On Rue Daru, and the Rights and Privileges of Autonomous Churches

[Alpha60]

One more piece of news:
An e-mail by Met. Emmanuel has been circulated on Facebook. It says he is inviting all Exarchate clergy within France who have have expressed loyalty to the EP and/or refused to join MP to a meeting on October 5. He invites them to bring 1 or 2 people from the lay leadership of each parish as well. The meeting will be about the creation of a Russian tradition vicariate within the EP's (Greek) Metropolis of France. He promises them "large autonomy".

How generous of him.

Nevermind that the suppression of Rue Daru was uncanonical and entirely destructive.

There is, as far as I can tell, no precedent in all of Orthodoxy for an autonomous church to be suppressed or subjected to arbitrary changes by the autocephalous church whose Omophorion it is under, without its consent.

  Autonomy merely gives the parent church the ability to select the archbishop or metropolitan of the autonomous church under their Omophorion.

Every EP autonomous church I think would be wise to leave, because what happened to Rue Daru could happen, depending on which way the wind in Constantinople is blowing, to the UOCNA, or the Church of Finland, or the Church of Estonia, or, God forbid, the ancient monastic community on Mount Athos, which alas in my opinion is in the unfortunate position of being largely dependent on the EP to protect it.  Mount Athos ideally should move under the Omophorion of the Church of Greece or be turned into a cooperative; there is also the matter of the cruel ongoing persecution of the Old Calendarist monks at Esphigmenou.

~

One reason this is especially disturbing is due to the large number of ancient or extremely important autonomous churches.  It would be unthinkable for something like this to be allowed to happen to the Church of Sinai, or the Latvian Orthodox Church, or the Belarussian Orthodox Church, or the Bessarabian and Moldovan Orthodox churches under the MP and Romania, or the Church of Japan.  ROCOR (although faced with suppression, ROCOR would likely survive, I should think, nut that is all exceedingly unlikely).  But especially the Holy Church of Sinai requires any and every conceivable protection.  Fortunately I cannot imagine the JP, despite its faults, interfering in Sinai.

 

[Samn!]

It was never an autonomous church. Its status was more or less like ACROD in the US. But yes, ACROD folks should be scared.

 

[Alpha60]

It was never an autonomous church. Its status was more or less like ACROD in the US. But yes, ACROD folks should be scared.

They should join the OCA, home of St. Alexis Toth.  Why do they have a Greek bishop, anyway? 

 

[Samn!]

Why do they have a Greek bishop, anyway?

Because they have a Greek patriarch...

 

[rakovsky]

It sounds like legally it is still under the EP waiting for the Ep to appoint a locum tenens and have a new general assembly about where it should go, with the locum tenens deciding that question.

 

[Samn!]

It sounds like legally it is still under the EP waiting for the Ep to appoint a locum tenens and have a new general assembly about where it should go, with the locum tenens deciding that question.

It's much more complicated, because the legal entity under civil law is different from the canonical entity of the archdiocese which is different from most of the parishes themselves. So, the EP definitively ended, from their perspective, the canonical entity of the archdiocese. The archdiocese overwhelmingly voted (93%) to reject that but failed to have 2/3 majority pick a new jurisdiction, so in the end you have both Abp Jean's side who are going under Moscow claiming to represent both the canonical entity and the civil entity, with all willing parishes. Met Emmanuel and the EP view the canonical entity as null and void but claim control over the civil entity-- i.e., a fairly small amount of key real estate. Then there's the small but exceedingly loud pro-Romanian faction that only seems to exist to thwart Abp Jean, who do not recognize the EP's dissolusion of the canonical entity, claim to still be part of the civil entity despite not commemorating either their local EP bishop or Abp Jean, and are very ambiguous as to whether they'll recognize Met Emmanuel as "locum tenens" of the civil(!) entity. Once the individual parishes have made their decisions, the quarrel just a little real estate and a lot of bad blood.

 

[rakovsky]

Good analysis.
The bylaws practically leave nonconsensus decisions in the hands of the head bishop.
I guess the bylaws didnt have an explanation of what to do in case the patriarchate considers it dissolved and forces out its head. Under the rules, the remaining clergy could actually override the locum tenens in case he tries to dissolve it.

 

[Gorazd]

Now the association under French law factually doubled and there will probably a court case who is the true one.
The anti-MP majority of the association's board considers that Abp. Jean stopped heading the association by leaving the EP (the statutes require the head to be an EP bishop). They recognise Met. Emmanuel as locum tenens, and are working with him to build a Russian tradition vicariate within the EP's (Greek) metropolis of France.

The pro-MP minority of the board still consider Abp. Jean to head the association. In fact, he considers himself to head the association and removed from the board all priests who don't commemorate him anymore. That's a technical legitimisation, since from their point of view, the pro-MP priests and laypeople now have a "majority" on the board against only the laypeople who are anti-MP (with priests removed).

 

[rakovsky]

I am curious how the EP could legally dissolve an association, consider it successfully dissolved, and then after dissolving it appoint a head of the dissolved organization.

Maybe it is possible, but it seems weird.

If you have a business or nonprofit and then successfully disband it, you cannot appoint a new president (eg. locum tenens) of that organization. I guess you could just appoint someone to manage whatever credits or debts the closed organization has left.

It seems like a weird situation. Legally, if the EP wanted to retain control of the organization, it should have waited until the organization dissolved itself, before declaring the organization dissolved. It could have expelled the opposing clergy like Abp. Jean and then had the remaining compliant clergy close the association.

It looks like what happened was:
--First, the General Assembly announced by 93% that it does not wish dissolution.
--And the EP announced that it has dissolved the organization, which it probably doesn't have the power to do in law. Arguably at this point the EP does not legally control the organization any more.
--Next, the EP announces that it releases BP Jean, without an agreement of where he should go to, and without his request, which arguably the EP cannot do.
--Gorazd says that in the statutes, the head of the organization must be an EP bishop. It would be better to have a quote for this, and arguably, this requirement does not apply if the EP considers the Association dissolved.
--Next, the Association calls a General Assembly and fails to decide where to go in order to remain whole.
--I read that next, Abp. Jean announced his resignation from the Association (This should be checked). At this point, he would not have a say as the organization's head.
--Abp. Jean claims that he moved the association to be under the EP. He would have the authority to do that if he was still the organization's head.
--If Abp. Jean is not the organization's head, then who gets to be the head? Normally it would be the head appointed by the EP, but how can the EP logically appoint a head for an organization that it has dissolved? With no head, and not recognized by the EP, the organization is still adrift and the EP cannot name a head for it. That would be my own conclusion.
--My guess is that the court could say that since the EP considers the association to be dissolved, then the bylaw saying that the head must be part of the EP is void. In that case, Abp. Jean would still be the head unless he resigned.

It seems like a weird situation. I guess the EP could announce that it is re-recognizing the Association and now appointing a Locum Tenens. But I am not sure that it will do those acrobatics.

The EP has not seemed very subtle, nuanced, and careful in its thinking as of late, tragically.

 

[Gorazd]

I am curious how the EP could legally dissolve an association, consider it successfully dissolved, and then after dissolving it appoint a head of the dissolved organization.

The EP has never claimed to have dissolved the association under French law, but the Exarchate as a canonical structure.

--Gorazd says that in the statutes, the head of the organization must be an EP bishop. It would be better to have a quote for this

"Article 11. Président.
L’Archevêché et les associations adhérentes sont placées sous l’autorité administrative et la direction spirituelle, pastorale et morale d’un évêque dirigeant avec le rang et titre d’Archevêque qui relève de l’obédience de Sa Sainteté le patriarche œcuménique de Constantinople.
L’Archevêque est le Président de l’Archevêché."

This means the President of the association can only be a bishop in obedience to His Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. No ifs and buts.

 

[Iconodule]

Why do they have a Greek bishop, anyway?

Because they have a Greek patriarch...

I honestly think it was just because there was no one really available from within ACROD, which has no monasteries. I think that if Bishop Nicholas had passed a few years earlier, Bishop Michael (Dahulich) would have been the ACROD bishop instead. Bishop Michael was a long-time (and highly regarded) ACROD priest who was made OCA bishop of NY in 2009.

 

[hecma925]

Why do they have a Greek bishop, anyway?

Because they have a Greek patriarch...

I honestly think it was just because there was no one really available from within ACROD, which has no monasteries. I think that if Bishop Nicholas had passed a few years earlier, Bishop Michael (Dahulich) would have been the ACROD bishop instead. Bishop Michael was a long-time (and highly regarded) ACROD priest who was made OCA bishop of NY in 2009.

That's a reasonable assumption.  What a shame that there were (edit: at the time of his death)/are no monasteries.

 

[Samn!]

Why do they have a Greek bishop, anyway?

Because they have a Greek patriarch...

I honestly think it was just because there was no one really available from within ACROD, which has no monasteries. I think that if Bishop Nicholas had passed a few years earlier, Bishop Michael (Dahulich) would have been the ACROD bishop instead. Bishop Michael was a long-time (and highly regarded) ACROD priest who was made OCA bishop of NY in 2009.

This is almost certainly why no one from within ACROD was found to be the bishop. But as for why they specifically found a Greek....

 

[ICXCNIKA]

Why do they have a Greek bishop, anyway?

Because they have a Greek patriarch...

I honestly think it was just because there was no one really available from within ACROD, which has no monasteries. I think that if Bishop Nicholas had passed a few years earlier, Bishop Michael (Dahulich) would have been the ACROD bishop instead. Bishop Michael was a long-time (and highly regarded) ACROD priest who was made OCA bishop of NY in 2009.

This is almost certainly why no one from within ACROD was found to be the bishop. But as for why they specifically found a Greek....

At least they dodged the Archbishop Job Getcha bullet.

 

[Alpha60]

Why do they have a Greek bishop, anyway?

Because they have a Greek patriarch...

I honestly think it was just because there was no one really available from within ACROD, which has no monasteries. I think that if Bishop Nicholas had passed a few years earlier, Bishop Michael (Dahulich) would have been the ACROD bishop instead. Bishop Michael was a long-time (and highly regarded) ACROD priest who was made OCA bishop of NY in 2009.

That's a reasonable assumption.  What a shame that there were (edit: at the time of his death)/are no monasteries.

+1

That said, the OCA has monasteries, and the other half of the Carpatho-Rusyn community (the followers of St. Alexis Toth).  But an ACROD monastery, ideally under Elder Ephrem, would be a good thing (while St. Anthony’s is very much a Greek monastery, other monasteries he has founded use English, and even at St. Anthony’s the monks are ethnically diverse).

~

Separately, a part of me is curious as to the relative frequency of liturgical attendance for Carpatho-Rusyn/Lemkos both individually, and among parishes where they are the main group, including the historic “Russian Greek Catholic” parishes in Pennslyvania, in the OCA compared to ACROD, which is reknowned for its ability to pack churches every Sunday.

 

[Alpha60]

I am curious how the EP could legally dissolve an association, consider it successfully dissolved, and then after dissolving it appoint a head of the dissolved organization.

Maybe it is possible, but it seems weird.

If you have a business or nonprofit and then successfully disband it, you cannot appoint a new president (eg. locum tenens) of that organization. I guess you could just appoint someone to manage whatever credits or debts the closed organization has left.

It seems like a weird situation. Legally, if the EP wanted to retain control of the organization, it should have waited until the organization dissolved itself, before declaring the organization dissolved. It could have expelled the opposing clergy like Abp. Jean and then had the remaining compliant clergy close the association.

It looks like what happened was:
--First, the General Assembly announced by 93% that it does not wish dissolution.
--And the EP announced that it has dissolved the organization, which it probably doesn't have the power to do in law. Arguably at this point the EP does not legally control the organization any more.
--Next, the EP announces that it releases BP Jean, without an agreement of where he should go to, and without his request, which arguably the EP cannot do.
--Gorazd says that in the statutes, the head of the organization must be an EP bishop. It would be better to have a quote for this, and arguably, this requirement does not apply if the EP considers the Association dissolved.
--Next, the Association calls a General Assembly and fails to decide where to go in order to remain whole.
--I read that next, Abp. Jean announced his resignation from the Association (This should be checked). At this point, he would not have a say as the organization's head.
--Abp. Jean claims that he moved the association to be under the EP. He would have the authority to do that if he was still the organization's head.
--If Abp. Jean is not the organization's head, then who gets to be the head? Normally it would be the head appointed by the EP, but how can the EP logically appoint a head for an organization that it has dissolved? With no head, and not recognized by the EP, the organization is still adrift and the EP cannot name a head for it. That would be my own conclusion.
--My guess is that the court could say that since the EP considers the association to be dissolved, then the bylaw saying that the head must be part of the EP is void. In that case, Abp. Jean would still be the head unless he resigned.

It seems like a weird situation. I guess the EP could announce that it is re-recognizing the Association and now appointing a Locum Tenens. But I am not sure that it will do those acrobatics.

The EP has not seemed very subtle, nuanced, and careful in its thinking as of late, tragically.

Indeed so Rakovsky.

 

[hecma925]

the other half of the Carpatho-Rusyn community (the followers of St. Alexis Toth). 

Those people are dead.

 

[Alpha60]

the other half of the Carpatho-Rusyn community (the followers of St. Alexis Toth). 

Those people are dead.

I should have said, the progeny of the followers.  Happy now Hecma?

 

[hecma925]

the other half of the Carpatho-Rusyn community (the followers of St. Alexis Toth). 

Those people are dead.

I should have said, the progeny of the followers.  Happy now Hecma?

No.