Important new... The rumor has been spreading for months, but it is now official. Bishop Basil fromthe diocese od Souroge (Great Britain) has asked to be received in the EP. I have only this link in French I cannot translate now...
Well the MP-EP fight goes on...
http://www.orthodoxie.com/2006/05/mgr_basile_de_s.html
Other links in English :
Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.
Copies of some of the letters sent can be read in English:
Bishop Basil to the Patriarch of Moscow (24th April):
http://orthodoxe.free.fr/files/Patriarch_24april06.pdf
Bishop Basil to the clergy and council of the Diocese of Sourozh (1st May):
http://orthodoxe.free.fr/files/clergy_May.pdf
Background information attached to the letter to the clergy:
http://orthodoxe.free.fr/files/Informat ... 1May06.pdf
Bishop Basil to the Ecumenical Patriarch (2nd May):
http://orthodoxe.free.fr/files/BBtoEcPatr01.pdf
Also ongoing discussion, in Russian but putting URL into babelfish gives gist, http://www.kuraev.ru/forum/view.php?subj=53307
Background info on Sourozh diocese:
EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING OF THE DIOCESAN ASSEMBLY
DIOCESE OF SOUROZH
1st FEBRUARY 2003
The EGM was called to consider the implications of Metropolitan Anthony's wish to resign and his desire that the Holy Synod should appoint Bishop Basil of Sergievo as the ruling bishop of the Diocese of Sourozh.
Two motions were put forward and voted on. The first accepted in sorrow and understanding Metropolitan Anthony’s wish to retire on grounds of failing health. It was passed with one abstention.
The second motion stated that ‘the Diocesan Assembly supports Metropolitan Anthony's desire to see Bishop Basil appointed by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church as ruling bishop of the Diocese of Sourozh, and furthermore expresses its own wish to see him appointed to this position.’ After numerous expressions of support for Bishop Basil and appreciation for the work he has done in his ten years as Assistant Bishop, the motion was passed by an overwhelming majority. This decision is naturally subject to confirmation by the Holy Synod. Archbishop Anatoly declined a proposal by one or two members that he should become ruling bishop. He accepted, however, Metropolitan Anthony’s proposal that he should exercise special oversight of the pastoral care of the Russian-speaking community in the Diocese of Sourozh.
www.sourozh.org/news/EGM_en.htm
Announcement by Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh – made after the Liturgy on Sunday 2nd February, 2003
We have had a meeting yesterday of our Diocesan Assembly, representatives of all the parishes and all the clergy in order to face a new turn in the life of our diocese. First of all, I announced that I am going to ask the Patriarch to set me free. I am coming in a year and a half to ninety years of age. I am now the oldest in age and the most ancient in consecration of all the bishops of the Russian Church. I have tried to work as best I could, not well, but as I could, for fifty-four years now. And I cannot continue. Age is breaking me down. But not only age. My health has been brutally shaken in the last months. And I have to undergo both operation and treatment. And I will not be able to continue to work as I worked so far. These reasons the Assembly has accepted with love, with warmth, with the love and warmth which, I believe, I do not deserve but which I accept with deep, deep gratitude.
Code: Select all
The next step is the appointment of my successor. I have suggested, only suggested to the Assembly the name of Bishop Basil. He is my choice. He has been for me a help for me for a number of years. He has been faithful. He has been loyal. He has worked hard to fill the gaps which I left right and left because of age and health. The decision is not ours. It is for the Patriarchate to decide whether he will or not be the ruling bishop of this diocese. So we are offering him, I was about to say, as a victim, because to rule means is to carry a very heavy cross. We offer him as a victim to the Patriarchate which is to decide. Whatever the decision, we will take it as an act of God. The acts of God are very strange at times. I never thought that God could have an idea so weird, so unexpected, as to appoint me to this place. Bishop Basil will accept the nomination. But he will also need a great deal of support if someone else is appointed instead of him. Because he is prone to think that he is not worthy of the functions he fulfils, that he is not worthy of being of what he has been for us and with us all these years. And the appointment of another man he will probably take as evidence that he is not worthy. We must then give him all the support, all the courage, all the inspiration we can because he is worthy of them. He has been faithful, loyal and inspiring to many.
In addition to this, as our parish has increased enormously in Russian-speaking people, I am going to ask the assent of the Assembly for Archbishop Anatoly to be put in special charge of all Russian-speakers. It will not mean dividing the parish or the diocese. But each of them will fulfil better than the other, one function or the other. Support them both and support me also. I have come to the end of my tether. I will still try to do all there is in my power - but they are at the beginning of a very complex period of life when all the tensions, all the disagreements, all the misunderstandings that have grown in the course of the last nine months in this parish and partly in the diocese must be faced and overcome not by rules, not by disciplinary measures but by a mutual love, by supporting one another, by building the Church of God. So pray that the decision of the Patriarchate should be the decision of God, pray that strength be given to Bishop Basil and Archbishop Anatoly, pray that our parish in particular, and our diocese should grow into a unity more mature, more complete, more perfect than we have achieved with me.www.sourozh.org/news/MAretire_en.htm
THE DIOCESE OF SOUROZH IN THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN DIASPORA IN WESTERN EUROPE, THE USA AND ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD
A STATEMENT BY BISHOP BASIL OF SERGIEVO TO THE LONDON PARISH.
AT ALL SAINTS CATHEDRAL ON THE 16th February 2003.
Orthodox churches in the Russian diaspora throughout the world have usually joined one of three jurisdictions: (1) the Moscow Patriarchal jurisdiction; (2) the Russian Church in Exile; or (3) a third jurisdiction centred either in Paris or New York. The Paris jurisdiction is under Constantinople. The New York jurisdiction was granted autocephaly by the Patriarchate of Moscow in 1970.
These three divisions in the past were often given what was basically a political interpretation: the Church in Exile was said to be made up of monarchists and anti-communists; the Patriarchal church was thought to be filled with communists and their sympathisers; and the ‘Metropolia’ and the ‘rue Daru’ were the ‘democrats’. The Patriarchal Church was not, of course, filled with communists, but it did attract people who wished to express solidarity with the suffering Mother Church.
The three jurisdictions should also be analysed in relation to the MOSCOW COUNCIL (SOBOR) of 1917-18. This Council, the first to be held in Russia for more than 200 years, was called in order to renew the life of the Russian church. This it did. First of all it re-established the Patriarchate, which had been abolished by Peter the Great. It also introduced other important new elements into Church life: the establishment, for the first time, of a parish council in every parish; the introduction of consultation with the parishes in connection with the assignment of priests; the establishment of independent Church courts. Another very important measure was the introduction of the election of diocesan bishops by the diocese themselves.
Because of the 1917 Revolution it was impossible to implement all these changes. Only the election of a Patriarch was effected, and the communist regime was not happy even with this. The three divisions in the Russian diaspora can best be understood in terms of their relationship to the Council (Sobor). The Church in Exile has sometimes seemed to behave as if the Council had never taken place. Their concerns have been elsewhere. The Patriarchal Church recognised that it was impossible to introduce these new measures, but its members put loyalty to the Patriarchate above the implementation of the changes. The ‘Metropolia’ in the United States and the ‘rue Daru’ jurisdiction in France, however, decided that they would introduce these changes, with the local autonomy that they implied, even if this meant separating themselves from Moscow.
It is against this background that one can understand what has taken place in Britain. It is important to notice that there are only two jurisdictions here: the Moscow Patriarchal jurisdiction and the Church in Exile. This is because Metropolitan Anthony was able to reconcile in his own person – and in the Diocese – two of the three tendencies. He remained loyal to the Moscow Patriarchate AND introduced into the Diocese the changes called for by the 1917-18 Council. This he was able to do because he was able to maintain the independence - or rather, the local autonomy - of the Diocese vis-à-vis the Patriarchate and encourage the Diocese to develop along the lines indicated by the Moscow Council of 1917-18. An indication of the merit of this path is the fact that only in Britain is the Patriarchal jurisdiction the largest of the local Russian diaspora jurisdictions. Everywhere else the Patriarchal jurisdiction is the smallest.
It seems absolutely clear to me that the only way forward is to follow the path shown us by Metropolitan Anthony, and to combine loyalty to the Patriarchate with internal autonomy. If we do not do this, the ‘fault lines’ that exist elsewhere in the Russian diaspora will appear here as well and the Diocese will split up. (Editorial emphasis of OCC) This does not have to take place. The past 40 years have shown that it is quite possible to maintain local autonomy within the Patriarchate. We have demonstrated this very clearly here in Britain. If we become truly aware of what we must do if we are to stay together, we can achieve this, in spite of the fact that even today, nearly twelve years after the fall of communism, it has not yet been possible to implement the decisions of the 1917-18 Council in Russia.
There is another very important reason, I believe, for following the course set out by Metropolitan Anthony. There is a very real desire on the part of the Patriarchal Church to see all elements of the Russian diaspora united under its omofor, particularly in Western Europe. We have to accept, however, that the two splinter groups will never willingly re-join the Patriarchal Church unless they can preserve the internal autonomy they now have, in other words, unless the local autonomy called for by the 1917-18 Council is implemented in the diaspora. Neither the Church in Exile nor the Paris jurisdiction is going to re-establish links with the Patriarchate of Moscow on any other basis.
We should therefore be taking a lead in this area, showing the other jurisdictions what can be done within the Moscow Patriarchate, how it is possible to live with the local autonomy that enables a diaspora community to react appropriately to the very real challenges it faces. By doing so we will be giving a lead to the other Orthodox Churches in the diaspora, since only by their achieving local autonomy will it be possible to bring them all together to form a truly all-embracing local Orthodox Church in Britain and in Western Europe.
21 April 2003
Statement by Bishop Basil of Sergievo concerning the open letter
of Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All Russia
Dear Clergy of the Diocese,
The importance of the Open Letter of the Patriarch, which you will all by now have seen, can hardly be overemphasised. His farsighted concern for the needs of the Russian Church in Britain and in Western Europe opens up for us new horizons within which to continue our work for the Church and the Orthodox Faith. Especially important is his recognition of the need for local autonomy in Western Europe.
The fact that he mentions the Statutes of the Diocese of Sourozh, along with those of the Archdiocese of Russian Parishes based in Paris, and specifically refers to the provision they make for the local election of bishops is very significant. This was introduced by the All-Russian Council of 1917-18, which has always been the basis for our Statutes, as it is for the Statutes of the Orthodox Church in America and the Russian parishes under Constantinople as well.
The Patriarch’s Letter give us an opportunity to model our Church life closely on the canons of the Ancient Church, in particular on the 34th Apostolic Canon, which sets out the relationships that should apply within any metropolia:
It is incumbent upon the bishops of any nation [i.e. region] to know who is first among them [i.e. the metropolitan] and to recognise him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything outside their own dioceses without his advice and approval; but instead, let each of them do only what is necessitated by his own diocese and the region under him. But let not even such a one [i.e. the metropolitan] do anything [i.e. other than manage his own diocese] without the advice and consent and approval of all [i.e. all the other bishops in the metropolia]. For thus there will be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.
This fundamental canon establishes both local autonomy and regional conciliarity, principles that, ideally, should apply at all levels throughout the Church.
Thus we can, on the basis of the Patriarch’s Letter and the Holy Canons of the Church, look forward to developing the life of the Russian Church in Britain and Western Europe and contributing, in a small way, to the establishment at some future date of a true Local Church embracing all the Orthodox in Western Europe.
The restoration of unity with the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia and with the Russian parishes at present under the jurisdiction of Constantinople will require careful preparation. A period of ‘confidence building’ will be required if the project is to succeed. We must therefore be careful that what we say and do does not cause further problems. A start has been made, however, and we can only be extremely thankful to the Patriarch for the opportunity he has given us. (Editorial emphasis of OCC)
May God grant us all to ‘attain to and adore the Holy Resurrection’.
Letter from Alexis to Basil, and letter from Basil to interested parties on subsequent events:
http://www.dioceseinfo.org/Patriarch050506.pdf
PATRIARCH ALEXIS OF MOSCOW AND ALL RUSSIA 5 May 2006 119034 Moscow, Chistyi per. 5 No. 3145 TO HIS EMINENCE THE RIGHT REVEREND BASIL BISHOP OF SERGIEVO ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DIOCESE OF SOUROZH
Your Eminence, Dear Vladyka! I have taken note of your two letters, received within two weeks of each other. I fully approve the content of the first letter, in which you testify to your devotion to the Russian Orthodox Church, and give further details about the plan to build a new Russian church in London, and speak of your intention to make the forthcoming celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God and All the Saints as the Cathedral Church of the Diocese of Sourozh a more general church festivity and state your intention to invite bishops from all the dioceses of the Moscow Patriarchate in Western Europe, and speak warmly of the Most Reverend Metropolitan Kirill’s readiness to preside at this festivity. Concerning your letter, dated the 2nd day after Easter, it is difficult not to be surprised at the striking difference in its content from your previous letter. It is the expression of a completely different assessment of the situation and offers different practical suggestions. We understand and sympathise with the difficulties arising from the new realities created in Great Britain as a result of the arrival over a short period of a mass of Russian-speaking faithful, which you speak of in your second letter. Yes, the resulting situation is not easy, and represents a definite challenge for the Diocese and requires responsible pastoral solutions. But the division of the Diocese on national and cultural lines, which you suggest, cannot in any way contribute to a resolution of contradictions or to a healing of the existing painful manifestations and the strengthening of Orthodoxy in the British Isles. Divisions in the Russian Church diaspora have, as we know, occurred before. But in the twentieth century they were provoked by circumstances - the persecution and godless dictatorship in our country - which were a catastrophe for the Russian Church. What is more, these divisions, which were forced on us, were always conceived of as being temporary. Today, thanks be to God, they are being successfully overcome. We need only mention the fruitful development of the dialogue with the Russian Church Abroad. You, on the contrary, because of temporary tensions, propose to make permanent or long term a division of the flock. Dear Vladyka, you write of the development of the Diocese of Sourozh as following the vision of the late Metropolitan Anthony. It is this very development which we support and give our blessing to. The great achievement of the late hierarch was the creation of a multinational diocese, faithful to the tradition of the Russian Church, but open to new challenges in the conditions of life in Western Europe and free of any ethnic limitation. Under the omophor of Metropolitan Anthony Russian, English and other representatives of different nationalities, all felt themselves to be equally loved children of the one Mother Church, to which the late bishop was always faithful (including those times when this was extremely difficult), and to which he remained faithful to his death. We expected you, Vladyka, to continue the work of Metropolitan Anthony. We were assured of this by the late hierarch, who wished to see you as his successor. It was this
1
circumstance that to a large extent determined the decision of the Holy Synod to entrust you with the duty of administering the Diocese of Sourozh. You yourself repeatedly confirmed your desire to continue the work of Metropolitan Anthony, to follow his line as successor and maintain the same loyalty to the Mother Church. You were given the opportunity of confirming these intentions through action. We understand that you encountered difficulties. But a very considerable increase in the Russian presence took place in other dioceses of the Patriarchate of Moscow outside Russia, which also demanded that efforts should be made to maintain unity and the pastoral care of a varied and multilingual flock. Is it not bishops in particular who have care for the unity of the people of God? That is why your proposal to divide the flock entrusted to you by God along national and cultural lines and “distribute” the faithful into different jurisdictions deeply saddened me. Vladyka, the issue is not your personal destiny but whether the ecclesiological legacy of Metropolitan Anthony can be preserved, and the work of his whole life continued. It is clear that the choice which you propose cannot in any way bring closer the prospect of the creation of a single and multinational Local Church in Great Britain and generally in Western Europe, nor can it contribute to the resolution of the problem of Church order in the Orthodox diaspora, which the Local Churches, including representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, have for decades laboured to resolve. What you propose is not only a step backward. Going down the path of a multiplication of divisions we risk losing ecclesiological peace and stability in Universal Orthodoxy, and the eventual price will be new suffering for the flock. Vladyka, I pray that the Lord may protect us all from similar acts and the painful answer for them at the coming Judgment of God. As Patriarch, called to fulfil the duty of serving Church unity, I remind Your Eminence of your episcopal oath of allegiance and call upon you and the clergy and people of the diocese, to continue the labour of establishing and not dividing the Body of Christ. We will give you all essential cooperation and support in this. I am ready to receive you in a private meeting to discuss the existing difficulties and to determine further joint action. We intend to pursue the work of ordering Orthodoxy in Western Europe, bringing together in one body those parts of the Russian church which were previously divided, collaborating in brotherly action with other Local Churches with a diaspora, both here in Western Europe and in other parts of the world. You are aware of these intentions from my letter of three years ago, which was warmly supported by your predecessor, the late Metropolitan Anthony, and by you. The history of the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America, as well as our experience of participation in pan-Orthodox discussion of the problem of the diaspora, are clear witness to the absence in our Church of any selfish ambitions or nationalist prejudice and of our faithfulness to Apostolic principles. Dear Vladyka, The Russian Church suffered greatly during the last century from persecution by the godless, from the arrogance of schismatics, from the betrayal of false brothers. Through the prayers of the New Martyrs and all the saints the time for rejoicing has come, a time of coming together and renewal. It is a happiness for us that the Lord has granted us to live and to serve Him at this time. It is not always easy today either, but can one compare these “growing pains” with the trial by fire which our fathers went through? Therefore I ask you not to fear the trials, not to avoid the cross, but to multiply your labours for the strengthening of the Body of Christ. With love in the Risen Christ (signed) + ALEKSII PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW AND ALL RUSSIA 2
http://www.dioceseinfo.org/ClergyDA090506.pdf
Московский Патриархат Patriarchate of Moscow Сурожская епархия Diocese of Sourozh Василий, епископ Сергиевский Bishop Basil of Sergievo Великобритания 94a Banbury Road Оксфорд Oxford, OX2 6JT Ул. Банбери, д. 94а Great Britain Тел: (44) 1865 512701 Tel: (44) 1865 512701 Факс: (44) 1865 512882 Fax: (44) 1865 512882 Эл. Почта: sergievo@ntlworld.com E-mail: sergievo@ntlworld.com 9 May 2006
To: Diocesan clergy, Assembly members and concerned parties (Where possible, this letter is being sent by email because events are moving very quickly. I apologise to those who would have preferred to receive a hard copy in the post. A copy of this letter will appear on www.dioceseinfo.org.) Enclosed/attached is an English translation of the letter personally delivered to me on Sunday, 7 May 2006, by Father Michael Dudko, who is still in London. I opened the letter after the Liturgy, having already told the congregation that I had asked His Holiness Patriarch Alexis to release me to join the Ecumenical Patriarchate with any clergy and laity who might wish to follow me. I added: ‘I would like to make it clear that I am completely committed to the unity of the Russian Church in Western Europe and I see the present move as the best way forward to achieving that long-term goal.’ Having discussed the letter with Father Michael, I agreed not to make a final decision until after a meeting with Patriarch Alexis, who had offered to meet me after 25 May in Moscow. However, before the meeting of the Parish Council on Monday evening Father Michael informed me that Patriarch Alexis had not been aware when he wrote to me that I had already written to Patriarch Bartholomew, and that therefore he would not, after all, be willing to see me unless I retracted that letter. After the Council meeting, at about 11.00 p.m., Fr Michael told me that the Patriarch required an immediate reply by telephone, and that a written retraction of my letter to Patriarch Bartholomew must appear on the internet the next day. I let Father Michael know that I would not be withdrawing my letter to His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew. In spite of its length, the Patriarch’s letter fails to address a number of crucial issues: 1. The origins of the difficulties. The loss of ‘peace and stability’ to which reference is made took place well before Metropolitan Anthony’s death. It goes back at least to the presence of Bishop Hilarion in the Diocese and probably before. 2. Nationalist prejudices. An ‘absence’ of ‘any nationalist prejudices’ in the Russian Church is not evident either in Russia or in the Russian diaspora in Britain.
http://www.dioceseinfo.org./openletter.html
From a Russian Sourozh parishioner of 45 years’ standing
The problems in Sourozh started in the 1990s, when Metropolitan Anthony was still at the head of our Diocese. This is documented in writing and also on film: numerous video recordings made both by visitors from the former Soviet Union and by professionals, both local and Russian (Valentina Matveeva, St Petersburg, Russia).
Bishop Basil inherited the problems from Metropolitan Anthony, together with all other responsibilities of the Diocese. Taking over from an aged Bishop (with emphatic support from the Diocese and formal support from the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate). The Diocese was most appreciative of the Patriarchate organising an intensive Russian course for our new Bishop.
Bishop Basil is most active in his Diocese, visiting the many scattered parishes, ordaining new clergy, blessing new parishes and extending the renown of our Diocese in the United Kingdom by his writings and sermons.
He does this in spite of an intensive campaign by a small minority of Russian-speaking parishioners who use the Internet to publicise their personal grievances and unjustifiably pretend to speak in the name of all Russians.
They do not represent the Russians in our Diocese.
The vast majority of us comes to church to pray and to receive the Sacraments, not to fight for power.
The vast majority of Russians in our Diocese realise that we have the opportunity of praying in a Russian church ONLY because the community led by Metropolitan Anthony and now by Bishop Basil has created the necessary conditions for it: in material terms, it obtained accommodation for worship (the Cathedral in central London, the numerous places of worship elsewhere), accommodation for clergy when possible, regular sites for holding camps for the Diocese’s children. In spiritual terms, the community, led by Metropolitan Anthony and now Bishop Basil, sustains a regular Liturgical life all over the country, complete with communal studies of the tenets of our faith, engages in publishing and broadcasting the Orthodox message in several languages, runs classes for our children and ensures a secure pattern of contacts for them in summer camps and at Diocesan Liturgies. Our community has created the only Orthodox University chaplaincy for students of all nationalities in London, followed by several in other universities of the land. It also provides chaplaincy at UK prisons and for asylum seekers. In fellowship with groups from other Orthodox denominatins, it has taken part in the establishment of the only Orthodox Higher Education establishment which flourishes in Cambridge.
All this was done entirely by ourselves, Orthodox Christians of the Sourozh Diocese of various nationalities, including a large proportion of Russians, and without any financial help whatsoever from the Moscow Patriarchate: this was a decision taken by our late Metropolitan. Everything we bought, rented or organised was paid entirely by ourselves and by our friends in the non-Orthodox community around us (which included many private Russian friends, of course, acting as individuals, like everybody else).
We also, under Metropolitan Anthony’s guidance and with the help of major specialists in Orthodox ecclesiology, worked out an administrative system which follows best Orthodox practice.
While our main activity has always been Orthodox worship and striving for personal salvation, our community also engaged in continuous and sustained charitable work. In addition to the two major formal charities which the Diocese supports (St Gregory’s Foundation which supports self-help projects in the former Soviet Union and a drug rehabilitation scheme which works in Britain on an entirely innovative project helping children of former drug addicts), our community has been visiting the elderly and sick in their homes, prisoners in prison and their families; the sick in hospitals and at home, with special emphasis on Russian-speaking patients who come to the UK for treatment.
We are and have been for decades the main Orthodox presence in the United Kingdom in the press, in broadcasting, in meetings at all levels.
This is due to the extraordinary quality of our leaders, but also to our being a British Orthodox presence, venerating British Saints, firmly rooted in the Russian tradition and in the teachings of the universal Orthodox Church.. Sourozh speaks about universal truths, bypassing any national interests and concerns, and it speaks in a variety of languages. Even our services use several languages – Church Slavonic and English are the main ones, but we also use Greek, Romanian, French, German, Arabic, Dutch – whatever fits the occasion, so that all who come to our services and conferences can feel welcome and at home in our Orthodoxy.
We are a strong community and for years we have hosted many Russian visitors without any trouble whatsoever. We are fully aware of the immense body of support which the teaching of Metropolitan Anthony has created for us in Russia and we are entirely sure that we are on the right path.
We have serious problems now, but these are not national problems, neither are they problems of language.
They are problems faced by an established Orthodox community with its own strong life under attack by an extraordinarily numerous immigrant group of Orthodox neophytes. The majority of these immigrants have only a limited experience of church life in their own country, though they may have experience of attending church services.
Some of them find our worship difficult to follow because they do not know any English, but our English-speaking Orthodox (and these include the children and grandchildren of the original Russian founders of Sourozh community) do not understand Church Slavonic. The many converts in the UK (and this includes the majority of our priests) have learnt to follow the services with the assistance of books – Sourozh has published the full text of the Divine Liturgy in a parallel edition. This is used as a matter of course by us, the old-timers, the founder members of the community, and the newcomers ought to follow suit. Many do. A few militate for an exclusively “Russian” worship and an exclusively “Russian” community in the most disgusting ways, physically pushing the local people, insulting them to their face, not to speak of pouring hatred and lies over our community in print and on the Internet.
Unfortunately, over the years we have seen the highest church authority in Moscow listening to these people who bring our Church into disrepute and who bring great hatred and unhappiness into our places of worship, our community meetings, our common work. We see that their petitions, full of lies and distortions, are accepted at face value and we see with horror that the liars are believed while the real community is completely disregarded.
The authorities in the Patriarchate do not seem to understand us, and they certainly behave as if they had the right to impose their will on us – including their own choice of leadership – although this goes directly against the teaching and practice of the Orthodox church. It is by encouraging the divisive activity of the “militant Russians” who follow the traditional techniques of Soviet propaganda professionals and by encouraging the creation of enclaves of direct patriarchal rules on the territory of an established Diocese that the leadership in the Moscow Patriarchate, our own Mother Church, has encouraged and exacerbated the current problems of our Diocese.
We can survive and we can continue our work within the Universal Orthodox Church. We feel the deepest possible sadness for the parishioners, our brothers, sisters and children, who are bewildered and suffering in our Cathedral – the very place where they should be receiving the love which we are so very ready to give, the assistance in their new lives in an entirely different country which we could render them. May God help us all, wherever we are, to resolve this difficult situation. May God forgive all of us that we allowed it to develop.
Irina von Schlippe
Parishioner of the Cathedral of the Dormition and All Saints, London, since 1961
Former member of parish council
Member of the Sourozh Diocesan Assembly
Founder Director of St Gregory’s Foundation
Wladimir von Schlippe
Parishioner of the Cathedral of the Dormition and All Saints, London, since 1963
Former member of parish council
Professor of Physics at the St Peterburg State University
BBC NEWS
Bitter rift in UK Orthodox Church
By Becky Branford
BBC News
A bitter power struggle is taking place within the UK branch of the Russian Orthodox Church, over a plan to break from Moscow.
Parish councillors say they have been expelled for opposing the plan, and that the locks on the cathedral doors have been changed to keep them out.
Acting church head Bishop Basil of Sergievo says the values of the Moscow church are at odds with the UK diocese.
The row is an expression of old splits over the character of the UK church.
It also reflects fast-moving changes of allegiance within the Orthodox Church around the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union, say experts.
In this case, Bishop Basil wants to break away from Moscow and be accepted under the jurisdiction of Constantinople - which according to religious commentator Felix Corley, is a more "Western-oriented, liberal grouping".
At the source of many of the tensions, explains Mr Corley, is the changing character of the Orthodox congregation, particularly in London, with the influx of Russian emigres over recent years.
'Western' values
For decades until his death in 2003, the church was led by Anthony Bloom, who was born in Switzerland and educated in Paris. Under his leadership, Mr Corley explained, the church thrived, but developed an "independent, Western" character.
Code: Select all
Those who have embraced the vision of Metropolitan Anthony should be given the opportunity to carry this vision forwardBishop Basil
These values are resisted by many of the church's new, more conservative Russian-speaking members, who now make up the bulk of the congregation. They expect a traditional church, he says, similar to that they grew up with.
In a frank letter to clergy and congregation on 1 May, Bishop Basil - an American - set out his reasons for wanting to leave the Moscow Patriarchate.
He explains that "for some years the Cathedral parish in London has been troubled by conflict between two groups of parishioners with very different interests and, indeed, styles of churchmanship".
He concedes that "a claim is being made that there is support within the patriarchate for those who are waging the campaign against the leadership of the diocese. This claim is not being denied. Recently a 'withdrawal of labour' has been declared at the London cathedral, causing considerable disruption during Holy Week."
Bishop Basil acknowledges that the two groups "have different interests and needs".
"Those who have embraced the vision of Metropolitan Anthony [Bloom] should be given the opportunity to carry this vision forward," he says, by leaving Moscow and going into the jurisdiction of Constantinople.
Those who do not wish to follow him, he says, are free to leave.
Bishop Basil was not available for direct comment.
'We don't want to go'
His stance has infuriated Russian-speaking parishioners.
"We represent thousands of people who don't want to go to Constantinople. We represent the majority of the congregation," said Liubov Alieva, one of six members of the parish council who say they were expelled about six weeks ago for their opposition.
She says two of the expelled members were also church wardens, but are no longer able to access the cathedral because the locks have been changed.
"We now have in London 100,000 Russian emigres who need this place... Bishop Basil is more than welcome to [move to Constantinople] himself, but he's taking everything with him - all the property and everything."
The issue of the church property - worth millions of pounds - is fraught.
"I'm ashamed to say that there is going to be a legal battle," said Ivan Leonidov, a human rights lawyer from Russia. "It's the right of our people, our cultural right, to keep this property."
On 5 May Moscow Patriarch Alexy II said in a letter to Bishop Basil: "What you propose is not only a step backward.
Code: Select all
The eventual price will be new suffering for the flockPatriarch Alexy II
Moscow
"Going down the path of a multiplication of divisions we risk losing... peace and stability in Universal Orthodoxy, and the eventual price will be new suffering for the flock."
'Mirror on world'
"What's happening now in the British diocese is really a mirror of what's happening more widely," says religious expert Mr Corley.
The Moscow Patriarchate, he says, is "expending vast effort" to bring Orthodox churches overseas back into the fold and to expand into new areas.
Meanwhile, there is an opposite process of "fragmentation" under way in the former Soviet republics.
"The end of the communist period meant within the Orthodox heartland - Russia, Bulgaria, Ukraine especially, and Estonia - Orthodox people were no longer dragooned by their government into being part of a particular patriarchate. It was then possible to set up alternative Orthodox structures.
"So the Moscow Patriarchate is not only trying to shore up its own authority at home, but simultaneously it's working hard abroad to expand."
But, he says, "these jurisdictional disputes are very, very messy. And the question is, who does the property belong to?"
Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/e ... 764833.stm
Published: 2006/05/13 08:15:31 GMT © BBC MMVI
Decrees of His Holiness Alexis II, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia,
read by Archbishop Innokentii of Korsun after the Divine Liturgy
at the Cathedral of the Dormition and All Saints, Ennismore Gardens, London, 14 May 2006
Bishop Basil has been released from his duties as Administrator of the Diocese of Sourozh
and sent into retirement. [He remains a bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate.]
He is forbidden to join another Patriarchate until a commission,
headed by Archbishop Innokentii has completed its investigation
into recent events in the Diocese of Sourozh.
All will be welcome to express their views.
Archbishop Innokentii is now head of the Diocese of Sourozh
Reply by Bishop Basil after the decrees had been read:
Code: Select all
Your Eminence, dear Vladyko,
May I express my personal respect for you and the affection I have felt for you ever since we first met, I believe, in 1995 or 1996 at the Department for External Church Relations in Moscow. It is a pleasure to have you here at our London cathedral.
I must say, however, that I believe the present decree is not based on a consideration of all relevant evidence, and that I am therefore appealing at once to the Ecumenical Patriarch on the basis of Canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/N ... 90_1048487
Canon XVII.
Outlying or rural parishes shall in every province remain subject to the bishops who now have jurisdiction over them, particularly if the bishops have peaceably and continuously governed them for the space of thirty years. But if within thirty years there has been, or is, any dispute concerning them, it is lawful for those who hold themselves aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the province. And if any one be wronged by his metropolitan, let the matter be decided by the exarch of the diocese or by the throne of Constantinople, as aforesaid. And if any city has been, or shall hereafter be newly erected by imperial authority, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes follow the political and municipal example.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XVII.
Village and rural parishes if they have been possessed f or thirty years, they shall so continue. But if within that time, the matter shall be subject to adjudication. But if by the command of the Emperor a city be renewed, the order of ecclesiastical parishes shall follow the civil and public forms.
Bright.
The adjective egkwriouj is probably synonymous with agroikikaj (" rusticas," Prisca), although Dionysius and Isidorian take in as "situated on estates," cf. Routh, Scr. Opusc., ii., 109. It was conceivable that some such outlying districts might form, ecclesiastically, a border-land, it might not be easy to assign them definitively to this or that bishopric. In such a case, says the Council, if the bishop who is now in possession of these rural churches can show a prescription of thirty years in favour of his see, let them remain undisturbed in his obedience. (Here abiastwj may be illustrated from biasamenoj in Eph. viii. and for the use of oikonomein see I. Const., ij.) But the border-land might be the "debate-able" land: the two neighbour bishops might dispute as to the right to tend these "sheep in the wilderness ;" as we read in Cod. Afric., 117, "multae controversiae postea inter episcopos de dioecesibus ortae aunt, et oriuntur" (see on I. Const., ij.); as archbishop Thomas of York, and Remigius of Dorchester, were at issue for years "with reference to Lindsey" (Raine, Fasti Eborac., i. 150). Accordingly, the canon provides that if such a contest had arisen within the thirty years, or should thereafter arise, the prelate who considered himself wronged might appeal to the provincial synod. If he should be aggrieved at the decision of his metropolitan in synod, he might apply for redress to the eparch (or prefect, a substitute for exarch) of the "diocese," or to the see of Constantinople (in the manner provided by canon ix.). It is curious "that in Russia all the sees are divided into eparchies of the first, second, and third class" (Neale, Essays on Liturgiology, p. 302).
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa XVI., Quaest. iii., can. j., in Isidore Mercator's version.1