Refutation of the document
"A CANONICAL AND LEGAL ENTITY"
The Priestmonk Haralampos composed a document titled "A Canonical and Legal Entity." Metropolitan Ephraim and Bishop Demetrius endorsed this document and the office of the Metropolis of Boston distributed it. Below you will find direct quotes from this document in italics and a rebuttal in plain text below each quote.
First quote:
Both, His Beatitude, Archbishop Auxentius of Athens, of blessed memory, and His Eminence, Metropolitan Maximus of Cephalonia affirmed that we had the authority to govern our affairs in North American and also of electing and ordaining our own bishops. We did not ask for this privilege; rather, these hierarchs simply granted it to us, because, we believe, they were enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
This is what Metropolitan Ephraim, Metropolitan Makarios and Bishop Demetrius affirmed in a letter written on December 10/23, 2010. This statement is a distillation of countless meetings with His Beatitude, Archbishop Auxentius of Athens over the years with our bishops and clergy from North America.
This statement is not supported by any documentation. It does not matter how much the three bishops "distill" conversations with Archbishop Auxentius in their own minds and conversation. If Archbishop Auxentius did indeed grant some status verbally by way of his personal relationship with the hierarchs in North America, because the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece did not officially decree it, that status ended on the day that Archbishop Auxentius died. The undeniable fact is that the act of granting autonomy is a Synodal act and it must be supported by documentation. There is no documentation to support the claim of the three bishops.
Second quote:
As has been mentioned many times before, the Archbishop affirmed again and again to many of our clergy, both here in America and when they visited Greece, we were responsible for governing our affairs in North America. This included the privilege of electing and ordaining our own bishops.
This statement contradicts what occurred for my election to be ordained a bishop in 1996. The election occurred in Greece. The electing body was the Holy Synod in Greece. HOCNA was not established as a regional eparchial synod until 2001.
Third quote:
The locum tenency that we maintained, however, was only a temporary measure. Although we maintained it "temporarily" for some fourteen years, strictly speaking, and according to the Holy Canons, a locum tenency can be maintained only for one year.
Canon 74 of Carthage, for example, is quite clear on this point:
It has been decreed that it is not lawful to a locum tenens (in Greek: topotiritίs) to retain the see to which he has been appointed as locum tenens,…but let him take care that within a year he provide them with a bishop. But if he fail to do so, when the year is done, another locum tenens shall be appointed.
The use of this canon does not justify abandoning Greece; it only demonstrates the negligence of our Holy Synod. In fact, Protopresbyter Victor Melehov quoted this canon back in 2001 when he protested that we should not form the local eparchial synod of HOCNA until we have a new Archbishop enthroned in Athens. You can ask him about that.
Fourth quote:
Our efforts to find a suitable candidate for the episcopacy in Greece all came to nought, despite the fact that it is clear that we went above and beyond what is permitted by the Holy Canons in our efforts to help the Church of Greece. But our identity as a de facto autonomous Church entity in North America had been confirmed by Archbishop Auxentius again and again in our meetings with him, and our later efforts in Greece were only a temporary measure.
Once again, this is not supported by any documentation. Since Archbishop Auxentius provided documentation for the Milan Synod, he could have easily done the same for the bishops in North America. The fact remains, he did not.
Fifth quote:
It is one thing to say that our roots are in Greece, and that, because of the locum tenency, we were de jure and temporarily acting as bishops of the Church of Greece in an effort to help there (though far longer than what the Holy Canons permit). It is quite another to say that we are permanently and canonically the Church of Greece, even though the locum tenency no longer exists. Some claim that the abandonment of the locum tenency was "uncanonical" (but they cite no canons to support this claim). To the contrary, the termination of the locum tenency was the return to the canonical norm, as one can clearly see from the Holy Canons that we have cited below.
This paragraph is intended to confuse. What does it mean to say " …we were de jure [lawfully] and temporarily acting as bishops of the Church of Greece"? We were lawfully bishops of the Church of Greece, that is, active members of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, who resided in North America. This statement is intended to subvert in your minds the significance of the documentation found in the very minutes of our Holy Synod. Please examine the minutes of the Holy Synod dated September 25/ October 8, 2001, attached. The Church in Greece is our Mother Church.
Sixth quote:
Furthermore, there are two very important documents that testify to this legal and canonical entity that we possess as the Holy Orthodox Church in North America:
1. Our by-laws
2. The Holy CanonsThe By-Laws: If we examine the by-laws, both of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America and of the Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston, we will see no mention whatsoever of the word "Greece". There is no mention, for example, of "The True (or Genuine) Orthodox Church of Greece", or not even of "The True Orthodox Church of Greece in Exile", or of "The True Orthodox Church of Greece Abroad" or anything of the sort.
If we were legally under the Church of Greece, the by-laws should, at least, have said that we are the "Greek Orthodox Church in North America" or perhaps, "The Holy Orthodox Church in North America – a Subsidiary [or Dependency] of the True Orthodox Church of Greece".
Instead, we find nothing of the sort. In fact, Archbishop Auxentius never demanded such a thing, or even mentioned it at all. To the contrary, he was always encouraging us to organize ourselves and to look to it to govern our affairs, and to choose our own bishops.
This is just a continuation of using the secular corporate by-laws to confuse everyone. One must first notice the order of the presentation of Priestmonk Haralampos' so-called documentation, i.e., 1. Our by-laws, and 2. The Canons.
In this discussion the canons have to come first and not second. The minutes of the meetings of the Holy Synod reflect the canons. Metropolitan Makarios' December 5/18, 2001 open letter to the Protopresbyter Victor Melehov reflects the canons. Fr. Haralampos' above assertions give the civil corporate by-laws a higher authority than the canons. In the Orthodox Church there is a hierarchy of authority in documentation and civil by-laws are not a higher authority than the canons.
The HOCNA by-laws Section 1.6b
Hierarchy Detailed: Ecclesiastical Resolution of Disputes Within the Church. Bishops of the Church have an immediate responsibility to the Holy Synod. Superiors of monastic communities, priests, deacons and members of lower orders of clergy have an immediate responsibility, in turn, to their respective individual bishop and ultimately to the Holy Synod. Monastics and the lay faithful have an immediate responsibility not only to one another but also, in turn, to their monastic superiors or parish clergy, and to their individual bishop and ultimately to the Holy Synod. Controversies or disputes may arise from time to time between or among persons within the Church that cannot be resolved on the basis of neutral principles of civil law. By accepting a position as a member, director, or officer of the Corporation, each such member, director, or officer acknowledges the hierarchical nature of the Church of which the Corporation is an integral part as described above and agrees that controversies or disputes that cannot be resolved on the basis of neutral principles of civil law should not be resolved by courts of civil law, but rather by recourse to ecclesiastical ways and principles, as delineated for example in the holy scriptures, the writings of the holy fathers, and the decisions and canons of the holy synods and councils.
The very by-laws of HOCNA refer to a "Holy Synod" (above in bold font). The canons and the history of HOCNA tell us which Holy Synod that is, and it is the Holy Synod of Archbishop Auxentius, that is, the T.O.C. in Greece.
Furthermore, none of the members of the Holy Synod of the T.O.C. who resided in Greece were familiar with the English language and they did not look into how the bishops in North America handled legal affairs in their native country.
The fact remains that we are bishops of the Church of Greece. If the "Holy Synod" referred to in the by-laws does not refer to the Church of Greece, then the secular corporate by-laws are in conflict with the canonical order of the Church. For example, from 1988 until 1993 the bishops in North America were not ruling bishops and the presiding hierarch was Archbishop Auxentius himself.
The only way the HOCNA by-laws can be found in harmony with the canonical order of the Church is to give Section 1.6b a very broad authority to allow the canons to supersede anything within that document that is found to be in conflict with the canons and the minutes of our Holy Synod.
Once again reread the minutes of the Holy Synod dated September 25/ October 8, 2001 and Metropolitan Makarios' open letter to Protopresbyter Victor Melehov dated December 5/18, 2001. These official documents must supersede everything that conflicts with them found in the quote above or in any of the polemics emanating from Boston today.
Seventh quote:
The Holy Canons: The Holy Canons are crystal clear concerning this matter also: the Church of one region must not interfere in the affairs of a Church of another region, unless invited to do so.
This reference to the Holy Canons is meaningless in the case of HOCNA. If HOCNA is anything, it is a Daughter Church of our Mother Church in Greece. This reference to Churches in different regions only applies to autocephalous Churches, that is, two completely independent, separate Churches. It cannot apply to the relationship of a Mother Church with a daughter Church.
A Daughter Church springs from the Mother Church and is dependent on it. A Daughter Church can be autonomous, but the autonomy has limitations. Usually the Holy Synod of the Mother Church has to approve the choice for a new president of the Holy Synod of the local Daughter Church.
All of the references to "a Church of another region" are intended to confuse everyone and distract from our common history. For a clear picture of our history, look at the flow chart that was recently taken down from the Metropolis of Boston web site, attached.
Eighth quote:
Apostolic Canon 14: A bishop is not to be allowed to leave his own parish, and pass over into another, although he may be pressed by many to do so, unless there be some proper cause constraining him, as if he can confer some greater benefit upon the persons of that place in the word of godliness. And this must be done not of his own accord, but by the judgment of many bishops, and at their earnest exhortation.
This canon has nothing to do with the relationship of a Mother Church and a Daughter Church. This canon is sets up a safeguard to prevent alien bishops from intruding into the territory of another ruling bishop's diocese.
Ninth quote:
Apostolic Canon 33: If any one of the clergy or laity who is excommunicated, or not to be received, shall go away, and be received in another city without commendatory letters, let both the receiver and the received be excommunicated. But if he be excommunicated already, let the time of his excommunication be lengthened.
Has anyone been excommunicated?
Tenth quote:
Apostolic Canon 34: The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.
For the proper understanding of the significance of this canon see the first resolution in the minutes of the Holy Synod dated September 25/ October 8, 2001, as follows:
1. The Sacred Synod unanimously resolves that the presiding hierarch is the locum tenens of Athens until such as there is an Archbishop of Athens.
The Holy Synod of HOCNA made a resolution in October of 2010 to recognize the Archbishop of the G.O.C. in Greece as the Archbishop of Athens. Thus, Archbishop Kallinikos I of Athens is the presiding hierarch of HOCNA.
Eleventh quote:
Council of Antioch Canon 21: A Bishop may not be translated from one parish to another, either intruding himself of his own suggestion, or under compulsion by the people, or by constraint of the bishops; but he shall remain in the Church to which he was allotted by God from the beginning, and shall not be translated from it, according to the decree formerly passed on the subject.
This canon has nothing to do with the relationship of a Mother Church to a Daughter Church. It does condemn Metropolitan Ephraim and Metropolitan Makarios and Bishop Demetrius for not investigating the persons or person referred to as "Boston" at the meeting of the Parish Council of the Saint Nectarius Parish of Seattle on April 13, 2006. I have two witnesses, the then Vice-President of the Parish Council and the then Secretary who heard at the meeting that it was "Boston" who inspired the letter that instructed me that I was to not attend services during the week or weddings and baptisms unless invited by the clergy of the Cathedral. It was this letter that overturned the canons and hierarchical nature of the Church and initiated the conspiracy in Seattle to drive me out. I only mention the Seattle debacle because it was a symptom of a greater problem within HOCNA.
Twelfth quote:
Council of Antioch Canon 22: Let not a bishop go to a strange city, which is not subject to himself, nor into a district which does not belong to him, either to ordain any one, or to appoint presbyters or deacons to places within the jurisdiction of another bishop, unless with the consent of the proper bishop of the place. And if any one shall presume to do any such thing, the ordination shall be void, and he himself shall be punished by the synod.
This canon condemns both Metropolitan Ephraim and Bishop Demetrius for ordaining Dimitri P. to the sub-diaconate at the Cathedral Church in Seattle in November of 2006, without my knowledge or permission (when by all accounts I was still the ruling bishop of the Cathedral in Seattle). The Holy Synod transferred me out of Seattle in March of 2007.
Thirteenth quote:
Council of Sardica Canon 1: Hosius, bishop of the city of Corduba, said: A prevalent evil, or rather most mischievous corruption must be done away with from its very foundations. Let no bishop be allowed to remove from a small city to a different one: as there is an obvious reason for this fault, accounting for such attempts; since no bishop could ever yet be found who endeavoured to be translated from a larger city to a smaller one. It is therefore evident that such persons are inflamed with excessive covetousness and are only serving ambition in order to have the repute of possessing greater authority. Is it then the pleasure of all that so grave an abuse be punished with great severity? For I think that men of this sort should not be admitted even to lay communion. All the bishops said: It is the pleasure of all.
Council of Sardica Canon 3: Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add,--that no bishop pass from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of charity. And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighboring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.
2nd Ecumenical Council Canon 2: The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.
4th Ecumenical Council Canon 5: Concerning bishops or clergymen who go about from city to city, it is decreed that the Canons enacted by the Holy Fathers shall still retain their force.
These canons have nothing to do with the relationship of a Mother Church and a Daughter Church.
These canons do condemn Metropolitan Ephraim for setting up what is listed by him as the "Cathedral" of Saint Nectarius in Seattle, that is, a cathedral (throne) of an alien bishop established within the diocese of the local ruling bishop. This has no precedent in the history of the Orthodox Church.
I mention the Seattle debacle only to point out the cavalier use of quotes from the canons by those who use them out of context when is suits their purpose and discard them when they do not suit their purpose. Once again, the Seattle debacle was and is only a symptom of greater problems within HOCNA.
Fourteenth quote:
So, according to the Holy Canons, we, the bishops in North America, are strictly forbidden to interfere in the affairs of the Church of Greece, or any other foreign region, unless invited to do so; likewise, the bishops of other regions are strictly forbidden to interfere in our affairs. We may involve ourselves in the ecclesiastical matters of another local Church only if they invite us to do so. The converse of that is true also. Anything else violates the Holy Canons.
As the article "Our Mother Church" demonstrates, the Church of Greece under His Beatitude Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens is not, and never was, "our Mother Church". Although we wish to have cordial relations with them, we owe them no canonical obligations.
When His Eminence Metropolitan Makarios of Toronto resigned the locum tenency of the throne of Athens in October, 2010, we, as a Synod, returned to the canonical norm. And, as we mentioned many times before, this act of Metropolitan Makarios was also a gesture of goodwill to the Synod under Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens. Any other interpretation of that gesture is a perversion of its original intent.
This document endorsed by Metropolitan Ephraim and Bishop Demetrius establishes beyond any doubt that, despite the verbal claims of Metropolitan Makarios and Bishop Demetrius that they are in transition to full intercommunion and concelebration with the Church in Greece, they have no real desire for this. In fact this document states that the idea of full unity with the G.O.C. is "a perversion" of their original intent.
Their intent, which has now been expressed by Priestmonk Haralampos and endorsed by Metropolitan Ephraim and Bishop Demetrius, is to make a so-called "return" to a so-called "canonical norm" of a status of independence (read autocephaly) that has no documentation or legitimacy in the history of the Synod of Archbishop Auxentius to support it.
Thus, the hidden intent of Metropolitan Ephraim, Metropolitan Makarios and Bishop Demetrius in passing the two resolutions in October 2010 to recognize the G.O.C. as the Church of Greece and dissolve the office of locum tenens held by Metropolitan Makarios was to withdraw from the Orthodox Church of Greece and establish a de facto autocephalous Church in North America. This is a paradigm shift and an intentional and important disconnect from our past.
Bishop Sergios and I never intended to withdraw from the Church of Greece. Our intention was to end the unhealthy isolation of our Synod from the Traditionalist Orthodox Hierarchs with whom we shared the same faith. Now we read that these ideas are a "perversion" of the plans of the other three bishops.
We must remain faithful to our canonical roots in the Church of Greece. Faithful Orthodox Christians cannot allow anyone to sever our connection to the Church of Greece in order to invent an autocephalous Church in North America.
He that has ears to hear, let him hear.
May the grace of our Risen Savior enlighten you all,
+Metropolitan Moses