By Konstantin TROJICKI
The session of the Synod is passing, nonetheless, according to one of its participants, without any of the former enthusiasm. It is as if the bishops feel only the responsibility of gathering once a year, exchanging reports from their dioceses, approving the work of the Holy Synod between this and the next session, and filling the vacancies in the Synod with two new members. It is as if everything has been said already; missing are new ideas and initiatives, although the situation in the country is in dire need of them.
Last week European religious periodicals reported that at the beginning of the Synod the Bishop of Backa, Irinej, presented "a whole list of accusations" against the Bishop of Raska and Prizren, Artemije, but that the majority of the bishops refused to discuss this issue, deciding instead to merely note the submitted information. "The decisive defender of Artemije was the Metropolitan of Montenegro, Amfilohije Radovic." This news was confirmed by sources in the Patriarchate, who likewise expressed amazement at the accusations against the Kosovo Bishop had been accused. The immediate cause was the letter of Bishop Artemije in December of last year regarding the Patriarch's attendance of the reception thrown for "the Republic Day" by the federal president [Slobodan Milosevic] where he was accompanied, or taken to, by the Bishop of Backa. Many believe that the purpose of the criticism was to remove Bishop Artemije from Gracanica and to appoint a more "cooperative" bishop there, so that the Church would not continue in the future be criticized by "traitors" in its ranks, cloaked priests who in addition to performing God's service are active in "secular matters" when it is well-known who has the monopoly on "patriotic matters".
The Macedonian issue is also on the agenda of the Synod. It is slipping out of the Patriarchate's control. The Patriarchate of Constantinople is offering "its good services". Last winter it approached Belgrade with regard to this matter but received no reply. That is why Metropolitan Meliton from Constantinople addressed the Synod in Belgrade in order to further explain the offer. Constantinople wishes to be consulted with regard to all Orthodox matters, to arbitrate if necessary, and Skoplje no longer considers Belgrade the place of jurisdiction for the resolution of its status. That is now on the Bosphorus. An autonomous status would perhaps satisfy Skoplje but not in the framework of the Serb Orthodox Church but under jurisdiction of the Constantinople Patriarchate. The addition of a third, Constantinople "factor" into this issue considerably complicates its resolution by the Synod.
The new trend in Orthodoxy, they say in the Church, is to ask for Constantinople's opinion in everything as it is working toward the creation of an "Orthodox Pope". In the opinion of some, that is not such a bad thing; among the Orthodox leaders, the first among equals, the Patriarch of Constantinople, should be given greater rights in order to avoid overemphasis on the national. Athens has already announced that it would accept an Ohrid or a Skoplje archdiocese, not mentioning what the role of Belgrade in this would be.
The Synod's preoccupation with the "Montenegrin" issue is much simpler. No one in the world can accept the creation of a new church by a defrocked priest whose entire clergy is problematic and under some type of church sanction. The ordainment of Miras Dedeic as "metropolitan" is not valid for anyone; his case was concluded in the ecumenical court in Constantinople where he served as cleric. The letter of Patriarch Vartolomej should represent a serious reprimand for Montenegrin president Djukanovic; according to some sources, the impression is that it was understood as such.
In considering the relation between the Church and the state, always a topic of the Synod, it is possible to state that there have been no changes - there has been no denationalization of confiscated Church property, no religious education nor any pastoral work in the army. "Priests" will not bless reconstructed bridges, schools, factories; they are ideologically undesirable and inappropriate. The Church does not expect this regime to change with respect to its marginalization; the "reconstruction" will take place without it.
As one bishop said privately, the advance in reverse is picking up speed. It is Christian to hope for a turning point but the Synod cannot implement one. Perhaps, he says, the newly beatified saints will have greater success.