MORE CONFUSION IN THE PATRIARCHATE OF JERUSALEM

IT IS A REQUIREMENT that the election of the Patriarch of Jerusalem be ratified by the three State administrations within the area over which his jurisdiction extends: the Kingdom of Jordan, the State of Israel, and the Palestinian Authority.  The last Patriarch Irenaios was deposed, after various charges regarding church properties were brought against him.  He was replaced by Patriarch Theophilos.  However, the State of Israel declined to recognise the new Patriarch because the legal questions regarding Patriarch Irenaios were still before their courts.  Recently those legal charges were dismissed.  More recently on 9th May, the Jordanian government “decided to withdraw its recognition of Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem Kyrios Theophilos III.”  “The decision” according to a press release, “was taken, during a cabinet session, because the Patriarch failed to fulfill the obligations he pledged to the government during his tenure.”  On 18th May, Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia, General Secretary of the WCC, addressed a letter to the Prime Minister of Jordan, Dr Marouf Suleiman al-Bakhit, asking that the Jordanian government reconsider its decision. 

TRADIONALIST ROMANIAN RESPONSE TO THE MP-ROCOR RAPPROCHEMENT

METROPOLITAN VLASIE of the Romanian Old Calendar Orthodox Church issued a “Memorandum” on 8th/21st May in response to the signing of the “Act of Canonical Communion” between the Moscow Patriarchate the the former ROCOR.  He says: “The Romanian Old Calendar Church during the tenure of the First Hierarch Metropolitan Laurus since 2001 until May 17, 2007 has very meticulously observed the changes taking place in ROCOR.  The beginning of the dialogue between the MP and ROCOR was very encouraging.  We hoped that the MP Hierarchy would hear the righteous voice of the Free Part of the Russian Church which had vouchsafed the traditions of the Fathers and Holy Canons.  However, to our distress the path of dialogue chosen by ROCOR was becoming more and more alarming to us because the dialogue was becoming more one sided.  The desire of ROCOR to establish relations in the Russian Church had been proceeded in such a way that the Moscow Patriarchate did not change its previous course of apostasy.  The activities of the Moscow Patriarchate in the WCC and participation in the Ecumenical Movement had continued to expand.  The repentance in the grave sins of Sergianism never took place. The path of dialogue chosen by Metropolitan Laurus and his Synod increasingly convinced us that this premature union was imminent.  This led the Synod in Resistance in Greece to break communion with ROCOR and justifiably so.  Furthermore, to our surprise in 2006 without the slightest explanation, ROCOR severed Eucharistical Communion with the Old Calendar Churches of Romania and Bulgaria. To this very day we were not given an official statement and explanation from the ROCOR Synod as to why our communion was terminated.…  After careful examination of the Act of Canonical Union between ROCOR and ROC MP, we find that the First Hierarch Metropolitan Laurus as well as the majority of his Synod had in fact become an integral and subservient part of MP.  Since the Romanian Old Calendar Church headed by myself never broke communion with ROCOR, I feel that it is important to continue Eucharistical union with that part of ROCOR that did not enter into union with MP.  If genuine ROCOR Bishops like Bishop Daniel of Erie and Bishop Agafangel of  Odessa will find it necessary to invite us for Hirotoniyas of new Bishops for their church, our Synod would gladly participate in such an endeavour.”

PERSECUTION OF ESPHIGMEOU CONTINUES