Rebuttal Analysis: Canonical Order and the Misuse of Ecclesial Governance at Saint Sava

Introduction

The article titled "Beyond Cleveland: What Saint Sava’s Struggle Means for Serbian Orthodoxy in America" is not a neutral reflection on events in Cleveland. It is a programmatic text that attempts to recast a concrete case of episcopal discipline at Saint Sava Cathedral as a nationwide struggle over who governs Serbian Orthodox parishes in America. A small dissident group, whose actions have already prompted serious pastoral intervention, is presented as the authentic voice of the parish, while the diocesan bishop is depicted as an external force undermining local self-governance.

To sustain this narrative, the article systematically misrepresents canonical order. It treats the parish board and parish assembly as if they were primary ecclesial authorities and reduces the bishop’s oversight to an administrative preference that can be resisted in the name of autonomy, precedent, or community will. At the same time, it imports categories drawn from secular nonprofit law and political rhetoric, such as governance procedures, transparency, and democracy, and treats them as decisive criteria for judging ecclesial life. In doing so, it shifts the terms of the debate away from Orthodox ecclesiology and toward a congregational or corporate paradigm foreign to the tradition of the Church.

Because it reframes the conflict in this way, the article does more than comment on a local dispute. It lays the groundwork for a broader campaign in which other parishes are urged to see themselves in Saint Sava’s internal turmoil and to align against the lawful hierarch. In effect, it seeks to catechize the faithful into an understanding of the parish as an independent religious corporation that merely cooperates with the bishop, rather than as a local manifestation of the one Church gathered around him. A sound response must therefore begin by restoring the canonical and ecclesiological framework that the article either ignores or distorts.

The False Us versus Them Narrative

Central to the article’s persuasive strategy is an artificial opposition between the people on one side and the bishop and his inner circle on the other. This framing is profoundly misleading. The diocesan bishop does not act as the head of a private faction but as the canonical shepherd of the entire flock, accountable to the Holy Synod and serving in concert with the clergy and the overwhelming majority of faithful who remain within the canonical life of the Church. By speaking as though a small dissident group alone embodies the parish, and everyone who supports canonical order belongs to some distant them, the article obscures the real situation: a minority in open defiance of legitimate authority attempting to recruit others by claiming to stand for the community as a whole.

The Bishop as the Center of Ecclesial Unity

Orthodox ecclesiology begins with the bishop. Apostolic Canon 34 and the universal tradition of the Church affirm that ecclesial unity is expressed through the bishop’s presidency and pastoral oversight. A parish does not possess an identity independent of the diocese; its liturgical, sacramental, and administrative life exists only through its relationship to the bishop. This is not a theoretical construct. The antimins on every holy altar, signed and entrusted by the diocesan bishop, is the tangible manifestation of this bond. No parish board or local assembly has authority comparable to, or competitive with, the bishop’s mandate. Any suggestion to the contrary disrupts the Orthodox understanding of the Church and leads, in practice, toward a congregational model that the Orthodox tradition has consistently rejected.

Misuse of Civil Corporate Structures

The article under review attempts to elevate the civil corporate apparatus of the parish into a quasi-sovereign authority, implying that a legally elected board possesses a legitimacy that the bishop cannot correct or suspend. Such reasoning confuses civil paperwork with ecclesial identity. Parish boards are established to assist the rector and bishop in the stewardship of property and finances; they do not govern the Church, nor do they possess sacramental or pastoral authority. Civil nonprofit law does not supersede the canons and cannot be invoked to evade canonical discipline. Parish property is dedicated to divine worship and thus falls under the bishop’s pastoral oversight. When a board acts contrary to canonical order or interferes with parish life, the bishop not only may intervene but is obligated to do so for the protection of the faithful and the integrity of worship.

The Misuse of Precedent and the Illusion of Autonomy

The article’s appeal to precedent and its claim that local events threaten the autonomy of all parishes rest on a misunderstanding. Canonical order is not determined by local custom, popular sentiment, or civil expectations. It is defined by ecclesial law, synodal authority, and the bishop’s pastoral judgment. The corrective actions taken in Cleveland are not novel; they represent the standard exercise of episcopal responsibility during periods of turmoil. To refrain from acting under such circumstances would constitute a failure of episcopal duty and would abandon the faithful to factionalism and instability.

Deflection Through Financial and Theological Alarmism

Efforts in the article to introduce financial alarmism or raise suspicions regarding ecumenical conduct distract from the primary issue, which is fidelity to canonical authority. Administrative challenges, diocesan budgets, or inter-jurisdictional courtesies do not diminish the bishop’s oversight. The attempt to merge these disparate topics into a broad indictment of diocesan leadership reflects a rhetorical strategy rather than a sober, verifiable analysis. By shifting attention away from questions of obedience and order, the article invites readers to interpret the situation through secular lenses of power and control instead of through the mind of the Church.

Misplaced Appeals to the Holy Synod

The article’s appeal to the Holy Synod in Belgrade is framed to suggest that the dissident faction embodies authentic tradition. In reality, the hierarchical structure of the Serbian Orthodox Church presupposes that the diocesan bishop exercises direct authority precisely because the Synod entrusts him with that responsibility. Canonical order does not provide parishes with a mechanism for resisting correction under the pretext of safeguarding tradition. Legitimate appeals to higher authority presuppose basic obedience, sobriety, and a desire for peace, not public campaigns aimed at undermining confidence in the local bishop.

Conclusion

A sober and canonically grounded reading of the situation demonstrates that the current dispute is not about governance, cultural identity, or generational concerns. It is about whether a parish will remain within the canonical structure of the Church or adopt a congregationalist paradigm foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology. What is truly at stake is communion with the Church as she has actually been ordered and lived, rather than as a dissident faction would prefer her to be reorganized. The spiritual and pastoral health of the faithful depends upon the preservation of hierarchical order. For that reason, narratives that invert the relationship between bishop and parish, however piously phrased, must be recognized as distortions and firmly rejected.