Appendix — Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich

Supreme Court, U. S,

FiLED

APPENDIX DEC 11 1975

|

2

MICHAEL RODAK, JR.. CLERK |

—__

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

Octoser Term, 1975

No. 75-292

THE SERBIAN EASTERN ORTHODOX DIOCESE FOR THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CANADA,

a Religious Body, et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

DIONISLIJE MILIVOJEVICH, et al,

Respondents.

Volume I—Pages 1 to 356

Pleadings — Testimony

On Writ or CERTIORARI TO THE Unritrep Srates Covurr

oF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Filed August 26, 1975

Certiorari Granted October 20, 1975

INDEX

PAGE

Relevant Docket Entries in the Proceedings Below ...... 1

PRETRIAL PLEADINGS, OPINIONS

AND ORDERS

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive

eS Ge SU Bs TD ccisentncscticctensisccibecineiiditatininn 6

Opinion of Illinois Appellate Court, April 7, 1966; Sup-

plemental Opinion, September 7, 1966 .......................... 10

Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint and ex-

ED CID scnevsniescasennieninciastvnineniniteicanaiiitaiaaiiiniaanni 31

Interim Opinion Re: Motion to Dismiss Second

Amended and Supplemental Complaint ...................... 61

5 nee 65

Answer to Second Amended and Supplemental Com-

ID cxsnasesscnntmnenriemtnannemieeiniaiaantiil . 68

Counterclaim and exhibits thereto 0...............:cccsceeeeeeeees 73

Second Interim Opinion Re: (A) Motion by Defen-

dauts to Designate Parties; and (B) Motion by

Plaintiffs to Strike Defendants’ Answer and Coun-

ee sutenmmnnntennecsieianeismneninnes 86

Sy I I TI, Te tccectiedecercecninicnteehreeierestieters 91

Further Answer to Second Amended and Supplemen-

OS GI ccecisessscsmnsseisnnvetieiniitaacitnnaiteaninnneinbamiatibtaiiapesatinds 94

ED Fa: SED ciincnsinisttsinisaridibintaiinasitiatiiamiamninesieds 103

Reply to Defendants’ Answer and Supplemental An-

swer to the Second Amended and Supplemental

TTD <sccssississicteiahilinninnniemiintieaniitaiasanstiiianapuineniniians 108

Reply to Affirmative Defense ......................cccccscessecsseseeeeee 109

Vol. | — pp. 1 to 356; Vel. 1! — pp. 357 to 718; Vol. 11) —pp. 901 to 1388; Vol. IV — pp. 1398 te 1633

i

PAGE

TESTIMONY (ABSTRACTED AND VERBATIM)

Brkich, Milan—

Sr III, is seecelaeeleieminenneneteial 239

ey Se | ___s esemdennieinnsuemniinainsinmatials 258

Sn SI, sisidiiesieeneieneineseesaiela 269

i Ss cesucaeesinnsiblebiceliaiiae ae 271

ET ee ET TTT 504

ESS ROR CASA RR 508

I Fl 692

Damaskin, Metropolitan (Deposition)—

ESSERE Tana OTD 184

Ce acai inn 192

I act ecetatlhlesal 196

ft}runchich, Milan—

I 370

I CE ee TT ETT 372

Llicich, Nikanor—

SEE 163

I 178

SETI RT Bee PORN ON TO 184

Ivanovich, Alexander—

I aia erential 381, 400

I i ci ca nrtancneaieatell 402, 403

TERETE ene ne eNO 405

TET AA RCE TE 406

Kostich, Visarion—

SC Or ee Se TT 196

FE ae ee ORT 220

I cc 236

EE Oe a EC 677

I 683

i ETRE eee Ne Ranma en 691

Vol. i -~ pp. 1 to 358; Vol. 1! — pp. 357 to 718; Vel. 111 — pp. 981 te 1388; Vol. IV — pp. 1388 te 1833

PAGE

Kovacevich, Irinej—

Sa 550, 576

SEE NER er Ae TE EE 583

TIE LE A NS A Cee 595

I I iia 712

Meyendorff, John—

ENE OND eR te I 345

I a 367

I 385

BROGRPOCE TERTIIMRTIO .....<cccccccecccccccssccccccssescescccssoecsucee 396

Milivojevich, Dionisije—

RE Te ee 438

I 446

I 448

I i 466

I 513

I a i 562

EE EN aN ET ee 597

Redirect Examination .0................cccccccccccsssecsesecosessees. 642

SU I i 713

I a 717

Mladenovich, Mladen—

Ee 110

Cross Examination .0..0.........0...cccccccccoscocscosecceoceoeeses-..., 143

Redirect Examination 200..0........0..ccccccccccccsccccoccoceseceees... 161

Neff, Owen C.—

| eee 718

Cross Examimation 20...............cccccccccccccoceooceccececceee..... 719

Vol. | — pp. 1 te 356; Vol. 1! — pp. 357 te 719; Vol. 111 — pp. 901 to 1398; Vel. IV — pp. 1399 to 1833

iv

PAGE

Ucokoljich, Firmilian—

Ea A. SONI 300

I a ethcimecinenenel banal 310

I 310, 311

I a aicadits 324

ER NITE TNE ET 325

I I icoatasesicedseasapinnaiaiesaailies 326

I al a 326

EE LECT See RED 341

a lttale 373

I 375

Examination Under Sec. 60 of the Illinois Civil

Practice Act, Ch. 110, Ill. Rev. Stat. 000000000000... 523

RIESE ERAT SR RADI Ns RECHT AOD 548

I 549

Examination Under Sec. 60 20...................cccccccceescceeee 549

I ae 710

OR 712

Paljich, Nikanor—

IIE IER DET LE TIO 456

ee ee eeaabaaidiaieiiaaiaismnaaiues 458

Radakovich, Milan—

I ee 296

A 298

A EN IE 299

I a seraiiemcaenaeens 299

EL RE ne DOT TOE RTE 693

5 EERE END ne SE ne Teen Ola C ED 694

Vol. | —pp. 1 to 356; Vel. 11 — pp. 357 to 719; Vol. 111 — pp. 901 te 1398; Vol. IV — pp. 1399 te 1833

Vv

PAGE

Shoukletovich, Doushan J.—

SS TELE ER Se Le TO Ne 271

A a al 283

A ae TR 294

I 295

a 295

Stefanovic, Zivan—

ERA eRe Ee SU a tI 406

RO 432

IE RN kA eRe NE AI 454

I Ta 459

Stepanovich, Nick—

SOIT Re ees veins Le LEON b44

nn 655

Examination Under Sec. 60 .o......ccccccccccccccccsecseesees 659

Tobias, Robert—

I 694

I 700

I 709

Vasilije, Bishop of Zhica—

I 660

EE ER MD ROMER. ON 667

Ea Ta eS 675

Recross Examination ....................cccccccccccccoscsceossossesss 677

Vuyovich, Robert—

I i Ea 376

Cross Examination

Vol. | — pp. 1 to 356; Vol. 11 — pp. 357 te 719; Vol. 111 — pp. 991 to 1398; Vel. IV — pp. 1399 te 1833

vi

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBITS

PLAINTIFFS’

Exursit No.

1

~)J

5/10/63 Minutes of Holy Synod re Suspension

Be EE cerissccsetinarcemnpcntecatncsbieimentiadaidiatasiiainantd 901°

5/10/63 Minutes of Holy Assembly of Bishops

re Accusations against Dionisije 0.000.000.0000... 902

Corrected Translation of PX 2 20000000002. 904

5/10/63 Letter from Synod to Firmilian re Sus-

II SEE ST ics snteiiniategneantamienmeninieneisinnanes 905

5/10/63 Letter from Synod to Dionisije re His

RIIIIIITUIIIIIII - asccnsssencnccnicnsnesteunienasdaiiinideaipiaiiencipmiasiones 906

5/10/63 Minutes of Holy Assembly of Bishops

Be III cicsissicsciicossensissebitbianenenmiesndionecoeconionen 908

2/13/62 Letter of Dionisije to Synod re Metro-

SUTIN. - ‘sesisstcesenesiacnnbcinsninesituihistedsnaintatinsiainbinincsinien ‘emeineanen 911

5/17/63 Letter from Synod to Firmilian re Re-

IIIT’ <cau'oscssndsddtelidieplenibadnsainiiniaaiioemsmennein 913

5/17/63 Letter trom Synod to Firmilian re Re-

IE cricrerettusieseisnsieninccsuteteanlaimiisdiimatinmmintinn 915

5/17/63 Letter from Synod to Dionisije re Re-

I — ssicicsiacnsbiicencnetanitieiiniaahtiliintibninidltiabdcsieas 917

7/27/63 Decision of Holy Assembly to Remove

SPTTUIIITTIITIIIID sicecadsscuniaihitiadabuelietiensndeniieglihaaicicinelisibiaidaciuaaniiian 919

7/29/63 Letter from Synod to Firmilian re Re-

IEEE | spumnvicacecenssscebiensibiteasiiasitibicuntiiteilinbinivadisiiiesibsiianiues 923

* Note: The page numbers from

7

20 to 900 were omitted in

printing.

Vol. | — pp. 1 to 356; Vol. 1) — pp. 357 te 719; Vol. 111 — pp. 901 te 1398; Vol. IV — pp. 1399 te 1833

vii

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’

Exursit No.

10 7/29/63 Letter from Synod to Firmilian re His

ee TE TD sntrenctnnssennineniemienneninenets 924

11 7/29/63 Letter from Synod to Dionisije re His

RINNE 50s seb erascascmiauseduinidieaseiaebbiaaigiabaaasaiduemaiiediain 925

12 7/29/63 Letter from Synod to Gregory Udicki

Oe ee ID seissstciiuenstoinaccpevainnacenehesedeseaicineciinsintinticcies 926

13 6/13/63 Letter from Synod to Gregory Udicki .... 927

14 6/13/63 Letter from Synod to Gregory Udicki .. 928

15 6/9/63 Letter to Synod from Plenum re 5/10/63

SE Gr TID stnntstsrnenecseeannniieneeennn 929

16 Synod’s Indictment of Dionisije ..............00.0......... 930

17 7/6/63 Communique to Diocese from Chrysos-

Sy I Fe cerecctetitescceeneceeessemiieninne 981

18 11/12/63 Synod’s confirmation of 5/10/63 De-

SIITIIID. ss cersepnaienstpniainadinsltsnaicnientnicaiabdansidieabidaiaidiastaeeiieamiabiabaniieians 983

19 11/18/63 Letter from Dionisije to Synod re In-

SII cccsseemessempudeenvcndenenintesnnenianieaiadammaneaiiainieitinnain 985

20 12/10/63 Decision of Synod oe... cece cceeeeeeeee 987

21 3/5/64 Judgment of Holy Assembly against Di-

IID Citticstesciscrsntenicenisiciiasamntiineniianaataaamidipunsiaitaialiaianins 989

22 3/16/64 Letter from Patriarch to Firmilian re

i ae 1009

23 6/5/67 Proclamation by Patriarch re Bishop

SIDS -<scahishisdeaiitceniiuiitdadalcieniacibanid aisle aatatdaaidasaabined 1010

24 9/13/21 Decision of Holy Assembly to Send

EE Th ID ceceteiessnictestienitencssioniticeniscrecicnis 1011

Vol. | — pp. 1 to 358; Vol. 11 — pp. 357 to 718; Vol. 111 — pp. 901 to 1388; Vol. IV — pp. 1388 te 1833

viii

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’

Exnisit No.

25

9/13/21 Decision of Holy Assembly to Establish

American-Canadian Diocese

12/8/22 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Election

of Mardary as Administrator 20.00.0000. 1015

11/22/25 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Election

Ne 1016

10/25/28 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Dioce-

Se a siassdarennicteninesintiiescsctsicdatiinenntenstiseniatidanedsins 1017

Peel RINSE. ORG: RASA toe Kr DOR RI bea Cee che EE 1019

0/24/39 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Amend-

ments to Diocesan Constitution 200.000.000.000... 1071

12/14/35 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Death

a Se ‘seniecinscissiseaiicsidvicaleabidibaatvisdiciaainiciiinianienilain scat 1073

6/21/36 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Adminis-

tration of Diocese

6/22/38 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Election

TET 1075

12/8/39 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Election

8 S| ELSE eT RA 1077

12/5/39 Notice of Dionisije’s Election ............ 1078

8/29/38 Dionisije’s Bishop’s Oath 000000... 1078

1951 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Report of

Dionisije

1951 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Letter of

Dionisije

Vol. | — pp. 1 to 356; Vol. 11 — pp. 357 to 719; Vol. 111 — pp. 901 to 1398; Vol. IV — pp. 1399 to 1833

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’

Exuusit No.

41

42

43

45

46

5/16/52 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Letters

I TD sccinsinchisstitdnencteeninsinigesnenshiciainenimeecsentantaenmeneie 1092

12/9/56 Letter of Dionisije to Patriarch re Di-

I TI sicrececccrssesecsercnteencnistaneentapniisens 1094

9/9/58 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Letter of

IID icncsssincentsntenniinisentaninantscsienesnceieneineninucttvntsends 1096

5/19/53 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Letter of

RNID. scnisnslissiisnsciassionsentecacsscintusiinnicnniiansenanniaiienien 1096

6/7/58 Decision of Holy Assembly re Diocesan

SRA See ener ee ne ee OT CR EE 1098

7/15/58 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Letter of

RD censecesessiscsatnsesnsntisnciniernntsiantinnnininsiannipmicdenitineetaten 1099

6/9/59 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Letter of

SEMIN —. ccscshussesiucbioumsietiadeecisuindadblaanieiilaebeanehineniahsahsaiaeians 1100

4/9/60 Letter of Dionisije to Synod re By-laws

OE GR BOOTIES ccrrecciccenncicnicscsncsnnintsnicnsennines 1102

6/9/60 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Letter of

ID csnnimcconninsenintneaniennmmninens 1103

1/24/63 Report of Damaskin Delegation re

Complaints against Diomisije ..................cce 1105

5/8/63 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Letter of

PID’ wiseneseerninsiectiniintienistencnaeamsiattarninsemameati 1107

8/10/63 Letter from Synod to Firmilian re Mes-

i GE I sentiennrenincninmne 1108

7/27/63 Message of Holy Assembly .................... 1109

6/9/62 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Letter of

SUTIN . cnncacusediteieanneseansiacinsenncenedsbaeiiieniainbnnl 1113

Vol. | — pp. 1 to 356; Vol. 11 — pp. 357 to 719; Vol. 11) — pp. 801 to 1398; Vol. IV — pp. 1389 te 1833

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’

Exursit No.

a7 6/14/62 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Report

OE TRRUIID seensscisssesidiiniicana es 1115

58 9/25/62 Letter of Dionisije to Holy Assembly ....1118

59 9/3/63 Letter of Synod to Dionisije re Church-

SUGGRR” DEE accntncsumnae 1120

61 9/20/55 Letter of Synod to Dionisije re Ap-

pointment of Firmilian as Deputy ......0.000000000...... 1122

67 7/13/66 Letter of Patriarchate of Moscow to

Serbian Patriarch re Letter of Dionisije ........ 1123

67\ 7/13/66 Letter of Patriarchate of Moscow to

Nao RON Or Sale Soe NEN os jen a 1124

67G 3/2/66 Letter of Dionisije to Russian Patri-

(IEE. sscceensanesticedadamntateciidsdnisaiute eee 1125

6711 7/13/66 Letter of Patriarchate of Moscow to

PIII scssisostecenesisieiaadipaudioamianie erie eae 1134

6S 1957 Constitution of Serbian Orthodox Church ..1136

69 1961 Penal Code of Serbian Orthodox Church ....1243

71 6/3/63 Letter to Synod from Dionisije re

9/10/63 Decisions of Hierarchy... ... 1271

72 6/12/62 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Proposal

5 FRE siieiiiataseeen nae ee 1278

73 6/12/62 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Appoint-

ment of Damaskin Delegation ...0..00000000000000.... 1279

74 0/25/63 Cireular Letter of Dionisije re 5/10/63

BPRS GE TO cnccinesinennitinddeenn 1281

7) 6/6/63 Letter of Dionisije to Plenum re 5/10/63

SPOGREIGO CE TID weciennnniitiisiini ae 1289

Vol. | — pp. 1 to 356; Vol. 11 — pp. 357 to 718; Vol. 11) — pp. 901 te 1398; Vol. IV — pp. 1399 to 1833

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’

Exuisit No.

76

77

81

82

S458

84T

6/3/63 Circular Letter of Dionisije re 5/10/63

I HUE GERUIIID cccscnninncnnnccconsssvuscmvesesnesnazecenne 1291

6/12/63 Proclamation of Dionisije re 5/10/63

Decisions of Hierarchy .......................0.......sccsessseeees 1300

Vidovdan, 1963 Proclamation of Dionisije re In-

vestigating Commission ......................s..s.ssessecsessess 1311

Vidovdan, 1963 Proclamation of Dionisije ........ 1313

6/7/63 Letter of Dionisije to Firmilian re Re-

moval of Firmilian as Deputy .........02.2...0.0......... 1321

6/7/63 Letter of Dionisije to Mijatovich and

Djurich re their Removal from Diocesan Coun-

i teicieeeiedeidaiendiediiaeiiemaiainadaainieenabeinnidmmnseninnanneenmmcesein 1323

7/5/63 Minutes of Investigating Commission

I TIEN GUND ciicssscctistsccccccncnuseniennssnmscnnmencen 1324

Dionisije’s Book ‘‘Violations’’ (1965) (Ex-

cerpts: Resolutions of Diocesan Assemblies of

BE 1325

6/3/63 Letter of Dionisije to Synod .................... 1346

2/13/62 Report of Dionisije to Holy Synod re

SII scscseisssicinsianinensenensnvettetnscmmmensnecee 1353

6/13/63 Letter of Holy Synod to Dionisije re

Investigating Commissi0n .................::.:::sesseeeeeees 1355

11/18/63 Letter of Dionisije to Holy Synod re

ST 1356

11/18/63 Power of Authorization Executed by

ST nici caciasbiiidiesiepentensemermenemtennnmceetanmeensese 1358

Vol. | — pp. 1 to 356; Vol. 1! — pp. 357 to 719; Vol. 111 — pp. 901 to 1398; Vel. IV — pp. 1399 te 1833

xii

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’

Exnisit No.

84Q

S4W

S4X

S4CC

8)

93

96

98

101

7/29/63 Letter from Patriarch to Dionisije re

IS Oe TD siiciiictentesenicisinsatitadiivanicceonnsien 1359

1/25/64 Letter of Dionisije to Holy Synod re

IRI ne La Sis Oem RS eh en Se 1360

11/14/63 Decision of 10th Church-Nationa] As-

esmbly re Autonomy of Diocese .......................... 1365

Nov. 1963 Proclamation of 10th Church-National

TTT esccsietsucissiniiainiieenicsintiainaiiiicanaiisainisiisin saunas 1369

4/17/63 Report of Diocesan Executive Board

re Unity with Church in Yugoslavia ...................... 1375

5/9/63 Resolution of Clergy Association re Uni-

ty with Chureh in Yugoslavia

6/7/63 Letter of Dionisije to Brkich Removing

Brkich as Episcopal Vicar ..............................2+-++- 1382

7/15/63 Proclamation of Diomisije —........00........ 1383

Certificate of Incorporation of Serbian Eastern

Orthodox Diocese Council (1927) —...00.220000....... 1394

Certificate of Incorporation of Illinois Religious

I CI icitsciniosieniiessctseticecanliameiiipionciptansieaita 1399

Certificate of Incorporation of New York Reli-

gious Corporation (1942)

3/22/65 Decision of Diocesan Ecclesiastical

Court re Non-followers of Dionisije

9/3/68 Letter of Dionisije to Attorney for Du-

shan Shukletovich re Pension 1407

4/6/61 Letter of Dionisije to Doushan Shoule-

tovich re Pension

Vol. | — pp. 1 te 356; Vol. 1! — pp. 357 te 719; Vol. 111 — pp. 981 te 1388; Vol. IV — pp. 1399 te 1833

xiii

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’

Exarsit No.

106

108

131

6/6/63 Minutes of Diocesan Plenum re 5/10/63

I GE UID cincorccecsssecicenseesnsinianernnen 1409

1962 Articles of Incorporation of California Re-

ligious Corporation

2/11/64 Decision of Diocesan Court re Use of

SEUIINIIEIIIIT — sehesincadintaadsienshinenadieseupicdamnmacnansanammsemiandinanias 1424

11/4/63 Letter of Dionisije to Vladimir Mrvi-

chin, Dismissing Mrvichin as Viear .................... 1425

11/23/62 Minutes of Diocesan Executive Board ..1426

6/30/62 Letter of Dionisije to Clergy re Church

Unity

5/30/63 Letter of Dionisije to Firmilian re

5/10/63 Decisions of Hierarchy .............................- 1440

1963 Letter of Firmilian to Uros Seferovie re

SETI sclasssercanaaensisesiactenaapencaitadinadauniauanaenaadimetaaandds 1442

6/29/63 Letter of Dionisije to Simeon Groz-

danovich re Reception of Investigating Com-

ITIII ” <i. ccmencessensepnenbeadislbdanesanancebaioudeebianmdiinadadaaanaadal 1443

6/13/63 Letter of Holy Synod to Firmilian ........ 1444

10/18/63 Letter of Holy Synod to Firmilian re

Effect of Reorganization

Certificate of Incorporation of Monastery

IE CHS erteicscionicettininncinmentnniinniiinnme 1447

AR TNE GP FD ciciisesitresersisctiteinnnici 1450

11/9/27 Deed from Mardary to Diocese Council 1452

Vol. | — pp. 1 te 356; Vol. 1! — pp. 357 to 719; Vel. 11) — pp. 901 to 1398; Vol. IV — pp. 1399 te 1833

xiv

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’

Exnrisit No.

132

136

9/4/41 Deed from Diocese Council to Tllinois

Religious Corporation 1457

ee eee ee eee eee eee eee

4/12/45 Deed from Illinois Religious Corpora-

tion to Monastery Corporation 200000000000... 1459

4/22/69 Deed from Illinois Religious Corpora-

tion to Pennsylvania Religious Corp. ................ 1463

7/24/63 Resolution of Diocesan Executive Com-

mittee re Actions of New Bishops

6/12/63 Letter of Diocesan Plenum to Clergy re

Church National Assembly .....000000000000000..0c0.0. 1474

By-laws of Diocesan Pension Fund (effective

PURI . secinicnseccnticcsasianteieintsiatigamnediaidiaacsansinaniainbimeniadiinn 1477

1/24/63 Report of Investigating Commission ....1482

8/10/63 Report of Investigating Commission ....1535

Testimony of Dionisije in Rumanian Episco-

RS Gi, SU CHD | aivsicverinsensennscaincniciatieninaiitaiiin 1544

4/15/57 Letter of Dionisije to Clergy re Suspen-

sion of Antonije Abramovich ...........0000000000000000..... 1556

11/14/63 Resolution of Diocesan Council to

Amend Diocesan Constitution 2000.00.00... 1558

Vol. | — pp. 1 te 356; Vel. 1! — pp. 357 te 719; Vel. 111 — pp. 901 te 1388; Vol. 1V— pp. 1389 te 1833

xv

PAGE

DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBITS

DEFENDANTS’

Exursit No.

29 Confirmation of Dionisije as Bishop of Ameri-

ean Diocese by King Peter 00000000... 1570

29C Confirmation of Dionisije as Viear Bishop by

SETI SENET. cccddustitencdsaionnapaanintinieainidmaemmtensial 1572

30 1913 Minutes of Serbian Orthodox Priests’ &

Pe III cccntnsaccodeseszinnnseontanctiecesinisaniadiit 1573

31 1916 Minutes of Serbian Orthodox Priests’

ITED | cdinsiosessomsticntensniommieaieamiteeabnienmiaaaieniiae 1588

32 1917 Release of Father Mardary by Synod ........ 1598

33 1917 Call to American Serbs to Organize as

Independent Serbian Diocese ......0...0.........:2:0---+- 1598

35 1923 Notice to American Serbs of Mardary’s

Election as Administrator .................cc.:cccscceseceeseees 1600

36 1922 Letter to Mardary from Bishop Nikolaj

re Duties as Administrator ..................:ccecceeeeeeoees 1601

37 2/21/23 Minutes of Serbian-American Priests

I ccccricesscorvscsnsnvnpscuitacshisediensssstshadiladiiniaiiicalstiietiiail 1602

49 7/21/27 Call for Church National Assembly ....1605

51 Portions of the 1928 Constitution of Serbian

Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United

States of America & Canada .....00....00..ceeeeee 1607

61 11/27/62 Unsigned Charges against Dionisije ....1612

ees 4/25/26 Order of King Appointing Mardary

Bishop of American-Canadian Diocese .............. 1620

Vol. | — pp. 1 te 358; Vol. 1! — pp. 357 te 719; Vol. 11) — pp. 901 te 1388; Vol. IV — pp. 1398 te 1833

PAGE

DEFENDANTS’

Exuisit No.

77

101

115

116

142

148

145

149

150

151

6/25/38 Letter of Patriarchate to Diocesan

Court re Release of Irinej as Administrator

and Election of Damaskin as Bishop .................... 1622

6/23/36 Letter of Patriarchate to Diocesan

Court re Appointment of Irine} as Administra-

IU caieasininbiiatiempeianciadicigiadelieiaalaiiaaillamntdaaiaiaaaaitinbatuniaaia 1623

Sept. 1960, Resolution of the IXth Diocesan

Church-Peoples Assembly

11/7/46 Decision of Holy Synod re Appeal of

Nikola Drenovae from Diocesan Judgment

11/7/46 Decision of Holy Synod re Appeal of

Strahinja Maletich from Diocesan Judgment ....1629

5/3/50 Decision of Holy Synod re Appeal of

Vojislav Gacinovich from Diocesan Judgment ..1632

8/16/62 Letter of Damaskin to Dionisije re Del-

a a re 1634

4/20/62 Letter of Synod to Dionisije re Meeting

ee ee Be aiictrcetniieneicdeemiatin diinersicerainanite 1634

3/2/62 Letter of Synod to Dionisije re Meet-

ing of Holy Assembly .............................. chilies 1635

3/27/62 Letter of Synod to Dionisije re Dioce-

I a reciceediatea al 1636

5/17/63 Letter of Synod to Dionisije re Reor-

On Oi a 1637

7/11/63 Letter of Dionisije to Synod re Investi-

gating Commission ......................... a aaa 1640

7/13/63 Letter of Dionisije to Investigating

NN sacral 1645

Vol. | — pp. 1 to 358; Vol. 1! — pp. 357 to 719; Vol. 111 — pp. 901 te 1388; Vol. IV — pp. 1389 te 1833

XVii

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’

Exursit No.

152. 7/20/63 Report of Investigation Commission to

REE TSE eee eC: Ree RET. 1646

193 5/11/63 Minutes of Holy Assembly of Bishops

re Election of Lastavica as Bishop ......................1650

194 5/17/63 Minutes of Holy Synod of Bishops re

Reorganization of Diocese ...................::csscseseee-eee 1656

198 6/10/63 Minutes of Meeting in St. Sava

i 1661

218 12/23/62 Letter of Dionisije to Synod re Visit

EERE Ra LN ee ee 1674

220 10/1/45 Article from Serbian Orthodox Church

AC ee Oe a ET oe TT 1695

221 9/4/41 Consent of Dionisije to Transfer of

Land from Diocese Council to Illinois Religious

III dacicsinietiarninaltinltatainatinee thie iatiatiat aaa 1698

240 August 1963 Proclamation of 10th Church Na-

SE SEIT soniutitedncsisedtninmeiiiniennisininlidl 1703

241 8/10/63 Report of Investigating Commission ....1719

243 12/10/63 Minutes of Holy Synod .....000.000000..... 1727

249 7/27/63 Minutes of Holy Assembly of Bishops 1735

250 7/26/63 Minutes of Holy Assembly of Bishops 1746

254 3/5/64 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Defrock-

ia a lh 1754

255 9/13/21 Minutes of Holy Assembly of Bishops

re Establishment of American Diocese .............. 1762

258 7/5/63 Letter of Dionisije to Hrizostom and

Visarion re Visit of Investigating Commission 1765

Vel. | — pp. 1 to 398; Vel. 11 — pp. 357 te 719; Vel. 111 — pp. O81 te 1388; Vel. IV —- pp. 1388 te 1633

PAGE

POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

OPINIONS AND ORDERS

Memorandum Decision of Cireuit Court ~....02000000000..... 1767

Final Decree (dated April 30, 1973) ~...0000. 1780

Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider (filed May 18,

SEEN ccutaliseseinisampecsepenemiaanonns sasiestasloslienebidiaacalahasslalsiliaiieaisaats 1792

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Possession (filed May 24, 1973) 1797

a RS __—__aaenRsappeascroreervenemmecersvereernennoneoneneaon 1798

Supersedeas Order (filed July 23, 1973) —00000 0... 1799

Opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois ~...0000000....... 1800

Vol. | — pp. 1 to 356; ¥ol. 1! — pp. 357 te 719; Vol. 111 — pp. 961 to 1388; Vol. IV — pp. 1399 te 1833

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

OctoBer TERM, 1975

No. 75-292

THE SERBIAN EASTERN ORTHODOX DIOCESE FOR THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CANADA,

a Religious Body, et al.,

Petitioners,

DIONISIJE MILIVOJEVICH, et al.,

Respondents.

Ox Writ or CERTIORARI TO THE Unitep States CouRt

oF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.

APPENDIX

RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

IN THE PROCEEDING BELOW

(Docket of the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois)

No. 63-1644

Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United

States of America and Canada, etc., et al.

Vs.

Firmilian Ocokoljich, et al.

Date Minutes of Court

| July 26, 1963] [Complaint filed]

Feb. 28, 1964 Plaintiff given leave to file Motion

(Yager) for Summary Judgment herein in-

stanter—same filed.

Apr. 27, 1964 Certain parties given leave to file

(Yager) Answer to Complaint, Amended

and Supplemental Complaint, An-

swer to Counterclaim.

Dec. 31, 1964 Motion for Summary Judgment

(Yager) granted.

No. 63-2312

The Right Reverend Bishop Firmilian Ocokoljich,

et al.

vs.

Dionisije Milivojevich

Date

[Oct. 14, 1963]

Dee. 13, 1963

(Yager)

June 9, 1964

(Yager)

Dec. 31, 1964

(Yager)

Minutes of Court

{Complaint filed]

On Motion of Defendant cause con-

solidated and to proceed under

General number 63-1644.

Certain Defendants given leave to

file Motion to Dismiss herein in-

stanter—same filed.

Amended and Supplemental Com-

plaint heretofore filed in cause

Gen. No. 63-2312 dismissed.

{The Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in

Gen. No. 63-1644, and the Dismissal of Gen. No. 63-

2512 were reversed by the Appellate Court of Illinois

on Dec. 9, 1966, and remanded for further proceedings.

The following docket entries are proceedings after re-

mand of the cases, consolidated under Gen. No. 63-

1624. |

Date

Feb. 27, 1967

(Seidenfeld)

Minutes of Court

Plaintiff [present Petitioners] giv-

en leave to file Second Amended

and Supplemental Complaint here-

in instanter—same filed—cause as-

signed to Honorable L. Erie Carey.

Apr. 27, 1967

(Seidenfeld)

Sept. 11, 1967

(Carey)

(Oct. 31, 1967]

Feb. 13, 1968

(Carey)

[June 17, 1968]

June 24, 1968

(Carey)

3

[Defendants] given leave to file

Motion to dismiss on their behalf—

same filed.

Second Amended & Supplemental

Complaint heretofore filed herein

dismissed as to certain Defendants

—Motions to Dismiss Counts I and

III of Second Amended & Suprle-

mental Complaint denied. Interim

Opinion Re: Motion to Dismiss...

ordered filed. ...

[Defendants’ Answer to Second

Amended and Supplemental Com-

plaint filed. |

Motions by Plaintiffs to Strike ete.

heard and taken under advisement

by the Court—Defendants given

leave to file Motion to interpret the

pleadings instanter—same filed—

Defendants given 10 days in which

to file objections to said Motion—

all as per order.

[Second Interim Opinion Re: (A)

Motion by Defendants to Designate

Parties; and (B) Motion by Plain-

tiffs to Strike Defendants’ Answer

and Counterclaim. |

Motion to Strike certain portions

of Answer heard and allowed in

part and denied in part all as per

order.

[June 26, 1968]

Nov. 13, 1968

(Carey)

Dee. 27, 1968

(Carey)

Apr. 7, 1969

(Carey)

July 31, 1970

(Carey)

Sept. 28, 1970

(Carey)

Nov. 12, 1970

(Carey)

(Hinton)

[ Dee. 28, 1972]

4

[Defendants’ Further Answer to

Second Amended and Supplemen-

tal Complaint filed. |

[Plaintiffs’ Answer to Counter-

claim filed. }

Plaintiffs given leave to file Re-

ply to Defendants’ Answer and

Supplemental Answer to Second

Amended and Supplemental Com-

plaint instanter—same filed.

Cause set down for trial on April

7, 1969 at 9:30 A.M. before Judge

Carey all as per order. (See Or-

der.)

Case called for hearing—Parties

in open Court by their respective

attorneys — Proofs heard — ad-

journment.

Trial resumed—Proofs closed.

[Defendants] given leave to ‘le in-

stanter Motion for Temporary In-

junction—Same filed.

[Defendants’ Reply to Affirmative

Defense Filed. }

Petition for Temporary Injunction

ete., heard and denied.

{Memorandum Opinion Filed.]

Apr. 30, 1973

(Carey)

[May 18, 1973]

[May 24, 1973]

May 30, 1973

(Carey)

[June 8, 1973]

[June 18, 1973]

July 23, 1973

(Carey)

5

Final Decree.

{[ Defendants’ Motion to Reconsid-

er filed. }

[ Plaintiffs’ Motion for Possession

filed. |

Motion of Defendants to Reconsid-

er Denied—Motion of Defendants

for Stay or Supersedeas Bond De-

nied—Motion of Plaintiff for Pos-

session set down for hearing.

{Notice of Defendants’ Appeal.]

[Notice of Cross-Appeal. }

Force and effect of Paras. 1, 2, 3, 4,

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,

16, 19 and 20 of Court’s findings

and Paras. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10

of Decretal portion of Decree en-

tered on April 30, 1973 and de-

scribed in Notice of Appeal filed

herein ordered stayed pending Ap-

peal, and enforcement of said pro-

visions suspended.

6

PRE-TRIAL PLEADINGS,

OPINIONS AND ORDERS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

(Title Omitted in Printing)

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Now come the Plaintiffs herein, Serbian Eastern Ortho-

dox Diocese for United States of America and Canada, a

Corporation, and Serbian Orthodox Monastery of Saint

Sava, a General Not For Profit Corporation by Snyder,

Clarke, Dalziel, Holmquist & Johnson, their attorneys, and

complain of the Defendants, Firmilian Ocokolich, Stevan

Lastavica, Grigorie Udicki and The First State Bank of

Libertyville, of Libertyville, Illinois, an Illinois Banking

Corporation, as follows:

COUNT I

1. That Plaintiff Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese

for United States of America and Canada is a religious

Organization duly organized and existing under the laws

of the State of Illinois, having its principal office in Liberty-

ville, Lake County, Illinois, and Plaintiff Serbian Orthodox

Monastery of Saint Sava is a General Not For Profit Cor-

poration, organized and existing under the laws of the

State of Illinois.

2. That Plaintiffs are the bona fide owners of certain

funds, moneys, securities and deposits which were hereto-

fore deposited by said Plaintiffs with the Defendant The

First State Bank of Libertyville, Libertyville, Illinois, con-

sisting of cash on deposit in various accounts and certain

certificates, securities or bonds deposited in the name of

7

the Plaintiffs in a certain safety deposit box, said cash and

securities totalling, to-wit: $63,000.00.

3. That on or about the 18th of July, 1963 the Defen-

dant, Firmilian Ocokolich, caused to be served upon said

Defendant, The First State Bank of Libertyville, Liberty-

ville, Illinois, a Notice that said Firmilian Ocokolich pur-

ported to be the properly appointed administrator of the

affairs of the Plaintiffs, and that said bank should forth-

with ceasc and desist from disbursing any funds of said

Plaintiffs, including all checking and savings accounts on

deposit at said bank, and, further, to honor requests for

funds or money withdrawals only upon the written direc-

tion of said Defendant.

4. That as a result of said Notice, the Defendant The

First State Bank of Libertyviile, Litertyville, Illinois, by

reason of the conflicting claims, wariings and represen-

tations of the Defencants, as heretofore stated, is in great

doubt as to which rarty is eatitled to the proceeds of the

deposits, coatents of safety deposit boxes, and other assets

in its hands; and said bank, after demand, refuses to make

any disposition or disbursement of any such assets and

funds beloaging to the Plaintiffs herein.

5. That the Defendant Firmilian Ocokolich otherwise

holds himself out as and presumes to act as an adminis-

trator of a portion of the property of the Plaintiffs herein,

to the prejudice of the rights of the Plaintiffs and to the

prejudice of the administration of their property, ail with-

out authority, right or permission of the Plaintiffs herein.

6. That the Defendant Stevan Lastavica holds himself

out as, and presumes to act as an administrator of a rpor-

tion of the property of the Plaintiffs herein, to the preju-

dice of the rights of the Plaintiffs and to the prejudice of

8

the administration of their property, all without authority,

right or permission of the Plaintiffs herein.

7. That the Defendant Grigorie Udicki holds himself

out as, and presumes to act as an administrator of a por-

tion of the property of the Plaintiffs herein, to the preju-

dice of the rights of the Plaintiffs and to the prejudice of

the administration of their property, all without authority,

right or permission of the Plaintiffs herein.

8. That an actual and justifiable controversy involving

the rights and property of the parties hereto exists between

the parties.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that the Court ad-

judge:

A. That none of the Defendants, Firmilian Ocokolich,

Stevan Lastavica and Grigorie Udicki, are entitled to in-

terfere with the administrative affairs, properties, moneys,

assets, or junctions of the Plaintiffs herein.

B. That the Defendant, The First State Bank of Liber-

tyville, Libertyville, Illinois, be ordered to pay out said

funds and deliver said property to the order of the Plain-

tiffs herein, their agents and duly authorized signatories,

as the sole owners thereof.

C. Otherwise declare the rights of the parties herein.

COUNT II

Now come the Plaintiffs herein, Serbian Eastern Ortho-

dox Diocese for United States of America and Canada, a

Corporation, and Serbian Orthodox Monastery of Saint

Sava, a General Not For Profit Corporation, by Snyder.

(‘larke, Dalziel, Holmquist & Johnson, their attorneys, and

complain of the Defendants, Firmilian Ocokolich, Stevan

Lastavica and Grigorie Udicki, as follows:

9

1. The Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of Paragraph

1 of Count I of this Complaint as and for Paragraph 1 of

this Count with the same force and effect as if said para-

graph was repeated herein in detail.

2. The Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of Paragraph

2 of Count | of this Complaint as and for Paragraph 2 of

this Count with the same force and effect as if said para-

graph was repeated herein in detail.

3. The Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of Paragraph

3 of Count I of this Complaint as and for Paragraph 3 of

this Count with the same force and effect as if said para-

graph was repeated herein in detail.

4. The Plaintiffs reallege the allegation of Paragraph

4 of Count I of this Complaint as and for Paragraph 4 of

this Count with the same force and effect as if said para-

graph was repeated herein in detail.

5. The Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of Paragraph

5 of Count I of this Complaint as and for Paragraph 5 of

this Count with the same force and effect as if said para-

graph was repeated herein in detail.

6. The Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of Paragraph

6 of Count I of this Complaint as and for Paragraph 6 of

this Count with the same force and effect as if said para-

graph was repeated herein in detail.

7. The Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of Paragraph

7 of Count I of this Complaint as and for Paragraph 7 of

this Count with the same force and effect as if said para-

graph was repeated herein in detail.

8. That the interference of said Defendants, Firmilian

Ocokolich, Stevan Lastavica and Grigorie Udicki, is wilful,

unlawful and without just cause.

10

9. That the said acts of the said Defendants, Firmilian

Ocokolich, Stevan Lastavica and Grigorie Udicki, have,

do, and in the future will cause irreparable injury and

damage to the property of the Plaintiffs herein.

10. That the Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that the Court:

A. Issue its Writ of Permanent Injunction enjoining

the Detendants, Firmilian Ocokolich, Stevan Lastavica and

Grigorie Udicki, from representing themselves to be bona

fide administrators or agents of the Plaintiffs herein, with

any dominion or control over the assets or affairs of the

Plaintiffs herein.

B. Issue its Writ of Permanent Injunction restraining

the Defendants, Firmilian Ocokolich, Stevan Lastavica and

Grigori Udicki, from further interference with the affairs

or assets of the Plaintiffs herein.

€. Such further relief as the Court deems fit and prop-

er and the exigencies of the case require.

SNYDER, CLARKE, DALZIEL,

HOLMQUIST & JOHNSON

By Daniel J. Dalziel

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States of

America and Canada, ete., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.

Firmilian Ocokoljich, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

The Right Reverend Bishop Firmilian Ocokoljich, et al.,

Plaintiffs-\ppellants, v. Dionisije Milivojevich, Defen-

dant-Appellee.

11

Gen. No. 65-40.

Second District.

April 7, 1966.

Supplemental opinion September 7, 1966.

Rehearing denied September 7, 1966.

Mr. Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the court.

This appeal involves two actions—consolidated in the

trial court—which narrate a dispute over the control oi

the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States

and Canada, and the property and assets of this Diocese,

and of a related institution. The trial court determined

this matter by granting a summary judgment in one suit,

and granting a motion to dismiss in the other. The judg-

ment and order were based upon extensive pleadings, depo-

sitions and aflidavits. Because of the summary presenta-

tion and the conitlicting representations of the parties, the

factual background necessary to an understanding of the

case, is not in all respects certain.

We will relate the church and corporate histories, and

the church and corporate laws of the institutions involved,

as best we comprehend them under the posture of this

appeal, in that such background is essential to an under-

standing of the issues involved in these pleadings.

In California and Pennsylvania in the 1890’s, Ameri-

cans of Serbian descent formed completely autonomous

religious associations. In 1917, these Serbian church so-

cieties became associated with the Russian Orthodox

Church which sent Father Mardarije Uskokovich to this

country to organize an ‘‘independent’’ Serbian Diocese in

America.

12

In the 1920's, the Diocese in this country became affiliated

with the Serbian Orthodox Church of Yugoslavia. This

Diocese was incorporated in 1927 unde the laws of the

State of Illinois, as a religious society, under the name

of *‘Serbian Orthodox Diocese Council for United States

and Canada.’’ It duly adopted a Constitution, which was

approved by the Serbian Orthodox Church of Yugoslavia.

This charter was permitted to lapse, and in 1935, a new

religious society was again incorporated under the laws

of the State of Illinois, and was called ‘‘Serbian Eastern

Orthodox Diocese for United States of America and Cana-

da.’’ Its Constitution was substantially the same as that

of the first corporation and it was likewise approved by

the Serbian Orthodox Church of Yugoslavia.

The Holy Bishops Assembly of the Serbian Orthodox

Church, Yugoslavia, elected Dionisije Milivojevich as Bish-

op in 1935, and the following year appointed him as

Bishop of the Diocese in this country. When King Peter II

of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was deposed by the Com-

munists in 1944, Bishop Dionisije became concerned that

efforts might be made by the Communist government to

obtain control of the property of the Diocese in this coun-

try. Consequently, this religious corporation, acting

through its Diocesan Council, which is hereafter more

fully defined, adopted a resolution calling for the incor-

poration—-under the general not-for-profit corporate laws

of the State of Illinois—of a separate corporation, to

which the assets of the religious corporation would be

transferred and in which the title to the various assets

would be held. Such a corporation was formed in the year

1945 under the name ‘‘Serbian Orthodox Monastery of

Saint Sava.”’

13

Before completing this chronology, we will briefly re-

late the relevant portions or the Constitutions and By-

laws of the Serbian Orthodox Church; of the Serbian East-

ern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America

and Canada, the religious corporation; and of the Serbian

Orthodoy Monastery of Saint Sava, the not-for-profit cor-

poration.

The Constitution of the Serbiax Orthodox Church (with

its headquarters in Belgrade, Yugoslavia) sets forth that

the Serbian Orthodox Church is autocephaious, and gov-

erns and regulates independently, all of its religious af-

fairs; and that it has the rank of a Patriarchate and main-

tains dogmatic and canonical unity with all other Ortho-

dox Churches. It provides that the Church is episcopal

with the main administrative divisions ‘‘composed of di-

oceses, both in regard to church hierarchical and church

administrative aspect.’’

Article 10 provides that there are the following church

hierarchical and administrative authorities, bodies and

organs:

‘1, Patriarch, Holy Bishop’s Council and Holy

Synod, High Ecclesiastical Court, Patriarchal

Council and Patriarchal Board;

‘*2. Diocesan Bishop, diocesan ecclesiastical court,

diocesan council and diocesan executive board;

9

Additional authorities at a level below the dioceses are

then set forth which are not pertinent to this decision.

It is provided in Article 12:

‘*The Serbian Orthodox Church is episcopal. Its main

administrative division is composed of dioceses, both

- 14

in regard to church hierarchical and church adminis-

trative aspect.’’ (Emphasis ours.)

Article 13 provides in part:

‘*At the head of each diocese there is the diocesan

bishop as its direct ruler. He is, according to the

church canonical regulations, chief representative

and guiding leader of all church spiritual life and

chureh order in the diocese and he rules the diocese

assisted by his clergy and laymen.’’

Article 14 reads: ‘‘These are the Dioceses in the Ser-

bian Orthodox Church... .’’ It then lists a number of

dioceses, all located within Yugoslavia. Article 15 pro-

vides that in addition to the dioceses previously named,

there are additional dioceses outside of Yugoslavia ‘‘un-

der the jurisdiction of the Serbian Orthodox Church in

spiritual and hierarchical aspect.’’ (Emphasis ours.)

Among those listed is the Serbian Orthodox Church in

the United States of America and Canada. Article 16

provides that ‘‘Decisions of establishing, naming, liqui-

dating, reorganizing, and the seat of dioceses ... is de-

cided by the Holy Council of Bishops, in agreement with

the Patriarchal Council.’’ For the reasons hereinafter

stated, we believe that Article 16 applies only to those

dioceses of the Serbian Orthodox Church which are under

its jurisdiction in both church hierarchical and church

administrative aspects.

Next, in the body of private laws governing the institu-

tions before the court, is the Constitution of the Diocese.

It states that the Diocese ‘‘is considered ecclesiastically

—judicially as an organic part of the Serbian Patri-

archate in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.’’ Article 2 pro-

vides that ‘‘All statutes and rules which regulate the

15

ecclesiastical—canonical authority and position of the

Serbian Orthodox Church in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia

are also compulsory’’ on the Diocese ‘‘with the excep-

tion of specific cases which must be formulated with

regard to local circumstances in accordance with eccle-

siastical and judicial principles.’’

Article 3 of this Constitution provides that the juris-

diction of this Diocese includes the entire political terri-

tory of the United States and Canada, which by its geo-

graphical location enjoys ‘‘full administrative freedom’’

under which ‘‘it can independently regulate and rule the

activities of its church, schools and other diocesan insti-

tutions and all funds and beneficiaries, through its or-

gans, but in accordance with the laws of this constitution

and in agreement with the laws of the United States of

America and Canada.’’ The highest legislative and ad-

ministrative authority of the Diocese is the Diocesan Na-

tional Assembly; its executive and administrative organ

is the Diocesan Council. The Diocesan Assembly is opened

by the Diocesan Bishop. One of its functions is to make

changes and amendments to the Constitution ‘‘with the

approval of the Holy Bishop’s (sic) Assembly of the

Serbian Patriarchate.’’

Article 9 provides that the Bishop of the diocese shall

be appointed by the Holy Assembly of Bishops of the

Serbian Patriarchate. Article 13 specifies that when the

seat of the Diocese Bishop is vacated, the administration

of the Diocese, in spiritual and administrative matters,

shall be upheld by the Diocesan Ecclesiastical Court and

Diocesan Council until an administrator is appointed

‘‘by the Serbian Patriarch with the Holy Pontifical

Synod.’’ Article 14 provides that the Diocesan Bishop is

the supreme head of the St. Sava Monastery in Liberty-

16

ville and that he appoints the abbot of the monastery

and ‘‘conducts the canonical supervision and the higher

executive authority over the monastery.’’

Article 149 provides that the property owned by the

Diocese is ‘‘to serve exclusively for the purpose designated

by the statutes of this Constitution and cannot be used

for any other purpose.’’ Article 155 provides that the

Diocesan Fund consists of ‘‘all funds and assets which

the Serbian people of the entire Diocese, individually or

collectively through their church-school congregations and

other various societies and organizations should establish,

increase and dedicate to the mutual necessities of its

chureh and school for the religious and educational aims

of the entire Diocese.’’ It further provides that the

Diocesan Fund is to be supervised by the Diocesan Coun-

cil. Article 156 provides that all real estate and per-

sonal property of the St. Sava Monastery in Libertyville

is supervised by the monastery’s administration ‘‘under

the direct control of the Diocesan Bishop.’’

The Bylaws of the Serbian Orthodox Monastery of

Saint Sava—the not for-profit corporation formed in

1945—provide that it is an autonomous Serbian Church

institution; and further provide that the corporation

‘*possesses its own property which cannot be disposed

of, sold, mortgaged or otherwise conveyed by any Serbian

Chureh authority, without the consent and approval of

the Diocesan Council, headed by the Bishop and the Dioce-

san Church conventions.”’

Article V provides that the Diocesan Bishop, ‘‘received

as such by the Diocesan Council, by the Diocesan Church

court and by the Diocesan Convention, is the supreme

head of the Monastery and is the general overseer ac-

cording to the Holy Canons of the Church. (By-Law 156

17

of the Diocese.)’’ Article VI of the Bylaws provides that

the ‘‘president of the Board of Directors shall be the

canonical Bishop of the Diocese, received as such by the

Diocesan Council, by the Diocesan Church Court and by

the Diocesan Convention.’’

With the above Constitutions and corporate histories in

mind, we considered the following chronology of events:

On May 10, 1963, the Holy Episcopal Synod of the Serbian

Orthodox Church of Yugoslavia suspended Bishop Dion-

isije, and at the same time appointed Iirmilian Ocokoljich

as administrator of the Diocese; on May 17, 1963, its

Holy Episcopal Council disbanded the American-Canadian

Diocese and in its place established three new Dioceses,

which extended beyond the borders of the United States

and Canada and included South Africa and South Ameri-

ca; and on said latter date, the Holy Episcopal Synod

appointed [Tirmilian Ocokoljich, Gregorije Udicki and

Stefan Lastavica as temporary administrators of the re-

spective Dioceses. The Holy Bishops’ Council, on July

27, 1963, discharged Bishop Dionisije as Diocesan Bishop

and elected Bishop Firmilian as Diocesan Bishop in his

place. It is significant that Bishop Firmilian was not

elected as Bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese Coun-

cil for United States and Canada, but rather was elected

as Bishop of one of the three newly created Dioceses.

The other two temporary administrators were likewise

each respectively elected as a Bishop of one of the other

two newly created Dioceses.

The Diocesan National Assembly adopted a resolution

declaring the division of the Diocese into three Dioceses,

to be unlawful and unconstitutional, and refused to recog-

nize the suspension of Bishop Dionisije or the election of

the other three Bishops. The Holy Bishops’ Synod of the

18

Serbian Orthodox Church responded by declaring the

Diocesan National Assembly unlawful. In reply to this,

the Diocesan National Assembly, at an adjourned meet-

ing held in November, 1963, passed amendments to the

Diocese Constitution, declaring the autonomy of the Dio-

cese and its freedom from all control of the Patriarchate

in Belgrade. These amendments were not submitted to

the Holy Bishops’ Assembly for approval. On March

15, 1964, the Holy Episcopal Council, comprised of the

Patriarch, Metropolitan and Diocesan Bishops of Yugo-

slavia defrocked Bishop Dionisije.

The appellees, referred to herein as the ‘‘Dionisije

faction,’’ brought the first suit in the names of the re-

ligious and not-for-profit corporation against the three

Bishops of the new Dioceses, appellants, referred to here-

in as the ‘‘three Bishops faction,’’ praying that none of

the defendants be permitted to interfere with the ad-

ministration of the properties of the plaintiff corpora-

tions. The ‘‘three Bishops faction’’ brought the second

suit praying that the court find that Bishop Dionisije had

been removed as Bishop; that the three Bishops be found

to be lawfully appointed and be permitted the use of all

the Diocesan properties; that only those members of the

Church, who recognize the three Bishops, be acknowl-

edged as members of the Serbian Orthodox Church for

the Diocese of the United States and Canada; that the

two corporations be found to hold their assets in trust for

members of the Serbian Orthodox Church residing with-

in the Dioeeses, and for other similar relief. As indicated,

the trial court consolidated these actions, considered the

pleadings, depositions and affidavits, and granted the

‘‘Dionisije faction’? summary judgment on their complaint

and granted their motion to dismiss the complaint of the

‘‘three Bishops faction.’’

= 00 cere. ot OO A A EB ew

ow

19

The appellants contend that the issue before this court

is simply whether they or the appellees, are entitled to

exercise the religious authority of the Serbian Orthodox

Church in this country. Appellants assert that only ec-

clesiastical matters are involved, and the appellees urge

that only the property rights of [Illinois corporations are

embraced in this litigation.

We believe that both contentions are correct, in part.

While both factions claim the right to control the proper-

ties and assets held by the Illinois corporations, neither

the religious nor the not-for-profit corporation may claim

title to or use of the assets free of trust or use for the bene-

fit of the members of the Diocese. The determination of

the disputed right to contro! such properties and assets

cannot be made solely by resolving the question of title

or the exercise of corporate authority under the Illinois

corporate laws.

Article 155 of the Constitution of the Diocese imposes

a trust upon the use of the Diocesan Fund and Article

149 further limits the use of the property ‘‘to serve ex-

clusively for the purpose designated by the statutes of.

this Constitution and cannot be used for any other pur-

pose.’’ Section 46f of the Religious Corporations Act

(Ill. Rev Stats 1963, e 32, par 181) further imposes such

a trust, which arises by operation of law in the absence of

a declaration of trust or use in the gift, devise or grant

in the instrument giving the property to the Church.

By the same token, the resolution of the Diocesan Coun-

cil calling for the creation of the not-for-profit corpora-

tion to which the assets of the Diocese were to be

transferred, can only have validity if this trust is like-

wise to follow the assets into the hands of this corpora-

20

tion and govern the administration of such assets. The

creation of the Serbian Orthodox Monastery of Saint

Sava, pursuant to the resolution of the Diocesan Council,

is consistent with the degree of autonomy and adminis-

trative freedom reserved by the Diocese unto itself in

Article 3 of the Constitution which provides that ‘‘it can

independently regulate and rule the activities of its

church, schools and other diocesan institutions and all

funds and beneficences, through its organs.’’ The bylaw

of the not-for-profit corporation providing that its property

‘‘cannot be disposed of, sold, mortgaged or otherwise con-

veyed by any Serbian Church authority without the consent

of the Diocesan Council, headed by the Bishop and the

Diocesan Church conventions’’ is not inconsistent with

9”

either the trust imposed or the Constitut onal requirements

of the Diocese.

It is within the framework of these organizational laws

that this dispute must be resolved. The protection of the

law extends to religious associations the same as to other

voluntary associations of benevolent or charitable pur-

poses. ‘The rights of property or other civil rights of such

associations are equally under the protection of law, and

the actions of their members, subject to its restraints.

Ginossi v. Samatos, 3 Ill App2d 514, 520, 123 NE2d 104

(Ist Dist 1954).

In Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall 679 (1871), 20 L Ed 666,

the United States Supreme Court set forth the three cate-

vories of cases which have come before the courts pertain-

ing to the rights of property held by ecclesiastical bodies,

namely: (1) When the property, by the express terms of

the instrument under which it is held, must be devoted to

some specific form of religious doctrine or belief; (2) When

the property is held by a religious congregation which, by

21

the nature of its organization, is strictly independent of

other ecclesiastical associations, and so far as church gov-

erenment is concerned, owes no fealty or obligation to any

higher authority; and (3) Where the ecclesiastical body

holding the property is but a subordinate member of some

general church organization in which there are superior

ecclesiastical tribunals with a general and ultimate power

of control, more or less complete, in some supreme judica-

tory over the whole membership of the general organiza-

tion.

The Supreme Court in Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathe-

dral of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America,

344 US 94 (1952) at page 110, 97 L Ed 120, 133, 134, also

defined the third group—the hierarchical churches—as

those organized as a body with other churches having

similar faith and doctrine, with a common ruling convo-

cation or ecclesiastical head. We do not believe it can

seriously be contended that the American Diocese is not

a part of such a hierarchical structure. The constitutions

referred to above abound with references to the hierarchi-

cal framework, with the Serbian Orthodox Church as the

General Church. The Church history indicates this is so,

and the manner of incorporating the Diocese in this coun-

try further evidences this fact.

There are two methods of incorporating religious so-

cieties under the Illinois Religious Corporations Act: sec-

tions 35-46 inclusive of the Act provided for the incorpora-

tion of independent church organizations (Ill Rev Stats

1963, ¢ 32, pars 164-175, incl.); and sections 46(a)-(k)

inclusive, provide for the incorporation of any church

organization which is ‘‘under the patronage, control, di-

rection or supervision of any ecclesiastical body, diocesan

or like ecclesiastical officer. . . .’’ (Ill Rev Stats 1963,

22

e 32, pars. 176-186, incl.) The Diocese in this country was

incorporated in 1935 under the latter provisions. This

fact, together with the constitutional language, church his-

tory and practice, clearly establishes the hierarchical na-

ture of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Ginossi v. Samatos,

supra, at 525.

In disputes involving churches, hierarchical in nature,

the secular courts must accept the decisions of the ec-

clesiastical judicatories within the structure, as to ques-

tions of discipline, faith or ecclesiastical rule, custom or

law. If a civil right depends upon an ecclesiastical mat-

ter, the civil court must take the ecclesiastical decisions

as it finds them. Watson v. Jones, supra; Ferraria, et al.

vy. Vasconecellos, et al., 31 Ill 25, 46 (1863). It is only

where the decision of a church tribunal is tainted with

fraud, collusion or arbitrariness that the decision need

not be accepted by the secular court. Gonzalez v. Roman

Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 280 US 1, 16, 17 (1929),

74:1. Ed 131, 137.

The appointment and removal of a Bishop is clearly a

canonical act. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of the

Russian @.inodox Church of North America, supra; Gon-

zalez v. Loman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, supra. We

may not alter what was done by the ecclesiastical govern-

ing authorities in this respect. It is clear that the Diocese

recognized the right of the Serbian Patriarchate in this

regard by providing in Article 9 of its Constitution that its

Bishop shall be appointed by the Holy Assemu'y of Bish-

ops and by recognizing in Article 2, the ecclesiastical-canon-

ical authority of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the

Kingdom of Yugoslavia. We must in this regard accept

the ecclesiastical deteriuination that Dionisije is not the

Bishop of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the

United States of America and Canada.

23

We do not accept that it must necessarily follow, how-

ever, that the action of the Serbian Orthodox Church in

dividing this Diocese into three new Dioceses, and changing

its boundaries, and in appointing Bishops for the three

supposedly new Dioceses, is proper. We find that there

was manifested in the Constitution of the Diocese a very

evident intent to retain autonomy and independence in the

administration of its affairs while accepting the ecclesiasti-

eal-canonical authority and position of the Serbian Ortho-

dox Church of Yugoslavia. Thus, Article 2 provides that

the Diocese is considered ecclesiastically-judicially as an

organic part of the Serbian Patriarchate. It does not state

that the Diocese is considered as a part of the Patriarchate

administratively. Article 3 provides that the Diocese is to

enjoy full administrative freedom within the entire politi-

cal territory of the United States of America and Canada,

under which ‘‘it can independently regulate and rule the

activities of its church, school and other diocesan institu-

tions and all funds and beneficences, through its organs,

but in accordance with the laws of this constitution and in

agreement with the laws of the United States of America

and Canada.’’

Further, the Diocese did not surrender to the Serbian

Patriarchate the power to alter or change its basic gov-

erning law—its Constitution. The Serbian Patriarchate

was not given the power to initiate changes in the Diocesan

Constitution, but was only given the power to approve

changes to the Constitution introduced and adopted by the

Diocesan Assembly. It is inconceivable to us that the

Serbian Patriarchate, which is denied the express power

to alter or amend the Constitution of the Diocese, has the

implied power to totally revoke and abrogate this constitu-

tion by decreeing the Diocese to no longer be in existence.

We cannot accept such conclusion and find the Constitution

24

of the Serbian Patriarchate and that of the Diocese con-

sistent in this regard.

Article 12 of the Patriarchate’s Constitution provides

that the Diocese is the main administrative division of

the church in oth the church hierarchical and church ad-

ministrative aspect, and Article 14 significantly states:

‘*These are the Dioceses in the Serbian Orthodox Church”’

and thereafter lists only the Dioceses with Yugoslavia.

In a separate Article—Article 15—there are listed the

Dioceses which are ‘‘under the jurisdiction of the Serbian

Orthodox Church in spiritual and hierarchical aspect.’’

Article 15 does not mention or specify that the Dioceses

there listed are under the jurisdiction of the Serbian

Church in the administrative aspect. It is there that the

American-Canadian Diocese is listed. We believe that

Article 16—granting power to establish, liquidate and re-

organize Dioceses—applies only to those completely subor-

dinated to the Serbian Orthodox Church, in the administra-

tive aspect as well as in the spiritual and hierarchical

aspect, as set forth in Article 12.

The appellees have argued that the Diocesan Assembly,

as the highest executive and administrative body of the

Diocese, had the power, by majority vote to amend its Con-

stitution, and they cite Kuns v. Robertson, 154 Il] 394, 414,

40 NE 343 (1895) as authority on this point. However, in

Kuns, the Constitution contained no provision—as did

Article 23(8) of the Diocesan Constitution—that the high-

est body of the Diocese (the Assembly, in the case at bar)

in amending its constitution, must also obtain the approval

of yet another society (the Holy Bishops’ Assembly of the

Serbian Patriarchate, in the case at bar). As we under-

stand the appellees’ position, they claim to have validly

amended the Constitution in 1963 by the action of the

ee

25

Diocesan Assembly alone; they do not assert that they

renounced its force and effect. Having failed to obtain the

approval of the Holy Bishops’ Assembly as required by

the Constitution, the purported amendments cannot be

valid.

In Lawson, et al. v. Kolbenson, et al., 61 Ill 405 (1871),

the court held that the congregation could act by its ma-

jority and could not be controlled by a higher religious

body—a synod. However, we must note the type of re-

ligious organization which the court had under considera-

tion when making this pronouncement. At page 421, the

court stated:

‘‘This church organization is unlike those of other

denominations, where they can not exist at all except

in subordination to a higher and controlling organiza-

tion. This church had a complete legal existence,

self-governing in character, before it united with any

synod.’’

The Lawson case, like the Ginossi case, supra, both cited

by the appellees, are the second type of case noted in Wat-

son v. Jones, where the religious organization is completely

independent of other ecclesiastical associations. They are

not relevant to our determination.

The appellees suggest that the case of Romanian Ortho-

dox Missionary Episcopate v. Trutza, 205 F2d 107 (CA

6th, 1953) is authority for the proposition that they had

the right to amend their Constitution so as to elect their

own Bishop and declare their complete autonomy. Again,

the bylaws and history of the Church show that Trutza

is factually inapposite. In Trutza, the sole issue was de-

fined as the right of the Episcopate to elect its own Bishop.

When enacted, the bylaws provided that the Episcopate

26

was autonomous and had power to elect its own Bishop;

and that the Episcopate maintained only spiritual and

canonical wnity with the Romanian Orthodox Church.

Thereafter, a Bishop obtained an amendment to the by-

laws providing for the election of future bishops by the

Holy Synod in Bucharest, and later the Episcopate further

amended its bylaws to again restore this power to the

Episcopate. It is nowhere contended in Trutza that any of

the amendments were made in contravention of the provi-

sions of the existing bylaws. Such is not the case here.

The appellees also rely upon the case of Russian Ortho-

dox Greek Catholic St. Peter & St. Paul’s Church of

Lorain v. Burdikoff, 177 Ohio App 1, 189 NE2d 451 (CA

Ohio 1962) and Ginossi, supra. In Burdikoff, the Patriarch

of Moscow had long recognized the autonomy of the Metro-

polia in this country. The court held that the Patriarch

was prevented either by laches or by estoppel from now

asserting its control over the Metropolia. On the record in

the case at bar, we find no such basis for asserting that the

appellants are prevented by laches from asserting control.

In Ginossi, the Constitution of the Diocese reserved unto

the Diocese ‘‘absolute and unqualified’’ power to amend its

constitution and bylaws. Such reservation was absent in

the case at bar.

The Supreme Court in Kedroff, at page 116, in referring

to the case of Watson v. Jones stated: ‘‘The opinion

radiates, however, a spirit of freedom for religious organi-

zations, an independence from secular control or manipula-

tion, in short, power to decide for themselves, free from

state interference, matters of church government as well

as those of faith and doctrine.’’ This theory is applicable,

however, not only to the mother religious organization, the

Serbian Orthodox Church, but also to the member religious

27

organization, the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for

United States of America and Canada. In addition to be-

ing religious societies, both are constitutional societies

existing within the framework of their respective bodies

of law. To the extent that the Diocese retained unto itself

certain matters of church government by its Constitution,

it is not for the Serbian Orthodox Church to usurp these

functions by the pretended power of its higher hierarchicai

authority.

In the last analysis it must be said that all church so-

cieties may not lend themselves precisely to the three cate-

gories set forth in Watson v. Jones, supra. As indicated in

the divergence of constitutional provisions of the cases

which have been before the courts, there may be varying

degrees of autonomy. Where, as here, the Diocese has re-

served unto itself certain powers of church administration

and government, and granted unto a superior tribunal,

limited powers—such as the appointment of its head and

the approval of any changes in its fundamental law—those

reserved powers must be protected not only from State

interference, but also from interference from other ec-

clesiastical societies.

From the views we have expressed herein, the Serbian

Orthodox Church has authority to make the ecclesiastical

decisions relative to the removal and appointment of a

Bishop for the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for

United States of Americu and Canada, as well as the ap-

pointment of a temporary administrator. It exceeded its

authority, however, and infringed upon the authority of

the Diocese when it purported to change the geographical

structure of the Diocese and eliminate its reserved ad-

ministrative powers, including the control over Church

properties, subject to the trust imposed thereon, by dis-

solving the Diocese and creating three new Dioceses.

28

Accordingly, the summary judgment granted by the trial

court in cause No. 63-1644 is hereby reversed, as is the

order dismissing the amended complaint in Cause No. 63-

2313; and the causes are remanded with directions to

the trial court to proceed, under proper pleading, with a

full hearing on the merits of the causes in accordance with

the views expressed herein.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Moran, P.J. and ABRAHAMSON, J., concur.

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Plaintiffs-appellees, in their petition for rehearing, vig-

orously contend that the court has misapprehended cer-

‘tain points raised in their brief. We deem this case of

sufficient significance to warrant elaborating on our opin-

ion concerning these matters.

Plaintiffs-appellees first contend that the opinion should

be corrected to read that the Holy Episcopal Council of

the Serbian Orthodox Church of Yugoslavia on May 10,

1963, purported to divide the American-Canadian Diocese

into three new Dioceses, and on May 17, 1963, the Holy

Episcors: Synod, in executing this decision, appointed

Firmilian as temporary administrator of one of the three

supposedly newly created Dioceses in place of Bishop

Dionisije. This is all quite true and, as pointed out in

the opinion, the Serbiar. Orthodox Church exceeded its

authority in these respects. It was without authority to

disband the American-Canadian Diocese, and it follows

that the purported appointments of temporary adminis-

trators and Bishops of these supposedly new Dioceses were

without validity.

29

This decision was, however, only one of the decisions

made at the May 10 meeting. The Holy Episcopal Synod,

under the date of May 17, 1963, and under No. 1725/2a

p 237 and under No. 1726/2a p 238, notified Firmilian of

the decision to divide the Diocese and of the facts that

Dionisije was Bishop of the newly created Middle West-

ern American Diocese, and having been suspended, that

he, Firmilian, was temporary administrator. Under our

opinion, this notice and these decisions were likewise void.

Previously, however, under date of May 10, 1963, and |

under No. 1664/2a p 188, the Holy Episcopal Synod ad-

vised Bishop Dionisije that, 2s of that date, it had sus-

pended him as Bishop of the American-Canadian Diocese

pending examination of the charges against him, and that

it was appointing Firmilian as temporary administrator

thereot in his place. In our original opinion, we held that

these ecclesiastical decisions were within the power of the

Holy Episcopal Synod, and, as a result, Firmilian was

validly appointed temporary administrator, not of one of

the supposedly new Dioceses, but of the original Ameri-

can-Canadian Diocese. Later Bishop Dionisije was dis-

charged as such Diocesan Bishop.

Plaintiffs-appellees object to that part of the opinion

wherein we state, ‘‘We must, in this regard, accept the

ecclesiastical determination that Dionisije is not the Bish-

op of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the Unit-

ed States of America and Canada.’’ They complain that

appellants are quoting this sentence for propaganda pur-

poses; that the trial court did not hold a hearing on

appellants’ complaint, having dismissed it; and that the

appellees thus did not have to present proof of such fac-

tors as might justify a secular court in not accepting the

ecclesiastical decision of a church tribunal.

30

Our opinion was based on the summary presentation

and the conflicting representations of the parties. No tes-

timony was taken at the trial. Consequently, it was not

our intent to prejudge what might be presented to the trial

court on remandment in an orderly and complete hearing

of these consolidated cases on their merits. If, upon

proper pleadings, competent testimony and other valid

evidence, the appellees can present a case which would

warrant and justify the trial court—a civil court—in not

accepting a pertinent ecclesiastical decision or decisions,

we do not mean to be understood to preclude them from

doing so. Our purpose in remanding the case is to afford

all of the litigants a complete and full hearing on the

merits pertaining to the many issues and questions in-

volved. The factual background of this case is indeed sig-

nificant, but it is not without dispute, as is evidenced by

the numerous conflicting representations made to the court

through extensive pleadings, depositions, affidavits, and

briefs.

The legal conclusions reached in our opinion are based

upon the facts as they appear to us as the case stands at

this juncture. Should a full hearing develop factual mat-

ters of significance, different from those upon which this

opinion is based, then our opinion would be limited ac-

cordingly.

While we have due respect for the law of judicial par-

simony, we do not believe that an opinion should judicially

shortchange the litigants by failing to chart a course of

procedure upon return to the trial court. Such failure

would aggravate, rather than aid, in the ultimate dis-

position of the litigation, as well as encourage further

appeals.

31

We will only briefly comment on the contention raised

upon rehearing that the 1935 Constitution of the Ameri-

can-Canadian Diocese was a mere contract or compact

between it and the Serbian Orthodox Church, which the

latter repudiated, renounced and abandoned when it sought

to dissolve the Diocese, and that thereafter the Diocese

did not have to obtain approval of Constitutional amend-

ments by the Holy Bishops’ Assembly as required by the

Diocesan Constitution.

To us the Constitution of the Diocese is something more

than a contract or compact under which certain powers

were delegated by the Diocese which could allegedly be

restored unto it upon a repudiation of the contract. We

view the Diocesan Constitution, together with the Con-

stitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, as expressions

of the fundamental laws governing the relationship and

authority of these respective church organizations—which

were thereby joined in certain respects in a hierarchical

and episcopal structure—as distinguished from an autono-

mous or congregational church entity. An act contrary to

such constitution is not a repudiation, permitting the Con-

stitution to be abandoned and ignored. Such act is rather

without validity, force or effect.

For these reasons, we adhere to the opinion herein as

originally adopted, subject to the limitation expressly set

forth above.

Moray, P.J. and Apranamson, J., concur.

32

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

(Title Omitted in Printing)

SECOND AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL

COMPLAINT

COUNT I

Plaintiffs, Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the

United States of America and Canada, a religious body,

and Firmilian Ocokoljich, complain of the defendants Dioni-

sije Milivejevich, Serbian Orthodox Monastery of St. Sava,

an Illinois not for profit corporation, Serbian Orthodox

Diocese for the United States of America and Canada, an

Illinois religious corporation, Right Reverend Bishop

Iriney, Nikola Stepanovich, Svetozar Maravich, Uros

Seferovich, Todor Polich, Nikola Sever, Robert Vujovich,

Milutin Djordjevich, Nikola Cabraja, Bob Lagather, Milu-

tin Bajeetich, Milan Tomich, Mitar Bulatovich, Nikola

Krguljac, Mike Radakovich, Steven Balach, Dragoljub,

and Voja Popovich, as follows:

1. Plaintiff Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for

the United States of America and Canada (sometimes

hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the diocese’’) is a hierarchical-

ly organized religious body which was established in 1921

in accordance with the customs and canons of the Serbian

Orthodox Church.

2. Defendant Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for

the United States of America and Canada (sometimes

hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the religious corporation’’) is

a religious corporation duly incorporated in 1935 under

Sections 46a-46k of the Illinois Religious Corporation Act

(Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 32, para. 176-186).

Oe A ns te ———

33

3. The religious corporation was established for the

purpose of acting as the secular arm of the diocese.

4. Plaintiff Firmilian Ocokoljich is the duly appointed

temporary administrator of the diocese, and by virtue of

that position, the presiding officer of the religious corpora-

tion.

5. Defendant Dionisije Milivojevich is a former bishop

of the diocese and former presiding officer of the religious

corporation. He resides in the County of Lake, State of

Illinois.

6. Defendant Serbian Orthodox Monastery of St. Sava

(sometimes hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the not for profit

corporation’’) is a general not for profit corporation or-

ganized in 1945 and existing under the laws of the State

of Illinois and has its principal office in the County of

Lake, State of Llinois.

7. Upon information and belief, all other individual

defendants purport to be members of the Executive Board

of the religious corporation or members of the Board of

Directors of the not fcr profit corporation or purport to

act in both capacities.

8. The diocese was at all times relevant hereto ecclesias-

tically and hierarchically a subordinate member of the

Hierarchically structured Serbian Orthodox Church whose

principal See is in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.

9. The supreme legislative authority in matters of

faith, officiation, church order, and internal organization

as well as the supreme juridical authority of the Serbian

Orthodox Church is the Holy Assembly of Bishops.

10. The supreme executive body of the Serbian Ortho-

dox Church is the Holy Episcopal Synod.

34

11. On May 10, 1963, the Holy Episcopal Synod, upon

the recommendation of the Holy Assembly of Bishops, sus-

pended the defendant Dionisije Milivojevich from his du-

ties and privileges as bishop of the diocese. A true and

correct translated copy of that decision is attached to this

complaint as ‘‘Exhibit A’’ and incorporated herein.

12. By its decision of May 10, 1963, the Holy Episcopal

Synod appointed plaintiff Firmilian Ocokoljich temporary

administrator of the diocese. That decision is included in

‘*Exhibit A’’ to this second amended and supplemental

complaint.

13. By its decision of July 27, 1963, the Holy Assembly

of Bishops removed the defendant Dionisije as bishop of

the Middle Western American Diocese for the United

States of America and Canada. A true and correct trans-

lated copy of that decision is attached to this complaint as

‘*Exhibit B’’ and incorporated herein.

14. By its judgment of March 15, 1964, the Holy As-

sembly of Bishops divested the defendant Dionisije of his

episcopal and monastic ranks. A true and correct trans-

lated copy of that decision is attached to this complaint

as ‘*Exhibit C’’ and incorporated herein.

15. The defendant religious corporation and defendant

not for profit corporation hold title to various properties,

both real and personal, in trust for all members of the dio-

cese.

16. Defendants, and each of them, hereinabove named,

have since May 10, 1963, unlawfully controlled and con-

tinue unlawfully to control the religious corporation and

the not for profit corporation and the properties of these

corporations which are held in trust for all members of

the diocese.

Withee sine n «

30

17. Plaintiff Firmilian Ocokoljich, by virtue of his

position as the duly appointed temporary administrator

of the diocese and presiding officer of the religious corpora-

tion, has on numerous occasions since May 21, 1963 de-

manded that the defendants, and each of them, herein-

above named, relinquish to plaintiff Firmilian Ocokoljich,

as trustee for all members of the diocese, the administra-

tive control of these corporations and their assets, books,

and records.

18. Since May 10, 1963, the defendant, Dionisije

Milivojevich has, by various statements and conduct, re-

fused to recognize the validity of the decisions of the Holy

Assembly of Bishops and Holy Episcopal Synod which

are described in paragraphs 11 and 12 of Connt I of this

second amended and supplemental complaint; and since

May 10, 1963, has on frequent occasions refused to recog-

nize the authority of the Holy Assembly of Bishops and -

Holy Episcopal Synod over himself and over the diocese,

and has refused to recognize the trust impressed upon the

assets of the diocese, the religious corporation and the not

for profit corporation.

19. The other individual defendants have since May 10,

1963 also repeatedly refused to comply with the demand

described in paragraph 17 of Count I of this second amend-

ed and supplemental complaint.

20. On or about August 6, 1963, and November 12,

1963, and again on or about September 28, 1966, the

individual defendants purported to convene Diocesan Lay-

Clergy Assemblies at which numerous resolutions were

purportedly passed and subsequently implemented. Those

Assemblies were convened without warrant in law and

the actions taken at those Assemblies have never been ap-

proved by the Holy Assembly of Bishops as required by the

36

Constitutions of the diocese and the Constitution of the

Serbian Orthodox Church.

21. By reason of the individual defendants’ unlawful

control and management of the assets of the diocese, the

religious and not for profit corporations, the indicia and

external symbols of religious authority, and by reason of

the facts alleged in paragraph 20 of this second amended

and supplemental complaint, the diocese has suffered and

will continue to suffer irreparable damage in that it can-

not adequately function as an external organization of

members of a hierarchically organized religion and in that

its assets are being wasted and are not being used in ac-

cordance with the trust which has been impressed upon

them; and plaintiff Firmilian Ocokoljich has suffered and

will continue to suffer irreparable damage in that he is

prevented from fulfilling his duties and exercising his

rights as the temporary administrator of a hierarchically

organized religious body, all in violation of the United

States and Illinois Constitutions and of the Constitutions

of the Serbian Orthodox Church and the diocese.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this

Honorable Court enter an order:

A. Enforcing the decisions of the Holy Assembly of

Bishops and Holy Episcopal Synod of the Serbian Ortho-

dox Church insofar as these decisions relate to the man-

agement and control of the religious corporation and the

not for profit corporation by requiring that the assets

and income of those corporations be used in accordance

with the trust impressed upon them.

B. Enjoining the defendants from interfering with the

decisions of the Holy Assembly of Bishops and Holy Epis-

ecopal Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church insofar as

these decisions relate to the management and control of

37

the diocese, the religious corporation and the not for profit

corporation.

C. Requiring the defendants to account for all defen-

dants’ acts regarding the diocese, the religious and not for

profit corporations since May 10, 1963 and the assets and

income thereof.

D. Granting such other relief as equity may require.

COUNT Il

In the alternative, plaintiffs The Right Reverend Bishop

Firmilian Ocokoljich, The Right Reverend Bishop Gregory

Udicki, The Middle Western American Diocese of the Ser-

bian Orthodox Church, The Western American Diocese of

the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Middle Kastern Ameri-

can-Canadian Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church,

complain of the defendants Dionisije Milivojevich, Serbian

Orthodox Monastery of St. Sava, an Lllinois not for profit

corporation, The Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for

the United States of America and Canada, an Illinois

religious corporation, Right Reverend Bishop Iriney,

Nikola Stepanovich, Svetozar Maravich, Uros Seferovich,

Todor Polich, Nikola Sever, Robert Vujovich, Milutin

Dijordjevich, Nikola Cabraja, Bob Lagather, Milutin Bajce-

tich, Milan Tomich, Mital Bulatovich, Nikola Kraguljac,

Mile Radakovich, Steven Balach, Dragoljub Mitich, and

Voja Popovich, as follows:

1. Plaintiff The Right Reverend Bishop Firmilian

Ocokoljich (hereinafter sometimes referred to as ‘‘ Bishop

Firmilian’’) is the duly elected and consecrated bishop of

the plaintiff Middie Western Americen Diocese of the Ser-

bian Orthodox Church and the acting temporary adminis-

trator of the plaintiff Middle Eastern American-Canadian

Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

38

2. Plaintiff The Right Reverend Bishop Gregory Udicki

(hereinafter sometimes referred to as ‘‘Bishop Gregory’’)

is the duly elected and consecrated bishop of the Western

American Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

3. The three plaintiff dioceses (sometimes hereinafter

referred to as ‘‘the three new dioceses’’) are the three

dioceses of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the United

States of America and Canada.

4. Defendant Dionisije Milivojevich (hereinafter some-

times referred to as ‘‘ Dionisije’’) was formerly the bishop

of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United

States of America and Canada (hereinafter sometimes re-

ferred to as ‘‘the old diocese’’) and is a resident of Lake

County, Lllinois.

+. The defendant Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese

for the United States of America and Canada (hereinafter

sometimes referred to as ‘‘the religious corporation’’) is

a religious corporation duly incorporated in 1935 under

Sections 46a-46k of the Illinois Religious Corporations Act

(1ll.Rev.Stat. 1965, Chap. 32, para. 176-186).

6-7. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the al-

legations contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Count I of

this second amended and supplemental complaint.

8. The old diocese and the three new dioceses were at

all times relevant hereto ecclesiastically and hierarchi-

cally subordinate members of the hierarchically structured

Serbian Orthodox Church whose principal See is in Bel-

grade, Yugoslavia.

9-10. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the alle-

gations contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Count I of this

second amended and supplemental complaint.

ee ee ae ee a gee

~

fee eke

39

11. By virtue of his position as bishop, defendant Dioni-

sije lawfully controlled the affairs of the old diocese until

May 10, 1963.

12. Also by virtue of his position as bishop, Dionisije

was, until May 10, 1963, the president of the Board of

Trustees of the religious corporation and the supreme head

of the not for profit corporation, which holds title to real

and personal property in trust for all members of the

diocese.

13. On May 10, 1963, Dionisije was suspended from

his duties and privileges as bishop and the plaintiff Bish-

op Firmilian was appointed as temporary administrator

of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United

States of America and Canada by the decision of the Holy

Episcopal Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church upon the

recommendation of the Holy Assembly of Bishops. A true

and correct translated copy of that decision is attached to

this complaint as ‘‘Exhibit A’’ and incorporated herein.

14. By a subsequent decision of May 10, 1963, the

Holy Assembly of Bishops created the three new dioceses

to replace and to succeed in all respects to the status of the

old diocese. A true and correct translated copy of that de-

cision is attached to this complaint as ‘‘Exhibit D’’ and

incorporated herein.

15. By its decision of May 10, 1963, the Holy Assembly

of Bishops appointed the plaintiff Bishop Firmilian as

temporary administrator of the plaintiff Middle Western

American Diocese; Bishop Stefan Lastavica as temporary

administrator of the plaintiff Middle Eastern American-

Canadian Diocese; and the plaintiff Bishop Gregory as

temporary administrator of the Western American Dio-

cese. A true and correct translated copy of that decision

40

is attached to this complaint as ‘‘Exhibit E’’ and incor-

porated herein.

16. Since May 10, 1963, the defendant Dionisije has by

various statements and conduct, refused to recognize the

validity of the decisions, copies of which are attached to

this complaint as Exhibits ‘‘A’’, ‘*B’’, ‘*C’’, ‘*D”’ and

‘*B’’; and since May 10, 1963, has on frequent occasions

refused to recognize the authority of the Holy Assembly

of Bishops and Holy Episcopal Synod over himself and

over the diocese and has refused to recognize the trust im-

pressed upon the assets of the diocese, the religious cor-

poration, and the not for profit corporation.

17-18. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the

allegations contained in paragraphs 13 and 14 of Count

_ Lof this second amended and supplemental complaint.

19. By its decision of July 27, 1963, the Holy Assembly

of Bishops appointed plaintiff Bishop Firmilian bishop of

the plaintiff Middle Western American Diocese; plaintiff

Bishop Gregory bishop ofthe Western American Diocese;

and the late Stefan Lastavica as bishop of the plaintiff

Middle Eastern American-Canadian Diocese.

20. Bishop Stefan Lastavica died on May 10, 1966.

21. Since May 10, 1966, Bishop Firmilian has been act-

ing temporary administrator of the plaintiff Middle East-

ern American-Canadian Diocese of the Serbian Church.

22. Since May 10, 1963, the defendants have had no

authority to act on behalf of the old or any of the three

new dioceses or on behalf of the not for profit corporation,

or the religious corporation or otherwise in any respect

whatsoever.

hee

41

23. The plaintiff bishops, by virtue of their positions,

have from time to time made demands upon the individual

defendants to relinquish to plaintiffs the administrative

control and management of the corporations in accordance

with the rulings and orders of the Holy Assembly of Bish-

ops and of the Holy Episcopal Synod and to turn over to

plaintiffs all of the books and records of the corporations.

24. The defendants have repeatedly refused to comply

with these demands and have illegally purported to con-

tinue to manage the affairs and the property of the three

new dioceses and of the religious and not for profit corpora-

tions which belong properly and exclusively within the con-

trol of the individual plaintiffs as the duly appointed trus-

tees for all members of the diocese.

25. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the allega-

tions contained in paragraph 20 of Count I of this second

amended and supplemental complaint.

26. By reason of the individual defendants’ unlawful

control and management of the religious and not for profit

corporations and of the assets of the plaintiff dioceses, the

indicia and external symbols of religious authority and by

reason of the facts alleged in paragraph 20 of Count I

of this second amended and supplemental complaint, the

three new dioceses have suffered and will continue to suf-

fer irreparable damage in that they cannot adequately func-

tion as external organizations of members of the aforesaid

hierarchically organized church and in that their assets

are being wasted and are not being used in accordance

with the trust which has been impressed upon them; and

the individual plaintiffs have suffered and will continue

to suffer irreparable damage in that they are prevented

from fulfilling their duties and exercising their rights as

bishops of a hierarchically organized religion, all in viola-

42

tion of the United States and Illinois Constitutions, and of

the Constitutions of the Serbian Orthodox Church and the

Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States

and Canada.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this

Honorable Court enter an order:

A. Enforcing the decisions of the Holy Assembly of

Bishops and Holy Episcopal Synod of the Serbian Ortho-

dox Church insofar as these decisions relate to the man-

agement and control of the religious corporation and the

not for profit corporation by requiring that the assets and

income of those corporations be used in accordance with

the trust impressed upon them.

B. Enjoining the defendants from interfering with the

decisions of the Holy Assembly of Bishops and Holy Epis-

copal Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church insofar as

these decisions relate to the management and control of

the religious corporation and the not for profit corpora-

tion.

(. Requiring the defendants to account for all defen-

dants’ acts regarding the religious and not for profit cor-

porations since May 10, 1963, and the assets and income

thereof.

D. Granting such other relief as equity may require.

COUNT III

Plaintiffs Very Reverend Dusan Popovich, Very Rever-

end Dusan Klipa, Very Reverend Vladimir Mrvichin, Emil

Drobac, Sam Milanovich and Donald Kral on their own

behalf and on behalf of all members of the class which

they represent, complain of the defendants Serbian East-

ern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America

avnaet tins Neuere! Flier

We eT! + a nt hee ad OA

es 2 eee | eee ets wee ere ee. Le ae oe ye cee) Se een

:

3

:

§

:

q

%

4

4

43

and Canada, an Illinois religious corporation, Serbian Or-

thodox Monastery of St. Sava, an Illinois not for profit

corporation, Dionisije Milivojevich, Right Reverend Bish-

op Iriney, Nikola Stepanovich, Svetozar Marabich, Uros

Serferovich, Todor Polich, Nikola Sever, Robert Vujo-

vich, Milutin Djordjevich, Nikola Cabraja, Bob Lagather,

Milutin Bajcetich, Milan Tomich, Mitar Bulatovich, Mikela

Kraguljac, Mike Radakovich, Steve Balach, Dragoljub

Mitich, and Voga Popovich, as follows:

1. Plaintiffs Very Reverend Dusan Popovich, Very

Reverend Dusan Klipa, Very Reverend Vladimir Mrvi-

chin, Emil Droback, Sam Milanovich, and Donald Kral are

members of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the

United States of America and Canada (hereinafter some-

times referred to as ‘‘the diocese’’) who recognize their

ecclesiastical and hierarchical allegiance to the Serbian

Orthodox Church whose principal See is in Belgrade, Yu-

goslavia.

2. The total membership of the class described in para-

graph 1 of this Count III is approximately 100,000.

3. Plaintiffs can adequately represent all members of

the class described in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Count III.

4. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and

on behalf of all members of the class described in para-

graphs 1 and 2 of this Count IIL.

5. The defendant Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese

for the United States of America and Canada (sometimes

hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the religious corporation’’) is

a religious corporation duly incorporated in 1935 under

Sections 46a-46k of the Illinois Religious Corporations Act

(Ill.Rev.Stat. 1965, chap. 32, pars. 176-186).

44

6. Defendant Serbian Orthodox Monastery of St. Sava

(sometimes hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the not for profit

corporation’’) is a general not for profit corporation or-

ganized in 1945 and existing under the laws of the State

of Illinois and has its principal office in the County of

Lake, State of Lllinois.

7. Defendant Dionisije Milivojevich (sometimes here-

inafter referred to as ‘‘Dionisije’’) was formerly the

bishop of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the

United States of America and Canada (sometimes herein-

after referred to as ‘‘the diocese’’) and is a resident of

the County of Lake, Illinois.

8. By virtue of his position as bishop, Dionisije was,

until May 10, 1963, the president of the Board of Trustees

of the religious corporation and the supreme head of the

not for profit corporation, which holds title to real and

personal property in trust for all members of the diocese.

9. Among the assets of the religious and not for profit

corporations are the following: a Priests’ Pension Fund,

established on or about January 1, 1953 to provide pensions

for all priests of the diocese and for orphan children and

widows of all priests of the diocese; a cemetery located at

the Serbian Orthodox Monastery of St. Sava in Liberty-

ville, Illinois; real estate improved with a church on the

grounds of the Serbian Orthodox Monastery of St. Sava

in Libertyville, Lllinois.

10-23. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the

allegations contained in paragraphs 7 through 20 of Count

I of this second amended and supplemental complaint.

24. Because of plaintiffs’ recognition of their ecclesias-

tical and hierarchical .llegiance and subordination to the

Serbian Orthodox Church and to its supreme judicatory,

+ ab Ke Pee Again dy

defer rete OPMAI BEAN, Our id oR Bes

a ae ie

WA BE eS

_

'

x

x

+

z

Py

3

a

45

defendants have, since May 10, 1963, denied to plaintiffs

and the members of the class they represent the freedom

of religion guaranteed to plaintiffs by the Constitutions of

the United States and of the State of Illinois. More spe-

cifically, defendants have wrongfully denied to plaintiffs:

(a) the right to participate and to share in the Priests’

Pension Fund, which was established on or about January

1, 1953 to provide pensions for all priests of the diocese

and for orphan children and widows of all priests of the

diocese; (b) the right to use the cemetery at the Serbian

Orthodox Monastery of St. Sava; and (c) the right to use

the church aid grounds of the Serbian Orthodox Monas-

tery of St. Sava.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this

Honorable Court issue an order:

A. Enjoining defendants from interfering with the

right of plaintiffs Very Reverend Dusan Popovich, Very

Reverend Dusan Klipa, Very Reverend Vladimir Mrvichin,

Emil Drobac, Sam Milanovich, and Donald Kral and all

other members of the class which they represent, to partici-

pate and to share in the Priests’ Pension Fund.

B. Enjoining defendants from interfering with the

right of plaintiffs Very Reverend Dusan Popovich, Very

Reverend Dusan Klipa, Very Reverend Vladimir Mrvichin,

Emil Drobac, Sam Milanovich, and Donald Kral and all

other members of the class which they represent to use

the cemetery of the Serbian Orthodox Monastery of St.

Sava.

C. Enjoining defendants from interfering with the

right of plaintiffs and of the class which they represent to

use the church and grounds of the Serbian Orthodox Mon-

astery of St. Sava.

46

D. Requiring defendants to account for the properties

which are controlled by defendants and which are held in

trust for all members of the diocese.

E. Granting such otiier relief as equity may require.

CCUNT IV

As an alternative to Count III, plaintiffs Very Reverend

Dusan Popovich, Very Reverend Dusan Klipa, Very Rev-

erend Vladimir Mrvichin, Emil Drobac, Sam Milanovich,

and Donald Kral on their own behalf and on behalf of the

class which they represent, complain of the defendants,

Dionisije Milivojevich, Svetozar Maravich, Uros Sefero-

vich, Vojar Popovich, Nikola Cabraja, Robert Vujnovich,

Mike Radakovich, Nikola Stepanovich, The Serbian East-

ern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America

and Canada and Serbian Orthodox Monastery of St. Sava

as follows:

1. Plaintiff Very Reverend Dusan Popovich and Emil

Drobac are members of the Middle Western American Dio-

cese of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

2. Plaintiffs Very Reverend Duran Klipa and Sam

Milanovich are members of the Middie Eastern American-

Canadian Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

3. Plaintiffs Very Reverend Vladimir Mrvichin and

Donald Kral are members of the Western American Dio-

eese of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

4. The three dioceses of the Serbian Orthodox Church

in the United States of America and Canada (sometimes

hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the three new dioceses’’) are

as follows: The Middle Western American Diocese of the

Serbian Orthodox Chureh, The Western American Dio-

cese of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and The Middle

Sarco Sits dae Pra ie OS Nba anal

a at AS ra AE te Cecio 0

j

é

s

z

¢

j

i

|

47

Eastern American-Canadian Diocese of the Serbian Ortho-

dox Church.

5-7. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the alle-

gations contained in paragraphs 2 through 4 of Count III

of this second amended and supplemental complaint.

8-29. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the al-

legations contained in paragraphs 4 through 25 of Count

II of this second amended and supplemental complaint.

30-31. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein the

allegations contained in paragraphs 9 and 24 of Count

III of this second amended and supplemental complaint.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this

Honorable Court issue an order:

A. Enjoining defendants from interfering with the

right of plaintiffs Very Reverend Dusan Popovich, Very

Reverend Dusan Klipa, Very Reverend Vladimir Mrvichin,

Emil Drobac, Sam Milanovich, and Donald Kral and all

other members of the class which they represent to partici-

pate and to share in the Priests’ Pension Fund.

B. Enjoining defendants from interfering with the

right of plaintiffs Very Reverend Dusan Popovich, Very

Reverend Dusan Klipa, Very Reverend Vladimir Mrvichin,

Emil Drobac, Sam Milanovich, and Donald Kral and all

other members of the class which they represent to use the

cemetery of the Serbian Orthodox Monastery of St. Sava.

C. Enjoining defendants from interfering with the

right of plaintiffs and of the class which they represent

to use the church and grounds of the Serbian Orthodox

Monastery of St. Sava.

D. Requiring defendants to account for the properties

which are controlled by defendants and which are held in

trust for all members of the diocese.

48

E. Granting such other relief as equity may require.

Respectfully submitted,

John J. Crown

One of the attorneys for

Plaintiffs

Of Counsel

Albert E. Jenner, Jr.

John J. Crown

Eugene T. Noonan

Raymond, Mayer, Jenner & Block

135 South LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Henry D. Fisher

Hall, Meyer, Fisher, Van Deusen,

Holmberg & Snook

25 North County Street

Waukegan, Illinois

Thomas J. Karacic

Katz & Karacic

134 North LaSalle Street

Chicago, [Illinois 60602

“es SL: ety eon, r 7

‘

ied Mel a Sattar an Ci ar eek Fk DD

Ne

;

.

;

:

5

;

i

49

EXHIBIT A

The Holy Episcopal Synod of the

Serbian Orthodox Church

No. 1664/zap. 188

May 10, 1963

Belgrade

To the Very Reverend

Dr. Firmilian Ocokoljich, Administrator

of the Mid-Western American Diocese

Pittsburgh

The Holy Episcopal Synod, under the above number

and date, informed His Grace Bishop Dionisije of the fol-

lowing:

‘‘Your Grace,

The Holy Episcopal Council in its meeting of May 10,

1963, examined the subject of the charges submitted against

Your Grace, and concerning the same, under AS No. 20

and 21/zap. 77 of 1963, brought this decision:

‘*The subject of charges against His Grace The Bishop

of America and Canada, Divnisije, is to be submitted to

the Holy Episcopal Synod with the recommendation that it

take action in accordance with Article 219 and 220, Consti-

tuition of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and Section 67 and

90, Code and Regulations for Ecclesiastical Courts of the

Serbian Orthodox Church (Penal Code).”’

‘*Relative to this the Holy Episcopal Synod in its meet-

ing under the above number and date, brought this deci-

sion:

‘*Executing the recommendation of the Holy Episcopal

Council AS No. 20 and 21 of May 10, 1963, the Holy Epis-

50

copal Synod on the basis of Section 67 and 90 Code and

Regulations for the Ecclesiastical Courts of the Serbian

Orthodox Church, orders the commencement of arraign-

ment proceedings against His Grace Bishop Dionisije and

in accord with Article 219 and 220 Constitution of the Ser-

bian Orthodox Church suspends him from priestly func-

tions, decreases his remuneration to one half and relieves

him from diocesan government till his guilt is conclusively

investigated and judged.”’

We respectfully inform Your Grace of the above and re-

quest that you take appropriate steps to relinquish the

government of the diocese in your charge to the appointed

administrator, the Very Reverend Archimandrite Dr. Fir-

milian Ocokoljich, your Episcopal Deputy and pastor of

the Serbian Orthodox Church in Pittsburgh till your guilt

is conclusively investigated and judged.’’

The above is sent to you for your information.

For the President of the

Holy Episcopal Synod

Member, Bishop of Timok

(Signed) EMILIJAN

is AOL alt ejeuill tol

ie Tera Bat VA DAA rt me

Calle thy Sp GO yy

3 Lin fathead Stal wdlede oot

eek el korea toh

:

4

a

Z

%

.

)

ol

EXHIBIT B

THE HOLY BISHOPS’ SYNOD OF

THE SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

No. 2401/zap. 354

July 29th, 1963

Belgrade

Rt. Rev. Archmandrite

FIRMILIAN OCOKOLJICH,

newly elected

Bishop of the Middle-Western

American Diocese

Pittsburgh, Pa.

The Holy Bishops’ Council of the Serbian Orthodox

Church at its session, under the No. AS 42/zap. 2, of July

27th, 1963, have decided:

‘*The Holy Bishops’ Council of the Serbian Orthodox

Church have decided that Bishop Dionisije Milivojevich

violated his bishop’s oath and lost the conditions for the

position of the diocesan bishop, according to Art. 104,

paragraphs A and G, of the Constitution of the Serbian

Orthodox Church and in accordance of the Art. 111, of the

Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church has been dis-

charged from his duty as a diocesan bishop, and the Mid-

die-West American Diocese is proclaimed as vacant’’.

You are informed about above mentioned for acknowl-

edgment.

(Seal) SERBIAN PATRIARCH

+ GERMAN

P.S. The above document is notarized by American

Consul at Belgrade, on July 29th, 1963, number: 2788497.

52

EXHIBIT C

JUDGMENT

OF THE HOLY EPISCOPAL COUNCIL OF THE SER-

BLAN ORTHODOX CHURCH, WITHIN WHOSE JU-

RISDICTION IT IS TO JUDGE THE OFFENSES OF

BISHOP DIONISIJE MILIVOJEVICH, WHO IS IN-

DICTED BY VASILIJE, BISHOP OF ZICA, IN HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE PROSECUTOR OF

THE SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

THE FOLLOWING SAT IN JUDGMENT:

GERMAN, Serbian Patriarch, Presiding

MEMBERS:

Damaskin, Metropolitan of Zagreb

Nektarije, Metropolitan of Dabro-Bosnia

Danilo, Metropolitan of Montenegro and the Coastal

Region

Emilijan, Bishop of Timok

Jovan, Bishop of Nis

Valerijan, Bishop of Sumadija

Makuarije, Bishop of Srem

Nikanor, Bishop of Backa

Vasilije, Bishop of Zica

I{rizostom, Bishop of Branicevo

Visarion, Bishop of Banat

Kmilijan, Bishop of Slavonia

Longin, Bishop of Zvornik-Tuzla

Simeo, Bishop of Gornji Karlovac

Vladislav, Bishop of Zahum-Hercegovina

Pavle, Bishop of Ras-Prizren

Andrej, Bishop of Banja Luka

Stefan, Bishop of Dalmatia

Jovan, Bishop of Sabac-Valjevo

53

I

The prosecutor of the Serbian Orthodox Church, with

his indictment of October 16th, 1963, together with a sup-

plement to the indictment, of March Sth, 1964, indicted

Bishop Dionisije Milivojevich for the following ecclesiasti-

cal-canonical transgressions :

For breaking his episcopal oath and for refusing to sub-

mit to the decisions of the highest Church authorities—

the Holy Episcopal Council and Synod of the Serbian

Orthodox Church;

For his refusal to participate orally and directly in an

investigation before the Investigating Committee of the

Holy Episcopal Synod, concerning the charges submitted

against him;

For officiating in Church ceremonies and for performing

the duties of diocesan bishop after having been indicted and

suspended from the performance of Church ceremonies,

and relieved of the duties of diocesan bishop;

For accepting clerics who had no canonical release, as

well as persons who were under suspension from the per-

formance of Church ceremonies, and for entrusting them

with parochial duties;

I’or committing wrong-doings of a material nature and

for conducting himself in a manner unbecoming priestly

rank and position;

For ordaining and bestowing ecclesiastical ranks of

honor on such persons who, according to the canons, do not

possess the necessary qualifications for ordination; and

For proclaiming the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Ameri-

ea and Canada fully autonomous and separating it from

the mother, Serbian Orthodox Church, at the so-called

54

‘Church National Assembly,’’ held November 13th and

14th, 1963.

For these offenses, the prosecutor for the Serbian Ortho-

dox Church asked that Bishop Dionisije Milivojevich be

divested of both his episcopal and monastic ranks.

II

Upon hearing the indictment of the prosecutor for the

Serbian Orthodox Church, submitted against Bishop Dioni-

sije Milivojevich, and upon study of all documents related

to this criminal case, and upon completion of the presenta-

tion of evidence—on the basis of Clause 6 of the II Eeumen-

ical Council; Clauses 14 and 15 of the Antiochian Council;

Clause 12 of the Council of Carthage; Articles 7 and 69,

Points 27/B and 2]4a, Points 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the Consti-

tution of the Serbian Orthodox Church and paragraphs 1,

2, 9, and 12 of the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox

Diocese of the United States of America and Canada, the

Ifoly Episcopal Council of the Serbian Orthodox Church,

as the judicial organ—

ADJUDGES

Bishop Dionisije Milivojevich of Libertyville, U.S.A.,

born on July 15/26 at Rabrovac, near Palanka of Smedere-

vo, Yugoslavia; elected bishop on June 9/22, 1938; conse-

crated August 8/21, 1938; appointed by the decree of the

Holy Episcopal Council of the Serbian Orthodox Church,

iC No, 218/Min. $1 of December 8th, 1939, as the Bishop

of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of America and Canada,

with no previous conviction, be punished by divestiture of

his episcopal and monastic ranks (Article 216, Points 8 and

10 of the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church),

55

and be removed from the roll of the hierarchy of the

Serbian Orthodox Church, and be returned to the status of

layman, under his secular name, Dragoljub Milivojevich, in

consequence of his committed offenses:

a. Conduct unbecoming to the clerical rank and posi-

tion, (42 Apostolic Canon; Constitution of the Serbian

Orthodox Church, Article 214, Point 2; Regulations and

procedures for the Ecclesiastical Courts of the Serbian

Orthodox Church (Criminal Code), Articles 22, 25, and

29). |

b. Non-performance, that is to say, negligent perform-

ance of official priestly duties and legal ordinances of the

superior ecclesiastical authorities, discussion and criticism

of their orders and procedures.

(Apostolic Canon 74; Constitution of the Serbian Ortho-

dox Chureh, Article 214, Points 3 and 6, and Regulations

and Procedures for the Ecclesiastical Court of the Ser-

bian Orthodox Church (Criminal Code), Article 30, Points

9, 32, and 38).

and c. Against the established order of the Church and

for schism.

(Apostolic Canons, 25, 34, 35, and 74; Council of Trulo,

17; Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Article

214, Point 1; Regulations and Procedures for the Ec-

clesiastical Court of the Serbian Orthodox Church (Crim-

inal Code), Article 10, 15, 17, 18, and 45).

IX

The Holy Episcopal Synod of the Serbian Orthodox

Church, by its Act of the 25th o: February, 1964, Syn.

No. 357/Min. 78, informed the Holy Episcopal Council of

56

the Serbian Orthodox Church, that regarding the con-

firmed gravity of the offenses committed by Bishop Dioni-

sije Milivojevich, it considers itself as having exhausted

its authority as provided in Article 70, Point 35, of the

Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Therefore,

it brings the entire criminal case of the indicted Bishop

Dionisije before the Holy Episcopal Council with the

recommendation that the Holy Episcopal Council bring

forth a final judgment on it on the basis of Clause 6 of the

Second Ecumenical Council; Clauses 14 and 15 of the

Council of Antioch; Clause 12 of the Council of Carthage;

Articles 7 and 69; Point 27/B of the Constitution of the

Serbian Orthodox Church. The proce » for judgment of

a bishop is not sufficiently explained in our positive Chareh

legislation, and this procedure is sufficiently expounded in

the canons of the Orthodox Church cited above.

The Holy Episcopal Council accepted this recommenda-

tion of the Holy Episcopal Synod, and on the basis of

Clause 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council; Clauses 14

and 15 of the Council of Antioch: Clause 12 of the Council

of Carthage, and Articles 7 and 69, Point 27/B of the Con-

stitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, as the ecclesias-

tical organ, pronounced the final judgment concerning

the offenses of Bishop Dionisije, as stated in the body of

the judgment. ,

X

Being that this judgment was pronounced unanimously

by ali the members of the Holy Episcopal Council of the

Serbian Orthodox Chureh, therefore, according to the

loth Clause of the Council of Antioch, it is final, and there

is no appeal.

57

FROM THE MEETING OF THE HOLY EPISCOPAL

COUNCIL OF THE SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH,

on the 15th of March, 1964, in Belgrade, EC No. 1/Min. 38.

SEAL PRESIDENT

Holy Episcopal Council

SERBIAN PATRIARCH

GERMAN

MEMBERS:

Damaskin, Metropolitan of Zagreb

Nektarije, Metropolitan of Dabro-Bosnia

Danilo, Metropolitan of Montenegro and the Costal Re-

gion

Emilijan, Bishop of Timok

Jovan, Bishop of Nis

Valerijan, Bishop of Sumadija

Makarije, Bishop of Srem

Nikanor, Bishop of Backa

Vasilije, Bishop of Zica

Hrizostom, Bishop of Banat

Emilijan, Bishop of Slavonia

Longin, Bishop of Zvornik-Tuzla

Simeon, Bishop of Gornji Karlovac

Vladislav, Bishop of Zahum-Hercegovina

Pavle, Bishop of Ras-Prizren

Andrej, Bishop of Banja Luka

Stefan, Bishop of Dalmatia

Jovan, Bishop of Sebac-Valjevo

58

EXHIBIT D

The Holy Episcopal Synod of the

Serbian Orthodox Church

No. 1725/zap. 237

May 17, 1963

Belgrade

To The Very Reverend Archimandrite

Dr. Firmilian Ocokoljich, Administrator

of the Mid-Western American Diocese

Pittsburgh

The Holy Episcopal Council of the Serbian Orthodox

Church, in its meeting of May 10, 1963, under AS No.

20 and 21/zap. 77 brought this decision:

‘On the request of the Church National Convention

of the American-Canadian Diocese and the American-

Canadian Bishop No. 115 of February 13, 1962 and No.

12; of May 26, 1962 that due to the magnitude and ex-

panse of this Diocese it is necessary to elect more bishops

for this ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the Holy Episcopal

Council, in accordance with Article 16 Constitution of the

Serbian Orthodox Church, establishes in place of the pres-

ent .\merican-Canadian Diocese three Dioceses, namely :

1. Middle Western American Diocese, with its See in

the Monastery of St. Sava in Libertyville, upon which His

(irace Bishop Dionisije remains further.

2. Western American Diocese with its See in Los Ange-

les, and

3. Middle Eastern American-Canadian Diocese with its

See in Detroit.

ee

i te

59

Having formerly obtained the consent of His Holiness

The Serbian Patriarch German, South Africa is added to

the Middle-Western American Diocese, while the parisues

in Central and South America are added to the Western-

American Diocese, which were up to now, in accordance

with Article 55, section 12 Constitution of the Serbian Or-

thodox Church, under the direct jurisdiction of His Holi-

ness the Patriarch.

The border between the Middle-Western American Dio-

cese and the Western-American Diocese will run along the

95:': Meridian for the present.

The parishes in Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania and

Canada shall belong to the Middle-Eastern American-

Canadian Diocese.

As soon as Bishops are appointed to the newly estab-

lished dioceses other necessary organs and bodies shall be

organized.

The final boundaries of the ‘newly-established dioceses,

revision of the existing Church Constitution for this terri-

tory in conformity with the newly created situation and all

other questions relative to the ecclesiastical organization

of these dioceses shall be studied by the Church National

Convention with the Bishops in charge, and their motions

submitted for final decision to the Holy Episcopal Coun-

cil.”’

Relative to the decision of the Holy Episcopal Synod

under the above number and date, you are hereby noti-

fied of the above.

a For the President of the

Holy Episcopal Synod

Member, Bishop of Timok

(Signed) EMILIJAN

60

The Holy Episcopal Synod of the

Serbian Orthodox Church

No. 1726/zap. 238

May 17, 1963

Belgrade

To the Very Reverend Archimandrite

Dr. Firmilian Ocokoljich

Pittsburgh

The Holy Episcopal Synod in its meeting under the

above number and date brought this decision:

‘Executing the decision of the Holy Episcopal

Council AS No. 20 and 21/zap. 77 of May 10, 1963

concerning the founding of new dioceses in the Unit-

ed States of America, and the decision of the Holy

Episcopal Synod Sin. No. 1664/zap. 188 of May 10,

1963 concerning the arraignment and suspension from

priestly functions and diocesan government of His

Grace Bishop Dionisije the Holy Episcopal Synod on

the basis of Article 70, section 21 of the Constitution

of the Serbian Orthodox Church and Article 13, Consti-

tution of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese in the United

States of America and Canada, appoints as temporary

administrators:

1. For the Mid-Western American Diccese the

Very Reverend Archimandrite Dr. Firmilian

Ocokoljich, pastor of the Serbian (rthodox

Church in Pittsburgh;

2. For the Western American Diocese the

Very Reverend Archimandrite Gregory Udicki,

pastor of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Young-

wood;

61

3. For the Mid-Eastern American-Canadian

Diocese the Very Reverend Proto-presbyter

Stevan Lastavica, pastor of the Serbian Orthodox

Church in Windsor, Canada.”’

You are informed of the above decision of the Holy

Episcopal Synod so that you may take notice of the same,

and in accordance with said decision relieve His Grace

Bishop Dionisije and take charge of the Mid-Western

American Diocese till further notice, informing the Holy

Episcopal Synod of your action.

For the President of the

Holy Episcopal Synod

Member, Bishop of Sumadija

(Signed) VALERIJAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

(Title Omitted in Printing)

INTERIM OPINION

This cause has been remanded to us as the trial court

as a result of an extensive and detailed decision of our

Second District Appellate Court reported in 72 Lil. App.

2d 444. In Case Number 63-1644 the Plaintiffs may be

referred to as the Bishop of ‘‘Dionisije’’ Group and the

Defendants as the ‘‘Firmilian’’ Group; while in Case

Number 63-2312 the Plaintiffs will be referred to as the

‘‘Firmilian’’ Group and the Defendants as the ‘‘ Dionisije’’

Group. Since the remandment of these cases by the Appel-

late Court, the Firmilian Group have filed their ‘‘Second

Amended and Supplemental Complaint’’ to which the

Dionisije Group have filed their ‘‘Motion to Dismiss’’ the

ee

62

same in its entirety and also specifically as to each of its

several and separate four counts.

The Dionisije Group has also filed its separate ‘* Motion

to Dismiss’? on April 27, 1967 as to 18 individual defen-

dants which said Second Amended and Supplemental Com-

plaint alleges that, upon information and belief, they pur-

port to be members of the Executive Board of the religious

corporation, or members of the Board of Directors of the

not-for-profit corporation, or purport to act in both capaci-

ties. These individuals are named in the preamble to Count

I at the top of page 2 of said complaint and commerce with

the name Iriney and end with the name Popovich, and the

allegation concerning their interest in Count I and in the

lawsuit is set forth in Paragraph 7 on page 3 of said com-

plaint. We believe, and so rule, that the two Illinois Cor-

porations so referred to and which are also and will re-

main as parties to this suit are competent and sufficient

defendants and that said 18 defendants shall be dismissed.

It is our opinion that all issues raised between the Plain-

tiffs and said Corporations will be binding upon said 18

defendants now being dismissed from the case.

As to Count I: The Motion to Dismiss is denied in

all other aspects except as above indicated concerning said

18 individual defendants. In our opinion the Plaintiff, ‘“The

Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States

of America and Canada, a religious body,’’ as a hierarchi-

cally organized religious body, does have judicial standing

and capacity to use in an equity proceeding. As stated in

said Appellate Court decision:

‘*[2] It is within the framework of these organiza-

tional laws that this dispute must be resolved. The

The protection of the law extends to religious associa-

tions the same as to other voluntary associations of

63

benevolent or charitable purposes. The rights of prop-

erty or other civil rights of such associations are

equally under the protection of law, and the actions

of their members, subject to its restraints.’’ (Page

455)

‘Consequently, it was not our intent to prejudge

what might be presented to the trial court on remand-

ment in an orderly and complete hearing of these con-

solidated cases on their merits. If, upon proper plead-

ings, competent testimony and other valid evidence,

the appellees can present a case which would warrant

and justify the trial court—a civil court—in not ac-

cepting a pertinent eccesiastical decision or decisions,

we do not mean to be understood to preclude them

from doing so. Our purpose in remanding the case

is to afford all of the litigants a complete and full

hearing on the merits pertaining to the many issues

and questions involved. The factual background of

this ease is indeed significant, but it is not without

dispute, as is evidenced by the numerous conflicting

representations made to the court through extensive

pleadings, depositions, affidavits, and briefs.”’ (Pages

464-5)

Consequently, the Motion to Dismiss Count I of said

complaint is denied as above indicated.

As to Count IJ: We do not decide the Motion to Dismiss

on Defendants’ theory of ‘‘lack of legal capacity to sue”’

on the part of the three new Dioceses. We again refer to

our Appellate Court decision as follows:

‘‘From the views we have expressed herein, the

Serbian Orthodox Church has authority to make the

ecclesiastical decisions relative to the removal and ap-

64

pointment of a Bishop for the Serbian Eastern Ortho-

dox Diocese for the United States of America and

Canada, as well as the appointment of a temporary

administrator. It exceeded its authority, however, and

infringed upon the authority of the Diocese when it

purported to change the geographical structure of the

Diocese and eliminate its reserved administrative

powers, including the control over Church properties,

subject to the trust imposed thereon, by dissolving the

Diocese and creating three new Dioceses.’’ (Page 462)

‘This is all quite true and, as pointed out in the

opinion, the Serbian Orthodox Church exceeded its

authority in these respects. It was without authority

to disband the American-Canadian Diocese, and it

follows that the purported appointments of temporary

administrators and Bishops of these supposedly new

Dioceses were without validity.’’ (Page 463)

In our opinion, from a careful reading of the decision of

our Appellate Court above referred to, these three newly

created Dioceses have no interest in this litigation and

should be stricken as parties-plaintiff therefrom. They

are: The Middle Western American Diocese of the Ser-

bian Orthodox Church, The Western American Diocese of

the Serbian Orthodox Church, The Middle Eastern Ameri-

ean-Canadian Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

Consequently, in our view, Count II should be and is

stricken in its entirety and the Motion to Dismiss to that

extent is granted.

As to Count III; It is our opinion that the Motion to

Dismiss should be denied and therefore Count III will

stand. We believe that upon trial of the case, the Court

will soon discover if the charges made in Count III have

any merit or are merely ‘‘moot’’ as claimed by the defen-

dants.

eet ee. Ne ome Se

65

As to Count IV: It is our decision that this Count is

vulnerable to the Motion to Dismiss for the same reasons

as we have above expressed concerning Count II; and

therefore, the motion is granted and Count IV is stricken.

We suggest that Counsel for Defendants (the Dionisije

Group) draft a suitable order in conformity with this

opinion, granting leave to them to plead within a reason-

able time.

DATED: August 29, A.D. 1967

L. Eric Carey

Judge

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

(Title Omitted in Printing)

ORDER

Filed Sept. 11, 1967

This cause coming on for further hearing on the Court’s

Interim Opinion Re: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended

and Supplemental Complaint, the Court Finds as follows:

1. The Motion filed April 27, 1967 by 18 individual De-

fendants to dismiss the Second Amended and Supplemental

Complaint filed February 27, 1967, should be allowed.

It is, therefore, ordered that as to Right Reverend Bishop

Iriney, Nikola Stepanovich, Svetozar Maravich, Uros

Seferovich, Todor Polich, Nikola Sever, Robert Vujovich,

Milutin Djordjevich, Nikola Cabraja, Bob Lagather, Milu-

tin Bajcetich, Milan Tomich, Mitar Bulatovich, N ikola

Kraguljac, Mike Radakovich, Steve Balach, Dragoljub

Mitich and Voja Popovich, the Second Amended and Sup-

plemental Complaint, filed February 27, 1967, is Dismissed.

66

2. The Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the Unit-

ed States of America and Canada, a religious body, as a

hierarchically organized religious body, has judicial stand-

ing and capacity to sue in an equity proceeding, and, there-

fore, the Motion to Dismiss Count I of the Second Amend-

ed and Supplemental Complaint filed herein on February

27, 1967 should be denied.

It is, therefore, Ordered that the Motion of Right Rev-

erend Bishop Dionisije Milivojevich, The Serbian Ortho-

dox Monastery of St. Sava, an Illinois not-for-profit cor-

poration, and The Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for

the United States of America and Canada, an Illinois re-

ligious corporation, to dismiss Count I of the Second

Amended and Supplemental Complaint be and the same

is hereby Denied.

al

3. The three newly-created Dioceses have no interest

in this litigation; they should be stricken as parties-Plain-

tiff, and Count II should be stricken.

It Is, Therefore, Ordered that the Middle Western

American Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the

Western American Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox

Chureh, and the Middle Eastern American-Canadian Dio-

ceese of the Serbian Orthodox Church have no interest in

this litigation and they are hereby stricken as parties-Plain-

tiff to the Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint.

4. The Motion to Dismiss Count III] should be denied.

It Is, Therefore, Ordered that the Motion to Dismiss

Count ILI of the Second Amended and Supplemental Com-

plaint be and it is hereby Denied.

5. The three newly-created Dioceses have no interest

in this litigation; they should be stricken as parties-Plain-

tiff, and Count IV should be stricken.

67

It Is, Therefore, Ordered that the Middle Western

American Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the

Western American Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox

Church, and the Middle Eastern American-Canadian Dio-

cese of the Serbian Orthodox Church have no interest in

this litigation and they are hereby stricken as parties-

Plaintiff to the Second Amended and Supplemental Com-

plaint.

It Is Further Ordered Right Reverend Bishop Dionisije

Milivojevich, The Serbian Orthodox Monastery of St. Sava,

an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, and The Serbian

Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of Amer-

ica and Canada, an Illinois religious corporation, be and

they are hereby granted to and including October 31, 1967

in which to plead to Counts I and III of the Second

Amended and Supplemental Complaint.

It Is Hereby Further Ordered that the Interim Opinion

Re; Motion To Dismiss Second Amended and Supplemen-

tal Complaint, delivered by this Court on August 29, A.D.,

1967, be filed and made a part of the record in this cause.

Enter this 11th day of September, 1967.

L. Eric Carey

Judge

The above Order is approved as to Form only.

John J. Crown

John J. Crown

Gerald C. Snyder

Gerald C. Snyder

68

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

(Title Omitted in Printing)

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED AND

SUPPLEMENTAL COMP? AINT

Now come Right Reverend Bishop Dionisije Milivoje-

vich, the Serbian Orthodox Monastery of St. Sava, an Lili-

nois not-for-profit corporation, and The Serbian Kastern

Orthodox Diocese For The United States of America and

Canada, an Illinois religious corporation, pursuant to the

Order of September 11, 1967, and without waiving those

matters and things set forth in their Motion to Dismiss

Counts I and III] of the Second Amended and Supplemental

Complaint, the Suggestions in Support and the supporting

briet’s filed with the Court, and specifically reserving the

same, answering say:

ANSWER TO COUNT I

1. They deny the allegations alleged and set forth in

the first paragraph and demand strict proof of the same.

2. They admit that the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Dio-

cese for the United States of America and Canada, an LIli-

nois religious corporation, was duly incorporated under the

laws of the State of Illinois, and state the fact to be Ameri-

can citizens of Serbian descent, prior to 1900, established

an informal association for religious purposes, thereafter

became associated with the Russian Orthodox Church, and

following the first World War and the takeover of Russia

by Communists, and when the Kingdom of Yugoslavia had

brought the Serbian people together, formed the Serbian

Eastern Orthodox Diocese Council for United States and

Canada, an I}linois corporation in 1927, which corporation

69

was succeeded by the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese

for the United States of America and Canada, an Illinois

religious corporation in 1935.

3. They deny the allegations alleged and set forth in

paragraph 3, and, on the contrary, state the fact to be

that there is no Diocese other than the Serbian Eastern

Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America and

Canada, an Lilinois religious corporation.

4. They deny the allegations alleged and set forth in

the fourth paragraph, and demand strict proof of the same.

5. They admit that Right Reverend Bishop Dionisije

Milivojevich resides in the County of Lake and State of

Illinois, but deny the other allegations alleged and set forth

in the fifth paragraph and demand strict proof of the same,

and state that he is the Bishop of the Diocese and the pre-

siding officer of the religious corporation.

6. They admit that The Serbian Orthodox Monastery

of St. Sava, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, was

organized in 1945, exists under the laws of the State of

Illinois, and has its principal office in the County of Lake,

State of Lilinois.

7. No answer is made to paragraph 7, as the Court, by

its Order of September 11, 1967 dismissed the Second

Amended and Supplemental Complaint filed February 27,

1967 as to those persons named in paragraph 7.

8. They deny the allegations alleged and set forth in

the eighth paragraph of the Complaint, demand strict proof

of the same, and, on the contrary, state that the relation-

ship of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the

United States of America and Canada, an Illinois religious

corporation, to the Serbian Orthodox Church, is contrac-

70

tually established by the Constitution of the religious cor-

poration, which was approved by the Serbian Orthodox

(‘hurch, whose principal See is in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.

9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. They deny each, all and every

one of the allegations and conclusions alleged and set forth

in paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, and demand strict

proof of the same.

15. They admit that the Serbian Orthodox Monastery

of St. Sava, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, and ‘The

Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States

of America and Canada, an Illinois religious corporation,

hold title to various properties, both real and personal,

in trust for members and beneficiaries of said tw. corpora-

tions, and deny that the Serbian Orthodox Church, whose

principal See is in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, or anyone acting

hy or through it, has any interest, legal or equitable, in

such property.

16. They deny the allegations alleged and set forth in

paragraph 16, and demand strict proof of the same.

17. They admit that the Plaintiff Firmilian Ocokoljich

has, on numerous occasions since May 21, 1963, demanded

the assets, including all cash and bank accounts of the two

Illinois corporations, and all books and records of said

two corporations, but deny the other allegations and con-

clusions alleged and set forth in the 17th paragraph, and

demand strict proof of the same.

18. They admit that they refused to comply with the

unconstitutional, illegal and unwarranted attempt to di-

vide the Diocese into three parts, and to appropriate its

bank account, money and assets, but deny that at any time

they have failed to recognize the trust impressed upon the

assets of the two corporations, deny all other allegations

71

alleged and set forth in the 18th paragraph of the Com-

plaint, and demand strict proof of the same.

19, 20, 21. No answer is made to paragraphs 19, 20

and 21, as the Court, by its Order of September 11, 1967,

dismissed the Second Amended and Supplemental Com-

plaint filed February 27, 1967, as to those persons named

in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21.

WHEREFORE, these Defendants say that the Plaintiffs

are not entitled to the relief, or any part of the relief, de-

manded in Count I.

ANSWER TO COUNT III

1, 2, 3, 4. They deny the allegations alleged and set

forth in the Ist, 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs, and demand

strict proof of the same.

5. ‘They adopt their answer to paragraph 2 of Count |

as and for their answer to paragraph 5 of Count III as

fully as though the same were set forth hereunder.

6. They adopt their answer to paragraph 6 of Count I

as and for their answer to paragraph 6 of Count III as

fully as though the same were set forth hereunder.

7. They adopt their answer to paragraph 5 of Count I

as and for their answer to paragraph 7 of Count III as

fully as though the same were set forth hereunder.

8. They admit that Right Reverend Bishop Dionisije

was duly and regularly appointed Bishop of the Diocese,

and state the fact to be that his Grammata was received

through the King of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia prior to

the communistic takeover of that Kingdom; said Grammata

was received from the State Church of the Kingdom of

72

Yugoslavia prior to the communistic domination of that

Church; he has at all time and times since his acceptance

in 1940 by the governing board of the Serbian Eastern

Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America and

Canada, an Illinois religious corporation been, and now

remains, the presiding officer of the religious corporation,

and since the incorporation of the not-for-profit corpora-

tion, and his acceptance by the Diocesan Council, by the

Diocesan Church Court, and by the Diocesan Convention

became and 1ow remains the supreme head of the monas-

tery.

9, They admit the allegations alleged and set forth

in the 9th paragraph.

10-23. They adopt their answers to the allegations con-

tained in paragraphs 7 through 20 of Count I as and for

their answers to paragraphs 10 through 23 of Count III

as fully as though the same were set forth hereunder.

24. They deny each, all and every one of the allega-

tions alleged and set forth in paragraph 24, and demand

strict proof of the same.

WIILEREFORE, they deny that the Plaintiffs are en-

titled to the relief, or any part of the relief demanded in

Count IIL.

SNYDER, CLARKE, DALZIEL,

HOLMQUIST & JOHNSON

By: Gerald C. Snyder

ee ene ee ee ee eee

_ ~ —

Pee ence +

:

'

|

73

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS

(Title Omitted in Printing)

COUNTERCLAIM

Now comes the Right Reverend Bishop Dionisije Mili-

vojevich, Plaintiff in this Counterclaim, and complains of

the Counter Defendant, Firmilian Ocokoljich, as follows:

1. The Counter Plaintiff, the Right Reverend Dionisije

Milivojevich, hereinafter referred to as ‘‘Bishop Dioni-

sije,’’ is a duly-consecrated and ordained Bishop, having

been so decreed by King Paul of the Kingdom of Yugo-

slavia on August 21, 1938.

2. That in January, 1940, Bishop Dionisije was con-

firmed as Bishop of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Dio-

cese for the United States of America and Canada by King

Paul of the Kingdom of Yugosalvia.

3. That thereafter, in April, 1940, Bishop Dionisije was

received and accepted as a Bishop of the Serbian Eastern

Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America and

Canada by the Diocesan Board, upon their secret ballot,

and lie undertook to perform the duties as Diocesan Bish-

op and President of the Diocesan Council and Diocesan

Assembly of the Illinois reiigious corporation.

4. That thereafter the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was in-

vaded and occupied by the Nazis during World War II.

5. That during this period of occupation, the Serbian

Patriarchate was persecuted and imprisoned and the

Patriarch was unable to act in any regard or manner.

6. That following World War II, the Communist army

of Josef Broza—Tito—established its regime in Yugoslavia,

persecuted the clergy and the Patriarchate, imprisoned the

74

Serbian Eastern Orthodox Church and exercised control

and dominance over said church through its agents and Re-

ligious Affairs Committee.

7. That during these periods Bishop Dionisije dis-

tinguished himself as an anti-Nazi and an anti-Communist,

speaking out and working diligently to thwart the ungodly

plan of both of these regimes.

8. That upon the Communist overthrow of the King-

dom of Yugoslavia the Communist government compelled

the Serbian Orthodox Church to adopt the Consutution of

January 31, 1946 of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and in

April, 1946, Metropolitan Joseph notified Bishop Dionisije

that the Communist Ministery of Foreign Affairs had made

charges against Bishop Dionisije because of his opposition

to Communism, and the Communists were attempting to ex-

ploit the Holy Synod for their political aspirations; that

the Serbian Orthodox Church was in a desperate situa-

tion; that everything was under strict supervision; and

the greatest need was for freedom; all as will appear from

the letter from Metropolitan Joseph, a true copy of which

is attached hereto, marked ‘‘ Exhibit A,’’ now specifically

referred to and by reference made a part of this Counter-

claim.

9. That thereafter, bowing to Communist domination,

Serbian Patriarchate Gabriel, in November, 1946, recom-

mended to Bishop Dionisije that he cease and desist from

his unrelenting and damaging attacks upon Communists

and Communism, and to avoid participation in political dis-

putes and daily political problems, and confine his activi-

ties to religious matters, as will more fully appear from

the November, 1946 direction received from Serbian Patri-

archate Gabriel, a true copy of which is attached hereto,

marked ‘‘Exhibit B,’’ now specifically referred to and by

reference made a part of this Counterclaim.

ee Se ee ee wn

S Dalen. iv «00

eo

AONE ee

Pee, ae ae eS eee) ae

0 ARRAN sO she

owe?

j

75

10. That Bishop Dionisije, in addition to ministering

to the religious needs of the members of the Diocese, con-

tinued to attack the ungodly actions of the Communists,

the domination of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and the

loss of religious ireedom being suffered by the Clergy and

the faithful in Yugoslavia.

11. That thereafter, and in October, 1954, Patriarch

Vikentije advised Bishop Dionisije that the Holy Bishops’

Council, on May 14, 1948, had requested him to restrain

himselt from every political action, from mixing in poli-

tics, and to limit his actions entirely to church work of the

Serbian Orthodox Church, and on June 12, 1954, again

recommended that he conduct himself accordingly, as will

more fully appear from the letter of directions from Patri-

arch Vikentije, dated October 12, 1954, a true copy of

which is marked ‘‘Exhibit C,’’ attached hereto, now spe-

cifically referred to and by reference made a part of this

Counterclaim.

12. That under Communist domination the Serbian

Orthodox Church directed all Bishops outside of Yugo-

slavia, including Bishop Dionisije, to abstain from any

political action and dealing with politics in general, but to

limit their work with the clergy only in the sphere of ac-

tion of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Church, as will more

fully appear from ‘‘Exhibit D,’’ now specifically referred

to and by reference made a part of this Counterclaim.

13. In Devember, 1961, Patriarch Gherman again asked

Bishop Dionisije to cease promoting the religious freedom

of the faithful in Yugoslavia because the church in Yugo-

slavia would get into difficulty with the Communist govern-

ment, and Bishop Dionisije, on March 18, 1962, replied

that in accordance with the Orthodox Church, supported by

the full prayer of St. Sava, he fights against aetheistic-

76

dialectic materialistic philosophy introduced by Commu-

nists in Yugoslavia, all as will more fully appear in the

letter of March 18, 1962, a true copy of which is attached

hereto as ‘‘ Exhibit E,’’ now specifically referred to and by

reference made a part of this Counterclaim.

14. That the Communist government of Yugoslavia,

through its agents and Consuls, undertook to attack and

destroy Bishop Dionisije because of his unrelenting and

damaging attacks upon the Communist usurpers of Yugo-

slavia.

15. That in May, 1963, the Communist government of

Yugoslavia, through the Patriarchate of the Serbian East-

ern Orthodox Church, undertook to divide the Serbian

Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the United States of America

and Canada into three new Dioceses without authority or

sanction in law, and in defiance of the Constitution of the

Serbian Eastern Diocese of the United States of America

and Canada.

16. That said acts of May 10, 1963, purporting to divide

the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the United States

and Canada into three new Diocese are void and of no legal

effect, and have been so adjudicated by Illinois Courts.

17. That there exists in the United States one Diocese

—the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United

States of America and Canada, a religious corporation—

of which the Counter Plaintiff, Bishop Dionisije, is the

duly-appointed, accepted and acting Bishop.

18. That the Counter Defendant, Firmilian, has made

the following claims and accusations:

A. That he is the Bishop of the Serbian Eastern Or-

thodox Diocese for the United States of America and

(‘anada, a religious corporation ;

—— a

77

B. That he is entitled to the assets, including all cash and

bank accounts, of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Dio-

cese for the United States of America and Canada, an

Illinois religious corporation, and the Serbian Ortho-

dox Monastery of St. Sava, an Illinois not-for-profit

corporation, and all books and records of said two cor-

porations;

C. That the Plaintiff, Bishop Dionisije, has been removed

from his episcopal duties and relieved of his monastic

orders and has been defrocked.

19. That the Counter Defendant further asserts and

claims the foregoing on the basis of illegal, void, fraudu-

lent, collusive, arbitrary and unconscionable action of his

principal, the Serbian Patriarchate of Belgrade, Yugo-

slavia, of which he is an integral part, agent, co-principal

and co-conspirator.

20. That the alleged acts of the Serbian Eastern Ortho-

dox Patriarchate of Belgrade, Yugoslavia, purporting to

remove Bishop Dionisije as Bishop of the Serbian Eastern

Orthodox Diocese of the United States of America and

Canada are nuil, void and of no legal force and effect be-

cause no fuil, fair, judicial hearing was had; Bishop Dioni-

sije was not present or represented at the purported hear-

ing; Bishop Dionisije was denied access to the charges

against him and refused information of the person or

persons making such charges; and the sole purpose of the

fraudulent, collusive and arbitrary proceedings was to

terminate the unrelenting and damaging attacks upon the

Communist usurpers of Yugoslavia being conducted by

Bishop Dionisije.

21. That the alleged acts of the Serbian Eastern Ortho-

dox Patriarchate of Belgrade, Yugoslavia purporting to

remove Bishop Dionisije of his episcopal duties and relieve

78

him of his monastic order and defrock him are null, void

and of no legal force and effect because no full, fair judicial

hearing was had; Bishop Dionisije was not present or rep-

resented at the purported hearings; Bishop Dionisije was

denied access to the charges against him and refused infor-

mation of the person or persons making such charges; and

the sole purpose of the fraudulent, collusive and arbitrary

proceedings was to terminate the unrelenting and damag-

ing attacks upon the Communist usurpers of Yugoslavia

being conducted by Bishop Dionisije, and the proceedings

were dominated by the Communist government which con-

trolled the Serbian Orthodox Church in Yugoslavia.

22. That the purported indictment and trial of His

Grace, Bishop Dionisije, by the Serbian Patriarchate of

Belgrade, Yugoslavia, is of no legal force and effect by

reason of the matters and things hereinbefore alleged, and

because such proceedings are void and illegal for failure

of the said Serbian Patriarchate to apply and follow its

own rules and regulations regarding such proceedings, as

well as the customs and traditions of the Christian Ortho-

dox Church, and the Canons of the Christian Orthodox

Church.

2%. The action of the Counter Defendant, Firmilian, his

assertions and claims, causes irreparable injury and harm

to the Counter Plaintiff, Bishop Dionisije, in that such al-

legations have held up the Counter Plaintiff to derision and

insults, and interfered with the discharge of his duties

as President of the Diocesan Council and Diocesan As-

sembly of the Illinois religious corporation, and without

any cause defamed Bishop Dionisije, and such statements

and actions are slander.

24. Counter Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

25. A real justiciable controversy exists between the

parties.

mn

:

j

4

79

WHEREFORE, The Counter Plaintiff, the Right

Reverend Dionisije Milivojevich, Bishop of the Serbian

Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the United States of Ameri-

ea and Canada, an Illinois religious corporation, prays

that this Court enter a decree as follows:

1. That the Court enter a declaratory judgment that

Counter Plaintiff, Bishop Dionisije, is the duly-appointed

and acting Bishop of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Dio-

cese for the United States of America and Casada, pur-

suant to the Constitution of the said Diocese.

2. That this Court enter a declaratory judgment that

the Counter Defendant, Firmilian Ocokoljich, is not en-

titled to the assets, including all cash and bank accounts of

the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United

States of America and Canada, an Illinois religious cor-

poration, and the Serbian Orthodox Monastery of St. Sava,

an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, and all books and

records of the said two corporations.

3. That this Court enter a declaratory judgment that

the purported removal of Bishop Dionisije’s episcopal

rank and monastic orders is without validity, force and

effect.

4. That this Court issue a permanent injunction re-

straining the Defendant, Firmilian Ocokoljich from hold-

ing himself out to be Bishop of the Serbian Eastern Ortho-

dox Diocese of the United States of America and Canada,

a Illinois religious corporation, and from promulgating

and publishing any further slander regarding the illegal

acts of the Serbian Patriarchate concerning the alleged and

purported removal of episcopal duties and monastic rank

of the said Bishop Dionisije by the Belgrade Patriarchate.

SNYDER, CLARKE, DALZIEL,

HOLMQUIST & JOHNSON

By: Gerald C. Snyder

80

EXHIBIT A

27/14 of April, 1946

Belgrade

Your Grace

Dear Bishop:

Recently the Holy Synod received through the Ministry

of Foreign Affairs here, an accusation against you made

by Rev. Gachinovich. Earlier there were others. The Holy

Synod acted as it had to and sent this accusation to you

for reply through the same office. We are sorry that some

people exploit the Holy Synod for their political aspira-

tious and placed us in a position to act on such matters.

We are in a desperate situation. ... We are constantly

praying and hoping in God’s help. ... We are in need of

everything. We are impoverished. We do not have any-

thing. We are desperate for many things, mostly for free-

dom. Everything here is under strict supervision, freedom

also.

St. Sava is no longer commemorated or celebrated in

the schools.

The communist opposition say to us, ‘‘You will pay for

this, bearded ones’’ (since the Bishops do not cut their

hair). We answer ‘‘You yourselves are to be blamed. We

very gladly are paying even with our heads.’’

Metropolitan Joseph

ee a

81

EXHIBIT B

Holy Bishops’ Synod

of the Serbian Orthodox Church

No. 3364/Min. 439

November 12/25, 1946

Belgrade

Your Grace:

In connection with the report of Your Grace from Oc-

tober 14, 1946, sent as an answer to the letter of the Holy

Bishops’ Synod of September 1/14, 1946, No. 2385/Min.

946, regarding complaints coming from abroad against

your political action, the Holy Bishops’ Synod has issued

the following decision:

‘*Brotherly recommend to His Grace American-Canadi-

an Bishop Dionisije that, in view of his dignity and posi-

tion in the Serbian Orthodox Church outside of the home-

land, to avoid participation in political disputes and daily

political problems, but that his activity be confined to the

mission of the Serbian Orthodox Church among the Ortho-

dox Faithful which are living outside of their country.’’

Brotherly informing Your Grace of the above.

Your Grace’s Brother in Christ,

Serbian Patriarch Gabriel

To: His Grace Bishop Dionisije of the Serbian

American and Canadian Diocese Orthodox

82

EXHIBIT C

The Holy Bishops’ Synod

of the Serbian Orthodox Church

No. 1628/Min. 732

October 12, 1954 year

Belgrade—

Your Grace:

By its letter of No. 2033/Min. 503 from 4-V1-1948, the

Holy Bishop’s Synod sent to you the decision of the Holy

Bishop’s Council AC No, 26/Min. 10-8-43 from May 14,

1948, by which your Grace has been requested to restrain

yourself from every political action and in general from

mixing in the polities but that your work with your priests

be limited only to the church work of the Serbian Orthodox

Church.

In view of the above decision of the Holy Bishop’s Synod

under the above date and number, we again respectfully

ask your Grace and recommend that in your future work

to govern yourself along the line of the Holy Council of

the Bishops.

Your Grace Brother in Christ

Patriarch Vikentije

His Grace Bishop of the

American-Canadian Diocese

Bishop Dionisije

ea

ee

:

;

:

|

|

:

|

;

83

EXHIBIT D

Ref. No. 2093/Min. 503

May 25/12, 1948, Belgrade

To:

His Grace Bishop American and Canadian

Bishop Dionisije

Libertyville

Your Grace,

Dealing in compliance with the Decision of the Saint

Archbishops’ Assembly, Ref. No. AC 26/Min. 10 and 43

of 14/1 May, 1948, the Saint Archbishops’ Synod is hon-

oured to present to your Grace the true text of the same

reading as follows:

‘The Holy Archbishops’ Assembly, upon considering

the Report given to the Saint Archbishops’ Assembly by

his Grace Bishop of Nis Jovan, in the name of the Delega-

tion of the Saint Archbishops’ Assembly who paid a visit

to Secretary of State general-major Ljubodrag Djuric, ref.

the above number and date, made the following Decision:

‘The Holy Archbishops’ Assembly has noted the Report

so that it is to be given to the Holy Archbishops’ Synod

for further procedure.’’

At the same time ‘‘to recommend to the Holy Arch-

bishops’ Synod kindly to ask the members of the Holy

Archbishops’ Assembly (the Archbishops) abroad, to ab-

stain from any political action and dealing with politics

in general but to limit their work with the clergy only in the

sphere of action of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Church.’’

Your Grace brother in Christ,

for the President

of the Holy Archbishops’ Synod

member, Bishop of Zletovo and

Strumica and administrator of

the Diocese of Srem

84

EXHIBIT E

THE HOLY BISHOPS’ SYNOD

OF THE SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

Num, 3418/Min. 679

December 22, 1961

BELGRADE

YOUR GRACE,

The Holy Bishop’s Assembly of the Serbian Orthodox

Church under AS Num. 26/Min. 10 & 43 of May 14, 1948,

issued a decision: ‘‘Recommend to the Holy Bishops’ Sy-

nod to ask kindly, the Bishops, members of the Holy Bish-

ops’ Assembly, which are abroad, to restrain from every

political action and of ‘mixing into polities’ in general,

but to limit their work with clergy, only in framework of

the Serbian Orthodox Church.’’

The Holy Bishop’s Synod under its Number 2009/Min.

503 of May 25, 1948, notified Your Grace of this Assembly’s

decision.

With its letter Number 1628/Min. 732 of October 12,

1954, The Holy Bishop’s Synod again kindly asked Your

Grace to stay with the above decision of the Holy Bish-

ops’ Assembly. In Your answer to the above letter, under

the Number 14 of December, 1954, Your Grace said: ‘‘ This

is to confirm receipt of Synod’s letter, Number 1628/Min.

732 of October 12th of 1954, with our statement: that we

will stick to the contents of the above decision and we will

restrain ourselves from every political action and of ‘mix-

ing into polities’ in general, as well as the clergy of this

diocese, but let it be noted: we will keep our action in the

NS"

85

framework of the Serbian Orthodox Church, understand-

ing, in the limits of the holy canons and of the Laws of this

country in which our Diocese is organized.’’

Relative to Your newest clear political action The Holy

Bishops’ Synod, the third time, is kindly asking Your

Grace to stay with the decision of Holy Bishops’ Assembly

and with Your promise, so that, by Your political action

our church in fatherland would not come in difficulty.’’

Your Grace in Christ—Brother

President of the Holy

Bishops’ Synod

Serbian Patriarch GHERMAN.

86

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF THE 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

(Title Omitted in Printing)

SECOND INTERIM OPINION RE: (A) MOTION BY

DEFENDANTS TO DESIGNATE PARTIES; AND (B)

MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS TO STRIKE DEFEN-

DANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM.

A. MOTION BY DEFENDANTS TO

DESIGNATE PARTIES:

On February 13, 1968, the Defendants filed the motion

above mentioned and on February 23, 1968, the Plaintiffs

filed their objections to said motion. The Court rules that

in principle the Defendants’ motion has practical applica-

tion to this case and the use of simplified designations or

phrases as applied to the various parties will be helpful.

In so doing, the Court is not to be considered as ruling in

any manner concerning the merits of the case and likewise

the parties to this cause, by following this ruling of the

Court, will not be considered as conceding in any way a

position contrary to their respective pleadings. The Court

rules that the following phrases shall be used by Court and

Counsel:

1. The Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the

United States of America and Canada, a religious

body, shall be referred to as ‘‘the religious body in

this country.”’

2, The Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the

United States of America and Canada, an Illinois re-

ligious corporation, shall be referred to as the ‘*T)li-

nois religious corporation.”’

:

:

87

3. The Middle Western American Diocese of the

Serbian Orthodox Churcli, The Western American Dio-

cese of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and The Middle

Eastern American Canadian Diocese of the Serbian

Orthodox Church shall be referred to as the ‘‘three

new dioceses.’’

4. The Serbian Orthodox Diocese of St. Sava, an II-

linois not-for-profit corporation, shall be referred to as

the ‘‘monastery corporation.’’

The proposed order concerning the foregoing is for the

convenience of Court and Counsel. <All concerned will be

expected to conform, but it will be understandable should

an infrequent and inadvertent lapse occur with reference

to the foregoing designations in future documents in this

cause.

B. MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS TO STRIKE DEFEN-

DANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM:

On October 31, 1967, the Defendants filed their ‘‘ Answer

to Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint’’ answer-

ing Counts I and III and on page 5 of the same document

their ‘‘counterclaim.’’ On December 15, 1967, the Plain-

tiffs filed their motion to strike certain portions of De-

fendants’ said answer and to strike said counterclaim, and

attached thereto is a 32-page document entitled ‘‘ Plaintiffs’

Memorandum in Support of Their Motion.’’ On January

31, 1968, the Defendants filed their 21-page ‘‘Responsive

Memorandum’’ together with an exhibit attached thereto

Which responds to said Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in support

of their Motion. It is upon this state of the pleadings that

this portion of the present opinion concerns itself.

88

The following numbers are the same paragraph numbers

referred to in said answer of Defendants filed October 31,

1967 :

COUNT I

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike this paragraph is denied.

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike a portion of this paragraph

to the extent described in their motion is granted so

that Paragraph 2 of the Answer will remain only as

to the first three lines thereof, ending with the word

‘*T)linois.’’ .

3. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike this paragraph is denied.

4. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike this paragraph is denied.

Plaintiffs’ motion to strike this paragraph is granted

only to the extent of the following words in the fourth

line of said paragraph: ‘‘The Bishop of the Diocese

and’’ but the remainder of the paragraph shall stand.

wr

6. There is no controversy concerning this paragraph.

~]

.

There is no controversy concerning this paragraph.

8. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike this paragraph is denied.

9,10, 11, 12,13 &14. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike these par-

agraphs is granted. However, this is done without

prejudice to any claim of the Defendant Dionisije Mili-

vojevich as an officer or participant of either the ‘‘Re-

ligious Corporation’? or the ‘‘Monastery Corpora-

tion.”’

15. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike this paragraph is de-

nied.

16. There is no controversy concerning this paragraph.

17. There is no controversy concerning this paragraph.

89

18. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike this paragraph is denied.

19. There is no controversy concerning this paragraph.

20.&21. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs’ motion

that the Defendant Dionisije Milivojevich, as a remain-

ing party to the cause, shall answer these paragraphs

within a reasonable time.

COUNT III

1,2,3,&4. There is no controversy concerning these par-

agraphs.

Same ruling as to Paragraph 2, Count I.

There is no controversy concerning this paragraph.

5

6

7. Same ruling as to Paragraph 5 of Count I.

8

The motion of the Plaintiffs is granted and this entire

paragraph is stricken. We believe that this action is

justified by legal authorities, particularly Kedroff v.

St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 73 S.Ct. 143, 97

L. Ed. 120 and Kreshik v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral

(1960) 363 U.S. 190, 80 S.Ct. 1037.

9. There is no controversy concerning this paragraph.

10-23. Same ruling as to Paragraphs 7 through 20 of

Count I.

24. There is no controversy concerning this paragraph.

COUNTERCLAIM

It is the judgment of this Court that the Counterclaim

consists almost entirely of charges of Communistie control

and activities in Yugoslavia and the effect thereof upon

the church in Belgrade, and that this type of allegation di-

90

rectly or indirectly violates the Kedroff and Kreshik cases

of the United States Supreme Court heretofore cited as

well as our basie Appellate Court case in 72 Ill. App. 2d

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.