On the canonical situation of Russian Orthodoxy in Britain
M.C. Steenberg, Oxford
Much debate and speculation has recently arisen on the reasons for the current distress in the diocese of Sourozh. Arguments have been expressed that touch on power struggles, authority, nationalism, ‘Russification', finances and a host of related questions. Debate on these matters will continue, and it is right that it should. But there has been less attention paid to the question of the Church canons, perhaps because they are not widely understood to have direct bearing on the pastoral questions at the forefront of recent events. But the canons—not so much as a code of canon law that sets out legal parameters for action, but as guidelines setting the standard for healthy Church life—are in fact at the core of the current difficulties.
The canons of the Church exist to regulate its life according to the pattern of established and sacred tradition. While at times the canons seem complex, their basic aim is simple and relevant: the right ordering of the life in Christ. Never is their purpose more evident than in times of dispute, when they must be turned to as guides for resolution. This document explores the canonical issues relevant to the life of Russian Orthodoxy in Great Britain and Ireland; in particular, the canonical questions relating to the diocese of Sourozh, and the appeal of his grace Basil, bishop of Sergievo (until recently administrator of the diocese) to his all-holiness, Bartholomew the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople.1
It should be noted firstly that the immediate issues raised in bishop Basil's letters are predominantly pastoral and missiological.2 That is, they address the pastoral life of the faithful in Britain, and the missionary nature of the Church here and throughout the world. Nonetheless, the issues that have given rise to the present situation have roots in the canons of the Church, and specifically a situation of canonical irregularity that has been the de facto norm in the diocese of Sourozh for some time. In order to appreciate fully the situation to hand, and the course of action necessary to address it, some discussion must be raised on these canonical questions.
In the discussion that follows, I have restricted myself to the ecumenical canons (that is, those of the ecumenical councils) and the so-called ‘Apostolic Canons', since among the Church's collection these are held in highest esteem. Moreover, the fundamental issues relevant to the present situation are addressed by them thoroughly.
It seems best to frame this discussion in three parts: first, how the canons address the question of the local church (i.e. local ecclesiology). In the light of these canons, the irregularity of the situation in the diocese of Sourozh over recent years becomes clear, as does the imperative for action laid upon a bishop in such circumstances. Second, an exploration of specific canonical problems that arise from the context of such irregularity. And finally, the precise nature of the bishop's response as ordained by the canons.
- Canonical irregularity and the bishop's obligation to respond.
The root issue of concern, with regard to the diocese of Sourozh, is that of proper local ecclesiology. The canons of the Church codify and normalise the ancient practice of the Christian faithful since its first days3: namely, that the basic organism of the Church is the local community. This is the body of faithful gathered in prayer and in the communion of the holy Mysteries—especially the Eucharistic koinonia —under the presidency and spiritual fatherhood of the local bishop. It has always been the norm that the Church is local in this way. Despite living and teaching ‘one and the same thing throughout all the world',4 that is, of being truly universal and catholic, its catholicity is always rooted in its immediate head, the local bishop. This bishop is to his flock the living icon of Christ the Good Shepherd, who tends to his flock with the immediacy and intimacy of the shepherd to his sheep.5
The canons of the Church make this local character the sacred norm. Canons exist which explicitly describe this local character, setting its limits and framework of interaction. They also respond to the abrogation of local authority—in other words, the canons set out parameters against activities that would de-localise authentic catholicity. The Church is always portrayed as a catholic body of local, sacramental episcopates . The canonical corpus takes this matter so seriously that extensive rubrics are provided for cases of dispute amongst bishops with respect to the pastoral care of the dioceses for which they are responsible. Whilst the Church is one, and must live in harmony and love on the largest scale, the life of a diocese is, as we have already said but as bears repeating, always the responsibility of its bishop. It is the local bishop who lives amongst his people, knows their needs, and shepherds them accordingly. For this reason a bishop's authority in his diocese is exalted highly in the canons: no bishop may interfere directly in the life of another's flock. There may—there must—be common counsel, but a bishop must be permitted to be the shepherd he has been called to be by God.
This is the fundamental flaw in the present structure of the Sourozh diocese. The canonical norm of diocesan life and governance has been deeply disfigured through its relations with the patriarchate of Moscow over the past years. This has led, as the canons themselves predict, to discord within the diocese, strife amongst the clergy and a hindrance of mission, primarily because the diocese has been prevented from living within the canonical structure mandated by the Church. To phrase it another way, the diocese has been ‘de-localised' and suffers from the problems that arise from such de-localisation.
In a sense, these difficulties arise from a failure to uphold fully a key canon from the second ecumenical council:
Code: Select all
Constantinople, canon 2: Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries, nor are they to confuse the churches: but in accordance with the canons, the bishop of Alexandria is to administer affairs in Egypt only; the bishops of the East are to manage the East alone (whilst safeguarding the privileges granted to the church of the Antiochenes in the Nicene canons); and the bishops of the Asian diocese are to manage only Asian affairs; and those in Pontus only the affairs of Pontus; and those in Thrace only Thracian affairs. Unless invited, bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business. If the letter of the canon about dioceses is kept, it is clear that the provincial synod will manage affairs in each province, as was decreed at Nicaea . But the churches of God among barbarian peoples must be administered in accordance with the custom in force at the time of the fathers.
This canon makes it clear that the ancient tradition of local ecclesiology is to be maintained, and is to be the norm in the Church throughout the world. It precludes the existence of an ecclesiastical structure in one area (e.g. a diocese) that is administered from afar. It also precludes any diocese from imposing itself on the administration of another. The situation in Britain has for some years (in particular the last three) been at odds with this canon. The failure to appoint Basil of Sergievo as proper diocesan bishop has created a context that defies this canon and its intention, and this has become the implicit norm accepted by the patriarchate of Moscow . Remote bishops administering an overseas diocese, allowing appeal of clergy and parishioners beyond local diocesan borders (e.g. directly to the department of external Church relations), is precisely what this canon would prevent. Yet, the diocese of Sourozh has not been permitted the canonical requirement of local headship since the death of his grace Anthony, metropolitan of Sourozh of blessed memory. As such, the most basic tenet of Orthodox ecclesiology has been abrogated. In some sense, the variety of challenges and problems within the diocese must be seen as outgrowths of this root issue.
This situation—of not maintaining the norms established the above canon (Constantinople 2)—itself contravenes other canons, of which the most significant is the second canon of the council of II Nicaea (787):
Code: Select all
II Nicaea, canon 2: Since we make an undertaking before God as we sing, ‘I shall meditate on your judgements, I shall not neglect your words' (Ps 118.16), it is essential to our salvation that every Christian should observe these things [the canons] , but more especially those who have been invested with priestly dignity. Therefore we decree that everyone who is to be advanced to the grade of bishop should have a thorough knowledge of the psalter, in order that he may instruct all the clergy subordinate to him, to be initiated in that book. He should also be examined without fail by the metropolitan to see if he is willing to acquire knowledge—a knowledge that should be searching and not superficial—of the sacred canons, the holy gospel, the book of the divine apostle, and all divine scripture; also if he is willing to conduct himself and teach the people entrusted to him according to the divine commandments. [Remainder omitted.]
Here it is made particularly clear that a bishop is obliged to uphold the canons, and to do so is a condition of his consecration. No bishop has the right not to uphold the canons in his task of guiding and guarding his flock, an injunction that bears directly on the troubles in this diocese. Given the status quo of non-canonicity, bishop Basil's approach to the ecumenical patriarch was not simply an option, but his duty and obligation as bearer of the episcopal office and obedience. It was and is his duty to ensure that the diocese under his oversight be governed according to the canons of the Church. Efforts had been made repeatedly over the past years to do this within the administrative structure of the patriarchate of Moscow: as part of bishop Basil's activities as administrator, appeals were made to the holy Synod, to various hierarchs and departments. However, the balance of experience and evidence led him to conclude that canonical normalcy was not going to be achieved by such means.6 In obedience to the obligation imposed on him by the present canon, he responded in the appropriate manner—by appeal to the ecumenical patriarch (see below).
- Additional complications of the canonical situation.
Over recent months, the situation of discord in the diocese, especially among the ranks of the clergy, has been exacerbated by the lack of canonical local organisation. That such discord will arise when the most basic canons on church life are ignored, is something foreseen by the larger body of canon law. There are various canons that deal with the more specific problems that may transpire, for example:
Code: Select all
Apostolic Canon 31: If any presbyter, despising his own bishop, shall collect a separate congregation, and erect another altar, not having any grounds for condemning the bishop with regard to religion or justice, let him be deposed for his ambition; for he is a tyrant; in like manner also the rest of the clergy, and as many as join him; and let laymen be excommunicated. Let this, however, be done after a first, second, and third admonition from the bishop.
While this canon deals particularly with the presbyteral establishment of opposition parishes and liturgical celebrations, the overriding spirit is relevant to the present situation in the diocese of Sourozh: namely, that clergy are not to act apart from, much less in opposition to, their local bishop. Especially since the death of metropolitan Anthony, various members of the ranks of the clergy have been acting openly against the bishop—if not in the establishment of parishes or liturgical celebrations, certainly in the realm of sowing discord amongst the faithful. The above canon makes it explicit that public disobedience towards the local bishop is to be dealt with decisively (the precise injunction being that such clerics be deposed). However, in the case of the diocese of Sourozh, the patriarchate of Moscow, though made aware of the situation by bishop Basil (according to the normal order of working first of all within one's own patriarchal structure), has refused to step in and quell such behaviour on the part of the clergy involved, even when it became so notable as to disrupt Sunday services, etc.
This situation can only be properly understood as an outgrowth of the root problem of locality. How is the spirit of this canon to be enforced, and the discord it aims to prevent avoided, if the local bishop is not granted proper authority and dignity to respond to the situation it describes?
Similarly, one has:
Code: Select all
Chalcedon, canon 18: The crime of conspiracy or secret association is entirely prohibited even by the laws of the land; so all the more properly is this forbidden in the church of God . So if any clerics or monks are found to be either forming a conspiracy or a secret society or hatching plots against bishops or fellow clergy, let them lose their personal rank completely.
This canon from the fourth ecumenical council deals in spirit with much the same context as that of Apostolic Canon 31 (above), though here in terms of secret activities. It is made explicit that the hatching of plots by clergy against the bishop or fellow clergy is a crime against the Church, for which the fullest response is to be deposed—a serious matter indeed. It seems impossible not to see the immediate bearing this canon has on the situation in the diocese of Sourozh. Particularly in the London parish and in one or two other communities, clergy have conspired to act in opposition to the bishop; and in advance of the recent patriarchal decrees, ‘phone networks' and internet communications were used by various members of the clergy to conspire against the proper administration of the diocese by bishop Basil.7 But with regard to this situation also, and again despite appeals in the past with respect to similar activities, the patriarchate of Moscow failed to enforce the spirit of this canon, whose purpose is to ensure the peaceful, orderly functioning of the local Church community.
This in some manner relates to the spirit of the earlier Constantinople, canon 6 (‘On those who ought to be allowed to accuse bishops and clerics'). This is a lengthy canon8 that deals primarily with the manner in which the Church should allow charges to be brought against its clergy. The bulk of the canon deals with the question of crimes; but explicit mention is made of charges ‘of an ecclesiastical kind' brought against bishops. The point to be gleaned from this canon is that it establishes a rank and order to the bringing of accusations/charges against a bishop, including the subjection of the accuser to equal measures of scrutiny. Such has not been practised in the recent life of the diocese of Sourozh. Charges against the bishop have been in circulation on the internet, via telephone and letter, at times privately and at others very publicly; and never has the patriarchate of Moscow responded with the enforcement of the spirit of this canon.
- The manner of the bishop's response to conditions of maintained canonical irregularity.
It seems clear that, based on a reading of the canons, both in their explicit terms and in the deeper spirit that undergirds them, the situation of the diocese of Sourozh has, especially since 2003, been one of pronounced canonical irregularity. This irregularity is grounded, at least to some substantial degree, in the failure of the patriarchate of Moscow to ratify the proper ecclesiastical structure for the church in this country. This structure is, as we have already explored, spelled out in essence in the second canon of Constantinople , which would allow the diocese to exist and operate under the leadership of its local diocesan bishop. Failure to appoint the ‘administrator' of the diocese as canonical diocesan bishop has promulgated exactly the situation this canon would prevent. With it a host of additional difficulties have arisen—factionalism, secret plottings, vocal but improperly channelled dissent—all of which are addressed by other canons.
Overall, the maintained ‘administrative', rather than local episcopal, headship of a diocese must be seen as an intrinsically uncanonical situation. The sustained position of a headless-diocese under solely administrative oversight, by a member of the episcopate who is explicitly not appointed its proper head, goes against the most basic Orthodox understandings of the Church. Nonetheless, it has been ‘normalised' since the death of metropolitan Anthony, as we have said, in the repeated failure of the patriarchate of Moscow to regularise the situation of the diocese along canonical norms.9
In such a situation, it is incumbent upon the local bishop, in obedience and submission to his own charge under canon 2 of II Nicaea, to act in such a manner as will regularise his local situation according to the canons of the Church. This was clearly bishop Basil's duty, and any suggestion that it was not his place to act in this manner, since he was simply ‘administrator' and not diocesan bishop, fails precisely on the grounds that this distinction is itself intrinsically uncanonical.
The bishop must fulfil his sacred duties to the Church. The canons exist to formulate and clarify these duties, and to guide him in redressing the problems of the flock under his care. How he is to do this is spelled out in several canons. Firstly:
Code: Select all
Chalcedon, canon 9: If any cleric has a case to bring against a cleric, let him not leave his own bishop and take himself off to the secular courts, but let him first air the problem before his own bishop, or at least, with the permission of the bishop himself, before those whom both parties are willing to see act as arbiters of their lawsuit If anyone acts in a contrary fashion, let him be subject to canonical penalties. If a cleric has a case to bring either against his own or against another bishop, let him bring the case to the synod of the province. If a bishop or cleric is in dispute with the metropolitan of the same province, let him engage either the exarch of the diocese or the see of imperial Constantinople, and let him bring his case before him.
The purpose of this canon is to establish an order to the handling of disputes among the clergy and hierarchs of the Church. The basic pattern it discloses is that these should in the first instance be dealt with locally; that is, that they should be raised, if possible, in the local diocese, or, if the dispute involves the bishop in his relationship with other bishops, in the local synod (in the modern era, this being the patriarchate of which the diocese is a part, and its governing Synod). Should interaction with the local Synod be impossible or unfruitful, the canon gives explicit authority to the bishop to appeal to the patriarch of Constantinople in his role as ecumenical hierarch, one of whose functions is precisely to serve as arbiter in such matters.
While further demonstrating the basic canonical irregularity of the diocese of Sourozh,10 the present canon gives approval to the course of action taken by bishop Basil of Sergievo. His repeated attempts at resolution through the synod having proved unfruitful, and patterns of discord in the diocese only growing worse over the past year, bishop Basil has, according to the explicit guidelines of the canon, appealed to the ecumenical patriarchate.
This paradigm is present also in:
Code: Select all
Chalcedon, canon 17: Rural or country parishes belonging to a church are to stay firmly tied to the bishops who have possession of them, and especially if they have continually and peacefully administered them over a thirty-year period. If, however, within the thirty years any dispute about them has arisen, or should arise, those who are claiming to be wronged are permitted to bring the case before the provincial synod. If there are any who are wronged by their own metropolitan, let their case be judged either by the exarch of the diocese or by the see of Constantinople , as has already been said [reference to canon 9, as above] . [Rest of canon omitted.]
This canon makes even more explicit that appeal to the ecumenical patriarch may be made with respect to matters of ecclesiastical governance and administration (where canon 9 seems to deal more directly with personal complaints). And, like canon 9, it further discloses the canonical irregularity of the diocese of Sourozh, inasmuch as ‘those who are claiming to be wronged' have not gone through the proper process of appealing in the first instance to the local bodies, but have gone instead directly to the patriarchate.
Both of these canons manifest as implicitly uncanonical the injunction of his holiness, the patriarch of Moscow, which was included in the decrees issued by him and read aloud in the Cathedral of the Dormition and of All Saints, London, on 14th May 2006, namely:
Code: Select all
“He [bishop Basil of Sergievo] 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."
A number of points should be noted here. Firstly, the decree does not forbid the approaching of another patriarchate by bishop Basil, only his joining of another patriarchate.
However, and secondly, nowhere in the canons of the Church is any hierarch given the authority to forbid another hierarch from being received into a different patriarchate. This is a matter for mediation and a question of pastoral prerogative to be determined in the course of appeal or approach made to a synod, or to the ecumenical patriarchate, which the canons explicitly allow, as above.11 The injunction of the decree cannot be seen to accord with the spirit, or the letter, of the canons cited here.
In a similar vein, we have:
Code: Select all
Apostolic Canon 14: A bishop is not allowed to leave his own parish and pass over into another, although he may be pressed to do so, unless there be some proper cause constraining him – as if he can confer some greater benefit upon the persons of that place in the word of godliness. And this must be done not of his own accord, but by the judgement of many bishops and at their earnest exhortation.
The spirit of this canon is that movement of bishops from one jurisdiction to another is not to be engaged in willy-nilly, but out of the constraints of proper cause (and that explicitly mentioned is the cause of being able better to serve the flock of his locality). Further, it is not to be the arbitrary act of the bishop alone (i.e. there can be no self-relocation of a bishop), but must be carried out in dialogue with other hierarchs, as other canons specify. Here the case of bishop Basil seems directly to apply. According to the terms set out in his letter to the patriarch of Moscow (24th April 2006), his desire to be received under the omophorion of the ecumenical patriarch is for the explicitly pastoral reasons of better serving the flock of Great Britain and Ireland. Moreover, his desire to lay this petition before the ecumenical patriarch follows the spirit of the present canon, namely, that such a movement must not be bishop Basil's prerogative alone, but discussed with other hierarchs (to which he has appealed through the ecumenical patriarchate, according to the rights given him by canons 9 and 17 of the council of Chalcedon, above).
These spirit of these canons seems clear: the movement of clergy between dioceses is to be curtailed. Nonetheless, the possibility must remain open for necessary movements between dioceses (or, in the structure that has developed since many of the canons were written, patriarchates) when pastoral need dictates. In instances where disputes arise between hierarchs—especially between a bishop and his superior—there may be little recourse within a given patriarchate. This is precisely the reason that the ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople is, time and again in the canons, referred to as proper arbiter. So:
Code: Select all
II Nicaea, canon 10: As some clerics, who despise the canonical ordinance, abandon their own dioceses and run off into others – something that happens with especial frequency in this imperial, God-guarded city – and there they lodge with rulers, celebrating the liturgy in their chapels, let it not be permitted from them to be received in any house or church without the approval of their own bishop and that of the bishop of Constantinople. If they do so persist therein, they are to be suspended. [Remainder of canon omitted.]
The present canon refines this discussion by stating that the movement of clerics between jurisdictions is inappropriate if it represents an abandonment of one's local duties. Nonetheless, the canon makes clear that such transfer is not forbidden wholesale, and may be permitted if the motivations are proper and a blessing is given by both the local hierarch and the ecumenical patriarchate. In cases such as that of bishop Basil of Sergievo, the fact that the need is pastoral and the transfer would not be an abandonment of the diocese, but represents his fervent desire better to serve the local faithful, places it in the realm of proper motivation. Further, since the disputes that have created the tension are precisely those within the structure of the Moscow patriarchate, the need for the blessing both of the local hierarch as well as that of the ecumenical patriarchate must be referred to the other canons which deal with inter-hierarchical disputes (such as those discussed above), where the proper venue is clearly and repeatedly indicated as the ecumenical patriarchate.12
- Concluding remarks.
The current state of affairs in the diocese of Sourozh is challenging and sorrowful. Never has it been more the case that the Church's theology of repentance—not chiefly as sorrow and mourning, but compunction and transformation—has direct bearing on the life of her faithful in this region. The particular matters that have given rise to the current situation are many, and lie beyond the scope of this small investigation; but a study of the regula, the ‘measuring sticks' for the healthy life of the Body of Christ, demonstrates that, to a very real degree, they are rooted in canonical questions. The Orthodox Church is universal precisely because it is local, grounded in the chalice of Christ around which the faithful of the land are gathered under the pastoral guidance of their bishop. The councils of the Church focus on this local character so emphatically, because they are aware that its abrogation, while perhaps administratively appealing on some grounds, tugs at the fundamental core of its Christian ecclesial life.
The pastoral matters of language, practice, cultural heritage, missionary focus, and the like—so much at the centre of events in the diocese of Sourozh today—cannot be separated from this canonical issue. These are the affairs of the Body as family; they will always arise, and there has been no point in the Church's history when they have not been objects of challenge and potential division. But the Church is a body with structure and design, heralded as sacral in the canons precisely because it safeguards the environment in which these challenges are to be faced, and the manner in which they are to be addressed. And for all its complexity and the exaltation of its hierarchical ranks, this structure is always, and always must be, grounded in the local bishop guiding and shepherding his flock. If this basic reality is denied to the Church, the normal challenges it faces will grow beyond their measure and will rend at the Body without the benefit of the structures that would help resolve them in a healthy manner.
The structure that has been normalised in the diocese of Sourozh since the death of metropolitan Anthony goes against this most basic of ecclesiological principles of Orthodoxy. Precisely as the canons predict, this has had the end result that important and relevant pastoral questions, such as language (to take but a single example), have never been open to proper embrace, exploration and resolution. The bishop, not made canonical head but merely ‘administrator', has not been able to respond properly as bishop; and knowing this, individuals have circumvented him and appealed their positions to Moscow , pitting factions against one another to ever increasing fervour in the local diocese.
Given this situation, the canons—especially those of II Nicaea—make it clear that the bishop does not simply have the option, but the obligation, to act. No bishop may permit the faithful in his care to suffer through maintained canonical irregularity. Basil, bishop of Sergievo, was under an obligation to the canons of the Church to regularise the situation. Attempts to redress the problems with Moscow having failed, his final recourse, as prescribed by the canons, was to the ecumenical patriarchate. And, as this document is published, it is with that patriarchate that the matter stands.
M.C. Steenberg
Oxford
Notes
- The present document published on-line on 23rd May, 2006, © the author. All rights for reproduction reserved.
1 As laid out in bishop Basil's letters to the Patriarch of Moscow (24th April 2006) and to the diocese (1st May 2006).
2 Including his ‘open letter' of 16th May, 2006.
3 Of which we have testimony in the writings of the earliest Fathers; e.g. Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Ignatius of Antioch, etc.
4 Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus haereses, book 3.
5 Though in the Church's earliest days there were variations on how this local understanding was realised, already at the beginning of the second century we have the testimony of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, each in his own voice, commenting on the central iconic and spiritual significance of the local church body, gathered round its bishop in the communion of the Holy Spirit, united in the living reality of the true Body and Blood of the Saviour. See the epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (1 Clement) and the various epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. i).
6 Some remarks to this effect, without being framed in the specific context of canonicity, are found in his ‘open letter'.
7 A system of phone networking was employed, for example, to ensure the attendance of certain members of the clergy at the Sunday Liturgy on 14th May (at which the decrees of patriarch Alexis were read), while other clergy with conspicuously not phoned; cf. protodeacon Peter Scorer's questions as to the validity of this act in his ‘open questions', available on www.dioceseinfo.org.
8 Which can be found in full in Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, pp. 33-34.
9 ‘Repeated' inasmuch as the holy Synod has met several times each year since the repose of metropolitan Anthony, and thus has had both the repeated opportunity, and pleading requests from the diocese, to act according to the canons.
10 This canon makes it clear that local matters should be dealt with locally, with the local bishop. In point of fact the local bishop has been routinely bypassed by members of the diocese who have appealed directly, in the first instance, to the patriarchate of Moscow.
11 On matters of pastoral prerogative, cf. the precedent set in canon 30 of the council of Chalcedon, where subscription to the Tome of Leo, mandated by the acts of the council itself, is forestalled of the bishops of Egypt on pastoral grounds. The Church's canons are normative rules, or measures, that must be applied in a pastoral manner, both on the personal level but also on the wider ecclesial level—a method of approach disclosed internally amongst such canons themselves.
12 Cf. canons 15 and 16 of Nicaea; 5, 10, and 23 of Chalcedon; etc.
