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

FiL&D

DEC 11

APPENDIZ -

MN Cn |

In the

Supreme Cowt 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,

vB.

DIONISLJE MILIVOJEVICH, et al,

Respondents.

Volume II— Pages 357 to 719

Testimony

On Writ or CERTIORARI TO THE Unitep States Court

or APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Filed August 26, 1975

Certiorari Granted October 20, 1975

ee eS

INDEX

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

PRETRIAL PLEADINGS, OPINIONS

AND ORDERS

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive

TT . -

Be Ge Gy Tis TID esestrceseseeteiccenesiteciteneticsseens 6

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

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

| Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint and ex-

. EIT IIIIIIIID :icisnscintneeenntinteicnseiepeceueieeaiociabenibaniiaeeanboiansegitis 31

‘ Interim Opinion Re: Motion to Dismiss Second

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

ee Be GI Bi Ge BD . wceccetestemnniitatesnnnenenicsanentciittsonics 65

Answer to Second Amended and Supplemental Com-

TTI. <osgunienssetasiateiatunininsiiummestadansineieasdadselésiueadiiesmmastentbaisiiabaaeds 68

Counterclaim and exhibits thereto -2.00.........eceeceeeeeeeeeeees 73

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

dants to Designate Parties; and (B) Motion by

(| Plaintiffs to Strike Defendants’ Answer and Coun-

SITIO. iciosassiesiestuaictieicnsienieiipishcladeeaitaneatadmaie liadesnitediiiiieiiaeaaicai 36

Onder emtered Jume D6, 19GB .............ccceccsccceccsscsccssececcessescses 91

Further Answer to Second Amended and Supplemen-

Re FIEND shcidsnsiesininisseennicessissicnicsanieaticniieiiialtindadaiainiiminiadianiais 94

I By Ta eveiteiceeieaiihciacinliaiteebinianeai 103

Reply to Defendants’ Answer and Supplementa] An-

swer to the Second Amended and Supplemental

COTE, | ccecsennseremncacssensscsctemnssmnsesneqenanminanenninesantaneimnaiee 108

Reply to Affirmative Defense ....................ccscsscesseseeeesseees 109

Vol. | — pp. 1 to 388; Vol. 11 —pp. 357 to 719; Vol. 111 — pp. 901 to 1398; Vol. IV—pp. 1399 te 1833

EEO OO EEO

i

PAGE

TESTIMONY (ABSTRACTED AND VERBATIM)

Brkich, Milan—

Dihweet imetethG | q.......-ccccccccsceccsserscseensesssvecessneseseves 239

Creme Teme ethet .........cecccscccccccsceccescsssenssceossssccnsones 258

Bedirect TimemeiMOtiaG .........20.ccsceccccenccesssssnsccssonnessosonss 269

Biman TERING .ocencccccccccsscccesnscccesnnsnsescossonsocnsnere 271

Dihret TR RRNI oecceccsnccecesessssecessnsnensrecnsnostnanennsanens 504

Cet, I, oo csennntnstnscerniaisiennmmaainan 508

Di TING os ccccccicscscsccneccesccnccsncententnessocnsntonenen 692

Damaskin, Metropolitan (Deposition)—

th TI cocceicsectensstretninsinrscetentinemennmmnenen 184

OE 192

i TID oscecccenscenecsonietetsanescenesnertanmmenmenne 196

Grunchich, Milan—

et I ano ccccccsceecesenieaeinnnemnnentaniannenapnite 370

Cimee TERIIII onccccssnccccncseccsssnsntstsnsstmnsesnctimenssansin 372

llicich, Nikanor—

ies Ree snassteintnasentenninammannta 163

ie | aaleaeinesianndnnasadia 178

eee :«:«C ERR eee eo eNIOO nro 184

Ivanovich, Alexander—

ee eee 381, 400

Cope TIT ccccecseenccccssicersscctenssenestmncsinanenel 402, 403

ee een See 405

Wiseman TIBI occcccccccecsccccssecstevesecsassnesnsnscsonsnnes 406

Kostich, Visarion—

Wilh TAIT naccsccciccccscccsersscccrenterncittostnsrnemaeeta 196

et I .., cassissaiisstncenessimanineinianinapennaiaineitn 220

ee ID | vciccscetesivicnitibidsianainntinenninmeinseit 236

ee I ss snciscecisissinnicniannsiiahataietasiintiiandsinndaii 677

Ce I aii sacicssecncesnesiceninnnleniinidainiscnidaniandipitn 683

ee TID ccsiiccsscscrsenssenininccsininiacinmmeennnnes 691

Vol. | — pp. 1 to 356; Vol. 1! — pp. 357 to 719; Vel. 111 — pp. 961 to 1388; Vol. IV — pp. 1388 to 1633

iii

PAGE

Kovacevich, Irinej—

ERE a debe 550, 576

I a 583

EC nr Sen TT te RO 595

Inn he 712

Meyendorff, John—

= a 345

PE ee 367

Milivojevich, Dionisije—

RE 438

EET SAE I nl oe OS Bl DE 446

a dS 448

I a 466

EERE D Erne eee Ram 513

EEE SSI AALS 562

2h ha Co 597

Sn I ho fhe ene 642

Sr I i 713

I a as aT 717

Mladenovich, Mladen—

EEE EA AN 110

I ea a aN 143

Ee 161

Neff, Owen C.—

SR a a 718

I i 719

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

iv

PAGE

Ocokoljich, Firmilian—

Dil TI occcexeccccesecossceserssscscctecnsmeeneresseosenents 300

tO anon 310

ee I ss cescanuiasiniiemnaminuioneusatniise 310, 311

i I oo ccccsnsscssstaiinmsensenensesamipneimmebinns 324

i I a orccecnisnvssnniasssnnnmnnaseananntinneniiandntn 325

Cn TI mcccccccsenccsccestenicennseicrcrnctenecensememmecin 326

Re I no ineicesesccecnncsccnsinntoncninsonsnmntnnnntenoine 326

Cents T° oecscciccescccninicnseniomenadscnnsetneniiiescenemanines 341

ee I si sccsinecisdtinsiiaibansinndaipiiinabatinamamniainie 373

nS IIIS oo scedanemeineniionanienenmidiatis 375

Examination Under Sec. 60 of the Illinois Civil

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

I 5s sissinsisiseiiestlacinsiibiiiaiietibinieinsaiiciiiiiiide 548

a a ctl dintinine cline 549

Examination Under Sec. 60 200..............cccceeeeeceeeeeeteees 549

IT I ON EE OT 710

I a ial es 712

Paljich, Nikanor—

ESE oe ee ee EE 456

I I il lasers 458

Radakovich, Milan—

Re ne en Re TON 296

Le ee TOE 298

Ie Tn TTT 299

Oe STEEL ee TO 299

EA oe Ta Le Se OTT 693

I ail lala ania haltieaaaiteaiinn 694

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

Vv

PAGE

Shoukletovich, Doushan J.—

i caemidaimniennieeeie 271

I a 283

Redirect Examimation 20....000.0.00.0ccccccccccecccceccecceoceeceseeee 294

I 295

Redirect Examination 20....0.........cccccccccccccsccecceceoceccoses 295

Stefanovic, Zivan—

ee 406

i 432

I 454

Redirect Examination 20..0......0....ccccccccscccococoococooeesses.. 459

Stepanovich, Nick—

i 644

Direct Examination .0.0.0....0.0......c.cceccscccoceccosesececcosecesee. 655

Examination Under Sec. 60 ooo..o.occcccccccccccceccceee- 659

Tobias, Robert—

SEES AES TTT 694

ES itr A 700

709

Vasilije, Bishop of Zhica—

I 660

| a 667

Redirect Examination 2..0........0......ccccccccccccscccecooees...... 675

Recross Examination 20.0.0... .ccccccecccceccesecceccoseosess.... 677

Vuyovich, Robert—

ESS RRs a 376

Cross Examination

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

vi

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBITS

PLAINTIFFS’

Exuisit No.

1

to

~I

5/10/63 Minutes of Holy Synod re Suspension

OF DiCmICESO ~.......ccecescescorerserssssecenseesnnsnnaenn 901°

5/10/63 Minutes of Holy Assembly of Bishops

re Accusations against Diomisije .............2....0... 902

Corrected Translation of PX 2.0.0.0... eee 904

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

pension of Dionisije.................c-c.sssssssssesesessecsseseess 905

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

SUSPENSION .-2..c.eo<cenecesnsessecerersscsnsnennssnsabnanaianninnana 906

5/10/63 Minutes of Holy Assembly of Bishops

Te Reorganisation .........0.0....-s.-cscceccssscsseecsssnenssnnnenes 908

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

OLED ........<-ccosccsnsessossencenensenentenssssnsesnsinintannnnnnnnE 911

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

OPRADISALION -.....0.0..00.scseneserseensessennesien 913

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

OPRANIZALION ..........enscsecennsoneseessaeessstennseensaann 915

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

OFRADIZAION ....--.00.0.ccescessesisesseteunssseeentensaien einai 917

7/27/63 Decision of Holy Assembly to Remove

DiOMIBI FC .........cccccesseoressecsersessnsenseeessstnsstsanntiannannn 919

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

ig | \ ee 923

*Note: The page numbers from 720 to 900 were omitted in

printing.

Vol. | — pp. 1 to 356; Vol. 1! — pp. 357 to 719; Vel. 111 — pp. 961 te 1388; Vol. IV — pp. 1398 te 1833

vii

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’

Exaursit No.

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

Election as Bishop ......... ...... alelidalabianesdesienssesesocnscee 924

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

ac ccnacerctenceseumssenstecusoonsces 925

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

Ten speouuvnccues 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

NN 929

16 Synod’s Indictment of Dionisije —...00.0000000... 930

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

a sessesomasocs 981

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

Eee 983

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

aati eresccensneeunnntstsnneneercoszecrves 985

20 12/10/63 Decision of Synod ou... 987

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

i ieciicendderihcterencsnenceseceunitentencevcrcscececes 989

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

TD 1009

23 6/5/67 Proclamation by Patriarch re Bishop

SES 1010

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

I _cssesscsnsnescorenee 1011

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

viii

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’

ExnHisit No.

25

26

30

3l

40)

9/13/21 Decision of Holy Assembly to Establish

American-Canadian Diocese . ................:cc:cc.:ceeeee 1012

12/8/22 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Election

of Mardary as Administrator. ........ Fo ANG aa Reade NSAI Re 1015

11/22/25 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Election

2. fe 1016

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

een CI ciectetineniccsscsessernssnneasinismnnteinenineatennatnt 1017

1939 Constitution of American-Canadian Dio-

a 1019

5/24/39 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Amend-

ments to Diocesan Constitution ................... —

12/14/35 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Death

2, ee icinsdiiaidaediaiaamanbiaiciial 1073

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

CORI - GE TRDOIOD ceccnetsiaiscnssnninetniiiiinsstnanaiaantaaniaiian 1074

§, 22/38 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Election

OE TRUE GH TTD cccenessctccstiunnininnianiinidenanianiania 1075

12/8/39 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Election

OE TRRAEED CO TD cecncctccornscsenetacinitanstmensdenenaitic 1077

12/8/39 Notice of Dionisije’s Election ............ 1078

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

1951 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Report of

Dionisije ...... aeahaiehsnieataneneanesessbiaieuiaibiadinnibenstieditbiiesiaeids 1090

1951 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Letter of

IID <ccccrosnensscicieintiseinsiceniamsasbinetaidininiigdaiidedubiiasidans 1091

Vol. | — pp. 1 to 356; Vol. 1! — pp. 357 to 719; Vol. 11] — pp. 901 te 1398; Vol. IV — pp. 1388 te 1833

PAGE

PLAINTIFFs’

Exuusit No.

41

42

43

45

+6

47

0B

06

9/16/52 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Letters

BUI ictintusiccietinnticnen aunties betaine 1092

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

ocesan Regulations

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

SINE scnccenncnccsieiseteisiiibineddiaiedienibenitiiastebiidinleniibetiiid id 1096

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

PUPS ‘ccurseneasesnisscesellaissnniarinitshenisadiiteaicliadediatacsiebiaatit 1096

6/7/58 Decision of Holy Assembly re Diocesan

STID cuiiscccesttaieiehapieeshiesinaneniaanicentaieasiaaialiatiiihiad tied dialiebe ttn 1098

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

GMUTIINID cicccsoncssoshintseiticiciaiaaiailit adalah 1099

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

Dionisije

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

Oe Sy Be ‘ackcessctcscenisatnenttenteteteie 1102

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

SUTITIETIIED cecirincsinsesndenscentaiediinggpinamleiainasineaeinaianiivladialennitils 1103

1/24/63 Report of Damaskin Delegation re

Complaints against Dionisije 1105

hee eee ee ee ee

0/8/63 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Letter of

SUITED. sssstissscepinasiencsseinmnstenvienssnensehnaptpaniinidansdaimatsaiendel 1107

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

I Ge Se I eeiictcetrenesntetttecnnitnotene 1108

7/27/63 Message of Holy Assembly

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

SORNUUUIETD <crnsvssiinssilecssnsinebiinidansteeibndaiiibiaidiciilaahiedeiesisemtianaua 1115

Vel. | — pp. 1 to 356; Vel. 1) — pp. 357 to 719; Vol. 11] — pp. 981 te 1398; Vel. IV — pp. 1399 te 1833

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’

Exursit No.

ay

61

67

O7A

67G

~]

-

wt

6/14/62 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Report

OF IID seccsecnisdbsinicinsuiniocntemaeisnstauiiitineiiniininincne 1115

5/25/62 Letter of Dionisije to Holy Assembly ....1118

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

I” SUID cssccctceesseniscentsinvninetttiascinnitneesionis 1120

5/20/55 Letter of Synod to Dionisije re Ap-

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

7/13/66 Letter of Patriarchate of Moscow to

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

7/13,66 Letter of Patriarchate of Moscow to

SUISINIIUIIIDY seciscaisintinipicahacaquisbiatubadirnsesaibcithaiaisdiatabsiaslnmnincbiadaastietien 1124

3,2/66 Letter of Dionisije to Russian Patri-

ID ccenetesnhicesstniecicneneiiveiniiniinacninasacicihlamaibiieiaiiiie 1125

7/13 66 Letter of Patriarchate of Moscow to

SIIIIID -sccecscsmscesisieissemnsbitaonntindninclenasbioeapineddinemiionesél 1134

1957 Constitution of Serbian Orthodox Church ..1136

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

6/3/63 Letter to Synod from Dionisije re

9/10/63 Decisions of Hierarchy. ............2020000....... 1271

6/12/62 Minutes of Holy Assembly re Proposal

IEEE sdiadinssethladiiedeicceudsabasadinibdecehraaeeshenbinsiiaacanats 1278

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

ment of Damaskin Delegation .........0.0.000000........... 1279

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

OTNND GE ID —ciccrccccennnisccnssentnnsmnernenes 1281

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

IS GE TID cssctscseecsttnisinticncninntaiinsesnasinanes 1289

Vol. |! — pp. 1 to 356; Vol. 1! — pp. 357 to 719; Vol. 11] — pp. 981 to 1388; Vol. IV — pp. 1389 te 1833

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’

Exursit No.

76

77

78

i9

80

81

82

545

s+T

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

Decisions of Hierarchy

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

Decisions of Hierarchy ....................ccsssssessessesseeeseeee 1300

Vidovdan, 1963 Proclamation of Dionisije re In-

vestigating Commission

Vidovdan, 1963 Proclamation of Dionisije

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

moval of Firmilian as Deputy

6/7/63 Letter of Dionisije to Mijatovich and

Djurich re their Removal from Diocesan Coun-

cil

7/5/63 Minutes of Investigating Commission

| 1324

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

cerpts: Resolutions of Diocesan Assemblies of

Se Sy: IIIS SEITE Stnsesctcbennsensentcncensbecemeessbetensiinds 1325

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

2/15/62 Report of Dionisije to Holy Synod re

BID IRIN crrrciicnisersnidinnietnseniceiidauniiivensonmuel 1353

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

Investigating Commission ............... npanieiaiantasadunial 1355

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

SITIES > sistesidnsidithanbsdiuiinssainiateinietaaniscdgaiedinianen anc siedee teens 1356

11/18/63 Power of Authorization Executed by

SIIIIID - ssccrvaciippsiicoseaconscunichimnainnsiiatsinnittetedibiteanaiehiel 1358

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

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’

Exuisit No.

84Q

s4W

84X

7/29/63 Letter from Patriarch to Dionisije re

ee 1359

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

eae shia eidedialinieal 1360

11/14/63 Decision of 10th Church-National As-

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

Nov. 1963 Proclamation of 10th Church-National

FRI sacussvvinscentapsincnnubninnnniaunnbininmntinie 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 Church in Yugoslavia .............................. 1378

6/7/63 Letter of Dionisije to Brkich Removing

Brkich as Episcopal Vicar ................:.0.sscsecssssees. 1382

7/15/63 Proclamation of Dionisije ................... 1383

Certificate of Incorporation of Serbian Eastern

Orthodox Diocese Council (1927) .............0.......... 1394

Certificate of Incorporation of Illinois Religious

ND CON elisstinscccisccenitennienintianntenieiniceniennsses 1399

Certificate of Incorporation of New York Relli-

MIOUD COTPOTRTIGR (TDER) ..00cccoccecvesscsssccccsesczescossoes 1403

3/22/65 Decision of Diocesan Ecclesiastical

Court re Non-followers of Dionisije .................... 1404

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

shan Shukletovich re Pension ...0................0..000-+5 1407

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

SE GF I seetitceniseticsenicenectareninnssippinieninnnionss 1408

Vol. | — pp. 1 te 356; Vol. 11 — pp. 357 te 719; Vel. 11] — pp. 981 to 1388; Vel. IV — pp. 1398 te 1833

xiii

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’

Exursit No.

106 6/6/63 Minutes of Diocesan Plenum re 5/10/63

8 | | eee 1409

108 1962 Articles of Incorporation of California Re-

I 1418

109 2/11/64 Decision of Diocesan Court re Use of

STITT ‘dithiandsiicuseviniesiicinintiiedinteiupieeitidieeelianl 1424

113A 11/4/63 Letter of Dionisije to Vladimir Mrvi-

chin, Dismissing Mrvichin as Vicar .................... 1425

115 ~=—- 11/23/62 Minutes of Diocesan Execv* ve Board ..1426

117 6/30/62 Letter of Dionisije to Clergy re Church

STUUEETT sicbsblicsitensdustuiaithlabbiasiniaauesettniatipiieairiinineainiataaiiadeteiedt 1439

120 5/30/63 Letter of Dionisije to Firmilian re

5/10/63 Decisions of Hierarchy .....0.00000.000.ceee 1440

121 1963 Letter of Firmilian to Uros Seferovie re

IEE © ticiosiccuseceniaisaustdidentiatebilistiidstaalstigusbiiieaniae diateabbaaiell 1442

123A 6/29/63 Letter of Dionisije to Simeon Groz-

danovich re Reception of Investigating Com-

STITT sidsccansieseecntadeietiianialadiisebcasedauiatiiaisanadaeicadinacacusats 1443

126 6/13/63 Letter of Holy Synod to Firmilian ........ 1444

128 10/18/63 Letter of Holy Synod to Firmilian re

Effect of Reorgamization .....................:ccccssssssseseees 1446

129 Certificate of Incorporation of Monastery

I ia al 1447

130 2/4/24 Deed to Mardary 0000.0... eeeceeeeeeeeeeee 1450

131 11/9/27 Deed from Mardary to Diocese Council 1452

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

xiv XV

PAGE PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’ DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBITS

Exursit No. DEFENDANTS’

132 9/4/41 Deed from Diocese Council to Illinois Exxisit No.

Religious Corporation .....................scsscsscssnssensenses 1457 29 Confirmation of Dionisije as Bishop of Ameri-

136 = 4/12/45 Deed from Illinois Religious Corpora- can Diocese by King Peter ....0............s.sescssessecssees 1570

tion to Monastery Corporation .....000.....00...0000..... 1459 29C Confirmation of Dionisije as Viear Bishop by

150 4/22/69 Deed from Illinois Religious Corpora- SRE I asec csnssannscsnsceneeintermnscncinennattniorunei 1572

tion to Pennsylvania Religious Corp. ................ 1463 30 1913 Minutes of Serbian Orthodox Priests’ &

151A 7/24/63 Resolution of Diocesan Executive Com- OER COUPON anne ncenemensnscnseeeeenminin 1573

mittee re Actions of New Bishops. .................... 1466 31 1916 Minutes of Serbian Orthodox Priests’

152 6/12/63 Letter of Diocesan Plenum to Clergy re RUE -ninevisnssnschishanstircsstanlietithioheniiceiiatenintenabmiensaietaa 1588

Chureh National Assembly ..........................00000+ 1474 39 1917 Release of Father Mardary by Synod ........ 1598

154 By-laws of Diocesan Pension Fund (effective 33 1917 Call to American Serbs to Organize as

U/1/93) ....-ecsescessessesentencsessesnessnsennenneenssnseneenenecnnesnenes 1477 Independent Serbian Diocese .0.....0...0cccceeceeeeeeeee 1598

195A 1/24/63 Report of Investigating Commission ....1482 35 1923 Notice to American Serbs of Mardary’s

197A 8/10/63 Report of Investigating Commission ....1535 Election as Administrator ............0..cc.ccccsseccesseseeee 1600

217. = Testimony of Dionisije in Rumanian Episco- 36 1922 Letter to Mardary from Bishop Nikolaj

pate v. Trut2d (1958) cccccccscceoccccccccncvesecessscssessscseccee 1544 re Duties as Administrator... 1601

223 4/15/57 Letter of Dionisije to Clergy re Suspen- 37 2/21/23 Minutes of Serbian-American Priests

sion of Antonije Abramovich ................0....0.000000. 1556 I ici as 1602

2299 =: 11/14/63 Resolution of Dioeesan Council to 49 7/21/27 Call for Chureh National Assembly ....1605

Amend Diocesan Constitution .00000000000000000000cccc.e.. 1558 51 Portions of the 1928 Constitution of Serbian

Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United

States of America & Canada ...00...0....cccccccccccccceeees 1607

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

64 4/25/26 Order of King Appointing Mardary

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

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

° Vol, | — pp. 1 to 358; Vol. 11 — pp. 357 to 719; Vol. 11! — pp. 901 te 1398; Vol. IV — pp. 1399 te 1833

Ne

xvi

PAGE

DEFENDANTS’

Exursit No.

77

101

115

116

142

145

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-

__ ene: scoialilattasacastiennepianetecedssansdiaubeaiaieiiiaadueiatiaiean 1623

Sept. 1960, Resolution of the IXth Diocesan

Church-Peoples Assembly ................-:.2::2se:+ee0200000+ 1624

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

Nikola Drenovae from Diocesan Judgment. ...... 1626

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-

SII ssicicisescelictensdersosccctuisschisieiadeihasienndisatasaedeedaiiansliietaniiin 1634

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

CB nen 1634

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

ima Of Hloly Asean ..................-<ccevscsecocssrerscessee 1635

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

A I coacsecnccennecsestcnstteneceieneniteonsnnciincianmeiiains 1636

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

qammbmationm G0 TRCCCGO .n..cccsc...<-secocecseccoccsssensvessooes 1637

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

ting: CORIO RIOR q...2...cnccecsacecccecnsreresscenesccveseserseens 1640

7/13/63 Letter of Dionisije to Investigating

CII voccccecicinnniasesmatctincctantitninenaninneeniaanannnitts 1645

Vol. | — pp. 1 to 358; Vol. 1! — pp. 357 to 719; Vol. 11! — pp. 901 to 1398; Vol. IV — pp. 1399 to 1833

XVii

PAGE

PLAINTIFFS’

Exnursit No.

152

193

194

7/20/63 Report of Investigation Commission to

TE OE ae hE ne 1646

9/11/63 Minutes of Holy Assembly of Bishops

re Election of Lastavica as Bishop 1650

9/17/63 Minutes of Holy Synod of Bishops re

Reorganization of Diocese 1656

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

Chureh, Pittsburgh, Pa. ........................................ 1661

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

AE PIII sascita eadineshasdarinbesdiscc:scaptbtiesseisamansieealdcleie ...1674

Herald 1695

SHOPS HSS SSSSSESSSSSS SSS SE SSSSSSOSESSSOSOSSSOSSS OS SSEESSEESSESSOESSESSESS

9/4/41 Consent of Dionisije to Transfer of

Land from Diocese Council to Illinois Religious

RPI IITIITIIIIIL:-scesssssssedsonsoisiiiedteentaieiiisnietjpidecabine diademannenadl 1698

August 1963 Proclamation of 10th Church Na-

TINIE ccsisrasctcctacniennbchissilidentediniadisieuibiectenad 1703

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

12/10/63 Minutes of Holy Synod .0000.... ce. 1727

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

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

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

Gg aE Pr a Or ae ae 1754

9/13/21 Minutes of Holy Assembly of Bishops

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

7/5/63 Letter of Dionisije to Hrizostom and

Visarion re Visit of Investigating Commission 1765

Vol. |— pp. 1 to 358; Vol. 11 — pp. 357 to 719; Vel. 111 — pp. 961 to 1398; Vel. IV— pp. 1399 te 1833

PAGE

POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

OPINIONS AND ORDERS

Memorandum Decision of Circuit Court .......000000.00........ 1767

Final Decree (dated April 30, 1973) 0.00000 e.. 1780

Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider (filed May 18,

ITT’ srsciasciasia aoushnaneiaasasiniadiaduaseabebiadependedibaipsatendactammnveineenmeaionla 1792

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

Ne Se I Se, ID iiteecesecrecsienenisetinccenmestiniiienniines 1798

Supersedeas Order (filed July 23, 1973) 000000... 1799

Opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois ........0.00......... 1800

Vol. | — pp. 1 to 358; Vol. 11 — pp. 357 te 719; Vol. 111 — pp. 901 te 1398; Vol. IV — pp. 1399 te 1833

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

Octosper 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.

Ow~ WRIT oF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED States CouRtT

oF APPFALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.

357

VERBATIM TESTIMONY

(3415! Q. Now, who, if anybody, is the spiritual and

even administrative titular head of a diocese in the

Serbian Church—I1 mean in the orthodox church?

A. The bishop.

Y. ‘The bishop. And that bishop for that diocese

is elected by whom?

(3416) A. The—according to the canons, the election

is made by the bishops of the province; that means of

the autocephalous church to which he belongs, al-

though the procedures here may vary from local

church to local church. For example, there are some

churches which admit nomination by—in the assem-

bly, of the assembly of the diocesan nomination only;

but then the canonical election is still made by bi-

shops.

Q. Is there any such thing as nomination by lay

assembly in the Serbian Orthodox Church?

A. Well, as far as 1 can see from the statutes

of the Serbian Patriarchate and the Serbian Diocese,

there is none.

Q. Are there in turn, at least administrative, if

not spiritual, subdivisions of a diocese?

A. Well, that depends on the statutes of a par-

ticular diocese. You have deaneries, you could organize

internally. The bishop can organize a diocese the way

he wishes unless he’s bound by some general by-laws

which are valid for all the dioceses of a particular

church.

Q. You have spoken frequently in the course of

this trial of congregations. Are those spiritual and

administrative subdivisions of a diocese ?

‘3417| A. Well, you see, a congregation can be called

an orthodox congregation only if it’s—finds itself on

the spiritual responsibility of a bishop.

358 359

Q. Now, in recounting for us, in naming the four-

teen orthodox autocephalous churches presently exist-

ing in the world church; that 1s, in the orthdox

church, those names all appear to have—to me at least

—to have some country definity: Serbian; Russian;

Greece; Constantinople—

character. Now, this applies to areas which. have

established orthodox dioceses. Now, there are areas

on this planet where there are none, you see. Now,

in this area, no man’s land, where there’s mission-

aries, the present practice of the orthodox church is

that any chureh can send an established jurisdiction

Q. May these autocephalous churches have juris-

diction, spiritually and otherwise, of areas or in areas

beyond the territories of the countries?

A. Well, they cannot have jurisdiction over—in

territories which belong to other churches. They can-

not.

Q. Would you please explain that and take your

own church.

A. If a Russian priest travels to Greece, he can-

not celebrate the sacraments or act as a priest with-

out permission of the local bishop which is the ortho-

dox bishop of the particular territory which he finds

himself. And of course, let’s say, unless the Russian

Church establishes a diocese in Greece, this is then

(3418] absolutely out of the question. Where, except, you

see, if for sake of temporary expediency the church

of Greece gives its permission and sort of thinks that

this is proper. You know, you had cases of that, all

sorts of refugees going through and you had tem-

porary administration of some kiad and this is what

happens, you see. This is a case, for example: The

Serbian Church granted such a permission to a synod

of Russian bishops who were residing in Yugoslavia

until the Second World War. Well, they had their

synod administering Russians in Serbia and else-

where by a particular permission of the Serbian

Church. but the Serbian Church was perfectly re-

signed to this permission and lost the canonical

there. However, aud I think this applies to America

and perhaps—I don’t know whether you wanted it on

that in order to have a kind of history of what hap-

pened in .America—however, once a diocese and

church, a church establishes a kind of missionary

activity or pastoral endeavors, a diocese in a par-

[3419] ticular church and this diocese is recognized as—

by all and this is usually done canonically, becomes

the local church.

Now, as far as the America is concerned, this—

such a diocese has heen established in 1840, in 1840

by the Church of Russia, you see, and therefore, up

to precisely the 19—early 1920’s, all the orthodox

in this country were subject to this diocese. Now,

after 1921, the national—various national churches

were established including the Serbian, but this has

been done by permission and of the Russian Bishop.

Incidentally, maybe I’m mistaken here. I’d like to

say that the official name of the church was not Rus-

sian Church, it was the Orthodox Greek—The Greek

Orthodox Church of America, I think it was called,

although the head happened to be appointed from

Russia, but it was not the Russian Church canonical-

!y while the head was Russian.

Q. Who or what body is the supreme body of an

orthodox church; meaning an autocephalous, one of

the fourteen, for example, autocephalous churches

in orthodoxy?

A. Of course the Council of Bishops of that par-

ticular church.

3420

3422

3423

360

ABSTRACTED TESTIMONY RESUMED

Actually to be accurate, the Assembly consists of

all the Bishops of the Church having dioceses. The

Patriarch is the first among equais. He is the chair-

man ex officio of the Council of Bishops and repre-

sents the Church whenever this Church is to be rep-

resented; but again the specification of his powers

may vary. In some churches he is not more than

just a chairman, and in other churches he has some

executive powers, but these are always granted by

the legislation.

{ have had oceasion to look through the Constitu-

tion of the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Consti-

tution of the Canadian/American Diocese. The Ameri-

ecan-Canadian Diocese differs somewhat from the

other dioceses of the Serbian Church. There is a

special statute which was granted to it by the Ser-

bian Church. It is still, as far as I can remember

correctly the text, remained hierarchically and sacra-

mentally a part of the Serbian Church. The Serbian

Orthodox Church is a hierarchical church because

they believe that the office of Bishop is divinely es-

tablished and not something which comes from man.

I have at your request studied and read the orders

and decisions of the Holy Assembly of Bishops of

the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1963, respective

creation and organization of the Canadian/American

Diocese and the creation of three other dioceses. I[

also have studied the suspension, deposition and de-

frockment of Bishop Dionisije.

Within the canons applicable to the Serbian Or-

tho ‘ox Church, the Constitution of the Serbian Or-

thodox Church, the Constitution of the American/Ca-

nadian Diocese, IT have an opinion as to whether or

3430

oto]

3453

3434

3435

361

not Bishop Dionisije was properly suspended, de-

posed and defrocked. It is my opinion that he was.

Il am aware of the fact that the Holy Assembly of

Bishops in acting with respect to Bishop Dionisije’s

defrockment, included among its members the Bish-

op assigned to prepare the Indictment and he sat

and voted in the Assembly. In my opinion this makes

no difference because I do not know of any Church

rule which prevents him from acting in such a way,

und in virtue of his episcopal dignity he had even

the duty to vote on an issue of that importance, and

in this particular case Church procedures are differ-

ent from the sort of accepted legal procedures in

our court.

The Council of Bishops in the Orthodox Church

and its autocephalous churches, has the authority to

fix the boundaries of dioceses. These boundaries

have been changed historically and everything which

is done in the Church is in the authority of the con-

suliatory synodial voice of the Bishops.

As a rule the Holy Assembly of Bishops or Council

of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church appoints its

Bishop. However, in several individual autocephalous

churches there are procedures for the election of

Bishops.

However, in every Orthodox Church the actual,

canonical right of electing and appointing a Bishop

belongs to the Bishops Assembly, although again the

preliminary procedures of nomination, pre-election

and so on, may in individual cases, be given to a Di-

ocesan Assembly. In the case of the Serbian Church

I do not think this was the case.

I base this opinion on the reading of the statutes

and the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

The canons of the Church form a code which do not

3436

3437

362

pretend to be absolutely consistent with each other.

There is a great body of text which is made up largely

of precedence indicating legal procedures that re-

quire interpretation, and obviously each Church has

the duty to interpret these canons so that it may

remain faithful to their spirit, to the doctrinal teach-

ings of the Church, and to decency and every good

principle in human relations which we can think of.

It is of course the responsibility of each Bishop

through the Assembly of Bishops to interpret these

canous in such a way as their spirit may be pre-

served. In an autocephalous Orthodox Church, the

final authority on the interpretation and explanation

of the canons would be the Assembly of Bishops.

This would include the interpretation of canons in-

sofar as establishing procedures with respect to the

appointment, the assignment, the suspension, the

deposition, and the defrockment of Bishops. In the

Orthodox Church, we do not believe in the infallibility

of any particular Bishop, or even of any Council of

Bishops, so by saying that this is the highest authori-

ty I do not want to affirm that a particular Assembly

of Bishops is necessarily infallible. Their writings

and their actions are always subject to the judgment

of the whole Church and I would say the highest

authority would be the Ecumenical Council but with-

out an Eeumenical Council, of course, the highest

moral authority which you can find is the consensus

of the Orthodox Churches on a given case. The

fact that the Assembly of Bishops acts to fulfill a

right and responsibility, does not denote the legal

infallibility. When I use the term legal, I am refer-

ring to the procedures necessary for the appointment

of a Bishop or his deposition which would include

indictments and ultimate defrockment.

1+ ane

3438

3459

ot44

od67

363

Within the Orthodox Church there is a right of

appeal from a decision of a Council of Bishops of

an .\utocephalous Orthodox Church. Canon 9 and 17

of the 4Uth Kcumenical Council which is the Council

ot Chalcedon provided that if a Bishop or a Cleric

is dissatisfied with the decisions of his immediate

superior he may appeal against this decision for a

judgment oi the Ekxarch of the Diocese or of the

Bishop of Constantinople. So he has two possibilities

here. Now the Exarch of the Diocese in Byzantine

legal terms, Orthodox legal terms, indicates the Pa-

triarch of the area in which the case is being judged.

Parallel to this route of appeal is the possibility

of appealing to the Court of the Bishop of Con-

stantinople who may, if he wishes, hear the case

again. That status of the Bishop or Patriarch of

Constantinople still exists today as a legal fact and

is not purely honorary because this canon has never

been rescinded. ‘here were cases of appeal to the

Patriarch of Constantinople in the recent history.

With respect to the Serbian Orthodox Church,

principally in the United States and Canada, the

Exarch would be the Patriarch of Serbia, under

whose jurisdiction this diocese was and is.

PX 62 through 67 are series of documents and let-

ters which tend to indicate an appeal by a Bishop

who has been tried and suspended by his own Pa-

triarch, in this case Patriarch German in Serbia, and

the Bishop, Bishop Dionisije, in appealing against

that judgment to the Patriarch in Moscow. Also

there seem to be appeals to the Patriarch in Con-

stantinople.

(Offer of proof.) PX 62, 63, 64, 65, and 66 relate

to and have the greatest bearing on the validity of

the original decision of the Bishops. I am not an

364

expert in American legal procedure and secular legal

procedures at all, but I am simply a theologian and

I know the canons of the Orthodox Church and in

view of what I think I made clear in my previous

statements this morning, I consider that for the

recognition of any validity to an act by any Ortho-

dox Bishop or any group of Bishops, the consensus

of other churches is essential; therefore, in my opin-

3468 ion the expression of the view of the opinions of the

Orthodox Church, other Orthodox Churches who have

the greatest importance for my personal conviction in

my attitude toward the case as an Orthodox Theo-

logian. The very fact that this defrockment has been

recognized universally by all Orthodox Churches

raises in my mind a very practically, decisive argu-

ment, and in my opinion supports the validity of the

original action by the Serbian Assembly of Bishops.

(End of the offer of proof.)

°471 I have an opinion as to whether reorganizing a

diocese has historically in the Orthodox Church re-

sulted in the creation of two or more dioceses from

the single diocese. This has happened both in an-

cient and modern history.

VERBATIM TESTIMONY

|3469| By Mr. Jenner:

Q. Does anybody—I don’t mean any person—any

body, cleric or otherwise, in orthodoxy have any juris-

diction and in particular in the Serbian Orthodox

(‘hurch to reorganize a diocese other than the Holy

Assembly of Bishops?

Mr. Holmquist: Would you read that question.

(The question was read by the reporter.)

365

{3470} Mr. Holmquist: Well, I think he’s asking the

Withess two questions and the witness 1 think has

already answered the question. In any event, he was

previously asked this very same question.

, Mr. Jenner: Your Honor pleases, I asked the

witness here before who had that authority and he

said the Holy Assembly of Bishops had it and I am

now asking if any other body or person has that

authority.

The Court: ‘The objection is overruled.

Mr. Holmquist: Are you confining this to the

Serbian Church?

Mr. Jenner: Yes.

The Witness: No. No.

By Mr. Jenner:

Q. ‘There is no other?

A. No.

Q. Does that include any body or group of lay-

men that has no authority or jurisdiction?

A. It has—it may, but anyway, any initiative for

the reorganizing of the diocese must receive the sanc-

tion of the Council of Bishops anyway. Therefore, it

is the Council of Bishops which is the legal source

of authority for the reorganizing of the diocese.

Q. Professor, do you have an opinion as to wheth-

[3471] er reorganizing of a diocese or dioceses may ex-

tend and has in the history of the orthodoxy extended

to the creation of two or more dioceses from a single

diocese?

A. Well—

Q. Do you have an opinion?

A. Yes. Of course—

Q. What is that opinion?

A. That this can happen and certainly happens

in history.

S477

btio

S480

+481

366

Q. You say happened in history, you mean on

oceasions through the Byzantine history which you

have been a student?

A. Or recent history.

Q. Ancient as well?

A. Ancient and modern.

ABSTRACTED TESTIMONY RESUMED

It is my opinion that the Holy Assembly of Bishops

followed the canonical procedures as best it could

and reached a conclusion which to me seems in con-

formity with practices and tradition and canonical

rules of the Orthodox Church. It is my opinion that

there exists today in the United States and Canada

three dioceses from the canonical and ecclesiastical

point of view. My opinion is based simply on the

decision of the Assembly of Bishops of the Serbian

Orthodox Church, which I have read and which I

consider to be the appropriate authority to establish

these three dioceses. These are PX 1 through 4, which

I have examined. I have examined Article III of PX

30, this being the Constitution of the Serbian Ortho-

dox Diocese in the United States of North America

and Canada, adopted in 1939 and after having read

this document I can state that it has not lead me to

change my last expressed opinion. The autonomy de-

scribed in this article pertains to the life of the dio-

cese itself and it concerns the external administration

oi the diocese. It does not apply to the very existence

of the diocese or the hierarchical jurisdiction of the

Assembly of Bishops over it. I have based my opin-

ion upon the reading of the Constitution of the Ser-

bian Orthodox Church in general and it appears to

3482

3483

J454

3455

3456

367

me that Article III does not restrict the power of the

Holy Assembly of Bishops to create new dioceses

from an existing diocese.

Cross Examination.

1 was ordained in Paris in 1959 in an Exarchate of

the Russian Orthodox Church. This is not a juris-

diction of the Russian Orthodox Church but is a

diocese that was under the Patriarchate of Constan-

tinople. Tle diocese did not remove itself from that

jurisdiction but the Patriarch terminated it. It is

currently void canonically and I don’t know who

makes claim to it. This exarch was established by

bishops, clergymen and faithful who fled Russia dur-

ing religious persecution around 1918. At that time

they refuted their ties to the Patriarch of Moscow.

They were immediately accepted by the ecumenical

patriarchate and the Moscow Patriarchate’s attitude

officially was that they did so irregularly. Schism is

a division of the church on the basis of disciplinary

and other issues while heresy is the division on the

issue of faith although very often between the two

there is not as sharp a distinction as one would ex-

pect. It is fair to say that schism generally relates

to administrative or procedural matters and heresy

matters of faith and dogma. A schismatic, or one

who is so accused, may nonetheless still hold ortho-

dox beliefs. It is probably the case that those who

came to Paris and labeled as irregular by the Holy

Assembly in Moscow were considered by the Holy

Assembly to be schismatics. It must be remembered,

however, that the orthodox church in Russia and

Serbia and this country and everywhere has been

full of conflicts and tragedies and misunderstandings

3487

B4ss

DSU

3490

249]

368

of various kinds. | think it is important to see that

the Patriarchate of Moscow never proceeded with

any trials, defrockments or anything of that sort

against the people in Paris or America. It is fair

to state that throughout the orthodox world it has

not been unusual to find factions in any of t.ese

churches accusing one another of schism and heresy.

This is especially so in the last half a century. Tradi-

tionally the great provincial orthodox churches have

grown up and followed the bundaries more or less

of the kingdoms or countries in which they were

situated. From time to time these countries have

disappeared and sometimes the churches were ab-

sorbed. From time to time also, many of these

churches have been subject to the influence and ef-

forts of the rulers of these countries and this is par-

ticularly true in the case of Moscow. In my book

The Orthodox Church, 1 made a study of the ortho-

dox chureh under Communism and made the point

that very often it has been necessary for the church

to accommodate to the gevernment to continue in

existence. | am currently subject to the diocese in

America. | am a member of the Russian Orthodox

Greck Catholic Church of America. It is a successor

to the Serbian Metropolia of America which was a

continuation of the Russian Diocese founded in 1814.

\ Patriarch is the head of an autocephalous church

while a Metropolitan is a title which can be used in

a variety of ways in the orthodox church. It desig-

nates a provincial, a primate, but not necessarily

autocephalous unless officially designated as such.

The Metropolitinate of Montenegro is an example of

an autocephalous church headed by a Metropoli-

tan as contrasted with a Patriarch. Following the

arrival of Metropolitan Planton in the United States

3493

3495

3007

3908

3909

369

after 1923, relations with the Mother Church in Mos-

cow were severed or broken. ihe Patriarch of Mos-

cow sent a bishop Benjamin to talk with Metropoii-

tan Pianton to more or less try and straighten this

thing out. Benjamin was appointed as an Exarch

which is a representative of the Moscow Patriarchate

in America with jurisdictonal rights. (OUtfer of

Proof.) Arcubishop Benjamin requested Metropoli-

tan Planton to sign a pledge that he would abstain

from participating in political life in general and

in particular in relation to the Soviet Union. The

Metropolitan objected to and refused to sign the

pledge. Vhereafter, a Sabor or church national as-

sembly of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United

States met and declared itself autonomous from the

Kussian Church pending the establishment of normal!

churel life in Russia. The resolution was that the

Metropolitanate would enjoy temporary self govern-

ment until relations could be normalized with the

Mother Church. I do not think that this case is

parallel to the Serbian case as Moscow did not pro-

ceed with any trial, investigation or defrockment.

The Russian Metropolitanate did not retain its hier-

archial canonical connections with the Moscow Pa-

triarchate. It also disturbed its administrative re-

lations with Moscow. The members of the diocese and

the faithful rem-ined members of the Russian Urtho-

dox Church. It is my opinion that the pledge was suf-

ficient canonical reason for the Metropolitanate to

take this stand which weuld be an unavoidable step

for a loyal American citizen. The only thing which

is sustained by canon law and orthodox doctrine is

that no particular individual is infallible. Each in-

dividual’s action or decisions or authority is to be

judged by the consensus of the whole church. It is

3910

3012

Bole

370

my belief that Metropolitan Planton and the Sabor

were justified in interrupting their ties with Moscow.

It was a morally unavoidable decision. To my knowl-

edge, the Russian Diocese in the United States did

not lose recognition among other orthodox churches

at this time. After the interruption the diocese did

not place itself under another Patriarchate and en-

joyed temporary self government. Metropolitan Plan-

ton was indeed suspended, but notification of his

suspension was not addressed to him and the absolute-

ly legal obligation of the Patriarchate to start a trial

was never carried out which leads me to believe that

the Moscow Patriarchate did not want to push this

affair at all. It is difficult to say whether the initial

suspension was done in a canonical manner as in 1930

90°% of the orthodox bishops in Russia were in exile

or concentration camps. The council of the Russian

(‘hurch in 1917 established a procedure for lay par-

ticipation in the election of bishops and this was ap-

plied in its American branch. The level of participa-

tion by the laity was at the level of nomination only

and this was in accordance with the statutes and the

constitution of the Russian Orthodox Church. (End

of the Offer of Proof.)

MILAN GRUNCHICH testified as follows:

Direct Examination.

My name is Milan Grunchich and I am a priest at

St. Stevans of Decani Serbian Orthodox Church in

(‘hicago. I was born in Hungary on April 6, 1911,

and was ordained as a priest on August 28, 1935, in

the Serbian Orthodox Church. I attended the ele-

mentary middle theological seminary and afterwards

the University of Belgrade Theological Faculty. I

3522

3031

3932

371

arrived in the United States on February 14, 1949.

I then went to Libertyville and subjected to myself

to the jurisdiction of Bishop Dionisije of the Ameri-

can-Canadian diocese. I served as a priest in various

parishes until 1955 when I became a citizen. Then, I

requested a leave of absence from Bishop Dionisije

and went into private business. In 1963, when the

division of the church occurred, the people that or-

ganized the church as St. Stevan of Decani in Chi-

cago came into my home and asked me if I would

take the parish. I am currently assigned there and

perform the duties of the parish priest. I have ex-

amined Plaintiff’s Exhibit 68 article no. 15 of that

exhibit and can state that the Serbian Orthodox Dio-

cese of Budim is the same one in which I served as

a clerk and as a parish priest in my early years in

the Serbian Orthodox Church. At the time of its

} founding, the diocese of Budim was subject to the

Metropolitan of Sremski Karlozci. Prior to the first

World War, since the Serbian nation was divided,

the church was divided into seven independent

churches. These were the Metropolitans, The Church

of Dalmatia, the Church of Bosnia, and finally, the

diocese of America under Bishops jurisdiction. The

Metropolitanite of Karlosci was an autocephlis as

were Belgrade and Montenagre. Bosnia Hersigonia

was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Con-

stantinople. Dalmatia was under Buckovenia.

3534. The kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovans

were established after the first World War in 1918.

The Serbian Eastern Orthodox Church and Holy

Assembly of Bishops evolved into what we know it

as today over a period of two years ending in either

1920 or 1922. Most of the six religious divisions,

oped ted

372

which I previously mentioned, combined together to

form the Serbian Orthodox Church; a part of them

stayed in the State of Hungary. This is the diocese

of Budim parts of Bacha and parts of Temesvar.

After the Organization of the Serbian Orthodox

Church the relationship between the diocese of Bu-

dim and the Holy Assembly of Bishops in the Ser-

bian Orthodox Church in Belgrade was exclusively

higherarchical and canonical. Significant differences

exist between the relationship of the diocese of Bu-

dim and the diocese within the Serbian Orthodox

(Church in their relationships with the Church. We

in Budim had nothing to do with our Church consti-

tution. Our diocese and our church in Hungary were

conducted and regulated by a document which was

drawn at a Sabor at Karlovei and approved and

signed by the Emporer of France Joseph of Austria-

Hungary. The Sabor which drew this document in

1864 anad 1865 consisted of laymen and church men.

The document which this Sabor produced governed

all aspects of the actual life of our church in Hun-

gary and the relationship between the church and

the State of Hungary.

Cross Examination.

The last Bishop of Budim was Dr. Georgije Zub-

kovich who served from 1911 until 1952. He was

elected as Bishop of Budim by the Metropolitan of

Karlovei. There is a diocese of Budim in the Serbian

Orthodox Church and it has as its administrator his

holyness Patriarch German in Belgrade. I did not

} see the release from the Bishop of Budim when I

left there after World War II, but after I was ac-

cepted by Bishop Dionisije, Dr. Zuzkovich, the Bish-

op of Budim, gave me my release. The American

3047

3048

3000

3951

3002

3093

Bo0+

373

Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church was cre-

ated, I believe, in 1917 under Russian Jurisdiction.

It was not created by the Russians or by the Serbs

but they were under Russian jurisdiction. I consider

myself a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

The highest archical body in that church is the Holy

Assembly of Bishops with its see in Belgrade.

FIRMILIAN OCUKOLJICH:

Cross Examination.

In 1949 1 was assigned by Bishop Dionisije to a

parish in Pittsburgh and at that time there was some

trouble in that parish. ‘he parish did not belong to

any ecciesiastical authority. They called themselves

orthodox, the Serbian Orthodox Independent Church

of St. George. it had been in existence, 1 believe,

since 1905. .At this time they did not recognize any

hierarchical superior. hey had both Russian and

Serbian Priests at one time. When I went there

the congregation voted as to whether they wanted a

Serbian Orthodox lriest or whether they wanted to

keep the Russian Priest and by a great majority they

elected me to be parish priest. ‘hen under a court

order the parish voted to determine whether or not

they wanted to belong to the Serbian Eastern Ortho-

dox Diocese of America and Canada and they voted

to join that Diocese. They did not obtain the con-

sent of any Russian Urthodox Clergyman to join the

Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese. Such a Church

would not have the right to withdraw from the Ser-

bian Diocese even upon the vote of its congregation.

A Father Savich, a Serbian Priest, was in that parish

before I got there. To my knowledge Father Savich,

when he was priest at this independent church, did

374

not recognize the ecclesiastical authority of the Ser-

bian Orthodox Diocese despite the fact that he was a

Serbian Orthodox Priest and that was the reason for

his defrockment. 1 served as administrator at Shade-

land from 1950 and spent about 2 years overseeing

the property and the people that lived there. I was

not the first administrator at Shadeland as for some-

time Bishop Dionisije took care of the property and

then a clergyman, Father Miodrag Djurich was there

as administrator. Then the Reverend Nakanor Pal-

jich held the job immediately prior to my assign-

ment there. During the time I administered Shade-

land, 1 had no reason to make any complaint, charge

vr accusation to the Holy Assembly of Bishops or

the Synod regarding the conduct of Bishop Dioni-

sije towards Shadeland. At no time did I make any

complaint, written or oral, charge or accusation con-

cerning the conduct of Bishop Dionisije to the Holy

Assembly of Bishops or its members prior to May

10, of 1963. 1 spoke with the investigating commis-

sion that arrived in 1963 and answered all the ques-

tions that they asked. They asked me if Bishop

Dionisije Lad asked for money for the servicing of

the church in Pittsburgh and I replied that he had

and then they asked the financial secretary of the

church congregation to show the check he received.

This was the traveling expense for Bishop Dioni-

sije. It was not unusual for a church when it re-

quests a Bishop or a Clergyman to travel to attend

the church for services or function to pay his travel-

ing expenses. The commission also asked me about

traveling expenses in connection with a church in

Elizabeth, New Jersey. I do not recall any other

questions. I was Secretary of the Diocese in the

3099

3560

3061

3062

375

beginning and then when I went to Detroit in 1940

another man was appointed. When I came from

England in 1945, | was again appointed Secretary

and I remained as Secretary until 1956. At one time

I handled the receipt and placement of displaced

persons who arrived in New York, but I currently

do not perform this duty. No member of my diocese

performs such a function. To the best of my knowl-

edge no member of the Serbian Church in America

does this, but 1 know that the clergymen take care of

the people who come from the old country. If some-

one comes to Detroit, the Priest will help him find a

job and a place to live. Part of my job was provid-

ing affidavits that immigrants would have employ-

ment when they arrived in this country. To my

knowledge no one is designated to execute the affi-

davits and assist displaced persons in the Serbian

Orthodox Church of America.

Redirect Examination.

Arranging for numerous people to come to this

country was a voluntary effort on my part; I was

not appointed or designated by anyone to do this.

When I originaliy came to this country it was at

Bishop Dionisije’s request. Prior to coming I ob-

tained a canonical release from the Bishop whose

jurisdiction 1 was then serving. This is the general

practice in the Serbian Orthodox Church. I used

personal funds in 1956 and 1957 as to Diocesan af-

fairs because there was no money in the Diocesan

or Monastery treasury. When the auditing board

came to examine the financial business of the Monas-

tery and the Diocese I explained to them I was using

money of my own and that there was more than

$11,000.00 in unpaid bills. The auditing board thanked

376

3563 me in writing for doing this. Further investigation

3063

vod

oe ed

ede)

0

was part of the regular check on the books of the

diocese and monastery. There is a copy of the origin-

al report on file with the diocese signed by the

auditing board. PX 157 is in Serbian and entitled

5 **Report of the work of the auditing board of the

American-Canadian Diocese’? dated September 6,

1956 and is signed by the Very Reverend Jovan Mar-

cetich who was president of the auditing board and

also by the members of the auditing board, Nikola

Chabraja and Milan Madrinich.

ROBERT VUYOVICH, testified as follows:

Direct Examination.

My name is Robert Vuyovich; I live in Chicago,

Illinois and am employed as a trucker. I have re-

sided in Chicago ail my life and am a member of the

Serbian Orthodox faith. 1 am a member of the Ser-

bian Kastern Orthodox Diocese of the United States

and Canada, an Illinois Religious Corporation, and

have been a member all my life. I am a member

of the Diocesan Council and was first elected in 1960.

I was freely elected at a Sabor by the lay members

and clergy. I have served on the Council from 1960

until the present.

Participants in the Sabor are freely elected by each

church throughout the country. Every clergyman is

automatically a member of the Sabor. The mem-

bers of the Diocesan Council are elected by dele-

vates of the people. The Diocesan Council has met

approximately every three months since I was elected.

I was born on December 5, 1921. During World

War II, I served in the United States Navy. Just

prior to getting married, I joined the church as a

377

paying member. To my knowledge there is no other

Joi3 Serbian Diocese in the United States or Canada other

than the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the

United States and Canada, an Lilinois Religious Cor-

poration. ‘The Bishop of this Diocese from 1940 until

May of 1963 was Bishop Dionisije. To my knowl-

edge, he was not Bishop of any other religious body

during that period. The Diocesan Council of which l

am a member did not act in behalf of any other re-

ligious body.

3574 The Diocesan Executive Council acted as trustee

for that corporation based on the customs and usage

ot the diocese. In addition to being a member of the

Diocesan Conncil, 1 am president of my Serbian

Church in Chicago which is the Old Holy Resurrection

Serbian Orthodox Church. I am a member of the

3077 Board of the St. Sava Monastery Corporation and

have held that position since 1962 or 1963. I am cur-

rently one of the directors.

3578 Old Holy Resurrection Church was organized in

September of 1964. This was a result of the prob-

lem which arose in our parish in May of 1963. We

formed the Old Holy Resurrection Church and were

in disagreement with the people who remained in the

Holy Resurrection Church. Prior to May of 1963,

there were two Serbian Orthodox Churches in Chi-

3079 cago. One was the Holy Resurrection at 1905 W.

Schiller and the other was St. Michael’s at 98th and

Commercial.

3580 Now there are four churches which includes St.

Simeon, 3500 East 114th Street. St. Michaels and

Holy Resurrection are under the jurisdiction of Bish-

op Firmilian. The four other churches are under

Bishop Dionisije and Irinej. Prior to 1963 church

**

—~

-

I

ce

Bos6

378

3582 membership was counted by the head of the family.

In other words, a man and his wife and his children

would be counted as one member regardless of the

size of the family.

The membership of Holy Resurrection Church was

about 500 members. Prior to 1963, 1 was Vice-Presi-

dent of the Holy Resurrection Church. There are

four churches currently which recognize Bishop Dion-

isije.

St. Stevens of Decani has a membersihp of about

250 and St. Nicholas of about 125. St. Simeon has

about 600 members and Old Holy Resurrection

(hurch has sbout 500 members. The building we are

now in was onee an English Evangelical Church and

we now use it as a complete church structure. From

my own personal knowledge, I can state that the other

three churches, Stevens, Nicholas and Simeon, are

organized churches using church buildings in every

sense.

The meeting that oceurred in Libertyville on June

6, 1963, was a Plenum meeting. A Plenum is the

second highest authority on our diocese. The highest

authority is the Sabor and then we annually call a

Plenum meeting beeause of the expansion of the

diocese and the administrative work load. The Sabor

meets every three years as provided for in the con-

7 stitution of the corporation. The Plenum meetings

are held annually. —

The June 6, 1963, Plenum meeting was emotion

packed as Archimandrite Firmilian came into the

meeting at a certain point and demanded that we

turn everything over to him based on the letter he

had from the Patriarch in Belgrade. Bishop Dionisije

was there at the time. I would estimate there were

3059

3990

3091

3992

3093

3595

379

forty to fifty people at this meeting. I was there at

the time the meeting was called to order, but Bishop

Firmilian was not present. Bishop Dionisije was

conducting meeting and when it came to his attention

that Archimandrite Firmilian was in the kitchen, he

asked one of the members to go to the kitchen and

invite Firmilian to join us. At that time Archiman-

drite Firmilian entered the meeting and proceeded to

the head table where he presented Bishop Dionisije

with an envelope. Bishop Dionisije refused to accept

the envelope. After this rejection Archimandrite

Firmilian walked out and a few of his followers ac-

companied him.

Vladimir Mrvichin who testified earlier in this case

is my brother-in-law. I had a conversation with him

in regard to the burial of his mother. He called

me from Los Angeles where he was living and asked

me what the restrictions were, as he would like to

bury his mother in Libertyville. I talked to the Bish-

op and burial was approved with the only restric-

tion that Father Mrvichin could hold the grave side

services, but any other services would have to be

conducted by one of our priests. Father Mrvichin’s

mother was brought to the cemetery at Libertyville

and I attended this ceremony. The funeral went off

in an orderly manner and we had priests available on

requests. At no time did any investigating committee

from the Holy Council of Bishops ever approach or

question me concerning the conduct of Bishop Dioni-

sije. To my knowledge no one in my parish was ever

approached.

3097

3098

3099

2600

SOOT

380

Cross Examination.

Priests we had available at the cemetery are those

who recognize Libertyville and the diocese of the

United States of America and Canada.

‘The meeting that took place in 1963 took place on

property owned by the Monastery Corporation, a non-

prolit corporation. Due to our expansion, we had

to hold Plenum meetings annually and started this

procedure in 1960 or 1961. There was no provision

to my knowledge in the constitution for Plenums, but,

because of the tremendous amount of book work,

these meetings became necessary. St. Stevens was

organized in Chicago prior to May of 1963, but at

that time had no property as it was just a group of

people who were trying to organize.

I was involved in the Court litigation over Holy

Resurrection Cathedral in Chicago. We had to get

an injunction from the Court so that we could hold

an election. After the election was held, our side lost

by 20 votes.

Exhibit 92, admitted in evidence as a charter of

the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United

States and Canada, a religious corporation, is the

corporation I referred to when I said that I had been

a member all my life. I was born in 1921 and the

corporation was incorporated in 1935. Prior to that,

as a momber of my father’s family, I was part of the

Holy Resurrection Serbian Orthodox Church on Schil-

ler Street, which is a church corporation.

Prior to 1935 my father belonged to the Liberty-

ville diocese of the United States and Canada which

was a religious body. I would say that PX 30 appears

to be the constitutional by-laws of the religious cor-

381

poration. The second page of this document indicates

the constitution went into effect in 1927 with later

revisions.

3604 I have never heard of the Serbian Eastern Ortho-

dox Diocese of the United States and Canada, a New

York religious corporation or of Bishop Dionisije as

the president. I do not know who is president of the

Illinois Religious corporation of which we have been

3605 speaking. I consider myself a member of the Serbian

Orthodox Church, and as far as I am concerned the

highest Ecclesiastical authority in that church is

Bishop Dionisije.

3644 FATHER ALEXANDER IVANOVICH, testified as

follows:

Direct Examination.

I am Alexander Ivanovich. I live at Libertyville,

Illinois, St. Sava’s Monastery. | was born in Yugo-

3645 slavia, 7 July, 1935 in the town of Valjska-Kamenca,

presently under the Communists. I attended elemen-

3646 tary schools and gymnasium there. Then | went to a

Serbian orthodox school for clergy seminary in

Prjren. I entered the seminary in 1949 and I was out

in 1954, a four year course. I then went to the

3647 theological university at Belgrade. After one year at

Belgrade, I was drafted into the Army. While at Bel-

grade I studied theological subjects. Then I spent

two years in the Army; 1955 to 1957. There was no

provision for exempting theological students from

military service in Yugoslavia.

3649 While in the military service | did not obtain a

rank or grade, for we could not obtain any rank be-

cause we were theological students and are not classi-

fied at all. After completing my military service I

3650 went to my Bishop in the Diocese of Timok in the

3601

3652

3693

3604

3655

3696

3657

382

eastern part of Serbia and was ordained. This was

in 1957 and I was ordained by Bishop Emelian as a

deacon, the first level of clergy in the Serbian church.

Since my original ordination, I have been pro-

moted to the rank of Proto Deacon in Zajear in 1962

by Bishop Emelian. This is iny present rank. After

my 1957 ordination I was assigned to Zajear in the

Diocese of Timok and I was appointed to be Deacon

of the Cathedral Church in Zajear and Bishop Eme-

lian’s secretary. Additionally, I was Secretary and

Prosecutor of the Ecclesiastical Church Court. I

continued in that position until 1963 when I left the

Country.

I was appointed the prosecutor in 1960 and re-

mained in that position until | left the country in

1963. The Eeclesiastical Court of the Diocese of

Timok has the jurisdiction of the Serbian Orthodox

Church in that diocese, As Secretary of the Eeclesi-

astical Court, I was also a member of the Court.

When I was first appointed as Secretary to the Bishop

my duties as a Deacon consisted of serving morning

and vesper services every day and holidays, and be-

tween that time I worked in the office all day. My

duties also required me to visit various parishes with-

in the diocese and to keep the records of the diocese.

I took correspondence between the priests and the

people of the diocese and tae Bishop. I was not born

in that diocese,

I am aequainted with the condition of the diocese

of Timok prior to World War II. We had exactly

120 churches in the diocese before the war and the

same number of clergy. In 1963 at the time I left

the diocese, there were the same number of churches.

However, there were only 31 priests and only 31 of

the churches were in operation. During the six year

383

period I was connected with the diocese no one from

the town of Zajcar was married in the church.

3661 Offer Of Proof: Based on my comparison of

the records before the war everybody was baptized

and now only 5%. During the six years 1 was con-

nected with the diocese there was no Sunday School

or Church program in the various parishes.

3662 These programs had existed prior to World War

II. There was an active Sunday School program in

these 120 churches in the diocese prior to World

3663 War II. End of the offer of proof.

I was assigned to the Cathedral Church of Zajcar

commencing in 1957.

3667 Offer of Proof—About fifty people, old people,

mostly ladies, attended church on Sunday. The aver-

age attendance on a Sunday prior to World War II

was from 200 to 500. During the time that I served

at the church during the week, no one came to morn-

ing or vesper services licld at the cathedral. I am

familiar, in my capacity as secretary, with attendance

throughout the diocese of Timok. The situation was

the same in the 31 churches which were operating.

The others were closed. End of the offer of proof.

3669 I am only familiar with the building of new

churches or the rebuilding of existing churches in

the Serbian Orthodox Church in Yugoslavia which

occurred in my diocese. There have not been any

churches built since World War II. There are a few

churches which were unfinished at the time of the

war that have since been completed. I know of six

churches which were not completed. I am familiar

3670 with an attempt to start a church in Zucobach in the

middle of our diocese. The church in Zukobach is

3671 one of those six unfinished churches to which I made

3674

3675

3676

3678

384

a previous reference. The people in the parish made

an attempt to complete the church after World War

II with the Bishop’s aid, that is, Bishop Emilijan.

The people collected some money and they donated

some work to complete the church and the govern-

ment stopped it. | have knowledge of this because I

was sent personally by Bishop Emilijan to investi-

gate.

Offer of proof—People who tried to finish the

church were beaten and punished by the government.

End of the offer of proof.

The diocese of Timok did not receive any money

from the government during the period of time that

I was with the church. My salary was paid by the

Cathedral of Cajear. The money was raised by sell-

ing candles. The source of money for the operation

of the diocese of Timok presided over by Bishop

kmilijan was from assessment of the churches. Bish-

op Emilijan’s salary consisted in part of monies re-

ceived from the diocese and in part from Belgrade.

The money from Belgrade was sent to the Patriarch

by the government. Some portion of the Bishop’s

salary was paid by the government. It was a practice

of clergymen in the Serbian Orthodox Church who

left Yugoslavia prior to 1963 to disregard the pro-

cedure of obtaining permission from their Bishop

or from the government before leaving. There was

no practice with reference to a clergyman obtaining

the permission of his Bishop or the government prior

to leaving Yugoslavia before 1963.

This course was changed after 1963. Prior to 1963

we did not punish anybody who left Yugoslavia.

After 1963 they did.

I am familiar with the Religious Affairs Commis-

sion of the Yugoslavian government. This is a com-

385

3679 munist government body who completely controls

3776

3777

the church in Yugolsavia.

FATHER JOHN MEYENDORFTF testified as fol-

lows:

Cross Examination.

I’m the same John Meyendorff who testified earlier.

Before testifying | read plaintiff’s exhibits 1 through

4 and the sub-exhibits incidental thereto concern-

ing the action of the Assembly on May 10, 1963. 1

also read the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox

Church before forming my opinion. | do not recall

who had authority to amend the constitution under

the terms of the constitution of the American-Cana-

dian Diocese. I assumed that the actions creating the

three new dioceses and the suspension deposition

and defrockment of Bishop Dionisije were taken by

men of good spirit under the rules of the Serbian

Orthodox Church.

VERBATIM TESTIMONY

{3777} Q. Do you recall who had authority to amend

that Constitution under the terms of the Constitution

of the American-Canadian Diocese?

A. Well, I certainly recall that this Canadian-

American Diocese recognized itself as part of a

hierarchical structure of the Serbian Orthodox Church

and recognizes the canons and Holy Assembly of

Bishops. This is something | remember very clearly.

Q. There is no dispute about that. My question

is, who is it that prepares or initiates amendments

to this American-Canadian Diocese, if you can re-

call through your reading of that Constitution?

A. I cannot recall offhand.

Q. I take it, Father, that in arriving at the opin-

ions to which you testified regarding the creation

of three new dioceses and the suspension, deposition

386

and defrockment of Bishop Dionisije, that you as-

sumed that these—that the action reflected by the ex-

hibits which you read were actions taken by men of

good spirit under the rules of the Serbian Orthodox

Church.

A. Well, this was my definite impression, yes.

ABSTRACTED TESTIMONY RESUMED

3778 I did not attend any of the proceedings of the

Serbian Orthodox Church in connection with the

division of the diocese or the suspension, deposition

or defrockment of Bishop Dionisije. When I read

the documents I made a judgment that they appear

to be in proper form.

3779 I read the indictment of Bishop Dionisije. | as-

sumed that the charges by and large made in the

indictment were true and that’s part of the basis for

my opinions.

When I stated that Canon Law is something like

Anglo-Saxon 1 meant the common law. I wouldn’t

3780 say the canons amount to precedent but are a body of

canonical texts which have authority in the Orthodox

Church; there is much which is mainly precedent but

there are also formal legal texts as well. The consti-

tution of the Serbian Orthodox Church is canon law

as far as the Serbian Orthodox Church is concerned.

I did not read the penal code of the Serbian Orthodox

Church in preparing to testify and I am not familiar

3781 with it. In giving my opinion as to the suspension,

deposition and defrockment of Bishop Dionisije |

did not consider whether or not the penal code of

the Serbian Orthodox Church had been complied

with. My impression and familiarizing myself with

3782 the exhibits was that the procedures were correct. I

did not consult Articles 67 and 90 of the Rules and

387

Procedures of the Ecclesiastical Courts of the Ser-

bian Orthodox Church which are referred to in PX 1.

The penal code is not a kind of canon law; it is rather

a kind of set of procedural rules which the Holy As-

sembly of Bishops applies in accordance with the

canon law of the church. It should be based on the

eanons. The procedural rules are obligatory for the

body which issued and applies them. If the Holy

Assembly of Bishops refers to the procedural rules

3783 I presume that they are authoritative.

An autocephalous church is one which is totally

independent in its government and particularly in

the appointment of its bishops. Autocephalous means

that the bishops are elected in the framework of the

rules of this particular church. An automonous

church is normally a church which is in a situation

of dependence towards a higher body in one way or

another. There can be large autonomies or there can

be restricted autonomies. If its constitution is so

defined, an automonous church could have complete

freedom in terms of its own Council and be dependent

on another higher authority for the election or conse-

eration of its bishops. I would make a distinction

between a wide use of the word ‘‘autonomy”’ and the

very sort of clear definition which is usually given

to an automonous church. There are a number of

well-known autonomous churches in the Orthodox

Church today.

I testified that consensus among the Orthodox

Church is a difficult thing to define but by and large

it means approval by fellow bishops and fellow auto-

cephalous churches. The canons provide that in cer-

tain cases a decision by the Holy Assembly of Bish-

ops may be subject to review by the bishops of an-

3785 other autocephalous church. There is no require-

3788

3789

3790

388

ment for one Orthodox Church to obtain the ap-

proval of another Orthodox Church in decisions re-

garding internal affairs. By and large the other auto-

cephalous churches do not express opinions upon

the conduct of another autocephalous church, unless

the appeal is addressed, for example, to the ecumeni-

eal patriarch in Constantinople. The canons give a

right to the Assembly of Bishops of the Synod of the

Ecumenical Patriarch to give an opinion. I do not

know of any particular procedure for the ecumenical

patriarch to follow. By and large consensus is a

matter generally implied.

I testified that there is concensus among the Ortho-

dox Churches and bishops in this country and abroad

with respect to the diocese and suspension deposi-

tion and defrockment of Bishop Dionisije. This con-

census is an important element in my opinions. If

the decision of the Holy Assembly of Bishops had

been considered unjustified in the Orthodox Church I

would not say that the decision was justified. It is

regarded as being legitimate. The fact that there is

a concensus was a very important element in arriv-

ing at my opinion.

I read quite an amount of literature and various

decisions and acts concerning this case since 1963 and

they were widely published. The exhibits that I ex-

amined and testified to earlier impressed me by their

volume but there wasn’t anything substantially new

there which I didn’t know before. I had largely

formed my opinion before I read those exhibits. This

concensus is an important element in the forming

of my opinion.

The Russian Metropolia of which I am a member

has never been dependent on Athenagoras. It is an

irregular situation as far as the patriarch of Mos-

Pile ae

3791

3792

3793

5794

3795

389

cow is concerned. There is concensus among Ortho-

dox Churches that the Metropolia is recognized as a

valid Orthodox Metropolia. One of those autocepha-

lous churches is the Serbian Church. The recogni-

tion of the Serbian Church is weleome | obtained

permission from my bishop, Metropolitan Irinej, be-

fore | testified.

(The witness reads PX 8),

PX 8 relates to the deposition of Bishop Dionisije.

Deposition is the removal of a bishop from his canoni-

cal duties in a diocese, canonical pastoral duties in

a diocese. There is no canon which forbids an As-

sembly of Bishops to punish a bishop. It is certainly

implied in the text that the action against Bishop

Dionisije was an ecclesiastical punishment or repri-

mand although the text does not yet defrock him nor

does it impose upon him a kind of penance. It does

remove him from his position as bishop of the Ameri-

can Diocese for cause. PX 8 indicates that the As-

sembly of Bishops were sitting in judgment upon

Bishop Dionisije. No decision of an Assembly of

Bishops is infallible; the Orthodox Church believes

that infallibility rests only in the Ecumenical Coun-

ceils. Those councils that have been repudiated by

subsequent Ecumenical Councils are considered as

pseudocouncil. I wouldn’t say the recognition of the

Florentine council as a pseudocouncil came many

years after the council met.

The Council of Florence met in 1438, 1439 in Flor-

ence and was called as a union council by the Pope in

order to secure unity between the East and the West.

It reached a series of decisions in favor of union.

3796 Most of the Eastern delegates upon returning to their

own countries declared that their signatures were

given under duress and they refused, within the fol-

390

lowing months after the Council, to recognize this

Council as valid. At the time it was held it was con-

sidered to be an Ecumenical Church; it declared itself

to be an Ecumenical Council. Subsequently the de-

3797 cision was repudiated. As a result of this Florentine

Council, the Russian Orthodox Church declared itself

to be independent of Constantinople and assumed its

autocephaly openly.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council met in 787 and

condemned the so-called iconoclasts. Its acts were

distributed in wrong translations so that it was not in

the best interests of Charlemagne to accept this

Council but it finally was accepted.

This Eeumenical Council held by icons in churches

were to be removed because they were being prayed

to. This Council was never recognized by the Ortho-

dox Church as being ecumenical. The Seventh Coun-

cil in 787 was called for the purpose of putting down

the heresy of the Council of 753 which declared that

the icons were to be removed. The Council of 753

was a Council of the bishops of the church of Con-

stantinople, fundamentally. The large part of the

Eastern world was under Arabie occupation and I

wouldn't say that the patriarchate of Constantinople

included the whole Christian world. There were patri-

archs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem at that

time. These patriarchs and the Pope of Rome did

not send representatives. According to the Orthodox

point of view there was no patriarch of Constanti-

nople in 753 because he was heretic. The meeting was

called by the emperor of Constantinople. There was

no patriarch of Constantinople in 753, not even a

heretic. Because the State forbade any possibility

2 of rejecting the Council it was not repudiated until

787.

391

The bishop is the pastor, the head, the teacher, an

example to his flock and he has the responsibility to

lead the flock to the kingdom of God. If the flock is

in need of defense, he is certainly the defender and

advocate in matters of religion and doctrine. There

are incidents in church history in which an Orthodox

Bishop suspended the ties of his flock with the Mother

Church in defense of that flock and that diocese. My

own church in America is an example.

With respect to my church, following the Com-

munist Revolution of 1918, there were tragic and dra-

matic events. In 1920 the patriarch and his Synod

issued a ruling saving that the bishops who could not

communicate with the patriarchate could practice

temporary self government. That was done by Patri-

arch Tikom. On the basis of that decree the metro-

polia here declared itself temporarily self govern-

ing as early as 1924. It never denied the canonical

moral authority of the patriarch over there and tried

to re-establish communication. The real break came

in 1931 with a request for a de facto political loyalty

to the Soviets. At this point the real moral dilemma

arose and this temporary self government had to be

revoked.

The Patriarch of Moscow suspended the bishops

of the metropolia and put them under trial. However,

this break never went to the point of any judgment.

Since judgment was never pronounced they really

thought this request for lovalty was not a free action

and even the patriarchate itself was not quite con-

vineed of acting in freedom. The other Orthodox

Churches failed to side with the patriarchate in this

case.

The condition of temporary self government still

exists in the United States with regard to the Rus-

|

3807

3808

392

sian Metropolia. It is the consensus that bishops and

all the Russian Metropolia clergy can celebrate divine

liturgy with other clerics of the Orthodox Church.

In the nineteenth century there were cases of a sim-

ilar kind in the case of the Greek Church. For ex-

ample, their relation with the Greek Revolution of

1921 which lasted for a few years.

In my book, The Orthodox Church, published in

1962, I devoted a section to the Serbian Orthodox

Church. In that section I related more or less that

during the last two decades, the Serbian Orthodox

Church has had a series of trials in terms of persecu-

tion by the civil authorities of the country of Yugo-

slavia. I also cited a series of notorious trials of

bishops. Bishop Joseph of Skoplie was arrested in

1950 just before the patriarchial election where he

was a likely candidate for the Patriarchate. Vikinte

was elected at that election. I have also documented

the arrest and sentencing in July of 1954 of Bishop

Arsenius of Montenegro. I made this statement at

paragraph 164 of the American edition ‘‘The situa-

tion seems to be somewhat improving at the present

time owing to a more conciliatory attitude on the

part of Patriarch Vincent of 1954 through 1958 and

Germanus’* election in 1959.”’

Germanus is Patriarch German. I also referred

to some rather brutal treatment of Serbian clergy in

Yugoslavia following the second world war. I worked

for the World Council of Churches and Patriarch

German is president of the Council. I met Patriarch

yerman in England last summer when he participated

in the sessions of the Central Committee. I do not

deal with the office of President of the World Counetl

2810 heecanse T am not on the staff.

2811

3812

3813

3814

393

Following the refusal of Metropolitan Platon of

the Russian Metropolia, the Sabor of that metropolia

met and passed a resolution temporarily suspending

its relationship with Moscow. The metropolia sup-

ported the decision of Metropolitan Platon.

I am familiar with Professor Alex Bogelpov who

is presently connected with St. Viadimir’s Seminary

as a retired professor. He was the professor of canon

law at St. Vladimir until he retired last year. I

succeeded him in the teaching of canon law. He was

professor of canon law for 15 or 20 years. I am

familiar with the professor’s book entitled Toward

an American Orthodox Church. It is a book which

deserves respect and it is considered in studies re-

garding the Orthodox Church. There are those who

disagree with his opinions and my opinions.

The Serbian Orthodox Church was first given auton-

omy or autonomous status in about 1832 and auto-

cephalous status in 1879. Patriarch Joachim III

was patriarch in 1879. He may have written a letter

to Prince Obrenovich but I doubt that this letter was

the canonical act which established autocephaly. I

agree with the statement of Professor Bogelpov in

his book at page 21: ‘‘It is true that the letter of

Patriarch Joachim III concerned the Serbian Church

as a national one, but even in this case the national

principle was again subordinated to the territorial;

the Serbian Church was recognized as independent,

as long as its members were within the borders of the

State of Serbia. However, the Orthodox Serbs living

outside the Serbian state, for example, in Austria,

were not regarded as belonging to the autocepha-

lous Serbian Church, and they were not granted its

privileges.’’

3815

3817

3819

394

I have no knowledge whether any of the dioceses

of the Serbian Orthodox Church inside Yugoslavia

have constitutions but I believe that they do not. I

know the American diocese has one.

I agree with professor Bogelpov’s statement in his

book at page 22: ‘‘This statement by Patriarch

Alexis evidently rested upon canons 13-15 of the First

and Second Council of 861 in Constantinople. These

canons permit and even approve withdrawing from

communion with higher ecclesiastical authorities who

publicly preach a heresy already condemned by the

Holy Council of Fathers.’’ There is canonical au-

thority for withdrawing from communion with a

hierarchy for dogmatic reasons, not for canonical.

When there is a conflict of beliefs and principles con-

cerning the order of the church I would agree with

the professor’s statement at page 23: ‘*Therefore

canons 13-15 of the Council of 861 are no restric-

tion on the broader meaning of the thirty-first aposto-

lie eanon and hence, the reasons for secession can be

canonical as well as dogmatic.’’ There is no doubt

that the canons permit withdrawal if the higher au-

thority betrays orthodoxy, betrays the faith of the

chureh concerning God, Christ, or even the structure

of the chureh and this withdrawal is of necessity.

But this withdrawal should imply a motivated aceusa-

tion of heresy and obstruction of the canons of the

ehurch. This was not at all the case of the Russian

church in America which never accused them of

heresy and spoke only of temporary possibility of

administration.

I did testify that there was some conditions neces-

sary for a church to receive autocephalous status.

Generally speaking, T would agree with Professor

a

3820

395

Bogelpov’s statement in page 24 of his work: ‘‘If

an ecclesiastical region not only fulfills the three prin-

cipal requirements necessary for receiving autocepha-

lous status (canonical origin, presence of a least

three duly-appointed bishops, and location and estate

other than that of the Mother Church), but also as

other reasons forcing it to separate from its Mother

Church, then these additional reasons take on special

importance; they force the ecclesiastical region to

use its canonical rights to complete the independence

and speed up the process of separation from the

Mother Church.’’ The professor does not mention

here a condition which he speaks of in other pages

of his book, that of the recognition by the Mother

Church of other churches which is a necessary pre-

requisite for a canonical autocephaly. i testified that

one of the necessary elements would be the consent

of the Mother Church.

I agree in the context in which he speaks with pro-

fessor’s statement at page 29 of his work: ‘‘The

distinction between the separation of clergymen from

communion with their superiors and the establish-

ing of a new local church is of great importance for

the understanding of the canonical meaning of dif-

ferent types of separation in the Orthodox Church.

While the withdrawal of clergymen from communion

with their hierarchical superiors is generally an en-

listed and arbitrary action, the establishing of a new

local church is not necessarily a schism but may be

eanonically lawful. Consequently, persons taking part |

in the canonical organization of a new church are

not liable to punishment, as required by the First

and Second Council of 861. The opinion that the

Mother Church alone is entitled to grant autocepha-

396

lous status not only has no basis in the canons

reviewed, but is also inconsistent with the principles

of orthodox canon law.’’ The professor’s statements

refer to the establishment of a church for the ortho-

dox in a country, for example, an merican Orthodox

Church.

There is unity of faith in the orthodox faith but

there certainly is not unity of administration and dis-

cipline. I agree with the statements of Professor

Bokelpov at page 45 where he states that there are

very few examples of a Mother Church granting au-

tonomous or autocephalous status to a subsisting part

of itself in a comparatively short time and notes

that in a number of cases the patriarchs had to recog-

nize churches after they had proclaimed themselves

independent, the Church of Greece 17 years after

proclaimed itself autocephalous, the Romanian

Church 20 vears after, the Albanian Church 15 years

after, and the Bulgarian Church 72 years after. The

Serbian Church was recognized 30 years after it

proclaimed itself independent and the Russian

Church 140 years afterwards. In the twentieth cen-

tury the Patriarch of Moscow recognized the Finnish

Church 35 vears after it had been granted autonomy.

I do not feel that these illustrations apply to the con-

fliet of an individual diocese with their Patriarch.

Redirect Examination.

I didn’t have time to read the whole penal code

this morning but I did read the two paragraphs re-

ferred to in the act of the deposition of Bishop

Dionisije. I was confirmed in my opinion after read-

ing these two articles. I read the first sentence of

Article 67: ‘‘The initiation of the due process is not

397

3829 bound by any formalities.’ A suspension is a tem-

3830 porary measure which is taken in general practice of

canon law when a person is called on trial. The depo-

sition is a canonical action depriving the bishop from

3833 his functioning in the diocese and requires a pro-

cedure.

(Beginning of an offer of proof) In my opinion

the indictment is not required to be under oath. An

3834 oath has been widely considered as anti-scriptural

and therefore is not required in ecclesiastical courts.

(Offer of proof is closed and the offer is refused).

In the penal code I know of nothing which requires

3835 indictment to be under oath.

The Church of Finland and the Church of Crete

3838 are autonomous churches. The Serbian Orthodox

Diocese of the United States of North America and

3839 Canada, a religious body, is not an autonomous church.

The term autonomous church is used for churches

which are composed of two or three dioceses and they

are well known as such among the Orthodox Churches

3842 today. Incorporation is a legal term which is a recent

origin in America and which belongs to secular law

and therefore does not belong to the church as such

although the church while it’s in the word has its own

property and can use such concepts as incorporation

as an instrument for keeping its property.

I read PX 84 before testifying and I had that in

mind when I gave my opinions with respect to the

division of the diocese and the suspension, deposi-

3845 tion and defrockment of Bishop Dionisije. In my

opinion, with respect to the validity of the defrock-

ment of Bishop Dionisije, I did assume the truth of

the portion of the indictment which reads: ‘‘For

breaking his episcopal oath and for refusing to sub-

Re

398

mit to the decisions of the highest church authorities—

the Holy Episcopal Council and Synod of the Serbian

Orthodox Church.’’ I also assumed the truth of the

recital at page 2 of the judgment: ‘‘For his refusal

to participate orally and directly in an investigation

before the investigating committee of the Holy Epis-

3848 copal Synod, concerning the charges submitted against

him.’’

In rendering my opinion with respect to the validity

of the defrockment of Bishop Dionisije I assumed the

truth of the following recital in the judgment: ‘‘For

officiating i: church ceremonies and for performing

the duties of diocesan bishop after having been in-

dicted and suspended from.the performance of church

3849 ceremonies and relieved of the duties of diocesan

bishop.’’ In rendering my opinion I assumed the

truth of the following: ‘‘For accepting clerics who

had no eanonical release, as well as persons who

were under suspension from the performance of

church ceremonies, and for entrusting them with paro-

3850 chial duties.’’ I also assumed the truth of this recital

in the judgment: ‘‘For committing wrongdoings of a

material nature and for conducting himself in a man-

ner unbecoming priestly rank and position.’’ I also

assumed the truth of the statement: ‘‘For ordaining

and bestowing ecclesiastical ranks of honor on such

persons who according to the canons do not possess

3851 the necessary qualifications for ordination.’’ And

‘‘For proclaiming the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of

America and Canada fully autonomous and separat-

ing it from the Mother Serbian Orthodox Church at

the so-called Church National Assembly held Novem-

her 13 and 14, 1963.’’ (Beginning of offer of proof)

3852 Some of the foregoing paragraphs I have recited

399

would be sufficient in themselves to warrant defrock-

ment. The first, relating to refusal to participate

orally and directly in investigation and the fourth

for committing wrongdoings of a material nature

standing alone would be sufficient to warrant defrock-

ment. I think a more thorough canonical investiga-

tion on my part would be necessary to give a direct

answer. I am assuming the truth of the facts recited

and I can only be affirmative one hundred percent on

those two paragraphs. (Offer of proof concluded

and the Court refuses same). I have Exhibit 8 before

3855 me. I assumed the truth of the facts recited in

3856 paragraphs 1 through 12. (Beginning of offer of

proof). There are paragraphs here which seem to be

in my opinion sufficient grounds for deposition, para-

graph 3 which refers to not recognizing the Court of

3857 the Holy Synod and 7. Four and five are the same

as three. Number 8 is the same in substance as be-

fore. Number 9 is obviously going far beyond the

rights of a diocesan bishop. Ten, eleven and twelve

3858 are follow-ups of 9. (Offer of proof concluded and it

is refused by the Court).

3859 I recall testifying that I read PX 1. A serious

canonical accusation which the Assembly accepts to

place under investigation warrants the suspension of

a bishop. Once the suspension is pronounced a trial

is the legal obligation for the Holy Assembly of

Bishops. The bishop under suspension cannot per-

3863 form his episcopal duties and functions.

The word schism has been used widely in connec-

tion with this case. (Beginning of offer of proof)

3864 In a letter Bishop Dionisije wrote to the Patriarch

of Moscow he calls the Patriarch of Serbia a schis-

matie patriarch so one of them is certainly a schis-

3869

3920

0921

3922

3948

400

matic. I personally believe that Bishop Dionisije is

schismatic. I guess those who pay allegiance to him

are in the same situation. (Offer is closed and re-

fused by the Court).

* * *

ALEXANDER IVANOVICH (Previously called)

testified as follows:

Direct Examination.

DX 12-A is a photostatie copy of the official govern-

ment paper of Yugoslavia which concerns itself with

the religious affairs commission. Exhibit 12 is an ac-

curate translation of 12-A. DX 13, at page 30, pur-

ports to be the report of the subcommittee to investi-

gate the administration of the Internal Security Act

and other internal security laws in the committee

of judiciary of the United States Senate, Volume 3,

printed for the use of the committee on the judiciary

U.S. Government printing office, Washington, in 1965

under the title, **The Church and State Under Com-

munism’’. On page 30, the reference is to the govern-

ment commission on religious affairs decree creating

a government commission of religious affairs, August

21, 1945, superseded by a decree of February 26, 1959.

This is the same religious affairs commission to

which | had reference in my prior testimony. DX 14

purports to be a letter addressed to His Grace the

American and Canadian Bishop Lord Dionisije from

the president of the Holy Bishops Synod, the Serbian

Patriarch German, dated September 26, 1961. I recog-

nize the signature on this document as that of the

Patriarch and also the seal which is affixed thereto.

In 1962, I recall an Assembly of the Holy Council

of Bishops. At that time Bishop Emilijan was a

3949

3950

3951

3992

3993

3954

3999

3956

401

Bishop. I am acquainted with Nikolai Rachich who

is vice-president of the Religious Affairs Commission

in Zajecar. | recall that he asked for an appointment

with Bishop Emilijan shortly in advance of the meet-

ing of the Holy Assembly of Bishops. At that meet-

ing Bishop kmilijan was present, Nikolaj Rachich

was present, 1 was present and Proto-Dragisa Mila-

tich was present. Mr. Rachich said, ‘‘ Your Grace, you

are going to the Holy Assembly for a few days. How-

ever, there will be a matter about Bishop Dionisije

who is now in the United States and is the enemy of

our country and doing everything against our coun-

try.’’ He also told the bishop that Bishop Dionisije

should be removed from his position. Bishop Emili-

jan replied, ‘‘We know all that is not everything

what is to be, but we will see what we can do.’’ Bish-

op Emilijan then went to the meeting. I recall in

July of 1963, a conversation took place in Bishop

Emilijan’s office between the same two parties. I was

present this time as was Dragisa Milatich.

This meeting occurred just before the special ses-

sion of the Lloly Synod in Belgrade. Mr. Rachich

said, ‘‘We want Archimandrite Firmilian to be bish-

op in the U.S. and Canada.’’ Bishop Emilijan re-

plied, ‘‘He is not moral qualification for the posi-

tion.’’ Rachich then said, ‘‘This is not important.

Our government wants him and he will be good for

us and for you too.’’ Finally the Bishop said, ‘‘We

have some documents in the Holy Synod possession

against Archimandrite Firmilian. Anyway we will

see what the other brothers can do.’’ After this

3957 Mr. Rachich offered the bishop his private govern-

ment car to take him to Belgrade. The bishop refused

the offer. Mr. Rachich offered the Bishop a special

3959

J396V

3961

3962

3965

3900

3967

ot 1

*) - «

oid

3973

O97 4

3970

O9T7

3989

402

coach in the train, however, he refused that and went

by ordinary train travel. We walked to the train

station and I saw a member of the secret police ac-

company the Bishop to Belgrade. As secretary and

prosecutor 1 was not allowed to vote in accord with

the decisions. However, on one occasion I recall being

involved in an Eeclesiastical Court action when I was

permitted to vote.

Offer of Proof. The higher Ecclesiastical Court

objected to my presence as prosecutor and secretary.

End of the offer of proof.

Cross Examination.

1 am married and was at the time | left Yugoslavia.

1 have children who are with my wife in Yugoslavia.

My child was born in 1958. I have participaied in

divine services with Bishops Dionisije and Lrinej since

1963. 1 left Yugoslavia for Switzerland and from there

wrote Bishop Dionisije asking him to take me under

his jurisdiction. After a month in Switzerland I went

to Italy and remained there for a year and a half.

Bishop Dionisije appointed me to a church office as

secretary of the church congregation in Trieste

‘here were a number of priests appoiuted at that

time. Dushan Vavich was one of the six priests who

escaped with me. Before leaving Yugoslavia | made

a request to Bishop Emilijan for permission to leave.

I received that permission in writing but I no longer

have it. The permission was for one month in Switzer-

land and | did not tell him that I had no intention of

returning to Yugoslavia.

PX 158 is a letter which | received from Bishop

Emilijan subsequent to my leaving Yugoslavia. PX

3990 159 is my response to Bishop Emilijan. PX 160 is

the last communication which I have received from

Bishop Emilijan.

4008

4009

4093

4122

4123

4124

4127

4128

4140

403

I recall becoming knowledgeable of the fact that

the Holy Assembly of Bishops met on May 10, 1963,

and took action with respect to Bishop Dionisije in

the American-Canadian diocese. I do not recall the

date, but I was still in Yugoslavia when I heard about

it. I learned about it through the communication di-

rected to Bishop Emilijan.

Witness excused.

ALEXANDER IVANOVICH testified as follows:

Cross Examination (Continued)

Bishop Emilijan did not ask me if I did not intend

to return after my 30 day leave in Switzerland and

I did not inform him that I would not. I do not know

if the World Council of Churches, at any time during

the period when I was in Yugoslavia, supplied any

money to any clerics of the Serbian Orthodox Church

in Yugoslavia. I did not receive nor did I request a

canonical releases from Bishop Emilijan from my

duties as deacon and proto-deacon of the diocese of

Timok. During World War II, many of the hundred

and twenty churches in the diocese of Timok were

badly damaged. The bishops or the clerics and many

people assisted in the rebuilding of these churches,

but by October of 1963 none had been restored.

As there were only 31 priests remaining in the

diocese, services were only being held in 31 Serbian

Churches. It is the practice in Yugoslavia for priests

to travel from church to church and congregation to

congregation. These priests officiated at baptismals

and funerals, but during the six years I was there I

never saw a marriage in one of these churches. Dur-

ing all of the time T was in Yugoslavia and a cleric

4143

4145

4146

4148

4149

4150

4178

4181

4186

4187

41858

4194

404

in the diocese of Timok, I never witnessed a marriage

ceremony in my diocese. The Holy Liturgies were

performed only in churches and on the rarest of

occasions in other buildings, but never in a home. A

priest is allowed to participate in one holy liturgy on

a Sunday. There was no rule which prevents a priest

from one parish going to another to deliver the Holy

Liturgy.

In Yugoslavia the people attended services during

the Easter period and a celebration was held to cele-

brate the new year. I accompanied Bishop Emilijan

to the Sabor of the Holy Assembly of Bishops in

1962. We traveled by train. We traveled first class

which was a separate compartment containing two

beds. I accompanied Bishop Emilijan on his journey

from Cajkar to Belgrade to attend the meeting of the

Holy Assembly of Bishops in July of 1963. Bishop

Emilijan was not a communist. Bishop Emilijan did

not summons me to return to Yugoslavia alter my

departure.

What has been marked as PX 158 was received by

me and is signed by Bishop Emilijan and it bears the

seal of the Bishop and diocese of Timok. The letter

of Bishop Emilijan dated 27 July, 1968, did not re-

quest that I return to Yugoslavia and assume my

clerical duties there. Exhibit 158 which is that letter

states in part, ‘‘On the basis of the above Assembly’s

decision, we are calling you to return to our Mother

Church and regulate your canonic status with our

Bishops over there. His request was that I regularize

my canonic status with the Bishop of the Serbian

Orthodox Chureh with its patriarch and Holy As-

sembly of Bishops in Belgrade; that is the Bishop of

that church in the United States. I refused to do so.

405

PX 160 is a document which I received here in

America and is signed by Bishop Emilijan and has

the diocesan seal. It is dated December 24, 1969, and

is addressed to the Father Alexander. This document

4198 in part states that | was notified to regulate my

canonical status, and failing to do that, article 91 of

the proceedings for ecclesiastical courts would be

4199 applied. Since I have not repented and returned

to the church, by declaratory judgment, they have

deprived me of the rank of deacon and at the same

time erased me from the list of clerics of the diocese

of Timok returning me to my former position of lay-

man.

4201 Redirect Examination.

PX 159, also marked as DX 13, is a letter dated

November 18, 1968, addressed to His Grace Bishop

of Timok, Emilijan. This letter was written by me in

response to the Bishop’s letter to me dated 27 July,

1968.

4213 After my departure from Yugoslavia I tried to

bring my wife with me, but permission was refused

by the government. My wife has made many efforts

4214 to come to the United States. I received these docu-

ments marked DX 16 and 17 from my wife which are

letters from the Yugoslav government denying her

permission on her request for a passport. Both

letters are signed and sealed by the Republic of

4216 Serbia. I have also written to my senators and sent

money to my wife. Finally in 1960, I went to Trieste

and she came to see me. Mv wile came across the

4219 border at Trieste without our child and told me,

‘*They allowed me to come and if you are joined to

Bishop Firmilian, I will come with child to you’’.

This was in 1968 at the beginning of August.

4586

4587

4588

4589

1591

406

Recross Examination.

The last | saw Dushan Vavich was in 1963 when I

left Trieste. As I have not talked to him since then,

I have no idea what he considers with respect to his

clerical jurisdiction.

@ > *

ZIVAN STEFANOVIC testified as follows:

Direct Examination.

My name is Zivan Stefanovic and | am a Cleric of

the Serbian Orthodox Church. I was born in Yugo-

slavia on August 26, 1911 and I was ordained in 1934

in Skoplie, Yugoslavia. I attended High School in

Uzice and Seminary in Bitolj. I graduated from high

school in 1927. I entered Seminary in 1927 and grad-

uated in 1932. I attended the Theological Faculty

in Belgrade from 1938 till 1942. I graduated from

the University of Law at Belgrade attending the

university from 1946 till 1950. 1 was a professor for

two years in the monastery Rakovica teaching ca-

nonical law. After my ordination in 1934 I was work-

ing with the church court of the diocese of Skapolje

from 1934 until 1938. Then I was transferred to

Belgrade’s church court where I stayed until the end

of 1944. Then I was transferred to the High Church

Court in 1944 and stayed there until February 27,

1965. I left Yugoslavia on March 9, 1965. The presi-

dent of Belgrade’s Church Court is the Patriarch,

first Gabriel, then Vicente and now German.

My titles or position depend upon the years; in

the first vears I was like a clerk assistant. The first

three years of court service are preparatory. In

1937 I was given the examination required for posi-

4593

4595

4596

5497

407

tions of church court’s judges. I then became a per-

manent service in the court. From June 1, 1938 till

December 1944 I served with the Belgrade Diocese

Court. I did not hold any title in connection with

that service. From December 1944 until February

27, 1965 I served the High Church Court and the

Holy Episcopal Synod from 1952 to February 27,

1965. (Defense Counsel notes that he is handing PX

68 B, the Serbian of the Church Constitution to the

witness) The High Church Court is referred to in

Article 71 to Article 81 of the Constitution. I was

referent to the High Church Court. This position is

mentioned in paragraph 72, sub paragraph V. (The

interpreter states that in English it would be ‘‘C’’.)

The duties of the referent in the High Church

Court are various. At the present time the church

hasn’t the financial means to keep a bigger number

of Clerk in the High Chureh Court. As a result I

had to prepare everything that was needed for bring-

ing up the judgments from members of the High

Church Court, 3 Bishops and two members of priest-

ly rank. I was involved in the meetings dealing with

reports of matrimonial nature and criminal matters

on priests. The High Church Court made short de-

cisions which I worked out and prepared in official

form as is customary in the High Church Court.

I had duties in connection with Holy Bishops

Synod. I was the referent in the Holy Bishops Synod

and editor of the official Serbian Church newspaper,

Herald. I was referent from 1952 until 1965. During

the times of Patriarch Gabriel and Vincente I was

not present at the meetings of the Holy Synod. Be-

ginning with the election of Patriarch German I

participated in the meetings. In the Holy Synod the

4601

1602

41604

4606

4607

408

work is divided into legal, administrative, financial

and schools. I was given the sphere of legal matters

but I worked in others.

My duties in the Diocese in Skoplje from 1934 to

1938 were in general preparatory procedure, par-

ticipating with one of the members of the court in

questioning witnesses, writing the minutes about

their testimonies, reworking decisions which have to

be sent to parties participating for the court, or call-

ing upon witnesses who have to come before the

court at a certain day. I also worked on subjects

which were not purely church nature and which in-

volved decisions on the basis of civil law. For mar-

riage questions we had the church cordex under the

title of marriage law of the Serbian Orthodox

Church. In relationship between parents and chil-

dren we had the state law. I brought the decisions,

taking care of what the church requires and what

the state laws prescribe.

There is only one supreme church court in the

Serbian Orthodox Church. For Bishops the consti-

tution foresaw a separate court, the Holy Bishops

Synod in the first degree and in the last degree the

Holy Bishops Assembly. Two kinds of subjects are

considered by the supreme court, one coming by

official duty and the other by complaint. Article 79

of the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church

states the kind of eases considered by the supreme

ecclesiastical court. The court does not consider any

case in the first decree. It is the second degree court

and all of its decisions are final; no one can appeal

from these decisions. As referent of the supreme .

church court T had to accept every subject, report it

in the recording hook, study the content of the first

4608

4609

4611

4613

4615

4616

409

decision of the lower church court, the complaint and

all the papers and documents. After that I had to

investigate whether the judgment of the lower court

violated some regulation of the constitution or the

code of procedure. After that I wrote in written

form in the shortest manner what the judgment con-

tained, what the complaint contained, what the

papers and documents contained, and I gave my

recommendation to the members of the court for

their decision. When several subjects had been pre-

pared I informed the president of the court and he

called meetings. (Discussion among counsel and the

court that witness’s term ‘‘Complaint’’ means

** Appeal’’.)

When the day arrives the president comes with

four members, two of whom are bishops and two

priests functioning as honorary members as is re-

quired by article 72 of the constitution. When all

the papers from the first degree diocese and court

are read supreme court agrees on the judgment or

nullifies it. If the judgment is nullified the reasons

have to be given for nullification.. I kept two books

of these meetings. The first served to write down

the decision of the meeting and the second, which is

worked after the meeting, to prepare the judgment

as a whole for signature by the president and the

members of the court. The judgments given to the

parties were signed by the president and the refer-

ent. I prepared the judgment order of the supreme

court.

After World War II I was a member of a legal!

committee formed by the Holy Bishops Synod. I

crossed the border in 1965. I was appointed to the

committee by the synod. The name of the committee

is the legal committee.

410

I was the editor of the Herald from 1955 to 1965

having been appointed by the Holy Synod. The

Herald is an official journal of the Serbian Orthodox

Church composed of two parts, the decisions of the

Holy Assembly and the Synod and the decisions of

the Diocesan Bishops and the second part, various

articles from the cultural life of the Serbian Church

of the Serbian People. It is known as the Herald

or Glaznie.

4618 When I was a teacher at seminary I wrote a book

on family law in which I handled matrimonial law,

parental law, and guardian law. I taught church

law and the Serbian language in the seminary.

After reviewing the appeal I made a recommenda-

tion to the court for its action. When a judgment

1620 of the diocesan church court is annulled the judg-

ment of the supreme court quotes the law which was

wrongly applied and instructs the diocesan court how

their mistakes or errors are to be corrected by a new

judgment. I composed the instructions to the dio-

cesan court.

4621 Ihave examined PX 69A. I am familiar with the

document. It’s the penal law of the Serbian Orthodox

Church, consisting of two parts, one part up to ar-

ticle 63 named material regulations of penal law and

the second part, article 63 to the end of article 92,

4622 procedural law. This penal code was written in 1961.

I am familiar with the customs, procedures and prac-

tices followed by participant in matters being pro-

cessed under the penal code of the Serbian Orthodox

Church. T am familiar with section 67 of the penal

code.

4634 Article 70.35 of the constitution of Serbian Ortho-

dox Church states that a Bishop is judged in the

— nl

ee Rh eye er ee Ne

411

first degree by the Holy Bishops Synod. In the sec-

ond and last degree the Bishop is judged by the Holy

Bishops Assembly. This is spoken of in article

69.27B. There is no appeal from a last degree judg-

ment. In the penal code the judgment of Bishop is

spoken of in article 63 which in the main repeats the

regulations of the constitution. I will read the pro-

vision of article 70 to which | just referred. Point

35 says it is understood that ‘‘Holy Bishop Synod

Judges in the first instance a. Discord among the

bishops, b. canonical offenses of Bishops, c. disci-

plinary courts violation of its organs and judges

4636 their discords, d. in the last instance of disciplinary

offenses, of the teachers person and personnel of

religious schools and seminaries.’’

The assembly of bishops judges in the second in-

stances and article 69.27 B states that the assembly

judges all cases in which the Holy Bishops Synod in

4638 the first degree judged. | just read from exhibit 68B.

4639 In order that the thought would be in full I had to

add that in the second and final instance judges all

the cases in which the Holy Synod in the first in-

4641 stance judged. The Holy Assembly judges in the

first and final instance, as spoken of in article 69.27A

the discord among the Bishops and the Holy Bishops

Synod or among the Bishops and the Patriarch, and

canonical offenses of the Patriarch.

4642 Court of first instance must render a judgment

or decision of the case under consideration. Article

4643 63 of the penal code requires the court of first in-

stance to make a decision. This article refers to

judgments by diocesan bishops, diocesan church

courts, the supreme church court, the special church

courts foreseen by article 70.35 and 69.27 of the

Serbian Orthodox Church constitution.

4646

4647

4649

4650

4651

$652

$54

412

The Penal code indicates which court shall retain

jurisdiction until process is concluded. Article 64

provides in part: ‘*The church court which was in

jurisdiction for starting the procedure retains its

jurisdiction up to the end of the procedure.’’ (Coun-

sel for defendant reads this sentence from PX 69 the

penal code, article 64 ‘*The ecclesiastical court which

had competence to initiate the due process shall re-

tain its competency until the process is coneluded.’’)

All judgments which are brought by the Synod on

canonical offenses of Diocesan Bishops are appealed

to the Assembly according to article 67.27 which de-

cides the case in the second and the final instance.

Article 78 of the penal code concerns appeals from

the decision of the Holy Synod. (Defense counsel

quotes article 78 of PX 69 ‘‘Appeals against judg- —

ment decrees of the Courts of the first instance are

allowed to be made to the Court of the second in-

stance except in those cases mentioned in article

108.19 and article 217.2 and article 69.27 of the con-

stitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church.’’

Article 77 and 124 of the Serbian Orthodox Church

constitution and article 82.2 and 3 of the penal code

prohibit certain members of the Holy Bishops Synod

when acting as a Court from participating in the

judgment of a particular case. The same articles

apply to the Holy Assembly when acting as a Court.

Defense counsel quotes article 77 of the constitution

‘¢\ member of great ecclesiastical court who is per-

sonally interested or has participated in investiga-

tion or as judged (the same) in a lower instance

(court) cannot adjudicate that subject.’’ Article 124

is also read: ‘‘A member of the ecclesiastical court

who is personally interested or one who has partici-

pated in the investigation of the subject being adjndi-

a

ee ee eet ee ee a ee ene —_

4659

4693

4694

4697

413

cated cannot take part in the judging.’’) (Defense

counsel quotes article 82 of PX 69, the penal code:

“The court of the second instance will annul the

judgment decree of the court of the first instance:

... 2. If it was not properly and duly constituted

and 3. If in the deliberations disqualified or bribed

persons participated.’’)

I am familiar with article 90 of the penal code

which was in force and effeet during the year 1963.

(Defense council reads article 90 ‘‘In those cases

provided for in article 69.27 and article 70.35 of the

constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the

rights of the diocesan bishop as provided for by

these statutes shall be assumed by the Holy Assem-

bly of Bishops respectively, the Holy Synod of Bish-

ops according to the regulations of the constitution

of the Serbian Orthodox Church and the regulations

of these bodies for conducting business.’’ (Lengthy

discussion continuing to page 4686 concerning trial

dates is omitted.) (The Court states that the wit-

ness is recognized by the court as an expert in the

interpretation of the penal code)

Article 65 of the penal code refers to the procedure

prescribed for both monks and priests. The same pro-

cedural rules apply to the prosecution of charges

against the Bishop as are applied in the prosecution

of charges against a monk or priest.

I am familiar with the procedures and practices

existing under the penal code during the years 1963

and 1964. In the penal code there are two kinds of

offenses mentioned for the clergy. One is of a smaller

nature and dos not go to the ecclesiastical court,

being resolved by the bishop of that jurisdiction who

punishes by warning or repremand. Article 56 also

4698

4700

$703

414

provides for lesser offenses penance for 15 days and

suspension from service in the church for 30 days.

For offenses of a more serious nature the bishop

does not execute the power of the church court but

the accusations are transferred to the ecclesiastical

court which will, after due proceedings as found in

the rules of procedure, pronounce its judgment. Arti-

cle 57 of the penal code as well as articles 216 and

217 of the constitution refer to this. Article 55 of the

penal code is identical with the provision of the con-

stitution. .\ punishment imposed by a bishop is

spoken of in article 56 of the penal code. The term

used to deseribe a punishment imposed by a Bishop

is ‘Disciplinary Punishment’’. This term is used

in articles 44 and 56 of the penal code. It is also used

in article 60 of the penal code.

Article 56 of the penal code divides all offenses of

priests and laymen into two categories. In the first

category belongs a warning, reprimand, penance for

15 days and suspension from clerical duties for 30

days. These penalties are not pronounced by a church

court but are pronounced by the Bishop. Article 56

of the code and article 217 of the constitution speak of

this. The second category of offenses includes trans-

fer to another place of service, suspension from cleri-

eal duties for more than 30 days, loss of a place of

service for those who are not parish priests, suspen-

sion from clerical duties for life, defrockment, de-

frockment with expulsion from church membership,

expulsion from the order of monks. These are the

punishments for the clerics. These things are recited

in article 216 and 217 of the constitution and article

55 of the penal code. A Bishop does not handle mat-

ee

415

4705 ters of a more serious nature but they are handled by

4708

4709

4710

the constitution and the penal code.

When a report comes charging a criminal offense

against a cleric, whether it is a bishop, a priest or a

deacon, the organ, be it the bishop or the Holy Synod,

because the Holy Synod executes the right of a

Bishop according to article 90 of the penal code

when a bishop is in question, makes a report either

to the church prosecutor or it appoints another per-

son which will investigate the citations and the re-

port, collect all proofs, investigate the witnesses and

all other facts and circumstances. The investiga-

tor will return the whole case of materials with all

of the facts collected to the organ which appointed

him to conduct this investigation.

When the documents arrive the jurisdictional organ

determines whether the penalty is of a disciplinary

kind or whether the transgression is of a more serious

kind in which case all the documents with all the ma-

terial of the investigation will be transferred to that

court for further execution. When the court receives

the case, all the documents are given to the court

prosecutor and he writes the indictment on the basis

of all the collected facts and documents. The indict-

ment is then sent to the parties that are involved.

If an answer comes or does not come the court sets a

date for a hearing and invites the accused at which

time the subject matter is resolved and a judgment

is rendered. The court of the first instance sends the

ease to the court of the second instance either by

oficial duty or by appeal of the interested party.

This generally describes the procedure which is con-

ducted against clerics before the church court in the

Serbian Orthodox Church.

4715

4716

4718

4722

416

By jurisdiction organ I mean the Bishop for priests

and deacons. For bishops the jurisdictional organ is

the Holy Synod, according to article 90 of the penal

code. For a Patriarch the jurisdictional organ is

the Holy Assembly of Bishops. This is also mentioned

in article 90 of the penal code.

The right of an accused to receive the complaints

against him is to be found in the last part of article

67 of the penal code. In 1963 and 1964 there was a

practice in the Serbian Orthodox Church with regard

to providing copies of complaints against an accused

under article 67. Each court has a duty to find the

truth in a criminal case. Because of that, during the

30 years that I spent in court it has never happened

that somebody was not allowed to receive a written

complaint, if it existed, to which he could reply in

writing. (Defense counsel quotes a portion of PX 14,

appointing bishops Hirzostom and Visarion: The

Holy Synod of Bishops at its meeting under the above

mentioned date rendered this decision: relative to

‘the decision of the Holy Synod of Bishops . . . of

May 10, 1963 by which proceedings were initiated

against his Grace Bishop Dionisije of Midwestern

American Diocese, the Holy Synod of Bishops au-

thorizes their Graces Bishops Ilirzostom of Brani-

chevo and Bishop Visarion of Banat to go to the

U.S.A. and in accordance with article 67 and 90 of the

regulations and procedure for ecclesiastical courts

of the Serbian Orthodox Church (penal code) to con-

duct proceedings, to investigate the matter, and to

conduct necessary hearings of, the accused and wit-

nesses, and te conduct a gathering of evidence, and

to submit a report, with all relevant documents con-

4726

4727

417

cerning their findings, to the Holy Synod of Bishops

for further competent proceedings.’’

Once a Diocesan Bishop, the Synod or the Assembly

receive a complaint against one of their clergy they

are obliged by article 67 of the penal code to investi-

gate whether the transgression is of such character

that they can solve it in their own particular juris-

diction or whether they will give it to a particular

person who will investigate the whole case and bring

a report of his findings. Lf the case in question is

one where the Diocesan Lishop appoints a special

person to investigate, tlien that person calls the ac-

cused, the witnesses and all other persons who may

add to the understanding of the case in the locality

where the Court is, or if that is impossible, then the

investigator will go to the place where the accused

and the witnesses live and perform the hearing of

the accused and all of the witnesses. When this is

accomplished, the investigator will return the whole

case with all the documents to the organ which sent

to him to perform the investigation. That organ

should then decide whether the penalty should be a

disciplinary one and then pronounce the judgment in

its own jurisdiction or that the whole case, with all

the documents, should be given to the Court and ap-

point a person who will be the church prosecutor if

that person is not a permanent officer.

Under article 67 the investigator calls the accused

and witnesses and sets up a date, place and time when

they have to appear in front of him for a hearing.

Then he calls the witnesses one by one. He asks each

witness his name and surname, age, place where he

lives, reminds him to speak the truth because his

testimony will be sworn to. The witness will explain

4731

4732

4733

418

the whole case, what he saw, heard or experienced in

connection with the accused and when he finishes his

testimony the accused can then, through the investi-

gator, request explanation about certain points, cer-

tain things. After that the investigator will decide

whether he accepts the remarks of the accused, that

the hearing of the witness, the testimony of the wit-

ness should be supplanted, changed, or stand. When

the witness finishes his testimony the investigator

will read to him what is written about his testimony

and then call on him to come and sign the testimony.

Then the witness will be sworn. If there are more

witnesses, the oath is given to all witnesses together.

After the witnesses complete their answers with re-

gard to the accusation they sign their own testimony

and the investigator calls the accused to speak in his

own behalf if he has something to say. Investigator

records the testimony of the accused and the accused

signs his statement. When this is finished the in-

vestigator, with the cross and holy gospel, gives the

oath to the witnesses regarding their testimony. With

that the minutes are finished and signed by the in-

vestigator and the secretary who made the minutes.

Unsigned complaints cannot even be given to an

investigator. Article 65 of the penal code requires

that they he rejected by the organ to whom the com-

plaints are addressed. This article states ‘‘ Unsigned

complaints in no way could be taken into considera-

tion or procedure.”’

(Defense counsel hands the witness PX 17A) The

constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church and the

penal code have no provision or place which gives

the right or the authority to the investigator or an

investigating commission to do anything other than

419

conduct the hearing of the accused and the witnesses

and collect proofs. The investigator has no right

4734 to issue any proclamation or to call the clergy and the

people to partition themselves from the accused and

not to obey an order of the accused. The investigator

has no right to decide whether somebody is guilty or

not but thet right belongs either to the organ that

sent him to perform the investigation or to the court

which should decide about the guilt of the accused.

4735 Article 68 of the penal code tells the investigator

what to do with the report.

4736 There is a provision of the penal code which for-

bids one cleric to insult or seandalize another cleric

regardless of whether he does it on his own with

that priest or whether he does it openly or publicly.

4737 This is article 39 of the penal code. Details are de-

scribed in articles 40, 41, 42 and 43.

Article 216.4 of the constitution of the Serbian

Orthodox Church provides for the removal of a bish-

op from his diocese. Article 55 of the penal code

also refers to this. I know of no case where a bishop

was removed from a diocese in the Serbian Orthodox

Church without his consent or agreement. The con-

stitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church provides

that a bishop or clergyman can be transferred into

another diocese or parisii only after a judgment of

the church court. Article 217 so provides. A Bishop

or clergyman can be transferred to another place of

service or diocese upon his own request or with his

permission. Article 217 of the constitution, as well

4739 as articles 216.4 of the constitution and 55.4 of the

penal code speak about the removal of a diocesan bish-

4740 op. Article 111 of the constitution of the Serbian

Orthodox Church states that a diocesan bishop can

4742

4744

4746

420

be removed from the diocese by the Holy Assembly

of Bishops only upon a canonical verdict. The Synod

has to judge such a bishop as the court of the first

instance for canonical offenses to find him guilty and

then the Holy Assembly of Bishops can take the

necessary steps to remove him from his diocese. Be-

fore that is done, a decision cannot be brought by the

Holy Assembly of Bishops or the Holy Synod.

(Offer of proof begins.) I have an opinion whether

or not the action of the assembly as reflected by PX

8A deposing Bishop Dionisije from his duties as a

diocesan bishop was a punishment under the consti-

tution and penal code of the Serbian Orthodox

Church. The investigating commission was irregu-

larly sent to the Holy Assembly because the Holy

Assembly did not send this commission to the United

States. Commission was sent by the Synod and all

of its recommendations should have been returned

to the Synod and after the Synod made its judgment,

the case would go to the Holy Assembly of Bishops

to be resolved in the second instance. Only then if

the bishop is punished for canonical offenses could

the Holy Assembly discharge the Bishop from his

Diocese. This is foreseen in article 216 of the consti-

tution of the Serbian Orthodox Church in article

55.6 of the penal code. (Offer of proof is closed and

the court refuses the offer.)

In July 1963 articles 218 of the constitution and

the third paragraph of article 67 of the penal code

were in foree and effect. {Defense counsel reads

article 218 of the constitution ‘‘No one can be pun-

ished with any church penalty without prior hear-

ing’’. Counsel also reads a portion of article 67 of

the penal code ‘‘No one can be punished with any

4747

421

church penalty without prior hearing.’’ Counsel also

reads a portion of article 67 of the penal code ‘‘No

one can be punished by any church punishment with-

out prior hearing.’’

Article 69 of the penal code dictates the contents

4749 of the indictment. Article 69.2 states that the indict-

ment has to cite which court has jurisdiction of the

4750 case. The portion of PX 16A, the indictment, on the

4752

4753

4754

4755

4756

first page under ‘‘Authorize the Holy Bishops Sy-

nod’’ is the paragraph which I have referred to that

is required by article 69.2 of the penal code. (De-

fense counsel reads a portion of the indictment: ‘‘I

am finding: that the Holy Bishops Synod of the Ser-

bian Orthodox Church in accordance with article

70.35b of by-laws of the Serbian Orthodox Church

and article 63, rules and regulations for the ecclesias-

tical court of the Serbian Orthodox Church, is au-

thorized to judge in first instance in case of guilti-

ness of Bishop Dionisije Milivojevich.’’)

All offenses that are brought about in complaints

may be charged in the indictment. Article 69.3 and 4

states that each criminal offense has to be described,

citing the time, manner of commission, explanation

of the criminal offense with the naming of the kind

of offense as these criminal offenses are classified

in article 114 of the constitution of the Serbian Or-

thodox Church. Offenses are also described in articles

8 through 55 of the penal code. A bishop cannot be

accused of any criminal offense which is not named

in article 214 of the constitution or articles 8 to 55

of the penal code. My statement is based upon article

9, 214, 216 and 268 of the constitution and article

92 of the penal code. (Counsel quotes article 9 of

the constitution ‘‘Church offenses and penalties are

those which are prescribed by this constitution ac-

4757

4798

4761

- se.

4.0

4769.

4794

422

cording to the canons of the Orthodox Church.’’

And article 268: ‘‘When this constitution becomes

effective, all laws, directives and other regulations

cease to be valid which are contrary to this consti-

tution.”’ Article 69.5 states that the indictment is

obligated to precisely cite the proofs upon which

it is based but does not speak anything about giving

the proofs to the accused together with the indictment

because it is considered that the accused must have

been acquainted and received these documents, proofs,

to answer them in writing as is provided in article

67, last paragraph. It is contemplated that the ac-

cused would have received a copy of the complaint

against him or a confrontation with the witnesses

at the hearing held by the __stigating committee

before the indictment was drafted.

A complaint by a person who is dead would be con-

sidered by the Court and included in the indictment

under the condition that witnesses were cited for the

statements and the accusation against the accused

person. It is self evident that the witness has to

testify about facts which he himself has seen, expe-

rienced or gained knowledge in any other manner

within his senses. The personal opinions of a witness

about a certain event cannot be taken into evidence.

(The court accepts the priest's previous two sen-

tences as an offer of proof which is refused) (Counsel

adds to the offer of proof as follows), When I spoke

about the subjects of the testimony of witnesses I

based my statements on the principle of the law and

the judicial practice that the subject of testimony

of any person ean only be what he saw or in any

manner through his own experience. (The court re-

fuses the offer of proof and it is closed) (Diseussion

hetween court and counsel relative to production of

certain documents.)

423

4794 The position of administrator of a diocese is men-

4797

4799

tioned in article 12 of the constitution of the Serbian

Orthodox Church. (Beginning of offer of proof)

When a diocese is governed by an administrator no

reorranization may take place. No important changes

can be initiated according to article 12 (sic.) during

administration of a diocese. A vacant diocese is gov-

erned by an administrator appointed by the Holy

Synod. Article 112 reads ‘‘Vacant diocese is gov-

erned by an administrator who is appointed by Holy

Synod. As long as the Bishop’s seat is vacant, there

cannot be exercised any diocesan function which

would effect diocesan organization nor can there be

made any important changes in the matters which

were initiated during the administration of the for-

mer diocesan bishop.’’ (Offer of proof closed and

refused)

Article 71 of the penal code indicates the action

the Holy Synod must take when acting as a court and

arriving at its judgment or decision. (Counsel reads

article 71 of penal code: ‘‘Upon receiving a reply

to the indictment or should the court establish that

it was not submitted within the legally appointed

time, the court shall in a proper constituted meeting

—always in secret session—study all documents and

on the basis thereof, voting first in transgression and

then on the punishment, decree the judgment. The

punishment shall be proper and the judgment decree

written up by a member of the court when the pre-

siding officer may so designate.’’) Article 219 of the

constitution requires the subject of canonical offenses

have to be considered urgent and the church court

is obliged to decide upon it within a year. (Counsel

4803- reads article 219: ‘‘ Matters of this kind must be con-

4805

sidered as urgent and a church court is obligated to

424

make a decision within the period of one year.’’)

4806- (Discussion between counsel, the Court, two interpre-

4820

4820

4822-

4824

4826

4827

4828

4831

ters and the witness to establish that the phrase in the

penal code translated ‘‘disciplinary measures’’ may

also be translated ‘‘disciplinary punishment’’ or

‘disciplinary penalty’’. This phrase is used in arti-

cles 44, 56, 46, 38 and 60.)

| find the expression ‘‘ private claim’’ in articles 43,

44 and 61 of the penal code. A complaint against a

clergyman can be submitted by a layman or anyone

else or the church prosecutor. When a layman is

bringing a complaint against a clergyman it is termed

a ‘‘private complaint’’. If the complaint is submitted

by the church prosecutor then it is not called a private

complaint but a complaint in accordance with official

duty. Iam referring to article 61 of the penal code.

(Beginning of offer of proof) The time limit for sub-

mitting a private complaint is three months from the

day when somebody received knowledge about the

criminal offense and the one who committed it. Article

61 of the penal code, point 2 refers to this. A judicial

authority may not accept a private complaint if it

is made to him more than three months after the date

of the transgression. (The court refuses the offer

of proof)

During the years 1963 and 64 I had occasion to be-

come acquainted with the proceedings against Bishop

Dionisije. The procedure began on May 10, 1963

before the Assembly and the Synod. I first became

aware of the proceetings on May 10, 1963. I was

employed in the Synod and the Assembly sent the

whole case to the Synod. After the investigating com-

mittee went to the United States all documents cov-

ering the offenses of Bishop Dionisije were given to

the Holy Synod. The Synod appointed the church

prosecutor, Bishop Vasilije. At that time I received

4833

4834

4850

425

all the documents which arrived from the United

States to look through them, analyze them, put them

together in chronological order, make a list of the

contents, bind them together, put the seal on them and

give them to a person who took them to Bishop

Vasilije.

The next occasion that 1 had contact with the pro-

ceedings was December 10, 1963. I was called by

the Holy Synod to give an opinion as an expert about

the requests of Bishop Dionisije for a copy of all

accusations and for an extension of time to answer

the indictment. I was present at that Synod meeting

which was held in the Patriarchate. Patriarch Ger-

man, members of the Holy Synod, Bishop Emilijan,

Bishop Valerijan, Bishop Vladislav, and Bishop

Pavle were present. Also present was the professor

of the theological faculty, Dr. Gardasevich, myself

and a secretary, Very Reverend Mladenovich. The

professor and | were called to give an expert opinion

concerning the offenses of Bishop Dionisije. There

was another professor invited to attend but he did

not show up. Bishop Visarion also attended the De-

cember 10 meeting.

There are minutes of the December 10, 1963 meet-

ing and the names of the persons present and the

conversation are recorded in them. Patriarch Ger-

man opened the meeting and said to Professor Gardas-

evich and I that we are invited to give our expert

opinion on the subject of Bishop Dionisije. The first

question His Holiness said is as to which regulations

we should follow in connection with Bishop Dionisije.

I said that it is difficult now to correct the method used

because the indictment of the church prosecutors sub-

mitted in October used the constitution of the Serbian

Orthodox Church, penal code and the holy canons.

4852

4853

4854

4855

426

The accused has already received the indictment and

requested that he receive copies of all complaints

and proofs. At this time Bishop Visarion mixed into

the conversation and his participation was stopped

by the oldest member of the Synod, Bishop Emilijan

who told him that experts had been invited to give

their opinion and that Bishop Visarion was not in-

vited and he should not mix in the matter. Bishop

Visarion then left the meeting because he was not

a member of the Synod and had not been invited to

be present at the meeting. Dr. Gardasevich and I con-

tinued to speak and when the conversation on the first

question was ended the professor left. The second

question was whether Bishop Dionisije should be

given copies of the proofs. This question in discus-

sion lasted the rest of the afternoon until 7:30 in the

evening. I expressed my opinion that the written

complaints should be given to Bishop Dionisije. The

Patriarch did not agree with this. I cited text and

read to the members the practice in previous years.

There had never been a case when somebody was not

given the right to analyze the documents and take

copies of them.

4856 Patriarch German did not agree with my remarks

4857

and | answered to him that I was not there for politics

but only to give my expert opinion on how I had been

working on these matters and how it had been done

for 30 years. Point 3, the request for an extension

of time, was then discussed. A Bishop said that the

prayer of Bishop Dionisije should be accepted in

as much to give him one month more time, not six

months. Patriarch German suggested the meeting be

postponed to tomorrow to decide the question of send-

ing copies of written proofs. Bishop Emilijan did

not agree and stated that he had to return to his

SSS oan

4858

4861

4862

4863

4868

427

diocese. At that moment a servant of His Holiness

came into the room and said that there was a call

from the Commission for Religious affairs and

Father Miadenovich answered the phone. When he

came back he said that His Holiness and members

of the Synod were called by the President of the

Commission for Religious Affairs for a meeting and

dinner. Then news was brought that Metropolitan

Arsenije had died. Bishop said they could not go to

the meeting and dinner with the president of the

Commission of Religious Affairs because of the death

of Metropolitan Arsenije. After that a decision was

reached to reject Bishop Dionisije’s request to send

him copies of the complaints and proofs.

Following the Synod meeting of December 10, 1963

I next came in contact with proceedings against

Bishop Dionisije when Bishop Hrizostom on March

4 brought me the disposition of the judgment by

which Bishop Dionisije was defrocked from his

episcopal rank. He told me that the assembly had

appointed a committee to compile the judgment. He

told me that the Assembly of Bishops had ordered

me to add to the judgment.the judicial explanations.

At that time he handed me the whole case, with the

indictment, which I should use during my technical

formation of the judgment. I drafted the judgment

and took it to a meeting of the Holy Synod where it

was read and accepted. After that it was given

to a person who took it to all the dioceses for the

signature of the Bishops.

I have an opinion as to whether the alleged transfer

of Bishop Dionisije from the American Canadian

Diocese to the Middle Western American Diocese was

in accordance with the rules and regulations, customs

and traditions and constitution and penal code of the

SS

4869

4870

4871

4872

428

Serbian Orthodox Church. According to the regula-

tions of the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox

Church and penal code the Holy Assembly could not

transfer Bishop Dionisije to a newly created diocese

nor divide the diocese into three newly created dio-

ceses. Transfer, as spoken of in article 216.4 of the

constitution cannot be pronounced without a previous

hearing of Bishop Dionisije, the conduct of a whole

investigating process and a judgment brought by

the jurisdictional organ, in this case the Holy Synod.

This is spelled out in article 217 of the constitution

of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Only after the

Synod had collected evidence, proofs, conducted an

investigation, and brought a judgment which has to

be approved by the Holy Assembly of Bishops could

Bishop Dionisije be transferred to another diocese.

I have an opinion whether the deposition of Bishop

Dionisije in July 1963 was conducted in accordance

with the rules, regulations, customs, traditions, con-

stitution and penal code of the Serbian Orthodox

Church. The Holy Assembly could not depose Bishop

Dionisije from his diocese before the Holy Synod

brought a final judgment that his transgressions were

proven and that he is to be punished by deposition

from his diocese. It is the general practice in the

Serbian Orthodox Church that a person cannot be

removed from his position until the investigation and

judgment are complete. Punishment by deposition

from a diocese or parish is not a light punishment, as

is reprimand, warning or penance for 15 days, but

this is a punishment which can be pronounced only by

the court in accordance with article 217 of the con-

stitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The juris-

dictional court is provided by article 70.35 of the

constitution.

I have an opinion whether the alleged defrockment

of Bishop Dionisije by the assembly in March, 1964

4873

4874

4875

429

was in accordance with the rules, regulations, customs,

traditions, constitution and penal code of the Serbian

Orthodox Church. The Hoiy Assembly of Bishops

acted as Court of the first instance and it was not

entitled to do so according to article 70.37b. The

court of the first instance is the Holy Synod of Bish-

ops. Because this procedure violated the provisions

of the constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church

Bishop Dionisije was not given the opportunity to

appeal this judgment. There is no court of the third

instance. Until the 17th century there existed a pro-

cedure called ‘‘Inquisitional Procedure’’ which ad-

judged only in one instance. After the 17th century

and in the Serbian Church from the time it was

organized, the procedure was always in two stages,

one court adjudged in the first instance and the sec-

ond court judged in the second and last instance.

These two steps are provided by the constitution of

the Serbian Orthodox Church and in the case of judg-

ing bishops for canonical offenses the Holy Synod

should judge as court of the first instance and the

Holy Assembly as court of the second instance. The

Holy Assembly has returned to the olden times of the

‘*Inquisitional Procedure’’ in this case.

I have an opinion whether the investigative pro-

cedures before trial by the Assembly of Bishops con-

ducted in the case of Bishop Dionisije were conducted

in accordance with the rules, regulations, practices,

customs, constitution and penal code of the Serbian

Orthodox Church. The procedural process for the

transgressions of Bishop Dionisije was not in con-

formity with the principles of the law of procedure

because the investigative procedure did not complete

what it was supposed to complete. The commission

was sent to perform the hearing of Bishop Dionisije,

Nee eee ee aaa...

4876

4877

4888

4290

4891

4893

430

have a hearing of witnesses and collect proofs and it

did not complete this task. The submissions were

taken as testimouy when in fact these complaints

had to be proved. The prosecutors appeared in the

position of witnesses although they had never heard

the witnesses. The testimony was never sworn to.

Because of this there was no proof in the case when

the judgment was brought. Without a hearing and

testimony under oath nobody's testimony ean be ac-

cepted as proof. Secondly, Bishop Dionisije did not

receive the proofs which the church court has used

describing his transgressions and offenses and upon

which the judgment was rendered. He was not given

the opportunity to answer in writing all these ac-

cusations.

The penal code has heen in effect since 1961. The

practices under the penal code which I have testified

were followed from 1961 up until 1965 when T left.

The practices about which I testified were foilowed

prior to 1961. Prior to 1961 there was no penal code

but there was a constitution in which canonical of-

fenses were regulated and by which clergymen were

judged.

T have examined PX 21A and it is the judgement

which T referred to earlier in my testimony. The

penal code, Article 82.5, requires that the judgment

he hased upon the indictment against the accused.

PX16A is the onlv indictment that was ever given to

me. There were amendments to that indictment.

Bishop Vasilije made an oral request wherein he

sought that the indictment against Bishon Dionisije

he extended for his offenses coneerning the holding

of the church National Assembly November 14. and

15, 1963. The amendment T have inst referred to is

spoken of in the judgment. PX21A it is under VI,

4896

4897

4898

4901

4902

431

page 10 of the judgment which I have. It is also

mentioned under part 8 of the judgment.

I have an opinion as to the legal effect of the failure

by the prosecutor to forward to Bishop Dionisije

amendments to the indictment before judgment. When

the Holy Synod transmitted to the church court prose-

cutor the joint report of Bishops Stefan, Firmilian

and Gregory of November 25, 1963 concerning the

Sabor held November 13, 1963, and that report con-

tains the most serious offense of Bishop Dionisije, the

church prosecutor should not have submitted it to the

assembly as an amendment to the indictment before he

transmitted it to Bishop Dionisije for reply or not

to reply. This document could not have been taken

into account by the Holy Assembly, even if it were

competent to judge Bishop Dionisije in the first in-

stance, because the prosecutor did not proceed in the

prescribed manner. (Counsel reads a portion of

Article 82 of the Penal Code: ‘*The Court of the

second instance will annu! the judgment decree of

the Court of the first instance: (5) if the ruling in

the judgment is in contradiction with the opinion, or

if the opinion is in contradiction with the judicial

documents upon which it is based.)

I did examine the complaints and enclosures to the

indictment at the time they were sent to the prose-

eutor and after the judgment. PX16A is the indict-

ment to which I referred. The indictment included un-

signed complaints and enclosures. It also included

newspaper articles. Article 65 of the Penal Code

concerns unsigned complaints. (Counsel quotes Arti-

cle 65 ‘‘Unsigned submission shall not in any case

be taken into consideration or process.’’

I speak the Serbian lancuage. I have studied Latin,

Greek, Russian, Czechoslovakian, French and Hebrew,

SE ee

4903

4904

4906

4907

4908

432

I do not speak these languages. I did not have a

passport to leave Yugoslavia. I have a document to

the effect that the government authorities refused to

give me a legal passport so I crossed the border

illegally.

Cross Examination.

I have the document to which I just referred in

my possession. (Counsel marks that document PX165.

The interpreter translates the letterhead ‘‘The Peo-

ples Republic of Serbia, The Peoples Committee for

the City of Belgrade, Secretariat for Internal Affairs,

Department for the Service of Crossing Borders and

for Foreigners.’’)

The Serbian Orthodox Church is episcopal with a

rank of Patriarchate. It is chureh hierarchal and

church self governing. One orthodox church can be

in union with other orthodox churches but need not

be. There exist exiled orthodox churches, as the Rus-

sian Church in exile which came inte existence after

the revolution in Russia in 1917. Other churches are

the Macedonian Church which has no communion

with any canonical orthodox church until recently. Un-

til recently the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was not

recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Here

in America there exists some church of a Leontvne

which does not have a spiritual or canonical union

with the Patriarchate of Moscow. There also exists

a Polish church which is recognized directly by the

Ecumenical Patriarchate but which the Russians do

not recognize. Perhaps there are other churches but

I have not particularly concerned myself with that

question.

I have studied the history of orthodox churches but

I have never concerned myself particularly with that

field. This was when I studied at the theological

faculty and graduated October 10, 1942. The subjects

4909

433

there were divided into groups, one group belonging

to the scriptures, another group to apostolic historical

and legal. We studied and passed examinations in

these subjects.

The autocephalous orthodox churches in the world

include the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constanti-

nople, that of Alexandria, of Jerusalem, of Antioch,

the Russian, the Serbian, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Polish.

4910 There are some in Czecholovakia and Albania. These

4911

4912

are small churches. The Greek Orthodox Church ex-

ists but it has the rank of archbishopry and it is in

community with the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople give the Greek

church a certain autocephalous antonomous status

with the rank of archbishopry, not of Patriarchate.

The Russian Orthodox Church in exile is scattered

throughdut the world. The See of that church de-

pends on which group is involved. The group of An-

astasia which came from Yugoslavia is in New York.

When I was in France there were three or four groups

of Russian churches in exile. None of them recognize

the Patriarch of Moscow. There is also Polish church

in exile which are called Gregories and there are other

Russian churches of which I do not interest myself.

The Russian church in exile, that of Antonia and

that of Anastasia and that of Leontyne are auto-

cephalous churches because the Rusians had three or

four bishops and any chureh which has that number

of bishops and if the people and clergy wish it, can

proclaim themselves autocephalous. The only ques-

tion posed then

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.