Persecution of Mount Athos' Esphigmenou Monastery by the EP

[尼古拉前执事]

The GOC would be the correct jurisdiction. The refuse to commemorate the EP even though Bartholomew demands this of them.

[George Australia]

Esphigmenou is a Stavropegic monastery of the Oecumenical Patriarchate, and therefore, canonically should be subordinated to it and commemorate the Patriarch. It is not under the juristiction of anyone else, since no Bishop may claim juristiction of a Stavropegic monastery other than the holder of the omorphion of the See of the Primate who laid the Cross in it's foundation. Technically therefore, a non-commemorating stavropegic monastery is Bishopless.
Hence why the situation is so messy.

[Anastasios]

Esphigmenou is a Stavropegic monastery of the Oecumenical Patriarchate, and therefore, canonically should be subordinated to it and commemorate the Patriarch. It is not under the juristiction of anyone else, since no Bishop may claim juristiction of a Stavropegic monastery other than the holder of the omorphion of the See of the Primate who laid the Cross in it's foundation. Technically therefore, a non-commemorating stavropegic monastery is Bishopless.
Hence why the situation is so messy.

That is true although if there is no more patriarch and no more patriarchate, one must go to the head of the remaining Orthodox (i.e. Archbishop Chrysostomos II). And that is what Esphigmenou did. Esphigmenou believes that there is no current ecumenical patriarch so what else is it supposed to do?

[George Australia]

Esphigmenou believes that there is no current ecumenical patriarch so what else is it supposed to do?

One option is to vacate the monastery and re-establish themselves on property owned by the juristiction of Chrysostomos II. As it stands, the Oecumenical Patriarchate holds that it has juristiction over the monastery grounds, buildings and metochia- and it's juristiction over Esphigmenou is recognised by all other Patriarchates. Don't you think it is unreasonable to expect that an ancient monastery under the ormorphion of a Bishop should simply be handed over by that Bishop to another Bishop whom he does not recognise as an Orthodox Bishop simply because the current monastics living there no longer recognise his ormorphion? How else should the Oecumenical Patriarchate interpret a takeover of Esphigmenou by Chrysostomos II? If Chrysostomos II is really concerned for the monastics of Esphigmenou, he should accomodate them in one of his monasteries- not steal one from another Bishop (even if he doesn't recognise him as a Bishop).
Let's say that a parish or monastery in the Juristiction of Chrysostomos II decides to place itself under the ormorphion of the Oecumenical Patriarchate (and it has happened). Should they be able to transfer to the Oecumenical Patriarchate the properties and buildings which they themselves did not found, build or aquire ownership of? The geographical area of the Penninsula of Holy Mountain of Athos is under the Juristiction of the Oecumenical Patriarchate. How would you feel if the GOA claimed "Juristiction" over St. Markella's Cathedral? By your logic, doesn't the GOA have the "right" to claim juristiction over St. Markella's since it does not recognise the Bishop under whose Juristiction it currently exists? From the GOA perpective, St. Markella's is a "sedevacant" Church in it's geographical juristiction, so I think it should be handed over with gentle good humour and graciousness by Chrysostomos II....
Like I said: Esphigmenou is a very messy situation.

[George Australia]

What it all boils down to is this: the Patriarch is (quite understandably) demanding obedience of the monks if they choose to occupy monastery buildings and grounds over which he has juristiction. If they choose to disobey, then fine, but why should they continue to occupy a Patriarchal monastery then? And when it comes down to it, what is the difference between Chysostomos II taking over Esphigmenou and the Bishops of the Oecumenical Patriarchate taking over Old Calendarist Church buildings? Why is the latter called "persecution" and the former considered "righteousness"?
Personally, I can't help but feel sorry for the poor monks of Esphigmenou. On the one hand, the Oecumenical Patriarchate cannot help relocate them because that would be seen as supporting schismatics, and on the other hand, Chrysostomos II is supporting their position while insisting they should remain in a monastery that is not his, and not offering to help relocate them.....
No one should be used as a pawn in a political game- especially not poor old monks.

[Anastasios]

George,

When St Irene's Church in Astoria left our Synod they were received by the EP and we did not sue them for control of the property. There's no reason to force people to go with your program. Enough said.

Anastasios

[George Australia]

we did not sue them for control of the property.

Could you have? Wasn't the Church property owned by the parish?