Bishop Atanasije (Jevtić) of Herzegovina
HISTORY OF SCHISM
The schism in the Orthodox Church
in the U.S.A., and elsewhere in the Diaspora, is connected with Bishop
Dionisije, but it is apparent from the documented accounts of the schism that
it was not only his work. The schism, above all, contributed to the immature
and unfortunate situation of our Diaspora, and her condition was especially
burdened with the post-World War II political aftermath. With this, we do not
defend Bishop Dionisije because his fault in the schism is undeniable, rather,
we wish to state that other factors also contributed to the schism.
In any regard, our Diaspora was
not mature enough for the situation faced in the New world, and itself brought
difficulties for the church-life of our people, such as the level of our church
consciousness and different church traditions from politically and culturally
different regions of Serbia from which they emigrated. In addition, the
catastrophic situation of the war and post-war, especially the situation in our
homeland held hostage by communism, compounded the difficulties for the Serbian
Diaspora. We must recognize without justification, but understanding, our
national and church immaturity in this newly created situation, difficult in
our own country and in the Diaspora. In addition, we must also add the general
unpreparedness of the entire Orthodox world to properly act and provide
responses of its great mission in the New World. (The question remains: has the
Serbian or Greek Diaspora adequately responded to that mission?)
Bishop Dionisije arrived in the
U.S. to be the bishop on April 15, 1940, and soon after the war followed. The
situation which he encountered (I have already mentioned the tribulations and
bitterness of Bishop Mardarije) was only made worse by the war, and most
especially by the post-war situation, such as with the influx of a great number
of Serbian refugees—primarily war and political ones. The survivors carried
with them the remembrance of the great sacrifices and wounds of the people. It
was not easy for anyone, and the relationship with the Mother Church, decimated
and persecuted in the homeland by the godless communists, was weak, and even
when the relationship was reestablished, it remained weak.
It appears that Bishop Dionisije,
as a man and a bishop was not mature enough for the situation he was to face.
It was questionable whether he was adequate for the times faced when he was
sent to America—he encountered a different time than that which he was sent
for. It was certainly not easy for him, but it is certain that he contributed
to the creation of, and failure to resolve many problems. His adaptability,
instability in relations with the people, and distant personal contact with
Bishops and the Holy Assembly of Bishops of the Mother Church, who for a long
time lacked the strength to establish tighter contacts and better understand
the situation in the Diaspora—all contributed to the complex state from which
the schism surfaced. Yet, for the view and collective consciousness of the
Church’s history, it would not be honest nor accurate that Bishop Dionisije be
declared the “black devil,” who is alone guilty for one and all, as some have
easily condemned him.
We should not overlook the
undoubtedly positive efforts of Bishop Dionisije for the organization and
furtherance of the life and work of our Church in the Diaspora, his help of
parishes held hostage in the homeland, and for the sheltering and care of tens
of thousands of Serbian war refugees. Bishop Dionisije also sheltered the
exiled Bishops Nicholai and Irinej. While it is true that his relationship with
them was not on the needed level, they nonetheless (especially bishop
Nicholai), in their own manner “cover” for him, and in any case did not
contribute to his problems, nor did they diminish him among faithful, as did
the light of conscience priests, theologians and Serbian politicians. It should
be recognized that the unresolved status of Bishops Nicholai and Irinej in
America could have potentially contributed to tension and disagreements with
Bishop Dionisije as Diocesan Bishop, whose guests (refugees) they were. But it
is certain that they did not diminish his work, rather they helped him. If they
had lived, it is certain that the schism would not have taken place.
Influence on the continuation of
the schism undoubtedly has been, but should not be hidden, rather, it should be
emphasized, the completely different situation of the Church held hostage in
the homeland and in the free world. Just those two different situations
themselves were creating conflict, but for nearly two decades were being
overcome with understanding and mutually wise maneuvering by the Church’s
economia inherent to brothers in the same House of God and house of the people.
We all know how difficult it was
for the tormented and decimated Church following the war, and what the
communist government of tyrant Josip Broz did to the martyric Church of St.
Sava and St. Lazar. One must be blind to not see the weakness of their own
positions regarding the Church in the homeland, for whom the free Diaspora
sometimes had and did not have understanding and forgiveness. Yet, that
difficult situation of the Church in the homeland did not give the right to
Bishop Dionisije and to politicians around him to, suddenly, proclaim the
Church in 1963 a “servant of communism.” Likewise, the defenders of the Serbian
Orthodox Patriarchate, those in homeland and in the Diaspora, did not have
right to, without any hesitation, claim that the Church in the homeland “was
free in all her decisions,” etc. We should principally say that, the so called,
“black-and-white” technique of observing and viewing the situation of the
Church in the homeland and the Diaspora simply did not correspond to historical
facts. All was much more complex and complicated, as it always is in real life.
Already from 1945 to 1947, we
know that complaints were brought against Bishop Dionisije to the Holy Synod.
These were from American pro-communist priests (Drenovac, Gacinovic, etc.),
whose complaints the Synod returned to Bishop Dionisije for him “to answer
them”), and then there were complaints from the Yugoslavian Consulate in the
U.S., UDBA (Yugoslav secret police) and domestic grovelers from the Clergy
brotherhood in the homeland of Yugoslavia (this is seen in excerpts of
publications from the Synod archives, all the way to Tito’s and Rankovic’s
“thunderous” charges against Bishop Dionisije and Bishop Nicholai, and against
Metropolitan Josif, Patriarch Gavrilo and the Synod “for supporting the
people’s enemies”). Even though Metropolitan Josif and Patriarch Gavrilo warned
both Bishops Dionisije and Nicholai in letters “not to engage in politics,”
which warning was also continued by Patriarch Vikentije, Dionisije’s “political
activism” against communism (which he called “Serbian national work”) did not,
at least, create greater problems until the time of Patriarch German.
Especially strong was the state’s reaction and pressure on the Synod when
Bishops Nicholai and Dionisije took part in the work of the Ecumenical Congress
of the World Council of Churches in Evanston in 1954 and when Bishop Dionisije
provided a memorandum to the World Council of Churches (as was similarly done
in 1942 regarding the genocide committed against the Serbian people in the
Independent State of Croatia) regarding the “Prosecution of the Serbian
Orthodox Church in Yugoslavia under Tito’s regime” (a copy of this memorandum
was sent to Synod by the Federal Religious Commission on September 14, 1954;
and it would be useful to publish the text today).
It should be stated that Bishop
Dionisije and especially Bishop Nicholai did not encounter problems only due to
their “political activity” in amongst the immigrants in the Diaspora, but their
unique problem was in establishing an appropriate relationship with the Serbian
Orthodox Patriarchate in the homeland under communism; especially from the time
when Patriarch Vikentije was elected (whom bishop Nicholai did not immediately
recognize, while Bishop Dionisije did right away, as he did thereafter also recognize
Patriarch German; whose election he welcomed). These two bishops sent to the
Holy Assembly of Bishops a memorandum, in which, under the influence of
Nicholai, prepared a list of comments about the work and conduct of the Serbian
Orthodox Patriarchate with the government, and they also recommended some
important changes for the Diaspora. News also reached the Synod and the Holy
Assembly of Bishops that Bishop Nicholai was planning on “creating [an]
independent Serbian Synod, following the model of the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside of Russia,” which Bishop Dionisije used against Bishop Nicholai in his
own defense, stating that he is “fervently against such a proposal.” In as much
as I was able to study documents, and the texts of Bishop Nicholai, no such
explicit proposal was found. On the contrary, Bishop Nicholai brought up
several times, orally and in written form, proposals to create more dioceses in
the U.S. and Canada, or at least, to have more bishops, wherein he wrote to
Patriarch Vikentije on August 27, 1951: “In relation to my work (in the U.S.),
he is now as always been on the church-laity and St. Sava path modeled after
the great Metropolitan Stratimirovic... Not one Serbian hierarch should stray
from such path.”
It is interesting to note that at
that time, Bishop Dionisije was opposed to Bishop Nicholai’s proposals for more
Bishops in the Diaspora. (Specifically, during the VII Church-Laity Assembly in
1952, Nicholai making a guest appearance proposed: “We need to strengthen our
Church abroad. We need more hierarchs here, so that at any moment, we can be
independent. The people want more hierarchs... We need a bishop for the West,
and for the East, and more for Canada). Back then the Assembly of Bishops did
not look upon the proposal favorably. Later, we shall see, Bishop Dionisije and
the Assembly of Bishops reach the same conclusion regarding the proposals of
Nicholai, whose foresight regarding the church was far-reaching. Perhaps at
that time, the Assembly of Bishops could have helped the Diaspora, shortening
Bishop Dionisije’s “monopoly.” He was not a shepherd with foresight and a
mission orientation as was Nicholai who was only a “guest” of the
American-Canadian diocese. The Patriarch and Synod, at that time, sent only
their first delegation (Vicar Bishop German and Prof. Glumac) “to visit and
become familiar with our Church abroad.”
Even at that time, during their
first visit from the homeland, the delegation (who until the Fall of 1951 spent
approximately two months in the U.S.) was immediately asked by Bishop Dionisije
whether they “were given an assignment to investigate” him personally. Though,
Bishop Dionisije and others had doubts and suspicions about the makeup of the
delegation “from Tito’s Yugoslavia” and their purpose. When Bishop Dionisije
was told that they did not come to investigate him, he with relief answered,
“some communist priests and some on the right (Ljotic guard) wish to get rid of
me and are fabricating charges against me.” With this, Bishop Dionisije was
exhibiting signs of restlessness in his conscience, but he did say to Bishop
German: “If I am guilty, may the regular Church process take place, and we will
see.” At the same time, he asked for the written complaints of those who
brought the same against him, a request he continued as further complaints were
raised. The delegation, as instructed by the Assembly of Bishops from Belgrade,
was more interested in news about a “break away” of the American-Canadian
Diocese from the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate, while Bishop Dionisije
emphasized that he “firmly wished to stay in union with the Serbian Orthodox
Patriarchate,” and he immediately withdrew his prior proposal where he sought
vicar bishops. One might ask: why is it that the Assembly of Bishops did not do
anything to help the American-Canadian Diocese and Diaspora? When later the
Assembly of Bishops under Patriarch German decided to act, the already
complicated situation led to the schism due to rapid action and even swifter
reaction. Perhaps it was because German’s period saw the emergence of other
problems as well, one of which was very serious—the creation of the so-called
“Macedonian Church.” On several occasions, Bishop Dionisije stated his
disagreement and lack of recognition, but in 1959 he greeted the granting of
autonomy to Macedonians as a “wise and expedient solution.” When he later
undertook schism, Bishop Dionisije raised the Macedonian question as his
supporting argument and to great extent “invited” Macedonian autonomy. On the
other hand, Bishop Dionisije complicated and made his own situation more
difficult, and the entire Diaspora and American-Canadian Diocese in that
situation were looking for faster and more comprehensive solutions. Yet, the
question remains: why the Assembly of Bishops, during the time of Vikentije and
German did not respond more creatively, instead depriving, the well explained
and justified petitions and proposals of Bishop Dionisije and the Diaspora for
the furtherance of the Church’s life and work, which would have, if addressed
then, prevented the resultant schism.
Bishop Dionisije was reproached
for not attending the meetings of the Assembly of Bishops, but was not
considered a serious transgression until 1962 when Patriarch German raised that
question more radically and even refused to receive the delegation of Bishop
Dionisije and the American-Canadian Diocese, “unless it is led by Bishop
Dionisije himself.” Everyone understood that a visit by Bishop Dionisije to
Yugoslavia would have been a great risk, especially understanding the politics
of Tito’s regime towards Serbian emigrants. Yet, Bishop Dionisije had been
sending, perhaps not regularly, his annual reports regarding the status of the
American-Canadian Diocese (I saw, for example, reports for 1951, 1952, 1956,
etc.), though, looking from the perspective of Church Tradition, the failure of
one bishop in sending his report to the Assembly of Bishops itself was not a
violation, because a bishop is not an “authorized agent” or “accredited
representative” of the Patriarch and Assembly of Bishops. In his reports and
correspondence with the Patriarch and Synod, Bishop Dionisije had several
times, over the years, returned to the question of assigning more bishops in
the American-Canadian Diocese and Diaspora. The fact that he was looking for
“suffragans” or “vicar” bishops, using “American practice” as an example, or
that he was told by the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate that we “do not have
[the] practice of vicar bishops except [in the case of the] Patriarch,” was
further proof, in both cases, of the weakened knowledge of ancient Orthodox
Tradition regarding a bishop (where all these titles “suffragans” or “vicars”
are without a canonical basis, because a bishop is either Hierarch and
Archpastor simultaneously, or all else is a diminution of the bishop’s title).
That’s why we can immediately state, regardless of the act itself, which due to
its swiftness caused many problems, the Assembly of Bishops in 1963 had
correctly responded to the proposals and petitions “for more bishops” in
America by choosing three diocesan bishops for three respective dioceses. But
this should not have been done without the prior consultation of Bishop
Dionisije.
In his stated proposals, Bishop
Dionisije in 1956 and 1960 had requested that in the event of a revitalization
of the American-Canadian Diocese or the election of new bishops, that it be
mandatory to ask the faithful of the American-Canadian Diocese, which the
Assembly of Bishops effortlessly refused in 1957. This request of Bishop
Dionisije was based on the practice of the Ancient Church, which was bypassed
during difficult times of the Church (as was our time under communism), but
there is no serious reason that this practice could not be renewed and applied,
because the Orthodox Church is not only an assembly of bishops, without clergy
and people, rather, it is always a unified organism of bishops, clergy and the
people. Later, when Bishop Dionisije engaged in the schism, he called upon this
ancient Church practice, as a way out of his personal crisis, but all the same,
the Diaspora put the practice of the participation of the people in the
election of their bishops back on the agenda. This practice now for centuries,
more or less, applied not only in the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate of the
motherland and abroad, but also in other Orthodox Churches (except Cyprus and a
select few).
Coming to the year 1962, Bishop
Dionisije wrote to the Synod on February 13, 1962, that in the
American-Canadian Diocese the work of “amending and changing the Constitution”
was under way, which would be presented to the Assembly of Bishops by a
designated delegation. In that communication, Bishop Dionisije proposed that
the American-Canadian Diocese be elevated to that of a Metropolitanate with two
or three vicar bishops, “suffragans in the American context or vicars as
understood by our Church.” He further added that we must “pay close attention
to autonomy of these people and their rights,” but in such a manner “such that
under no circumstances do these people break away from their Patriarchate, nor
simultaneously morph to the practice of the election of their bishops.” This
position of Bishop Dionisije was the subject of much speculation in the U.S.A.
and our country, but in our opinion, such position contains nothing more than
realistic state of our Church in the Diaspora and her already existent autonomy
(with one special Diocesan Constitution). It is another matter that Bishop
Dionisije was a man who constantly changed his mind, which required a cautious
approach, but not with the total refusal of all his proposals over the years,
such that in the end, suddenly, everything “was put over the knee,” as it
occurred in May and July of 1963. In our opinion, it was necessary that the
Assembly of Bishops in May of 1962 receive the announced delegation of
American-Canadian Diocese. Instead, the Assembly of Bishops recommended to the
Synod (June 12, 1962) to dispatch to America a delegation “to study all of the
questions raised on the spot with the agreement of Bishop Dionisije, and to
make concrete proposals for the upcoming Assembly of Bishops.”
During the June of 1962 session
of the Assembly of Bishops in Belgrade, Protopresbyter Milan Brkić from the
American-Canadian Diocese was visiting, though on personal business. On this
occasion, Bishop Dionisije wrote to the Patriarch on July 30, 1962, that
Protopresbyter Milan returned and informed him that the position of the
Assembly of Bishops was that it was unable to create a Metropolitanate in the
U.S.A., but that for the election of a bishop a solution could be found. Bishop
Dionisije in the same letter commented: “First possibility—increase of bishops
in this Diocese—underscores division of the same in several dioceses. I doubt
that the people of this Diocese would agree to such division. On the other
hand, we personally will never make such a proposal, because in it we see a
weakening of this Diocese and the church-life of the Serbian laity.”
Furthermore, Bishop Dionisije contended that it is “financially impossible,”
which was not a good argument, just as is his contention that the people would
not accept it, or even worse yet that it would be a “weakening” of the
American-Canadian Diocese and church-life of the laity. On the contrary, Bishop
Nicholai, as we saw, even though he was not a diocesan bishop in the U.S.,
recommended an increase in the number of dioceses and bishops in the U.S. and
throughout the Diaspora. Bishop Nicholai, as a worthy pastor, knew that this
would only strengthen the Serbian church-laity position and church life, which
later was shown to be true. The only serious and arguable reason for not
accepting this proposal by Bishop Dionisije was that without his consent the
American-Canadian Diocese should not be divided. This will be discussed in more
detail later.
According to a previous
conversation and agreement with Patriarch German, and the Synod with the
Religious Commission of the Federal Executive Council (June 2, 1961), when
Dilparic was first to “recommend that a delegation be sent to America... and
the government would pay for all travel expenses” (as stated in the official
transcript of the conversation), and according to the decision of the Assembly
of Bishops (June 12, 1962), the Synodal delegation, comprised of Metropolitan
Damascene, Bishop Nikanor and protodeacon B. Petrović, traveled in the Autumn
of 1962 to the USA for three months. Here it is necessary to recall the
following: at that time, it was not possible nor permissible to undertake
anything more substantial, especially with respect to foreign affairs, without
prior approval and agreement with Tito’s totalitarian government, subject to
their intentions and actual disposition towards the Church (unfortunately, the
custom of similar “good relations” with the state was achieved by many in our Church
even before the war, but the established relationships with the pre-war and
post-war governments of Yugoslavia regarding the Church were not the same).
Thus we may assume that Tito’s government suggested, if not demanded, Bishop
Dionisije’s removal from the American-Canadian Diocese. Bishop Dionisije, of
course, knew of this, but it does not mean that he lacked pre-existing reasons
for a hearing. Certain leaders in the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate were not so
“free and independent” in making decisions about the removal of Bishop
Dionisije, which can be seen from the documents which remain in the Synodal
archives. Had our Church been persecuted the entire time by the communists, we
would not need to look further than at the Synod’s acts of 1962 and 1963, where
one would find dozens of cases where the communists persecuted bishops,
priests, faithful and churches in Yugoslavia (shooting through the window of
Bishop Makarije of Srem, attacks on churches in Trebinje and Mostar, abuse of
students in Glibovac, Sumadija for participating in the celebration of St.
Sava, punishment of Fr. A. Lazarević and two faithful in Kragujevac, and not to
mention the persecution in Kosovo and Metohija). Sometime previously, Father
Justin Popović prepared a 40 page memorandum regarding the persecution of the
Serbian Orthodox Church by the communist government. This text, which he showed
to certain bishops, to this day has not been published.
With certainty we can say that
one of the controversial facts regarding the relationship between Bishop
Dionisije, the Patriarch and a portion of our bishops in Yugoslavia had to do
with their relations with the government. Bishop Dionisije was warned in the
early post-war years to “not engage in political activity,” which can be
acknowledged as a tactical decision by the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate
operating under a communist totalitarian system. But, for this there was less
justification in the 1960’s. In that sense, Bishop Dionisije characteristically
spoke to Metropolitan Damaskin, as the leader of the Delegation (a man who was
tormented, and fearful): “[the] Delegation requested (writes Bishop Dionisije
on January 5, 1963, in his report to the Synod about the Delegation’s visit),
that we cease our nationalistic endeavors” (the Delegation told him literally:
“not to use his senior role in the Church for goals that are not endorsed by
the Church,” but it was understood that “political activity” was synonymous
with that which Bishop Dionisije referred to as “national activity,” according
to Serbian emigrant vocabulary)... “That which I undertake is not political
activity and involvement, rather it is leading Serbian nationalism efforts.
Here it is not possible for us to move that line.” From these cited words, it
is obvious that this has to do with, mildly stated, a disagreement that comes
from differences in the position of the Church in the free world and under a
communist regime. The tendency of Tito’s regime was well known, as well as that
of all communist regimes in the world, which was, to hinder the Church at home,
or at least control, the migration of the Church’s work in the world. This
problematic relationship with communist regimes, until recently was a reality
and not a “concocted” problem.
No matter how great this
“political moment” of Bishop Dionisije and his politicians might have been in
the crisis of the schism, an objective historical view cannot deny the
existence of the “political aspect” of Dionisije’s case, as some shortsightedly
(like Noah) have denied in our country and diaspora. Bishop Dionisije, with
reason, asked the Delegation of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate: “Why does
our Patriarchate defend the regime (in Yugoslavia) from our attacks? Did
Patriarch Varnava not attack the government of Yugoslavia?... And Metropolitan
Mihailo the government of his time? The Church cannot bend to every demand of
every regime and every government!” Yet, these words of Bishop Dionisije in his
report to the Synod, appear somewhat differently in the report to the Synod of
the same Delegation led by Damaskin (January 24, 1963): “[the] Diocese (Bishop
Dionisije states himself) is prepared to become less confrontational with the
state government (of Yugoslavia), but the state must work towards this end as
well.” Obviously, none can or should contest the position of Bishop Dionisije
towards the Yugoslavian government, represented by him in the free world, and
knowing the relationship of Tito’s regime towards the Serbian emigration that
was under the spiritual care of Bishop Dionisije. But, the thesis of Bishop
Dionisije and politicians around him, brought forth during the creation of the
schism: “that his entire case is ‘communist skullduggery’ which was brought
upon him by ‘communist servants’ in the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate and in
America, may be disputed. The entire problem of the schism was far more
complex.
Bishop Dionisije obviously feared
the Synod delegation’s arrival. Even prior to their May 1, 1962 arrival, he
wrote to the Patriarch: “Rumors abound regarding the purpose of the
(delegation’s) visit ... that an investigation of us with an unknown purpose is
to be completed ... we know that numerous complaints of a political nature have
been brought against us, just as in recent times libelous statements have been
sent to Your Holiness, but we believe, that if taken seriously by the Synod, it
all [the complaints] should have been provided to us for our thoughts and an
eventual response.” Likewise, when the Delegation arrived in the U.S. and
during its visit, Bishop Dionisije writing to the Patriarch on October 10, 1962
stated: “I did not provide responses to any personal complaints, because, I
believe that all complaints brought against me personally should be provided in
written form—for my written response.” To that last letter the Patriarch and
Synod responded to him that he should: “inform the Delegation of all his
requests,” and the Synod would forward them to the Assembly of Bishops.
The Synodal Delegation, which was
in the U.S. from September 10, 1962 to December 2, 1962, provided the Synod a
lengthy Report (January 24, 1963, 40-page text), which was an ostensibly honest
account. Following a careful reading of the report, readers were impressed upon
the fact that on the basis of the report the actions of the Assembly of Bishops
in May of 1963 could and should not be repeated in a hastily assembled manner.
The Delegation was tasked with: (i) investigating Bishop Dionisije’s proposal
regarding the elevation of the American-Canadian Diocese to a Metropolitanate
level, (ii) reviewing the proposal to add to the American-Canadian Diocese both
South America and South Africa, (iii) the election of two or three vicar
bishops, and (iv) “anything further found to be in accordance and necessary to
its work,” but in reality this created an ever expanding scope of investigation,
which was separately communicated to the Delegation. These expanded tasks
included “to investigate certain suggestions and tendencies regarding the
separation of the American-Canadian Diocese from the Serbian Orthodox
Patriarchate”; then, Bishop Dionisije’s “use of his authority” for “political
goals,” as well as “the personal complaints against Bishop Dionisije.” In
Bishop Dionisije’s Report regarding the Delegation’s visit, some of the tasks
were formulated somewhat differently, but was inconsequential.
From both Reports it is apparent
that the Delegation was well received by Bishop Dionisije and the
American-Canadian Diocese, and the Synod was left with a satisfactory
impression overall. As it relates to the personal complaints against Bishop
Dionisije, the Delegation reported, “so as to not consciously err,” the
following: “The majority of the comments we received were in regards to his
personal life,” and mostly from the clergy, which is understandable, given the
members of the delegation had the most contact with them. But, the Delegation
on multiple occasions informed Bishop Dionisije “that they did not come as an
investigative committee” regarding the personal complaints against him, but
that it “had a duty to inform him that over the last several years many
complaints were lodged against him with the Synod regarding both his
professional and personal life,” and furthermore, “there were complaints which
the Synod could not ignore, and that sooner or later they would have to be
addressed.”
I am not sure whether the
Delegation addressed Bishop Dionisije exactly in such manner or whether it was
written in such manner in the Report upon their return home. I state this
because the delegation, which was not “an investigative committee” acted in a
somewhat inappropriate manner. In their Report they wrote: “[the] Delegation
had in several instances indicated that it was not necessary to send the Synod
the names of persons filing complaints, if justifiable.” Matters were made
worse, when upon their return to Belgrade, the Delegation during its conference
with the Synod (as noted December 5, 1962 in the official records), informed
them that: “Individuals who complained to the Delegation against Bishop
Dionisije were told to provide all details they had in writing to us, and that
confidentiality was guaranteed.” Knowing the mentality of some circles within
our Church, starting with the Patriarchate, then California, it is clear that
such act by the Delegation had openly “legalized” an illegal manner in which to
raise various complaints and libel, a range of intrigue, and without
confirmation or responsibility leaving the prosecutor to bear the consequences,
if the complaints are found to be slander, as is clearly stated in the
canonical tradition of Orthodox Church (Canon 6 of II Ecumenical Council).
Irrespective of the truly great
or the amplified mistakes and sins of Bishop Dionisije, I think that the
Patriarch and the Synod should not have pursued an uncertain and irresponsible
path of investigating a bishop. It is known to us that, unfortunately, the
moral compass of similar prosecutors here and in the Diaspora, predisposed them
to recklessly believe in intrigue of the “he-said-she-said variety.”
Unfortunately, the same or similar card was played by Bishop Dionisije, who
instead of spending time improving his life and addressing the issues that
resulted in rumors about him (of which Bishop Nicholai certainly knew, but the
great soul of this hierarch cared more for the unity of the Church and the
protection of the meek than those prone to crises of the conscience and
scandals). With brotherly love the Delegation conveyed to Bishop Dionisije the
Synod’s message “that he alone should not give rise to the complaints.” And
further, the Delegation in its Report provided sage advice to the Synod: “As
for the matters submitted against Bishop Dionisije, the Delegation is of the
opinion that a special committee should be appointed to study the entire
matter.” However, the Delegation simultaneously diminished its own
recommendation by giving this statement: “Although, before all we must be
mindful of using an appropriate process, so as not to enable a prima facia
local challenge in the civil courts regarding the liability of the plaintiffs,
which Bishop Dionisije constantly refers to.” The Delegation was concerned
about possible machinations by Bishop Dionisije to “silence” his persecutors
with countersuits, which later did emerge, when many of the plaintiffs before
the American courts withdrew or denied their charges.
For the Orthodox Church’s
canonical tradition, the following is clear: what kind of plaintiffs are they,
and how can one seriously consider their complaints when they are not prepared
to stand behind their charges and then responsibly bring forth canonical and
legal consequences? Consequently, following such a slippery slope was not
permitted, and understandable (perhaps premeditated, but in principle
justifiable) why Bishop Dionisije insisted that all charges against him be
provided in written form so that he knew by whom and why he was being accused.
He always asked for that beginning with the Delegation from 1951, then the
Delegation of Bishops Damaskin and Nikanor, and then the Investigative
Commission of Hrizostem and Visarion (July 1963). At the Patriarchate they
persistently denied the request, and in our opinion, the Patriarch, with the
most authority, bears responsibility for this part of Dionisije’s schism,
because Bishop Dionisije was adjudicated without a regular, prescribed
canonical investigative procedure. Even when Bishop Vasilije of Zica as
prosecutor against Bishop Dionisije had invested his unreproachable moral
authority, he did not believe that one bishop could, even remotely, be charged
with such repulsive conduct as was Bishop Dionisije. It was, nonetheless,
necessary that such unreproachable moral authority, canonical awareness and
humane consideration be invested in the work of the Synod’s Investigative
Commission, in July of 1963, which due to its non-canonical conduct, also,
bears responsibility for the emergence of Dionisije’s schismatic behavior and
splitting of our church.
From the conduct and writings of
Bishop Dionisije, it can be concluded that he lacked a clear conscience. From
this comes to light, his insistence over the years, that he be provided with
“all complaints by his persecutors”—“[so as] to provide written responses to
written complaints,” to avoid personal and pastoral confrontation with his
flock, brethren and concelebrants. Here is an example of his avoidance in
openly dealing with his own problems: in his Report regarding the Delegation’s
visit (January 5, 1963) he wrote to the Synod: “Regarding the complaints
submitted against us... we requested that no prejudgment occur. May they follow
their proper legal course, a proper legal investigation. They all should be
sent to us for a formal response, may justice be served for both sides, i.e.
claimant and respondent!... We would be very disappointed if the Assembly of
Bishops, with undue pressure, of work and prior to completion of an
investigation undertook disciplinary or legal action against us, as we could
not accept that... We do not shy away from responsibility, neither will we run,
nor have we ever ran. But if the cane above our heads should quickly and
suddenly break, there will be someone to defend us, and the battle, unforeseen,
will be started through no fault of our own... This I say because of the
ensuing consequences.” Previously, Bishop Dionisije wrote to Metropolitan
Damaskin of Zagreb (December 21, 1962) demanding to know what and which priests
in South Bend, speaking to the Delegation, said concerning him, and adding with
a lack of candor: “[the] Objectivity and impartiality of the highest court of
the Serbian Orthodox Church, in which there can be no doubt, and which may not
be contested, stipulates that the other side must be heard,” as if this were
the case of a slandered child. Shortly thereafter (January 20, 1963), he wrote
to the Patriarch an almost sentimental letter, in which he expounds about his
“need for a spiritual renewal,” similar to the great and Holy Fathers,
requesting permission to “go to Mount Athos—to Hilandar monastery, where he was
tonsured as a monastic—for a few months, for a spiritual renewal,” but “only
after the Church-Laity Assembly (September 1963) and “after the sitting of the
Holy Assembly” (Belgrade, May 1963). The Patriarch responded to him with the
same general “frankness”: “With brotherly love we wish to inform you that we
will always, whenever requested, respond similarly to like requests,” writing
to him (March 21, 1963), one-and-one-half months before the final settling of
his misdeeds, with which Patriarch German undoubtedly had a leading role,
amongst others from our country and the Diaspora.
In his Report of the Delegation’s
visit (January 5, 1963), Bishop Dionisije stated that he knows that “Tito wants
my head” and that he is applying pressure to that end on the Holy Assembly,
which was not unfounded, but why then did Bishop Dionisije make such “pious”
combinations and maneuvers regarding a visit to Hilandar? We believe that from
his texts and actions it be can concluded that Bishop Dionisije was a tragic
person and his tragedy was not completely negative (nothing truly tragic can be
only negative). Bishop Dionisije was not a completely bad person or bad Church
elder, for he also undoubtedly had merits and capabilities exhibited during 23
years of service leading the American-Canadian Diocese during very difficult
and complex times. The tragedy of Bishop Dionisije was that as someone who knew
the Diaspora better than many in our country and abroad and fighting for the
betterment of the Church’s life and her work, he neglected to recognize the
personal struggles in his life—with self-criticism, humility and repentance
(for which I cannot with confidence say that he did not embrace). It appears
that he was more of a “ruler,” a man in power, but it was necessary first to be
a Christian and Pastor.
His proposals for change in the
American-Canadian Diocese and Diaspora were interpreted, without reason, by
some as “intending to break away” from the Serbian Orthodox Church in our
country. In the end, Dionisije’s proposals resulted in the same position by the
Holy Assembly in 1963 and later. Bishop Dionisije swore an oath to maintain
unity with the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate, and the fact that during the
crisis of 1963, the break-away was not his fault alone. In great part, the
schism occurred because he was pushed towards it, or at the critical juncture
brotherly love was not offered to aid him, while he himself did not seek a true
Christian, pastoral and church path in aid of himself and his Church flock.
Aside from not having a “clear conscience,” he ostensibly lacked true
Archpastoral awareness and understanding of the Great Mystery of the Church,
its life, body, and organization (although he in some respects he understood
the Holy Canons better than some of those who would him). He was too much of a
man, or a poor disciple in his time, drowning from the infirmities and disorder
of the secularized Diaspora. On the other hand, he did not receive, nor did he
know how to ask for help from his brothers—bishops and concelebrants, who might
have provided similar aid as which was extended by Bishops Nicholai and Irinej.
Turning to the events of 1963,
Bishop Dionisije wrote to the Holy Assembly, on his behalf and that of the
ill-fated Serbian Diaspora, barely one month before its meeting (May 10, 1963)
(decree from April 12, 1963). He complained about not receiving the agenda for
discussion with the Holy Assembly, stating he was awaiting “a resolution to the
question of the Diaspora’s organization” and the “question relating to the
bishop” of the American-Canadian Diocese, methodically and with clarity,
discussing the organization and expansion of the Diaspora “on an autonomous
basis, in which the people participate in the administration of their Church.”
He correctly concluded that “strong centralization and autonomy cannot coexist”
adding that the central place of the Serbian Orthodox Church was the Holy
Assembly, but should be appended as the “Holy Assembly with the clergy, and
together with people, because it represented the notion of universality,”
maintaining, still with apparent honesty: “I will never succumb to separating
from St. Sava’s church—the Serbian Orthodox Church—as I am committed to
remaining with her, I will not tear the fabric of St. Sava, as Arius had torn
Christ’s.” At that moment, those words were difficult and tragic sounding even
for Bishop Dionisije, who in our opinion stated them before the emergence of
his personal torment and church-pastoral problems of the Diaspora. That was not
just “maneuvering” about his personal “ambitions,” as some have asserted, but
that Bishop Dionisije obviously lacked a well thought out and consistent
Orthodox ecclesiological position (such as, unfortunately, is lacking amongst a
not inconsequential number of contemporary then hierarchs in the Diaspora, and
not just there). With his indecisiveness and inconsistency, there certainly was
also frivolity and untruthfulness, but also some human and episcopal
misfortune; and I repeat, assistance from brethren and bishops was neither
timely nor useful. It appears that the Patriarch and certainly some Hierarchs
unaccustomed to dialogue, not only with everyone in the Church, but neither
with their peers. It is well known that the ancient Church of Christ began with
brotherly and ecclesiological dialogue during the Apostolic Council (Acts
2,4,6,7,13,15.22-28), and continued with her Local and Ecumenical Councils.
All that has been stated thus far
is not intended to provide justification for Bishop Dionisije, and even
justification for the schism, for which he is bears the most responsibility. We
only wish to point out that the American and Dionisije’s schism, did not occur
unexpectedly, without reason or motive, rather from the pure “spite” of one
“disobedient” bishop. That is why today, to overcome the schism it is
necessary, first and foremost, to change hitherto methods and apply a true
pastoral, church-salvific prudence and leniency. It is not a “return to the
beginning,” nor “reexamination of all decisions,” rather simply identifying the
salvific medicine for the wound created in the Church, in which we all have
played a role, in our country and Diaspora.
Decisions and events at the
Assembly of Bishops in May of 1963 and onwards, were coming quickly and
irresponsibly, ill-conceived from a canonical perspective, and with unknown
pastoral consequences. During its regular session in May of 1963, the Holy Assembly
suddenly issued a number of decisions regarding the American-Canadian Diocese
and Bishop Dionisije, which resulted in the rapid wave of reaction in the
American Diaspora, and the conscience of a number of Serbian hierarchs. If
carefully studied, the recordings from the regular working sessions of the Holy
Assembly held in May of 1963, it is clear that there was a lack of order and
conciliarity among the Hierarchs of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate. The Holy
Assembly first considered reports from the Delegation of Bishops Damaskin and
Nikanor, and then moved on to decisions which did not come from the
recommendations of this delegation, not Bishop Dionisije, nor the Church-Laity
Assembly of the American-Canadian Diocese. During the regular meeting held April
30, 1963, Metropolitan Damaskin suddenly declared that “the Delegation was not
tasked with preparing recommendations, rather, to investigate matters regarding
Bishop Dionisije and provide gathered materials to the Holy Assembly for
consideration,” contradicting the previously stated position and duties of the
Delegation. The reaction of two bishops (Vladislav and Pavle) was from the
beginning different then from the others, but, even, among those others, e.g.,
Bishop Emilijan of Timok, it was understood that the rule: “that no one may be
judged without being heard, and we too in this instance cannot and should not
depart from that basic rule” (referencing to Acts 25:16 and many Holy Canons).
On May 10, 1963, the Holy
Assembly decided (Holy Assembly № 20 and 21, recording 77) that “upon request
of the Church-Laity Assembly and Bishop Dionisije the Holy Assembly of Bishops
is establishing three dioceses on the territory of the American-Canadian
Diocese” (there were bishops supporting only two dioceses, but they were in the
minority). Immediately thereafter, the Holy Assembly referred “the matter of
complaints against Bishop Dionisije” to the Synod “with [the] recommendation”
to commence an ecclesiastical proceeding against Bishop Dionisije. The Assembly
of Bishops immediately halted its conference in order for the Synod’s meeting
to take place (an old Synod practice from 1962, that during meetings of the
Assembly of Bishops the Synod is not in session), “ordering the commencement of
a disciplinary process against Bishop Dionisije” and immediately “placed him
under suspension from performing Church duties ... and dismissed him from all
duties in his Diocese until the matter was finally investigated and
adjudicated.” The following day (May 11, 1963), the Patriarch proposed “filling
[the open positions] in the newly-created dioceses in the U.S.A.” This proposal
was met with opposition from certain bishops. Metropolitan Damaskin reminded
“that the problem of our church in the USA [was] very complex and difficult.”
Bishops Vladislav and Pavle suggested not electing the third bishop, that is,
for the Midwestern Diocese for which Bishop Dionisije had been nominated. For
the Eastern Diocese Protopresbyter Stevan Lastavica was elected and the
Patriarch’s proposal to elect as vicar bishops and administrators for the
Midwestern and Western Dioceses, Archimandrites Firmilijan and Grigorije, did
not pass even after two rounds of voting. Bishops Vladislav and Pavle declared
their abstentions from voting because “they believed that this method of
electing bishops was contradictory to the rules and the Constitution of the
Serbian Orthodox Church (Article 69, Paragraph 18 and 105).” During the May 17,
1963 meeting, the Synod appointed Fr. Stevan Lastavica, Archimandrite
Firmilijan (of Bishop Dionisije’s Diocese) and Archimandrite Grigorije as
Administrators for the Eastern, Midwestern, and Western Dioceses, respectively.
Adding to this the decisions of the Holy Assembly during its extraordinary
session of July 27, 1963 (Holy Assembly № 42/ recording 2), at which Bishop
Dionisije had been “released from all duties as the Diocesan Bishop” and the
Midwestern Diocese was “pronounced vacant,” two things were clear: that Bishop
Dionisije thought he was chasing a rabbit, but found a wolf,” and secondly the
Holy Assembly and Synod suddenly made several decisions which were not sought
nor recommended by Bishop Dionisije and the Church-Laity Assembly of the
American-Canadian Diocese—they were not consulted, and some of those decisions
were not entirely canonical. Let us consider them in good order.
First, neither Bishop Dionisije
nor the Church-Laity Assembly in the U.S. requested additional dioceses. The
Holy Assembly in regards to its decision relied upon Article 16 of the
Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, which states that only the Holy
Assembly can establish a diocese, but this is in direct opposition to the
canonical tradition of our Church (Carthage 62, 65, 96 and 109, according to
another enumerations, such as Milas: 53, 56, 87, 99, and also, Rule 16 of the
First-Second Council, and with consultation Apostolic Canon 34, known according
to the principal of conciliarity, and to it correlated the Antiochian Rule).
According to the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church, which protects the
ecclesiological (dogmatical) structure of the Church, the diocese of one bishop
cannot be changed, divided, etc., without his agreement, neither can he be
relocated without his agreement (though, principally the canons forbid
relocation of bishops). Quoting Rule 109 (99) of Carthage: “It is resolved that
the people (faithful) which have not ever had their own bishops (specifically),
cannot have them, except pursuant to the decisions of the Council of every
region and the first among the hierarchs (Patriarch), and according to him”
under which administration that Church was. Carthage Rule 96 (87) states: “To
take a diocese from a bishop before the conclusion of proceedings against him,
is not considered correct among any Christians.” And, more characteristic of our
case is Canon 16 of the First-Second Council: “Under no circumstances should a
bishop be appointed in the Church whose predecessor is alive and operating in
his capacity, except if he voluntarily petitions to be released. Moreover, it
is necessary to complete a canonical investigation for the reason, i.e. cause,
fault), for the bishop’s removal and expulsion [from his diocese], and
thereafter establishing another bishop in his place.”
This clear canonical position of
the Orthodox Church requires no further comment. If a Legal Committee of the
Holy Assembly, and the Holy Assembly itself, did not know these canonical
rules, that are respected everywhere by the Orthodox Church, then they should
have listened at least to the voices of bishops from the Holy Assembly, e.g.
Bishop Emilijan of Timok, who orally and in writing pointed out: that in the
Serbian Orthodox Church “it is not clear how a bishop should be judged” (which
was noted in the actual judgment against Bishop Dionisije, as comments of the
Synod: “that with our positive church law it is not sufficiently clear how a
judicial process against a bishop should take place,” which we will return to
later); or, also, Bishop Pavle, who later gave his separate opinion (during a
meeting of the Synod on July 10, 1963, before the extraordinary meeting of the
Holy Assembly, having read the report of the Investigative Commission of
Bishops Hrizostom and Visarion in which they requested an emergency meeting of
the Holy Assembly): “I think that the Holy Assembly during its regular meeting
brought forth clear decisions as to what should be done in order to improve the
situation of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A. and that the Synod
should act according to the spirit of those decisions. That is why I think that
we should wait for the return of the Delegation (Investigative Commission) and
based on the facts which they will bring, peacefully take further actions, but
not to quickly convene the extraordinary meeting of the Holy Assembly, asking
to bring forth decisions which are contrary to already delivered decisions, and
this based on one letter of the Delegation written three or four days after
their arrival with negative impressions formed as a result of hostile gestures
directed toward the Delegation by some of the political factions there.
Suggestions of the Delegation created in such manner cannot be taken as
supporting arguments which will be reached in a self-fulfilling manner during its
stay in the U.S.A.” (Synod № 2242/recording 338 from July 10, 1963). This later
expressed opinion of Bishop Pavle was perhaps not presented as clearly during
the regular session of the Holy Assembly, but we have already seen his
reservations towards decisions of most Holy Assemblies, but especially his
opposition to immediately replacing suspended Bishop Dionisije and in
appointing in his place Archimandrite Firmilijan.
It should be mentioned that
Article 16 of the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, as well as many
other articles quoted at the time, are in no way a greater authority than the
Holy Canons of the Ancient Church which are more explicit (it is our firm
opinion: that the entire Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church needs to
be reconciled to the canonical tradition of the Church, as well all
Constitutions used in the Diaspora). That is why the decisions brought forth by
the Holy Assembly of Bishops and Synod (to which most of today’s bishops did
not contribute) were not in accordance to the canonical tradition of the
Orthodox Church. How was it possible to divide a diocese of a bishop who was
not granted a hearing and was not adjudicated (no verdict against him) and
nominate and elect three new bishops? Was everything decided in advance, put
over the knee “in [such] short order, that our until-late brother and bishop
was not heard nor given the opportunity to face his accusers? Such humiliation of
a bishop, and the office of the bishop itself, has never been recorded in the
history of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Irrespective of all the accusations
against Bishop Dionisije, to his defense, supported by canonical tradition, is
the fact that he did not seek nor did he agree to the division of his
American-Canadian Diocese and on relocating him to a non-existent diocese. It
is another matter altogether whether it was truly necessary to create more
dioceses in the U.S. and Canada, to which, Bishop Dionisije would most likely
have been opposed, but this should have been resolved in one of two possible
ways: either through greater dialogue with Bishop Dionisije, individually
convincing a number of Hierarchs or waiting until he was adjudicated according
to a canonical “review and conclusion as to his actions,” as the canons state
(i.e. his culpability), and then undertake changes and reorganization within
the American-Canadian Diocese. It was also necessary to take into consideration
the proposal of the Damaskin-Nikanor Delegation: “without delay there should be
an election of vicar bishops” and “to this there would be no considerable
objections (in the U.S.A.), especially if the candidates under consideration
came from the Diocese” (which I recall vividly at the time, was being proposed
by Fr. Justin Popovic, verbally to some of the bishops—these vicar bishops
would then slowly assume the administration of the American-Canadian Diocese
and with a supporting decision of the Holy Assembly of Bishops remove Bishop
Dionisije).
Instead, Bishop Dionisije’s
Diocese was taken away from him before adjudication and final judgment
(verdict), while true he was “suspended,” but the question of a suspension of
one bishop according to the Holy Canons is not the same as that which is recommended
by the cited paragraphs in the decision of the Synod of the Constitution of the
Serbian Orthodox Church and notorious “rules on culpability” (an especially
anti-canonical creation of the newer Serbian “canonists”). The Holy Canons
discuss akoinonia (exclusion from communion with others, from serving and Holy
Communion) of an accused bishop, but not at the same time as his dethronement,
i.e., removal and denial of any presence in the diocese [1] before his process
and tribunal are concluded (as already cited Canon 16 of the First-Second
Council).
This form of “suspension” as is
currently in practice is uncanonical and came about as a result of secular
influence, secularized “positive law” (but today, the Church needs to clearly
decide: will she adhere to a canonical-benevolent or legal-juridical order, and
there is frequent conflict between the two principles, to the detriment of the
pastoral-soteriological mission and work of the Church, which was later seen in
the American courts).
Further, the Holy Assembly of
Bishops and the Synod addressed Bishop Dionisije, the Church bodies of the
American-Canadian Diocese, and the three administrators with a special
Encyclical. The Synod appointed an Investigative Commission, i.e. Bishops Hrizostom
and Visarion (with Protopresbyter Mladenović and Deacon Tripković) on June 13,
1963, “entrusting them to travel to the U.S.A... to enforce and investigate the
matters, and to carry out all necessary hearings, of the accused and witnesses,
as well as to gather all evidence regarding the current situation, with all
pertinent writings, and to report to the Synod for further instruction.” Prior
to that, Bishop Dionisije had already stated, in his announcement and
proclamation on May 25, 1963, that he did not recognize the Synod’s decision
regarding [his] suspension. On June 3, 1963 he wrote to the Patriarch and
Hierarchs, members of the Holy Assembly of Bishops and Synod, that, “confirming
the receipt of the decree” from May 10, but further stated: “I do not recognize
the decision of the Holy Assembly of Bishops and Synod regarding the division
of this one diocese into three new dioceses, nor my suspension and removal from
the administration of the Diocese, neither will I relinquish my
responsibilities to the Diocesan Church-Laity Assembly, because the
aforementioned decisions are in contradiction to the Constitution and unlawfully
brought forth.” In his letter, he did not deny the “authority of the Holy
Assembly and Synod over him so long as they hold to the canons and judicially
prescribed rules,” but he adds: “I recognize and wait for the court of these
people here to whom I have served for the last 23 years, gathered at the
Church-Laity Assembly. If they adjudicate against me... then I will relinquish
my duties.” Further, he complained about the fact that all the complaints
brought against him were not provided to him, then regarding the
Damaskin-Nikanor Delegation (“the report of the Delegation is one sided,
incorrect and does not correspond with the truth. Based on that report, the
Diocese was taken from me, I was suspended and found culpable, and I
categorically demand a copy of the report... I ask for it as a member of the
Holy Assembly and I have a right to it”). In the end, he casts the entire
problem on political terrain, foretelling “the splitting of our entire Church
and splitting of this Diocese,” for which the Patriarch and Hierarchs are at
fault, believing that a minority will support the Patriarchate. On June 6,
1963, a meeting of the American-Canadian Diocese brought forth a decision
informing the Synod: “the Diocesan meeting (plenum) unanimously states that
this Plenum is not authorized to receive nor to refuse a question regarding the
division of the American-Canadian Diocese into three dioceses, instead this
whole matter will be turned over to the Church-Laity Assembly” which is being
urgently convened for August 6-9, 1963. (The Church-Laity Assembly was
scheduled for a regular session in October, 1963, but it was moved to the
earlier date). The Plenum also asked that the Synod send the “Synodal
Investigative Committee,” which shall “inquire of the complaints against our
Bishop Dionisije and investigate and conclude as soon as possible,” but changes
in regards to the administration of American-Canadian Diocese “cannot be
carried out” until a decision is made at the scheduled meeting of the
Church-Laity Assembly.
Bishop Dionisije wrote to the
Patriarch on June 9, 1963 in a conciliatory tone: “The people need to be
calmed, this Church needs to remain in unity with its Patriarchate... If you
love God, stop; do not undertake further action. Begin to resolve this situation”
promising “from my side to contribute as much as I can.” He recommended
delaying implementation of the decisions of the Holy Assembly of Bishops, and
to “send a second commission for negotiation and conversation with us and the
people; perhaps a peaceful solution for calming the people could be found,”
further stating he himself was ready “to discuss a peaceful resolution of the
complaints brought against me, or a voluntary withdrawal from the duties as a
bishop.” As no response was received from the Patriarch, Bishop Dionisije, over
the ensuing months of June and July 1963, issued various texts (approximately
15 proclamations, protests, letters and pamphlets with titles that were
measured to slanderous). These publications, unfortunately, despite well
intentioned protests and doubts were dominated by non-pastor and
non-bishop-like behavior and quick conclusions and language, with a plethora of
attacks, accusations and mandatory politicizing of his entire case (i.e. “It
was necessary to Tito’s regime to begin ‘Operation Dionisije,” etc.). In these
texts of Bishop Dionisije, he walks a tight rope, manipulating the people, with
justice, the justified cries of one accused and unheard man and Bishop, “over
whose head everything was now being brought down.” It appears, we dare say,
that actions against him and his response to those actions are like two sides
of the same coin, just as the same low level of Church consciousness among
some, and fortunately a small number, from Belgrade to California.
Carefully collected and recorded
were all the texts and actions of Bishop Dionisije, by the new Administrators
and until late, his closest and faithful coworkers, sending them to the Synod.
On June 10, 1963, the three administrators sent their first report to the
Synod, advising they “have begun execution of the decision” of the Holy
Assembly of Bishops and Synod, but, that “[they] were encountering various
difficulties,” mostly from Bishop Dionisije, who refused to relinquish
administration to Archimandrite Firmilijan. Following which, they stated that
on June 4, 1963 in Shadeland, they held a meeting with the Board of the Clergy
Brotherhood, which greeted and welcomed all decisions of the Holy Assembly of
Bishops “as very useful”: calling Bishop Dionisije’s behavior “as distancing
himself from the Church of St. Sava and schismatic,” and Dionisije’s
disobedience was considered “uncanonical and punishable,” while their “priestly
disobedience to him, in this case, was canonical, lawful and properly placed.”
Administrators then brought forth Bishop Firmilijan’s and their “general
impression” from the meeting of the Diocesan Plenum (June 6, 1963) that “the
majority of the members of the plenary session believed, and the same was felt
among the parishes of the American-Canadian Diocese, that decisions of the Holy
Assembly of Bishops and Synod regarding the creation of new dioceses... were
brought forth too quickly and without consultation of the Diocesan bodies and
Church-Laity Assembly,” consequently the members of the Plenum believed that
the Holy Assembly of Bishop’s “decisions were made in contradiction to the
Constitution of the American-Canadian Diocese and that is why they cannot be
accepted.” The three administrators then suggested that it was necessary to:
“speed up the disciplinary proceedings against Bishop Dionisije and deliver a
final ruling,” asking that if possible it be done prior to the Church-Laity
Assembly in August, and that is why “according to the former understanding of
legal procedure, it would be beneficial that one delegation (from Belgrade)
lead an investigation there taking the opportunity to conduct in-person
hearings.
The Synodal Investigative
Commission arrived in the U.S. about June 30, 1963. From Pittsburgh, they wrote
to Bishop Dionisije that they would be visiting him to, according to the
initiated actions, “inquire of the situation and to interrogate him.” Rather
than first and foremost leading an inquiry and interrogation of Bishop
Dionisije and the complainants, the Commission exceeded its authority. In its
letter of July 3, 1963 to the Synod, written before their first meeting with
Bishop Dionisije, scheduled for July 5, 1963, the Committee requested “an
emergency meeting” of the Assembly of Bishops in Belgrade. In the meantime, the
same Commission “wreaked havoc” across the American-Canadian Diocese, whose
division Bishop Dionisije did not recognize, and was still to be determined [by
the Commission], by tonsuring and scheduling enthronements, and making further
decisions as if they were executors rather than investigators. To that the “old
fox” Bishop Dionisije replied with “equal measure”: by avoiding a meeting with
the Commission at the St. Sava Monastery in Libertyville, ostensibly “because
of the many people and numerous protests,” then assuming the meeting would be
held in a secular “club.” The investigative discussions began, and were led by
the unsuitable Bishop Visarion and the minutes were written by Bishop Chrysostom
(instead of the reverse), and they quickly stalled, because Bishop Dionisije
gave the investigators his letter written in response to their previous letter
issued from Pittsburgh, and further rejected acknowledging the commencement of
the investigative discussions, because he requested in advance the written
complaints be brought forth. In his letter to the Investigative Commission he
informed them that they had failed to notify him “at the proper address,”
because he was not the “Bishop of the Midwestern American Diocese,” because he
had never accepted the title, nor was he asked to accept it (i.e. the division
of his American-Canadian Diocese and the change in his title). He further
protested “against the prejudicial decisions” of the Synod in forbidding his
performance of Church duties and dismissal of the Diocesan Council, and in
furtherance the Investigative Commission ceased further hearings instead of accepting
Bishop Dionisije’s letter as his position in the matters (if we are to believe
Bishop Dionisije’s complaint directed to the Patriarch on July 11 at the
Commission’s meeting). Bishop Visarion halted the investigation stating: “there
is nothing further to be learned, the materials published in print to date by
Bishop Dionisije are sufficient.” In his letter, Bishop Dionisije continued
complaining to the Patriarch that the Commission “did not provide any
complaints in response” to him, and that he still did not know who was bringing
complaints and why, against him; and obviously with bitterness protesting
further actions by the Commission in Milwaukee, where they explicitly and with
finality were adjudicating him! Herein is the justification for the statements.
The behavior of the Investigative
Commission, which would have been uncanonical and impermissible by any secular
legislative body, instead of investigating, it transformed into an executor,
rendering its own decisions and verdicts, which on July 6, 1963, in Milwaukee
culminated in the issuance of a “communiqué to all clergy, church-school
congregations and to all Serbian men and women in America and Canada,” stating
in verbatim: “Since Bishop Dionisije, through his actions and statements, has
in totality confirmed that he has trampled upon his hierarchical oath and has
renounced his obedience to the higher Church authority and thereby committed,
among other things, Church iniquities in accordance with the ‘Disciplinary
Rules’ Articles 10,15,17 by which the guilty party bears the greatest
ecclesiastical punishment of being deprived the Episcopal rank and
excommunication from the Church community, we therefore call upon all clergy,
all church-school congregations and all the faithful of the three Dioceses (and
those from which Bishop Dionisije has not been removed from by the Synod!)—that
they not obey Bishop Dionisije in any matters,” etc.
The first thing to note is the
actions of the investigator (Investigative Commission): according to the
canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church this Commission deserves greater
punishment than the accused party which it was supposed to have interrogated.
And secondly: in this special “verdict” the Investigator was teeming with
uncanonical and anticanonical positions and conclusions. Considered in order:
nowhere in the Holy Canons is there any “hierarchical oath” (there is only an
Episcopal Confession of Faith, while the postulating of an anti-evangelical
oath of a Bishop and priest should be eliminated as soon as possible from the
newly minted and incorrect practice). Then: What kind of an Episcopal
“obedience to higher church rulers” was this, and who are these “rulers” above
a Bishop in the Orthodox Church? This thesis becomes more senselessly
formulated in the very Verdict of Bishop Dionisije (later, but here is its
source), where it is stated (in Article 6) that Bishop Dionisije’s fault was
“failing to execute the lawful orders of the assumed authority, negating and
criticizing their orders and actions.” The question remains: what kind and
based on what from the Tradition of the Holy Canons of the Orthodox Church do
these organs suspend, investigate, prosecute, judge and invent a calling upon
the knowledge, rite and rank of the Orthodox Bishop in the Orthodox Church,
when they so easily appoint to him “assumed powers,” who “order” him about, and
he cannot even “negate and criticize their orders and actions”!? Something such
as this can only exist and be valid in the Roman church and the “papal” or
“half-papal” mentality, for the history of the Orthodox Church does recognize,
nor can it, accept something like this (unfortunately, today this is the fate
of many of our priests, for whom only the written so-called Disciplinary Rules,
where a Bishop is not mentioned nor any fault of a Bishop, nor the irresponsibility
of a Bishop for uncanonical or non-father-like relations towards priests, as it
has always been in all places in the Holy Canons, where equality in the court
is for all). In the canonical tradition of Orthodoxy, on the contrary, the
Bishop’s duty is not to first “listen” to the “assumed authorities,” for they
do not exist in the Orthodox Church, but it is the duty of the Bishop to watch
over the decisions and even “criticize” them, if they are not in accordance
with Orthodoxy. For instance, this right is given even to monastics and
faithful—granted, in times of crisis—according to Canon 15 of the First-Second
Council of St. Photius, that, for the ecclesiological rule and church
conscience of the right of final adoption or non-adoption of even the decisions
of the highest and mightiest Councils in the history of the Church. It is
abundantly clear, therefore, if there were no other real faults of Bishop
Dionisije, they would not have even been considered a fault and he would have
been adjudicated and pronounced innocent.
It was evident that the work of
the Commission was not proper, a non-canonical expression of its investigative
role. How could it, and how was it permissible for it to immediately pronounce
“judgment” not having heard the Bishop’s position, and to call upon his clergy
in an insurgence against a Bishop who was not yet tried and adjudicated? The
fact that Bishop Dionisije avoided the first hearing did not give the
Commission any right to take further action except to attempt to hold another
hearing, which even the Patriarch attempted to convince the Commission of in a
telegram: “Attempt to hear Dionisije again” (which Bishop Hrizostom somehow
attempted, indirectly through Deacon B. Tripkovic, but was in vain). According
to canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church a new, separate Commission should
have been sent and up to three times, for the defendant could claim “bias” on
the part of the Investigative Commission. In addition, another pertinent,
canonical and general legal question could be posed: what would have happened,
for instance, if the Investigative Commission found or if the judges
established, that Bishop Dionisije had been slandered, and that he is innocent,
or that his faults were less consequential? Perhaps that possibility was
excluded beforehand? But why then the “theatrics” of a formal procedure:
investigations, hearings, lawsuits, trials? Furthermore, what would the accused
and overthrown Bishop Dionisije have received “in exchange” had the trial
proven him innocent, for the punishment and humiliation already inflicted? Thus
is the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church (Canon 16 of the First-Second
Council, etc.) so clearly and expressly stated: that patience must be exercised
“until a reason (cause, fault) of the accused be questioned and be brought to a
conclusion.” This was also suggested by Bishop Pavle of Ras and Prizren, but to
such time it lacked sufficient support.
The Investigative Commission, in
our opinion, could have at a minimum recommended to the Synod that a
Church-Laity Assembly be convened, providing a forum and opportunity for
negotiation, to avoid the schism, or to unmask Bishop Dionisije before the Church-Laity
Assembly. Regarding such August convention of the Church-Laity Assembly, the
Board of the Clergy Association attempted (on July 18, 1963 from Pittsburgh) to
prevent it from being held by pressuring the clergy to not take part in it, but
was unsuccessful. One of its “aces,” which was later employed by the Legal
Committee of the Assembly of Bishops (at their special session of July 27,
1963), was that Bishop Dionisije had “illegally called and presided over” a
Church-Laity Assembly, for which he was adjudicated and disciplined. According
to the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church, Bishop Dionisije, by
summoning and convening the Church-Laity Assembly, that is, a gathering of
clergy and faithful from his Diocese, was still functioning as a Bishop of the
Diocese, for he had not yet been adjudicated, and therefore the meeting was not
a “canonical violation.” The Investigative Commission did not need to rush and
seek a “special meeting” of the Assembly of Bishops under the guise of Bishop
Dionisije and the Diocesan board of the American-Canadian Diocese “wanting to
delay the issue until the Church-Laity Assembly in August, where he would have
the backing of the majority,” and instead with more Hierarchs take part in the
church-laity assembly and attempt to confront Bishop Dionisije before his
people and flock. I doubt he would have endured such a confrontation before the
clergy and laity, in which, in fact, lies his main sin and canonical
transgression.
Thus far, we have not addressed
the issues as such to suggest that Bishop Dionisije was in the right and that
he was “innocently” found liable, rather we have merely pointed out the
unnecessary mistakes in the process of investigation and adjudication, and the
civil procedure of all courts is known: that the mistakes and behaviors of the
accused neither allow nor justify the errors and omissions of the court. The
Investigative Commission did, however, reach one correct conclusion: it
confirmed that Bishop Dionisije with his entreaty on Vidovdan of 1963, called
upon all those who have broken away from the Mother Church and all Serbian
Church congregations throughout the world, to join him, even though they were
not within the American-Canadian Diocese. Just this truly great canonical
transgression of the already expelled Bishop Dionisije would have been
sufficient, pursuant to canonical tradition, to adjudicate and dethrone him.
For this was truly a canonical and established fault, greater than the first
violation in which he first refused to speak with the Commission, or that he
did not recognize the partition of his Diocese (for which he had not been
consulted), nor tried or found liable and dethroned. Secondly, the assuredly
canonical mistake of Bishop Dionisije was that he came to a split with his own
clergy and entire flock, he provoked a division in the church laity. The
Investigative Commission, instead of using the justified revolt among the
clergy and laity as proof against Bishop Dionisije, instead aided the revolt
among a significant number of clergy and laity to turn against the Patriarch
and Serbian Patriarchate, indirectly contributing to a deepening of division.
It appears that as Bishop
Dionisije turned to schism, he even invited other Church congregations outside
of his Diocese join in schism. In fact, a more precise reading of the
regulation, according to Canon 1 of St. Basil, Dionisije’s actions and separation
from the Mother Church would not fall under the title of schism, rather
parasynagogues (a Greek term which even Milas leaves untranslated, but gives it
a Russian equivalent: “samocinoje sbornisce,” that is, an unlawful, unapproved
collection of faithful). For such persons St. Basil characteristically says:
“Parasynagogues is... if someone, questioned with respect to mistakes, then
restricted from serving, following which did not subjugate himself to the
canons, rather taking upon themselves a leadership role and pastoral service,
and with them others followed, leaving the Conciliar Church.” Such persons,
according to St. Basil, may be accepted back as follows: “Those from
parasynagogues, when they themselves return through true repentance, unite
themselves once more with the Church, and when the ordained followed those that
were disobedient, upon repentance, are accepted in the same rank.” Such a
canonical position by St. Basil is useful in the efforts of overcoming
Dionisije’s schism. According to canonical tradition, apart from his moral
faults, Dionisije’s sin and transgression is first and foremost the fact that
he caused a split among his flock and clergy, and that at least half of his own
flock and clergy accused and left him—as Archpastor and Bishop here for so many
years, he bears great fault. He should not have stubbornly sought only the
written accusation of his accusers (that later he might, most likely, submit
them to the secular courts, by which he would only engage in new canonical
transgressions, for according to the Canons, it is violation to turn to the
world’s secular courts at all), instead he himself should have sought and
endured a reckoning with his clergy and people, publicly at the Church-Laity
Assembly, before representatives from the Assembly of Bishops and Synod of
Bishops, and not merely before preselected “delegates” and “representatives” of
the people, but instead before all the people ([it] is known to me and many,
all the forms of manipulation engaged in, at the time and afterwards regarding
“outvoting” in certain church-school congregations in America in order to
secure a “majority vote” for or against Dionisije or the Serbian Orthodox
Patriarchate).
Furthermore, and most
importantly, the moral accusations on the life and behavior of Bishops under
the Holy Canons are a very serious matter, and Bishop Dionisije should have
known this, and not play games with them, and not bring scandal to the consciousness
of his flock, as if the issue was regarding a petty leader of some “political
party,” to whom the “opposition” plants intrigue and defamation. However, at
the same time we should say that his accusers (Devrnja, Djujić, and others)
should have conscientiously carried out their responsibilities as prosecutor
and witness, which they took upon themselves. But, irrespective of the
prosecutors and witnesses, if even half of the personal accusations of immoral
conduct of Bishop Dionisije were correct, then he would surely have been
removed from the position of Bishop and Archpastor. In any case, there were
problems in proving all of the “delicate” accusations, and as is almost always
the case, and Bishop Dionisije certainly depended upon this, but according to
the canonical tradition of the ancient Church (which dates from the Apostle
Paul—1 Tim. 3:7: “A bishop must have a good rapport with those on the
outside”), Bishop Dionisije had already lost rapport from those outside with a
clear conscience (the former Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, the late
Panteleimon, was for this very reason dethroned despite not being defrocked).
As a conscientious Hierarch and Archpastor of the faithful people he should
have: either publicly appeared before his clergy and people, since the public
scandal had already burrowed itself into the souls and conscience of many in
the American-Canadian Diocese, so that he could provide justification himself
before them, or at least submit his resignation with dignity and withdraw
peacefully. From his many writings and documentation stems the view that Bishop
Dionisije either resembled a “moral monster” (Hieromonk Arsenije Tošović had
written to the Synod in Belgrade, in 1954 that Dionisije’s “licentious exploits
were becoming pathological,” but the light-hearted assessment of the Hieromonk
was irreverent, even if it was as he stated; a wiser and more spiritually
mature position was that of Bishop Nicholai who did not “trumpet before the
world” the sins of his brother, but looked more to the general good of the
Church); or Bishop Dionisije was a “defamed innocent,” who was not cognizant of
the situation and what was happening around him, which itself was certainly
irresponsible for the position and service of an Archpastor and Bishop of the
Church of God in the world. However, it was more likely that Bishop Dionisije
was a man of weak character and for that reason remained incomplete and
unclear, inconsistent and indecisive, tragic in his own way, but without the
strength to find a way out of his personal and episcopal drama, or the advice
of one more experienced and spiritual, to pull him from his maelstrom.
Perhaps from Dionisije’s personal
drama and tragedy the only light and saving grace was when he, some years
before his death, wrote his letter of repentance and acknowledgement to the
Patriarch and the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate. (I personally saw Fr. Justin
Popovic’s faded copy, and Fr. Petar Milosevic, Dionisije’s then secretary,
personally told me of the letter, who immediately thereafter fled to Bishop
Firmilian with that “made up” letter of repentance and acknowledgment from
Dionisije and the Bishop (Firmilian), who based on that letter, through the
Cardinal of Chicago and the US Supreme Court, finally regained control of the
monastery in Libertyville on behalf of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate. If
that news was correct: that Patriarch German himself ignored the letter of
repentance and acknowledgement and plea of Bishop Dionisije to be pardoned,
then is the action was highly immoral and not Christian, and even uncanonical,
for the 52nd Apostolic Canon states: “If any bishop or presbyter, does not receive
him who turns away from his sin, but rejects him, let him be deposed; for he
grieves Christ who said, There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents” —
Luke 15:7. In the Archives of the Synod I found no copies of Dionisije’s letter
of repentance, but it certainly existed). [2]
To once more repeat what we have
previously stated: it was not a particularly great mistake of Bishop Dionisije
to have summoned and held a Church-Laity Assembly in August and then in
November 1963, as he still had not been provided the dignity of a hearing much
less was he tried and adjudicated, while the process of dividing his Diocese
and being dethroned was not recognized by him, and a portion of his clergy and
people. The bureaucratic pettiness and the reference to “paragraphs” is of
little consequence here (his disobedience to the Assembly of Bishops before the
final verdict could, but not necessarily, be taken as a hindrance—as it is
according to the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church, which is the not
the same as secular civil law). For summoning and convening a Church-Laity
Assembly, Bishop Dionisije cited the tradition of conciliarity as his
authority. (We quote only in brief, but clearly, the position of St. Basil
regarding conciliarity in the Orthodox Church: “Decisions and the placement of
Churches is brought by those under whose care are the Churches (Bishops), but
they are accepted and confirmed by the people” (meaning the body of
faithful—Letter 230). The fact that, of late, conciliarity among our people is
practiced only a little or not at all is insufficient reason to deny Bishop
Dionisije every canonical courtesy in discussions with his clergy and people,
and with bureaucratic casuistry accuse the not yet tried nor convicted Bishop,
who in his Diocese was still more canonical than his “replacement,” the
well-known Administrator (Firmilian), who was controversially elected in
Belgrade, a topic to which we will return).
The truly great and almost
unforgivable mistake, a genuine canonical transgression, of Bishop Dionisije
and his entire group—“parasynagogue,” was committed at the second Church-Laity
Assembly, where the following position and proclamation, more specifically
Article 3 of the Resolution of the Church-Laity Assembly (August 6-8, 1963),
were made: “[f]uture relations of the Serbian Orthodox American-Canadian
Diocese and its mother Serbian Orthodox Church in Yugoslavia is to be based on
the broadest sense of autonomy for this Diocese, whereby they would be
connected by a spiritual and moral-hierarchical unity, and not a
canonical-hierarchical one. This form of unity would connect the Diocese and
Mother Church until such time as the Church was unencumbered in its activities
and decision making in Yugoslavia, which could only be expected after the
liberation of Yugoslavia from communist oppression.”
This truly schismatic and
negative rejection of the connection and unity with the Serbian Orthodox
Patriarchate, was formulated outside all ecclesiological-canonical and
patristic bounds, as well as the advance rejection of everything arising from
the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate, as if it were some upstart communist
creation, and not the glorified Church of St. Sava and Peć, the Great Church of
our Savior—this is, to us, a truly sufficient deed for Bishop Dionisije to be
adjudicated and finally be canonically disciplined. In the above text, which
could not have arisen without Bishop Dionisije, the entire ecclesiological
confusion is evident, contained in the senseless separation of the “spiritual
and prayerful-hierarchical” unity from the “canonical-hierarchical” unity,
which is only further evidence of the theological and church illiteracy of the
composer of this type of formulation, and also completely politicized. In
conciliar Orthodoxy there are not two, or some form of dual unities, but only a
liturgical-hierarchical, which is simultaneously a canonical unity. The above
artificial separation into “two unities” is only proof of the estranged
ecclesiological awareness, and represents Dionisije’s and his group’s
speculation that somehow establishes his evident departure to an (un)canonical
separation from the communion and fellowship of eucharistic-hierarchical unity with
his brothers, with bishops and the other Orthodox Churches in the Diaspora and
the entire world. With this did Dionisije’s schism truly begin, and that was
his main fault, since he dragged his followers into isolation, that is, into
the impossibility of liturgical concelebration and communing with one another
(the canonical term koinonia refers to full church communion and fellowship in
the Liturgy; Greeks to this refer to communion synonymously with koinonia; and
every other form communion and unity without it is false and not salvific—that
is a schism in the Orthodox Church).
The last part of Article 3 of the
Resolution was completely senseless and unfounded ecclesiologically: connecting
and conditioning unity to the Mother Church with the “political freedom” of the
Serbian Orthodox Church from under communism and “expecting liberation” of
Yugoslavia in order for full unity to be reestablished! This, according to us,
is a direct blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—the Comforter of the Orthodox
Church. For if the Ancient Church had acted in such manner under Roman rule,
who bloodily persecuted and deprived it of freedom for centuries, or our Peć
Patriarchate under five centuries of Ottoman rule, what would remain of the
Church of Christ, to which not even the gates of hades can prevail? Regardless
of all the possible political influences in Dionisije’s case (and there always
were and will be, more or less, while the Church is in this world), the
brethren surrounding him all too easily lost faith in the Church of Christ and
the Serbian Orthodox people, when with such ease they were able to take the
fate of our unity in Christ the God-man in His Church and reduce it to a
dependence with any kind of political situation in the world. For instance,
what will all of those say today that “blindly” hold to those senseless
decisions of the tenth Church-Laity Assembly? At any rate, I am sure that
various sections of brothers can no longer stand by these “conciliar”
uncanonical positions, and I understand their and our mutual complaints and it
is painful that until now we have inflicted them on one another, suing one
another, and taking one another to court—to our “general defeat,” according to
the words of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 6:5-7). (Contributing to the deepening of
the wounds on the entire Church organism were many writers and polemicists
situated about the American split, on both sides, beginning with Djoko
Slijepčević to Živan Stefanović, all of whom I have purposely excluded from
this analysis, even though I have read all of them). As we have already noted,
per the suggestion of the Investigative Commission, a special meeting of the
Assembly of Bishops was convened (July 27, 1963), and despite the opposition of
Bishop Pavle, the Holy Assembly of Bishops generally adopted the suggestions of
the Investigative Commission and Administers from the U.S., such that Bishop
Dionisije was also deprived of the Central Diocese, and appointed in his place
was Archimandrite Firmilian (a man who up until then was a close co-worker and
accomplice of Dionisije in nearly all things, then had to be an opposing
candidate to that same Bishop Dionisije), while Archimandrite Gregory was
elected Bishop of Western America. At the meeting of the Assembly of Bishops,
Bishop Pavle said: “We should treat Bishop Dionisije in the spirit of the regulations
of our Church... The proposed decision of the Legal Committee (at the Assembly
of Bishops: Danilo, Valerian, Vasilije, Visarion, who wanted Bishop Dionisije
to be relieved of his duties immediately) was premature, it would be important
to wait to confirm the canonical faults of Bishop Dionisije, for which the
Synod had put him under adjudication and restriction.” Since he was overruled,
Bishop Pavle, upon the proposal that Firmilian be elected bishop, first
reminded the Assembly of Bishops that the obligation to obey and respect the
canons applies to all Bishops and added: “We punish one man whose adulterous
deeds have not been proven, and we reward (with this election) another man
whose immoral deeds have been proven... The benefit that is now being stressed
with the election of Archimandrite Firmilian is fictitious, and it’s true
consequences are yet to be seen.” (Following the words of this highly moral
hierarch, a question remains for the conscience of the moral “puritans” in
Dionisije’s case: What was achieved and who was the victor? Other highly moral
persons, such as Bishop Nicholai and Fr. Justin, were not insensitive to the
moral questions of the Church, but they were more “churchly” and like
church-builders).
Dionisije’s Church-Laity Assembly
in August of 1963, while not recognizing the May and July decisions of the
Assembly of Bishops and the Synod, and proclaiming “the broadest autonomy,”
still did not sever all ties with the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate, for in
Article 6 of the Proclamation (with reference to the Church-Laity Assemblies
from 1956 and 1960) expressed as a requirement an old church custom: that in
the case of the American-Canadian Diocese having an episcopal vacancy, three
candidates would be chosen from which the Assembly of Bishops in Belgrade would
confirm one as the new bishop. Consequently, the 10th Church-Laity Assembly
provided a 60-day waiting period for reactions and decisions of the Assembly of
Bishops and the Synod, and if the decisions were not positive, as was the case
(the Synod decided on September 3, 1963 that “all decisions of the so-called
Church-Laity Assembly be considered unlawful, unconstitutional, and invalid”),
that the work of the Church-Laity Assembly continue November 12-14, 1963 in the
same form. At that Church-Laity Assembly the American-Canadian Diocese was
proclaimed “completely autonomous” and all the political arguments were
repeated from August’s resolutions, Irinej Kovacevic was selected as vicar
bishop to Bishop Dionisije and later on December 7, 1963 was ordained by two
Ukrainian Orthodox Bishops Genadius and Gregory in Libertyville, with the
participation of Bishop Dionisije (not yet defrocked). The Holy Assembly of
Bishops on March 5, 1964 proclaimed once more this November Church-Laity
Assembly and all its decisions as “unlawful, uncanonical, anti-constitutional
and nullified,” regarding the election and ordination of Bishop Irinej they
said: “that the so-called ‘ordination’ of Archimandrite Irinej Kovacevic as
bishop, which took place on December 12, 1963 in Libertyville by two
self-appointed ‘bishops,’ was null and void. Null and void are all the services
by the those named in that capacity.” Furthermore, “the ruling hierarch was
given the duty of initiating disciplinary proceedings against Archimandrite
Irinej.” This same meeting of the Holy Assembly of Bishops, occurring on March
5, 1964 issued a final decision by which Bishop Dionisije was “punished by
being deprived of the episcopal and monastic rank ... and was returned to the
order of laity.” Previously, as is known, the Synod on September 3, 1963 entrusted
Bishop Vasilije of Žiča to issue a formal complaint against Bishop Dionisije
which was submitted to Bishop Dionisije from the Synod in writing at the
beginning of November 1963, for which he confirmed receipt on December 3, 1963,
and instead of the 30 days given him, he requested six months to reply, once
more asking for all the charges, complaints and naming of his persecutors in a
certified letter. The Synod (based on a one-sided reference to Rule 19 of
Carthage, which we cited earlier in our notes) extended the deadline for
another month, and refused to issue Bishop Dionisije transcripts of the
evidentiary material—“since there is no canonical nor any other legal writings
requiring this” (which is, to say at a minimum, purely arbitrary)—adding that
“against this decision there is no right of appeal.” To this Bishop Dionisije
replied by returning the complaint to the Synod (January 25, 1964), with an
ironic statement (“The circus is over,” April 6, 1964), in which he has
justifiable complaints: “The accused was not only denied the right to defend
himself, he was not even invited or allowed to have defense counsel, or
representation, just as he was not permitted to review the evidentiary
material.” Here he appealed for the “formation of a special court of free
Orthodox bishops, where I could defend myself and prove that I am not guilty,”
but at the same time calling “all of free Serbdom to join ... in the free and
autonomous Church in the free world,” which was a repeated canonical violation,
that would enter as a new burden on the verdict regarding his defrocking, a
decision which was made soon after, of which we spoke.
There are, of course, still many
other events, acts and writings which occurred and appeared in the meantime,
but I do not believe they are relative or important for the different pictures
of the American and Dionisije’s schism. It remains to be said, what is
important and significant, is that the Patriarch sent a letter on September 13,
1963 to the heads of all the Orthodox Churches regarding the changes which had
occurred in our Church in the U.S., and on March 20, 1964 he informed all
Orthodox Patriarchs of Dionisije’s defrocking. It is well known that the answer
from all of the Orthodox Churches was a confirmation, that is, they all
accepted and recognized all of the decisions of the Serbian Orthodox Church,
for, per custom, other Orthodox Churches almost never, at least in modern
times, enter into the internal affairs and decisions of other Autocephalous
Orthodox Churches. Knowing how things typically transpire, and not diminishing
the significance of the canonical acceptance by the other Orthodox Churches of
the Assembly’s decisions, was a clear sign to Bishop Dionisije that he had
become schismatic and was left isolated, outside the Eucharistic communion of
all the other Orthodox Churches, which in fact was his greatest canonical and
ecclesiological transgression (the greatest ecclesiological sin, both a wound
and disruption to Eucharistic communion and fellowship)—we can nonetheless
rightfully assume: that, if the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate would have
changed its decisions and, for instance, rehabilitated the accused brothers,
the other Orthodox Churches would accepted that revision, that is, the new
decision, not questioning the “contradictions” and other associated questions.
It is safe to assume tomorrow all Orthodox Churches will positively accept the
decisions of the Serbian Orthodox Church regarding the overcoming of the
American schism and, for instance, recognizing Bishop Irinej Kovacevic, his
services and clergy. After all, this is a centuries old practice of all
Orthodox Churches, and is very significant and to be respected. It is a
brotherly trust and peace, love and fellowship among sister Orthodox Churches.
Furthermore, it should be added that Bishop Dionisije also wrote letters to the
Ecumenical and Russian Patriarchs, seeking their intervention and protection.
Athenagoras of Constantinople wrote on December 26, 1963 a “complaint and
lawsuit against the Serbian and Macedonian Patriarch German,” in which he cites
his “uncanonical decisions” regarding the American-Canadian Diocese and “for
creating a schism in the ‘Macedonian Church.’ It is noteworthy, or more
appropriately a tragicomedy, that Bishop Dionisije states in his letter that
the three newly elected bishops lack the “moral fortitude” making them
“unworthy” as bishops! For his suspension and replacement he stated: “I haven’t
even been adjudicated but have already been dismissed; the complaints against
me were never provided to me for a lawful response,” and he quotes—for good
reason—Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council: that complaints against a
Bishop may not be accepted without verification and questioning of the
complainant, and that those complaints are to be first discussed at a Diocesan
level, that is, Diocesan Assembly, and if they are not addressed there, then
move to a “Higher Council,” that is, an Assembly of Bishops of a broader
region. [3] Bishop Dionisije is, therefore, referred to—with good
reason—Article 11 of the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, which
stated that a Bishop can be removed by an Assembly of Bishops “only upon a
canonical conviction” (actually, the first part of the Article states that,
while the second part points to Article 104, which Bishop Dionisije does not
mention, but that part is not clear hence why Emilijan of Timok was correct
when he stated that it is not known in the Serbian Orthodox Church how a Bishop
is to be judged). Bishop Dionisije further states that the “people sought a
compromise with the Patriarch,” referring to the Church-Laity Assembly, but,
maintains, Patriarch German “turned a deaf ear to the justifiable complaints
and requests of our people,” failing to mention, however, that those same
people in the American-Canadian Diocese were divided because of
him—Dionisije—divided for and against, by which his positions were
automatically weakened and more difficult to defend.
On March 2, 1966, Bishop
Dionisije wrote to the Russian Patriarch a complaint against Patriarch German
and the Assembly of Bishops, in which he for the most part, reiterated the same
position, asking for the protection and sponsorship of the Russian Patriarch,
to whom he was simultaneously complaining about Patriarch Athenagoras of
Constantinople for his silence. It is interesting to note that Bishop Dionisije
never questioned: whether the Russian Patriarch was more “enslaved” by the
communist government of their homeland? Of course, both Patriarchs responded
negatively such that Bishop Dionisije and his church group remained isolated
for an entire year.
After events such as these and
the already formed Schism of Dionisije—where all the decisions, verdicts,
defrockings and so on, from whatever side it originated the other side didn’t
find it valid, so that Dionisije’s group (parasynagogue)—should be viewed as a
separate church group—comes a long and sad period of endless trials and court
hearings regarding many issues, beginning with those basic decisions of the
Assembly of Bishops and the Synod from May and June 1963, and then later local
suits regarding Churches and Church properties, and the classic “Serbian
dispute (parba)” which to date has not stopped or been completed. It’s
interesting to note the dual natured self-justifications: both sides sought to
stop the court processes and yet—both continued them! The disaster—for both
sides of the Serbian church—a history of passive-aggressiveness in the secular
courts (forbidden by the Holy Canons), where the Bishops and the Synod were
involved, brought significant harm to both sides, both moral and material. From
the documents preserved we see the well-known stubbornness and bickering of the
Serbs, the hatred between brothers smearing one another, with the usual
“washing of one’s hands” and shifting of blame exclusively to the “other side.”
No one was willing to listen to the brotherly advice of one Orthodox Bishop
from the Antiochian jurisdiction (that itself endured many court battles in the
U.S.): that all should know that no one has ever left a court “cleaner” than
when they had entered it. Particularly sad was the history of the mutual
relations, arguments among friends and even family members, slanders and the
labeling (“schismatics-federalists,” “traitors-communist servants,” etc.)
In all of these legal actions,
one thing became readily apparent: conflict and incompatible canonical and
legal elements existed in the Church conflict among the Serbs. The American
courts brought to light that the organs of the Serbian Orthodox Church, who in
their decisions referred to the canonical rules and the legal-court regulations
held valid in the “positive law” of the Serbian Orthodox Church, were right
only in some matters, while in many other matters they were not. Namely, the
American courts maintained the right of the Serbian Orthodox Church to judge
and overthrow their Bishops, and they did not consider it further, but they rightfully
concluded that the adjudicative process of Bishop Dionisije by the Serbian
Orthodox Church organs did not adhere to their own rules and regulations! In
the case of the decision to divide the American-Canadian Diocese into three
dioceses and other related questions, the American courts found that the
actions were “unlawful,” because “the valid Constitution” of the
American-Canadian Diocese “was violated,” since the Church-Laity Assembly was
not consulted. The three Dioceses and the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate found
themselves before the courts in a difficult, almost hopeless situation, such
that in a letter by Bishop Firmilian dated February 17, 1967, the Synod sent to
all Bishops the following motion for consideration (№ 634 and 723, dated March
10, 1967): that the decisions of the Assembly of Bishops and the Synod from
1963 “be adjusted to the judgments of the Illinois Appellate Courts” which
means “to return to the state of things previously—one Diocese for America and
Canada with one Bishop.” The Bishops accepted the motion (Bishop Hrizostom’s
reply is characteristic: “We have nothing against recognizing our mistake
and—if it is now possible—to correcting it”), such that the Synod withdrew the
decisions regarding the division of the American-Canadian Diocese into three
dioceses. The Synod’s explanation was interesting: “withdrawing this decision
has been somewhat unpopular for the Synod of Bishops, for a mistake is admitted,
but it’s better to admit a mistake and correct it, and then reach the same goal
in due time by proper means, that is, to once again establish three dioceses
when and if the Church-Laity Assembly of the American-Canadian Diocese makes
such a motion, which in this case should have occurred from the beginning. It
is true, by this the Assembly of Bishops was admitting a mistake, but a mistake
of the administrative board, not a dogmatic nor canonical mistake, where the
Assembly of Bishops cannot make a mistake.”
Consequently, on this occasion
the Synod, made the decision to proclaim Firmilian Ocokoljic as Bishop
Dionisije’s “legal” replacement and successor, who was previously appointed
administrator in place of Bishop Dionisije in May of 1963, and was considered
authoritative by the American courts. This, despite being unnecessary,
confirmed the hastiness of the decision brought in May, 1963. The same outcome
could have been achieved gradually, canonically and with pastoral wisdom or
through economia. In any case, this precedent from 1967 serves as an example
even today for attaining Church economia as opposed to just the problems of
resolving the schism.
Tensions arose during the endless
processes of considering the position of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate
towards the schism, and so the Synod made a rigorous decision on February 4,
1969, which did not appear pastoral and had a negative effect. There was
discussion about excommunicating everyone from the Church who was in schism:
“The leaders of the devious schism in the U.S. and Canada... evidently are
deceiving their followers and other people, claiming that they are still
members of the Serbian Orthodox Church,” continuing to speak of “their
so-called services” and “so-called sacraments,” and in the end the Synod
directs the three Hierarchs in the U.S.: “that, if they deem necessary, they
may inform every individual who left the Serbian Orthodox Church, following
former clergy, that they are no longer members of the Serbian Orthodox Church,
that by their own free will they have excluded themselves from the community of
the Serbian Orthodox Church and Holy Orthodoxy... As such, they cannot partake
in the Holy Mysteries, they cannot be buried in an Orthodox manner, nor may
they be they buried in the cemeteries of the faithful children of the Serbian
Orthodox Church.” This decision, which could formally have had a pedagogical
character (even though Dionisije’s group was radically over-characterized as a
schismatic and cult-like group, and we see that St. Basil differentiated schism
and parasynagogue, even though St. Basil’s division was not strictly upheld by
tradition, so that all groups, besides the heretical, were mainly referred to
as schismatic), evidently did not bring about the desired results in the
American situation and the Diaspora in general, and made the situation worse by
agitating the people. The Clergy Brotherhood of the American-Canadian Diocese
reacted to the decision (July 7, 1969 in Libertyville), stating: “there is no
recollection of any Orthodox Church in the world being in the same situation,
ever carrying out a final excommunication of all of its members in such form
and with such rationale, that would be similar to the one here signed by
Patriarch German.” In the announcement, it was also stated “that the steps
taken by the Patriarchate in its two schisms”—in the U.S. and Macedonia—differ,
which must be questioned—“as if the relative Church laws were not the same in
each case.”
However, as time passed many
Orthodox Serbs in the Diaspora, clergy and Bishops, attempted, gradually and
carefully, to repair the relations of the two sides of the Serbian Church.
Thus, Bishops Sava, Firmilian and Gregory, in a letter dated July 31, 1976,
attempted a recommendation to the Synod to “apply church economia wherever
possible for the purpose of establishing Church order and canonical validity of
certain Church related acts” (e.g. Holy Mysteries), that the ordinations
conducted by Bishop Dionisije, under ban and before his defrocking, be
recognized; recognition of the sacraments given by clergy ordained prior to but
now in schism, and not to recognize the ordinations conducted by Bishop
Dionisije after being defrocked and from his vicar Bishop Irinej, none of his
sacraments “with the exception of baptism and the validity of marriage,” and to
also call upon “all the clergy not defrocked” and “all of the laity” that they
return to the Church from schism. It should be noted that the Synod lacked sufficient
pastoral sensitivity even for these minimal suggestions of the three Bishops
from the U.S., such that the suggestions essentially failed. Only nine years
later, with the decision of May 16, 1985, the Synod showed more, but not
significantly more, leniency: “to provide leniency to the greatest extent
possible, and allow members of the separated brothers to be kumovi at our
baptisms and weddings, if the Holy Mysteries are carried out in our Churches;
and to allow clergy not defrocked from their side to enter our cemeteries and
conduct services.”
This decision of the Synod, even
though far from being “lenient to the greatest extent,” was as a small fruition
of the many efforts and appeals from the past from all sides that the American
schism finally could be overcome and resolved. We will briefly mention a few of
the more important appeals and motions, and this is only a tenth of them, from
both sides, and they are not all connected to this subject in the archives.
First and foremost, I would like to mention the letter of Svetko Radlović to
the Patriarch (June 16, 1963), who, because of the exacerbated situation and
out of a fear of division and chaos, recommended that the Synod send Bishop
Varnava Nastic, who could calm the people!” (Varnava had publicly expressed
himself thereafter in Dionisije’s favor, such that the Synod sent bishops to
him on two occasions to “investigate,” and he refused to deny his
statement—Synod № 337/554, November 1, 1963). Then, two suggestions for
reconciliation should be mentioned that were received at the end of 1963: from
engineer Vlasta Djordjević and Boža Marković, both of Toronto, and there were
probably others. The first of the more significant appeals to the Assembly of
Bishops to find a resolution for the schism among Serbs was sent by Fr. Justin
Popovic, at Easter, 1975. The appeal was negatively received by the
Patriarchate, almost as if “in support of the schism,” while the followers of
Dionisije welcomed it as if it “granted them the right [for schism].” Some
found fault in Fr. Justin’s text “because he did not provide specific
suggestions” to resolve the problem, despite Fr. Justin pointing to the path of
Church economia in a clear and concise manner: “that a more humane resolution
be found” (in accordance with the phrase in Canon 5 of the First Ecumenical
Council). In the fall of 1975, appears the “Hilandar Message to Serbdom in the
Diaspora” which Abbot Nikanor personally handed to the Patriarch (October 3,
1975—on the occasion of the 800th anniversary of the birth of St. Sava). The
same year the Diocesan Council of the American-Canadian Diocese recommended
that the Patriarchate recognize the “Free Diocese” as the fourth in the U.S.
The suggestion went mostly unnoticed, but it was also a departure from the
positions of the Dionisije party to that point, that is, from the decision of
the 10th Church-Laity Assembly in 1963, which in and of itself was a positive
shift.
The same year (1975), a very
significant event took place, which in and of itself set a very important and
canonical precedent, and for our attempts in overcoming the schism, a true
Church model emerged. Namely, on August 22, 1975, Patriarch Nikolaj VI of
Alexandria, following the mediation attempts of Metropolitan Methodius of Aksum
(who actually studied the canonicity of the Ukrainian Church), accepted and
recognized Bishop Irinej Kovacevic and his clergy and people. In his Gramata,
the Patriarch of Alexandria writes to Irinej: Learning of the problems of the
“faithful people of our sister Serbian Orthodox Church in America and Canada”
and “reviewing the documents with great care” the Patriarch of Alexandria
decided: “with pleasure we proclaim Your consecration to the rank of Bishop as
lawful and canonical in accordance with the existing circumstances in America
and Canada” and since “this Apostolic Patriarchate of St. Mark, follows a long
tradition of receiving similar requests from Orthodox Churches and replies in
the same manner with maternal love and concern, we recognize You (meaning
Bishop Irinej) as a canonical bishop of the Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church.”
Then the Alexandrian Patriarch also on September 24, 1975 (Protocol № 287), in
response to a letter of gratitude from Bishop Irinej, also wrote the following:
“With this letter to You, our dear brother Bishop Irinej, we wish to inform you
and reassure all of your clergy and faithful that your Episcopal position
includes and spiritually protects all of them... Our desire is that all
Orthodox brothers understand that our responsibility as an Orthodox
Patriarchate, our Christian love and compassion have caused us to decide, that
in recognizing you we recognize the rightfulness (validity) of the Holy
Mysteries performed by you which are necessary and of great importance for the
survival of the thousands of suffering Serbian Orthodox people, especially the
innocent children, scattered throughout the free world.” (I have a copy of the
original in English with Patriarch Nikolai’s signature and seal.)
The cited, truly apostolic and
Church-pastoral text of the decision of the Alexandrian Patriarch, as the
Patriarch himself reminds us, is only one of many similar and pastoral gestures
made before by this Apostolic cathedra, which it has done throughout the
centuries outside the Patriarchate of Constantinople (thus it had the title
“Judge of the universe,” for it interceded even in Byzantium). However, three
years later (September 21, 1978), the same Patriarch, with pressure from the
Serbian Orthodox Church to the Patriarchate of Constantinople (and they through
the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for which I was informed by the source),
withdrew his pastoral sponsorship, and in a letter to Bishop Irinej Kovacevic
states: that he regrets that “in the future I cannot recognize Your Grace any
longer as a canonical bishop, since I have received much pressure from others
from both governments and the Church” and that would continue to invite upon
him and others “many bad things.” “We ask that Your Grace continue to try
various ways to protect Your canonical position and Church which is under Your
presidency and administration” (I have a copy of the original in English). Even
though the Alexandrian Patriarch withdrew his canonical sponsorship of Bishop
Irinej and his flock, the recognition was an important Church-canonical
precedent, especially since it was done out of apostolic concern, love and
compassion—and for the survival and salvation of many souls “of the suffering
Serbian Orthodox people and particularly the innocent children.” We should also
recall that the Gramata of the Patriarch of Alexandria was ostensibly applying
economia to an irregular situation in the Diaspora: proclaiming the
enthronement of Irinej as Bishop “as lawful and canonical according to the
existing circumstances in America and Canada.”
At the May, 1983 meeting of the
Assembly of Bishops in Belgrade, Bishop Jovan of Sabac-Valjevo (of blessed
memory) presented his famous Submission about the schism in America, in which
he stated: “Not even for a moment should we ever accept the schism as foregone
conclusion, and give up on the schismatics. Unfortunately, we get the
impression that the Serbian Orthodox Church is indifferent towards the schism
and is not undertaking any efforts to overcome the schism... The Serbian
division and split needs to be eliminated... The current strife should not be
seen as a foregone conclusion for now and forever. No decision should be
accepted here as final, since everything can still be repaired... If we are the
Church of St. Sava, then we need to be a Church of peace, a Church of
reconciliation.” That same year (1983), Bishop Vasilije of Australia sent an
Appeal to the Synod together with his clergy (October 1, 1983) for
reconciliation and a resolution to the schism. Finally, Bishop Lavrentije of
Western Europe writes on December 21, 1983: “The chasm between us (in the
Diaspora) grows deeper and deeper. This is the last chance for more concrete
measures to be undertaken with the goal of reconciliation. Otherwise, we will
have Protestantism.” He suggested that “a good review be completed of whether
any canonical possibilities exist for Irinej Kovacevic to be consecrated again
and that he be assigned a diocese in the Diaspora. Insofar as there is, perhaps
it would be good to organize a meeting between him and representatives of the
Mother Church.” In the end, he adds: “We know how much our brother Hierarchs in
the U.S. have lived through insults and humiliation by brothers led astray,
that they may reluctantly agree to this suggestion. We need to implore them,
for the greater good of the Church, they endure and forgive all.”
In response to the appeals of the
Hierarchs, the Synod, upon the suggestion of the Patriarch, requested on March
27, 1984 that Bishop Lavrentije: “travel, as soon as possible, to Libertyville
and as a representative of the Synod conduct a comprehensive investigation and
determine if there is any possibility of reconciling with our separated
brothers over there.” On April 16, 1984, Bishop Lavrentije met with Bishop
Irinej Kovacevic at the Gračanica Monastery and St. Sava Monastery in
Libertyville, accompanied by 4 priests from each side, and had a discussion,
issuing a joint communiqué in which they welcomed the initiative of the Synod
and recommended that a meeting between representatives of the Synod and the
American-Canadian Diocese be held “to find the best way to normalize our Church
life in the Diaspora.” Bishop Lavrentije submitted to the Synod, on April 20,
1984, a report of the meeting and suggested: that an appeal be sent to all
priests and faithful in the U.S., “that the insults cease and that all begin to
rebuild the trust and mutual love that was lost between our faithful and
separated brothers,” that the decision banning kumovi be withdrawn, that court
trials cease “and that a multi-day meeting of representatives be scheduled as
soon as possible” by both sides and that the “people have patience, goodwill
and (we should) transcend as much as possible for the sake of achieving unity
in the Church of Christ and St. Sava.” As I already noted, at Lavrentije’s
meeting, the Assembly of Bishops replied to the report and suggestions with
that all too bland of a decision (May 16, 1985) of kumovi and cemeteries, but
the Assembly of Bishops also decided this: “To ask Their Graces the Hierarchs
abroad... that actions towards reconciliation with our separated brothers be
done more through contact with the people and the representatives of their
church-school congregations. Show all the more good will, Christian love and
economia.”
Appeals and suggestions for a
reconciliation become more frequent: February 14, 1986, Živorad Marinković from
Australia; April 24, 1986, Association of Canadian Serbs and the Serbian
Democratic Federation; May 22, 1986, Bishop Amfilohije of Banat; on St. Sava
Day of 1987; 40 intellectuals from Belgrade sent an appeal which was ignored
and not well received; and several appeals submitted to the Assembly of Bishops
in the year of Kosovo, 1989. We should also note the discussions Bishop Sava
and Christopher had with two attorneys of the American-Canadian Diocesan
Council, which Bishop Sava informed the Synod of (May 12, 1987), attaching the
letter from the attorneys, in which they conveyed their views on a
reconciliation. I mention also the well-known Appeal of the Assembly of Bishops
set forth in the communiqué of 1989, the year of Kosovo.
In the end, we should also
mention, that from the start of the schism of Dionisije, the American-Canadian
Diocese elected and consecrated along with Bishop Irinej, who took over the
American-Canadian Diocese from Bishop Dionisije (who passed away May 15, 1979),
three other Bishops: Dimitrije and Petar (both deceased) and Vasilije Vejnović
(consecrated on November 25, 1978 in New York) who was appointed Bishop of
Western Europe even though he remained in New York. The three Bishops: Irinej
as the American-Canadian Bishop, Petar as Bishop of Australia, and Vasilije as
Bishop of Western America, forming on August 28, 1983 the “Synod of the Serbian
Orthodox Free Dioceses,” and on August 10, 1984 at the Assembly during the
consecration of Gračanica they re-named the American-Canadian Diocese a
Metropolitanate and Irinej was named Metropolitan! I note also that there were
many different decisions, statements and texts, issued after the split in 1963,
which I did not cite here in more depth, because there were so many of them and
they were not critical to a historical-canonical review and analysis of the
American schism. The fact is that even with them, in recent times, there is a
greater propensity towards reconciliation, but there is, and were, other harsh
and irreconcilable statements. However, this can be understood, for every split
and schism occurring in the extreme has an almost unavoidable fate. With
Christian love and church-pastoral economia for the salvation of our brothers
and children from the same Church, everything possible should be done to save them.
This motivation, per the ecclesiological-canonical tradition, has always
existed within the Conciliar Mother Church.
SUGGESTIONS FOR
OVERCOMING THE SCHISM
Introduction to
Church Economia
The Greek word IKONOMIA (the
Slavic: dispensation, literally: arrangement/arranging and administering the
home) in church use and meaning comes from the Apostle Paul and is widely
represented and received by the Holy Fathers, especially in the ecclesiologic-canonical
texts. With the Apostle Paul it signifies God’s “dispensation of grace” or the
“economia of the Mysteries” (Eph. 3:2-9; Col. 1:25), that is, Christ’s
“economia” (dispensation) of salvation through Incarnation. That is how the
economia of the God-man is the foundation of and the very being of the Church
of Christ. For the Church is created, it exists and lives in the economia of
the Incarnation, Suffering and Resurrection of Christ the Savior. Christ’s
divine Incarnation, His kenotic Crucifixion and pan-philanthropic Resurrection
“for us men and for our salvation,” is the essence of the Church and all Church
economia. St. Basil writes of this in his Letter to the Christians in Tiyana,
reminding them that we are “like the members of a body, more necessary to one
another than a hand is to another hand”: “And the very dispensation the Lord
took upon Himself to reconcile with His Blood those on earth and those in
heaven” (Letter 97).
Therefore, Church economia
(salvific leniency), which the Apostles use and their successors the Bishops as
“stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1) in the Church, or according to
the words of Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council: “economists (administers)
of the Churches,” is above all support and practice of Christ’s Divine economia
of leniency and salvation of us sinners. Economia in Orthodoxy is not the same
as in the Roman Catholic Dispensatio (who’s narrow legal meaning entered our
lexicon of “positive church law” thereby narrowing the entire broad and rich
manner of the economia of the God-man, by which people are saved in the
Church). According to St. Cyril of Alexandria: economia is a temporary
deviation from exactitude “for greater accomplishment and achievement.” “Just
as sailors,” says St. Cyril in Letter 46, “when a storm appears and the ship is
in danger, in distress they throw things from the ship in order to save the
rest (meaning the people on the ship), it is the same with Church matters, when
we cannot preserve exactness, we pass over it, so that we would not suffer
damage in everything (the entirety).”
It should be said that neither
the concept nor the extent of economia in the Orthodox Church is precisely
understood, particularly because it is evangelical grace and power, “binding
and loosening” on earth and in heaven, and because it is freedom and love in
Christ, that is, leniency and salvific philanthropy, and same as the content
and extent of the Great Economia of Christ’s salvation of the world and
mankind. Economia is not a deviation from the spirit of the Holy Canons, but
from the mere letters of the same; it is a different application or
non-application of the church rules, but with the same goal—the salvation of
man. The basic rule of the blessed Church Economia was expressed by St. Mark of
Ephesus who said: “Economia should be applied there where lawlessness will not
be committed,” or before him St. Evlogije of Alexandria (5th century): “The
true meaning of the application of economia (in the plural), is when Orthodox
dogma is in no way harmed.” We will cite the most beautiful example of Divine
economia, given by St. Maximos the Confessor addressing the question: “How can
we piously understand God’s “regretting” (to which Holy Scripture speaks: Gen.
6:6; Joel 2:14; Jonah 4:2-3), Maximos says: “God as Creator and Providence of
all, naturally thinking about mankind, has many salvific methods for that
nature which he reflects upon. Since man is an ever changing being, who easily
changes in response to things and time, it is then necessary that God’s
Providence, even though it is always one and the same, to change according to
our moods, (always) finding a way of applying suitable medicine to those evil
states which appear in our nature. And, just as in medicine there exists many
diseases which must be dealt with, it is necessary for the physician to be
knowledgeable, since the respective (human) body falls prey to many and various
diseases, the physician must apply better methods (of healing) than worse ones,
and it is usually said about God in Holy Scripture that God’s “repenting” is
then when His Providence passes from one method to another (reflecting)” (PG
90,812-813). To these words of God’s and the Saint’s pan-philanthropy we need
not comment on.
Now we will briefly illustrate
examples of economia through the history of the Orthodox Church.
As previously mentioned in Canon
1, St. Basil discusses accepting back into the Church those from parasynagogue,
he further states that in applying economia (leniency) “we should follow the
customs of each region,” for in different regions different relationships
existed among the separated and schismatic. He provides the example of the
schismatics at Carthage and the case of accepting their baptism: “Since some
were in Asia, and for the sake of economia to the many (a large number of their
faithful), it was resolved that they of prior baptism be accepted, let it be
accepted and recognized.” Further, he similarly says for the greater
schismatics the Enkratites: that they and their baptism should not be
recognized, instead baptize them anew, but in the end he adds: “If this will be
an obstacle to the general economia, then let the custom be applied and follow
the Fathers who, with us, economized (resolved through leniency). For I am
afraid, if we act in such manner (more strictly) that they will hesitate to be
baptized (by us), and we will with the strictness of such a demand obstruct
those who wish to be saved.” In the end, St. Basil advises that their bishops
also be accepted according to their ranks (Canon 1, taken from Epistle 188).
Here are a few concrete examples
of the application of church economia. The Council of Nicea in 325, resolved
the well-known Meletian schism and received the schismatic Bishop Meletius of
Lycopolis (without being consecrated again) and all his consecrations, that is,
bishops and priests who were consecrated by him, with the stipulation that his
bishops had to wait for the (canonical) bishop to pass away and if the people
still wanted the Meletians, let them then be diocesan bishops (Canon 8 and
Epistle 1 of the Ecumenical Council). The Bishops of the Council of Sardica and
Philoppopolis in 343, defrocked 10 leading bishops one after the other, but
this decision was very quickly passed over and the mutual decisions were
ignored. St. Photius writes (Letters, London 1864, pg. 562) that St. Proterius
of Alexandria (452-547) defrocked priest Peter Mongos, and Timothy of
Alexandria, who was later elected as bishop (without being ordained again to
the priesthood) and later Peter became Patriarch of Alexandria. Also, he cites
the example that Acacius of Constantinople (481-489) who was defrocked by the
Council of Rome and even anathematized, and when he passed away, those that
were consecrated by him were received and served with the Romans. Patriarchs
Philotei of Alexandria, Dorotheus of Antioch and Joachim of Jerusalem, at the
Jerusalem Council in 1443, condemned and banned from priestly services and
church rites all bishops who signed the “final decree of union” at the
Florentine Council in 1449 and expelled them “until their Orthodoxy was
investigated;” “and if they are disobedient in this decision regarding the ban
of their priestly service, that they be expelled and ousted (defrocked). Later,
when the Council of Constantinople was held in 1450, they were all forgiven and
the issue was not even raised regarding the consecrations which they performed
during the 7 years for which they were under ban (P. Trembelas, Dogmatics, Book
3, pp. 51-52).
Many suitable examples that can
be applied to our American case are provided by canons from the Council of
Carthage, who broadly applied economia on the Donatists (schismatics in Africa
and Italy that were greater in number and tenure). Canon 75 (Milas: 66) states:
“Since we considered and understood everything that occurred was to the benefit
of the Church, with incentive and inspiration from the Holy Spirit, we chose to
mildly, meekly and peacefully deal with the aforementioned individuals (the
Donatists)...Perhaps, as the Apostle says, when we with meekness gather those
who think differently, God will grant them repentance for realizing the truth,
and to free the devil’s snare those who were entrapped by his will.” Canon 77
(68) discusses how the council from across the sea, in Italy (Rome), refused to
recognize the consecration of the Donatists, but the Fathers in Africa decided
to recognize and accept them: “It was decided...for the sake of peace and
benefit of the Church, and for the Donatist clergy, if they correct their
understanding and wish to enter into conciliar unity, according to the will and
freedom of every individual conciliar bishop who in the respective region
administers the Church, and should this contribute to peace among Christians,
that they be accepted in the same rank. It is known that even in the past, such
action was applied to schisms as was witnessed in nearly all the Churches in
Africa, where the fallacy appeared.
This, however, the decision to
accept the Donatist clergy in their ordained rank was not intended to harm the
council held across the sea in Italy...but to assist those who wanted to join
the Conciliar Church, such that no obstacles were placed before their hastened
reunification with the Church. For those who worked and helped in their own
manner, in the places where they lived, towards a conciliar unity, for the
obvious benefit of the souls of the brethren, the decision regarding their
ranks was not to be an obstacle in Italy, where their ranks were renounced, for
salvation is not to be kept from anyone. That is: that the ordained on the
Donatist side, if they made corrections themselves and wanted to enter into the
conciliar faith, they should not act according to the decisions of the council
across the sea that did not receive them in their rank, but on the contrary,
receive them because they contribute to the caring for conciliar unity of the
Church).” (A canon was brought forward at the Council of Carthage in 401 and
while no comment is necessary, it applies to our American schism completely).
A few of the Canons of Carthage
discuss quite adequately the conversations and negotiations with the Donatists
that led to the settlement and reunification. Canon 69 (78): “It was decided
that representatives be sent by the Donatists—to propose peace and unity,
without which it was not possible to establish salvation for them—whether it be
to their Bishops or lay people, so that by way of those representatives all
would know that they had nothing reasonable to say against the Conciliar
Church.” Then, Canon 91 (99) suggested to all local Churches that they
negotiate amongst themselves within their territory: “All the bishops with
assurances proposed: that every one of them, in their own city endeavor to have
relations (encounter) with leaders of the Donatists, or to take a neighbor with
them, and hold meetings in each city and place.” Also, Canons 92 and 93 (in
Greek it is a single canon, Canon 100) provide an excellent template for
negotiations with the Donatists: “The Epistle that will be sent from the Bishops
through the Donatists’ representatives: ‘Send with the full authority of our
catholic council, we form an agreement with you and wish to rejoice in your
address. For we know the love of the Lord, Who said, “Blessed are the
peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God” (Matt. 5:9), and He
told us through the prophet, that those who do not want to be called our
brothers, to say to them: “You are our brothers” (Is. 66:5). Therefore, do not
underestimate our warning which comes out of our love and desire for peace with
you, and if you believe we are being truthful, you need not avoid saying so.
That is: summon your council and elect among yourselves those you will trust to
prove your righteousness, and we shall do the same, that is, we will elect from
our council those who will peacefully understand every contentious issue that
separates us from communion (fellowship) with your elected ones in the selected
place and time, that in such manner the old fallacy, with the help of the Lord
God, end once and for all for the weak souls and unlearned people, that were
seduced away, and not collapse in a split contrary to God. For if you accept
this in a brotherly manner, the truth will easily shine through. If, however,
choose not to do this, your lack of faith will be recognized.’ All of the
bishops accepted this proposal as being appropriate.”
Finally, in Canon 129 (118) of
the Council of Carthage instruction was given on how Bishops, Orthodox and
Donatist, after reunification, more specifically: in the very process of
reunification, share the Church’s regions (for these two Church organizations
spread into one another’s areas, like our two in the Diaspora): “If there are
bishops from the Donatists who paid attention to the unity of the council, they
are to evenly divide among themselves the area in which there are people from
one side and the other (that is, the Orthodox and Donatists). That is: one area
will be under the authority of one, and the other will be under another, so
that the older Bishops (in the episcopacy) share, and the younger choose. If
there is only one place (set apart from others), let it belong to the closest,
and if it is the same distance from both, let it belong to the one whom the
people chose (that is, who the people want). If it happens that those who were
always catholic (meaning Orthodox, conciliar) wish to have their own bishop
(that is, to keep the previous one), and they also converted from the
Donatists, then let the voice of the majority (of the people) prevail over the
minority; if the sides are equal, let the older bishop remain.”
Following these patristic
citations of the salvific, peacemaking and church-building economia, as well as
the cited examples, especially from the Holy Canons of the Council of Carthage,
it only remains to draw conclusions, that is, specific proposals that could be
applied to our schism in the Diaspora.
Specific Proposals
It is appropriate for the
Apostolic Father Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church to look to St. Basil
the Great, the Bishop canonist and Pastor-economist, and follow his words: “At
this time there is a great need to care and concern oneself with doing good
things for the Church. To do something good for the Church—today—means uniting
that which is presently separated. And unification can only occur if we are
lenient to the weak in that which does not harm the soul... This is why I think
it is necessary, that the real and true servants of the Lord show great concern
for a return to the unity of the Church of those who in various ways have
between themselves separated. For nothing is that characteristic of
Christianity as making peace” (Letters 113 and 114).
After everything that has been
presented, recall a certain truth: great wounds require a great remedy. I
recommend a very short and clear, without great explanation, church-economia
and ecclesiological-canonical solution for overcoming the American schism as
follows:
1. The Serbian Orthodox Church,
as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God, has the grace-filled and
canonical capacity to overcome the current inertia and lack of perspective in
the American case of the Church schism among brothers of one faith and one
blood. Thus, the liturgical unity and fellowship must be reestablished as soon
as possible with our separated brothers in the Diaspora, applying the fully
conscious and conscientious philanthropy of Church economia.
Not only from the perspective of
the Alexandrian Patriarchate from 1975, but taking it as a serious canonical
precedent it should and can be accepted and recognized as valid the
consecration of Irinej Kovacevic as Bishop. He was consecrated by two Ukrainian
Orthodox Bishops, Genadius and Gregory, with the participation of the only
suspended and not yet defrocked Bishop Dionisije (referring to a recently
published booklet with documentation, which was verified and the same stands as
is written in the booklet). Those Ukrainian Bishops were consecrated in 1942 in
the Polish Orthodox Church, under war conditions, when the Ukraine was under
German occupation and was attached to the Polish Church, but all of those
consecrations were later recognized by many Orthodox Churches, even though
there exists a somewhat different relationship with the Ukrainian fractions in
their hierarchy in the Diaspora between the Church in Russia and the Church in
Constantinople. The Church of Constantinople recognizes them (of which Metropolitan
Maximos of Sardeon writes extensively in the Thessalonikian magazine
“Kleronomia,” January 1973, pp. 199-246), and it had already recognized them in
1949 and the Alexandrian Patriarchate (of which Archimandrite, later
Metropolitan, Methodios Fujas—the one who brokered the 1975 recognition of
Bishop Irinej Kovacevic by Patriarch Nikolaj VI of Alexandria—in the
Alexandrian magazine “PANTENOS” during the entire year of 1955, pp. 211-353
with interruptions, and recently it was republished in two volumes of his
“Teologike ke Istorike Melete,” Athens, 1983, pp. 169-231, with documentation
attached). These two Ukrainian Bishops were not self-conscious (which was a
different case with Jovan Teodorović, who was consecrated again in 1949 by
Archbishop Mstislav, the current hierarch of the Ukrainian Church in the US and
Canada). One of the Bishops, Gregory, was once under a ban by Ukrainian Church
authorities, beginning in 1947 because he had declared himself “independent,”
but at the Ukrainian Assembly in Paris on August 7, 1955, he was absolved of
his penance and accepted into the “prayerful and Eucharistic unity,” as were
his people and clergy. The Patriarchate of Alexandria knew of this all too
well, and for that reason recognized the episcopal consecration of Irinej
Kovačević (from 1975-78). There is no doubt that a complex problem exists as to
the Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdiction in the Diaspora, but for this recognition
and acceptance by economia of Irinej’s episcopacy, without being consecrated
again, it is not relevant. Posing the question of the necessity of a new
consecration of Bishop Irinej, I’m afraid, would only bring “bad blood” and
stall our reconciliation.
It can be recommended through
discussions with Bishop Irinej that he resign, since his rank is recognized and
with it he can serve Liturgies, but with that he need not establish conditions
precedent for reconciliation and establishing ecclesiastical fellowship.
Inasmuch as he was willing to withdraw himself, perhaps the proposal could be:
that Bishop Firmilian withdraws himself, being ill, so that in place of both of
them a Bishop could be appointed for the Midwestern American Diocese (perhaps
later it could be elevated to the level of a Metropolitanate with a vicar
bishop in Gračanica?), which would be acceptable to both sides. In that case
the remaining parts (parishes) of the former American-Canadian Diocese in the
East, West and in Canada would attach themselves to the Dioceses of the Serbian
Orthodox Patriarchate.
Inasmuch as this agreement could
not be reached, or that it would once again prolong reconciliation, then Bishop
Irinej (ignoring his self-proclaimed title of “metropolitan”) needs to be
directly recognized and received with the entire current American-Canadian
Diocese, which would temporarily remain a parallel (that is, overlapping) with
the four Dioceses of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate. But, there should be a
commitment and condition acknowledged by a signed mutual agreement, that this
state of parallel overlapping dioceses remain only as a temporary solution
stemming from economia, which needs to be overcome as soon as possible, perhaps
even at the next meeting of the Assembly of Bishops (in which Bishop Irinej
would take part), and at the latest following the death of Bishop Irinej. (It
is guaranteed that the Bishops in the Diaspora will be nominated from there,
those that are acceptable to them, and elected and consecrated by the Assembly
of Bishops). This allowing of the parallel existence of the American-Canadian
Diocese with the remaining four Dioceses fits in the general
missionary-economia state of the Orthodox Diaspora, where there is already an
overlap, in the same geographical regions, of many Orthodox jurisdictions,
dioceses, and parishes. However, the Serbian Orthodox Church should at least
help to address this irregular state of the co-existence and overlapping of
their Churches, to overcome as soon as possible so that full reunification can
be realized. Maybe the full unification could be achieved more readily if it
came, and it needs to, with a new reorganization of our Diaspora, of which I noted
in the introduction, that is, a new reorganization of the Dioceses and
parishes, and creating one autonomous Metropolitanate with more Dioceses (such
as, the Church in Crete), since our Church’s Diaspora in the US and Canada
already has a special status and Constitution (which should then be thoroughly,
brought to conformance with the canons, but without undoing the
“self-governance” and so on).
Bishop Irinej would either retain
his so-called parishes in Australia and Europe, again temporarily, or he would
allow them to join of their own volition to the Dioceses of the Serbian
Orthodox Patriarchate in those regions. Regarding Bishop Vasilije Vejnović, who
is essentially the Bishop of Western Europe only by title, it would be best for
him and them to recognize his episcopal title and then have him retire, for he
isn’t even popular among his own people (and there is no discussion that he
would be accepted, for instance, as Irinej’s successor!).
Full autonomy with respect to
property should be guaranteed regarding the assets of American-Canadian Diocese
and its parishes, since as far as I know this is one of the main fears among
many that the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate will confiscate it from them. I
think, however, that when that which is most crucial is realized:
reconciliation and establishing full liturgical communion, for this is the
source of Christian life, love and salvation, that then full brotherly trust
will be realized, and likely the consolidation of parishes will occur quicker
and more spontaneously. No “recruitment” of any kind, insincere and behind the
back of anyone, should be permitted: anything that would create suspicion,
doubt and undermine the achievement of Eucharistic unity and fellowship.
2. With the recognition of the
episcopacy of Irinej and Vasilije, and according to the same application of
economia, all the clergy and clergy rites should be recognized in the
American-Canadian Diocese. If true reconciliation is to be achieved, there
should not be any question of defrocking, conviction, etc. of priests brought
up now, nor who was ordained, before or after, and by whom. Because this would,
from the start, cause more problems than there are now and effectively derail
the reconciliation. Nor should the question of priests ordained by Bishop
Dionisije after he was defrocked be raised, since the schism was already
formed, and they are now being accepted in communion as a whole. The Orthodox
Church has always functioned as such when there was an issue of overcoming a
schism. Those priests, who were either in the country or the Diaspora, judged
and sentenced and deprived of their priestly rank, for real misdeeds, every
bishop should make it their duty to address those matters within their
respective dioceses, so that any scandal among the faithful might be resolved.
However, many of those cases of priests who were defrocked by declarations of
bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate, or because of their
“disobedience” or “abandoning their service,” or “going into schism”—should all
be ignored or set aside with one general decision, pardoning them and leaving
them as priests, recognizing all of their priestly rites without any dispute.
Parishes can remain as they were,
or they can be reorganized if the people so desire. The people and clergy
should be allowed to attend services and take communion in every parish and to
concelebrate and commune without any special conditions apart from the regular
order that exists generally in Orthodoxy. Clergy should be permitted to
transfer from one diocese to another, in accordance with the usual agreement of
bishops, but without “recruitment” or anything else that would undermine trust,
love and communion. Both sides can also bind themselves so that not only will
they not do such things, but neither tolerate them among themselves. The
position of “victor” or “defeated” should not be used, only reconciliation and
unity of brothers.
All of these, and other
questions, should be discussed and debated beforehand by a commission of
greater number and representation (as the cited Canons of the Council of
Carthage suggest). The Holy Synod should form the Commission, that is, its
leadership ranks, and then the Commission (or the Synod directly) should reach
agreement with Bishop Irinej and our bishops in the Diaspora and to coopt in
accordance with Articles 2-3 from all corners of the region. The Commission
would need to beforehand, prior to forming the final recommendations, travel to
all the parishes or at least the larger Church centers from both sides, and
immediately hear from the people and clergy. For the people of God truly need
to be heard and asked questions of at the parishes, and to also ask them for
peace, mutual forgiveness, love and unity. The people need to be sincerely
helped, so the Church itself can be helped, and everything to the glory of
Christ, who loves man and is Savior of all.
Peaceful, sober and truly
Church-oriented people should be appointed to the Commission. Its leadership,
according to us, should be entrusted to Bishop Pavle of Ras and Prizren, whose
authority is indisputable by all. In addition to him, another 2-3 members from
the homeland should be added, and 2-3 from each side from the Diaspora, but not
ones who are forceful, irreconcilable or hardliners, and provide the Commission
with the right to decide who they will nominate.
I think it necessary to also say
this: at least if the Assembly of Bishops in June 1989, had decided to form a
Commission of all Bishops from the Diaspora with one member from each Diocese,
I nonetheless believe a new Commission should be formed, as I have proposed,
and not ignore the local bishops and structures, rather respect and consult
with them, deal in the capacity of a special delegation of goodwill, who would
prepare the way and learn the true state of affairs, and propose a real
solution based on economia overcoming the schism.
Everything else, issues not
addressed here, or newly emerging during the discussions, should be resolved in
the spirit of the aforementioned Holy Tradition, ecclesiological-canonical
brotherly love and reinforcing of the Church.
Everything must be done in order
to achieve liturgical unity and fellowship, and it will provide new zeal for
missionary action and witnessing of the unity of Holy Orthodoxy and its saving
ability in the New world and New age, that is, unity and growth of the Holy
Orthodox Church of Christ.
Belgrade 1/14 March 1990
Hieromonk Atanasije (Jevtić)
FOOTNOTES
1. Canon 19 (27) of Carthage states: “If a bishop is being
accused, the prosecutor needs to present the charges first to the bishops in
that area, and the accused is not to be removed from communion, except if he
has been called in a written form... and does not reply within a month from the
time of receiving the invitation. If then, he proves for reasons of
incapacity... he is given one additional month to respond. And if the second
month passes without a response, then he is not to partake in communion with
others until he finally justifies himself (or he is adjudicated, which is
implied). If he does not want to attend a regular annual Council, to at least
address (to conclude) his matter there, it is then determined that he
pronounced his own sentence against himself. And during all that period while
he is outside of communion (he may not be in communion, i.e. he cannot serve
and take Holy Communion) he cannot serve in his own Church nor in the region
(i.e., in other churches around him)... If the accused goes into hiding (i.e.
withdraws himself) a new bishop may be appointed in his place, in communion,
and the accused removed from communion.” We have already cited Rule 96 (87) of
Carthage: “Removing a diocese from a bishop before a final verdict has been reached,
is not considered correct among Christians.”
2. The schism known of late in the Cypriot Church, between
Archbishop Makarios and the Synod with Gennadios of Paphos as the head, saw the
current Cypriot Archbishop exceed all expectations with the acceptance of
Gennadios’ letter of repentance written on his deathbed. The Church was
reconciled with only one Bishop and one priest remaining committed to the
schism.
3. It was a notable fact that Bishop Dionisije was not
adjudicated from the first moment by the Synod as required by Article 35
paragraph 35 of the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, where instead
he was immediately adjudicated by the Assembly of Bishops, through which his
right of appeal was limited. Bishop Dionisije’s judgment was directed to Canon
6 of the Second Ecumenical Council and Canons 14 and 15 of the Council of
Antioch, and Canon 12 of the Canons of Clerical Discipline by the Council of Carthage.
Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council and Canon 15 of the Council of
Carthage contradict each other in the matter of appeals, as Canon 15 of Antioch
ostensibly dismisses appeals to the broader Assembly (enumerated ones), while
Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council clearly states a right of appeal, and
priority should have been given to this ecclesiastical understanding of the
Canons, particularly if it was known that the canons of Antioch arose under
historically conditional acceptance of the situation at that time (against
Saint Athanasius), while Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council has authority
as a decision of the Ecumenical Assembly.
Source: The Serbian Christian Heritage of America: The
Historical, Spiritual and Cultural Presence of the Serbian Diaspora in North
America (1815-2019), edited by Bishop Maxim (Vasiljević), Sebastian Press,
Los Angeles, 2019, pp. 393-423.
