I am a member of a multi-ethnic OCA parish in the West that has most if not all the above mentioned ‘ethnics’ but also includes Hispanics and Afro-americans who faithfully attend and give generously to the building up of Orthodoxy.
                    Where do we fit in to this mess?
                    Rdr. James Morgan
                    olympia, wa

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “Where do we fit in to this mess?”
                      Your local Orthodox Church, where you belong.

                    • Jim,

                      In the grand scheme of things, discussions about the canonical validity of OCA or ROCOR are not particularly important. Nor is the whole “autocephaly crisis”. This has always been my point. Much ado about nothing.

                      One way or another on any of these questions, it is almost completely irrelevant to the pursuit of theosis. One can do that in any Orthodox environment, or even as a hermit (preferably under some spiritual direction).

                  • ROCORthodox says

                    Isa, your flawed assertions concerning ROCOR and alleged “schism” ignore that the MP, completely free of communist oppressors, have officially stated that ROCOR has always been an inseparable part of the Russian Orthodox Church. Period. End of story. CHECKMATE!

                    • Well, ROCORthodox, the proposition that ROCOR is now and always has been an inseparable part of the ROC is at least as good as the autocephaly Isa alleges (on behalf of a jurisdiction to which he does not belong, but on whose alleged canonical territory his actual jurisdiction operates — go figure).

                      But of course, that autocephaly, unlike the ROC’s present recognition that the ROCOR is and has always been a part of the ROC, was made under Soviet enslavement.

                      You can’t prove anything to Isa. He’s committed to a position at odds with objective reality. Facts are meaningless to him, just the result to which he is committed – which is destined to fail. Alas, maybe they would have had a chance at surviving as an “autocephalous” church if only Isa had deigned to come under their omophorion!

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “Isa, your flawed assertions concerning ROCOR and alleged “schism” ignore that the MP, completely free of communist oppressors, have officially stated that ROCOR has always been an inseparable part of the Russian Orthodox Church. Period. End of story. CHECKMATE!”

                      Is this the same MP, completely free of communist oppressors, that has officially stated that the OCA is autocephalous, whose Tomos of Autocephaly HH himself signed?
                      Period.
                      End of story.
                      CHECKMATE!

                      I ignored nothing. You continue to ignore your Patriarch and Holy Synod.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      btw, this “inseparable part of the Russian Orthodox Church” business: does that include ROCA-PSCA and the other ROCORettes still in schism?

                    • You will have to address that question to Moscow – that and why they only purportedly granted jurisdiction to the Metropolia over its own parishes and clergy, why they have an entire Metropolitan Archdiocese on OCA’s alleged territory (in addition to their patriarchal parishes). It sounds like they’re insincere regarding the alleged grant of autocephaly, using it as a pawn in a larger game when it suits them but,, ultimately, not taking it seriously.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      btw, this “inseparable part of the Russian Orthodox Church” business: does that include ROCA-PSCA and the other ROCORettes still in schism?

                      You will have to address that question to Moscow

                      Ah. Evading the answer.

                      that and why they only purportedly granted jurisdiction to the Metropolia over its own parishes and clergy,

                      Lord willing, I’ll go into this more later, but I’ll point out that not all the Patriarchal parishes stayed with Moscow-they went OCA.
                      But in the meantime maybe you should read what your purportedly have read-but this time with understanding:

                      The Moscow Patriarchate shall not lay claim to either spiritual or canonical jurisdiction over bishops, clergy and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession, or over parishes mentioned in Division 1, Paragraph 7, and by the present yields to the Metropolitanate, all jurisdiction to which she has laid claim on the above mentioned territory (Paragraph 7)[i.e. “continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii”]; excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.

                      why they have an entire Metropolitan Archdiocese on OCA’s alleged territory (in addition to their patriarchal parishes).

                      You keep mentioning this Metropolitan Archdiocese-where is it?

                      It sounds like they’re insincere regarding the alleged grant of autocephaly, using it as a pawn in a larger game when it suits them but,, ultimately, not taking it seriously.

                      How seriously does it take the ACC?

                    • You misrepresent what the Tomos actually says. It only conveys the jurisdiction it mentions in paragraph 7, which excludes everything other than what was in the Metropolinate. In other words, you’re lying again:

                      “[i.e. “continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii”]”

                      Your little addition does not appear in the text. It misrepresents paragraph 7 grossly. Paragraph 7, states:

                      “continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.

                      That is to say, it gave OCA nothing it didn’t have. Moreover, their promise not to “lay claim” is explicitly restricted to those parishes over which it claimed jurisdiction in paragraph 7:

                      “The Moscow Patriarchate shall not lay claim to either spiritual or canonical jurisdiction over bishops, clergy and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession, or over parishes mentioned in Division 1, Paragraph 7, and by the present yields to the Metropolitanate, all jurisdiction to which she has laid claim on the above mentioned territory (Paragraph 7); excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.”

                      This is how the MP could reunite with the ROCOR. You are the one with the reading problem, Isa.

                    • “Ah. Evading the answer.”

                      No, Isa, in English we don’t “evade answers”, we evade or avoid “questions”.

                      That said, what we can safely say from what Moscow did agree to in the Act of Canonical Unity is that being in communion with the MP during the Soviet period was not a prerequisite to being an “inseparable part” of the Church of Russia.

                      I’ll leave you to do whatever math you choose.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      A minor point, but since you are h-ll bent on making a mountain out of this mole hill
                      https://www.monomakhos.com/cracks-in-the-coalition/#comment-83326
                      “All of the parishes of the Exarchate were given a choice to join the OCA at that time. The parishes that remained were the following:”
                      http://orthodoxwiki.org/Russian_Orthodox_Church_in_the_USA
                      the list in the Tomos then follows. It, however, does not list all the parishes of the Exarchate, as many opted to join the OCA at that time. I.e. the OCA did not have them before the Tomos, but had them afterwards, and more shortly thereafter, a couple on the list in the Tomos joined the OCA shortly thereafter (as did a couple of ROCOR parishes and some GOARCH parishes, nearly the whole of what was left of the Albanian Orthodox Church, the Bulgarian Diocese of ROCOR. The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America of the Patriarchate of Romania had previously joined the OCA, but is not mentioned-as it was not covered, Moscow not having jurisdiction over Bucharest).

                      “No, Isa, in English we don’t “evade answers”, we evade or avoid “questions”.”
                      No, in any language, you know-and don’t like-the answer, so you try to evade it-including not facing the question.

                      The Soviet Period ended December 25 December 1991. The ACC was signed May 17, 2007. That’s a little hiatus.

                      But you have demonstrated that you will not learn from history-hence your assertion of its irrelevance. For example, your recently cited source

                      A Clarification
                      By the Synod of Bishops of the
                      Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
                      Concerning the Question of
                      an Autocephalous American Orthodox Church*
                      June 6/19, 1969
                      …Historically autocephaly has been acknowledged for separate Churches satisfying these demands without haste, after their attainment of a certain maturity that leaves no doubts as to their ability firmly to maintain Orthodoxy and independently govern themselves and develop. This acknowledgment should come first from the Mother Church which established the new Local Church which established the new Local Church and reared it

                      http://remnantrocor.blogspot.com/2010/06/about-oca-autocephaly-question.html
                      This so contradicts (with the sole exception of the Serbs) ALL the facts of the history of Orthodoxy, that I can see why you do not want history to intrude onto the conversation (the confusion on the date but a manifestation).

                      As for its beginning

                      In Orthodox terminology the name Autocephalous Church is given to a Church that unites all Orthodox diocese on a given territory and is headed by a Chief Hierarch chosen by its own episcopate, which is independent of any other Church.

                      That too will not fit all the autocephalous Churches of Orthodox history. For starters, it at first just meant a bishop subject directly to the patriarch and not the local metropolitan, without suffragans. The Church of Montenegro, autocephalous almost by default as “the Exarch of the Serbian [Patriarchal] Throne” (defunct by the Ottoman decree the Phanar procured) had only one sole bishop, who had to go to St. Petersburg for consecration and chrism for over a century, all the while the Phanar claiming jurisdiction over it, and even Russia making a bid.

                      Btw, the OCA has been exercising the chief constituent of autocephaly-electing its own primate-since February 25, 1919.
                      http://oca.org/holy-synod/primatial-elections
                      The Hierarchy of the Russian Church-under whom The Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Church in North America/OCA had been officially under ever since its first All America Sobor, opened by St. Tikon-approved on August 27, 1920. Before Ukas 362. So much for the OCA being “a creation of the Soviets.”

                      Speaking of reading problems:

                      Moreover, their promise not to “lay claim” is explicitly restricted to those parishes over which it claimed jurisdiction in paragraph 7:

                      “The Moscow Patriarchate shall not lay claim to either spiritual or canonical jurisdiction over bishops, clergy and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession, or over parishes mentioned in Division 1, Paragraph 7, and by the present yields to the Metropolitanate, all jurisdiction to which she has laid claim on the above mentioned territory (Paragraph 7); excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.”

                      No, the action before “and by” is not the same actions after. Hence the “and”-future claims and present claims. Not the same.

                      “This is how the MP could reunite with the ROCOR.”
                      The only possible reference to ROCOR would be “The Moscow Patriarchate shall not receive into its care in North America any clerics without written release or any parishes except parishes from uncanonical ecclesiastical organizations.” Although the Ukrainians are more what they had in mind, the rather large numbers of them in uncanonical organizations in Canada being a bigger issue-I think they still outnumber ROCOR.
                      And ROCOR reunited to the MP. Not the other way around.

                      “That said, what we can safely say from what Moscow did agree to in the Act of Canonical Unity is that being in communion with the MP during the Soviet period was not a prerequisite to being an “inseparable part” of the Church of Russia.”
                      Not quite, e.g. the voiding of a number of glorifications/canonizations of ROCOR.

                      “I’ll leave you to do whatever math you choose.”
                      I’ll stick with 1+1=2. This new math of your 1+1=1 isn’t getting you anywhere.

                    • Unfortunately, Isa, I’ve come to a point where I simply don’t understand a significant enough part of your rambling anymore to continue parsing and refuting it as it emanates. It moves from highly strained, on the fly, pseudo-logic into irrelevant history lessons supposed to signify something or at least impress, to puerile tongue lashing – just drivel without substance or a purpose.

                      I reserve in the future the right to counter any lies or half truths that you or anyone else might offer regarding ROCOR.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      I reserve in the future the right to counter any lies or half truths that you or anyone else might offer regarding ROCOR.

                      Your defense of the same…talk about drivel without substance or purpose.

                      You don’t understand even the simple significant part that the ACC let ROCOR join the MP, not the other way around. That the ACC legitmized ROCOR, not the MP. The Exarchate Inside Russia for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia failed miserably, and its collapse called ROCOR’s bluff, and so it had no place to go but Moscow-or deeper into schism and Donatist heresy.

                      Before you retreat into the cocoon of that tiny universe, where pseudo-logic dictates that the ACC legitimized the MP, irrelevant-and WRONG-history lessons invalidate the MP, highly strained misreadings of the hereto unread OCA Tomos with on the fly borrowings from Phanariot propaganda hold said Tomos invalid…ramblings which when emanating outside that cocoon signify nothing and impress even less…before you return there, answer just the two questions (no parsing, just answer “yes” or “no”):

                      Did the Russian Church have exclusive claim to the Orthodox of North America in 1907 as it claimed? Does it now, for instance, have exclusive canonical claim to Japan?

                      Can the Patriarchate of Moscow grant autocephaly? Can it, for instance, grant a Tomos of Autocephaly to the Met. Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine?

                  • Isa, quick Donatist question. Was the ROCOR guilty of Donatism — at least prior to reunification with the MP (and perhaps even now)? Your posts seem to answer in the affirmative, but I make no claim to having made it through your entire exchange with Misha, so the point of clarification would be helpful.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “Isa, quick Donatist question. Was the ROCOR guilty of Donatism — at least prior to reunification with the MP (and perhaps even now)? Your posts seem to answer in the affirmative, but I make no claim to having made it through your entire exchange with Misha, so the point of clarification would be helpful.”
                      Misha-holding that ROCOR legitimized the ROC with the ACC and not the other way around-and others like minded, stand guilty as charged. As for the ROCOR as whole, that poses another question.
                      The Dontanists held that anyone even accepting the repentance of the lapsed or traditores (those who, when ordered, handed over Christian writings to be burnt publicly) lacked spiritual authority for anything. Misha argues that the mere association of the ROC with the KGB (the Nero and Domitian of our time) deprives them of spiritual authority and legitimacy (hence his take on the ACC). Hence all this restatement of the obvious-that the KGB had its boot on the ROC-without any offer of evidence of relevance of that fact to the issue at hand (i.e. the Tomos of 1970) while hiding behind the canard that he recognizes their sacraments-a statement about whose sincerity I’m not wanting to get into, given that expression of his hearts desire, that ROCOR and the Old Calendar Churches would have united with the Old Calendarists, whose Donatism is less moderated.
                      A good question to pose to Misha: does he accept Patriarch Alexei I of Moscow and All Russia as the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, or not? Or was he just the “Sergianist” Patriarch?

                    • Isa, in other words, you wont answer my question with a simple yes or no. I had hoped for better.

                    • Isa: “As for the ROCOR as whole, that poses another question.”

                      I just re-read your response. No, Isa, that is not “another question.” It is the only question I asked you.

                    • Isa,

                      As I thought, you don’t know what you are talking about at all when it comes to “Donatism”

                      No one of whom I am aware in ROCOR, other than the Holy Transfiguation crowd, denied that grace abided in the Soviet Church. You want to charge them with “”Donatism”, that’s your affair. But Donatism is about acceptance of repentance after lapse. I see no reason to believe that HOCNA would not accept the repentance of the MP if they ever chose to make a genuine repentance from a specific heresy.

                      As to Patriarch Alexi, I have no doubt he was the Patriarch of Moscow, that he was an agent of the Soviet Union, that his mysteries conveyed grace, that he was incapable of administering the ROC during the Soviet Period and that the supposed conveyance of a Tomos of Autocephaly is not a divine mystery. If you have any doubts about any of these things, you haven’t been paying attention.

                    • I should backtrack slightly, since I assumed something about Patriarch Alexei I which, to my knowledge, has not been proven.

                      While Patriarch Alexi II was certainly a KGB agent, Patriarch Alexi I has not been demonstrated to have been one, at least through documentation, as far as I have looked into it.

                      Alexi I said and did a great many things to facilitate Soviet policy in a variety of ways and was approved as patriarch by Stalin himself yet, though I suspect and assume he was a Soviet agent, I can’t decisively prove it.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “Isa, in other words, you wont answer my question with a simple yes or no. I had hoped for better.”
                      Isa: “As for the ROCOR as whole, that poses another question.”

                      I just re-read your response. No, Isa, that is not “another question.” It is the only question I asked you.

                      Not my fault that ROCOR covered the map on that question, mostly it seems because it went around the block with whom it associated.

                      For example:

                      On the basis of his refusal to subordinate himself to the church authority in communist Romania in 1958, Bishop Teofil Ionescu was temporarily accepted into ROCOR along with his parishes. In 1972, because of his voluntary return to the bosom of the Romanian Patriarchate, he was defrocked by the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR.

                      http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2006/5endokladpsarev.html
                      Defrocked for what? Returning to his canonical obedience?
                      Yes. That’s Donatism.

                      On the other hand (same source):

                      As a facilitator between the bishops of ROCOR and Metropolitan Sergii (Stragorodskii), Patriarch Varnava, while protecting the interests of the former, still maintained cordial correspondence with Metropolitan Elevferii, Sergei’s representative in Europe. As a matter of fact, in the official calendar of the Serbian Church for 1936, a photograph of Metropolitan Sergei was included with his full title and signature: “He who sorrows with the Church in Russia”. I propose that the position of Patriarch Varnava has almost a mirror image in the pastoral practice of Saint John of Shanghai. While in London in June 1953, he was asked, “How can one be in communion with the Serbian Patriarch when there is no difference between his attitude to the Communists and that of the Patriarch of Moscow?” Saint John replied, “There is a great difference between them. The Serbs already have the sad example of the Russians before their eyes, and therefore neither at home nor abroad do they wish to destroy their unity.”

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “Alexi I said and did a great many things to facilitate Soviet policy in a variety of ways and was approved as patriarch by Stalin himself yet, though I suspect and assume he was a Soviet agent, I can’t decisively prove it.”
                      Then pose a problem for your position, as Pat. Alexei I’s signature tops the list on the Tomos of 1970, and he wrote to EP Athenagoroas defending it against the Phanar.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      As to Patriarch Alexi, I have no doubt he was the Patriarch of Moscow, that he was an agent of the Soviet Union, that his mysteries conveyed grace, that he was incapable of administering the ROC during the Soviet Period and that the supposed conveyance of a Tomos of Autocephaly is not a divine mystery. If you have any doubts about any of these things, you haven’t been paying attention.

                      More than some it seems.

                      I should backtrack slightly, since I assumed something about Patriarch Alexei I which, to my knowledge, has not been proven.
                      While Patriarch Alexi II was certainly a KGB agent, Patriarch Alexi I has not been demonstrated to have been one, at least through documentation, as far as I have looked into it.

                    • Isa: “Defrocked for what? Returning to his canonical obedience?
                      Yes. That’s Donatism.
                      On the other hand…”

                      You really are a dodgy one, aren’t you? If this is representative of the caliber of your intellectual work, it makes me grieve for the state of higher education. But I will try to work with what you give me.

                      So the entire Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR, in at least one instance (I am assuming this is just one of many examples you could have given, given your repeated references to this heresy) was, in your view, guilty of clear-cut Donatism, and the only example you give of non-Donatist thinking was on the on the part of a single bishop of the ROCOR and predates your Donatist example by roughly 2 decades.

                      So from at least 1972 on, the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR was guilty of unrepentant Donatism, correct?

                      I just want, without misdirection or change of subject on either of our parts, to reach a clear and unambiguous statement that accurately portrays your position before we begin any real discussion.

                    • It simply is not possible to seriously discuss this with Isa. He just doesn’t know what he is talking about at all. He doesn’t know what Donatism is, he doesn’t know what autocephaly is, etc. When challenged with a point he can’t possibly refute, like that the Tomos does not grant the OCA much of anything, he goes on long, irrelevant history expeditions unrelated to the point at hand.

                      He just doesn’t have anything at all to add to the conversation anymore other than, “OCA is autocephalous and ROCOR is a blue meanie, so there!”

                      I think we’re done here on this question. History will resolve it anyway, as no one here has the authority to do so. It is comical though:

                      Isa is not now but has been part of the OCA, which subjects him to their jurisdiction under the Tomos which he is defending and yet, in practice, emphatically rejects by rejecting their jurisdiction in favor of that of Damascus.

                      OCA is self destructing, having ousted several of its leaders recently, the last one in a despicable coup.

                      OCA is on practically everyone’s sh*t list, most notably Moscow’s, its one true link to legitimacy.

                      Yet Moscow has reunited with ROCOR, i.e., has an entire Metropolitan Archdiocese on the alleged territory of the OCA, yet, if you look at the Tomos, this technically complies with the wording of the Tomos since it conveys almost nothing of value to the OCA (and nothing at all in terms of jurisdiction which it did not already possess).

                      And other churches are supposed to take this nonsense seriously?

                      No, Isa, this is true heartfelt laughter – no nervousness at all. What would I have to be nervous about? The ROC is reunited; ROCOR is healthy and growing; the ROC is healthy and growing rapidly.

                      But of course, OCA is none of your concern anyway, being in AOCNA.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      And more on Donatism: the reaction of ROCOR at the grant of Autocephaly to the OCA in 1970 (the reaction is 1971, the reason why many ROCOR publications misdate it).

                      The American Metropolia has received its autocephaly from the Patriarchate of Moscow, which has not possessed genuine canonical succession from His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon from the time when Metropolitan Sergii, who later called himself Patriarch, violated his oath with regard to Metropolitan Petr, the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, and set out upon a path which was then condemned by the senior hierarchs of the Church of Russia. Submitting all the more to the commands of the atheistic, anti-Christian regime, the Patriarchate of Moscow has ceased to be that which expresses the voice of the Russian Orthodox Church. For this reason, as the Synod of Bishops has correctly declared, none of its acts, including the bestowal of autocephaly upon the American Metropolia, has legal force. Furthermore, apart from this, this act, which affects the rights of many Churches, has elicited definite protests on the part of a number of Orthodox Churches, who have even severed communion with the American Metropolia.

                      Speaking of not changing anything: after the Tomos the OCA was in communion with everyone it was in communion with before the Tomos, no one ending up severing communion.

                      ROCOR was invited to participate in the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops of America (SCOBA) established in 1960 at the initiative of Archbishop Iakovos (Patriarchate of Constantinople). In his reply, however, Metropolitan Anastasii stated that ROCOR would participate in the conference only if representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate were excluded, which was unacceptable to Archbishop Iakovos. At times, an uncompromising stand in regard to the communist government was, within ROCOR, as significant an issue as protecting the true Orthodox faith; in other words, resistance to communism was perceived as an inseparable part of protecting the purity of the faith.

                    • Isa,

                      I’m not sure why you are so insistent on repeatedly demonstrating your abysmal ignorance of what actually constitutes Donatism. Nonetheless, nothing in what you have quoted suffices. And every word of it is true.

                      “The controversy centered on a single issue arising out of the persecutions of the early fourth century. That was how should those who lapsed during the persecutions be accepted back into the Church, especially lapsed clergy . . .”

                      “With the death of Diocletian in 305 and Constantine the Great’s declaration of the Edict of Milan in 313, the persecutions ended. As peace came to the Church, the Church had to face reconciliation of those who had lapsed and wished to return to the Church, particularly among the clergy. While the Church, in general, followed the course of penance and forgiveness, in Africa a strong sense of ascetic purity arose. The members of this “purity” sect expressed strong feelings against those who had lapsed, referring to them as traditors, Christians who had betrayed other Christians. The sect members would not accept any repentance by those whom they considered too be traditors and were not fit for further membership in the Church.” – Orthodoxwiki, Donatism

                      Perhaps you can tell me who in particular is accused of lapsing into heresy who was later refused the opportunity to repent and be readmitted. If you cannot do that, you have no point and should reread whatever matterials you have regarding Donatism before you ape the criticism of small-minded OCA apologists who are equally ignorant of Orthodox teaching.

                      “. . . an uncompromising stand in regard to the communist government was, within ROCOR, as significant an issue as protecting the true Orthodox faith; in other words, resistance to communism was perceived as an inseparable part of protecting the purity of the faith.”

                      Yes, and it is a tragedy that others were not so courageous but rather behaved as opportunistic cowards.

                      Really, it is pointless continuing this. You are brighter than this and I have to assume it is simply bad faith on your part.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “Yet Moscow has reunited with ROCOR, i.e., has an entire Metropolitan Archdiocese on the alleged territory of the OCA”
                      And yet you previously said
                      “ROCOR does not claim any territory upon which it operates as exclusively its own. At least not to my knowledge.”
                      A diocese, let alone an archdiocese, has to have a territory (or some other such jurisdictional claim) which it at least claims. At least that is what the Sacred Orthodox Canons say. But if you have gone off the rails and abandoned them, well….
                      Actually, ROCOR has reunited with Moscow. I know Donatism is preventing you from seeing that straight.

                      And I “don’t know” what I’m talking about. LOL.

                      I have to attend to less circular things, but Lord willing I’ll get around to the rest of the nonsense (with ad hominem as its leitmotif) you posted.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “Isa is not now but has been part of the OCA, which subjects him to their jurisdiction under the Tomos which he is defending and yet, in practice, emphatically rejects by rejecting their jurisdiction in favor of that of Damascus.”
                      You’re just full of reading things that aren’t there, aren’t you.

                      I trust you can cite my “emphatic rejection of OCA jurisdiction in favor of that of Damascus.” Because I have never rejected OCA jurisdiction. Ever.

                      As for your characterization of my “practice,” that, like much else, is only in your own head, which doesn’t know the facts, let alone demonstrated ability to interpret them correctly.

                      Case in point-my eldest son was baptized in the OCA Cathedral by the dean of the Antiochian deanery. No one involved had a problem with that-why do you presume to?

                    • Misha: “It simply is not possible to seriously discuss this with Isa.”
                      You may be right, but I will await Isa’s response to my post of October 13, just in case.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      While I’m waiting for Misha to answer the questions

                      Did the Russian Church have exclusive claim to the Orthodox of North America in 1907 as it claimed? Does it now, for instance, have exclusive canonical claim to Japan?

                      Can the Patriarchate of Moscow grant autocephaly? Can it, for instance, grant a Tomos of Autocephaly to the Met. Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine?

                      https://www.monomakhos.com/cracks-in-the-coalition/#comment-83422
                      (scroll down)
                      I’ll take time to answer

                      You really are a dodgy one, aren’t you? If this is representative of the caliber of your intellectual work, it makes me grieve for the state of higher education. But I will try to work with what you give me.

                      You may be right, but I will await Isa’s response to my post of October 13, just in case.

                      I too grieve for the state of higher education, where reality should be faced in all its complexities, and not reduced to simplistic answers. Somehow, however, I sense that you do not share this grief.
                      I can only work with what ROCOR-and you-give me in an answer to your question, to wit

                      Was the ROCOR guilty of Donatism — at least prior to reunification with the MP (and perhaps even now)?

                      You didn’t specify what you meant by ROCOR: from any member to every member. Only when I answered your vague question with a specific answer did you set some parameters, to wit

                      So the entire Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR, in at least one instance (I am assuming this is just one of many examples you could have given, given your repeated references to this heresy) was, in your view, guilty of clear-cut Donatism, and the only example you give of non-Donatist thinking was on the on the part of a single bishop of the ROCOR and predates your Donatist example by roughly 2 decades.
                      So from at least 1972 on, the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR was guilty of unrepentant Donatism, correct?

                      On both ends, clear-cut Donatist and non-Donatist examples can be multiplied, both in earlier and later periods. The two were offered only as a representative sample, but you can call them apples and oranges, as the non-Donastist earlier one represents the individual opinion of one ROCOR hierarch and the later represents the decision of the Synod of ROCOR’s bishops, not including the earlier, non-Donatist (who had previously reposed in the Lord).

                      I just want, without misdirection or change of subject on either of our parts, to reach a clear and unambiguous statement that accurately portrays your position before we begin any real discussion.

                      From Misha’s “source” (the part that he, of course, doesn’t quote):

                      The issue came to a head in 311, Caecilian was consecrated bishop of Carthage. His consecration was disputed by many Carthaginians because one of the three consecrating bishops, Felix, bishop of Aptunga, had surrendered copies of the Scriptures to Roman persecutors and was considered a traditor. A subsequent council of some seventy “purist” bishops formalized the dispute and declared Caecilian’s consecration invalid. They then elected as bishop Majorinus, who had denounced “Roman collaborators” and refused to reconcile clergy who had lapsed. After he died in 315, the schismatics elected Donatus of Casae Nigrae, a Berber Christian, as bishop of Carthage. In his long tenure (315 to 355) he became the spokesman for the sect and lent his name as the identity for the schismatics, the Donatist.

                      http://orthodoxwiki.org/Donatism
                      Note, Bp. Caecillian was not accused of “Roman collaboration,” nor were all three of this consecrators, just one-and the Council of Arles exonerated him, and laid down the canon

                      Concerning those who are said to have handed over the Holy Scriptures or sacred vessels or the names of their brothers, be it resolved by us that any of those who from the public records, not from words alone, are discovered to have done so be removed from the office of the clergy. But if that same person who was exposed has ordained others, and the affairs of those ordained are all in order, let their ordination not be revoked. And whereas there were many who seemed to fight against the church and who thought they could disprove the accusations made against them by the testimony of paid witnesses they should not be cast out altogether, but only, as stated above, if their guilt is shown by public records.

                      http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/arles-314-canons-to-sylvester
                      The Donatists, however, “revoked” and held void the consecration of Bp. Caecilian, and ordained for themselves Donatus, and got their name for their schism and then heresy.
                      A large swath of this spectrum

                      Views on the Moscow Patriarchate, pre-reconciliation
                      After the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius of 1927, there were a range of opinions regarding the Moscow Patriarchate within ROCOR. A distinction must be made between the various opinions of bishops, clergy, and laity within ROCOR, and official statements from the Synod of Bishops. There was a general belief in ROCOR that the Soviet government was manipulating the Moscow Patriarchate to one extent or another, and that under such circumstances administrative ties were impossible. There were also official statements made that the elections of the patriarchs of Moscow which occurred after 1927 were invalid because they were not conducted freely (without the interference of the Soviets) or with the participation of the entire Russian Church.[16] However, these statements only declared that ROCOR did not recognize the Patriarchs of Moscow who were elected after 1927 as being the legitimate primates of the Russian Church—they did not declare that the Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate were illegitimate bishops, or without grace. There were, however, under the umbrella of this general consensus, various opinions about the Moscow Patriarchate, ranging for those who held the extreme view that the Moscow Patriarchate had apostatized from the Church (those in the orbit of Holy Transfiguration Monastery being the most vocal advocates of this position), to those who considered them to be innocent sufferers at the hands of the Soviets, and all points in between. Advocates of the more extreme view of the Moscow Patriarchate became increasingly strident in the 1970s, at a time when ROCOR was increasingly isolating itself from much of the rest of the Orthodox Church due to concerns over the direction of Orthodox involvement in the Ecumenical Movement. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, there wasn’t a burning need to settle the question of what should be made of the status of the Moscow Patriarchate, although beginning in the mid-1980s (as the period of Glaznost began in the Soviet Union, which culminated in the ultimate collapse of the Soviet government in 1991), these questions resulted in a number of schisms, and increasingly occupied the attention of those in ROCOR.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church_Outside_Russia#Views_on_the_Moscow_Patriarchate.2C_pre-reconciliation
                      fall under the umbrella of Donatism. As A. Solzhenitsyn said it best (quoted in the same source)

                      ROCOR viewed the Russian Church as consisting of three parts during the Soviet period: 1. The Moscow Patriarchate, 2. the Catacomb Church, and 3. The Free Russian Church (ROCOR). The Catacomb Church had been a significant part of the Russian Church prior to World War II. Most of those in ROCOR had left Russia during or well before World War II. They were unaware of the changes that had occurred immediately after World War II—most significantly that with the election of Patriarch Alexei I, most of the Catacomb Church was reconciled with the Moscow Patriarchate. By the 1970s, due to this reconciliation, as well as to continued persecution by the Soviets, there was very little left of the Catacomb Church. Alexander Solzhenitsyn made this point in a letter to the 1974 All-Diaspora Sobor of ROCOR, in which he stated that ROCOR should not “show solidarity with a mysterious, sinless, but also bodiless catacomb.”. The fact that the catacomb Church had essentially ceased to exist was de facto recognized when, as Communism was about to finally collapse in Russia, ROCOR began to establish “Free Russian” parishes in Russia, and to consecrate bishops to oversee such parishes, and never recognized any alleged Catacomb bishop as having a legitimate episcopacy.

                      So yes, this is Donatist:

                      1970
                      ARCHPASTORAL ENCYCLICAL
                      OF
                      THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
                      OF
                      THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA
                      to the Orthodox Russian People in Diaspora
                      The Russian people, dispersed throughout the whole world by reason of the captivity of our sacred homeland by atheistic communism, were shocked by the announcement of the Russian American Metropolia, published on December 6, 1969, in New York City, that the Metropolia has entered into spiritual relations with the Moscow Patriarchate and intends to receive autocephaly from it, i.e., existence as a new American Orthodox Church.

                      In so doing, the Russian American Metropolia, which formally receives her independence, is in fact establishing spiritual and practical ties with the Moscow Patriarchate, which is held in slavery by the atheistic communist regime. These ties by the very nature of the case must be strengthened and developed in the future. By this means a fatal blow is dealt to the Russian emigration, the whole meaning of whose existence lies in the fact of its non-reconciliation with the Soviet regime. We left the borders of our homeland in order to have the possibility, outside the influence and control of the communist regime, to pray freely to God and to rear the younger Russian generation in Orthodox piety. And now, after fifty years of the existence of our emigration, the spiritual meaning of our existence abroad is shaken. Over-ruling its own pastorate and the Russian emigration, the hierarchy of the Metropolia extends a hand to the Soviet Patriarchate of Moscow, which, in the person of its chief hierarchy, is a conscious tool of the God-hating government. The immorality of this act consists in the fact that the boundaries between good and evil, between black and white, are thereby erased…The spiritual nature of the Supreme Church Authority in Moscow after the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius was thus defined by Metropolitan Anthony in his Encyclical of July 22, 1928: —
                      The Synod of Moscow has deprived itself of all authority by entering into agreement with atheists, and by permitting, without struggle, the closing and destruction of holy churches and the innumerable crimes of the Soviet government, which openly denies all religion and consequently wages persecution against it. It must be realized that the institution organized by and entering into union with the enemies of God — which Metropolitan Sergius calls an Orthodox Synod — and recognition of which has been refused by the better Russian Bishops and laymen, is illegal. It must not be recognized in any way by our Russian Churches, by our Synod of Bishops with its flock abroad; and the institutors of the Moscow Synod must be held to be the same kind of apostates from the Faith as the ancient “libellatici,” that is, Christians who, although refusing to blaspheme Christ openly and to offer sacrifices to the idols, still accept false documents from the priests of the idols stating that they were in full agreement, so to speak, with the followers of the heathen religion. These documents spared them from the persecutions of the government, but subjected them to total excommunication from the Church, into which those of them who repented were received only after [15] years.”
                      We may add at the present, the Bolsheviks, just like the ancient libellenses [registrars], are carrying out the registrations of the clergy of the Church, who are counted as “administrators of the cult.”

                      RESOLUTION
                      OF
                      THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
                      OF
                      THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA
                      In its expanded membership of 18/31 December, 1969
                      The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on 18/31 December, 16, heard: The official announcement of the Russian American Metropolia, published in Novoye Russkoye Slovo of 6 and 23 December 1969.
                      First, the Synod of Bishops considers it its duty to draw attention to the fact that the present leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate, as set up by the Soviet Government which is inimical to the Faith, is not the true representative of the Russian Church, and thus its acts have no canonical force and will not be binding upon any future All-Russian ecclesiastical authority, when, by the grace of God, one such is re-established in Russia. An agreement on the part of the present Moscow Patriarchate to any autocephaly whatsoever by no means constitutes an agreement of the actual Russian Church, which, as a result of persecutions, has been left without a head and is deprived of the possibility of freely expressing her will. On its every act inevitably lies antichrist’s seal of an approval from the atheist regime, especially when such acts concern external affairs…Now, however, by receiving autocephaly from the hands of the Moscow Patriarchate as from the Mother Church, the Metropolia enters into active association with it — as association which she cannot break off without fresh upheavals and complications for herself, all the more so since her membership will include parishes of the present Moscow Exarchate. Along with her canonical association there must also inescapably follow the day-to-day association with persons deeply committed by their obligations to the atheistic communist regime: the mutual exchange of greetings, concelebration, and continual ecclesiastical relations in other forms. To the agents of the godless regime, the hierarchs and clergy of the Metropolia will have to say, “Christ is among us.” Thus the Metropolia will, so to speak, guarantee to her flock and to the heterodox world that the Moscow Patriarchate has the capacity f independent action in resolving ecclesiastical questions, both in its own country and abroad, even though, as everybody is well aware, no one in the USSR can make a statement with even relative freedom, especially on foreign affairs.

                      http://remnantrocor.blogspot.com/2010/07/yet-more-about-oca-autocephaly.html

                    • Isa, good scholarship is more than lengthy tomes and copious long quotations and footnotes, although it does include that when necessary to support a conclusion — even if that conclusion is tentative, nuanced, and qualified.

                      Good scholarship, however, does involve clearly stated conclusions. You are correct that reality must faced with all of its complexity and ambiguity, but complexity and ambiguity does not prevent a good scholar from being able to clearly and concisely state his conclusions — with the required nuances, qualifications, and caveats as to the tentativeness of those conclusions that the complexity of reality requires.

                      You have not demonstrated that ability to me. And given the fact that you have thrown around the “Donatist” accusation, and continue to cite examples of Donatism, I would expect you, as someone who presents himself as a serious scholar, to know that I would expect such a demonstration.

                      Thank you for your lengthy tome, but I am aware, and have for some decades now been familiar with, why anti-ROCOR polemicists have thrown around the accusation of Donatism, rather freely at times. I think anyone who pays attention to these matters knows these things. So you could have saved some e-ink.

                      Since, however, the last thing you cite are statements by the Synod of Bishops that you deem to be Donatism, I will take it that the answer is “yes” — the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR were unrepentant Donatists (I will mentally insert the requisite nuances and qualifications for you — although not the tentativeness, since I don’t think you intend any of that).

                      I will make another statement that I would hope we can agree on without my having to wait for your response: Donatism is a serious heresy, and those guilty of it in the 4th century were declared to be outside the Church. It was a local matter, and was settled locally by declaring Donatists to no longer be a part of the Church, but there has been subsequent universal agreement on its status as a serious heresy (not just a theologoumenon that the majority happened to disagree with). Again, I will assume basic agreement on the heretical status of Donatism.

                      We will also, for purposes of keeping things clean, stick to the ROCOR after the statements you cite above, and before the ROCOR entered into reunification talks with the MP, since I think we can agree that the two parties mutually agreed to tacitly nullify a great deal of what they and their predecessors had said about the other.

                      So my next question is this — did anyone in authority, during that time period, ever agree with you?

                      Do you have evidence that any Council or Synod declared either the ROCOR Synod of Bishops or individual bishops to be guilty of Donatism?

                      Do you have evidence that any bishop here in America, during that time period, required a renunciation of Donatism by any priest that they accepted from the ROCOR? There were a number of priests during that time, for instance, who left the ROCOR for the Antiochian Archdiocese. I have it on good authority that Metropolitan Philip required ROCOR clergy to obtain a canonical release before he would accept them.

                      If he considered them to be guilty of Donatism or to come from a jurisdiction whose bishops were guilty of Donatism, would he not have required them to formally renounce that heresy? Do you have evidence that he, or any other bishop in the US, required former ROCOR clergy that they accepted into their ranks to specifically renounce their previous Donatism or the Donatism of their former hierarchs?

                • best I’ve heard it explained! ever! it is a manufactured “crisis!”

          • Fr. Peter, I am very well aware of the essence of autocephaly. The reality is this country is not ready for it. I am not in favor of cobbling together an autocephalous American Church at this time for the reasons I and others have stated. Almost 600 years passed before Russia obtained autocephaly. The USA has not even been in existence for half of that duration. There is no sin in letting this matter mature according to our unique situation in this country.

            • Fr. Peter Dubinin says

              And what my friend makes you think we will be more “ready” in the future compared to this moment in time?

              • Who knows what God will do. I think it is more healthy NOW to stop complaining about about lack of an autocephalouchurch in America, and instead educate the heterodox why full communion between the Orthodox is an essential part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In fact, I think this false dichotomy of demanding an premature, autocephalous American Church does Orthodoxy a great disservice in this country.

                • Fr. Peter M. Dubinin says

                  ROCORthodox – I’m not sure what false dichotomy you are referring to? Further, why should we educate the heterodox on why full communion (whatever “full” means vs. Communion outright) between the Orthodox is an essential part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, if as Estonian Slovak stated so well – “You have the Bulgarian Metropolitan, who champions the Old Calendar, but also tonsures women as Readers. You have the Finnish Orthodox Church, a daughter of the Ecumenical Throne, accepting gay marriage. You have Patriarch Irenej of Serbia blasting a gay rights parade scheduled to take place in Belgrade, while at least some of his bishops appear to tolerate immorality among their clergy. These are just three examples.” – is true? Even considering how to communicate this to anyone, let alone the heterodox, makes by head hurt; the intellectual gymnastics required to even try and sync these two mutually exclusive positions…. How is perpetuating this sad state of affairs healthy?

                • ” I think it is more healthy NOW to stop complaining about about lack of an autocephalouchurch in America, and instead educate the heterodox why full communion between the Orthodox is an essential part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. ”
                  LOL.
                  Yeah, all this in one North American city five different ethnic bishops reporting to five different home countries is sure to impress on the heterodox (I prefer the term heretics) the unity of communion in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

                  “The reality is this country is not ready for it.”
                  Ready or not, it has it. Standing at the train station for a train which has already left doesn’t make the train come back. It just makes you look a fool.

                  “Almost 600 years passed before Russia obtained autocephaly.”
                  Yes, it was well past due.
                  Antioch was less than 50 years old when it obtained autocephaly. Old Rome and Alexandria even less. Constantinople at most 331 years and by prominence only 26 years old when it got autocephaly. Albania had to wait 1900 years for autocephaly-and then it came via its daughter in America, the Albanian Archdiocese of the OCA.
                  Orthodoxy has been in North America for at least 276 years. Not that that matters, as the number of years-either many nor few-answers the question of “readiness” for autocephaly. And, in the case of North America, is now moot.

            • Isa Almisry says

              “Almost 600 years passed before Russia obtained autocephaly. ”

              The first exercise of autonomy/autocephaly, i.e. electing their own primate, occurred in 1051, with the election of Met. Hilarion of Kiev, the first of several times before it became permanent in 1448. If one dates the start from 989, that would only be 62 years to election of its own primate, another 397 until it became permanent, with another 145 years for all canonical defects in its autocephaly to be removed. Btw, Bulgaria was autonomous in 5 years, autocephalous with a patriarch in 57 years more.

      • Estonian Slovak says

        Fr. Peter;
        With all due respect, I think you’re speaking like a military man. This concept of one central authority sounds like Papism to me. You know, we’d all like an easy solution, I myself wish I could buy into the whole papacy concept, but I can’t. I can’t because I do not believe the Church Our Lord founded was set up the way Rome is today.
        I’m sure you know there have always been multiple schools of thought within the church. The Seven Ecumenical Councils were convened to address what had developed into heresies. Most of the early heresies dealt with Christ, who He was, was He God, man, or both? Modern Ecumenism calls the very nature of the Church into question.
        Many ROCOR folks, including myself, felt that our unity with so-called “World Orthodoxy” was established much too quickly before some of the major differences were ironed out. But for years, you in the OCA kept saying, “Come, let us celebrate the Eucharist together and then we can work out the differences.” Well, ok, we’ve done that. Many of us didn’t quite agree with our bishops, but stayed in ROCOR simply because we couldn’t find any place to go. There are far too many breakaway ROCOR groups, which is a source of scandal. The same holds true for the Greek Old Calendar groups.
        Even, dear Fr., if you take ROCOR out of the equation, you would still have issues to overcome. You have the Bulgarian Metropolitan, who champions the Old Calendar, but also tonsures women as Readers. You have the Finnish Orthodox Church, a daughter of the Ecumenical Throne, accepting gay marriage. You have Patriarch Irenej of Serbia blasting a gay rights parade scheduled to take place in Belgrade, while at least some of his bishops appear to tolerate immorality among their clergy. These are just three examples.
        Finely, when we are all threatened by the jihadists and their supporters, plus the Gay Rights crowd, worrying about administration is secondary. Saving our souls and, hopefully, the souls of those around us, should be our main agenda. Forgive me, a sinner.

        • Michael Bauman says

          Estonian, the one central authority becomes papal in nature only if two things happen: 1: The head bishop is looked upon as invested with special spiritual authority from Jesus Christ that the other bishops do not share; 2: there is no functioning Holy Synod.

          ROCOR: there is no reason that a central administration cannot be a covenantal confederation rather than a ruling oligarchy except lust of power and apathy. That would allow and encourage the differences in a proper context. Now the differences are often exaggerated and not in balance because we lack a physical central authority.

          As to the “the modernists will take over” objection: St. Basil and the other Cappadocians lived and worked within a Church that was largely Arian. They did not start up their own thing. Since the Lord Incarnated a visibly united Church is what we are called to have no matter the rationalizations we put forward for not having it. As long as there is a mustard seed of true faith, God will not be defeated.

          There are risks, we all have to repent and be changed. I have to repent and be changed. That is the greatest obstacle to true union. The Bulgarian Met. Joseph said on a recent anniversary of Ligoner that all of the bishops involved here and abroad would have to die before anything would go forward. He likened it to the Hebrew children in the wilderness who looked into the promised land but did not go in because of fear. They spent another 40 years wandering until that generation died.

          George restates the same idea. Unfortunately, that means the repose of my beloved Bp. Basil. He was one of the youngest.

          May our Lord raise up a Joshua.

        • Peter A. Papoutsis says

          You know that the Greek Orthodox Church does more things to reunite with the RCC than it does to reunite with the Old Calendarist Greek Orthodox Church. The OCGOC has some serious problems and a deep paranoia towards us “World Orthodox,” but should we not try to re-establish links some how?

          Is this pie in the sky thinking on my part?

          Peter

          • Estonian Slovak says

            I quite agree ,Peter.

          • Actually, Peter, I have no quarrel with the Old Calendar Greeks and think that the one negative aspect of the reunification of the Russian Church was that ROCOR fell out of communion with the OC Greeks. Before that, Jerusalem and Serbia were in communion with ROCOR and ROCOR was in communion with the OC Greeks. I sometimes think it would have been better if Moscow and the other “canonical” Old Calendar churches had simply excommunicated the New Calendarists. Then the lines would be clearly drawn. On my part, I’m not totally sure the issues that separate the “non-canonical” Old Calendarists from the “canonical” Old Calendarists are more serious than those issues that separate traditionalists from modernists. Of course, that is above my pay grade.

            Now it is more confusing but eventually such a split will come. A house divided cannot stand.

            • Peter A. Papoutsis says

              I agree. In fact, the OC are actually getting more unified amongst themselves than at any other time I can think of. In fact the Act of Reunification of 2007 was a big push for this to happen as they saw ROCOR, their champion in any ways, fold into the so-called communist church and become pat of World Orthodoxy.

              Just take a look and see their unity and their moral clarity compared to ours. http://hotca.org/

              Also, while I have always been in the GOAA, and would never leave unless forced to, my family was at one time one of several families that helped establish and fund an OCGOC down in Dunedun, Florida:http://www.kimisis.net/ This is before tension got high between the two Greek Communities down in Central Florida.

              Also, many people may not know this but the Monasteries of Father Ephreim have a direct link and history with the OC that IMHO they still have, but may not admit to openly. That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong about this.

              As you know the main issue that separates us is “The Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism” that has rallied its flag around the Calendar issue. Resolve this issue and the rift between us and them starts to heal. Until then we will be talking past each other.

              However, for the moment I agree with you that at the moment it is confusing and that our house is divided while we seek unity with those that have less in common with us than our own Orthodox brethren. That’s the head scratcher.

              Peter

          • The GOA tried and got Vikentios and Paisios.

            • The Patriarchate of Constantinople “got” Paisos & Vikentios, two bishops “on their own,” not well regarded by larger OC formations, most especially after the false claim of the “theft” of the icon of St Irene Chrysovoulatou from their monastery.The EP, apparently, either did not research their new “acquisition,” and/or ask any of their people here in the US about them. Paisios & Vikentios were well known here, the “icon theft” a notorious scandal. Apparently, the EP thought this “coup” might bring the OC running back to Papa in the Phanar. On the other side-for any “future possibilities.” the EP promised Paisios & Vikentios that their monastery and few parishes could retain use of the Church Calendar; this promise was reneged on in less than a year … at one point, the Old Calendarists headquartered at the Monastery of Sts. Cyprian & Justina in Fili requested dialogue with the EP, and were refused. Patriarch Bartholomew has frequently referred to the Old Calendarists as “fanatics,” and “fundamentalists.” Last year, a “Metropolitan of the Ecumenical Throne” was reported as having said, “One day we will have to use violence against them.” The use of such language to day is unconscionable-obviously attempting to paint Old Calendarists as some “Orthodox Taliban,” and marginalizing them as some kind of insane people. Even more “……………………………” [choose your own word], in his remarks on the horrors in Iraq and Syria, the Patriarch called for “dialogue,” and because “we” (Orthodox and Muslims) “both worship the same God of Love.” The Phanar is more interested in “unity” with Rome, and being in the news constantly as “peacemaker,” the “Green Patriarch,” or for yet another “extremely important, groundbreaking, super duper unprecedented historical event.” The Old Calendarists do not offer political advantage, nor would reconciliation bring on the guaranteed media circus, nor any other worldly advantage. Consequently, the Phanar is not interested …

    • “There is no need for some centralized administrative unity in this country at this time, especially given the modernist and ecumenist bent of some of the jurisdictions. Thank God we don’t have it! We DO have full Eucharistic unity. This is the glory we should be emphasizing to the heterodox. ”
      The Anglican communion has such glory. No thank you.
      If the modernist and ecumenist bent bothers you, you should not be communing with them, let alone glorifying that communion. If that bent doesn’t qualify to break communion, it doesn’t qualify as an excuse to follow the Canons on Church governance-which mandate a centralized administrative unity.
      Either you are in communion with all the Orthodox bishops in the diptychs of the Catholic Church, or you are not. Schism-lite isn’t an option.
      If you don’t like what is being done in Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, break communion with them. But don’t retreat into jurisdictional disunity between New York, Washington, Jordanville and Chicago.

  6. Engaged observer says

    The more I consider it, the more I think that the Episcopal Assembly was set up by the overseas Patriarchates in order to give the appearance to a restless American flock that they were doing something to work toward administrative unity in America, all the while not planning or intending to do the least thing about it. A smoke screen, essentially, if you will. I truly wonder how many of the EA bishops participate in the EA with the intention to “do whatever it takes” to achieve administrative unity in America. It seems that most of them show up to the card game with 3 or 4 cards that they will never let go.

    The bishops (both here and overseas) have to want administrative unity for it to happen, and they don’t want it, or rather they might only want it if it were to happen according to their own terms. Fr Thomas Hopko (Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald)’s favorite protopresbyter) gives an excellent analysis of the situation in his recent podcast on AFR. Worldly concerns are put ahead of spreading the Gospel of Christ, thus an impediment.

    Does anyone have high expectations of the EA anymore? I certainly don’t. If administrative unity happens in my lifetime, well that’s fine, but I certainly don’t expect it anymore. From what I hear, our various Orthodox “jurisdictions” were closer and collaborated more with each other in the 1950s-1960s (in the early days of SCOBA) than they do today (the now-healed ROCOR-MP division is an exception — thanks be to God that the ROCOR-MP unity has been reestablished!).

    In the years to come, I think that a few factors will change the face of American Orthodoxy: the jurisdictions that have relied heavily on immigrant or “ethnic” populations will continue to shrink, while those jurisdictions who clearly have it as their mission to evangelize America will thrive. For example, Fr Tom’s statistic that 90% of Greek Americans have nothing to do with Orthodoxy or with the GOA will probably only increase in the future.

    Essentially, we need to keep doing what we’ve been doing for decades: work to spread the truth of our faith to our American brethren in spite of our jurisdictional divisions. The more stagnant churches need to emulate (or possibly be absorbed into) those churches that are more dedicated to mission work (in my experience, the most “actively” missionizing seem to be the Antiochian Archdiocese, the OCA, and ROCOR).

    Fortunately, regardless of our jurisdiction, we are unified in faith, which is much more than many of our administratively united Catholic and Protestant friends can say. As St John Maximovitch of San Francisco used to say when asked about jurisdictions, “We are all part of Christ’s jurisdiction!”

    • George Michalopulos says

      Engaged Observer, you’re correct in your assessment of the Old World bishops. But you’re leaving out half the picture: I would venture to guess that the majority of Orthodox Christians in North America don’t want administrative unity either.

      That’s for a number of reasons. I think one of the big ones is that many want an escape hatch if things get really goofy in their present jurisdiction. We can’t discount that one.

      • Michael Bauman says

        George you are right that is the most honest objection to jurisdictional unity.

        Of course there is the other one (depending on perspective): The Greeks are crazy, the Russians dour and archaic, the Antiochians worldly, and the OCA irrelevant.

        Pick your poison.

        • Jim of Olym says

          I guess you have to be a Carpahto-Rusin to be ‘real orthodox’ now.
          Me, i’m a mongrel descendent of post mayflower pilgrims (second ship over to the Newworld) and a first generation Orthodox. and none of my kids have followed me into my faith so far. They are dovout evangioviees, but at least the love Jesus!
          As to Orthodox Unity, it will come when it comes, and probably when all real Christians are persecuted bor being what we are, and I don’t think that will be soon.

          • Jim,

            It matters not what ethnicity you are. The faux victim pleading, “I guess you have to be an ‘X’ to be ‘real orthodox'” will not get you far though. Orthodoxy has enough real victims.

            The people who are pressing for this or that change would not be satisfied once they obtained it. They would just find something else to which they believe they are entitled, the withholding of which they consider to be a great injustice. The problem is internal passions, not ethnicity, not the absence of autocephaly, etc. Man is insatiable. He will fill himself with God or he will burn in his passions. It’s that simple.

            So, carry on in faith.

      • EPA Observer says

        George,

        I think the “escape hatch” option also goes for clergy who are looking to leave a despotic bishop. Recently a priest in Eastern PA had a terrible accident and lost one of his fingers. When he informed his bishop about the accident, the bishop showed no empathy and in the same conversation informed him that he wants all clergy in his diocese to retire at age 65! The priest in question is 62. Nice. Who would want to be a priest under such an insensitive bishop?

        • Estonian Slovak says

          This would be the hierarch shoved down the throat of the OCA Eastern PA Diocese, yes?

          • EPA Observer says

            Estonian Slovak,

            Yes, the same one. We are paying a bitter price for our complacency in being brow beaten by Kowalczyk into accepting his man. But I suppose the saying is true, “we get the leaders we deserve.” Lord, have mercy.

        • Will the good bishop do so himself–retire at 65? He can’t be that far from it himself.

          And 65 may be young, depending on the man.

          lxc

          • EPA Observer says

            I sincerely doubt it. However their may not be much of a diocese for him to lead by the time he is 65. God save us from such narcissistic bishops.

            • George Michalopulos says

              Times like this when I think the DOS should pat itself on the back for cramming StokoSyosset’s man down our throat. I’d say a job well done. (And what a hard-fought battle it was!)

              It makes me chuckle in a way: think of the Carp/Mon Valley Triumphalism that that Dredgelo sprouts at the drop of a hat. And how stoopid we converts in the South are. When the going got rough we raised the Rebel flag and fought (and this time one). The “true Orthodox” of the Mon Valley just grabbed their heels and assumed the position. “Thank you Sir! May I have another?”

              • Lola J. Lee Beno says

                Are there still 3 bishopric vacancies? What progress has been made to fulfill these vacancies?

              • George, I wouldn’t think too harshly of the people of EPA. Bishop Mark’s election was a one-candidate staged affair.

                We all saw the train wreck coming, but I think they felt powerless to prevent it.

                The good news is, Bishop Mark is 56, so EPA will only have to suffer for nine more years.

                • I feel bad for that last swipe at Bishop Mark, and tried to edit or delete it, to no avail. I apologize to Bishop Mark for that.

                  If Bishop Mark’s feelings were hurt, then I hope he remembers it and tries to make amends with the priest who lost his finger. The priest has to live not only with the loss of function, but also have a constant reminder of the pain and trauma of the accident. I pray that the priest is receiving all appropriate care.

          • Philippa.alan says

            Highly unlikely Bp. Mark will retire at 65. Why ever would he follow his own rules?

            The Midwest Diocese has a one-candidate slate for their coming Assembly. Fr. Paul Gassios will receive the nod to be seated on that bishop’s throne. And is this any surprise to anyone? After all, Fr. Hodges trotted his name out quite quickly a year or so ago. It is who the hierarchcs wanted initially anyway.

        • Video on wicked bishops

          http://youtu.be/omfXcIPkwgE

  7. Fr. Peter Dubinin says

    To whom much is given, much is required. That we cannot reflect our Eucharistic unity in one, autocephalous Orthodox Church in the USA is a sin, plain and simple. However, every one of us in some measure, wants to belittle the seriousness of that sin and of course blame someone else for this horrible failure (myself included). Forgive me my Orthodox brothers and sisters for those things I may have misspoken or misrepresented. I have no one to blame for the present broken state of Christ’s Church in the US than myself.

    • Timothy Wearing says

      Fr. Peter:

      This is not your fault; it is the BISHOPS FAULT. In 1961 when SCOBA was created, the minutes stated that they would work toward toward an autocephalous Orthodox Church in North America to be called: “The Orthodox Church in America.” Fr. Schmemann made this a reality in 1970 when the Russian Orthodox Church granted autocephaly to its daughter church, the Metropolia in the United States. Everyone was ecstatic believing that ALL the bishops in the U.S. would join the newly formed OCA bringing administrative unity to ALL the North American Orthodox Churches. The Albanians joined, the Romanians joined, + Iakavos reneged and although + Philip was Fr. Schmemann’s student, he reneged. He gave lip service to both autocephaly and the Arab Christians wanting their own. So, what SCOBA outlined as what THEY wanted, the major bishops reneged. In 1974 at Ligonier, + Iakavos and + Philip tried to re-start this effort wanting a legacy of bringing real unity. Following Ligonier, + Iakavos was forcefully retired and all the Greek bishops were emasculated by + Bart. + Philip did nothing. So you see, + Bart has kept the Orthodox in North America divided and continues this. The Ep. Ass’ are + Bart’s way of stalling any real autocephaly efforts insisting that ANY unity ONLY happens under himself. The enemies of Orthodox Unity are the overseas Patriarchs and the impotent or UNWILLING bishops in North America!

      • Michael Bauman says

        No, Timothy we are all at fault. We treasure our differences more than we treasure unity in Christ. We treasure our own understanding of the Church more than we pray and work for her to be the Body of Christ. We nurture our fears instead of our faith.

      • Fr. Schmemann “made an Autocephalous Church a reality” in name only. ALL the Romanians did not join, ALL the Albanians did not join. Metropolitan Philip, as Fr. Schmemann’s student, was somehow “required to join?” , The MP kept many parishes … and, apparently, Canada was not “covered” in the Autocephaly.
        Finally, The Church is One; the Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ. It does not really depend on “our” understanding, prayers, or work. The “thought,” if one can call it that, that.the lack of “administrative unity in North America ” is the “most serious canonical problem today” (as I have seen it described) is simply ridiculous, and ridiculous in the extreme.

        • Timothy Wearing says

          M. Woerl,

          Pay attention; SCOBA was created in 1961 so that all the canonical Orthodox bishops in North America could assemble, coordinate efforts and discuss pressing issues for all. ALSO, THEY decided that working toward a unified Orthodox autocephalous church in N. America called, “The Orthodox Church in America” was a primary goal. + Iakavos signed on to this, + Antony Bashir then + Philip and ALL the bishops in SCOBA. (Sorry, although ROCOR was asked to attend meetings, they refused) So, when Fr. Schmemann made this DIRECTIVE from the bishops a reality, + Iakavos & + Philip reneged! Canon Law is clear, when a local autocephalous church is established in a territory, ALL Orthodox Churches are required to come under it’s authority. Further, Canon Law is also clear that no foreign bishop has ANY authority outside their immediate territory. We are not Roman Catholics who believe their Pope has supreme authority over all their churches and clerics all over the world. Neither Moscow, Istanbul, Damascus or any other country’s bishop has any authority in N. America. Not only is this Orthodox Canon Law, but the teachings of the Apostles. Did the Apostles establish ANY local/territory church ordaining bishops telling them that they would be subject to other bishops elsewhere? Of course not! Missionary activities to spread Orthodoxy is one thing, remaining as occupiers of these newly established churches is “colonialism;” non-canonical and non-Apostolic.

        • Exactly,

          I mean, let’s look at what really happened and then look at the present claims from some.

          In the late 1960’s the leadership of the Metropolia decided, on their own, that they were going to obtain American autocephaly from Moscow, which was still under the directorship of the Soviet government (one main reason that they had not been under it for decades). Yet there were any number of other Orthodox jurisdictions in the US who had no intention whatsoever of uniting into one autocephalous church. In fact, the majority of Orthodox Christians in the US had no intention or desire for autocephaly and probably a contrary desire, given the then contemporary and present realities. So a minority of Orthodox here in America obtained their alleged “autocephaly” on behalf of the entire American church, in exchange for a bribe to the KGB (Church of Japan), from a completely compromised Church ruled by militant atheists – both outside it as masters and within it as collaborators – which routinely communed Roman Catholics.

          Now, based on this (and you can take it all to the bank), everyone else is simply supposed to salute and join the newborn “autocephalous” American Church?

          Lack of autocephaly is a crisis?

          We are all sinners if we do not immediately join the OCA?

          LOL. That’s a joke. It elicits laughter, not serious consideration. H*ll, the OCA will be lucky if it survives another quarter century. No train has left the station. There is no line at the door to join. No emerging consensus toward recognition.

          Just tolerance for the present. Hence the histrionics. Time is not on their side.

          • Isa Almisry says

            “Time is not on their side.”
            Have the Romanovs been resurrected?

            “a completely compromised Church ruled by militant atheists
            Churches ruled by militant Muslims who elevated Moscow into a Patriarchate were better.
            And the Ober-Prokurator-what was that?

            “ALL the Romanians did not join, ALL the Albanians did not join.”
            Just almost all. What percentage of Russians joined ROCOR?

          • Fr. Peter M. Dubinin says

            Misha – “LOL. That’s a joke. It elicits laughter, not serious consideration. H*ll, the OCA will be lucky if it survives another quarter century.” I concur and would apply the same to all the jurisdictions in the US.

    • Michael Bauman says

      Yes, Father. How true. Thank you for your wisdom. Obedience is in the phrase: Thy will not mine be done. I, most of the time invert it: My will, not thine be done.

      Lord have mercy on us all.

    • “To whom much is given, much is required. That we cannot reflect our Eucharistic unity in one, autocephalous Orthodox Church in the USA is a sin, plain and simple.”

      A local church not being autocephalous is no sin (AOCNA, GOARCH, UOC [MP], etc).. Therefore, the fact that there is no autocephalous American church is no sin. Otherwise, any Orthodox in America not belonging to or joining the OCA would be sinning. No one but a few nuts in the OCA believe that. Certainly not Moscow, Constantinople, etc. Lack of administrative unity may be a sin, depending on how the bishops view the canonical issues.

      • Fr. Peter M. Dubinin says

        Misha – and now I speak as a priest – You my friend are wrong to refer to those “few” in the OCA who believe not joining the OCA would be sinning are nuts. Did your parents teach you to speak in this manner; did your priest or bishop; did your Savior Jesus Christ? Didn’t think so. Such pettiness in characterization is not befitting a Christian – stick to the matter at hand. Otherwise you detract as you just did from your central point.

        • Fr. Peter,

          Usually when challenged by someone on some point I make which is perfectly reasonable, I simply repeat and elaborate, just to rub their noses in it:

          “That we cannot reflect our Eucharistic unity in one, autocephalous Orthodox Church in the USA is a sin, plain and simple.”

          I repeat: There is no sin whatsoever in us not having an autocephalous church in America. A discerning person would be able to separate that issue from the issue of overlapping jurisdictions. It is no more a sin today that we do not have an autocephalous church here in America than it was in 1969, before the alleged autocephaly of the OCA. Overlapping jurisdictions, on the other hand, have always been problematic.

          Sin presumes a sinner. In saying the lack of an autocephalous church here is a sin, you are implying that all who do not belong to the one alleged autocephalous church here are sinning by not joining it or by not joining some larger autocephalous body composed partly of the OCA. Otherwise, you have no point.

          But this is false. You are simply wrong about this. Most Orthodox Christians in the world – and more importantly most Orthodox bishops – agree with me on this. The MP sees no sin in maintaining ROCOR here. Constantinople sees no sin in maintaining GOARCH here, and on and on.

          People have valid disagreements about ecclesiastical propriety without it amounting to sin. The Greek archdiocese in Australia is not autocephalous. This is no sin. The Japanese Orthodox Church is not autocephalous. This is no sin. The entire Ukrainian Orthodox Church (MP) is not autocephalous. This is no sin.

          For someone in the OCA to suggest that the lack of an autocephalous church here is a sin is pure hubris, unbecoming of a servant of Christ. It is, however, typical of the tripe coming from some OCA partisans.

          OCA itself maintains overlapping ethnic dioceses within its own jurisdiction. If I’ve heard OCA partisans say it once, I’ve heard it a thousand times: “One bishop, one city. Phyletism is heresy.”

        • Father, you criticize Misha for calling a few people in the OCA “nuts.”

          And yet, we have had ROCOR priests on this thread labelled as ignorant, uneducated, full of false piety, living in a pretend world, living in the 1700’s, “parading around looking like long bearded, pony-tailed, black-cassocked uneducated nuts” (my emphasis) who believe that Christ has a “multi-cultural harem” rather than a Bride. I know you have read these statements, because you have had comments posted in the middle of these threads.

          I don’t recall you counselling anyone about whether their mother had taught them to talk that way about others, or whether their Savior Jesus Christ (who according to our iconography had a beard, sported long hair, and wore something suspiciously resembling a cassock) would approve.

          Surely you have been in the OCA long enough to have encountered the occasional no-kidding OCA triumphalism that not infrequently rears its head long enough to say that all of the other canonically irregular jurisdictions in this country just need to get over it and join the autocephalous OCA. I certainly did during my years in and out of the OCA, and not just once or twice.

          And such attitudes, in various forms, are not just fossils from the 1970’s or 80’s. We have had at least one person on this thread say that the OCA is the “only real hope for American Orthodoxy.” We have had you say that the minimum requirement for an autocephalous Church is to have one bishop in one city — a rule that the OCA itself doesn’t follow, with its ethnic non-geographical overlapping dioceses (dioceses that originally existed only for the purpose of expanding the rolls of the OCA and if eliminated today would cause the OCA to shrink faster than it already is).

          Everyone has the right to express his own opinion, but to most Orthodox Christians who aren’t in the OCA (and really, probably to most who are in the OCA as well), OCA triumphalism is so ungrounded in reality as to have it not be unreasonable to call it “nuts.” True, my mother would certainly say that it is more polite to call someone’s ideas nuts than it is to call a person a nut, but this is the Wild West of the internet, and we all are supposed to grow thick skins and put on our big-boy pants.

          So, with all due respect, I would suggest that on an open forum like this, you consider either applying your conversation-ending “as a priest” declarations evenhandedly, or not at all.

          • George Michalopulos says

            Edward, for the record, even though I have allowed extreme liberality for commentary, I myself have never propagated the view that ROCOR priests exhibited false piety.

            I just wanted to get that out there.

            • You absolutely have not. Quite the opposite. Those of us in the ROCOR need to be tough enough to take the jabs and defend ourselves rationally, which I think we have.

              We all hope for discourse as reasoned as possible, but have to understand that sometimes we may get poked where it hurts.

              If Vladyka Tikhon can defend his views drawing his extensive experience as a hierarch, yet without pulling rank on fellow posters, I think that priests can as well.

          • Fr. Peter Dubinin says

            Edward – consider my “conversation-ending “as a priest”…” applied to all you have named and identified. And for the record as I stated in another entry – I do not equate the need for an autocephalous Church in the US with all the jurisdictions and pieces of other Churches to join up with the OCA. I stated some time ago that the OCA forfeited for good any opportunity to be an instrument for canonical regularity in the US with its sinful treatment of Metropolitan Jonah; argumentation on his virtues and or missteps aside, a treatment for which we in the OCA have need to repent.

            • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

              Re your comment, “I stated some time ago that the OCA forfeited for good any opportunity to be an instrument for canonical regularity in the US with its sinful treatment of Metropolitan Jonah; argumentation on his virtues and or missteps aside, a treatment for which we in the OCA have need to repent”:

              Thank you, Fr. Peter, for your personal integrity and prophetic boldness, particularly as an OCA priest and U.S. Army chaplain endorsed by the OCA, concerning the OCA’s “sinful treatment” of your former primate, His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah. As you know, that issue was the last straw before my request to be released from the OCA to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia in 2012.

              May our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ continue to protect you–and the other chaplains and the rest of the U.S. armed forces in harm’s way–and bring y’all home again safely and with honor.

            • I agree 100% with Fr. Peter and Fr. Alexander that the OCA’s treatment of Metropolitan Jonah is sinful and shameful. That is news to absolutely no one, but there you are.

              I am sad about the downvotes for Fr. Peter’s comment, though. Even though I don’t agree that jurisdictional unity is a dire need at the moment, it is something we need to keep in our sights. If we become too complacent in the current situation, it may lead to a large scale schism in the future.

              • Carl Kraeff says

                Hi Helga–I guess there are exceptions to every rule: I do not agree with your statement that “I agree 100% with Fr. Peter and Fr. Alexander that the OCA’s treatment of Metropolitan Jonah is sinful and shameful. That is news to absolutely no one, but there you are.” Not only do I not disgree but I believe that the OCA has been much too lenient and forgiving in its treatment of Metropolitan Jonah. But there you are…

                • George Michalopulos says

                  OK Carl, how exactly should the Synod have treated His Beatitude if they were indeed “too lenient” with him? (One shudders to think.)

                  • George, please don’t egg him on. You know as well as I do what they could have done.

                    I do not believe Carl will face the truth about the OCA Synod’s behavior yet.

                    • Carl Kraeff says

                      It is very true that I usually try to set the record straight when some fool brings up the “shameful” treatment of Metropolitan Jonah. I am not proud of it; I look as it as a button that is pushed by strangers and I play my prerecorded message. What is equally true that I generally do not initiate these occurrences. That being the case, I will not go into details unless somebody brings forth lies, misconceptions, disinformation and/or misinformation.

                  • M. Stankovich says

                    In my estimation, they offered him the the opportunity to resolve the numerous deficiencies which he termed the “disaster” of the four years his Episcopacy, while still maintaining his dignity, and continuing to hold the position of Archbishop of Washington and Metropolitan of All-America and Canada. This was an unprecedented, God-given path to reconciliation and healing which he declared – before the assembled All-American Council – he would undertake out of his “love for the faithful and the Church.” A date should have been set, and when he did not comply, when he did act and fulfill his obligation according to his word, he should have been removed immediately. Their leniency was in allowing him to do nothing, to ignore them, to ignore his promise to the Church, and to impose his pathology on everyone, exemplified in his passive-aggressive statement, “I had neither the inclination nor the temperament to be Metropolitan.” Reverend fathers, ladies & gentlemen, it is our fault.

                    To the adamantly persistent priests commenting above, beloved SS Verhovskoy called us to be like Ezekiel, but also warned:

                    Woe to the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! Israel, your prophets are like the foxes in the deserts. You have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the Lord.They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The Lord said: and the Lord has not sent them. Ezek. 13:3-6

                    Silence is ascent and he answers nothing. This is not holiness; this is not ascetic piety; this is ascent.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Dr Stankovich, “obedience” is a two-way street. It is not submission. We’ve rehashed over and over the illegitimacy of sending Jonah (or anyone for that matter) to SLI, an institution which most of us felt was too secular in its approaches. (One priest even told me that they don’t “cure” priests of their pathologies. I asked “WTF then? What do they do then?”) Then a few months later I broke the story where their director was removed because of an “inappropriate adult relationship” (get it? he’s a homosexual). This vindicated mine and others’ suspicions about that place.

                      There was a complete lack of good faith on those revered protopresbyterians who believe in Soviet psychiatry. It’s sad to believe that in a free country (pretty soon I’ll be having to use square quotes around the word free) that there are ecclesial bodies which believe in totalitarian practices.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      Mr. Michalopolos,

                      Do not dare attempt this “smoke & mirrors” deprecation of one of the foremost research and treatment institutions in this country as a means of absolving Met. Johah from the integrity of his word and promise. What is a man – and a hierarch at that – who cannot be faithful to his word?

                      I am willing to do whatever is necessary, working in close collaboration with the Holy Synod. As a first step I have agreed to begin a process of discernment that will include a complete evaluation in a program that specializes in assisting clergy, starting the week of November 14th. I have chosen to do this out of love for you, the people of the Church, and for my brother bishops.

                      Had he shown an ounce of humility and an ounce of courage and completed the program, you would praising his fortitude & leadership, declaring SLI as a “fountain of healing.” Instead, you are forced to attempt to get the fish – who is solely responsible for transforming himself into a “footnote” – off the hook with foolishness. And foolishness it is.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Dr Stankovich, not only do I “dare attempt” to criticize SLI, I will continue to do so screaming from the rooftops if necessary. The very idea that HB, a sane man by any estimation, should have to go there because his tenure was less than perfect (and not without a little sabotage along the way) is completely illegitimate. I’ll go further: even if a clergyman needs therapy, he can find no better hospital than an authentic monastery where he can live a spiritual life unburdened by worldly cares and sustained by prayer and fasting.

                    • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                      No, silence is not ascent. It may, however, be assent.

                      And obedience is submission.

                    • Thomas Barker says

                      Silence is ascent…this is ascent.”

                      Do you mean “assent” , or is this some clever pun that escapes me?

                    • “Silence is [assent],” Stankovich writes.

                      Metropolitan Jonah is not silent by choice, it is because the OCA Synod will not allow him to speak about it. Even Metropolitan Jonah’s mother has commented here personally in order to inform Stankovich of that.

                      Metropolitan Jonah did everything possible to try to reconcile with the other OCA bishops. He has no pathology to impose on anyone, and did not require any mental health treatment.

                      Stankovich has never examined Metropolitan Jonah clinically, and has no access to Metropolitan Jonah’s medical information. He has no way of knowing what evaluations Metropolitan Jonah would have undergone at SLI, their results, or their credibility.

                    • Protodeacon (congratulations!) Patrick writes, “obedience is submission.”

                      George seems to have misspoken a bit, since submission is part of the definition of obedience. I think what he meant was that obedience does not mean one is compelled to submit to abuse, coercion, duress, domination, lies, or dealings in bad faith.

                      Metropolitan Jonah is a lot of things, not all of them positive things. However, Metropolitan Jonah does not have mental problems, and the OCA bishops have always known this. The efforts at forcing Metropolitan Jonah into mental evaluation and unnecessary treatment were nothing but an abusive political stunt.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      Because of pain, allow me to sit corrected, assent. Grazie a tutti.

                      Mr. Michalopulos, in five questions or less (without Google assistance), I could demonstrate that you and your cadre of empty-headed experts are hounds baying at the moon. You are unspeakably and shamefully unqualified to even begin to assess a facility such as SLI. A rejected opportunity to reconcile and unite what one self-describes as “disaster” is epic tragedy. It is self-will run riot.

                      If I may quote our mutual correspondent – whom you chose to censor – “There are people at Syossett who say, ‘He’s gone and I no longer smell napalm in the morning.'” Do not mistake this for “satisfaction” or “victory,” but another sign of the far-reaching peripheral damage. It is Met. Jonah that needs to repent before the OCA.

                    • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

                      George and Helga: any clinician with an M.D. degree who would criticize Metropolitan Jonah—or anyone for that matter–in public for allegedly trying “to impose his pathology [italics added] on everyone” without ever conducting a personal medical or psychological examination is guilty of presumptuous, outrageous, unprofessional conduct. Any Orthodox protopresbyter without professional competence in psychiatry who would dare characterize his senior metropolitan as “gravely troubled” in an open “letter” published online on the first day of Great Lent [see http://www.ocanews.org/news/Hopko3.7.11.html ] is guilty of an egregious overreach and a sin against charity. Neither the clinician nor the protopresbyter is worthy of public respect or even personal attention.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      Archpriest Alexander,

                      You are a hypocrite. By rights, I should publish the rash, brazen, and arrogant stupidity of our private communication regarding my clinical determination. But you are continuously protected by Mr. Michalopulous from my comments to and about you.

                      It is directly from the words at the lips of Met. Jonah before the All-American Council, directly from the words of his letter of resignation, and directly from the single letter issued by the Synod of Bishops that I draw my conclusion, “without ever conducting a personal medical or psychological examination.” What shall we argue? The reality of a horse or the idea of a horse? Quelle que différence? He created a DISASTER in the Orthodox Church in America, and is responsible for the fallout. How dare you ascribe responsibility to anyone but the perpetrator!

                      You left the OCA, yet you continue to impose your opinion(s) & commentary regarding the OCA, complimenting those whom you apparently see as defiant of Church Order, and castigating those whom you see as obedient to the hierarchs. You are following the foolish path warned by the Scripture: “He has opened a pit, and dug it up, and he shall fall into the ditch which he has made,” (Ps. 7:15) and openly defy the words of St. Paul, “Let all things be done decently and in order, (1 Cor. 14:40) for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” (1 Cor. 14:33) I intend to notify your bishop.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      I’m sorry Dr S, but I’m with Fr Alexander on this one 100%. Jonah admitted to no pathology just maladministration. In the nature of a true Christian gentleman (I know, we’re not used to those in American Orthodoxy), manfully accepted the blame for his underlings. One of whom, Garklavs was clearly insubordinate and had to be fired by the entire Synod of Bishops. For what it’s worth, if I’d been in Jonah’s place I would have done no such thing from the get-go. Instead I’d of pulled a Philip on these churls and whacked them over the head with my pastoral staff. On Judgment Day I’d tell the Lord that they “fell down the stairs.”

                      Anyway, maladministration is not reason to remand someone to SLI (or whatever funny farm you would prefer). Your diagnoses from afar as well as Hopko’s defamatory letter are the height of unChristian behavior. (BTW, I don’t believe that Hopko wanted his letter published but Stokoe blindsided him. Regardless, it was churlish of Hopko to write that letter. God will judge.)

                    • George, if you read the letter on OCAN, it says “Editor’s note: Fr. Hopko specifically requested I post his letter today.”

                      Its publication was intentional, and it was also intentional that it was published on Clean Monday.

                    • How anyone observing this mess (Jonah, Herman, Kishkovsky, Hopko, etc.) could imagine that the whole bunch in charge at Syosset will not eat each other eventually and mercifully self destruct is beyond me. Truly a den of vipers.

                  • George, before our lay delegate to that AAC left, he asked my opinion on the upcoming election. By the time I was done describing the ideal candidate, I realized I had just described then Bp. Jonah, and said so.

                    What was unknown was whether he had the pesonal ability to swim with the sharks and drain the swamps (to mix metaphors).

                    I would suggest to you that both could be true:

                    1. There are a lot of morally and theologically compromised people in positions of power in the old guard of the OCA who wanted another controllable/compromised Metropolitan and who were angry that they had, through their corruption and incompetence, cornered themselves into having to elect +Jonah.

                    2. Metr. Jonah had personality issues that made him unable to be a competent Metropolitan. The swirl that surrounded his tenure that certainly had the stigmata of a personality disorder. I was very disappointed in his inability to navigate those waters. He had the opportunity to remake the OCA, over the kicking and screaming protests of Syosett and Crestwood. He failed, and that seemed to be a tragic loss of a once in a lifetime opportunity (although good may yet come out of his failure).

                    I also think that some revisionism has gone on. +Jonah seemed to me to have discovered his inner traditionalist after he started having problems, not before.

                    My initial perception of his early tenure was that he was acting more like an old-school OCA triumphalist (ticking off other jurisdicions) than a pan-Orthodox traditionalist. But I wasn’t following very closely.

                    I think he may flourish in the ROCOR where he will not be in charge and where he will be under guidance. I am certainly glad to have him, and will interested to see what contribution he makes. The whole affair seems to have gutted most of what pretentions were left after the scandals. Perhaps that is what was needed in the long run.

                    • If he accepts the guidance……

                    • Stephen D wrote: “If he accepts the guidance……”

                      I never heard that he was anything but obedient to his bishop when he was an abbot. I have no reason to think he will be anything but humble and collaborative in his dealings with the ROCOR/ROC.

                    • DC Indexman says

                      Dr. Stankovich:

                      Please reconsider your views on the very good – the Very Reverend Dr. Alexander F. C. Webster.

                      Consider the experience he presents to us. He is a military chaplain, an Orthodox priest, along with being an expert on history, theology, morals, ethics, philosophy, psychology, medical and science disciplines. Quite a list.

                      Plus he has a night job as well. It seems Father Alexander is also a church transition expert and consultant. Both of you have common backgrounds in assisting people and should be able to find common ground in providing help for those in Orthodox churches. You may wish to ask Father Alexander about his recent transition gig he had in Philadelphia, PA. Word on the street is he had a big success in his transition work there.

            • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

              Frs. Dubinin and Webster were mistaken in this: “… the OCA forfeited for good any opportunity to be an instrument for canonical regularity in the US with its sinful treatment of Metropolitan Jonah.” Not so, and a dreadful exaggeration. The OCA’s dreadful, egregious, sinful, stupid and mean-spirited treatment of Metropolitan Jonah “forfeited” (SIC) at most only ONE SUCH OPPORTUNITY, and did not forfeit ANYTHING “for good”. I note that Fr Webster confesses to having fled his bishop, but failed to inform us of the doctrinal error which must have precipitated that dangerous step.

              • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

                RE your comment, Vladyka: “I note that Fr Webster confesses to having fled his bishop, but failed to inform us of the doctrinal error which must have precipitated that dangerous step.”

                Clerical discipline and the good order of the Church preclude, as you know quite well, my replying to your choice of words (“fled” and “dangerous”).

                • Estonian Slovak says

                  I’ll answer the bishop. Didn’t Fr. Alexander ask for and receive a canoncal release from his former bishop? How is that fleeing, then?

                  • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

                    Estonian Slovak: I knew personally three widely known and respected Russian priests who, after WWII, emigrated from Germany to the U.S.A. and were enabled to FLEE from ROCOR to the Metropolia through Canonical letters of dismissal signed by th First Hierarch of ROCOR, Metropolitan Seraphim (Lade) and cleverly worded “To any other Canonical Hierarch.” Believe me or not, that was a real FLIGHT based on problematic rather than canonical factors, but made licit by an obliging hierarch. Aside from those examples one might opine that sometimes here in America Hierarchs have bee known to issue such licences accompanying them with the thought, ‘Good riddance! At least I wasn’t the one that ordained him.”

                    • Which makes me respect those Orthodox hierarchs who refuse to take the easy path of passing on true problems to another bishop.

                      As I recall, your reputation was that you didn’t pass the buck, Vladyka.

                      N.B.: I am NOT commenting on Fr. Alexander’s canonical release, about which I know absolutely nothing. I would imagine that the pool of people who know the true merits of a given request for canonical release is usually very small indeed.

                      We all know the highly publicized cases of Roman Catholic bishops who played hot potato with their pederasts, and the results of it. I am simply expressing gratitude for those bishops who don’t do that sort of thing.

                  • It’s not. OCA clergy and laity are and have been fond of accusing others of fleeing this or that. It just indicates that they’re healthy and following their playbook.

                    • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

                      Go ahead and follow your playbooks one wasn’t in my oath of ordination. By the way, I am a great admirer of ever-memorable Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) who, having been elected and installed, chose to appoint another man to take charge of his diocese/flock in order to flee with the White Army from the approach of the Reds. i don’t enjoy bringing up that fact nor am I fond of it. You have an odd idea of healthiness. I might call it unredeemed as some do but I won’t.

                    • Bit more complicated than that, Vladyka:

                      “The new Metropolitan returned to Kharkov, but after Easter 1918 rumours circulated that he was to be appointed Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia, to replace the martyred Metropolitan Vladimir. Despite the opposition of the faithful flock in Kharkov, these rumours turned out to be true. The Metropolitan himself knew that the new position would be Golgotha, but accepted his cross, since his new responsibility was also for Galicia and his beloved Carpatho-Russia.

                      The Ukraine at that time was controlled by Ukrainian nationalists and the Germans. The nationalist-separatists created a schism. The Germans on the other hand had great respect for the Metropolitan, who spoke excellent German. At once in Kiev the new Metropolitan began giving talks and making clear his pastoral concerns. However, in December 1918, he was arrested by Ukrainian separatists. Despite protests by crowds of the faithful, who were dispersed by cavalry, the Metropolitan was taken under house arrest to Tarnopol in Galicia and then imprisoned in the Uniat monastery of Buchach.

                      Here, in captivity, for five months he composed services and wrote on theological topics. Then the region was invaded by the Poles. Polish soldiers threatened their prisoner with death, but a Polish officer showed the Metropolitan respect, rescuing him. He was taken to Krakow where he was interviewed by an aristocratic Polish Cardinal, the Metropolitan conversing fluently with him in Latin. The Metropolitan accused the Poles of treating him as a criminal. He was escorted back to the monastery.

                      He was finally freed in August 1919, when Kiev was liberated by the White Army. The Metropolitan was not able to return to his see directly, but had to travel via Constantinople. In September the Metropolitan returned in triumph. However in October the Red Army advanced again. The Metropolitan was threatened with death from a hostile crowd of Bolsheviks. Fearless of death, he defied them and he was released. With the Red Army advancing, the Metropolitan was persuaded with difficulty to leave Kiev, but he returned again as soon as the Communists were chased out. But soon after, while he was on urgent Church business in the south, Kiev was occupied again, and this time for good. The Church authorities sent the Metropolitan to Ekaterinodar in the still free south of Russia and from there to Novorossisk on the Black Sea.

                      Here mass evacuation took place, as Communists shells began to land and gunfire could be heard. The Metropolitan refused to leave. However, on 12 March 1920 he was tricked into going on board a ship to conduct a service ‘to thank God that the Greeks had taken St Sophia in Constantinople’ – which had of course not happened. Before he could start any service, the ship had weighed anchor and the Metropolitan realized that he was in effect being abducted – for his own safety.

                      That Easter the Metropolitan was in Athens, serving with the Greek Metropolitan, after which he went to Mt Athos and spent five months at St Panteleimon’s Russian Monastery. There in September 1920, he received a telegram from the White Army calling him to the Crimea. He at once set out for the Crimea, but was only to spend some forty days in Sebastopol. The White cause had finally been lost. The White Army was evacuated, the Metropolitan with it. 125 ships sailed with some 150,000 people, 27,000 women and children, bishops, generals, academics, fleeing the murderous Red Army. The Metropolitan, like nearly all of these refugees, was never to set foot in Russia again.”

                      http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/metantny.htm

                      It is touching that you admire him so. He was truly a spiritual giant. And thank you for confirming my point, yet again. Also, for those less perceptive, I will consider posting “[sarcasm on]” when making remarks as I did above about being “healthy”.

                    • Estonian Slovak says

                      No reply button below, but I want to thank Misha for reminding us that Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky was in fact trickedd into leaving the homeland. I have seen a picture of Metropolitan Anthony serving a Moleben, in public, for the Ukrainian Hetman, Pavlo Skoropadsky. This was the Ukrainian Monarch who reigned for about 8 monthe, before being overthrown by the Socialist Freemason Petliura.

          • By the way, the apostle Paul said “it is shamefully for a man to have long hair”. Maybe the practice of some is not consistent with apostolic practice.

            • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

              jphnkal! Is that why all the canonical icons of Our Lord depict Him and. e.g., The Baptist with long hair, then?

              • The word of God supersedes any depiction of our Lord. Many icons depict God the Fr as an old man.You are a Bishop you should know the primacy of the scriptures within the tradition of the Church..

              • Bishop–Do you suggest that an icon of our Lord has greater authority than the Word of God. Surely you do not ascribe equal or semi-equal status to an icon of our Lord or John the Baptist. Many churches have icons of God the Father depicted as an old man. What status would you attribute to those icons. The prominence of Scripture, as a fundamental expression of the tradition of the Church, can not be challenged. As the apostle Paul writes “all Scripture is inspired by God”. Can we make the same claim about the many and varied iconic depictions of our Lord. .By the way, I value and affirm the importance of icons in the life of the church.

                • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

                  You tell US, Johnkal” Is the long hair of our Lord and the saints shameful? Do you consider the multitude of Orthodox monastics, especially our Bishops and Saint John of Kronstadt, to have engaged in shameful conduct? Lord, have mercy! As you must know, YOU or I do not get to interpret and apply Holy Scriptures as we please. Consult the Holy Fathers and their commentaries before quoting the Scrptures in arguments like an unregenerated Biblist Protestant or Muslim!

                  • Can you tell me a Fr who interprets that portion of scripture in a different way. Have you consulted the Frs of the church regarding that passage? If so, please let me know how to properly interpret the passage. I realize the practice is different, but there is no other way to interpret the passage.Besides, we do not know if Jesus had long hair. By the way, how did you know that I am muslim? I know your record and will not stoop to name calling.

                    • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

                      johnkal! I. too, will not engage in name-calling. I find that you quote the Scriptures in argument LIKE an unregenerated Biblist Protestant or Muslim, and that is not name-calling. Get it? ! had no idea that you were a Muslim! I’ll try to keep it in mind, now you’ve let us know.
                      Do you find St John of Kronstadt;s long hair to be shameful or are you trying to score against some clergy you dislike? If you don;t know whether any of our Fathers commented on your belligerent quotation, I take it you;ve not ever read them, right?

                    • Peter A. Papoutsis says
                    • Peter A. Papoutsis says
                    • http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/clergy_hair.aspx

                      Here’s your answer, johnkal. Btw, I love orthodoxinfo.com!

                      “The Apostle Paul himself wore his hair long as we can conclude from the following passage where it is mentioned that “head bands,” [Webmaster note: he then cites the Slavonic word using a special font. Consult the original article if needed.], and “towels” touched to his body were placed on the sick to heal them. The “head bands” indicate the length of his hair (in accor dance with pious custom) which had to be tied back in order to keep it in place (cf. Acts 19:12). The historian Egezit writes that the Apostle James, the head of the church in Jerusalem, never cut his hair (Christian Reading, Feb. 1898, p.142, [in Russian]).

                      If the pious practice among clergy and laity in the Christian community was to follow the example of the Old Testament, how then are we to understand the words of Saint Paul to the Corinthians cited earlier (I Cor. 11:14)? Saint Paul in the cited passage is addressing men and woman who are praying (cf. I Cor. 11:3-4). His words in the above passages, as well as in other passages concerning head coverings (cf. I Cor. 11: 4-7), are directed to laymen, not clergy. In other passages Saint Paul makes an obvious distinction between the clerical and lay rank (cf. I Cor. 4:1, I Tim. 4:6, Col. 1:7, and others). He did not oppose the Old Testament ordinance in regard to hair and beards since, as we have noted above, he himself observed it, as did Our Lord Himself, Who is depicted on all occasions with long hair and beard as the Great High Priest of the new Christian priest hood.

                      In our passage noted previously, Both not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Cor. 11:14) Saint Paul uses the Greek word for “hair.” This particular word for hair designates hair as an a ornament (the notion of length being only secondary and suggested), differing from [Gr.] thrix (the anatomical or physical term for hair). [1] Saint Paul’s selection of words emphasizes his criticism of laymen wearing their hair in a stylized fashion, which was contrary to pious Jewish and Christian love of modesty. We note the same approach to hair as that of Saint Paul in the 96th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council where it states: “Those therefore who adorn and arrange their hair to the detri ment of those who see them, that is by cunningly devised intertwinings, and by this means put a bait in the way of unstable souls.” [2]”

                • Peter A. Papoutsis says

                  Also, this is the oldest depiction of Jesus Christ from St. Catherine’s Monastery. Very well known in the Orthodox World. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/catherines2-1.htm

                  Looks like long hair and a beard to me. This was customary for Jewish men living in Palestine during Jesus’ earthly life.

                  Peter

      • Fr. Peter Dubinin says

        The jurisdictions/ constructs you cite are not local Churches; their mother Churches are however local, territorial, autocephalous Churches.

  8. Sean Richardson says

    Regarding your last few lines, my guess is the OCA would gladly yield their autocephaly to a larger body of Orthodox in the United States, if that body also had autocephaly. What they do not wish to do is to give up their autocephaly to a unity that is under the governance of a foreign church.

    • Sean,

      That has been the standard self-protecting line the OCA has used for decades and at one time it might have made more of an impact but now, it is of little impact. The only way the OCA will be taken seriously now is if they give up their “autocephaly,” return under their Mother Church and eliminate one hurdle in American administrative unity. The OCA is neither fish nor fowl today, with little credibility in the Orthodox world. However if they gave up their status and went out on faith and not try to bargain a deal for themselves, that would show authentic leadership and I believe people would respond. It would at least cause those “foreign churches” to put up or shut up.

  9. Timothy Wearing says

    Roman,

    You are just totally wrong. Your assessment is either due to “disinformation” that the Russians are known for or total “disillusionment.” Either or, your view of reality is wrong. What no one wants is the false piety of ROCOR types publicly parading around in black robes, pony tails and long beards pretending to be the “real” Orthodox. What no one wants is the “church ethnic clubs” insisting on ethnicity before Orthodox. The OCA is the ONLY Orthodox Church that offers a real missionary outreach to Americans for Americans. The era is ending that Moscow, Istanbul, Damascus or any other foreign bishop/country should tell Americans how to run their churches. Oh, and as far as the OCA’s canonical status is concerned, it is in Holy Communion with ALL the Orthodox Churches around the world; de facto, recognized.

    • George Michalopulos says

      That’s a straw man. Why is a priest wearing slacks and a Roman collar better than one with a cassock and beard?

    • Timothy, what you pass judgment on as the “false piety”of long hair, long beards and black cassocks is in reality ROCOR priests being in obedience to their hierarchs. I personally know of many testimonies of people who have come to Orthodoxy because they engaged a priest in his cross and cassock. That is genuine missionary work, regardless of your childish assertions.

      • Wow, I wish evangelism was that easy. Ponytail cassock=conversion. Our Savior lived among us,offered new life and salvation without wearing distinctive garb. No where in the NT did any one mention Jesus ‘ clothing. In fact, there is no NT description of what he looked like. Conversion comes as St. Paul said “hearing of the word of God”. The Gospel must be preached.

        • Funny, the Mohammadans are having no trouble gaining Western converts despite their clergy wearing beards, robes, observing a lunar calendar, speaking no English, and being completely alien in culture.

          It’s almost as if the objections to foreign externals is a straw man. Maybe if we focused on evangelism instead of bickering over these non-issues, we would be more than an asterisk. God help us if we need to learn a thing or two from the Mohammadans.

    • Timothy,

      I said nothing about ponytails or “ROCOR types” whatever that conjures up in your mind but you assert that the OCA is the “ONLY Orthodox Church that offers a real missionary outreach to Americans for Americans.” If that is true then can you explain how the OCA is rapidly declining in membership while the Antiochians and ROCOR, just to name two are growing? The OCA census numbers don’t lie and although I would not say you are living in the world of “disinformation” or “disillusionment” you do appear to not be dealing with the OCA reality. Even the most robust OCA diocese of the south is, at best, slightly growing at best and holding their own more likely.

      Although the ROCOR has had its issue with, for example, the “western rite” it does in fact have “western rite” parishes. It also is planting missions that serve in the english language.

      Since 1970 when the OCA was granted it current status by that bad “old world” Russian Orthodox Church, it has failed, IMHO, to live up to its calling. You can’t blame the “old world” churches for their failure unless you wish to continue the “straw man” argument. One need only look with a clear and honest eye to the research done by Alexi Krinditch to see that the OCA continues to become more irrelevant. I don’t rejoice in this one bit. I think it is a tragedy of the first order, but I am not buying into your argument that ONLY the OCA can evangelize America. That is simply not true.

      The OCA was not brave enough when the EOC came knocking at their door to accept them. Antioch did. The OCA was not brave enough to have a dynamic outreach to new Russians when they were asked by their Mother Church, so now ROCOR is doing its best to do so. Even if you look at the Romanian Episcopate of the OCA which has imported scores of Romanian clergy from Romania has not grown nor has the Albanian Archdiocese of the OCA.

      Again, this is not something that anyone should gloat about but the sooner the OCA realizes that it is a failed experiment, that the world has changed since 1970 and simply harkening back to what the vision was then ignoring the new reality of Orthodoxy in America since the fall of communism, the continued rise of secularism, the failure of mainline Protestant churches, that people are looking for a serious and challenging call to the Orthodox faith and not what some call the OCA as “Orthodox Lite,” the better all of us will be who desire that the Orthodox Church in all its many facets in America will benefit.

  10. Timothy Wearing says

    Roman,

    ROCOR has gained in “some” numbers due to new Russian immigration and the same with the Antiochians. OCA natural attrition is just that. To say the OCA is “irrelevant” is just stupid and an uneducated statement. It is NOT a “failed experiment” (DISINFORMATION), but the only REAL hope for American Orthodoxy. Certainly you won’t find hope coming from the “ethnic” Orthodox nor ROCOR living in some pretend world of 18th century Russia. Your view of Orthodoxy in America is very narrow and limited. Usually this comes from limited education and a parochial experience of Orthodoxy; not real experience of Orthodoxy all over North America.

    • Dear readers, let me suggest this very thread as a microcosm and example of why America is not ready for autocephaly. Let us thank God we have full communion, and focus on that!

      • Fr. Peter Dubinin says

        ROCORthodox – what does full communion even mean if we cannot speak of the issues – some distorted, some misrepresented, but some clear and on point? That would be like me saying to a married couple seeking my counsel, “Don’t talk about your problems; you’re married. Let that suffice.” Really?

        • Who says we can’t speak about these issues? We are doing exactly that. Ad nauseum. I sincerely think the whole “autocephaly now” crowd is making a problem where none exists. Bottom line is the real authority on this matter rests with hierarchs. They are not going for autocephaly here in America.. You can disagree and tell your bishop he is sinning. I will simply rejoice that I have a wonderful, loving and caring first hierarch leading ROCOR!

          • Fr. Peter M. Dubinin says

            ROCORthodox – And let the rest of Orthodoxy be damned because your own cosy little part of the Orthodox world is just peachy. Don’t get too comfortable….

            • There is nothing comfortable or cozy about spiritual life in any ROCOR parish I have attended. Are there nice things about it? — for me, absolutely. I can pray in peace without wondering whether there will be liturgical, homiletical, or confessional nonsense that I have to absorb. Given a choice, I will always choose be in the most old-school Russian-ish parish I can find. So what? For others, what feeds me would seem like being banished to one of the lower circles of hell (and some of them post regularly on these threads).

              Acquire the Holy Spirit and thousands around you will be saved — seems like I remember hearing words roughly to that effect somewhere, by someone of note…

              8 parishes and 4 jurisdictions into my Orthodox life (I’ve had to move a lot for military service, education, and work), I can’t say that I look back on the last 25+ years and ever think to myself, “wow, now that was a time when I really missed out on a golden opportunity to make a difference in the administrative and jurisdictional life of Orthodoxy in America!”

              I have looked back with regret that I haven’t yet memorized the Psalter or one of the Gospels or Compline or the Hours or all the morning and bedtime prayers or the Resurrectional stichera or all of the Great Feast tropars and kontaks — you’d think 25+ years would be long enough to do at least some of that. I have looked back in regret at the many periods of my life when I’ve been too lazy to get up early and spend a mere hour in prayer or couldn’t spend an hour at prayer in the evening before bed, but did have time to watch a movie or read a potboiler.

              On my deathbed, will any of this stuff about jurisdictions and autocephaly even cross my mind? Will it cross anyone’s mind?

              No, don’t criticize people who just want to find a place where they can pray in peace, and who correctly realize that leaving that place of peace wouldn’t do a blessed thing about the problems in other jurisdictions.

              • Fr. Peter M. Dubinin says

                Edward – “wow, now that was a time when I really missed out on a golden opportunity to make a difference in the administrative and jurisdictional life of Orthodoxy in America!” If this statement is supposed to be set in opposition to the “Acquire the Holy Spirit…” then herein is a false dichotomy. Reducing the requirement for the Orthodox Churches to reflect their Eucharistic unity in a visible unity in one geographical area as mere “…administrative & jurisdictional life of Orthodoxy in America” is a “missing of the mark” if there ever was one. Would to God I could ignore what we Orthodox in America are doing to continually besmirch the “Bride of Christ” and just privately and or in conjunction with the few Orthodox Christians in my immediate area strive to “Acquire the Holy Spirit” I would; I have tried. As one who was raised within the Orthodox Church (Ukrainian flavor) and left, completely oblivious to the spiritual treasure which was by God’s grace, my spiritual heritage, because of so many ill/well intentioned efforts to celebrate “Ukraina” only to rediscover this treasure after 14 years of wandering in evangelical protestantism, I cannot remain silent. I am no paragon of virtue, but of this I am convinced – the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ; full, complete, lacking nothing for the salvation of all mankind, and for me to compound my unworthiness to live within so great a treasure by not speaking out about those things which bring scandal to the Body of Christ and thereby “scare” people away from God’s salvation offered within, is more than I can abide. Forgive me a sinner.

                • Father, you seem to have had an experience growing up in the Ukrainian Orthodox world here in America that was a very negative one. I know you are not alone — I have heard many similar stories. I didn’t have to experience what you did, and perhaps from your perspective you believe that had Orthodoxy been united in faith and not divided by ethnicity, you wouldn’t have had to wander for all of those years outside of the Faith, because the jewel of Orthodox spiritual life wouldn’t have been so hidden behind a wall of language and ethnic exclusivity. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding where you are coming from — but that is the best I can do.

                  My point is not that it is wrong for you to place such a heavy emphasis on Orthodox unity in America. If that is what your passion and calling is, and if you have been placed into a situation where you have some influence in the matter, then God bless you in your efforts.

                  My point, rather, was that I think it is wrong to be dismissive of those who do not have such a calling or passion, who do not have the stomach for that kind of battle, or who are not in positions where they have any influence over those who make the decisions. For most of us, it is not about being “cozy” or “comfortable,” it is about living an Orthodox life in a setting where we have found we can best do so. I am neither calling this a weakness or a strength — just a fact.

          • ” Bottom line is the real authority on this matter rests with hierarchs. They are not going for autocephaly here in America.”
            I wasn’t aware that the Metropolitan and Holy Synod of the OCA-all of whom are hierarchs-disowned the Tomos of Autocephaly. Can you link to it?

            • He may be referring to the hierarchs of all the other Orthodox churches in the world who either explicitly reject the OCA’s autocephaly or (like Moscow) pay it lip service but largely behave as if it did not exist. That would be the logical inference from the comment.

              • Isa Almisry says

                Given that we all are paying lip service to the Phanar’s primacy while rejecting its claims, the OCA fits right in among all the other Orthodox Churches in the world.

                There was no logic to infer form the comment.

                • Yes, but no one is rejecting the Phanar’s claim to be first among equals, only their obscure, erroneous interpretation of canon 28. Most other Orthodox are rejecting the OCA’s claims to autocephaly, i.e., its very independent existence, either explicitly or by virtue of their considerable presences on alleged OCA territory.

                  • Isa Almisry says

                    ” Most other Orthodox are rejecting the OCA’s claims to autocephaly, i.e., its very independent existence, either explicitly or by virtue of their considerable presences on alleged OCA territory.”
                    And yet this Sunday, as every Sunday, your spin notwithstanding, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, the Catholicos of Mtskheta-Tbilis and All Georgia, the Patriarch of Sofia and All Bulgaria, the Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland, and the Metropolitan of Presov and the Czech Lands and Slovakia (Ratislav, over the Phanar’s protests) will commemorate Met. Tikhon as their peer as autocephalous Metropolitan of Washington and All America and Canada (not to mention the Patriarchs of Antioch, Serbia, Romania and the Archbishop of Albania (who owes its existence to the OCA’s Albanian Archdiocese) practicing qui tacet consentit). IOW the primates of the VAST majority of Orthodox will reaffirm its very independent existence-in fact the parishes under your Patriarch, i.e. HH Kiril, in North America, will commemorate Met. Tikhon and that independent existence as well.

                    In contrast, the complete and total presence of other Churches where ROCOR serves-not having any territory, I can’t say its “alleged terriotory”-ignores the existence, independent or otherwise, of ROCOR. That doesn’t seem to bother you any. Why should the OCA be bothered by the phyletism of the Greek Church, seeing that it is in a decided minority? Rather an odd argument coming from ROCOR, as the Phanar claimes it is intruding on its territory.

                    • ROCOR does not claim any territory upon which it operates as exclusively its own. At least not to my knowledge. The patriarchates which were slaves of the communists and are now largely free do most certainly pay lip service to OCA’s autocephaly – and that is precisely all that constitutes its autocephaly, lip service.

                    • ROCOR does not claim any territory upon which it operates as exclusively its own. At least not to my knowledge. The patriarchates which were slaves of the communists and are now largely free do most certainly pay lip service to OCA’s autocephaly – and that is precisely all that constitutes its autocephaly, lip service. Certainly not respect for its territorial claims.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “It’s interesting, in the bizarro-world of Isa, Isa alone seems to understand the actual status of all of these people much better than they themselves did, whether Metropolia hierarchs who asserted their unity under ROCOR”
                      Very rich indeed from someone who claims to know the actual status of Metropolitan Tikhon of All America and Canada.

                      Which is what, precisely, by the way? We know the Phanar’s answer, and that of ROCA, what is ROCOR’s? Leaving aside the question of a non-autocephalous Church arrogating to itself the ability to judge the autocephaly of autocephalous Churches, what does ROCOR hold as the present status of the OCA?

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “ROCOR does not claim any territory upon which it operates as exclusively its own.”
                      Well, that is most unfortunate, as “the Greeks are dramatically more numerous than [ROCOR and] claims jurisdiction over [it].”
                      Grinding the Phanar’s ax against the OCA just makes the blade sharper to slit your own throat when ROCOR is put on the same chopping block.
                      The Russian Orthodox Church OUTSIDE of Russia ipso facto fits the Phanar’s definition of its jurisdiction over “over all areas outside the canonically defined territories of other Orthodox churches.”
                      All, but you say, Moscow doesn’t recognize that.
                      So what? Moscow recognizes the OCA’s autocephaly, but you say that that should be ignored to pay attention to “the Greeks[, who] are dramatically more numerous.” If GOA outnumbers the OCA, it dwarfs ROCOR in North America. “The Greeks are dramatically more numerous” in Australia/NZ too, and in Western Europe/Germany not only are “the Greeks are dramatically more numerous” but the regular Russian bishops-yes, Moscow does not respect ROCOR’s jurisdictional claims, as it has its own bishops in those areas-exceed ROCOR as well.

                      So Moscow itself-by your standard-pays only lips ervice to ROCOR’s jurisdiction, and the Phanar-by your standards the Church in whose jurisdiction ROCOR finds itself-doesn’t even do that, nor recognize its self-rule (a ROCOR priest pointed out that it does not have autonomy). In parts of the Greek Church (Alexandria, Jerusalem) ROCOR even acknowledges this officially, commemorating the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem in Africa and Palestine respectively. ROCOR in North America and Australia and Western Europe can start commemorating the EP. Like the Patriarch of Moscow’s parishes in North America commemorate Metropolitan Tikhon.

                    • You would need to ask them, Isa. However, if it did not comport with the opinion of Isa regarding canon law as revealed to him from Heaven, written in black fire upon white, I’m sure you would not accept the answer they gave.

                      I personally prefer not to think about the status of the OCA or Pat. Tikhon, not really even caring. As long as no one is forcing any Orthodox to behave as though OCA is autocephalous,other than lip service, it is moot.

                      Since those Orthodox jurisdictions who reject the autocephaly of the OCA show no signs of budging, nor are they, nor Moscow, nor others who purportedly recognize the OCA as autocephalous closing down anything; and since OCA has had nothing but scandals under the last few metropolitans and seems to have exhausted the patience of practically everyone, including a number of its own laity and clergy; I assume that OCA will fade away like other remnants of the Cold War.

                      ROCOR, GOARCH, and your own jurisdiction (hypocrisy alert!!!) the AOCNA do not seem to be in any such danger. So by all means, remain an OCA partisan under Antioch (pause for laughter), the world is full of all sorts of strange manifestations.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “You would need to ask them, Isa. However, if it did not comport with the opinion of Isa regarding canon law as revealed to him from Heaven, written in black fire upon white, I’m sure you would not accept the answer they gave.”
                      You’re the one citing as authority a Patriarchate whose canonical interpretation you don’t accept, to deny the interpretation of your Patriarchate (which I accept), not I.

                      You make big claims to ignore what the highest authority (as defined by Ukaz 362) of your Church says. It’s fair to ask what you have in the alternative. You dare to contradict that highest authority on the status of Met. Tikhon. The Phanar can excuse His Beatitude as under the Patriarch of Moscow, but you don’t have that option to explain your communion with the OCA-and we have seen your hierarchs commune with the OCA’s (to much rejoicing). So what is that status?

                      “I assume that OCA will fade away like other remnants of the Cold War.”
                      ROCOR, by definition belonging nowhere, lost its raison d’etre with the end of the Cold War (which, unlike the UGCC or UAOC is why it failed at going back). The OCA is staying home, no matter what you assUme.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “ROCOR, GOARCH, and your own jurisdiction (hypocrisy alert!!!) the AOCNA do not seem to be in any such danger. So by all means, remain an OCA partisan under Antioch (pause for laughter), the world is full of all sorts of strange manifestations.”
                      That it is.
                      In between the bouts of your nervous laughter you might explain the hypocrisy you are alerting us to.

                      And what danger would ROCOR, GOARCH and SRAOCANA be facing?

                    • “And what danger would ROCOR, GOARCH and SRAOCANA be facing?”

                      None. I said they were in none. The only “danger” would be if the OCA itself or any of the above jurisdictions actually took the autocephaly of the OCA seriously. Then the above would need to abandon their claims to jurisdiction in North America. There does not seem to be any “danger” at all of this happening.

                      As to hypocrisy, if OCA is autocephalous, why do you reject its autocephaly by belonging to a Patriarchate that has set up a rival Archdiocese (really just a diocese, given that there is really only one bishop along with auxiliaries who administer its various sub-“dioceses”) on the canonical territory of the OCA? I would think that someone who takes their own arguments seriously would, as their first order of business, abandon their hypocrisy and join the OCA since they are communicants of uncanonical interlopers (i.e., if OCA is autocephalous).

                      Now, of course, if OCA does not take its own autocephaly any more seriously than any of the “interloping” jursidictions, then all bets are off.

                      I’d prefer to just avoid the whole circus and admit the truth, the OCA is not autocephalous.

                    • “Grinding the Phanar’s ax against the OCA just makes the blade sharper to slit your own throat when ROCOR is put on the same chopping block.”

                      What happens to the OCA is not my concern at all. What makes you think that the Phanar has any authority over ROCOR or that Moscow would consider any such thing? It was a rhetorical question. The MP, by the Act of Canonical Unity, does not have the authority to change the diocesan structure of ROCOR unless ROCOR agrees.

                      ROCOR is an autonomous province of the MP. OCA is not, nor is it really autocephalous. Therein lies its weakness. To state the fact that OCA is not autocephalous does not in any way confirm the Phanar’s claims under canon 28. The Phanar’s claims were no better or worse before or after 1970.

                      “So Moscow itself-by your standard-pays only lips service to ROCOR’s jurisdiction, and the Phanar-by your standards the Church in whose jurisdiction ROCOR finds itself-doesn’t even do that, nor recognize its self-rule (a ROCOR priest pointed out that it does not have autonomy).”

                      But you see, you dishonest hypocrite, that it is not by my standards that ROCOR finds itself in any jurisdiction other than Moscow’s. The MP, having become freed from Soviet domination, recognized ROCOR’s jurisdiction as its own (see below). That this overlaps with the OCA’s alleged territory is not my concern. Let me repeat that: How the fact that Moscow claims ROCOR’s dioceses, parishes, etc. as its own affects the OCA is not my concern. ROCOR rejected the Phanar’s alleged jurisdiction under canon 28 long before reuniting with the MP. Such reaching by the Phanar was never considered even possibly authoritative by either the MP or ROCOR.

                      Btw, Russia actually received its autocephaly by default. The Greeks had become Uniates, Russia therefore no longer had a mother church. Later, Constantinople recognized it but this was really a formality.

                      As to ROCOR not having autonomy, I think you have been talking to the wrong priest. ROCOR is an autonomous province of the Russian Orthodox Church as it has always been and this was affirmed in the Act of Canonical Unity:

                      “By this Act declare:

                      1. That the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, conducting its salvific service in the dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods, and other ecclesiastical bodies that were formed through history, remains an indissoluble, self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church.”

                      http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html

                      I have seen it described as “semi-autonomous”. I’m not sure there is such a thing as “semi-autonomous”; and “autonomous” means “self-governing”, but, well, really, who cares? ROCOR’s relationship with the MP is spelled out in the Act. Characterize it however you will.

                      To attack ROCOR is to attack the Russian Orthodox Church. That is what ROCOR is. It is what ROCOR always has been. Moscow, freed from communist enslavement, now testifies to this fact.

                      What is the OCA? Well, if it is autocephalous, then it is a very, very, very strange variety of autocephaly, devoid of territorial exclusivity. Also, according to Orthodoxwiki:

                      “Autocephaly (literally “self-headed”) is the status of a church within the Orthodox Church whose primatial bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop. When an ecumenical council or a high-ranking bishop, such as a patriarch or other primate, releases an ecclesiastical province from the authority of that bishop while the newly independent church remains in full communion with the hierarchy to which it then ceases to belong, the council or primate is granting autocephaly.”

                      The OCA would fail this test as well. This is so because the Metropolia did not “remain in full communion” with the MP. It was not in communion with the MP, then the MP “granted” autocephaly, then it “resumed” communion.

                      Also, reading through the Tomos, one cannot help being struck by the fact that it has a totally provisional character to it – i.e., not granting a “real” autocephaly at all. It only even purports to grant a very limited jurisdiction over those parishes within a certain geographic region which were already at the time under the jurisdiction of the Metropolia, or which might choose in the future to join the Metropolia/OCA.

                      Really, that is not autocephaly at all. Saying to a “daughter” church: “Ok, you are now ‘autocephalous’ over everyone in your allotted territory who agrees or might agree in the future to join you.” does not even purport to give you a right to exclusive geographical jurisdiction, even with limited exceptions. Not only are there exceptions for many ROC entities, but a general exception for everyone who does not agree with the alleged tomos.

                      It gives with one hand and takes away with the other:

                      “. . . enjoy all the authority, privileges and rights usually inherent in the term “autocephaly” in the canonical tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, including the right of preparing and consecrating Holy Chrism.”

                      Yet . . .

                      “The following are excluded from autocephaly on the territory of North America:

                      St. Nicholas Cathedral and its possessions, located at 15 East 97th Street in New York City and the accompanying residence; and also the immovable possessions in Pine Bush, New York, together with buildings and edifices which might be constructed in the future on this land;
                      Parishes and clergy in the U.S.A. which at present are in the Patriarchal Exarchate and which desire to remain in the canonical and jurisdictional care of the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia – these parishes, desiring to remain in the canonical jurisdiction of the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and excluded from the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America are the following:
                      St. Nicholas Church, Brookside, State of Alabama
                      St. Demetrius Monastery, Bellflower, State of California
                      Christ the Savior Church, Berkley, State of California
                      St. Nicholas Cathedral, San Francisco, State of California
                      Church of All Saints Glorified in the Russian Land, San Francisco, State of California
                      Our Lady of Kazan Church, San Diego, State of California
                      Resurrection Church, Chicago, State of Illinois
                      Dormition Church Benld, State of Illinois
                      Holy Trinity Church, Baltimore, State of Maryland
                      St. Elias Church, Battle Creek, State of Michigan
                      St. Innocent Church, Detroit, State of Michigan
                      St. Michael the Archangel Church, Detroit, State of Michigan
                      Church of St. Andrew the First-Called Apostle, East Lansing, State of Michigan
                      Holy Trinity Church, Saginaw, State of Michigan
                      St. John Chrysostom Church, Grand Rapids, State of Michigan
                      House Chapel of St. Seraphim of Sarov, Westown, State of New York
                      St. Demetrius Church, Jackson, State of Michigan
                      St. Nicholas Church, Bayonne, State of New Jersey
                      Sts. Peter and Paul Church, Elizabeth, State of New Jersey
                      Three Hierarchs Church, Garfield, State of New Jersey
                      Holy Cross Church, Hackettstown, State of New Jersey
                      Sts. Peter and Paul Church; Passaic, State of New Jersey
                      St. John the Baptist Church, Singac (Little Falls), State of New Jersey
                      St. Olga Church, Somerset, State of New Jersey
                      St. Mark Chapel, State of New York
                      Church of St. George the Great Martyr, State of New York
                      Church of All Saints Glorified in the Russian Land, on the estate of Pine Bush, State of New York
                      St. John the Baptist Chapel, Bronx, State of New York
                      Church of All Saints Glorified in the Russian Land, Amsterdam (Wolf Run), State of Ohio
                      St. Stephen Church, Lorairi, State of Ohio
                      Nativity of Christ Church, Youngstown, State of Ohio
                      St. Nicholas Church, Chester, State of Pennsylvania
                      St. Nicholas Church, Edinboro, Pageville, State of Pennsylvania
                      St. Nicholas Church, Reading, State of Pennsylvania
                      Sts. Peter and Paul Church, Mount Union, State of Pennsylvania
                      St. Nicholas Church, Wilkes-Barre, State of Pennsylvania
                      St. Andrew the Apostle Church, Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania
                      St. Michael the Archangel Church, Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania
                      Sts. Peter and Paul Church, Scranton, State of Pennsylvania
                      Sts. Peter and Paul Church, Burgaw, State of North Carolina
                      St. Gregory the Theologian Church, Tampa, State of Florida
                      Sts. Peter and Paul Church, Manchester, State of New Hampshire
                      Church of St. George the Great Martyr, Buffalo, State of New York
                      All parishes and clergy in Canada, which presently constitute the Edmonton, Canada Diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate (they all desired to remain in the jurisdiction of the Most Holy Patriarch).”

                      Furthermore:

                      “The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.”

                      And still furthermore:

                      “The newly-established local Orthodox Autocephalous Church in America should abide in brotherly relations with all the Orthodox Churches and their Primates as well as with their bishops, clergy and pious flock, who are in America and who for the time being preserve their de facto existing canonical and jurisdictional dependence on their national Churches and their Primates.”

                      So, actually, according to the Tomos itself, there is no crisis at all. Even if we accept this freakish form of autocephaly purportedly granted, it does not extend to other jurisdictions on American soil. Or, frankly, the MP granted the Metropolia the right to call itself the “Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America”, to consecrate its own chrism, and nothing else. It even characterized the de facto jurisdictional situation of other Orthodox churches in America as “canonical”.

                      http://oca.org/history-archives/tomos-of-autocephaly

                      I wonder how many in the OCA and in the other jurisdictions have actually read what Moscow purported to grant the Metropolia?

                      Now, graduate studies prevent me from further elaborating at this time, but I will be fascinated to get into the Soviet records of the USSR’s operation of the MP during this period (late 1960’s – 1971, or so). I try to stay clear of the religious angle (I’m pursuing a PhD in Slavic and Eastern Studies), but it may yield some interesting stuff I can use or make a paper, etc., out of. One thing I love about my beloved Russians, everything is documented down to the nth detail, much like Germans. I’ve gone through lots of stuff about the GULAG lately and it is impressive. I know the records of the state’s supervision of the MP are out there, I’ve seen books about stuff up through Stalin’s time and see nothing to indicate that they let up on documentation. Just got to find it and the time to translate what hasn’t been done already.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      It gives with one hand and takes away with the other:
                      “. . . enjoy all the authority, privileges and rights usually inherent in the term “autocephaly” in the canonical tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, including the right of preparing and consecrating Holy Chrism.”
                      Yet . . .
                      “The following are excluded from autocephaly on the territory of North America….Even if we accept this freakish form of autocephaly purportedly granted, it does not extend to other jurisdictions on American soil. Or, frankly, the MP granted the Metropolia the right to call itself the “Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America”, to consecrate its own chrism, and nothing else. It even characterized the de facto jurisdictional situation of other Orthodox churches in America as “canonical”.

                      That characteization of canonicity did not extend to ROCOR-hence the distinction being made from it and the other Orthodox Churches in America.
                      Nor did ROCOR have the right to consecrate its own chrism-as it did once it fled, again, from Serbia, and settled in North America, where the OCA/Metropolia and the Russian Exarchate already had jurisdiction-recognized. The Act of Canonical Communion expressly forbids it, mandating that ROCOR receive its chrism from the Patriarch of Moscow.
                      Constantinople does not even allow Churches that it grants autocephaly the right to consecrate chrism, but requires that they receive it from the Phanar. Does that count as “freakish autocephaly”? If so, then Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Greece, Albania, Poland etc. are not Churches but “freaks.” (it also eliminates almost all those Churches who have rejected the OCA Tomos).
                      On the other part of your freak show-the long list in the Tomos of parishes exempted-that comes to a total of a couple dozen parishes, including the Canadian diocese. The amended Tomos of your ally the Church of Greece isn’t as generous-it exempts dozens of dioceses and millions of communicants as under the Phanar’s control in the Hellenic Republic.
                      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Patrik-Rum.jpg/220px-Patrik-Rum.jpg
                      and they are not presided over for the EP “through one of his vicar bishops; not having a title of the local [Greek] Church, especially appointed for this, and until such time as these parishes express their official desire to join the Autocephalous Church in [Greece] in the manner described below”-to quote the OCA Tomos in a part you seem to have missed. Nor is it envisioned that they ever will leave the EP’s control-although Athens has ruled then as capital for over a century. No, their bishops are just the same as the ones in the Turkish Republic, except that these bishops live in their sees and have actual flocks to pastor-all Greek citizens.

                      I’ll get to the rest, but for now
                      “I will be fascinated to get into the Soviet records of the USSR’s operation of the MP during this period (late 1960’s – 1971, or so)”
                      Well, get to it. There was a lot of back and forth going on between the MP and the OCA/Metropolia at the time, so according to you there should be lots of data on what KGB Agents Drozdov and Mikhailov were up to-though one wonders with all that why nothing of interest to you and ROCOR came up in the Mitrokhin Archive.

                      “One thing I love about my beloved Russians, everything is documented down to the nth detail, much like Germans. I’ve gone through lots of stuff about the GULAG lately and it is impressive. I know the records of the state’s supervision of the MP are out there, I’ve seen books about stuff up through Stalin’s time and see nothing to indicate that they let up on documentation.”
                      And yet with all those piles of documentation you are left with insinuating the motives of the Tomos, because you cannot provide a KGB statement on the matter.

                      “Just got to find it and the time to translate what hasn’t been done already.”
                      Done already? You mean much has been translated already and you don’t have anything to show us?

                    • Isa,

                      Your command and comprehension of English leave a lot to be desired, so I appreciate that communicating with you I need to navigate both your dishonesty and the fact that you simply may misunderstand what I write in English:

                      “’Just got to find it and the time to translate what hasn’t been done already.’
                      Done already? You mean much has been translated already and you don’t have anything to show us?”

                      A native English speaker would have taken from my statement in context that I don’t know whether all of the Soviet records regarding its relationship and control of the ROC have been translated by others or whether I will need to do some of that myself once I find what I need.

                      As to this constant comparison with ROCOR’s status, quite simply, if you care that’s fine but I’m not at all interested in such things. ROCOR does not claim autocephaly, If it did, there might be some method to your madness, but as it stands, madness is all it is.

                      Just a few other thoughts:

                      ROCOR did have the right to consecrate chrism up until it gave up that right when the two parts of the ROC were reunited. Moscow stipulated that ROCOR’s work was “salvific” after all. Again, what a native English speaker would take from my statements about chrism is that that is really all that Moscow conveyed to the OCA, not real autocephaly. That was apparently lost on you.

                      “Constantinople does not even allow Churches that it grants autocephaly the right to consecrate chrism, but requires that they receive it from the Phanar. Does that count as “freakish autocephaly”? If so, then Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Greece, Albania, Poland etc. are not Churches but “freaks.” (it also eliminates almost all those Churches who have rejected the OCA Tomos).”

                      So what? I stipulated that Moscow purportedly granted this right to the OCA. It’s not a point of contention.

                      I did not support my statement regarding “freakish autocephaly” on the consecration of chrism, but rather the fact that Moscow not only retained its entire fleet here in America for itself, but exempted everyone other than those who already belonged to the Metropolia from the Metropolia’s jurisdiction.

                      There really is no answer for that. If I tell you you own a piece of property but have no other rights to it than to have your name on the deed – You have no right to possession, to exclusion, to lease out parcels, to collect rents; essentially I grant you no right at all to it against anyone and everyone else who is there or who might want to come and interlope or set up shop – then it is not yours, the lie on the deed notwithstanding.

                      That is the situation the OCA finds itself in. The scrap of paper it places its entire legitimacy on does not entitle it to anything more than it had in 1969 other than to change its name and consecrate its own chrism.

                      Again, that is not autocephaly at all.

                      Also, I had never read the Tomos all the way through, not being particularly interested in the activities of the Soviet government or the KGB in 1970. However, having done so, I’m becoming convinced that they may have done this with premeditation, not by accident. If you look at the Agreement on Autocephaly, it reads differently than the Tomos regarding the status of other jurisdictions in North America. The Tomos grants jurisdiction to the Metropolia only over what it already has; i.e., those parishes which are part of the Metropolia. The Agreement contemplates the conveyance of jurisdiction to the Metropolia over those churches in North America then “in communion” with the Metropolia. That list might look a little different than the one based on the Tomos, though I’m not sure exactly to what extent.

                      When I have time, I need to look at the Russian version of the Tomos. I had assumed that, regardless of its validity, Moscow at the time had intended to grant something akin to what a rational person would call “autocephaly”. I mean, for instance, the type of right that Jerusalem recently asserted against Romania or that Antioch is asserting against Jerusalem or that the Phanar asserted against the Church of Greece regarding its northern territories. That is actually autocephaly, some right to some definable piece of territory defensible against all others – exceptions notwithstanding. It does not appear that Moscow granted that to the Metropolia.

                      For example, if there is an OCA temple right next to a Greek temple and an Antiochain temple, where does OCA’s granted jurisdiction lie? Simply to the ground its temple occupies? The Tomos does not grant it jurisdiction over the other two churches; i.e., over the diocesan territory. It explicitly exempts the other churches on the Metropolia’s alleged territory (i.e., North America) that are not part of the “Metropolinate”, from its jurisdiction (see above).

                      That’s actually insane.

                      I’m trying to imagine a conversation between the head of the department charged with supervising the ROC and the head of the KGB:

                      Dept. Head (DH): Comrade Director, we received an unusual inquiry from the so called “Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America”.

                      KGB Director (KD): Good day, Comrade. Is this that Karlovtsy bunch? They never speak to us.

                      DH: No, comrade. This is the church that approached us in 1946 wishing reunion on the condition of autonomy.

                      KD: Ah, yes, I recall now. Hmmm . . . what do they want?

                      DH: They request now that the ROC grant them something called “autocephaly”.

                      KD: $%*^$^&!!! What the h is that?

                      DH: It’s a kind of independence, I think.

                      KD: Do they not already consider themselves independent? What have we to do with them through the ROC?

                      DH: Comrade, they aspire to be the American Orthodox Church and they believe that this would aid them. It’s a religious thing, crazy as all religion, I suppose.

                      KD: Well, let’s examine it with the Church leadership.

                      Later . . .

                      KD: So let me see if I understand what we have decided to do here: ROC grants the Metropolia a “Tomos of Autocephaly”. This so called “tomos” allows them to call themselves the American Orthodox Church and to do some magic called “consecrate chrism”, correct?

                      DH: Correct.

                      KD: Now, it also gives them jurisdiction over their own churches there, exempting of course all of our agents and their “churches” there.

                      DH: Correct.

                      KD: So we have given nothing of substance, correct. They carry on like before. We carry on like before. Our shaman bestow a magic power on their shaman and they change their name?

                      DH: You understand perfectly, comrade.

                      KD: This will not affect the other Orthodox churches there? Recall that Istanbul was supportive of our little Living Church adventure before we finally and decisively broke these witch doctors in the present ROC.

                      DH: Not at all. The Tomos explicitly exempts everyone not already a part of the Metropolia at present, other than those who might voluntarily choose to join it in the future.

                      KD: Now before I ok this, again, why are we bothering?

                      DH: Well, there is the little matter of our presence in Japan, and the facilitation of other operations . . .

                      KD: I see. Approved.

                    • Isa,

                      I’d thought I’d devote a tad of attention to one of your posts to demonstrate why I think we may have hit the point of diminishing returns here:

                      “That characteization of canonicity did not extend to ROCOR-hence the distinction being made from it and the other Orthodox Churches in America.”

                      So what? The question before us is not the status of ROCOR but of the OCA. You argue like a little child as if it’s a contest between your daddy and mine. Were ROCOR completely and hopelessly illegitimate in every way, it would not help the situation of the OCA one iota. The rest of the Orthodox world would continue to either reject or disregard its alleged autocephaly.

                      “Nor did ROCOR have the right to consecrate its own chrism-as it did once it fled, again, from Serbia, and settled in North America, where the OCA/Metropolia and the Russian Exarchate already had jurisdiction-recognized. The Act of Canonical Communion expressly forbids it, mandating that ROCOR receive its chrism from the Patriarch of Moscow.”

                      Which, again, does not help the OCA one iota in any way. Nor does it address anything at issue. Just mud and diversion. Incidentally, those in the Metropolia once argued that Ukase 362 had all the necessary elements for a grant of autocephaly. I disagree, but the fact is that any bishop has the power to consecrate chrism. It is just by agreement, as a sign of unity, the that chief hierarch in an autocephalous church often reserves that right.

                      “Constantinople does not even allow Churches that it grants autocephaly the right to consecrate chrism, but requires that they receive it from the Phanar. Does that count as “freakish autocephaly”? If so, then Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Greece, Albania, Poland etc. are not Churches but “freaks.” (it also eliminates almost all those Churches who have rejected the OCA Tomos).”

                      I addressed this above, but again, it is irrelevant and does not help the OCA’s case at all.

                      “On the other part of your freak show-the long list in the Tomos of parishes exempted-that comes to a total of a couple dozen parishes, including the Canadian diocese.”

                      Actually, 43 entities are listed, not including the Canadian diocese. Go to the original on the OCA website. The numbering did not copy onto this site for some reason.

                      “The amended Tomos of your ally the Church of Greece isn’t as generous-it exempts dozens of dioceses and millions of communicants as under the Phanar’s control in the Hellenic Republic.
                      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Patrik-Rum.jpg/220px-Patrik-Rum.jpg
                      and they are not presided over for the EP “through one of his vicar bishops; not having a title of the local [Greek] Church, especially appointed for this, and until such time as these parishes express their official desire to join the Autocephalous Church in [Greece] in the manner described below”-to quote the OCA Tomos in a part you seem to have missed.”

                      I missed nothing. The MP rules these entities through an MP vicar bishop. Top to bottom MP on otherwise OCA territory.

                      “Nor is it envisioned that they ever will leave the EP’s control-although Athens has ruled then as capital for over a century. No, their bishops are just the same as the ones in the Turkish Republic, except that these bishops live in their sees and have actual flocks to pastor-all Greek citizens.”

                      a. This does not help OCA at all, only reflects badly on the Phanar
                      b. The parishes, etc., retained by the MP were spread throughout the US
                      c. 31 remain, 44 years later – http://mospatusa.com/parishdirectory.html

                      “I’ll get to the rest, but for now”

                      “The rest” is the most important, really. I suppose you might be able to grant autocephaly and reserve everything you have on the alleged new autocephalous church. What you can’t do really is to simply grant it jurisdiction based on present membership rather than territory. The Tomos appears to exempt everyone outside the Metropolia from OCA’s jurisdiction, regardless of any territorial consideration.

                      The rest of what you wrote in that post is argumentative, petty drivel and unworthy of comment. Yet in all of that, there is no defense of OCA’s autocephaly, only attacks on ROCOR. Again, were ROCOR non-existent, it would not help the OCA at all.

                      Yet no one I’m aware of challenges the fact that ROCOR is, at a minimum, currently part of the ROC. ROCOR is in no jeopardy of anything.

                    • Estonian Slovak says

                      “The Archbishop of Albania(who owes it’s(sic) existence to the OCA Albanian diocese..” Wrong again, Isa. The man who would become the first Albanian Archbishop in North America , Metropolitan Theophan Noli, was ordained to the priesthood here in North America by Archbishop Platon of the RUSSIAN ORTHODOX MISSION circa 1907. There was no OCA nor yet any ROCOR at that time(i.e., ten years before the Russian Revolution).
                      Furthermore, Fr. Noli was consecrated a bishop in Albania by two hierarchs in the 1920’s. Your OCA still didn’t exist, therefore, it did not establish the Orthodox Church of Albania. What the Russian Mission DID do was ordain Noli and other Albanian priests here in the New World to conduct services in the Albanian language. In this sense, the church in Albania can be said to be the “daughter” of the North American Russian Mission.
                      When Archbishop Theophan was forced out of Albania and returned to North America, he headed the Albanian parishes here which did NOT belong to the OCA or North American Metropolia, as it was then called. Meanwhile, the Church in Albania received autocephaly in 1937, but from Constantinople.
                      The hierarch who succeeded Metropolitan Theophan, Bishop Stephan(Lasko), was made bishop in Albania in 1965, two years before the Communist regime of Enver Hoxha closed ALL churches and mosques. Bishop Stephan was the one who brought his Albanian diocese into the OCA in 1971, one year after autocephaly.
                      Furthermore, the church was reestablished in Albania the fall of Communism by Constantinople. If you would check your facts before putting out what could be called half-truths at best, I wouldn’t have had to write this.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “Not only are there exceptions for many ROC entities, but a general exception for everyone who does not agree with the alleged tomos.”
                      LOL.
                      You missed the problem.
                      The disagreement comes not from the Tomos, but from the claim of the Russian Orthodox Church to exclusive jurisdiciton-or any jurisdiction-in North America, not only to issue the Tomos, but to even have parishes or receive schismatic bodies in North America. As a source contemporary to St. Tikhon’s tenure as Archbishop of North America described:

                      There are (1909) about 130,000 Greeks in the United States chiefly in the Eastern and Middle States, and they publish eighteen newspapers, including two dailies. They have 32 churches in the United States and 2 in Canada, some — like Holy Trinity of Lowell, Massachusetts, and Holy Trinity of New York City — of considerable importance. Their clergy consist of 7 archimandrites, 3 monks, and 25 secular priests, but the churches are in the main governed by the lay trustees and particularly by the president of the board. Of these Greek clergy, 15 are subject to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and 20 to the Holy Synod of Athens. This circumstance and the fact that a part of the Greeks come from the Turkish Empire and the other part from the Kingdom of Greece have given rise to many dissensions and prevented the nomination of a Greek bishop for the United States, neither the patriarch nor the Synod wishing to cede such an appointment to the other. On the other hand, they both decline to admit or recognize the authority of the Russian bishops here.

                      http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06772a.htm

                      Your friend and mine, Met./Abp./EP/Pope Meletius the many numbered stated that problem once he set foot in North America-the first bishop not of the Russian Church to do so claiming jurisdiction-in 1918,

                      During my visit to America, I was informed of the presence of a Russian Bishop on American soil without the permission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate…The Patriarchal Tome of 1908 directed the immediate assignment of a Greek Bishop in America. However I learned in America that for a decade, diplomatic pressures prevented the implementation of the Patriarchal Tome. Upon my arrival, I waited for the Russian Bishop to come to me; however, he did not. In order to give him the opportunity, I sent Archimandrites Chrysostom and Alexander to him. He, in turn, reciprocated by sending an Archimandrite to visit me. I then realized that he expected me to visit him, thus recognizing him as the canonical Bishop in America, under whose jurisdiction the Greek Church ought to belong. I held a press conference with the Greek and English language newspapers, in which I quoted Orthodox teaching relative to lands outside the existing Patriarchal boundaries that canon law places them under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Thus, the Church in America is under the canonical authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and only by its authority can certain actions be taken. Our presence in America is by virtue of the permission granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Tome of 1908, rendering us the only canonical jurisdiction [emph. in the original] No other such permission has been granted. We are aware only that the Patriarchate of Antioch requested the permission of the Patriarchate to send the Bishop of Seleucia [Germanos Shehadi, the founding bishop of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church; such permission was required by the Ottoman State, which consecrated the Greek Ethnarch as head of all Christians in the Empire] to America for the needs of the Syrian Orthodox. Prior to this, Efthymios [i.e. Aftimos Ofiesh], who was ordained by the Russians for the Syrians, but never recognized by the Patriarchate of Antioch, was abandoned by the Russians. This event reinforced our position regarding canonicity in America. Throughout our presence in America, the Russian Bishop attempted indirectly to impose this position of hegemony, yet never openly or officially

                      http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22981.msg352378.html#msg352378
                      http://books.google.com/books?id=Uh4VnseTNZkC&pg=PA135&dq=%22Russian+bishop+on+American+soil+without+the+permission+of+the+Ecumenical+Patriarchate%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nK82VLDfIsWvyAS874H4Dw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Russian%20bishop%20on%20American%20soil%20without%20the%20permission%20of%20the%20Ecumenical%20Patriarchate%22&f=false
                      In 1904 the Greeks of Holy Trinity-the first Greek Orthodox Church outside of New Orleans-barred St. Tikhon’s entry to the Church, and they followed up by incorporating their “Church” (the foundation of GOARCH) as “The Hellenic Eastern Orthodox Christian Church of New York…to distinguish the said [“Church”]…from the so-called “Greek Church of the Eastern Confession” by which title the [C]hurch of Russia and the [C]hurch of Greece in general have been known”-NY law had required since 1870 that Orthodox Churches name the representatives of Russia as trustees.
                      http://books.google.com/books?id=-HhZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2120&lpg=PA2120&dq=%E2%80%9CThe+Hellenic+Eastern+Orthodox+Christian+Church+of+New+York.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=SaAuvi-Hr0&sig=l2y4M4BQAqLyoPT1jZsChBtHfxQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oLU2VKvlNoShyQS78IHwDw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CThe%20Hellenic%20Eastern%20Orthodox%20Christian%20Church%20of%20New%20York.%E2%80%9D&f=false

                      So they do not take issue with Metropolitan Tikhon of the OCA: their take issue with the mere presence of Patriarch St. Tikhon of Moscow on North American soil exercising any jurisdiction. So when the Greek bishop entrusted by the Phanar to organize the Americas into its Greek exarchate battled The Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church in North America, he didn’t attack Abp. Afitmos or Met. Platon (Met. Anthony, having no connection to North America, wasn’t even thought of), he attacked Met. St. Innocent and Pat. St. Tikhon of North America and Moscow:

                      The Canons, which you mis-quote, do not apply in the case of the Orthodox Church in America. They regard certain provinces, particularly rural localities, outside the defined limits of established Patriarchates or autocephalous Churches or Metropolises. How could it be otherwise, since, in accordance with Canon 28 of the Fourth Oecumenical Council, (and as you confess in your letter) the Oecumenical Patriarhate (or as you rather contemtuously prefer to call it the Constantinople Patriarchate and the Constantinopolitan Bishops) “has the primary right to assert jurisdiction over the faithful in the Diaspora”, (which includes American as well). Such being the case, it makes no difference if our Russian brethren attempted to impose their ecclesiastical rule in a territory canonically accorded to the Oecumenical Patriarchate, no matter if these attempts lasted for 3, 30 or 130 years.

                      This is, the whole period of the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, from St. Herman through St. Innocent to St. Tikhon to Pat. Tikhon.

                      The lawful incumbent does not thereby lose his rights to the pretenders. The Russians were all this time conscious of their precarious un-canonical standing, and that is why they exercized, during the Tsarist Regime immense political pressure to bear upon the Oecumenical Patriarchate to force it to accept and recognize the Russian claims over the Orthodox in America. In selfdefense, the Patriarchate temporarily conceded the Churches of America to the Church of Greece. You are, no doubt, familiar with the sinister designs of the overthrown Tsarist Regime of Russia, and, especially, of the then powerful Pan-Slavistic Society, seeking to promulgate, under the cloak of religion, the abortive ends of the oppressing Tsarist Russian Imperialism…Likewise, American Orthodoxy felt the weight of similar designs and intrigues. Therefore, you are not supposed to be taken by surprise, when we speak of Tsarist pressure.

                      (replace “Tsarist” with “KGB” and we have your ill founded argument against the OCA)

                      It is not true that any group of Greeks in America did ever willingly recognize the asserted Russian jurisdiction in America. On the contrary, it is historically true, that they fought staunchly these baseless claims, especially in 1907

                      Mind you, St. Tikhon was Archbishop of North America in 1907, holding that year the First All American Sobor (now the All American Council of the OCA) to organize the Church of North Ameria.

                      when the Russian Church tried to legalize their pretentions by legislative act with the legislature of the State of New York. The Greeks rose as one man and happily annulled these designs. It is also a contravention of the true for you to assert that, at the time I came to this country, “I found one of your Syrian Priests (presumably the Rev. Joseph Xanthopoulos) in charge of a Parish of Greek people under your jurisdiction.” The Greek Communities of Wilkesbarre, Pa, and Scranton, Pa., where the said Priest has served, belonged always to the Greek Church. And not only the Greeks, but also the most important sections of other Orthodox nationalities in America, did and do reject the Russian jurisdiction…Thus, your assertion that the Russian Church and its creations in America were universally accepted by the Orthodox people in America, and that they “governed the whole North American Province undisputedly, peacefuly and without opposition”, falls to pieces.

                      http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/07/17/tsarist-pressure/#comments
                      Indeed, they take issue with Moscow extending its jurisdiction in Russia, as St. John Maximovich noted:

                      None of the Eastern Patriarchs, whose authority has been highly respected by the Russian people, and likewise none of the other heads of the Orthodox Churches, ever protested against such a spreading of the Russian Church. If according to the Church canons a duration of thirty years is sufficient to cause a church or a place to belong to that diocese which in the course of those years was in possession of it, then all the more must one recognize as undisputed the right of the Russian Church to those places which have been cared for by her for many decades. One may say quite certainly that this question would never have been raised if the Russian Empire and with it the Russian Church had remained in its former power and glory, and if no misfortune had befallen them….Increasing without limit their desires to submit to themselves parts of Russia, the Patriarchs of Constantinople have even begun to declare the uncanonicity of the annexation of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate, and to declare that the previously existing southern Russian Metropolia of Kiev should be subject to the Throne of Constantinople. Such a point of view is not only clearly expressed in the Tomos of November 13, 1924, in connection with the separation of the Polish Church, but is also quite thoroughly promoted by the Patriarchs. Thus, the Vicar of Metropolitan Eulogius in Paris, who was consecrated, with the permission of the Ecumenical Patriarch, has assumed the title of Chersonese; that is to say, Chersonese, which is now in the territory of Russia, is subject to the Ecumenical Patriarch. The next logical step for the Ecumenical Patriarchate would be to, declare the whole of Russia as being under the jurisdiction of Constantinople.

                      http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/roca_history.aspx
                      http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/decline.aspx
                      And your Greek allies continue to spout that party line:

                      As we know, the Orthodox Church comprises a number of autocephalous regional Churches, which move within certain boundaries defined by the Sacred Canons and the Tomes conferring their autocephaly

                      http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/synaxis-2014-patriarchal-address

                      Archbishop Chrysostomos also answered a question about his place in the diptychs of the Church. He recalled that the Church of Cyprus was forced to leave its historic fifth place (sixth if you count Rome), when it was given to the Moscow Patriarchate. At the time, the Church of Cyprus was in a humiliating situation, under foreign, non-Christian rule and now, after the liberation, she considers this unfair.

                      Gee, where have we heard this argument before?

                      This refers to the 1593 Council of Constantinople of Eastern Patriarchs. This Council confirmed the establishment of the Patriarchate in Moscow, and gave the Moscow Patriarchate fifth place in the diptychs…This same 1593 Council granted a Tomos of Autocephaly to Moscow…On September 3 the Council of primary patriarchates and the autocephalous Church of Cyprus announced the immutability of geographical boundaries established on the basis of Tomoses establishing local churches (and, hence, the Moscow Patriarchate by the Tomos of 1593)

                      http://www.ocanews.org/news/MajorityRules-Cyprus9.29.11.html
                      http://www.portalcredo.ru/site/print.php?act=news&id=86150
                      i.e. the Patriarch of Moscow is confined to the lavender here
                      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Historical_map_of_Russia_AD_1500-1600,_1593.svg
                      the rest belongs to the Phanar (which includes all of ROCOR and then some).

                      LOL. You are soooo insistent that the OCA is so insignificant and inconsequential…and then you turn around and insist that that the Greek Church is targeting its aim on the OCA-as if no complaint is lodged against the ROC. To them you consist of nothing more than the non-canonical overreach of the Russian Church, and this consistency of theirs fills in the gaps that the inconsistency of your support for their argument leaves.

                      So, go ahead. Make the Phanar’s case for it-whether in Finland, Estonia, Ukraine, Western Europe, Australia, North or South America. Wherever Greeks outnumber Russians (which pretty much means everywhere Outside of Russia).

                    • Isa,

                      You are terrible at the art of misdirection.

                      Almost every word you wrote above is totally beside the point and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

                      The Tomos, by its own wording, did not even purport to give jurisdiction in North America over all Orthodox here, not even over those not remaining part of the ROC. It exempted everyone in North America who was not part of the Metropolia already.

                      That is not a grant of geographical jurisdiction at all. It is nothing.

                      “Furthermore, the church was reestablished in Albania the fall of Communism by Constantinople. If you would check your facts before putting out what could be called half-truths at best, I wouldn’t have had to write this.”

                      Yes, this was even mentioned in Met. Kalistos’ book, The Orthodox Church.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      ““The Archbishop of Albania(who owes it’s(GRAMMAR NAZISM) existence to the OCA Albanian diocese..” Wrong again, Isa.”
                      Wrong again, ES. And again. And again. And…

                      “The man who would become the first Albanian Archbishop in North America , Metropolitan Theophan Noli, was ordained to the priesthood here in North America by Archbishop Platon of the RUSSIAN ORTHODOX MISSION circa 1907.”
                      March 8, 1908 (that’s February 23, 1908 to you).
                      This, unfortunately, isn’t your only anachronism. Such as your shouted “Russian Orthodox Mission.” The Archdiocese of North America had moved beyond mission status, to the “greater autonomy (and possibly autocephaly)” that St. Tikhon had written as his recommendation to the Most Holy Governing Synod in 1905, for the planned All Russian Sobor (which would turn out to elect him Patriarch, restoring that office).

                      “There was no OCA nor yet any ROCOR at that time (i.e., ten years before the Russian Revolution).”
                      Wrong again. Or do you date the Russian Orthodox Church’s existence from 1448-or even 1589/93, leaving SS. Vladimir, Boris and Gleb, Sergius of Radonezh, Alexander Nevsky etc. to whom?
                      The OCA glorified Herman of Alaska, although, he lived his life entirely on Russian soil, now in the jurisdiction of the OCA, and also glorified Fr. Alexis Toth, although he reposed the year following Fr. Noli’s ordination as the first Albanian priest-by the OCA. The ROC glorified St. Innocent at the request of the OCA (as he had returned to Moscow after enlightening America) and at John Kochurev’s glorification, the ROC came to the OCA to inquire into about him (I don’t know about Pat. St. Tikhon’s glorification). Even Antioch recognized the OCA in its glofication of St. Raphael, despite Antioch’s claims on him, although he reposed a few years before Fr. Noli’s elevation as Archimandrite and election as bishop-at the OCA’s All American Sobor.

                      Of course, there was no ROCOR, a Cold War relic-that war had not yet heated up to cool down into a cold war yet. Btw, you are contradicting its, and your, First Hierarch (as well as your Patriarch and the Holy Synod):

                      Back when the Russian Church Abroad was established, the Orthodox Church in America was a part of it.

                      http://www.synod.com/synod/engdocuments/enart_mhinterviewonechurch.html
                      I’m guessing his His Eminence is referring to 1922. As for the OCA, it had already been incorporated in the US by the terms of the Cession Treaty of Alaska, its last Russian/first American primate, St. Innocent, instructing the Supreme Church Authority to recall the Russian clergy and install English speaking, and American, ones, and to continue the Alaskan, i.e. American, part of his diocese of Yakutsk, moving its See into the Continental United States at SF, leading to a plan for three sees in the US (SF, New Orleans and NYC).
                      http://orthodoxhistory.org/2011/02/08/three-bishops-for-america-in-1870-2/
                      In 1903 St. Tikhon as “the Bishop of the Russo-Greek Catholic Orthodox Church for North America and the Aleutians” established the diocese of Winnipeg and Canada, and petitioned, and was granted, recognition of his jurisdiction over the said Church in Canada, and the jurisdiction of his successors in office (at present Met. Tikhon of All America and Canada). In 1907 Abp. Tikhon exercised that “greater autonomy (and possibly autocephaly) [that] should therefore be granted to the Church of America” (as he wrote to the Supreme Church Authority in preparation for the All Russian Sobor), and held the First All American Sobor-a council the like of which no other diocese held in the Russian Orthodox Church at the time (and which continue now as the All American Councils of the OCA)- where he formulated it as not a Mission of Russia but the Church of North America on mission. The Second All American Sobor of The Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Church in North America under the Hierarchy of the Russian Church (its name given by Abp. Tikhon at the First Sobor) elected its own hierarchy’s head (later confirmed by Pat. St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of the Russian Church; and which it continues to do, the last time in 2012 when it elected its autocephalous primate, subject to no confirmation, Met. Tikhon)-something that ROCOR now claims as something defining its existence, guaranteed by the ACC. That same Sobor and same primate set up the Albanian Archdiocese and through it the Orthodox Church of Albania, elevating the OCA’s own Fr. Fan Noli to consecration as Albanian bishop, the first in the world.

                      ” What the Russian Mission DID do was ordain Noli and other Albanian priests here in the New World to conduct services in the Albanian language. In this sense, the church in Albania can be said to be the “daughter” of the North American Russian Mission.”
                      Except that she was born in Boston, the Russo-Greek Catholic Orthodox Church for North America/OCA, the grown up North American Russian Mission, delivering her.
                      You might want to ignore the import of the action, but the Phanariots did not. If you can read Greek,
                      http://books.google.com/books?id=YqpCAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA4-PA79&lpg=RA4-PA79&dq=%CE%A4%CE%BF+%C2%AB%CE%A0%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%AE%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD+%CE%9A%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82%C2%BB+%E1%BD%85%CE%BC%CF%89%CF%82,+%CE%AC%CF%86%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%AE%CE%BD+%CE%BB%CE%B1%CE%BC%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BD+%CE%B5%CE%BA+%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82+%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%81%CE%AE%CF%83%CE%B5%CF%89%CF%82+%CF%81%CF%8E%CF%83%CE%BF%CF%85+%CE%B5%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%85+%CE%B5%CE%BD&source=bl&ots=-iYjmxjyNB&sig=VwutxmJV9_yobHSALxZHRJt01nQ&hl=en&ei=MM00TJ_oMZKUnQfcrPXWAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
                      you can read the contemporary panic among Greeks in Egypt quoting the Athenian press recognizing the events in Boston for what they were-the beginning of the Albanian Orthodox Church.

                      The “Pan-Hellenic Power/State” nonetheless [the quotation comes after the discussion by the professor of International Law at the National University of Greece on the then recent uncanonical 1908 Tomos of the Phanar, giving the Church of Greece jurisdiction over the “Diaspora” including North America, issued days after Fr. Noli’s ordination] taking as a starting point from the retention of the Russian bishop in Alaska, expresses the opinion “that Ecumenical Patriarchate did wrong, both to the canons of the Church and according to [the fact] that it had no right to transfer to the Church of Greece the privilege furnished it by the Ecumenical Councils.” But it asks “by what justification does the Russian Church retain its jurisdiction over the Church of Alaska also after the Cession of it to the United States, if the Tomos of the Great Church requires [submission to the Church of Greece] among the Greek Churches in the diaspora, in order that the jurisdiction of the Sacred Synod of Greece be extended over them? And this certainly—adding further—if uncanonical, would [at least] be the lesser evil. Scandalousness yet results from the establishment of this Russia bishop of Alaska in the United States and the extension of his spiritual authority automatically[,] and with the justification of no one[,] over the whole of America. And most rightly whenever the [said] bishop thus shall make an ordination of priests and ‘founding churches independently as it committed some time before through the ordination of the Albanian Noli a priest of the “independent Orthodox Albanian Church in the United States and Canada” creating the employment of the Albanian language in its rites and this being regarded a scandal amid other Orthodox Churches of the New World [i.e. the Phyletist Greeks], which according as Greeks, and further by the new Tomos were already brought under under the spiritual rule of the Church of Greece, required to commemorate the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch; to receive from him the holy chrism, to receive his blessings and to offer some quantity for the funding of the Patriarchate. We believe that “this issue will be regarded the earnest position of the discussion in the Sacred Synod of the Great Church, and so quite rightly so, as much as besides the Russian bishop of Alaska having ordained Mr. Noli entitled as priest of the Orthodox Albanian episcopacy of the United States and Canada and in this decision done in Boston in Albanian, dealing irreverently towards the Patriarch also has promised that independent Albanian and Orthodox Church will be founded everywhere[,] gearing up to ordain a bishop also.

                      They did not err in their assessment of the implications. As a contemporary record a few years later reported

                      The use of the Albanian language in the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy has been prohibited by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and those priests who presume to use it are excommunicated. Albanians declare that the Patriarch’s object is to “Hellenize.” An Orthodox League was formed a few years ago whose objects are to resist Greek aggression and force the Patriarch to allow at least a part of the Liturgy to he celebrated in Albanian.
                      What the outcome of this ecclesiastical tangle, or what the result of the Balkan war of 1912, will be upon the future of Albania is a grave and complex question.
                      There are to-day about 50,000 Albanians in America from Albania, and the United States immigration authorities have not yet learned to call them by name; they are not designated as Albanians in our immigration reports….The large majority are Eastern Orthodox Tosks…The Pan-Albanian federalion of America, called “The Hearth”” (Vatra), incorporated, has its headquarters in a neatly fitted office at 10 Ferdinand Street, Boston. The executive, the general secretary, Faik Bey Konitza, one of the apostles of Nationalism, is a graduate of a French University, an M.A. of Harvard, and an accomplished philologist and historical scholar. He publlishes a paper in Albanian, ”The Sun’ (Dielli). There are eighteen branches of the Federation in America. Its objects are educational, to give lectures, teach Albanian and English, publish inexpensive literature, and above all to foster the national traditions. There are two Eastern Orthodox Albanian priests in America, with headquarters in Boston, the Rev. Fan 8. Nolli and the Rev. Naum Cere. Father Nolli is a graduate of Harvard. He has published in Boston, in the Albanian language and adopted latin alphabet, The Liturgy, etc., “The Book of the Epistles and Gospels,” and a three-act drama, “Israel and the Philistines.” These may be found in the Boston Library, and on their last pages the names of Albanian subscribers from all over the United States and southeast Europe. These two priests travel over our country ministering to their people in their native tongue. They were ordained under Russian auspices and are under the jurisdiction of the Russian Archbishop Platon in New York.

                      http://www.archive.org/stream/peopleofeasterno00epis/peopleofeasterno00epis_djvu.txt
                      So we see the the Albanian Autocephalous Church being born out of its “daughter” in Boston, being delievered by the the Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Church in North America/OCA.
                      As alluded to, in those years Fr. Noli translated all the Liturgical books into Albanian. Fr. Noli cofounded “Vatra” Federation of America with Faik Konitza, which became to the Albanians what the Zionist Congress became the followers of Herzl (except the Albanians already inhabited their homeland. It just had to be freed). Fr. Fan Noli set up and served not only parishes of the Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Church in North America/OCA but also went on mission: in the wake of the First Albanian Revolt of 1910, he went to the serve DL to the Albanians in the Diaspora (Albania itself was not safe) in the Russian Empire, Bulgaria (who supported the Albanian uprising, and was fighting its own war against the Turks, Phanariots and Greeks for independence and autocephaly) and Romania (whose Queen Elisabeth took interest in the prospect of an Albanian monarchy, and managed to have her nephew chose) along with Paris and Vienna. When Albania proclaimed independence in November 1912 (almost by default, when the First Balkan War cut it off from the Porte and Phanar) as a result of “the Balkan War of 1912” (mentioned above), having finished his Harvard degree, he returned to Europe, and took part in the Albanian Congress of Tirieste, organized by Faik Koritza in March 1913.
                      He set foot in Albania for the first time that July, and Fr. Fan Noli was found in the provisional capital of Durres at the time of the arrival of the prince chosen to take over what there was of Albania, William of Wied, and a few days later on March 10, 1914, six years almost to the date of that very first Albanian DL in Albanian in Boston, Fr. Noli of the Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Church in North America under the Hierarchy of the Russian Church now celebrated the first Albanian DL ever in Albania in the presence of the Prince (now King in Albania) William.
                      However, the monarchy never jelled into a government. an Islamist revolt erupted and set up its emirate in Tirana, the Vatican’s Latin rite Albanians set up their Republic of Mirdita in the North, and the Greeks in Albania set up their Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus in Souther Albania. With the outbreak of WWI, King William left the country to fight for Germany, and Fr. Fan Noli returned to the US in May 1914. There he became president of the Vatra , which became a government in exile for Albania, which lacked a central authority at the time, and founded its official organ in English, “The Adriatic Review,” editing it until his election as bishop.

                      It tells this history of the Albanian Church:
                      http://books.google.com/books?id=FMU4AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=text

                      It was the Orthodox Albanians, natives of Southern Albania, who started a National church of their own in the United States with the Right Reverend Fan S. Noli as the first Albanian priest. Today, Right Rev. Noli is the administrator of the thriving Albanian Orthodox churches of America, whose progress has been prodigious since 1908, when the first church was founded. It is generally admitted today that two-thirds of the whole work for the regeneration of Albania has been accomplished by the Orthodox Albanians of the Greek church. ‘There are no more loyal and patriotic citizens than the Orthodox Albanians who have offered the largest sacrifices on the altar of the unity and liberty of the Albanian nation.
                      Yet the Greeks still persist in their childish illusion of calling “Greek” anyone that belongs to the Orthodox church. And we would have, indeed, been the last ones to spoil their angelic dream, were it not that under those angelic dreams is rapacity and landhunger concealed.

                      “The Convention of the Albanian Orthodox Church
                      A Gradiose Manifestation of the Sentiments of the Orthodox Albanians
                      Since the year 1908, when the Reverend Father Fan S. Noli was ordained as the first Albanian priest in the United States by the Russian Archbishop of North America Plato, the National Albanian Orthodox Church has been progressing with gigantic strides. During the last ten years, the religious establishments have been multiplied and the preaching staff has increased accordingly in numbers and in importance….The founding of the Orthodox Albanian Church has been something of a peaceful religious revolution. Its establishment was necessitated by the notorious intolerance and the intellectual slavery which had been imposed on the Orthodox Albanians by the Greek Patriaarchate of Constantinople under the religious jurisdiction of which the Orthodox Albanians have been from the time of the Schism. The Greek Patriarch had done nothing less than putting under the ban the Albanian language in the interest of Hellenism of whose he has always been the servile tool. His aim was to Hellenize the Orthodox Albanians through the influence of the Greek Orthodox Church and the Greek language used in its services. In 1887, the Patriarch issued a solemn threat of excommunication directed against every Albanian that would dare to make use in writing, teaching and preaching of the “accursed Albanian language ”…the Orthodox Albanians struck on the happy idea of cutting once for all times the religious ties that bound them with the bigot propagandist of Hellenism. Consequently, in 1908, there was held in Boston a religious Convention which decided to establish a National Albanian Church of the Greek Orthodox rite, entirely independent of the Greek Church. Father Fan 5. Noli was the first priest to be ordained under the new regime, and it was on his shoulders that fell the heavy burden of conducting the new Church to salvation and progress. Avowedly, he did succeed very well, for the Albanian Church has surpassed the original expectations that were founded on its establishment.
                      As a result of the progress of our National Church it appeared pretty soon that it could not be left in the rank of a secondary religious institution. The number of Churches and preachers necessitated, ‘obviously, a more systematic organization and, above all, a recognized head. To fill this gape, the Albanian Orthodox Communities applied last October to the Russian Archbishop to provide for a head of the Albanian Church. In compliance with the unanimous request, the Russian Archbishop, Monsignor Alexander, elevated the Rev. Fan S. Noli to the post of Mitrate Archimandrite and Administrator of the Albanian Churches in the United States…On February 25 last, the Russian Churches of America held a Convention at Cleveland, Ohio, for the purpose of regulating the religious affairs in the United States because of the interruption of communications with the Patriarchal See of Moscow….Appeals were sent to the Convention from every community expressing the wish that Archimandrite F. S. Noli be elevated to the post of Albanian Bishop in the United States. Acting on the expression of these feelings, the Convention of Cleveland unanimously resolved to grant the earnest wish of the Orthodox Albanians, with the proviso that the decision of the Russian Convention be endorsed by Convention of the Albanian Churches. in the United States.
                      As it had been arranged for, the Convention of the Albanian Churches was held March 16 in the spacious Franklin Union Hall, Boston, under the chairmanship of Archbishop Alexander of North America. Delegates from sixty Orthodox Albanian communities took part in the assembly and the hall was filled to its full capacity by Albanians…The session was opened by a moving prayer for the eternal rest of the soul of Metropolite Plato, who was reported to have been murdered by the Bolsheviki, and who had ordained the first Albanian priest. It was lately learned that this report was unfounded. Thereupon, the delegates presented their credentials and cast their votes in confirmation of the decision of the Russian Churches’ Convention. The election of Archimandrite F. S. Noli as the first Albanian Bishop was unanimous, and the newly-elected religious dignitary was many times acclaimed by riotously enthusiastic manifestations on the part of the audience. At the conclusion of the Convention the assembled people voted a resolution which is also quite remarkable. Its text is as follows:

                      The undersigned clergymen and layman delegates representing the followng fifty two Orthodox Albanian Churches and communities of the United States: Boston…New York…Chicago….Seattle….and representatives of the Roumanian Church, all of them natives of Southern Albania, assembled in convention under the presidency of His Grace-the Russian Archbishop of North America Alexander for the purpose of confirming election of Albanian Orthodox Bishop, protest with indignation against absurd allegation of M. Venizelos that Orthodox Albanians of Southern Albania favor union with Greece. We, Christian Orthodox Albanians, faithfull followers of the Church of Christ, appeal through Your Excellency to Peace Conference for the restoration of Albanian Independence and for unification of all Albanians, Orthodox, Moslem and Catholics, under one flag, the illustrious banner of the soldier of Christ, George Castriota Scanderbeg, and one national government and within ethnical frontiers of Albania…

                      The resolution was signed by the Russian Archbishop Alexander, in his quality as Chairman of the Convention, and by all the Albanian clergymen. It was immediately cabled to the representatives of the Powers assembled in the Peace Conference. Two other copies, which were signed by all the authorized delegates of the Albanian Communities and Societies, in addition to the above mentioned signatories, were mailed to Premier Clemenceau and President Wilson respectively.

                      THE VERY REV. Fan S. Noli, administrator of the Albanian Orthodox Churches of America, has been elevated to the rank of Mitred Abbot and Archimandrite on Nov. 17 by the Right Reverend Bishop Alexander, head of the Russian Church of North America. A vast throng of Russians and Albanians, a good many of the latter Mohammedans, attended the imposing ceremony which took place in Saint Nicholas’ Cathedral of New York. The celebrated choir of the Cathedral, which popularised Russian Church music in the United States and is easily the best church choir in the Western Continent, enhanced the solemnity of the ordination services by rendering the appropriate hymns under the leadership of Mr. Gorokhoff of Moscow fame.

                      The Albanian congregation of St. George’s church, which meets at 227 Tremont street, held services in celebration of the signing of the armistice, yesterday, the services lasting from 2 A. M. to 1:30 P. M. The Rev. F. S. Noli, who has just been designated by the Russian cathedral in New York as the head of the Albanian branch of the Russian orthodox faith in America and Albania as well, conducted the services, assisted by the Rev P. Sinitza from Worcester and the Rev. Fr. Chamche [i.e. Evangelios Tsamtsis] from Jamestown, N. Y. The significance of the service lay in the national aspirations of the Albanians, which were voiced by clergy and by laymen present…After the services groups of Albanians discussed the future of their home country…The Albanian church in Boston is the first one in the world to use the Albanian language in its services, the performance of religious rites in this tongue having been interdicted by the patriarchs of Costantinople. The archbishop of the Russian church in New York declared the right of the Albanians to use their own language in their worship, and the Boston congregation was the first to avail itself of the privilege. A special meeting was held a week ago yesterday to raise money for the establishment of a church edifice in Boston…and this will be made a cathedral of the Albanian branch of the church in this country.

                      The resulting Cathedral still stands: St. George, the See of the Albanian Archdiocese (OCA).

                      IN VIEW OF THE APPROACHING Peace Conference, the Pan-Albanian Federation “Vatra” of America resolved to convoke an Extra-ordinary Convention in order to take the necessary steps to defend the rights of the Albanian Nation. The convocation of this highly important Assembly was all the more urgent because at that moment there was not any Albanian Government. The principal task of the Convention was the election of a number of delegates whose duty is to defend the cause of Albania in and out of the assembly halls of the Peace Conference, and to represent at the same time all sections and parties of the country. There were already in Europe the following senior delegates: Mehmed Konitza, Dr. Tourtouli, Midhat Frasheri, and in the United States the Very Reverend Archimandrite‘Fan Noli, administrator of the Albanian Orthodox Churches of North America.…The Very Reverend Fan Noli was designated to proceed to Paris…

                      http://books.google.com/books?id=FMU4AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=text
                      So when Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod of the Church of Russia on August 27, 1920 confirmed the Convention of Cleveland mentioned above, i.e. the Second All American Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Church in North America (under the American Elected Russian Hierarchy)/OCA, and its exercise of autonomy in choosing its own primate, its Archimandrite Fan Noli was back in Europe building up the independent Albanian and the autocephalous Albanian Church. He represented Albania in the League of Nations (having secured Albania’s membership) and to the international commissions dealing with Greece’s occupation and encroachment in Albania. In 1921, Albania responded to Greece’s continued nationalist claims based the Ottoman classification of every Orthodox belonging to the Phanar by expelling the Phanariot bishops. As the Institute for Balkan Studies summarized it in “The Greek minority in Albania: a documentary record (1921-1993)”:

                      From the time of the first stirrings of Albanian nationalism, Albanian nationalists had been advocating the idea of establishing an Autocephalous Church of Albania, independent of the Ecumenical Patriarch, as the most effective means of neutralising the influence of the Patriarchate and Greece had over the Orthodox people of Northern Epirus. This move was masterminded by clergymen that had come from America in 1920, Fan Noli, Vassilios Markou and Evangelos (Agathangelos) Tsamtsis. However, the first and most decisive step in this direction was taken on September 10th, 1922, when on the initiative of Fan Noli and with the blessing of the Albanian government, the Clerical-Lay Congress of Berat was convoked, with the participation of 33 representatives, which summarily declared the Orthodox Church of Albania to be autocephalus, and proceeded to draw up a preliminary Statute composed of 14 articles and, because there were not enough bishops to form a Holy Synod, appointed an eight-member Supreme Ecclesiastical Council under Vassilios Markou, with its seat at Koritsa. This Council governed the Church of Albania until 1929. The following year, the vacant places were filled by Bishop Ierotheos in the Diocese of Koritsa and Bishop Christophoros in the Diocese of Velegrada, while Fan Noli was also consecrated as a bishop and appointed to the Diocese of Dyrrachio
                      The Ecumenical Patriarchate, of course, never recognised these actions, and by 1924 it had stopped sending prelates to Albania. At the same time, being aware of the dangers that the prolongation of uncertainty as to the status of the Albanian church would entail for the Christian Orthodox inhabitants of the area, it began a diligent search for a solution which would restore normality. Thus, early in 1926, it judged that conditions were ripe for the granting of autonomy, under certain conditions, and it sent Chrysanthos, the Metropolitan of Trapezounta, to Albania as Exarch. Negotiations between the two parties were originally crowned with success, and on June 6th of that year, an agreement was signed. However, despite the urgency of the situation and the need to hasten the whole procedure, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, characteristically, delayed the ratification of the agreement, while the amendments it proposed to the original text were not acceptable to the Albanians. Thus, the whole process failed. The matter thus remained in abeyance until 1929, when the Albanian government decided to settle it once and for all. On February 11th, 12th and 17th, 1929, three Albanian bishops were consecrated; these then formed the Holy Synod of the Albanian Orthodox Church, led by Vissarion Giovanni, who was proclaimed Archbishop of Albania. The Synod thus composed was recognised by the Albanian government by decree on February 26th. Finally, in June 1929, a second Clerical-Lay Congress was convoked in Koritsa; it drew up and approved the Statute of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Albania, consisting of 64 articles. The The Statute was submitted to the Albanian government and was ratified as a Law of the State.
                      Subsequently, the Albanian government made a concerted effort to subject all church activity to the jurisdiction of the Autocephalous Church; the ulterior motive was of course to bring all religious activity under its control. Thus on January 9th, 1930, a Legislative Decree was passed, imposing severe restrictions on the functioning of the religious communities and on the free election of their councils. It gradually prohibited the celebration of the mass in the Greek language and persecuted those priests that did not conform to government prescriptions. Finally, it began arbitrarily to translate church books into Albanian and to distribute them to the local churches.
                      In the approximately six years following the peremptory constitution of the of the Holy Synod of the Albanian Church, no significant progress was made towards resolving the issue of the Church. It was inevitable, nonetheless, that this uncertainty would in the long term work to the prejudice of the Orthodox people; at the same time the country had begun to be the target of heavy propaganda on the part of both the Uniates arid the Vatican. For this reason the Ecumenical Patriarchate decided that the only way out of this crisis would be to recognise, under certain terms, the Autocephalous status of the Albanian Church. On the other hand, Albanian actions toward the Church had provoked a general outcry on the part of Christians, who boycotted the Albanian churches. The Albanian government thus recognised the need to find a solution and restore ties with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. And so, on April 12th, 1937, the Ecumenical Patriarchate officially recognised the autonomy of the Autocephalus Orthodox Church of Albania, and appointed as its supreme governing body the Holy Synod, which thenceforth would be composed of regular Orthodox bishops. Christophoros Kissis was then consecrated as Archbishop of Tirana and all Albania. Evlogios Kourilas was consecrated Bishop of Koritsa, Agathangelos Tsamtsis[i.e. Vangel Chamche] as Bishop of Berat, Avlona and Kanina, and Pandeleimon Kotokos as Bishop of Argyrokastro.

                      To get to the particulars of your true but misguided statement “”Furthermore, Fr. Noli was consecrated a bishop in Albania by two hierarchs in the 1920’s.” The election of Archimandrite Noli to the episcopate was accomplished when he was consecrated in the Cathedral of Korçë on November 21,1923 as Metropolitan of Durres, the provisional capital, and Archbishop of All Albania. At the time he was still attached to the Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Church in North America/OCA. The main consecrator, Bp. Christopher of Synnada (a titular see even then;the Vatican’s last titular bishop named to it, btw, was Lefebvre.), had been sent by the Phanar with an elevation as Archbishop of Berat, to reassert its control, lost ever since the Porte had lost the area and had fallen, as shown above. Abp. Christopher, born Kristofor Kisi in Berat, however, threw his lot in with Archm. Noli and the rest of his autocephalous followers, as did Bp. Hierotheos: i.e. the exact opposite of Met. Anthony Khrapovitsky at the All Ukraine Sobor of 1921, when he tried to act as Metropolitan of Kiev. Hence why “by 1924 [the Phanar] had stopped sending prelates to Albania.” When the government moved in 1929 to fill out the Synod, the Patriarchate of Serbia obliged and helped with the consecrations. Met. Kristofor objected to this method, and so he was forced from his see and retired to a monastery. Some years later Abp. Vissarion was deposed for moral issues, and Met. Kristofor was appointed to succeed him as Archbishop of Tirana, which had become the nation’s capital, so he was enthroned for some years as the head of the Albanian Church when the Tomos from the Phanar arrived, to which you refer:
                      “Meanwhile, the Church in Albania received autocephaly in 1937, but from Constantinople.”
                      The Phanar, as shown above, just acquiesced in the autocephaly proclaimed and exercised in September 1922, 15 years earlier. It had little choice-the government had expelled the non-Albanians and restricted the services to being served in Albanian. Met. Christopher was named by the Phanar to a position he already had, much like the 1970 Tomos did to Met. Ireney.

                      As you mentioned, Met. Fan Noli was not in Albania. Famous internationally before being known nationally in Albania, he returned from Geneva after securing Albania’s membership in the League of Nations, and represented the Vatra, now a political party in Albania, in parliament for two years, and then was appointed Foreign Minister in December 1921. The Vatra led the opposition to the feudal beys, led by Ahmet Zogu. When Zogu had the democratic national figure Avni Rustemi assassinated, the eulogy Met. Noli delivered ended in toppling Zog’s government. Met. Noli was propelled into the Prime Ministership and as Regent for King William (still in exile). For the first time Albania had a government which did not take fleecing the populace as its job. Met. Noli’s egalitarianism and democratic ideals (shared by the King’s aunt Queen Elizabeth of Romania) were twisted by Zog’s propaganda into portraying Abp. Noli as a Bolshevik, and within a year, with Yugoslav and Greek help, Zog invaded and seized the government on Christmas 1924. Under a death sentence, Met. Noli fled to Italy and then Germany. He returned to the US on a six month visa in 1930, where he founded a newspaper Republika “The Republic” as an affront to Zog, who after his coup proclaimed a Republic, deposing King William and his regent, Met. Noli, and then, after serving as President, had himself proclaimed King. Repulika rivaled his old newpaper Dielli, as his old friend Faik Konitza had become reconciled to Zog, who named him Albanian minister plenipotentiary in Washington. Met. Noli had to leave when his visa expired, but his followers managed to bring him back for permanent residence in the US in 1932, withdrawing from politics. The following year he became deathly ill, and could not afford treatments. 3,000 gold franks arrived from Albania from King Zog, which led to a reconciliation between the two archenemies. But the rivalry had prevented Met. Noli’s presence for the critical years of 1924-1930, which finished what he had started in 1922-3 (and 1908) into the inevitability of 1937. After his recovery from his illness, he returned to his first love, Byzantine chant, and devoted his energies New England Conservatory of Music in Boston-earning his BA in musicology in 1938, where he was engaged when the Tomos came from Constantinopole, just before Fascist Italy annexed (and doubled its efforts to impose uniatism on the Church) Albania in the lead up to WWII.

                      .”When Archbishop Theophan was forced out of Albania and returned to North America, he headed the Albanian parishes here which did NOT belong to the OCA or North American Metropolia, as it was then called. ”
                      They belonged to practically no one. Albania never made a claim over its diaspora, as its leadership had come from there, and it had enough trouble keeping its homeland. When Abp. Fan returned in 1932, he found the chaos that had ensued with the crisis in the OCA (which makes the present time of troubles seem a golden age). Six of the 15 Albanian communities claimed independent status, and the rest were not organized back into a diocese until after WWII. The impetus came when some Albanians petitioned EP Athenagoras (himself of Hellenized Greek ancestry, and just elected from the Greek Archdiocese of the Americas to the Phanar) to send a canonical bishop. He sent Bp. Mark Lipa, from an Constantinopolitan Albanian family. Three parishes submitted to him, 10 others (re)joined Abp. Fan’s Archdiocese. On a roll for unity then, Abp. Fan began talks with Met. Leonty of the OCA.

                      “The hierarch who succeeded Metropolitan Theophan, Bishop Stephan(Lasko), was made bishop in Albania in 1965, two years before the Communist regime of Enver Hoxha closed ALL churches and mosques. ”
                      He had been made priest by Abp./Met. Fan Noli in June 1949 to serve in Philadelphia, PA, later serving in Cleveland until 1965. Abp. Noli himself had come to terms with the Communist regime of Enver Hoxha, even to the point of working for US recognition of it. For that he remained under FBI surveillance, and caused some emnity and polarization which hindered the work of unity the Albanian community and it with the other Orthodox.

                      “Bishop Stephan was the one who brought his Albanian diocese into the OCA in 1971, one year after autocephaly.”
                      Abp. Stephan had been serving as priest under Abp. Fan when the later began talks with Met. Leonty (the priest named by St. Tikhon to chair the First All American Sobor, and who represented the Archdiocese of North America/OCA at the All Russian Council of 1917-8), elected Metropolitan the year after Fr. Stephan’s ordination. Abp. Stephen only finished what Abp. Fan had started.

                      “Furthermore, the church was reestablished in Albania the fall of Communism by Constantinople.”
                      Fr. Arthur Liolin, pastor of St. George Cathedral-that parish established by Fr. Noli and Abp. (later Met.) Platon with that first Albanian DL-and Chancellor of that Albanian Orthodox Archdiocese Abp. Noli founded, entered Albania in 1988 (i.e. before Communism fell) as the first Orthodox cleric (and first cleric of any religion) since the absolute ban of religion imposed in 1967. He was allowed to travel in his clerical robes, pray in groups of dozens of people, and speak on Radio Tirana, breadking open missionary, diplomatic and cultural communication. Here is a picture of him on a mission trip in 1991, before the enthronement of of Abp. Anastasios.
                      http://www.saintgeorgecathedral.com/images_060810/Fr%20Liolin%20in%20Albania%201991.jpg
                      Abp. Anastasios of Tirana and All Albania concelebrated with Abp. Nikon (and Bp. Ilia and Fr. Liolin) at St. George Cathedral the centennial of the establishment of the Albanian Orthodox Church on March 9, 2008.
                      I personally know those at the highest levels involved with resurrecting the Church of Albania, all of whom speak highly of Abp. Anastasios. Many Years!

                      “If you would check your facts before putting out what could be called half-truths at best”
                      only by those who at best have trouble with the truth.

                      “Your OCA still didn’t exist, therefore, it did not establish the Orthodox Church of Albania.”
                      The facts say otherwise.
                      If you would check your facts before putting out what could be called half-truths at best, I wouldn’t have had to write all this.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “You are terrible at the art of misdirection.”
                      I have to bow to your expertise at that.

                      “Almost every word you wrote above is totally beside the point and irrelevant to the issue at hand.”
                      Again, stated by the expert.

                      “The Tomos, by its own wording, did not even purport to give jurisdiction in North America over all Orthodox here, not even over those not remaining part of the ROC. It exempted everyone in North America who was not part of the Metropolia already.”
                      Again, on someone who thinks that the ACC legitimized the ROC, the import of the wording is lost. Btw, we all know the claims that the Phanar makes. Yet the wording of its charter to its exarch in the US does not even purport to give jurisdiction in the US over all Orthodox here, not even over those not part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, just over those “which acknowledge the supreme spiritual, ecclesiastical and canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.” Now, are we to believe that the Phanar has cut back its claims over the “Diaspora”?

                      “That is not a grant of geographical jurisdiction at all. It is nothing.”
                      Yes, so you keep pontificating. But for us who share Orthodox communion, and not the Donatist mentality of la petite église, have to deal with the official acts of the Church and her hierarchs according to the sacred canons our Fathers set up-that leaves no room for a supreme pontiff to make ex cathedra pronouncements, much less by a lay man with the authority of his keyboard.

                      The modernist heterodox office of Ober-Prokurator has been abolished for some time, by that KGB-MP as you call her. Sorry you missed your calling.

                      ““Furthermore, the church was reestablished in Albania the fall of Communism by Constantinople. If you would check your facts before putting out what could be called half-truths at best, I wouldn’t have had to write this.”
                      Yes, this was even mentioned in Met. Kalistos’ book, The Orthodox Church.”
                      Totally beside the point and irrelevant to the issue at hand, as Met. Kalistos does not mention Abp. Fan Noli in “The Orthodox Church,” not the only serious omission or error in it, the number of which seems to grow with each edition.
                      The record on Abp. Fan Noli has been corrected above.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      Your command and comprehension of English leave a lot to be desired, so I appreciate that communicating with you I need to navigate both your dishonesty and the fact that you simply may misunderstand what I write in English

                      I scored a 98 percentile on the Verbal GRE, so as we say at the U of C, anything you can do, I can do meta. As for your projected dishonesty, the fact that I can both read between the lines and take things to their logical conclusions-as well as documenting fact while exposing fiction-presents a new experience to you.

                      Just got to find it and the time to translate what hasn’t been done already.’
                      Done already? You mean much has been translated already and you don’t have anything to show us?

                      A native English speaker would have taken from my statement in context that I don’t know whether all of the Soviet records regarding its relationship and control of the ROC have been translated by others or whether I will need to do some of that myself once I find what I need.
                      ….
                      That’s actually insane.

                      I’m trying to imagine a conversation between the head of the department charged with supervising the ROC and the head of the KGB:

                      Actually that’s insane. Instead of making (more) stuff up, why not try to find out what really happened. As you boasted elsewhere, the Russians/Soviets documented everything, and as you pointed out elsewhere, the archives have been opened for over 20 years now.

                      This native English speaker saw that you failed to back your claims with documentation-which has been available for some time-and called you on it.

                      Dept. Head (DH): Comrade Director, we received an unusual inquiry from the so called “Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America”.
                      KGB Director (KD): Good day, Comrade. Is this that Karlovtsy bunch? They never speak to us.
                      DH: No, comrade. This is the church that approached us in 1946 wishing reunion on the condition of autonomy.

                      No, comrade. Moscow approached the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America, i.e. the OCA, in 1945 (not 1946, btw), not the other way around. Your smugness about never talking to the KGB is also misplaced. As the NY court of appeal noted (St. Nicholas Cathedral v. Kedroff 302 N.Y. 1, at 17 (1950)) in returning St. Nicholas Cathedral to the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America/OCA

                      Then, following the death of Sergius in 1944, it [the Soviet government] consented to the convening of a sobor at Moscow in January of 1945. The news which was permitted to seep out of Russia after 1941 encouraged the hope in the members of the metropolitan district that unity might again be found.
                      Suddenly, without advance notice, an invitation was received for the North American church to be represented at the new sobor in Moscow. Four delegates were hurriedly chosen – three clergymen and one layman, the attorney for the church – who made preparations to travel to Alaska, from which place the Russian Government was to provide transportation to Moscow. After two of the clergymen had started, the Soviet Government cancelled the visa of the attorney on the pretext that entry was permitted only to clerical persons – a restriction which was not observed with reference to the delegation from Yugoslavia.

                      Who would that delegation from Yugoslavia be to the Russian Sobor?

                      As a facilitator between the bishops of ROCOR and Metropolitan Sergii (Stragorodskii), Patriarch Varnava, while protecting the interests of the former, still maintained cordial correspondence with Metropolitan Elevferii, Sergei’s representative in Europe.

                      http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2006/5endokladpsarev.html

                      As for contacting Moscow on autocephaly, the first contact was at the surprise invitation to the Moscow Sobor of 1945, on the continued autonomy (as you have constantly pointed out, the OCA Tomos merely ratified this in the main, per Ukaz 362). As the NY court of appeals continued:

                      The two clergymen who had already left were met by a Russian airplane which was to carry them to Moscow. Instead, they were landed in Siberia and transferred to a train to continue their journey. As a result, they arrived in Moscow ten days after the sobor had adjourned.
                      They found that one Alexy had been named Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, and they presented to him a report of the church in North America and a request for the lifting of the spiritual separation on terms of autonomy. In return, they were handed a prepared document, the so-called ukase of February, 1945, for delivery to Metropolitan Theophilus. The terms of this ukase were not acceptable to the North American church. Instead of the necessary autonomy, the ukase provided for the calling of a sobor in America to be presided over by an archbishop sent from Russia. The sobor was to be required to declare in the name of the church “its abstention from political activities against the U.S.S.R. and give corresponding orders to all parishes”. There was no comment or provision concerning the status of Metropolitan Theophilus, the elected head of the North American church. Instead, the sobor was to be required to elect a new person to be head of a new metropolitan district. Two representatives of the then Moscow Patriarchate were recommended as candidates for the position, and the right was reserved to refuse confirmation of the person chosen “if he be considered unsuitable by the Patriarchy, for any motivated reason whatsoever”. There was an intimation that “some extended powers” might be given to the person so chosen and confirmed, “but the right to confirm candidates for bishop, the right to reward the clergy with higher titles, and the right of appeal as regards bishops, clergy and others, remain with the Moscow Patriarchy.”
                      A council of the bishops of the North American metropolitan district met in May, 1945, and decided that the terms proposed in the ukase of February, 1945, were not acceptable. In an official report to the clergy and laymen, published in July, there was a full discussion of the background and necessity of the 1924 declaration at Detroit of temporary autonomy for the North American metropolitan district. Reference was made to the recent efforts at unity, the chicanery by which the American delegates were prevented from attending the Moscow sobor, and the substance of the ukase then issued. The report emphasized that the metropolitan district considered itself as part of the Russian church and desired that the suspension be lifted. It was pointed out, however, that the text of the ukase disclosed that the Moscow Patriarchate had “little conception of the conditions of church life in this country, and of the atmosphere of religious and political freedom in which the American Church has developed.” Then followed a point-by-point analysis of the ukase. One of the major obstacles was the insistence of the patriarchy upon renunciation of political activities against the U.S.S.R. The report said: “It would be inconsistent with the duties and obligations of loyal American and Canadian citizens, and contrary to the traditional atmosphere of freedom of speech and political action in these countries, for the Russian Church in America to give the pledge of loyalty to a foreign power which is implicit in the demand of the Patriarchal Ukase.” Another stumbling block was the vagueness of the ukase as to the powers of the North American church. It was felt that “the precise nature of the relationship between the two churches should be defined in advance. This is particularly necessary in view of the precarious situation of the mother church, existing as it does by sufferance of a totalitarian regime.”
                      The attempts at reconciliation having met with failure, the metropolitan district decided to commence this action to recover possession of St. Nicholas Cathedral, which by custom and rule had always been the See of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America and the residence and place of worship of the ruling bishop of the church in North America.

                      In the contact two decades later, that was initiated by the Phanar:

                      ROCOR was invited to participate in the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops of America (SCOBA) established in 1960 at the initiative of Archbishop Iakovos (Patriarchate of Constantinople). In his reply, however, Metropolitan Anastasii stated that ROCOR would participate in the conference only if representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate were excluded, which was unacceptable to Archbishop Iakovos.

                      The OCA, however, did accept the invitation, where its Metropolitan met with the Exarchate that Moscow had set up to replace him in 1934. When the OCA approached the Phanar to join under its omophorion, as did much-most?-of the “Free Russian Church,” EP Athenagoros rebuffed them, and directed them to Moscow to settle with the Mother Church (of course, thinking it had veto power over the reconciliation). Were EP Athenagoras and Abp. Iakovos of blessed memory also KGB agents?

                      I shall have to break down your post, due to its (excessive) length.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      ROCOR did have the right to consecrate chrism up until it gave up that right when the two parts of the ROC were reunited. Moscow stipulated that ROCOR’s work was “salvific” after all. Again, what a native English speaker would take from my statements about chrism is that that is really all that Moscow conveyed to the OCA, not real autocephaly. That was apparently lost on you.

                      That the praxis and taxis of the Orthodox Church in history is apparently lost on you-I can accept neither blame nor credit for that.

                      Unlike the West, where every bishop has reserved his right to consecrate chrism, in the East the bishops, per Apostolic canon 34, yielded this right to their primate, and it became reserved to only autocephalous primates, until in the 12th century, Constantinople reserved/arrogated it to herself, which she still claims-all the Tomoi of Autocephaly that it has issued to its daughter Churches has specifically received that right (something like the reservation of Moscow in the 1970 Tomos of the Patriarchal Parishes and the right to receive uncanonical jurisdictions). The Moscow Tradition you claim to hold to holds to the idea that only autocephalous primates have the right to consecrate chrism. Hence the wording in the Tomos, understood perfectly by this native English speaker (and you did not: did your ad hominem leitmotif get in the way of comprehensioin?):

                      By “autocephaly,” which is confirmed in this decision, it is understood that the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall…enjoy all the authority, privileges and rights usually inherent in the term “autocephaly” in the canonical tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, including the right of preparing and consecrating Holy Chrism.

                      Now, I do wish I had the text of the Tomoi issued by the PoM for Poland and Czechoslovakia, but I have only seen those issues by the Phanar for them (which reserves the right of consecrating chrism to the Phanar). Perhaps someone here has access to them?

                      If you can reach French, I can link to an old, but still excellent article on the “power of consecrating the Holy Chrism.” But in English I can offer the account of Fortescue (biased and smug as always in his presentation, but his facts, as always, faithfully reported, except perhaps in one detail) on when Romania decided to assert its autocephaly by consecrating its own Chrism:

                      …in 1882, the Roumans took the very serious step of preparing their own chrism, instead of sending to Constantinople for it. This was an openly unfriendly act towards the Phanar. Theoretically, their Church is just as autocephalous as that of Russia, and has just as much right to make its own chrism as its big sister across the Pruth. But the Phanar has always been very tenacious of this right even in the case of independent Churches, and the fact that it has long had to submit to Russian arrogance in this matter did not make it in any way more willing to receive a similar rebuff from Roumania. The Patriarch Joachim III, on July 10, 1882, sent an angry letter to the Roumanian Holy Synod reproaching it for so dangerous an innovation. The synod answered, claiming the same right as the Church of Russia, and the Patriarch, fearing such another schism as that of the Bulgars, was once more obliged to swallow the affront and pass over in silence what he would not openly approve. Roumania is the only Balkan State that now prepares its own chrism. The Roumanian Parliament voted 10,000 francs for the expenses of the vessels and materials needed for the Holy Chrism. The king [who, with the adoption of Peter’s Most Holy Governing Synod set up, governed the Romanian Church, although he communed with the Vatican] attended the ceremony, and all Roumania was triumphant at what they considered so great an assertion of complete independence. The Greeks at first denied the fact, and, when that was no longer possible, began a series of bitter attacks against the Roumanian Church, that lasted for three years.

                      http://books.google.com/books?id=UPr1ZCxPW6QC&pg=PA331&dq=%22in+1882,+the+Roumans+took+the+very+serious+step+of+preparing+their+own+chrism%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zug_VJesOoX4yASHloKQBQ&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22in%201882%2C%20the%20Roumans%20took%20the%20very%20serious%20step%20of%20preparing%20their%20own%20chrism%22&f=false
                      (the minor detail where Fortescue may have erred consists of the autocephalous Churches of Austria-Hungary (3-in this that empire was superior to what went on in the Russian Empire, and resembles the Apostolic age of the Roman Empire) consecrated their own chrism, a fact he acknowledges elsewhere. I’m not sure if, because of their Emperor-King’s attachment to the Vatican, Fortescue didn’t count them as “Balkan”).
                      So the words that you put in the commissar’s mouth

                      KD: So let me see if I understand what we have decided to do here: ROC grants the Metropolia a “Tomos of Autocephaly”. This so called “tomos” allows them to call themselves the American Orthodox Church and to do some magic called “consecrate chrism”, correct?
                      DH: Correct.
                      KD: So we have given nothing of substance, correct. They carry on like before. We carry on like before. Our shaman bestow a magic power on their shaman and they change their name?
                      DH: You understand perfectly, comrade

                      does that constitute an autor-insert? Their code names cover their real name of Mary Sue?
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue
                      Their mission-author surrogates?
                      They seem to share your imperfect understanding of the sacred Chrism in the canonical praxis of the Orthodox Church, precisely the point of contention:

                      ROCOR did have the right to consecrate chrism up until it gave up that right when the two parts of the ROC were reunited. Moscow stipulated that ROCOR’s work was “salvific” after all. Again, what a native English speaker would take from my statements about chrism is that that is really all that Moscow conveyed to the OCA, not real autocephaly. That was apparently lost on you.
                      “Constantinople does not even allow Churches that it grants autocephaly the right to consecrate chrism, but requires that they receive it from the Phanar. Does that count as “freakish autocephaly”? If so, then Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Greece, Albania, Poland etc. are not Churches but “freaks.” (it also eliminates almost all those Churches who have rejected the OCA Tomos).”
                      So what? I stipulated that Moscow purportedly granted this right to the OCA. It’s not a point of contention.

                      As the canonical praxis and taxis of the Orthodox Church is lost on you, you assert this right of ROCOR to consecrate chrism, although “ROCOR does not claim autocephaly” (though it did covet Moscow’s until the debacle of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia Inside Russia in 1992). Whether compelled to apply economia because Serbia-which, autocephalous, consecrates its own chrism, and supplied ROCOR-refused to continue to supply ROCOR; or because of Donatist scruples about chrism from a KGB communing Church; or because ROCOR decided to, or felt the need to, assert itself and its independence and arrogated the consecration to itself…in any case ROCOR, under the canonical praxis and taxisof the Orthodox Church, NEVER possessed the right to consecrate its chrism.. Not all autocephalous primates consecrate chrism-the members of the Greek Church don’t, getting it from their ethnarch in the Phanar, preserving it as a link of the various members, one that Antioch, btw, broke when it elected its own Patriarch again, receiving its chrism from Russia until it could consecrate its own. But ONLY autocephalous primates consecrate it. Not even the most autocephalous autonomous Church-Mt. Sinai-consecrates its own, and no charter/constitution of an autonomous/self-ruled Church in the Orthodox communion fails to mention that it must receive chrism-not consecrate its own-from its Mother Church. Including that scarp of paper, the Act of Canonical Communion.

                      Moscow granted this right to the OCA as an autocephalous Church. Its states so in plain English. Get over it. The OCA prior to 1970 consecrating chrism (and I don’t remember for a fact that it did) constituted an act of the autonomy that it frankly admitted as economia, not the norm. The OCA held to the canonical praxis and taxis of the historic Russian Church, which held-and holds-it as a right only of autocephalous primates, which it restricted to within itself to its primates of Moscow, Kiev, and the Most Holy Governing Synod.
                      So states the Patriarchs, Metropolitans of Kiev (the real ones), and the Holy Synods of (and inside) Russia. The ad hominem plagued statements of a wanna be Ober-Prokurator have no authority.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      I did not support my statement regarding “freakish autocephaly” on the consecration of chrism, but rather the fact that Moscow not only retained its entire fleet here in America for itself, but exempted everyone other than those who already belonged to the Metropolia from the Metropolia’s jurisdiction.

                      You deny your own Patriarchate’s definition of autocephaly, which defines it as having the right to consecrate chrism as among the”rights usually inherent in the term “autocephaly,” which is based on the canonical praxis and taxis of the historical Orthodox Church, and so included, and so specified, in the wording of the Tomos. Even the Phanar’s propaganda isn’t going to help you here (the reason for the “usually” in your Patriarchate’s definition): it may not include the consecration of chrism as a “right usually inherent in the term “autocephaly,” but it does hold that only autocephalous primates can consecrate chrism (just under its crypto-papist mythology, only it has “true” autocephaly. As shown in the example of Romania, the Phanar has had to bow to the praxis and taxis of the historical Orthodox Church on this one). So your statement on “freakish autocephaly” is unsupported from the start.
                      As pointed out, Moscow did not even retain “its entire fleet” here. The Tomos lists only-as it states-those parishes that wanted to remain under its jurisdiction at the time. Hence why the Agreement on Autocephaly has no list, just the statement

                      On the territory of North America there are excluded from Autocephaly:…(b) The Parishes and clergy in the United States of America which are now affiliated with the Exarchate of the Patriarchate and which wish to remain canonically affiliated with the Patriarchate. (c) The Parishes and clergy in Canada which are now affiliated with the Diocese of Edmonton and Canada of the Moscow Patriarchate and which wish to remain affiliated with the Patriarchate.

                      About 70 or so parishes opted out of the OCA, but the rest opted in, making the choice between the signing and ratification of the Agreement and the issuance of the Tomos (as the Agreement so states). The Agreement gave a 100 day window of time. With modern communication, it was wrapped up in just over a week. Some joined opted into the OCA, by the procedure the Tomos itself lays down, shortly thereafter (perhaps when they saw that the antimens at the OCA did not burst into flame, and the other Orthodox Churches swallowed communion with the OCA).
                      And even that fleet, although it might be anchored off shore, the Tomos makes clear, they are (except for St. Nicholas Cathedral) headed in only one direction-port in the OCA. No sailing back to home port (i.e. none will be granted the status that St. Nicholas has, as permanent metochia), no sailing off to a different port of call.

                      I’ll have to get back to your real fanciful and imaginative claims-that the Tomos excempted everyone from the OCA’s jurisdiction in North America, but in the meantime, two questions-

                      Did the Russian Church have exclusive claim to the Orthodox of North America in 1907 as it claimed? Does it now, for instance, have exclusive canonical claim to Japan?

                      Can the Patriarchate of Moscow grant autocephaly? Can it, for instance, grant a Tomos of Autocephaly to the Met. Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine?

    • Do you even know what Orthodoxy in Russia was like in the 1700’s well enough to pronounce that we in the ROCOR are living in a “pretend world” of the 1700’s? You keep repeating the 18th century bit, so I’m assuming you can elaborate with some specificity — you being all educated-like and everything, unlike us bumpkins.

  11. Timothy Wearing says

    Oh, and Roman, regarding the EOC; they became interested in Orthodoxy and had extensive talks about joining Orthodoxy with Frs. Schmemann & Meyendorff ONLY. They had no intention of joining Orthodoxy except via the OCA. When push came to shove, the EOC had two main stipulations for joining the OCA; 1) All of their clergy be accepted as Orthodox clerics and 2) They maintain their Western Rite liturgy. The Synod of the OCA said (rightfully) that each cleric of the EOC had to be accepted via INDIVIDUAL examination, repentance and full ordination (some may fail this process). Regarding the Western Rite, the OCA did not like the EOC keeping it. Hearing that + Philip may be more “liberal” in his acceptance standards, the EOC went to him. + Philip accepted and ordained all the EOC clerics en masse and allowed them to continue their use of the Western Rite. + Philip’s only stipulation was that they begin a transition to the Eastern Rite and fully integrate it after a year, I believe. (Note: + Philip’s thinking was that the EOC clerics could be weeded out, if necessary, over the course of a year or two.) Thus, the big EOC rebellion that occurred 1-2 years after being in the AOCA fueled by secret talks with + Tikhon (retired).

    • Actually, I have heard it from the mouths of both Fr. Gilquist and the late Abp. Dimitri, that their first extensive discussions were with him. Just a point of information.

      But yes, the nub of it was that they were shopping for the best deal, and Met. P closed that deal quickly. We all know the fallout from that move, of which you mention one part.

      Not taking the EOC was a good move on the part of the OCA. The unique challenges were probably better handled with Met. P’s very centralized authority structure.

      And please don’t call what they were doing Western Rite! It was a rite, and I guess it was western, but it was a far cry from anything even as historical as the modified Anglican Rite that exists in sone places. But I think the former EOC has moved on, so that is a historical footnote at this point. But I think that the transition would have taken longer in the OCA, so insisting it be dropped was wise of the OCA…

  12. Timothy,

    Your triumphalist OCA attitude is one reason why the OCA has been left behind – it didn’t cut it in 1970 and it isn’t today. But for you to continue to beat that dead horse especially in the face of all of its scandals and inept episcopal leadership is maybe a much better case of DISINFORMATION. Case in point – look at the ROCOR diocese of Eastern American website. Then look at the OCA website. One is most edifying while the other gloats about its new sex rules and sex cops as if that is going to bring people to Christ. One produces first rate videos, and that is just one diocese, while the other can’t even produce a newspaper! One attempts to hold to the Traditions of the Church while the others seems to be always reinventing itself. Honestly the comparison is so stark as to make the case why the OCA is shrinking and ROCOR is growing.

    Your claim that ROCOR’s growth is due to immigration may be partially but it too attracts converts and while it may be true about immigrants it is also true that the OCA refused to minister to new Russian immigrants in a meaningful way when it ignored the plea of its Mother Church back in the late 1990’s. The idea of establishing a Russian missionary diocese to consecrate attention and resources for new immigrants was rejected. Now that ministry has been taken up by ROCOR, and we should thank God for that. I won’t accuse you of an “ethnic cleansing” approach to OCA evangelism, meaning it is only interested in converts, but your comments sure do get close to it.

    And finally you repeatedly assert that the OCA is the “only REAL hope for American Orthodoxy”. What exactly do you base this on? What “secret” does the OCA possess that everyone else lacks?

    • Fr. Peter M. Dubinin says

      Roman – wait and see what happens in ROCOR when the Russian immigration assimilates to their new country; I guarantee that the Russian immigrants who remain in the Church, as many will fall away due to their newly found material prosperity, will move to eliminate the “convert” from positions of parish leadership and assert themselves and their “Russianness” asserting that this is how it must needs be because Orthodoxy is their birthright contra the American convert.

    • The OCA is “the only real hope for American Orthodoxy?” That may be true … a renovated, ecumenist, “made comfortable for Americans,” Orthodoxy, ran by the “actually, in the 3rd century” crowd … Eastern Rite Episcopalians ….

      • Isa Almisry says

        “Eastern Rite Episcopalians ”
        Given the Anglican monarchism of the ROCOR (which got it disbanded by Pat. St. Tikhon), an odd statement.

        The Patriarch of Moscow is in communion with the OCA. If it is “ecumenist” to you, then maybe you should break communion.

  13. Does anyone know why Constantine Mersinas, the former chancellor of the Metropolis of New Jersey was recently deposed to the rank of layman? I thought he was the local fair haired boy…..what is going on in the GOA ? and father Dokas has been sent to St.Mary’s in Minneapolis.

  14. Peter A. Papoutsis says

    Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says:
    October 6, 2014 at 12:07 am

    What ignorance! Further, it is outright stupidity to mindlessly declare that everything
    had to be approved or disapproved by anybody, let alone the KGB. the KGB always was able to refrain from agreeing or disagreeing; in other words, they had a third alternative: to ignore or have no interest whatsoever.

    Your Eminence:

    I know this is a complex history, but what exactly from your perspective is the correct history involving the OCA’s autocephaly? The reason I ask is because I agree with Misha that the KGB had a direct role in the granting of the 1970 Tomos. However, I wasn’t there when this was granted, when this was debated, and I am sure these questions came up. ROCOR completely distrusted the ROC in Moscow as hopelessly controlled and infiltrated with Communists.

    I also really don’t know why ROCOR and the ROC reunited in 2007? Did the Communists disappear? Did the Russian state somehow stop controlling the ROC?

    I truly ask in all humility because I do want to know the answers to these questions. This website, which I cannot vouch for its authenticity, states what Misha believes: http://remnantrocor.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-elimination-of-roca.html

    Bishop Agathangel (Pashkovsky) of Odessa, and others, left ROCOR over the 2007 unification with Mioscow because of these objections and is currently united with the Greek Old Calendarists.

    So from your perspective your Eminence did ROCOR have legitimate concerns of Moscow being ruled by the Communists? Did not the Communists grant the 1970 Tomos to weaken and destabilize the Russian Church so as to lessen and control its influence, as well as to stop it from being a conduit for then U.S. infiltration and spying into the Soviet Union? Finally did the Communists just disappear? Did they stop caring? What assurances was ROCOR given or did it obtain on its own that led to their 2007 unification?

    Although I have asked his Eminence directly all are free to comment as this is a VERY important issue. Because IF there was outside involvement on two of the most momentous activities in the current history of the Orthodox Church then we need to know about it and what we need to do about it going forward.

    Thank you for your time your Eminence, and I hope and pray you are doing well.

    Peter A. Papoutsis

    • Isa Almisry says

      “So from your perspective your Eminence did ROCOR have legitimate concerns of Moscow being ruled by the Communists? Did not the Communists grant the 1970 Tomos to weaken and destabilize the Russian Church so as to lessen and control its influence, as well as to stop it from being a conduit for then U.S. infiltration and spying into the Soviet Union?”
      I’m not sure how the Tomos would accomplish this: it left Moscow in firm control of its Canadian diocese and the Patriarchal parishes in the US, and St. Nicholas Cathedral, and gave it Japan.
      And that is part of my objection to the KGB thesis-no one who brings it up can explain what further end of the KGB’s plans the Tomos furthered. Granting autocephaly didn’t dimish the Russian Church really any, but it did prevent KGB inference and Soviet threats (e.g. to sue for properties in court, for instance-the OCA had lost its Cathedral in SCOTUS to the Soviets).

      • “And that is part of my objection to the KGB thesis-no one who brings it up can explain what further end of the KGB’s plans the Tomos furthered.”

        That’s easy, they gained the Church of Japan. Perhaps more.

        • Isa Almisry says

          ““And that is part of my objection to the KGB thesis-no one who brings it up can explain what further end of the KGB’s plans the Tomos furthered.”

          That’s easy, they gained the Church of Japan. Perhaps more.”
          Oh? And what great treasure was in Japan?

          The American Archbishop-born in the OCA in PA from Galician parents-who presided over the Church of Japan remained in charge of Japan after the transfer, and Moscow elevated him to a Metropolitan with autonomy-to this day Japan is officially the only part of the Patriarchate of Moscow with autonomy. A few years later he was succeeded by a Japanese native-the first to be elevated as the Church’s primate-consecrated by the OCA.

          Moscow already had a jurisdiction in Japan-the bishop that ROCOR consecrated during WWII for Japan joined the Patriarchate of Moscow after the war. Later he (re)joined the Church of Japan (i.e. the one under the OCA), and the minority of this minority who would not go along remained under Moscow-their primate was relieved of his primateship in 1970-now being under the American Metropolitan-and made rector of Moscow’s representational compound.

          “Perhaps more.” Would have to be more, as this isn’t anything.

          • “”Perhaps more.’ Would have to be more, as this isn’t anything.”

            Perhaps, to you. But of course I’ve already made it clear I don’t care what your standards are or whether you are satisfied with, well, anything:

            “According to the “Fundamental Law of the Soviet Union”, the Moscow Patriarchate (until 1991), “is under the control of the Council for Religious Affairs” and its system of regional and local officials, all of which are composed of antireligious Communist Party and KGB leaders. KGB General Furov, the head of the “Directorate for Russian Orthodox Church Affairs” and a governor of the CPSU/KGB’s

            “Council for Religous Affairs”, reported in 1974 to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union:

            “The Synod [of the Moscow Patriarchate] is under the control of the [CPSU/KGB’s] Council for Religious Affairs. The question of the selection and placing of its permanent members was and remains completely in the hands of the Council, and the candidature of the non-permanent members is also agreed beforehand with responsible members of the Council. All issues which are to be discussed at the Synod are first discussed by Patriarch Pimen and the permanent members of the Synod with the leaders of the [KGB] Council and in its departments, and the final ‘Decisions (Opredeleniya) of the Holy Synod’ are also agreed.”

            Isa, you just couldn’t be more wrong about all of this stuff.

            • Isa Almisry says

              “Isa, you just couldn’t be more wrong about all of this stuff.”
              Oh?
              Is that ex cathedra?

              All the data you posted resembles the Church under the “Spiritual Regulations” and the Ober-Prokurator-and I thought you guys were all against modernism and heterodox influence. You failed to post their relevance to the Tomos of 1970. Or for today.

              So I repeat:what do they all have to do with the Tomos of Autocephaly granted the OCA-in 1970, 2014 or 2022?

              • Isa,

                I didn’t “fail” at anything. I posted the above to indicate that the MP was a department of the Soviet government, a militant atheistic regime. So, in 1970, 2014 and, if it survives, in 2022, the “OCA” will be a creation of the Soviet government, not the Orthodox Church. If a tsar wants another Orthodox Christian to be appointed to this or that, or even if he wants him to be tonsured or made a bishop, then so long as there is no canonical impediment, there is no problem.

                If an atheistic communist government appoints atheists to oversee the church to rule in the name of a government which seeks to destroy religion, and if it infiltrates this Church to its core with atheistic agents and collaborators, then the Soviet government controls the Church from without and within. Does this mean that the Church does not retain grace? Certainly not. But both the Metropolia and the ROCOR rejected the MP’s ability to direct the affairs of the Church, given its complete subservience to the Soviet government.

                In a fit of self-serving temporary myopia, the crew that obtained OCA’s alleged autocephaly simply ignored what they knew and had preached up to that time in order to purportedly obtain something to which they were certainly not entitled.

                • Isa Almisry says

                  “I didn’t “fail” at anything. I posted the above to indicate that the MP was a department of the Soviet government, a militant atheistic regime. So, in 1970, 2014 and, if it survives, in 2022, the “OCA” will be a creation of the Soviet government, not the Orthodox Church. ”
                  Like the restored Patriarchate of Moscow, the Church of Poland and the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.
                  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I caused you to be raised up, that I might show in you My power, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Romans 9:17
                  Patriarch St. Tikhon himself planted the seed of ” The Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Church in North America under the Hierarchy of the Russian Church,” and the OCA sprouted from it. The Soviets may have supplied the fertilizer, but the Spirit did the watering.

                  “If a tsar wants another Orthodox Christian to be appointed to this or that, or even if he wants him to be tonsured or made a bishop, then so long as there is no canonical impediment, there is no problem.”
                  Render unto the Czar that which is the Czar’s, and render unto the Church that which is the Church’s.
                  So the heterodox if not heretical Erastian inspired modernist Spiritual Regulation, a child of the “Enlightment” and Protestants poses no “canonical impediment.” OK. The ones who appointed the Ober-Prokurator also patronized the Jesuits, whom even the Vatican wouldn’t tolerate:

                  The sound principles of Catholicism, however, were maintained and propagated by the Jesuits who, suppressed by the Holy See and exiled from the Catholic nations, found an asylum and the centre of their future revival in Russia. In 1779 Catharine II invited the Jesuits to exercise their ministry in White Russia, and in 1786 they had in Russia six colleges and 178 members. Their number increased so much that Pius VII re-established their order for Russia, where it returned to life under Father Gruber. In 1801 the society had 262 members, and 347 in 1811. The Jesuits retained a lively gratitude for the hospitality that they had received in Russia, and worked with zeal to convert it to Catholicism.

                  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13253a.htm

                  “If an atheistic communist government appoints atheists to oversee the church to rule in the name of a government which seeks to destroy religion, and if it infiltrates this Church to its core with atheistic agents and collaborators, then the Soviet government controls the Church from without and within.”
                  You still have not distinguished that from the Spiritual Regulations that the Czarist government used to control the Church from without and within. (or the Muslim enslaved Churches which elevated Moscow into a Patriarchate and gave it back Ukraine).

                  “But both the Metropolia and the ROCOR rejected the MP’s ability to direct the affairs of the Church, given its complete subservience to the Soviet government.”
                  No, the OCA deferred to the MP in the Soviet Union-after all, they were the ones who had to face the Soviets. Judge not, lest you be judged. What it refused to do was take on even a little subservience to the Soviet government outside of the Soviet Union.

                  “In a fit of self-serving temporary myopia, the crew that obtained OCA’s alleged autocephaly simply ignored what they knew and had preached up to that time in order to purportedly obtain something to which they were certainly not entitled.”
                  They obtained it. Get over it.

                  Fortunately for the OCA (but not limited to the OCA) you are not the Supreme Church Authority that Ukaz 362 references. The one who is, commemorates Metropolitan Tikhon with his autocephalous peers-and orders his vicars in North America to commemorate the same.

                  Myopia. A diagnosis coming from the blind.

    • Peter,

      You mentioned your curiosity regarding the reunion of the MP and ROCOR in 2007. Essentially, you answered the question yourself but I don’t think you realized that you did.

      Simply, the communists did not “disappear”. They adopted mixed market capitalism and abandoned militant atheism. Nominally, of course, they claimed to adopt democracy, but that is irrelevant. One could, of course, have a democratic socialism or an autocratic capitalism, or vice versa. But the official atheism and socialism did “disappear”.

      Given that, there was no reason to remain separate. ROCOR never suggested that the MP did not maintain grace during the time when it was incapable of governance, being a department of the Soviet government. Grace remaining, offical atheism and socialism having been abandoned, it was only a matter of time until reunion occurred.

      As to remnant Rocor, I think they and the Old Calendar Greeks make some excellent points and, often, they are quite correct on matters of fact. Yet I have to very respectfully disagree with them on the status of ROCOR/MP at the present time, though I cannot say with certainty they are wrong.

      Again, I wish the old calendarists had simply united and continued the communion which began at Pentecost rather than muddy the waters with modernism.

      • Peter A. Papoutsis says

        I agree.

        • Peter,

          I don’t know if you’ve been reading the little exchange I’ve been having with Isa, however, for the first time I happened to actually read the Tomos purportedly granted to the Metropolia. Now, it can be confusing since there is an Agreement on Autocephaly and then the actual official Tomos. The language used in the supposed grant of jurisdiction differs from one to the other, at least in English.

          To my sincere surprise, the language really doesn’t seem to convey any territorial jurisdiction at all. It only gives the Metropolia jurisdiction over entities that were already “presently part of the Metropolinate” at the time:

          “The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.”

          Bearing in mind that the day before the Tomos was issued, the Metropolia could have changed its official name to any thing it wished, and bearing in mind that it did in fact consecrate its own chrism prior to the issuance of the Tomos, I have a question:

          Did the Tomos even purport to convey anything at all (setting aside for the moment whether Moscow had the authority to do so) and, if so, what? The only thing that I can think of is that the MP and those churches under Soviet domination would from that time forward refer in writing to the OCA as autocephalous, address its presiding bishop as “Your Beatitude”, and direct certain churches still under its omophorion here to commemorate the first hierarch of the OCA.

          But those are all things that the MP simply chose to do itself, not something it conveyed that the Metropolia could not do for itself already. Really, objectively, I’m skeptical that the Metropolia/OCA was actually even supposedly granted anything other than a hollow title. I’ve read the above paragraph from the Tomos several times, as well as the later one in the Tomos describing the other jurisdictions here as “canonical”. “Metropolinate” does not seem to refer to the supposed jurisdictional territory of the Metropolia, but the institution itself. Otherwise, there is no need for the apparent redundancy of talking about its supposed canonical territory and then distinguishing those operating thereon who had and had not “entered” or been “accepted” into the Metropolinate.

          Just curiosity. I don’t really take any of it the least bit seriously.

          • Peter A. Papoutsis says

            I do not either, but you bring up a fascinating interpretation that I have never heard before. I guess I should actually read the Tomos as we’ll and see what it has to really say about the OCA .

            Also, yes I have been following the discussions between you and Isa. It would seem we are all lawyers arguing the finer points about an issue that did exactly what the communists wanted it to do, cause division in the body of Christ.

            I made a ver compelling case, just to get a reaction out of Isa, for Greek Orthodox domination here in America. I actually think you can make a better argument for Russian Orthodox domination, in a jurisdictional sense, here in America.

            However, what I pointed out previously is that those claims run with and have stayed with ROCOR and not the OCA. So really the discussion between you and Isa actually hinges upon which church has jurisdictional control – ROCOR or OCA? Right now the best argument runs with the Russian Church.

            Having said that in all reality what will probably happen in the long run in a natural and gradual unity here in America among all the Orthodox. Prayerfully the traditionalists will lead the way and the Modernists in the GOAA and OCA will either leave or become irrelevant. Right not because of the strong anti-Christian bias and soft persecution in our country the day will go to the traditionalists and hopefully our unity will start with them and all this nonsense that we are discussing now will fade into history and we can get on with a healthy dose of Orthopraxis.

            That is my prayer.

            Peter

            • Isa Almisry says

              “Right now the best argument runs with the Russian Church.”
              You mean, the Patriarchal Parishes?

            • Amen.

              • Thinking about it further, Peter, while I am skeptical of the Phanar’s canon 28 claims, one thing that should be clear from history is that when the skata hits the fan, people often appeal to the Phanar as first among equals. In that vein, I can understand the notion that once things collapse (aka, the Bolshevik Revolution) that there is a natural tendency to look to Constantinople.

                As to historical jurisdiction in the strict sense, if Russia’s case is not pre-eminent, then there is no case. So, in that vein, I also agree with you. As you point out, the real dichotomy is between modernism and traditionalism (aka, orthopraxis). If, for example, a Greek from Athos ascended to the throne of the Phanar and he essentially made the entire Church under Constantinople acceptable to the OC Greeks and resumed communion with them, well, I would be hard pressed to find a practical spiritual objection to a unification of the American church under Constantinople.

                Really, the objective is to spread the acquisition of the Holy Spirit. Anything that furthers that appeals to me. Acquisition of the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as orthopraxis, but normally orthopraxis is a prerequisite. The reason is that it is so easy to indulge the passions in the matter of daily affairs and, as a result, the attitude affects everything else in life. Theosis is a matter of actually trusting God to manifest Himself in you, through you, loving all, condemning none, but speaking the truth in love. To me, it has to do with living in God. Praying, blessing food, believing in Providence rather than luck, living in God’s world rather than a secular mindset. We endure, we thank God for all, we have Christ in our hearts and imitate the Theotokos in that we bear God, in a way. He gives you energy; he clears the way; he bears your sorrows with you. Faith is so utterly powerful, and the source of power. And it is not just belief, but reliance on this belief.

                The problem is that modernism retards that objective – a shallow submission to the mentality and cultural norms of Hollywood, New York, LA, Washington, etc. The question is to what talisman does one ultimately refer the question. Does Tradition predominate or the overwhelming contemporary context? That is the only real question that vexes us. The compulsion to appear relevant is predicated upon the respect of the norms of the dominant culture. What if they are pagans, essentially?

                Jurisdictionalism is actually a lesser concern, whether it be the status of the OCA or other churches here, etc.

                • Peter Papoutsis says

                  I totally agree with you and your assessment. Aquiring the Holy Spirit is not only paramount, but the goal. Spot on.

                  Peter

            • Isa Almisry says

              “I made a very compelling case, just to get a reaction out of Isa, for Greek Orthodox domination here in America.”
              I missed that.

            • I encountered a theory, supposedly backed up by evidence, many years ago. According to it, the Bolsheviks infiltrated all of the Russian emigre groups — MP, ROCOR, Metropolia, with an end to getting each to take positions that would make unity difficult, if not impossible.

              Even if they didn’t, the end result was still to their liking.

          • Isa Almisry says

            “I don’t know if you’ve been reading the little exchange I’ve been having with Isa, however, for the first time I happened to actually read the Tomos purportedly granted to the Metropolia. ”
            You mean, you purportedly read.
            A little late in the game to read what you have been pontificating on. Or was it just giving the Party line?

            “To my sincere surprise, the language really doesn’t seem to convey any territorial jurisdiction at all. It only gives the Metropolia jurisdiction over entities that were already “presently part of the Metropolinate” at the time:”
            I was going to go into some detail in this when I get the time, but since you brought it up again: of course it , for the most part, gives the OCA jurisdiction over “entities” i.e. parishes and dioceses, already part of it. Have you not read Ukaz 362?

            As someone who presumes to speak for the Ukrainians to tell them that they are Russians, I can see why you are thrown by the concept that one can only speak for oneself. The OCA all along 1924-1970 admitted that the Patriarchate of Moscow, in the person of the Patriarch and the Holy Synod, represented the Central Ecclesiastical Authority of the Supreme Church Administration. That is why they accepted the invitation to the election of the Patriarch in 1945, and sent a delegation to Moscow as participants, not observers. That is why they lost St. Nicholas Cathedral (see:
            http://orthodoxhistory.org/2011/05/27/moscow-v-the-metropolia-part-4-initial-impressions/
            If you will notice, then, the Tomos gives jurisdiction over St. Nicholas Cathedral, an entity already presently part of the Patriarchate of Moscow). Although the All American Sobor in 1946 rejected the terms of Moscow (and I CAN CITE KGB INTERFERENCE: the terms included that the OCA could not engage in political activities against the U.S.S.R. and its policies, like militant atheism. The details of the imposition of this requirement on the ROC by the Politburo is well documented, and known), as the severed relations to the Supreme Church Authority and OCA could not yet be restored by such terms, they did not reject the Patriarchate of Moscow, nor deny the validity of Pat. Alexei I’s election. Although the OCA/Metropolia had continued the policies that SS. Innocent and Tikhon had put in place for the Americanization (in the sense of “North America”) of the Church, expanding autonomy leading to autocephaly, the OCA continued to admit that, per Ukaz 362, all its measures taken in North America (its jurisdiction at the time of the severance of relations between the Archdiocese/Metropolia and the Supreme Church Authority) in accordance with the last instructions with any independence of Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Sacred Synod (namely Ukaz 362 and Ukaz 41) were subject to the confirmation of Moscow. Such confirmation came in the Tomos of 1970.

            That of course did not entail much actual, de facto change: the OCA had continued to be what it was before 1924:The Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Church in North America under the Hierarchy of the Russian Church. Unlike ROCOR, however, this hierarchy remained in their own sees, the main ones (NYC, SF, Sitka and Chicago) having been set up by Patriarch St. Tikhon and his predecessors. The Tomos, however, removed that Hierarchy from under the Russian Church, and set it on its own. Hence the requirement of the bishop presiding over the representational Patriarchal parishes being, like the ROCOR bishops, not in his own See. Even in Canada, where Russia retained the Edmonton Diocese, the OCA was given jurisdiction and the Diocese was reduced to representational Patriarchal parishes, there being no Russian bishop of Edmonton anymore, though it has a Cathedral.

            Did much de facto change happen when ROCOR signed the ACC? Except, of course, that its parishes in the territories of the former Soviet Union had to be given over to the local ROC bishops-IIRC the ROCORettes officially got started when they refused to go to the local bishops in Ukraine. And the properties that ROCOR had in the Holy Land had to be turned over to the Russian Church. And ROCOR, which still had the chrism it consecrated for itself when it fled, again (this time to North America), had to receive it instead from the Patriarch of Moscow. And the election of the First Hierach had to be approved by Moscow and confirmed. And…

            “Did the Tomos even purport to convey anything at all (setting aside for the moment whether Moscow had the authority to do so)”
            …ah, but that is just it. Authority. Russia had exclusive and total de jure (and for most of its history, de facto) jurisdiction and authority over North America. You are perplexed about why Moscow did not give the GOARCH etc. over to the OCA in the Tomos. The GOARCH, never recognized Russia’s jurisdiction (though the Greeks in North America did for most of their history in North America). It was founded in defiance of the canonical organization already present in North America.
            Contrast, for instance, the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church and the canonical Estonian Orthodox Church (to which Pat. Alexei II of blessed memory belonged) on the one hand, and the defunct Edmonton Diocese/Patriarchal Parishes of Canada and the Archdiocese of Canda (OCA) on the other. The latter two both derive their authority from the same sacred canons and Orthodox taxis, the same founding authority (the Russian Orthodox Church) working on the same authoritative basis (the OCA Tomos). In Estonia, the EAOC twists and contorts cherry picked canons not applicable to the situation, to set up a rival authority, on a separate basis, to challenge, replace and expel the canonical Church of the EOC-to the point of the Phanar’s ethnarch going to Estonia (and this was many years IIRC after the truce with Moscow was worked out) telling the Estonian speaking, born, bred, baptized, ordained and consecrated Patriarch of Moscow that he must recall his Estonian speaking, born, bred, baptized, ordained, consecrated and persecuted (Metropolitan Cornelius did years in the political camps for “anti-Soviet activity”-possession and distribution of religious material. But then that was during the Soviet enslavement, so he must have been a KGB agent ;)) Metropolitan of Tallin and All Estonia, so the “real” Metropolitan of Tallin-the Phanar’s Cypriot from the Congo (who AFAIK doesn’t speak a word of Estonian, nor before his appointment I’m guessing he never even heard of Estonia) could exercise total “canonical” control.
            All Russia could do in the Tomos would be what it had always done with these anti-canonical interlopers: reassert its claims, and apply economia in heavy doses to maintain communion and build up the Church.
            Now Russia has no, and makes no, claims to North America. Hence its abolishment of its Exarchate of North and South America and its dioceses. Hence why St. Nicholas Cathedral, the Mother Church of North America, is under a priest and not a bishop (the priest being the vicar for the Patriarch). Hence why Russia let the OCA canonize St. Herman of Alaska, and canonized St. Innocent at the OCA’s request-although St. Herman lived all his life in the Russian Empire, he ended it in what is now under the jurisdiction of the OCA, while St. Innocent returned to and reposed in Moscow. (I don’t know about the canonization/glorification of St. Tikhon, but for St. John Kochurev, who also returned to Russia, the Patriarchate consulted the OCA about his canonization). Even Antioch let the OCA canonize St. Raphael Hawaweeni, despite its own claims on him and North America.
            “Ah! But ROCOR! But ROCOR!” I can hear you say. What about ROCOR? Russia seems to have dropped out of SCOBA after the Tomos but returned after the ACC. Previously ROCOR had been invited to SCOBA but gave terms that the Patriarch’s representative would have to be expelled. Of course, the terms were refused. The jurisditionless jurisdiction of ROCOR claims to be world wide-in fact the truth to the claim of Met. Elpidophoros that some “who today find fault with the canonical universal primacy of the Mother Church dogmatize about a rank that is untestified in the tradition of the Church, but rather based on the principle ubi russicus ibi ecclesia russicae, that is to say “wherever there is a Russian, there too the jurisdiction of the Russian Church extends.”” Nothing specific to North America at all. Hence no different than the jurisdiction claims of A.C.R.O.D., U.O.C.C. or U.O.C.U.S.A.-but different from the Patriarchal parishes and the OCA.

            It is like the Tomos that the deposed Archbishop of Athens Meletius III had the Holy Synod of Constantinople issue when it elected him EP Meletius IV, annulling the uncanonical Tomos of 1908 granting the Church of Greece jurisdiction over the “Diaspora,” and transferring the parishes he established control over during his trip her in 1918 (splitting Greek parishes to do so often) from himself as Archbishop of Athens (from which office the whole episcopate of the Church of Greece met as Synod for the first time and deposed and defrocked him) to himself as the (uncanonically elected) EP: on the ground in North America, nothing changed-at least at first. Greece (and the rest of the Greek Church, Alexandria, Jerusalem etc) were not in communion with the Phanar, and so those in communion with the Phanar in North America were under his omophorion already anyways.
            But when communion was restored among the Greek Churches, the Tomos of 1908 was not. And so the Greek parishes one by one ended up in the GOARCH (a process that still took decades) run by the Phanar despite that the CoG provided most of Greeks for it and its backing.

            Or with the Alaskan Cession-with it the US inherited Russian claims (which the US instituted the Monroe Doctrine to dispute) to the interior of the North American Northwest and to the coast all the way down North America.
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Russian_claims_in_the_americas_19th_century.png/640px-Russian_claims_in_the_americas_19th_century.png
            Russia never penetrated the interior, nor were able to enforce their claims on the length of the coast, but the US made good those claims up until they met the British claims.

            Moscow isn’t going to make good its claims of jurisdiction over North American, as they have passed them to the OCA. The Tomos reserves the right of Moscow to receive parishes “from uncanonical ecclesiastical organizations” with whom they were not in communion (such as ROCOR and the UOCC), but does not specify-as it does with the Patriarchal Parishes-the limitations of its jurisdiction over them (e.g. limiting their release to the OCA). One can make the argument that ROC with the OCA plays the role the KGB plays in your Tomos 1970 mythology, but it’s hard to see a separation of purpose between the two (that unity was demonstrated by the OCA’s attitude to the setting up of the Phanariot Estonian Church and to the signing of the ACC).

            “But those are all things that the MP simply chose to do itself, not something it conveyed that the Metropolia could not do for itself already. Really, objectively, I’m skeptical that the Metropolia/OCA was actually even supposedly granted anything other than a hollow title”
            I knew of the heterodox Ultramontanist and Protestant influences that went into the ROCOR mix, but has the Protestant strain go so far as to say we can make it up as we like as we go along?
            ROCOR has nothing but hollow titles of bishops that no one but itself recognizes as the bishops of those Sees. No one, for instance, recognizes its bishop of Chicago as the Orthodox bishop of Chicago. As you pointed out elsewhere, ROCOR does not claim any jurisdiction, WHICH BY DEFINITION MAKES ALL THOSE TITLES HOLLOW. The OCA bishops may be disputed-and they were in the days of St. Tikhon-but ROCOR’s aren’t even in the running.

            But, in a fantasy world where ROCOR legitimizes the ROC in the ACC and not the reverse, I can see how such facts are lost on you. The OCA, however, is not confused on the identity of the “Supreme Church Authority” of Ukaz 362, and had the humility to not identify it with itself.

            “Otherwise, there is no need for the apparent redundancy of talking about its supposed canonical territory and then distinguishing those operating thereon who had and had not “entered” or been “accepted” into the Metropolinate.”
            Communion. Do you purport to have read the Act of Canonical Communion?
            Lacing a jurisdiction, you fail to see the two way street. The Phanar, for instance, has insisted that the OCA (and of course, Russia before) is intruding on ITS jurisdiction and territory. Yet it has retained communion with the OCA (and Russia, and the rest of us, and now you too). Hence its problem when its exarch (Many Years!) invited the OCA with the rest of the Mother Churches to the Assembly of Bishops. The OCA delegation was separate from Moscow’s (which included you), but they all communed together.
            Those ROCORettes who had not entered or been accepted into the Patriarchate of Moscow (as ROCOR was) were not invited, allowed in, or communed.

            “Just curiosity. I don’t really take any of it the least bit seriously”
            Of course not. Partisans of jurisdictionless jurisdictions make up in sanctimony what they lack in orthopraxis.

            • So, Isa, what you seem to be saying in far too many words is that Moscow itself doubted its own jurisdiction in America and thus only conveyed to the OCA what right it seemed to the MP that they had in 1970; i.e., over those Orthodox who actually constituted the Metropolia at that moment.

              I mean, really, there are two and only two possibilities: One, Moscow believed it had jurisdiction over North America, period. In that case, it would have given that to the OCA (perhaps retaining some of its patriarchal parishes).

              It did not even purport to do that.

              The second possibility is that Moscow did not believe that it had jurisdiciton over North America, thus it was not theirs to give, and thus the only jurisdiction they believed they had was over their patriarchal parishes as well as over the Metropolia (since the Metropolia was stating that they were under the MP to the extent necessary to receive the Tomos). And in reality, that is the only jurisdiction over anything that the MP mentioned in the Tomos, other than exempting everyone else from the Tomos besides the two parties involved.

              Actually, there is a third possibility, come to think of it. Moscow could have believed it had jurisdiction over North America and simply refused to convey it to the Metropolia. I mean, really, the Tomos just gives the Metropolia what it already has anyway. There is nothing really stopping, for example, the MP from receiving GOARCH under its omophorion. Paragraph 8 would not prevent this since it is explicitly qualified by paragraph 7 in which the MP only claims jurisdiction over its patriarchal parishes and over those Orthodox then part of the Metropolia. The Tomos exempted everyone outside the Metropolia from the Metropolia’s jurisdiction. In fact, in a way, this has already happened. The MP reunited with ROCOR. Thus the ROC most certainly does make claims in North America.

              You realize that that does not constitute a grant of autocephaly at all. If Moscow backed away from its claim to jurisdiction over North America, recognizing in the very Tomos it purported to grant that these claims were somehow dubious, at least to the extent that others claimed jurisdiction here, then they did not grant autocephaly at all. They contracted with the OCA to give it jurisdiction over all Orthodox in America in communion with the Metropolia, but they did not even actually include that in the Tomos.

              If they did not believe that jurisdiction over North America was theirs to give, they could not possibly have intended to convey it. The quality of title passed is only as good as the title held by the grantor. Yet even if Moscow in reality possessed jurisdiction over North America, they did not pass that to the Metropolia, though they could have. All they passed to the Metropolia was jurisdiction over Orthodox Christians already members of the Metropolia. They specifically exempted everything else.

              That is actually what I’ve been saying since I read the Tomos: Though it uses the word “autocephaly” repeatedly, it does not actually even purport to grant exclusive jurisdiction over North America – not vis a vis its own patriarchal parishes, nor against any other jurisdiction. Nor does it grant the OCA jurisdiction even over ROCOR.

              It would be better to have been honest about it, but there were no good faith actors part of the deal, I suppose.

              “The OCA, however, is not confused on the identity of the “Supreme Church Authority” of Ukaz 362, and had the humility to not identify it with itself.”

              Quit lying. The Metropolia announced to its own American sobor that the Church Abroad was the highest authority in the Church of Russia back around 1936 or so.

              So, in summary, I’m glad we have this settled. OCA does not even have any arguable jurisdiction here in North America over anyone or anything which does not now nor in the future elect to join it.

              If you want to call that autocephaly, be my guest (pause for laughter).

              • Isa Almisry says

                “If you want to call that autocephaly, be my guest (pause for laughter).”
                There’s that nervous laughter again.

                “So, Isa, what you seem to be saying in far too many words is that Moscow itself doubted its own jurisdiction in America and thus only conveyed to the OCA what right it seemed to the MP that they had in 1970; i.e., over those Orthodox who actually constituted the Metropolia at that moment.”
                No, I’m not saying that. But I understand: ROCOR has a knack for reading things that no one put there, as I have pointed out previously.

                To give you an example maybe you can understand (pardon my many words-I like to cite and document. That’s how history is done. I quote the literature of a ROCOR historian here, instead of source documents because 1) I don’t have the necessary documents (and he gives the reference citation) and 2) they have been filtered through a ROCOR lens already. Hopefully that will sieve out some unnecessary dispute):
                http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2006/5endokladpsarev.html

                On 2 December 1920, the local ranking representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Metropolitan Dorotheos of Prussa, informed Metropolitan Anthony of the fact that by edict of the Holy Synod (No. 9084), Russian bishops were permitted to establish a temporary church administration under the oversight of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This administration was permitted to manage and minister to Russian church communities in Orthodox countries, and to assign priests there.
                The situation for Russian exiles in Constantinople was very tenuous and uncertain. The mass of Russian exiles and commanders and the ranks of the army were moving toward Serbia. In spring 1921, Metropolitan Anthony left Constantinople. A decision was made at a meeting of the Higher Church Administration on 21 April 1921 to move to Serbia. The next meeting was convened already in Serbia on 22 July 1921.
                t is noteworthy that the Higher Church Administration did not find it necessary to request a blessing for the move; they simply notified the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The patriarchate, however, judging by the aforementioned edict, saw the situation differently: they believed that Russian church exiles had been accepted in canonical subordination. It follows that in order to move to another Orthodox Church, the Russian exiles needed to ask for a canonical release from their new supreme authority. ..The latter believed herself in subordination to His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, and had no plans to renounce this. Despite the fact that the Higher Church Administration had moved to a site outside the bounds of the canonical territory of Patriarch Tikhon, he nonetheless blessed the activities of this administration within the bounds of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
                We must consider that after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, as a result of the First World War, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, having found itself in new circumstances, began interpreting more widely the 28th Rule of the Fourth Ecumenical Council: it took the position that all other Orthodox Churches did not have the right to operate in the so-called diaspora.
                Moreover, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in allowing ministering to the Russian diaspora, was in a way exercising its authority over the territory of other Orthodox Churches. In furtherance of this line of thinking, in 1922 the Patriarchate of Constantinople established for England the Thyatira Metropolia as well as an Exarchate for Western and Central Europe. In 1923 and 1924, the Patriarchate of Constantinople twice declared that it was uncanonical for Metropolitan Evlogii to manage the affairs of Russian Churches in Western Europe.
                On 30 April 1924, the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople adopted a decision: they suspended Russian Archbishops Anastasy and Alexander, who were in Constantinople and directed that all Russian clerics serving in Turkey were to consider themselves directly subordinate to the Patriarchate of Constantinople; and they informed the Serbian Patriarch that the Russian bishops located within Serbian canonical territory did not have the right to minister to Russian exiles.

                If you look at the excursus on the Church of Albania, the quote from the Athenian papers in the official organ of the Patriarchate of Alexandria on Abp. (later Met.) Platon’s ordination of Fr. (later Met./Abp.) Fan Noli of “the independent Orthodox Albanian Church in the United States and Canada”
                https://www.monomakhos.com/cracks-in-the-coalition/#comment-83277
                you can see that the Phanar had been making such claims before WWI and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, not after (as this ROCOR acccount claims).
                Btw, again, at least the Phanar’s adhere’s to a consistency in its “ecclesiology” (it is not Orthodox, but ROCOR has its own problems in that area) and claims, something that cannot be said of ROCOR’s position.
                Now ROCOR claims that they did not submit to Constantinople, but given Constantinople’s exaggerated claims that it had been making for at least for over a decade (actually, it is much, much longer) it should have been evident the terms that the Phanar was giving ROCOR (to anachronistically predate the term). Particularly as the Phanar’s edict read “under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.” That they didn’t see that, given the circumstances, I can see. And so I don’t absolutely hold them to their submission to the Phanar.
                However, that was not the last incidence of ROCOR misunderstanding, as the account continues, that Serbia stated its view of the matter:

                The Serbian Orthodox Church, however, had a different outlook on the plight of Russian bishops. In the reply from the Council of Bishops of the Serbian Church to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, dated 9 December 1924, they stated:
                The Holy Council of Bishops, as the supreme authority of the autocephalous united Serbian Church, gave its assent to a request from His Eminence Anthony, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galich, during a council session held on 18/31 August 1921 (…), which authorized the creation of a higher church authority of [Russian] bishops to manage church affairs for the Russian colony and exiles living on the territory of our [Serbian] jurisdiction. In doing so, the Serbian Council carried out its responsibilities in a spiritual manner that leaves us satisfied that we have fulfilled our apostolic responsibilities. Thus, we have accepted the Russian exiles, who because of circumstances have ended up in our spiritual realm, under our patronage, with the permission of state authorities. We have also willed that they be ministered to by their own priests and bishops who know best their spiritual needs and blessed church traditions. Thus, on the basis of canon law, they have the right to organize an autocephalous church authority by their own free will.

                Although ROCOR claims that it did not, nor ever claimed to, organize an autocephalous Church Authority (and denies that the OCA could receive one), another inconsistency.
                ROCOR, however, did not know what Serbia meant by patronage, as the continuing account shows:

                As a result of divisions that occurred in the Russian Church, the Serbian Church did not take the direct viewpoint of ROCOR. For example, in 1934 in Belgrade, after Metropolitans Anthony and Evlogii settled their differences, zealous enforcers of ROCOR church policies refused to allow Metropolitan Evlogii, who had been defrocked by ROCOR, to serve at the Russian Trinity Church in Belgrade. As a result, Patriarch Varnava appeared at a meeting of the ROCOR council of bishops being held at the time and stated that if all suspensions imposed by ROCOR were not lifted immediately, King Alexander would not longer extend his hospitality to Russian bishops. As a facilitator between the bishops of ROCOR and Metropolitan Sergii (Stragorodskii), Patriarch Varnava, while protecting the interests of the former, still maintained cordial correspondence with Metropolitan Elevferii, Sergei’s representative in Europe. As a matter of fact, in the official calendar of the Serbian Church for 1936, a photograph of Metropolitan Sergei was included with his full title and signature: “He who sorrows with the Church in Russia”.

                IOW the Patariarch of Serbia was doing all you accuse the Patriarch of Mosocw (and the rest of the autocephalous primates who accept the Tomos ROC issued to the OCA) of doing.

                Lord willing, I’ll get to the “substance” (what there is of it) in your post, but leitmotif of your (and much of ROCOR’s) interpretation has to be addressed.

              • Isa Almisry says

                The OCA, however, is not confused on the identity of the “Supreme Church Authority” of Ukaz 362, and had the humility to not identify it with itself.

                Quit lying. The Metropolia announced to its own American sobor that the Church Abroad was the highest authority in the Church of Russia back around 1936 or so.

                Your arrogance gets in the way of you recognizing that would still be humility on the part of the OCA, who, unlike you identifying it with ROCOR in the signing of the ACC, did not claim Supreme Church Authority.
                (it would still be uncanonical-Metropolitanates do not derive their authority from the jurisdictionless jurisdiction of a Synod of bishops not in their sees and outside their Church. But a humble breaking of the canons).
                I believe that I know what “announcement” you mean, but would like you to post its actual wording.
                And I’m going to go out on a limb and assUme that you don’t believe that ROCOR ever was under the authority of the Phanar-neither in the Turkish Republic nor outside it, nor that 1927-2007 that the ROCOR position was anything but the position of the Russian Orthodox Church.

                • Isa,

                  If you have some way from the Tomos of demonstrating that the OCA has jurisdiction over North America, even excepting the Patriarchal parishes, by all means do so, citing the specific provisions of the Tomos and taking into account the explicit exclusions in paragraphs 7 and 8.

                  I.e., put up or shut up.

                  All the rest of your drivel is boring and irrelevant and nothing whatsoever other than a terrible attempt at distraction.

                  • Isa Almisry says

                    “All the rest of your drivel is boring and irrelevant and nothing whatsoever other than a terrible attempt at distraction.”
                    Coming from someone who rejects the notion of the Patriarchate of Moscow having jurisdiction over Russia.
                    All this boring and irrelevant drivel about the “real” voice of Russia coming from Karlovci or Jordanville. Now that’s a distraction. Very easy in the safety of the West to criticize those who stayed and faced the Bolsheviks, and not from their armchair.
                    The UGCC and UAOC both went back to the Soviet Union when it was still the Soviet Union and set up their claims. ROCOR followed suit, setting up the exarchate-unlike the UGCC and UAOC leaders, ROCOR was not risking it, and did not come in person-of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia Inside Russia. Unlike the UGCC and UAOC, it failed miserably. The Russians in Russia did not take its claims seriously, why should we in North America? Especially when it depends on Phanariot propaganda to prop up its argument

                    And, as I’ve shown elsewhere, the Phanar own charter in North America uses language parallel to, not distinguishing from, the para. 7-8 of the OCA Tomos (btw, read para. 10). Now we know (we know, I don’t know about you) that does not mean a thing that the Phanar has given up its claim to jurisdiction over you.

                    It’s not my fault that you have cocooned yourself in an insular little universe, that you don’t know the goings on of the Church at large. So the OCA Tomos does not match the imagined definition current in ROCOR for an autocephalous Church. So what? ROCOR isn’t autocephalous, nor (like the Phanar) can it get anyone else to agree 100% on its ideas of jurisdiction and/or autocephaly.

                    Your Patriarch defers to OCA’s jurisdiction over North America (and has his vicars do the same in North America) the same way as His Holiness exercises his own jurisdiction over Estonia, Ukraine and Moldova. If you don’t like how HH runs his autocephaly-and you have indicated you don’t, not only in this but on communion with those on the New Calendar and your thoughts/imaginations of the MP’s unworthiness to be “legitimized” by ROCOR’s signature on the ACC-there’s many, many Old Calendarists and ROCiA and others you can join. Or you, having spent HAH’s penny, you can buy the whole Phanar Pound, and work to bring ROCOR under the rightful jurisdiction of the Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in the Western Hemisphere.

                    I.e., put up or shut up.

  15. Carl Kraeff says

    Misha wrote: “What I will say though is that most people who have any familiarity with the situation of the Church under the Soviet government know that it was thoroughly infiltrated by collaborators and agents. Thus the Soviet government had a hand in originating Church policy from within the Church as well as approving/disapproving officially.”

    I believe that one of the main objections to the tomos is precisely the above. But, that begs the question of the legitimacy of almost all of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church. Patriarch Kirill was consecrated a bishop by hierarchs who had to be guided by the godless Soviets according Misha, no? BTW, one of the consecrators was the current Patriarch Philaret of Kiev. Such irony. Such stupidity.

    • Carl,

      No doubt it is and has been a concern. Moscow seems to have taken it seriously but recognized the nebulous nature of the problem. Who is an agent? Well, officially that could be determined. Yet who is a collaborator as opposed to a person who merely cooperated in order to protect his flock? Definitely a judgment call.

      Actually, I personally think that the reunion between ROCOR and the MP did more to legitimize the MP than to legitimize ROCOR. No one doubts ROCOR’s faith or orthopraxis. I’ve never placed much faith in the whole edifice of “canonical churches” vs. “non-canonical churches” when it comes to universal recognition of churches that otherwise hold the same faith. Fr. Alexander Schmemann, in a fit of lucidity, subscribed to a similar view, at least before 1970.

      First of all, it’s simply too sloppy a history. ROCOR was widely recognized up until about 1962 (at least so asserts Met. Kallistos Ware, as well as ROCOR members alive at the time). It became self isolated due to the ecumenism of the modernists, which it rejected (rightly). Yet it remained in the acknowledged intercommunion of Serbia, Jerusalem and Sinai. It is actually unclear as to what extent communion was impaired with other jurisdictions.

      Yet I have no doubt that ROCOR and the Greek Old Calendar churches through most of the period better represented and more truly witnessed to historical, traditional Orthodoxy than any of the modernists.

      • Carl Kraeff says

        “Definitely a judgment call.” And so it is also about the Tomos’ genesis. Whether or not the Tomos was a regular or bastard child, it was not nebulous then nor is it nebulous now..

        We always must remember the words of Archbishop Dmitri of thrice-blessed memory: “The Orthodox Church in America is autocephalous not in order to be self-sufficient and isolated, but in order to be in living communion and close contact with all Orthodox Churches… The Orthodox Church in America received autocephaly not in order to be master of Orthodox unity in America but in order to be a servant of this unity.” These words were part of the official position of the Holy Synod in its preliminary reaction to the ACOB proposals for canonical restructuring. I do not see OCA triumphalism in that statement. On the contrary, I see a spirit of self-sacrifice and brotherhood.
        http://oca.org/news/headline-news/oca-holy-synod-issues-preliminary-response-to-canonical-restructuring-propo

        • Carl,

          The problem lies is what we mean when we say “autocephaly”. If in fact Moscow did intend to grant something it called “autocephaly” to the Metropolia – and let’s assume for a moment they did intend to do so – then does what they granted, in fact, constitute a type of autocephaly? As the various churches seem to understand it today, autocephaly includes the right of the first hierarch of the autocephalous church to consecrate chrism for the autocephalous church. OCA was granted this in the Tomos. But this is not an infallible mark of autocephaly. As Isa pointed out, Istanbul did not grant this to the Church of Greece. And though the right to consecrate chrism is one marker of autocephaly, it is not the only marker. Technically, any bishop can consecrate chrism. The Metropolia did, as did the ROCOR.

          Exclusive jurisdiction over a definable geographic territory seems to be the more decisive marker that identifies a church as autocephalous. Of course, there are minor exceptions to this exclusivity that can be agreed upon. Let us stipulate that the presence of the Russian Patriarchal parishes would not necessarily threaten this exclusivity. Nonetheless, we speak of the Church of Russia, of Antioch, of Jerusalem, of Romania. These local churches assert exclusive jurisdiction on their canonical territory. When there is an intrusion, often there is conflict. Again, this is separate from agreements between the churches on certain types of minor exceptions.

          The problem is, no exclusive jurisdiction was conveyed in the Tomos of the OCA to anyone or anything other than what already belonged to the Metropolia. In fact, the Tomos goes out of its way to explicitly deny that it is conveying any jurisdiction over anyone not a member of the Metropolia at the time the Tomos was signed. Of course, it allows jurisdiction over those who might decide to join the Metropolia in the future:

          “The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.”

          That is probably a fatal flaw.

          Contrast this with, for example, the Tomos granted to Russia. It actually conveys explicit geographic jurisdiction. We can dispute the meaning of the terms used to define boundaries. We can dispute whether this restricts its missionary efforts to the territory conveyed. But that tomos did convey exclusive jurisdiction over territory.

          Assuming for a moment that Moscow conveyed what it purported to convey in the OCA Tomos, and stipulating that the MP meant this conveyance of jurisdiction to constitute some type of “autocephaly”, I still don’t see how one can actually objectively consider it autocephaly. It restricts no one from operating in North America. No one. It only prevents Moscow from retaking Metropolia parishes.

          I’ll leave it for everyone else to decide if that sounds like autocephaly. It does not at all to me, despite the title of the Tomos. And that is not even going into the question of whether the MP had exclusive jurisdiction in North America, or whether the MP had the capacity in general to grant autocephaly, or even whether the MP was capable of directing the affairs of the Church of Russia during the Soviet period (a proposition which the Metropolia denied (as did the ROCOR) right up to the moment it received its “autocephaly”.

          • Carl Kraeff says

            Misha–Context does matter and here it is in an editorial published, “Against Myths” in December 1970 in The Orthodox Church by Fr. John Meyendorff of blessed memory:

            “During the negotiations with Moscow, the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Standing Conference [Archbishop Iakovos and Metropolitan Philip] were receiving detailed briefings; and nothing, at any time was done secretly.

            The myth of the autocephaly undermining the efforts of the Standing Conference must therefore be fully dispelled. The Standing Conference was facing a stalemate mainly because neither Istanbul nor the other “Mother Churches” were desiring Orthodox unity in America. Now the situation is drastically changed, the issue CANNOT be avoided any more.

            The main argument of Constantinople is that autocephalous churches are to be established by Ecumenical Councils. The argument is rather astonishing for anyone who knows the history of the Orthodox Church, since the last Ecumenical Council was in 787. But there it is—proposed by the first see of Orthodoxy ….

            So, let us abandon myths and come down to reality. The autocephalous Orthodox Church in America is here to stay. It will eventually unite all those Orthodox Christians who want to be simply Orthodox in America, with absolute freedom for all of them to preserve their languages, ethnic customs, practices, etc. There will also be for a time a number of ethnic jurisdictions which will prefer to identify themselves with their foreign connections. No one has the power to forbid them, and the autocephalous American Church has repeatedly pledged to respect their desires and the rights of their Mother Churches. All of them, however, can and must continue to cooperate through the Standing Conference.

            Before the autocephaly the situation of all churches was uncanonical, because the canons formally exclude the existence of several jurisdictions on the same territory. Today, the door is open for the restoration of canonicity. If the Ecumenical Patriarch wants to assume the role which should be his—to be the Convener, the Arbiter, the center of conciliarity, let him exercise this role instead of appealing to non-existing rights! The autocephalous Orthodox Church [in America] will be the first to cooperate in any pan-Orthodox consultation on the future of Orthodoxy in America.” (my emphasis)
            http://churchmotherofgod.org/salvation-history/new-life-church-history/6308-fr-john-meyendorff-and-the-autocephaly-of-the-oca.html

            What Archbishop Dmitri said upon the receipt of autocephaly (quoted elsewhere) was in the same spirit of sacrificing the autocephaly of the OCA for an administratively united and autocephalous Orthodox Church in North America. Indeed, I believe that this dream was shared also by many other hierarchs, notably Archbishop Iakovos and Metropolitan Phillip who convened and hosted SCOBA’s Ligonier meeting in 1994. The non-OCA source that I will use is The American Orthodox Church: A History of Its Beginnings, by our gracious host George C. Michalopulos and Herb Ham, with specific quotations from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligonier_Meeting#Aftermath

            Bishop Basil of Wichita, Antiochian Archdiocese, and probably the most respected bishop in North America today, wrote afterwards in a November 2004 issue of Word Magazine: “Ligonier ’94 was without doubt one of the brightest moments—if not THE brightest moment—in the history of Holy Orthodoxy in the New World. Dozens of bishops met and prayed and deliberated on that Pennsylvania mountain-top, while hundreds of thousands of our young people across the continent prayed and fasted that we might accomplish a good for Holy Orthodoxy. And, by God’s grace, a great good was indeed accomplished! The common hope and vision expressed by my brother bishops during those several days and reflected in the two historic documents produced by the Conference caused a refreshing and invigorating breeze to blow across this continent, opening the doors of our Orthodox congregations with hope and joyful anticipation. But sadly and all too quickly, dark storm clouds blew in from the East, causing those doors to be slammed shut once more.”

            Here is why it resulted in failure, as reported by Michalopulos and Ham:

            “Unfortunately, the Ligonier Statement was viewed by some of the patriarchates as a “power grab” by Iakovos, who heretofore had been accused sotto voce of cultivating a “cult of personality.” Many feared that he was on the verge of having himself proclaimed as “Patriarch of America.” Some of the Old World patriarchates were scared of losing their American dioceses simply for economic reasons.

            One of the signatories, Metropolitan Christopher of the Serbian exarchate, openly admitted that the ultimate goal of the Ligonier conference was not only unification, but also autocephaly. The fact that this interview (as well as Christopher’s comments) was conducted on videotape and was distributed to parishes all over North America showed there was no hidden agenda at Ligonier. Regardless, Ligonier disturbed not only the Old World patriarchates, but some priests and laymen in America as well. More than a few were perfectly happy with the status quo.” As for an example of the status quo adherents, here is Metropolitan Nicholas (Smisko) of Amissos, bishop of the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese, quoted in the 2004 Word Magazine: “America needs Orthodoxy, without Orthodoxy becoming Americanized. Orthodoxy must continue to develop in spirituality and maturity, growing gradually and appropriately toward a developed polity. I am concerned that aggressive attempts toward premature separation from the mother churches of the old lands will result in disarray and schism. Instead, we are called by the Lord to continue in humble growth and obedience to our organic link with the Patriarchates. We hope and pray for the direction of the Holy Spirit in the future life of our church.”

            The fallout from Ligonier included the firing of Archbishop Iakovos as reported by Michalopulos and Ham: “The death-knell for the accomplishment of Ligonier seemed to sound in the subsequent removal of Iakovos from his see. It could be that Bartholomew “feared the loss of financial support from America,” that he “feared the loss of American political clout in facing the Turks,” or that it perhaps was “nothing more than a power struggle between two strong men” (ibid., 184). No matter the reasoning, in 1997, the patriarch sent a delegation from the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople which forced Iakovos to resign after a nearly 40-year tenure. “Despite missteps along the way, to the fullest extent possible, Iakovos bridged ethnic divisions and forged an Orthodox consensus. He almost succeeded in creating the American Orthodox Church.”

            • Carl,

              This has to do with what? I mean, you addressed it to me. I assume it was based on something I wrote immediately above. It neither contradicts nor refutes one word of that.

              I mean, it’s very nice, but . . .

              • Carl Kraeff says

                Misha–It has to do with the very narrow focus that you place on the tomos and its practical application. I agree that it is an unusual tomos and that even the Mother Church of the OCA has taken some actions that are unusual and suggest less than complete dedication to OCA’s autocephaly. My point is that OCA’s autocephaly is closely tied to the aspirations for an administratively united church on these shores and that it is to be used as a tool and a lever to achieve that goal. Until that time, the OCA is a continual reminder to all the local churches that the situation in the so-called diaspora must be fixed. The OCA must also remain autocephalous so that it continues to act as a public rebuke to those jurisdictions that continue to glory in their ethnic pride and peculiarities.

      • Isa Almisry says

        Actually, I personally think that the reunion between ROCOR and the MP did more to legitimize the MP than to legitimize ROCOR

        For reference.

        “No one doubts ROCOR’s faith or orthopraxis.”
        Define “doubt.”

        “I’ve never placed much faith in the whole edifice of “canonical churches” vs. “non-canonical churches” when it comes to universal recognition of churches that otherwise hold the same faith.”
        Non-canonical churches never do-as they justify their lack of recognition by claiming they hold the true faith. The Old Calendarists in communion with no one, even themselves, demonstrate that quite nicely.

        “Yet it remained in the acknowledged intercommunion of Serbia, Jerusalem and Sinai.”
        Sinai?
        LOL. You are really grasping at straws. Nothing against the Holy Mountain (and I think of Sinai when I hear that), but it is a) not autocephalous and b) you call the OCA small. It also has a jurisdictional quirk in that it is under Jerusalem but administered from its (Sinai’s) metochion to Alexandria (used to be the one to the Phanar IIRC), in Cairo.

        It also has an interesting point to make in the discussions here of late. Sinai is independent in all but name, the most autocephalous of the autonomous Churches (it alone has metochia). But its dependence is embodied in its commemoration in the diptychs, as came up in this case below. Fortescue, as usual, is wrong in his spin, but meticulously correct in his facts, mentioning in the footnote to the affair that “The only remnant of the old jurisdiction of Jerusalem is that the name of that patriarch is mentioned in the Holy Liturgy on Mount Sinai.”:

        The last dispute was in 1866. In that year the ArchbishopAbbot, Cyril Byzantios, had a great quarrel with his monks. Unable to manage them alone and unwilling to appeal to Jerusalem, lest that should seem an acknowledgement of dependence from that see, he sent to Constantinople to ask the Ecumenical Patriarch to help him keep his monks in order. Of course the Phanar was delighted to have an excuse for asserting some sort of authority over another Church, so the Patriarch (Sophronios III, 1863-1866) wrote back that he would gladly support his brother of the God-trodden mountain. Then the Patriarch of Jerusalem (also named Cyril) heard of what had happened and summoned a synod in 1867, which declared that the Great Church had no authority to interfere in anything that happened outside its own patriarchate, and that if there was any trouble on Mount Sinai the proper person to put things right was the Patriarch of Jerusalem. “If we acted otherwise,” declared this synod, “people would think that we tolerate such anti-canonical interference, and that we acknowledge foreign and unknown authorities in the Church as well as the only lawful and competent high jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Synods. Cyril of Jerusalem sent the Acts of his council to all the other autocephalous Churches, and once more they all rose up against the usurpation of the Phanar. He also deposed Cyril Byzantios for what he had done and, although Sophronios of Constantinople stood by him, the feeling against them both was so strong throughout the Orthodox world that Byzantios had to submit to his deposition and Sophronios had to resign. However, Mount Sinai is recognized as an independent Church, and stands with its one bishop and handful of monks on just the same plane as the enormous Russian Church. Its archbishop lives at the Sinaitic metochion at Cairo; he rules over only the monastery and its fourteen metochia, and his authority is very much limited by the council of monks , who share the government.

        http://books.google.com/books?id=Gu5d7_bByvIC&pg=PA311&dq=%22The+only+remnant+of+the+old+jurisdiction+of+Jerusalem+is+that+the+name+of+that+patriarch+is+mentioned+in+the+Holy+Liturgy+on+Mount+Sinai.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=r-s7VK2RKqyZsQSX3IGwDg&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20only%20remnant%20of%20the%20old%20jurisdiction%20of%20Jerusalem%20is%20that%20the%20name%20of%20that%20patriarch%20is%20mentioned%20in%20the%20Holy%20Liturgy%20on%20Mount%20Sinai.%22&f=false

        As for the Jerusalem:

        Other local Orthodox Churches recognized the Moscow Patriarchate, and this acknowledgement required them to attentively regard the persistent expectations from Moscow that they abrogate their relationship with ROCOR. While in Jerusalem in 1952, Bishop Seraphim of Mahopac met with Patriarch Timotheos, who explained that Bishop Seraphim had been denied the opportunity to serve at the Holy Sepulchre because the Church of Jerusalem had recognized the Moscow Patriarchate.] The promise made to Moscow to no longer pray with “the Karlovites.”

        As the article points out, ROCOR did concelebrate in Jerusalem afterwards. I (while still in the OCA) communed at a ROCOR DL given at Jerusalem (interesting that there was a number of Russian Jewish converts, and a Chinese Orthodox family from Australia), with a Romanian nun’s choir. That was 1992.

        It is notable that there was yet another special set of considerations for a Church in a communist country: the Council of Bishops of ROCOR mandated “restraint from becoming involved in the internal affairs of the Serbian Orthodox Church,” thus declining to support Bishop Dionisii who had disassociated himself with the patriarchate in Belgrade…In 1970, at the end of the same session of the Synod of Bishops, Metropolitan Philaret announced to the members of the Synod his opinion that because of the fact that Serbian Patriarch German was selected to serve as the Chairman of the World Council of Churches, ROCOR must avoid joint prayer and service with him, while at the same time not making a major demonstration of this. It should be noted that the Council of Bishops of 1967 determined to annul the resolution of the Council of Bishops of 1964 on the preservation of prayerful communion with the hierarchy of the Serbian Orthodox Church…In his letter of 5 June 1976 to his sister, Protopriest George Grabbe, the leading specialist in ecclesiology in ROCOR during this period, wrote: “You write about ‘the Eastern Patriarchs.’ Alas, today there are nearly no Orthodox Patriarchs. Perhaps the Serbian and Jerusalem [Patriarchs] might formally be considered Orthodox, but they are already slipping. We have no one else to lean on (…) Any kind of isolation is always associated with difficulties, but our isolation is unavoidable.”…In the 1990s, the concelebration of ROCOR bishops with bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church was restored – at the personal initiative of Archbishops Anthony of Western America and Mark of Berlin.

        http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2006/5endokladpsarev.html
        Quite a sloppy history indeed.

        “Yet I have no doubt that ROCOR and the Greek Old Calendar churches through most of the period better represented and more truly witnessed to historical, traditional Orthodoxy than any of the modernists.”
        I have no doubt you think that. Of course, it would be nice to have some definition as to the identity of those “modernists.” Would Feofan Prokopovich qualify?

        “No doubt it is and has been a concern. Moscow seems to have taken it seriously but recognized the nebulous nature of the problem. Who is an agent? Well, officially that could be determined. Yet who is a collaborator as opposed to a person who merely cooperated in order to protect his flock? Definitely a judgment call.”
        And definitely not ROCOR’s call to make (although it has, and you (and others) still do).

        • Actually, the Metropolia considered it their judgment call to make before they cravenly caved against principle and bought their alleged autocephaly. I mean, they were also emphatic that the MP was not capable of directing the Church of Russia, hence they were not in communion with it for about 35 years prior to the alleged grant. Strange how rejection of the MP’s authority suddenly becomes sinister when it is asserted by ROCOR. Yet it was Metropolia policy as well.

          • Isa Almisry says

            The grant was given. Get over it. Your projection doesn’t cover up that fact.

            Unlike ROCOR, which seemed to never tire of judging, from its safe haven, those fighting the good fight in the belly of the beast, the OCA never rendered judgement on the capabilities of the MP of directing the Church in Russia. Directing the Church in North America, however, was a different matter:

            Following the invasion of Russia by Germany in 1941, the Soviet Government, fighting for survival, apparently found it expedient to permit a somewhat broadened area of activity to the Russian Orthodox Church in that country. Then, following the death of Sergius in 1944, it consented to the convening of a sobor at Moscow in January of 1945. The news which was permitted to seep out of Russia after 1941 encouraged the hope in the members of the metropolitan district that unity might again be found.
            Suddenly, without advance notice, an invitation was received for the North American church to be represented at the new sobor in Moscow. Four delegates were hurriedly chosen — three clergymen and one layman, the attorney for the church — who made preparations to travel to Alaska, from which place the Russian Government was to provide transportation to Moscow. After two of the clergymen had started, the Soviet Government cancelled the visa of the attorney on the pretext that entry was permitted only to clerical persons — a restriction which was not observed with reference to the delegation from Yugoslavia. The two clergymen who had already left were met by a Russian airplane which was to carry them to Moscow. Instead, they were landed in Siberia and transferred to a train to continue their journey. As a result, they arrived in Moscow ten days after the sobor had adjourned.
            They found that one Alexy had been named Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, and they presented to him a report of the church in North America and a request for the lifting of the spiritual separation on terms of autonomy. In return, they were handed a prepared document, the so-called ukase of February, 1945, for delivery to Metropolitan Theophilus. The terms of this ukase were not acceptable to the North American church. Instead of the necessary autonomy, the ukase provided for the calling of a sobor in America to be presided over by an archbishop sent from Russia. The sobor was to be required to declare in the name of the church “its abstention from political activities against the U.S.S.R. and give corresponding orders to all parishes”. There was no comment or provision concerning the status of Metropolitan Theophilus, the elected head of the North American church. Instead, the sobor was to be required to elect a new person to be head of a new metropolitan district. Two representatives of the then Moscow Patriarchate were recommended as candidates for the position, and the right was reserved to refuse confirmation of the person chosen “if he be considered unsuitable by the Patriarchy, for any motivated reason whatsoever”. There was an intimation that “some extended powers” might be given to the person so chosen and confirmed, “but the right to confirm candidates for bishop, the right to reward the clergy with higher titles, and the right of appeal as regards bishops, clergy and others, remain with the Moscow Patriarchy.”
            A council of the bishops of the North American metropolitan district met in May, 1945, and decided that the terms proposed in the ukase of February, 1945, were not acceptable.
            In an official report to the clergy and laymen, published in July, there was a full discussion of the background and necessity of the 1924 declaration at Detroit of temporary autonomy for the North American metropolitan district. Reference was made to the recent efforts at unity, the chicanery by which the American delegates were prevented from attending the Moscow sobor, and the substance of the ukase then issued. The report emphasized that the metropolitan district considered itself as part of the Russian church and desired that the suspension be lifted. It was pointed out, however, that the text of the ukase disclosed that the Moscow Patriarchate had “little conception of the conditions of church life in this country, and of the atmosphere of religious and political freedom in which the American Church has developed.” Then followed a point-by-point analysis of the ukase. One of the major obstacles was the insistence of the patriarchy upon renunciation of political activities against the U. S. S. R. The report said: “It would be inconsistent with the duties and obligations of loyal American and Canadian citizens, and contrary to the traditional atmosphere of freedom of speech and political action in these countries, for the Russian Church in America to give the pledge of loyalty to a foreign power which is implicit in the demand of the Patriarchal Ukase.” Another stumbling block was the vagueness of the ukase as to the powers of the North American church. It was felt that “the precise nature of the relationship between the two churches should be defined in advance. This is particularly necessary in view of the precarious situation of the mother church, existing as it does by sufferance of a totalitarian regime.”

            St. Nicholas Cathedral v. Kedroff, 302 N.Y. 1, at 17-8 (1950)

            What is sinister is that ROCOR claimed to speak for the Church in Russia to disrespect it. The OCA spoke only for the Church in America on behalf of the Church in Russia. ROCOR failed when it tried to assert itself back home. The OCA was, and is, home. Hence it judged only its own affairs, and not the shortcomings of others

            ….The rebirth of ecclesiastical life three years later was not at all the result of any agreement from the side of the authorities, but rather it was called forth by the pitiful situation in which they found themselves: the power of the religious movement throughout the country, aided especially by the re-establishment of churches in occupied territories, made it necessasry to appease the social opinions of the West. In fact, the concessions and declarations of 1943 were deceits. Thirty more years have now passed, and with the same arrogant and atheistic cruelty the authorities persecute and bully the Church. They tolerate her only in such measure – and what a measure – as she is necessary to them as a political decoration, and for the sake of meddling in international ecclesiastical affairs.

            But many phenomena have a deep and unseen process behind them. This is all the more true in spiritual matters. While being used by Stalin as no more than a pawn in a political game, the Church – not as an organization, but as a spiritual body – began to gain strength. She was not laid waste by the authorities, and was no longer completely controlled. “A city is taken by surprise,” as the proverb says….That is how I see the Russian Church today in our country; and I would like to warn the leaders of the Church Abroad against an error arising from their far-removed perspective, namely that of considering this Church of ours, a Church of many millions of people, to be “fallen,” and of placing in opposition to this Church a certain “true,” “secret,” “catacomb” Church. During the first fifteen-to-twenty years of the Soviet rule, that is during the orgy of overbearing persecutions, there was indeed something like a Catacomb Church. It existed in secret and hidden prayers of the traumatized priests and the persecuted faithful. But everyday life goes on. The majority of the people are not saints, but everyday people. Faith and Divine Service must carry on their normal life as well, and these do not demand the highest feat [of martyrdom] on every occasion. So, if there turns out to be a church nearby and the candles are lit, people are naturally drawn there.
            I myself know one of those women who, during the thirties, hid priests and conducted secret divine services in private rooms. Now these women simply go to the nearest temple. It does happen that prayers are conducted in certain decrepit places (at a spring or cemetery – I also know of such places around Ryazan), as if these were a replacement for attending divine services in a church. But this is only because all of the surrounding churches are closed and there are no clergy at all in the area. It is a delusion to conclude from these circumstances the existence of a secret church organization as an “All-Russian phenomenon.” If tomorrow the authorities should once again start boarding up every church, then catacomb prayers would arise again. But the authorities themselves no longer have the energy for this.
            The supplanting of the real Russian nation with an image of a catacomb church is not what we need today. We must not do as I have noticed in some of your publications: we must neither ignore, nor avoid through closed-mindedness the resurgent and strengthening Orthodoxy in our country. Our task today is much more complicated, more complex, but also more joyous than mere solidarity with come secret, sinless – but also bodiless – catacomb church…
            …But for the past few years the balance of power in our country has been such that the Moscow Patriarchate, through her own firmness alone (although perhaps while loosing a few posts) could herself have decisively liberated our Church from many fetters and humiliations. I have yet to change my opinion on the subject I addressed in my letter to Patriarch Pimen late last year. Whom shall we call to free us from lies, if not our spiritual fathers first of all? Having crossed over the borders of that government, however, I have lost the right to compose another such letter.

            Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Letter to the Third Sobor of the Russian Church Abroad.
            http://www.rocorstudies.org/documents/2012/12/12/letter-to-the-third-council-of-the-russian-orthodox-church-abroad/
            Passing judgement when they had no competence was ROCOR’s policy, never the OCA’s. The emphatic misreading embodied in your allegations continues that policy. Principles can be craven too.

            And what did the OCA buy its autocephaly with, pray tell?

  16. Peter A. Papoutsis says

    Your Eminence? I am still waiting to hear from you on this matter. Any thoughts?

    Peter

  17. M. Stankovich says

    With the passing of Fr. Paul Schnerla (Memory Eternal!), the longtime – if my memory serves me, “founding” – Secretary of SCOBA, so passes an irrevocable amount of “insider” information as to modern American Church History. So much of this “officially recorded” history is said to be so dubious, that one doctoral dissertation (mysteriously removed from the University of Michigan Archive) noted at least 100 times, “Sec. Schnerla, for reasons known only to himself recorded the conversation thusly…” This leads me to conclude that when I read this back-and-forth exchange of “facts” drawn from internet sources (and I love that Orthodox Infonet (cough)), you “authorities” posting here have a 50% chance of actually being correct.

    I was the only American seminarian of the ROC in 1974, and I walked the three blocks with Archbishop Makary (Svistun) from St. Nicholas Cathedral in NYC to the Synod Cathedral. There had been a gathering of the Holy Synod that week and nearly all the Synod was present. At one point I looked and Archbishop Makary and Met. Philaret (of blessed memory), bear-headed and both hands clasped, face-to-ear conversing with one one another for nearly fifteen minutes. They kissed and Vladyka Makary called me over to introduce me, “наша единственная семинарист.” Vladyka Philaret could not have been kinder. That same year, I traveled to Jordanville, and when I met Archbishop Averky, I hesitated in telling him I was from SVS, but when I did, he asked, “Do you have your cassock?” in the car. “Do you sing?” Yes. “You come into the cliros for vespers. I invite you!” Archbishop Anthony (Medeved) of San Francisco was equally gracious, taking me on a tour of the cathedral, bringing the holy relics from the altar for me to venerate, and taking me to the tomb of Blessed John. And finally, when my friend’s father, an OCA priest who died during Holy Week at the Tolstoi Nursing Home in Nanuet, NY, now Met. Hilarion, who was visiting from Australia, buried him from the ROCOR Chapel on the grounds, serving together with OCA & ROCOR clergy. In real life, Orthodox bishops could seemingly live by their hearts.

    When I got to SVS in 1973, everything you are so vehemently discussing here was being discussed then, only it actually meant something in real time. Orthodox Christians were actually suffering and martyrs were actually created and sanctified. You, however, are playing in the sandbox like children. The world and our society collapses around us. The Vatican released a document “sensitive” to the contributions of practicing homosexuals and unmarried couples in the church. We are increasingly alienated and alone. You, on the other hand, want to discuss Eulogy, Sergius, Karlovtzy, “Parisan Orthodoxy,” canonical authority, and and have become everything Alexander Schmemann told us in 1965 is wrong with Orthodoxy in America. You are the religists he loathed. No to you, and yes to the Church. I am of a generation that said, “Unfortunately, we will have to wait for our parents generation to pass before we have unity and a truly American Orthodox Church.” Never in my wildest imagination could I have imagined that people like you are every bit a hindrance, like the shamed St. Paul warming his hands in the courtyard, “watching the end.” If it is so intolerable to you, have the wisdom and courage to shut up and walk away.

    • Isa Almisry says

      Memory Eternal! (I just saw that. Was he the same one involved at one point with the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate?)

      I was just thinking of something on the way, and you identify yourself as someone who might know the answer:
      Before 1970, during the Metropolia’s autonomy declared in the wake of the Soviets insisting on silence again in 1946, was Patriarch Alexei of Moscow commemorated by the Metropolia in the diptychs?

      (btw, Orthodoxo Christians are still being martyred and sanctified. Otherwise I agree with the vignettes of your post).

    • “This leads me to conclude that when I read this back-and-forth exchange of “facts” drawn from internet sources (and I love that Orthodox Infonet (cough)), you “authorities” posting here have a 50% chance of actually being correct.”

      I think you are being generous when estimating it at 50%.

      Every jurisdiction has hotheads who take extreme postions on jurisdictional matters — very few of them ever become bishops, fortunately. Which is why you witnessed the Christian charity and collegiality that you did.

      Whether in the ROCOR or the OCA, it always amused me to find that it seemed, more often than not, to be converts and non-Russians who were the most tied up in knots about the messy post-Revolutionary history of the Russian Church and its offspring here on American soil — and the most certain of their facts and positions.

  18. Oh, Stankovich, where to begin!

    I think your memory is faulty unless you have undergone a sex change and were the only female seminarian at the time. In Russian, one says, “наш единственный семинарист”.

    http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82

    Secondly,

    “You, on the other hand, want to discuss Eulogy, Sergius, Karlovtzy, “Parisan Orthodoxy,” canonical authority, and and have become everything Alexander Schmemann told us in 1965 is wrong with Orthodoxy in America. You are the religists he loathed.”

    Yes, well, he loathed monasticism and ROCOR in general. I/We am/are in good company. It is a badge of honor to be described as someone Schmemann would have loathed. It puts you in pretty righteous company.

    As to the discussion at hand, I agree that it is meaningless. The only good thing that has come of it is that, actually having bothered to read this illustrious document, the Tomos of Autocephaly, I was able to share with anyone on this site who is interested the fact that it is a hopelessly convoluted document which seems to have been misrepresented ever since it was issued.

    As to your suggestions, I’m sure you know where to file them.

    • M. Stankovich says

      Misha,

      Since you are lost, let me offer you a beginning point. Since I know you never heard a word spoken by Archpriest Alexander Schmemann , why not provide support: actual, verifiable written support for your contention that he loathed both monasticism & ROCOR. He was my instructor & confessor and I am hardly intimidated by your surly, sarcastic dismissal. You would do well to actually read Fr. Alexander than the internet. Put up or shut up.

      • Misha and Stankovich,

        Context and historical timing are important when one considers the opinions of Fr. Schmemann on the subject of monasticism. There is no doubt that when he was alive in the USA the monastic witness was at an all-time low ebb here. For that matter it was at an all-time low point (arguably besides the Holy Mountain) worldwide. What monastic witness there was was entrenched in surviving. It was not attracting new vocations like it is now in Russia and other former Soviet bloc countries. It is still rather anemic in the USA, but it has improved much since the days of Fr. Alexander.

        Some have called him out on his cautionary thoughts about monasticism but given his forward looking, some say visionary, others dangerous opinions on the Eucharist and ecclesial life as compared to a “backward” read survival mode worldwide Orthodoxy and monastic witness at the time, it is hardly fair, IMHO, to be too critical of the man.

        One could wonder what he would think of the growth of the monastic witness embodied in the “Ephramite” communities in the USA today, and my guess would be as good as the next person in concluding he would be at minimum again cautious if not condemning of their monastic approach here. Again, just a guess.

        Your approach to be confrontative, Michael, towards Misha, to “put up or shut up” isn’t necessary. We all know that your loyalty to your teacher is admirable, but like Fr. Alexander who could be quite brusk and dismissive with people he deemed beneath his intellectual prowess, it wasn’t a good quality of his, nor should it be one that you emulate either.

        Fr. Alexander will continue to be a man who attracted controversy in life and now in death. That’s the way he liked it and one shouldn’t be reflexively rude in attempting to defend him. He was ahead of his time in many ways and now history is judging his contributions, as it should.

    • Isa Almisry says

      It is a badge of honor to be described as someone Schmemann would have loathed. It puts you in pretty righteous company.

      It certainly puts you in self-righteous and sanctimonious company. Phariseeism at its finest.

      Just to be clear, does that apply to Fr. Meyendorf of blessed memory? Florovski? Losski?

      The only good thing that has come of it is that, actually having bothered to read this illustrious document, the Tomos of Autocephaly, I was able to share with anyone on this site who is interested the fact that it is a hopelessly convoluted document which seems to have been misrepresented ever since it was issued.

      So the Ober-Prokurator who never laid eyes on it before pontificating, has become now the leading expert on it, issuing the definitive representation of its interpretation in addition to his illustrious ex cathedra pronouncements.
      OK. LOL.

      I’m guessing that you haven’t read any other similar Tomoi either, no?

  19. Isa,

    One of your long boring tomes above addresses consecration of chrism. You seem to think that quoting long irrelevant passages from this or that might convince others that you know something about the issues at hand.

    Good luck with that tactic.

    In any case, I never disputed that the right to consecrate chrism was reserved to the chief hierarch of a local church. What I meant is that any bishop has the power/ability to consecrate chrism. There is no higher consecrated order in the Church than bishop. Everything else is administrative.
    As to the rest, you are either lying or merely ignorant. If a church is to obtain chrism and is separate from its mother church, its first hierarch is going to do the job. Either that or they would need to place themselves under another autocephalous church. End of story.
    Regarding the autocephaly allegedly conveyed in the Tomos: I never stated that the MP did not suggest in its Tomos that what it was granting was something called “autocephaly”. The problem for the OCA is that the MP explicitly denied it was conveying any jurisdiction over any persons or parishes which were not then part of the Metropolia; i.e., they conveyed no exclusive jurisdiction based on geography – none. And I pointed this out in other posts and a case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. But, of course, you come up with a feeble, non-response.
    Now, I don’t know if the language barrier had been a problem for you in this regard, the extraneous quotes would seem to indicate so. Or perhaps you realize you have nothing really to work with and are just obfuscating – really, none of that is my business. I’ve wasted enough time on this.
    But I will say this. If the EP or any other jurisdiction on American soil is looking for a solid response to the arrogant assertions of the OCA, one could do worse than parsing the meager conveyance actually spelled out in the Tomos and pointing out that you can call a dog a “duck” but that does not make it quack.

    “Moscow granted this right to the OCA as an autocephalous Church. Its states so in plain English. Get over it.”

    Neither I, nor the Phanar, nor any other Orthodox jurisdiction here who do not recognize the OCA’s alleged autocephaly have any intention of “getting over it”. It is you who needs to get over that.

    • Isa Almisry says

      One of your long boring tomes above addresses consecration of chrism. You seem to think that quoting long irrelevant passages from this or that might convince others that you know something about the issues at hand.

      Good luck with that tactic.

      Pontificating is shorter than documenting facts, but baseless.

      The sound bite for all wanna be Ober-Prokurators: all canonical autocephalous Orthodox primates hold to the taxis and praxis of the Orthodox Church, that only their autocephalous peers can consecrate chrism.

      • Isa Almisry says

        As to the rest, you are either lying or merely ignorant. If a church is to obtain chrism and is separate from its mother church, its first hierarch is going to do the job. Either that or they would need to place themselves under another autocephalous church. End of story.
        Regarding the autocephaly allegedly conveyed in the Tomos: I never stated that the MP did not suggest in its Tomos that what it was granting was something called “autocephaly”. The problem for the OCA is that the MP explicitly denied it was conveying any jurisdiction over any persons or parishes which were not then part of the Metropolia; i.e., they conveyed no exclusive jurisdiction based on geography – none. And I pointed this out in other posts and a case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. But, of course, you come up with a feeble, non-response.

        I have yet to response to this non-point.

        In the meantime-point out that explicit denial. In Moscow’s words, not yours.

        Suggestion:you might want to look up the meaning of “explicit” first.

        • Isa Almisry says

          I have yet to respond to this non-point.

          To help with your comprehension of the word “explicit” here is an explicit denial in the Agreement on Autocephaly:

          The parties agree that neither of them now possesses or claims to have exclusive jurisdiction of the Orthodox faith in the continent of South and Central America where the canonical status quo is preserved.

          • Isa Almisry says

            Now, I don’t know if the language barrier had been a problem for you in this regard, the extraneous quotes would seem to indicate so. Or perhaps you realize you have nothing really to work with and are just obfuscating – really, none of that is my business. I’ve wasted enough time on this.
            But I will say this. If the EP or any other jurisdiction on American soil is looking for a solid response to the arrogant assertions of the OCA, one could do worse than parsing the meager conveyance actually spelled out in the Tomos and pointing out that you can call a dog a “duck” but that does not make it quack.

            And yet you keep shouting “утка! утка! утка!”

            You might look at other Tomoi before making such a statement. The OCA one is quite strong compared to the ones the Phanar issued to Greece, Poland, the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

            The ACC of course confers no jurisdiction on ROCOR-just bars it from anywhere within the canonical boundaries of the Moscow Patriarchate. Arrogant assertions made on behalf of ROCOR notwithstanding. The plain text-and moreover, its amendment-provides more than a solid response.

            Acting in the spirit of ecclesiastical oikonomia, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia envision a five-year transition period for the full regularization of the status of former parishes of the Russian Church Abroad on the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, through their entering into the jurisdiction of the local ruling bishops. Before this period elapses, such parishes which are not on the territory of Self-governing Churches have the opportunity to be under the protection of a Vicar to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, who, with the blessing of the Patriarch, may participate in the work of the Council of Bishops and Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia by invitation of her First Hierarch.
            In the countries of the diaspora where parallel church structures exist, including the Holy Land, both sides will, with proper pastoral discretion, apply every effort to resolve problems hindering successful cooperation and joint witness.

            http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/7200.htm

            I’m not the one suffering the language problem. To paraphrase the U of C slogan I referenced before, anything you can say, I can say meta.

            Cocooning in that tiny universe that believes that ROCOR legitimized the MP by the ACC may have stunted someone’s attention span, such that they find dispostive facts “extraneous,” but that wound comes self-inflicted. A fatal wound that causes people to hallucinate they can pontificate on documents they have not read and dispense with the facts of history. And of the present.

            And obfuscating makes a poor band-aid for that wound.

            “Moscow granted this right to the OCA as an autocephalous Church. Its states so in plain English. Get over it.”
            Neither I, nor the Phanar, nor any other Orthodox jurisdiction here who do not recognize the OCA’s alleged autocephaly have any intention of “getting over it”. It is you who needs to get over that.

            LOL. Nothing to get over. Literally nothing.

            Although, Herr Ober-Prokurator, I did not know that you constituted an Orthodox jurisdiction all by yourself (ye, you and yourself)-and before the Phanar in the diptychs no less!-I do know that your patronized jurisdiction imploded in its alleged Exarchate Inside Russia for the Russian Church Outside Russia, the implosion of the Hellenic Republic as a failed state has pulled the rug out from under the backing of the Phanar’s alleged universal jurisdiction, its alleged grip on North America imploded with the imposition of Abp. Stylianos-with his alleging “the Patriarch knows America better than you” and his objective of using the Archdiocese to promote Hellenism. His successor Archbishop Demtrios-many years!-thwarted the intention of the Phanar’s Chambésy scheme by extending the invitation-and the signed recognition of ALL THE AUTOCEPHALOUS CHURCHES (as the Secretary Fr. Arey never tired of repeating)-to Met. Jonah and the OCA. One can be a little pregnant only for so long.

            So you can pine after Czarist Russia, and the Phanar can pretend its Ottoman sovereign was really “world-conquering” and has not fallen. Meanwhile the Orthodox Church in North America, both in the present time and actual space, will continue.

            I expect, with the new front on claims opening, unfortunately, in the Czech Lands and Slovakia, I’m guessing that the “Great and Holy Council” will not be meeting, and the bad effects of the Chambésy scheme will fall apart, but the unintended good consequences (the first meeting of all bishops since Ligonier, the consolidation of a complete parish listing, official mutual recognition of the bishops-including of the OCA as canonical while not under Russia, etc.) will continue on. With or without ROCOR. With or without the Phanar’s blessing.

  20. “You deny your own Patriarchate’s definition of autocephaly, which defines it as having the right to consecrate chrism as among the”rights usually inherent in the term “autocephaly,” which is based on the canonical praxis and taxis of the historical Orthodox Church, and so included, and so specified, in the wording of the Tomos. ”

    You’re simply a liar. I have done no such thing. What I said was that while consecration of chrism is one of the marks of autocephaly, it is not the only mark or the most decisive mark. I suspect you actually might understand what I’m saying but, because there is simply no rational defense for the OCA, you have to misrepresent what I write, create straw dummies, and then knock them down hoping no one notices.

    Pathetic.

    “So your statement on “freakish autocephaly” is unsupported from the start.”

    No, Isa, again, dead wrong. It is completely supported. When an mother church grants supposed “autocephaly “ to a daughter but does not base it on geography but purely on the voluntary wishes of those who inhabit its alleged canonical territory, that is utterly, objectively freakish.

    “I’ll have to get back to your real fanciful and imaginative claims-that the Tomos excempted everyone from the OCA’s jurisdiction in North America,. . .”

    Yes, please do. They are neither fanciful or imaginative but rather the plain meaning of the words in the Tomos. I grant it is paradoxical. They seem to intend early in the Tomos to grant autocephaly and then proceed to utterly gut the meaning of the term so that there is very little actually conveyed.

    “. . . but in the meantime, two questions-
    Did the Russian Church have exclusive claim to the Orthodox of North America in 1907 as it claimed? Does it now, for instance, have exclusive canonical claim to Japan?”

    I don’t care to offer an opinion on that, seeing no reason to do so. Many Orthodox in North America looked to Moscow as the mother church of North America, but not all.

    “. . . Can the Patriarchate of Moscow grant autocephaly? Can it, for instance, grant a Tomos of Autocephaly to the Met. Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine?”

    Also something about which I don’t care to speculate. At this point, there is too much infighting regarding autocephaly and potential grants of autocephaly. On the one hand, it has been granted by the Phanar a number of times, by EC’s and perhaps by other mother churches on more rare occasions. Yet at this time, it seems like it would be wise if there were some conciliar process operating regarding granting such a thing. I do not suggest that Russia could not do what you are describing; however, assuming Orthodoxy will continue to spread, emanating from different centers, it seems wise to me for the process to be done in some more orderly fashion, if possible, than willy nilly with this church purporting to grant autocephaly, some number agreeing and some number rejecting. OCA is a case in point. Moscow claims to have granted something it understood at the time to be autocephaly but only churches under communist domination accepted this. Everyone else rejected it and even Moscow and some of the “accepting” churches behave as if OCA is not autocephalous.

    Basically it’s no way to do things.