The Shepherd, August 2006
NEWS SECTION, 1
ASSEMBLY OF SERBIAN HIERARCHS
THE SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH’S HOLY ASSEMBLY OF BISHOPS held its regular meeting from May 15 to May 27, 2006, in the Patriarch's residence in Belgrade with His Holiness Serbian Patriarch Pavle presiding. All diocesan hierarchs of the Serbian Orthodox Church participated in the work of the Assembly.
At the beginning of its work the Assembly gave thanks to the Lord and expressed the joy of all its members following the successful recovery of His Holiness Patriarch Pavle and his release from the Military Medical Clinic in Belgrade where he underwent medical treatment.
The Assembly also expressed joy at the successful continuation of work on the interior appointment of St. Sava Memorial Cathedral in Vracar (Belgrade), praising the zeal of the philanthropists and donors of this holy endowment to date, and calling on the faithful of the Serbian Orthodox Church to continue building this holy shrine….
This year will be the 800-year anniversary of the building of Zica Monastery, our great holy shrine and the first seat of the autocephalous Serbian Church in the time of St. Sava. The Orthodox cathedral in the city of Nis has also been restored, and construction of the building of the Sts. Cyril and Methodius Seminary from Prizren, temporarily located in Nis, has been completed. Taking into consideration these facts, the Assembly has decided to hold its next regular meeting in autumn this year in Zica and Nis. The consecration of the Orthodox Cathedral and Seminary in Nis will also be performed on this occasion. The Assembly calls on all faithful of the Serbian Orthodox Church for their prayerful participation in these blessed events from which we derive indestructible spiritual joy, stronger than all of the misfortunes and trials to which we are exposed.
As always, the Assembly dedicated its primary concern to the holy unity of the Church and the preservation of its sacred canonical order both within our own Local Church as well as at the level of the Orthodox Church’s mission of salvation throughout the oecumene. Towards this goal the Assembly has once again, as in previous years, expressed the readiness of the Serbian Orthodox Church to continue dialogue with the hierarchy in [the Former Yugoslav Republic of] Macedonia still in schism in order to establish regular canonical order and full, blessed unity in the entire Church.…
The clergy, monks and nuns, and faithful people in Montenegro are called upon now and in the future to witness their love, hope and love towards everyone without regard for political conditions, always and anew building the bridges of brotherly understanding and agreement.
For days the Assembly responsibly and analytically addressed the difficult situation in Kosovo and Metohija, as well as accumulated problems in the life of the Diocese of Raska and Prizren. The Assembly extended maximum support to this martyred Diocese in the difficulties it faces both within and without.…
Patriarch Pavle with the members of the Holy Assembly of Bishops visited Pec Patriarchate Monastery in order to once again demonstrate the concern of the church for its faithful and its holy shrines in Kosovo and Metohija.
The Bishops’ Council also considered the question of education, and made various episcopal appointments.
SOUROZH TROUBLES
AS HAS BEEN WIDELY REPORTED in the church and secular press, His Grace Bishop Basil of Sergievo has left the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate and joined the Paris Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, being given the new title of Amphipolis by the latter jurisdiction. This has naturally caused division in the Sourozh diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate in this country, of which Bishop Basil was but lately the administrator. Archbishop Innokentii of Korsun, who heads the MP parishes in France, has been granted the temporary spiritual care of the clergy and people who have elected to remain with the Moscow Patriarchate, and a commission was set up by the MP to investigate the issues.
The dispute has often been represented as one between British converts and the new influx of people from the former Soviet bloc countries, and on the part of Bishop Basil’s followers there have been complaints about the purportedly heavy-handed way the Patriarchate has dealt with the situation in Britain since the death of Metropolitan Antony (Bloom) and fears about the Patriarchate taking control of the church’s properties here. Those loyal to the Patriarchate, however, see the divide more as one between traditionalists and those who wish to follow the more modernist agenda that has characterised the Paris Exarchate since its inception.
Bishop Basil did not meet the commission set up to look into the matter, nor did he go to Moscow, as requested, to the meeting of their Synod. In view of this, the Moscow Synod issued a “Decision” on 19th July, in which they say:
“Resolved:
1. To note with regret that His Grace Bishop Basil (Osborne) did not respond to the summons of the Higher Church Authority and did not attend the present meeting.
2. To approve the work of the Commission for the study of the situation in the Diocese of Sourozh, and to consider its conclusions justified.
3. To consider it important to hear the personal testimony of His Grace Bishop Basil before making a final decision about his actions. For this purpose, once again to call Bishop Basil to the next session of the Holy Synod.
4. To note with special concern the distribution by His Grace Bishop Basil, after his retirement, of unlawful ‘letters of dismissal,’ and likewise the invitations addressed by Bishop Basil to clergy and parishes of the Diocese of Sourozh to transfer to another jurisdiction without observing the established canonical procedure.
5. To recognise that the actions of Bishop Basil, beginning on 24th April, 2006, are in fundamental contradiction with his previous declarations of loyalty to the Russian Orthodox Church.
6. In connection with the breaking of the episcopal oath and canon 33 of the Holy Apostles, canon 32 of the Council of Carthage, and canon 15 of the ‘Twice-Repeated’ Council, temporarily to suspend the Right Reverend Bishop Basil from celebrating Divine services until his repentance or until the decision of the matter by a court of bishops.
7. To call the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to an appropriate canonical resolution of the question of His Grace Bishop Basil.
8. To adopt the ‘Declaration relating to the decision of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople concerning the reception into its jurisdiction of Bishop Basil (Osborne).’
9. To send the aforementioned announcement to the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches.”
Point 8 refers to a long document in which the Moscow Synod sets forth a well-worked-out canonical response to the action of the Patriarch of Constantinople in receiving Bishop Basil without conferring with the Moscow Synod, an action that can only be described as papal.
Sadly, now we have an extremely confusing situation. For those faithful to the Moscow Patriarchate, Bishop Basil is a hierarch suspended from his sacerdotal ministry, and for those within the Patriarchate of Constantinople he is a vicar bishop within their Parisite Exarchate. In some places, notably in Oxford, the two jurisdictions have hitherto shared churches and ministrations despite the administrative divide and the difference in calendars. One can only assume, that unless the matter can be speedily resolved, even more hurt and confusion will ensue because some will feel able to accept the ministrations of Bishop Basil and the clergy with him, while others will understand his position to be irregular. 
|
