www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News MP diocese in UK to join EP?

In absolute terms, there are enemies of the Church in the world, but I don't think that any spiritually enlightened person would not realize what and who they are.

On the other hand, perhaps we all need to be reminded who and what they are, lest we fall into the moral relativism which the world is feeding us.

I don't think that the MP is being mean spirited, or atleast I hope not. We also may be missing or assuming something in the transcultural translation.

This reminds me of a scenario involving a former embattled multi-cultural and linguistic Archbishop in an American Orthodox church. In a meeting with the extra-ecclesial lay group that slandered him and continuously called for his resignation, he told them "you are anti-Christs". Well they freaked out, because in their American minds, he was calling them the demonic figure of Revelation!

He later explained that what he *actually* meant was that they (and their actions) were going against the church, and therefore, they were 'anti-Christ'--'Christ' being the Church.

In Christ,
Alice

Well, it looks like one parish has definitely come over to the new diocese.

Parish Visitation by Bishop Basil [dioceseinfo.org]

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

There seems to be conflicting news about how many parishes/invididuals are leaving Sourouzh....

Intelfax reports that the majority of the diocese has elected to remain under the MP whilst the Times Religious Correspondent reports that as many as two thirds of the parishes have joined Bishop Basil...and the weblog on the TImes correspondent is becoming quite vitriolic....

Anton

AntonI,

I have been trying to restrict what news I glean from the official websites. Whereas Bishop Basil's web site has claimed the reception of one parish and 20 priests, this has not been refuted by the web site of Archbishop Innokenty.

I think both sides are being real careful on what announcements they make as to not look foolish by outlandish claims. The blogs may have misinterpreted some of the information, and who know's what the Times' reporter's agenda may be.

Hopefully other like myself will then keep some of the unoffical confusion and speculation out it.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

This is the latest information on parishes received into the new administration.

Parishes received into the New Diocese [dioceseinfo.org]

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

It is now reported that another parish has been received into the new administration. This parish shares facilities with the Greek Orthodox parish in Oxford, in which Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia also serves.

Here is the link. [dioceseinfo.org]

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory forever!

Father Anthony, thank you for these updates.

I have a logistical question. What is the precedent used when a parish changes jurisdiction? Who owns the property? What needs to be done for the transfer? Can a transfer be done or does this involve the possibility of a lengthy court battle?

I ask this since I saw once a mention on the MP website about 'transferring buildings/churches into/under the Patriarchy in 1946' [in countries adjacent to the sphere of MP influence].

Thank you.

In Christ.

Michael

Dear Michael,

From what I understand that is a rather tricky matter. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that the parish property is not held by the hierachy itself, but each community in a trust holding. I would guess then that the community in itself can then transfer the property to the new jurisdiction by matter of a parish vote, as long as it conforms to the Trust laws.

I know that some things regarding this matter still have to come out publicly.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

http://mospat.ru

The Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church sends a letter to the
archpastors, cleric and laity of the Sourozh diocese

The text is given below.

His Eminence

Innokenty
Archbishop of Korsun
Temporary Administrator of the Diocese of Sourozh
His Eminence
Anatoly
Archbishop of Kerch
The Pastors, Members of the Diocesan Assembly,
All Faithful Children of the Diocese of Sourozh
Beloved in Christ archpastors,
pastors and all faithful children of the diocese of Sourozh
In addressing you during these days of the Diocesan Assembly and Diocesan
Liturgy when by tradition clerics and laity of the diocese of Sourozh gather
from various parts of Great Britain in the Cathedral of the Dormition and
All Saints, I feel sadness at the fact that this year this assembly will not
be complete. Some of the laity and clergy, including the administrator of
the diocese His Grace Bishop Basil, have taken a decision to leave the
diocese of Sourozh and the Russian Orthodox Church in general, to which up
until his death the ever-memorable Metropolitan Anthony remained faithful.
What is taking place in the diocese of Sourozh is all the more surprising
and worthy of regret as at the very same time we are closer than ever before
to the reunification of the Moscow Patriarchate with the Russian Church
Abroad. And when the long-awaited time for the restoration of Church unity
comes, division has occurred in the diocese, division that in actual fact is
a schism. This is our common pain.
Who is to blame for what has happened? Without prejudicing the conclusions
that the Holy Synod will arrive at, having studied all the testimony
gathered by the commission set up for this purpose, I would like to say the
obvious: division occurs at the envy of the enemy of the human race who,
finding a support in human frailty, seeks new ways of wounding the Church.
For unity is from God, while division in the Church is undoubtedly from the
evil one. Each of us now would find it beneficial to look into our hearts
and test our conscience: have we not made room for the devil (Eph 4:27)?
Have we not shown intolerance, inattention and a lack of sensitivity, out of
which schism has grown?
`Now I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. that
there should be no divisions among you' (1 Cor 1:10), St. Paul tells us. The
diversity of languages, cultures, lifestyles, social position, citizenship
and material well-being - can all of these peculiarities of the extremely
varied Orthodox flock in the British Isles be a reason for dividing the
Church, which is the Body of Christ? Yes, when encountering human
differences the strength of our love for our neighbour, and therefore for
God, is at times tested. To overcome this trial is the spiritual task
vitally important for each of us. Not only pastors but all the faithful are
called to resolve it, `that there may be no dissension within the body, but
the members may have the same care for one another' (1 Cor 12:25).
In bearing one another's burdens (Ga. 6:2), you, the archpastors, pastors
and faithful children of the diocese of Sourozh, will be able to continue
with increase the life's work of ever-memorable Metropolitan Anthony. It was
with his significant participation that the fruit of the Russian church
diaspora grew in Great Britain - the numerous children of the Church who
came to her as Western European people. The late hierarch and your fathers
in faith hoped that after the reunification of the Russian Orthodox diaspora
there would come a time for the growth of a single Local Church in Europe -
a Church which embraces the great variety of spiritual and cultural
traditions of Orthodox peoples.
We pray that these hopes come true. Alas, the current division in the
diocese of Sourozh presents a new obstacle on the way to their realization.
However, the sad experience of division is not new to us. The body of the
Russian Church had been broken and crucified throughout the twentieth
century. Therefore, without giving way to despondency, let us seek that
which serves the cause of creativity and peace, firmly recalling that the
way to unity cannot lie through schism.
Thus, dear in the Lord brothers the archpastors, fathers, brothers and
sisters, let us offer up our ardent prayer to the one Chief Shepherd so that
we `with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one
another in love, make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace' (Eph 4:2-3).
+Alexy
Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia

Alexandr

http://mospat.ru

The Diocese of Sourozh Assembly sends a message to the primate of the
Russian Orthodox Church

The Moscow Patriarchate Diocese of Sourozh Assembly met for its regular
session on June 17, 2006, at the Cathedral of the Dormition and All Saints
in London.
The Assembly sent the following letter to His Holiness Patriarch Alexy:
To His Holiness, Alexis II, Patriarch of Moscow and All-Russia
Your Holiness,
In the name of those members, clergy and lay, of the Assembly of the Diocese
of Sourozh, who gathered on 17th June, 2006, I write to express our
gratitude for Your Holiness's, letter to us, and for Your pastoral
encouragement at this difficult time.
As Your Holiness's letter observes, ours was a sad meeting in that many
former members of the Assembly were absent. Nonetheless, we expressed our
resolve to continue the life, witness and ministry of this diocese in accord
with traditions and approaches taught to us by Metropolitan Anthony, in
continuous communion with the mother church to which he was always faithful
throughout his long and remarkable ministry.
We formally welcomed His Eminence Archbishop Innokenty of Korsun as the new
Administrator of our diocese, and the appointment of the Commission to
identify the problems that are troubling us. We took steps to replace those
officers of the Assembly who have recently withdrawn their services, so that
the Diocese's ministry to all its members, both old and new, may continue.
Despite the sadness, we were all much comforted that among the members of
Your Holiness's Commission, present as guests, was His Eminence Archbishop
Mark of Berlin. He was a reminder to us all that at this time of division
and indeed schism in our own diocese there is nonetheless a great work of
reconciliation and unification going on. We congratulate your Holiness on
this great joy for the Russian Church.
Over many decades we were encouraged by the late Metropolitan Anthony to see
in the Russian Orthodox Church, under Your Holiness's jurisdiction, a mother
who welcomed and embraced all, a mother church which encouraged its daughter
churches to grow, helping them to maturity in church life, and eventually to
appropriate levels of self-government. At previous meetings, our assembly
welcomed Your Holiness's letter addressed to the late Metropolitan Anthony
in the last weeks of his life: a letter which looked forward to the creation
of a Metropolia for Western Europe. We are greatly encouraged that Your
Holiness reiterated these intentions in your present letter to us.
We ask Your Holiness's continued prayers for our Assembly, and for our whole
diocese as we struggle in our present difficulties, and I also ask Your
Patriarchal blessing and holy prayers.
On behalf of the Diocesan Assembly,
Archpriest Benedict Ramsden

17th June, 2006

Alexandr

This past Sunday, 9 July, Bishop Basil served at the parish in Norwich and ordained a Deacon for the parish. That His Grace was able to do this, evidently with the blessing of the Archbishop in Paris to whom His Grace is a suffragan, clearly indicates that this renewed judicatory in England (and Ireland?) enjoys the full support of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Fr Serge

http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/print.php?act=english&id=193


The Declaration of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church relating to the decision of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople concerning the reception into its jurisdiction of Bishop Basil (Osborne)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to preserve the unity of Universal Orthodoxy and witness peacefully to the Gospel of Christ it is absolutely necessary for the Local Orthodox Churches that relations between them should be guided by the immovable standards set out in the canons of the Holy Apostles, the holy Ecumenical and Local Councils and the holy fathers of the Church.

In particular, the holy canons ordain that 'the privileges of the Churches should be preserved' (Canon VI of the First Ecumenical Council) and caution 'that none of the bishops who are most beloved by God should extend their authority to another diocese, which has not previously and from the beginning been under them or their predecessors' (Canon VIII of the Third Ecumenical Council). In the same canon the fathers of the Third Ecumenical Council characterized a violation of this basic canonical principle as 'a novelty, introduced contrary to the resolutions of the Church and the canons of the Holy Apostles, encroaching on the freedom of all'. For this reason they indicated that if thereafter anyone 'should put forward a resolution conflicting with this, let it now be decreed to be invalid, as is pleasing to the whole Holy and Ecumenical Council'.

Meanwhile, according to the statement released by the Secretariat of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and later confirmed by the letter of His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, on 8 June this year, the former Bishop of Sergievo, Basil, who was recently dismissed from administering the Diocese of Sourozh of the Moscow Patriarchate, has been received into the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. It was also declared that the Right Reverend Basil had been elected assistant bishop to Archbishop Gabriel of Comana with the title of Bishop of Amphipolis, and received into the Western European Exarchate of Orthodox Parishes of the Russian Tradition, in the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

By virtue of the aforementioned resolution of an Ecumenical Council, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church does not recognize the validity of this decision and considers that it contradicts the holy canons. Bishop Basil remains within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate and any decision regarding his future situation is the prerogative of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church.

At the same time, such an obviously unbrotherly act of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople towards the Russian Orthodox Church creates a clear threat to the unity of the Holy Churches of God and undermines the canonical foundations of their mutual relations. For, by its above decision, the Most Holy Church of Constantinople, contrary to many resolutions of Councils (Canon VI of the First Oecumenical Council, Canon II of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon VIII of the Third Oecumenical Council, Canon III of the Council of Sardica), arrogantly takes upon itself the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other Local Churches. What has occurred witnesses to the striking incompatibility of the present actions of the Throne of Constantinople with Orthodox ecclesiology and the canonical tradition of the Universal Church, the sign of an extremely dangerous obscuring of canonical consciousness.

As a basis for its decision, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople refers to Canons IX, XVII and XXVIII of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. However, this reference is manifestly unlawful and implies a reinterpretation of the above canons, which is anti-historical and contrary to the spirit of the canons.

The above-mentioned canons of the Council of Chalcedon do not in any way grant His Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople the right to intrude into the affairs of other Local Churches and, in particular, to take into its jurisdiction a hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church without a letter of dismissal, as stipulated by the holy canons (Apostolic Canon XXXIII, Council of Carthage, Canon XXXII).

The true meaning of Canons IX and XVII of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which indicate the possibility of judicial appeal to 'the Throne of Imperial Constantinople', is convincingly explained in the 'Pedalion' or Rudder of St Nicodemus the Athonite, which is accepted in the code of canons of the Church of Constantinople itself: 'The Patriarch of Constantinople does not have authority to act in the provinces and territories of other Patriarchs...Constantinople is...the judge of the Metropolitans within its jurisdiction, but not of those in the jurisdiction of other Patriarchs, because only an Ecumenical Council, and no-one else, is the ultimate and universal judge of all Patriarchs'.

Similarly, in interpreting Canon XVII of the Council of Chalcedon, the authoritative Byzantine commentator John Zonaras emphasizes that: "The Patriarch of Constantinople is not the judge of all Metropolitans without exception, but only of those within his jurisdiction. For he cannot draw to his tribunal the Metropolitans of Syria, Palestine, Phoenicia or Egypt, against their will; but the Metropolitans of Syria are subject to the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch, the Palestinians to the tribunal of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and the Egyptians must be judged by the Patriarch of Alexandria, by whom they have been consecrated and to whom they are subject".

In the case of Bishop Basil there could be no question of judicial appeal, inasmuch as his case has not so far been examined by the Hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church in a judicial manner. When the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople took its decision, the case of Bishop Basil was the subject of investigation by a special commission appointed by the Higher Church authority of the Moscow Patriarchate to study the reasons for the crisis which had arisen in the diocese which had been in the administration of His Grace Bishop Basil.

Nevertheless, prior to and without the judgement of the Local Russian Church, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople considered that it was possible to implement its decision, without a comprehensive investigation of the case, without hearing witnesses, without addressing itself to the Hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate and without even first informing it of the step it was taking.

In regards to Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon, it is vital to recall that it concerns only certain provinces, the boundaries of which represent the limits of the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the bishops 'of the barbarians'. The concept that this canon extends the authority of the Throne of Constantinople to all territories which are not part of one or another Local Church is a novel interpretation, unrecognized by the Pleroma of the Orthodox Church. As soon as such an interpretation arose, its implementation led many times over to grave disorders in relations between the Local Orthodox Churches and caused serious harm to the unity of world Orthodoxy. The Russian Orthodox Church has repeatedly called for this teaching, unheard of previously, to be examined by all the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches at a future Pan-Orthodox Council. However, today the Patriarchate of Constantinople, without waiting for this issue to be decided by the Pleroma of the Orthodox Church has, to our profound sorrow, taken its pretensions even further. In his letter No 631, addressed to His Holiness Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and All Russia, dated 8 June 2006, concerning Bishop Basil (Osborn), His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, citing the personal interpretation of the above-mentioned Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon, asserts that the Patriarch of Constantinople 'at the present time restricts itself to implementing it only in those cases where representatives of the diaspora ask of their own accord to be taken into the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Throne'. In such a way, this proclaims that not only His Grace Bishop Basil, but also any hierarch or cleric, outside the limits of the geographical borders of his Local Church, can now be received into the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, without the knowledge of the hierarchs who ordained him, without a canonical letter of dismissal and without the permission of his Hierarchy.

We are convinced that acts like these, which destroy mutual trust and undermine the peace and joint witness of the Local Churches, open the way to further abuses, which may have catastrophic consequences for Orthodox unity.

Instead of taking precedence in terms of showing brotherly love and guarding the canons of the Church, the Church of Constantinople, which takes precedence in the holy diptychs, has participated together with Bishop Basil in violating the canons. He did not fear to go against the universally accepted standards set by the canons (Canon XXXIII of the Holy Apostles, Canon XXXII of the Council of Carthage, Canons XIV and XV of the First and Second Council) and violated his oath of obedience to the Holy Synod, which he made when he was consecrated bishop. Furthermore, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has to all intents and purposes stated its readiness to act in a similar way in the future, which can only aggravate the highly dangerous discord that exists in the Church.

For this reason the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church utterly rejects the uncanonical resolution taken on 8 June this year by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and with deep regret, calls the attention of the Pleroma of Orthodoxy to it. We await from the Patriarchate of Constantinople effective steps to correct the negative consequences of the aforementioned decision it has taken and also the renunciation of similar acts in the future.

The Holy Synod calls His Grace Bishop Basil to repentance, without which his further service in the Church is impossible. Should Bishop Basil fail to repent, then the appropriate decision of the Church Court may be taken in relation to him.

Conscious of the general responsibility to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4, 3), we call on our brothers in Christ the Saviour to restore justice and love, 'that we may not be seen to bring the smoke of the arrogance of the world into the Church of Christ, which brings the light of simplicity and the daylight of humility of mind to those who wish to see God' (The Epistle of the African Council to Celestine, Pope of Rome).


Alexandr

Dear Friends,

Just one comment and then I"ll be quiet.

The problem with referencing canons in the above context is that the Russian Orthodox Church itself has never been consistent with its own observation of them with respect to, in particular, the establishment of its own patriarchate and the taking over of another jurisdiction.

Apart from that, I think we can all trust His All-Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch of New Rome to know what he is doing in this situation.

Yes, I speak as a member of the UGCC which has suffered under the MP in history, but also on behalf of the Ukrainian and other Orthodox who likewise did not like being under the MP, usually as part of a forced secular imperial arrangement.

Orthodoxy will not suffer because of the situation involving this Bishop and the only waves being made are those by the MP.

The Bishop has transferred, he and those who have joined him are getting on with life, and so now should the Moscow Patriarchate.

Alex

Alex,

I agree with you on this 100%.

Welcome back BTW.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Bless, Father!

I thank you from the bottom of a contrite heart!

Forgive me a sinner.

May our Lord bless you with every blessing and grace!

Your servant,

Alex