Voices from Russia

A Russian Orthodox priest from Ninilchik, Alaska

Anchorage AK, 2 March 2008 (AP):

Priests in Alaska’s Russian Orthodox Church have called for the removal of their top official in the state, Bishop Nikolai Soraich, claiming he has hurt the church and ruled by intimidation. “The clergy and probably a large percentage of the laity in the church have reached the point where they believe they can no longer serve with or under Bishop Nikolai Soraich”, said the Rev Michael Oleksa, archpriest at St Alexis in Anchorage. “It’s the accumulation of years now of what the clergy regretfully but sincerely believe is a matter of personal and collective abuse”, he said.

In one example, priests say that the bishop’s edicts prevent children without Orthodox Christian names from baptism in the church. They say he’s made hurtful comments about Alaska Native culture, church buildings, and ceremony. His second-in-command told a group of priests not to speak Yup’ik in front of the bishop and they say they are afraid of him.

Bishop Nikolai has served in Alaska nearly seven years and is one of just nine diocesan bishops in North America. He said he is dumbfounded by the criticism and has called a meeting next week in Anchorage to air the concerns. “There are people out there who obviously have an issue with everything that I do”, he told the Anchorage Daily News. He never told people not to speak Yup’ik, he said. “I even sent out letters telling them I wanted them to use their Native language”, the bishop said.

The Orthodox Church in America, with headquarters in Syosset, NY, has taken notice of the matter. “The OCA Chancery is receiving mail and e-mail from clergy of the Diocese of Alaska. There are indications that serious issues exist that may need to be addressed”, the OCA said in a release posted Saturday night on the church Web site. The church’s top official in the United States, Metropolitan Herman, has been in touch with Nikolai and the Holy Synod of Bishops, the church’s governing body, the release said.

Nikolai said he has no intention of stepping down voluntarily. “Absolutely not”, he said. He does not know why the priests are speaking out against him, he said, but he has tried to restore order in a diocese where things had been loosely run. The controversy is playing out on Web sites run by church watchdogs, including one called Orthodox Christians for Accountability. Discord has been building for years, Alaska priests said.

Fr Thomas Andrew, a confessor-priest of the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Alaska from Kenai (in Orthodox usage, a confessor is one who stands for the truth in times of great trial)

“In a nutshell, we were so … free to express ourselves until I’d say about six years ago when Nikolai came in, then pastoral theological teaching just kind of went down the drain”, said Archpriest Peter Askoar, of Elevation of the Cross of our Lord Church in Russian Mission and a priest for 28 years. In one of the bishop’s early visits to Russian Mission, a community of 329 on the Yukon River about 375 miles west of Anchorage, he criticised their new church building, made with love by local crews but quirky, with visible supports holding up a sagging roof, Askoar said. The bishop said it was not fit for worship, according to Askoar. The priest was too shocked to respond. He said he understands they need to give whatever they have to the Lord “but this was the best we had to offer”.

Priests are especially troubled by an edict Bishop Nikolai gave at a diocesan assembly last year that says babies cannot be baptised unless their legal, given name is Orthodox. In the past, children had two names, a street name and a church name, Oleksa and Askoar said. The bishop told the assembly “if the parents do not give the child an Orthodox Christian name, do not baptise them. Period”, Askoar said. Askoar said children in his village are waiting to be baptised while their parents work on getting their birth certificates changed by the state. Bishop Nikolai said the name requirement for baptisms is not a new rule.

In Juneau, the Rev Michael Spainhoward of St Nicholas Russian Orthodox Church said that Bishop Nikolai has always treated him well, with kindness and generosity, but that he has seen the bishop’s other side. Spainhoward worked under Bishop Nikolai as a church deacon in Las Vegas years ago. “I served with him, and I personally have never been chastised or belittled or humiliated. I have not experienced any of the things they have, but I know it to be possible because I have witnessed it with others”, Spainhoward said. The bishop should resign, he said. “”To come and impose upon and to dismiss all criticism, to dismiss culture, to dismiss all of this, hurts the people, hurts the message of the gospel”, Spainhoward said.

Editor’s note: This is an exact analogue of the situation in Yekaterinburg in 1999. The MP Holy Synod removed the bad bishop and sent a saintly man to replace him as archpastor. The children of St Herman deserve the same. I say this to the faithful native Orthodox of Alaska: “If Syosset refuses to act, you know what to do! Do not hesitate. Do what you must, and do not worry about Syosset’s wrath. s nami Bog! God is with us!”

Juneau Empire

http://juneauempire.com/stories/030208/sta_252906269.shtml (in English)

Russian gold and hard currency reserve holdings hit a record of 483.9 billion US dollars, having increased by 2.6 billion USD in a week, the Central Bank said. Russia has the world’s third largest gold and hard currency reserves after China and Japan.

28 February 2008

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=23529&cid=46&p=28.02.2008 (in Russian and English)

Editor’s note: If one was to say, “Show me the money”, to Russia, it would say, “Sure!” and whip out a fat bank-roll. Ask the same of the USA, and the reply would be, “Could I put it on my plastic?” Which of the two economies is the stronger? This means that Russia has 3,500 USD of hard currency/gold reserves per capita, which is not Third World levels by a long shot.

It does put a new light on American boasts of economic superiority, does it not? Reflect on the fact that the US government finances its deficits by bond issues bought by Russia, China, and Japan. Who holds the whip hand? Donald Trump, George Soros, and Bill Gates suddenly don’t look so wise, do they? Hmm…

Monty Hall (1921- ), on the stage of Let’s Make a Deal in 1975. The King of Kitsch, wasn’t he?

Those of us “of a certain age” remember the over-the-top antics of the nutter Monty Hall on Let’s Make a Deal. Some of the doors concealed treasures, others held gags, and still others were intended to make fools of the contestants to “entertain” a jaded television audience.

It sounds like the current OCA crisis, does it not? If we choose the right door, we shall receive a prize, if we choose wrongly, we shall get a “booby prize” so ridiculous that we would be exposed to the world as fools.

There are three real choices facing the faithful of the OCA. One is to bury their heads in the sand and “trust Syosset” as a certain John Garvey is advocating. This is fatuous. If the present structure cannot generate the revenue necessary to function, how shall it be able to do so in future? If these apparatchiki had a practise of lying to the faithful in the past, they shall likely continue doing so in future. This course mandates ever-larger bites from the parishes, which in the end, would bring down the structure, probably within a year or so. This path is flawed because both the central administration and SVS are located in expensive metropolitan areas, and both refuse to move. Ergo, another financial crunch is inevitable, and this option is about as viable as buying a Trabbie for personal transportation.

The second scenario envisages a discrete OCA. If you wish to preserve a group formally known as the Orthodox Church in America, there is only one route open. The central administration and SVS would be abolished, the functions of Syosset would be devolved onto the dioceses, and priestly formation would be concentrated [in the lower 48] at St Tikhon’s in Pennsylvania, due to the much lower costs of doing business (as compared to the astronomical salaries required in the NYC metro area). The only administrative overhead needed would be an office for the metropolitan with a staff of 2 or 3 clerics and an admin assistant or two to assist them. There are only 115,000 members in the OCA, after all. This would mean returning to the cautious and prudent policies of the Metropolia, and rejecting Schmemann’s opium dream.

Although this is the most prudent and fiscally responsible path (if one wishes a discrete OCA, that is), the Syosset and SVS fanatics shall fight this so hard that this plan has no hope of survival. The Syosset/SVS crowd is so wedded to the NYC metro area, and so despise the hinterland, that they would rather see the OCA crash to the earth rather than move. Of course, this begs the question of why such a foolish move was made in the first place… that, later. This option is like buying a sensible Toyota or Chevy for personal transportation, but, the ones who wish to have a flashy Caddie or Rolls are calling the shots.

The third choice, I believe, is being taken as we speak. As Syosset refuses to budge, and the people who have put forward the St Tikhon’s proposal (I have seen such on the internet) have been rebuffed by the powers that be, we are led, nolens volens, to door number three. That is, the OCA quietly implodes. Rather, it would be like a balloon loosing air slowly through a pin-prick. It is doing so now. If you doubt my words, look at Alaska…

As this slow decomposition takes place, I believe that a new alignment of Orthodoxy in this country shall take place. What we see today is a situation that has existed since about 1965. Firstly, we must understand that the OCA is not going to go en bloc to the MP, even though that is the most prudent and canonical course for it to follow. I believe that the OCA is going to shatter into three discrete parts.

The Romanians in the OCA are going to return to their mother church in Romania. This body was the canonically squiffy group under Valerian Trifa that was for all intents and purposes Romanian samosvyatsy. With the fall of the communists, there is no longer any reason for an existence apart from the Patriarchate of Romania. If the crisis continues, the chances of this diocese returning to its mother church are so high that I would say it is almost a sure thing. If they leave, the OCA loses its most well-organised diocese, and the OCA reverts to being a Metropolia successor body. Without the Romanians, Syosset no longer shall have the funds to continue, which shall lead to an even faster decay.

SVS and the loud convert element are going to decamp to AOCANA. I must state that the converts I am referring to are a minority of all converts, but, unfortunately, they are the majority of voices on the internet. If one sees a radical position on a church issue, either on the right or on the left, it is almost always a canon-quoting convert that is the culprit.

Why would they go to Philip Saliba and his minions? It would be that the Russian ethnic element in the OCA, which is still predominant, shall reunite with the mother church in Moscow. Let me give you a small, but telling, detail. You can repeat scurrilous rumour on the sexual lives of hierarchs (even if true, a sin against charity… bring formal charges or be silent, I say) or advocate a married episcopate (a bald-faced heresy) on the Orthodox Christians for Accountability website with the full blessing of the webmaster. However, if you wish to talk about the merits of Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev as metropolitan in the Americas, the webmaster shut down the discussion.

I can assure you that I am not the only Orthodox Christian of Russian descent who speaks Russian. I am not the only Orthodox Christian of Russian descent to have contacts in Russia. I am not alone in following the news of the mother church in Russia. I am not alone in considering myself “Russian Orthodox” and no one shall take that title away from me.

I know that there are many Russian Orthodox faithful in America and Canada who feel as I do. I correspond with many of them, we exchange information and ideas, and some of my posts have been in response to the expressed ideas of my fellow Russian Orthodox Christians.

WE ARE READY TO RUMBLE.

THE ALASKA NATIVES ARE READY TO RUMBLE.

You see, the SVS/Syosset people think that we act like other American suburbanites. Any sociologist shall tell you that a discrete group retains behaviour and custom longer than it does language. For example, “Arab” Christians are the descendants of the pre-Muslim invasion population; they are not Arabs per se, even though they have adopted the Arabic language after some 1,300 years of Muslim occupation. Russians (and other Slavs) are famous for their endurance. We take it, and take it, and take it some more… then, “enough is too much already”.

We are ready for reunion with our mother church. The loudmouth convert faction hates this, for they know that reunion with Moscow means a return to traditional faith and practises, and all experimentation would be halted (on both extremes, the right is as dangerous as the left). Philip Saliba is one of the most skilled and unctuous “politicians in a cassock” that I have ever seen. He would tell them, “I believe in an American church, see, most of my clergy are converts. Why, we just welcome you!”

This sort of convert shall leave, and they shall find out the reality of the AOCANA just as the EOC did. I would refer people to the way Saliba handled the Ben Lomond affair. I would point up the actions of Bishop Antoun “the Enforcer” (he does all of Saliba’s dirty work so that Philip can wear the white hat). Of course, recently, there was the $1,000 “gift” from each parish to Saliba personally (if one balked, Antoun the Enforcer threatened the priest). Then, there were the folks that Saliba barred personally when the Toledo group merged with his in the ‘70s. Nice guy… In short, the converts shall find that AOCANA is no picnic, and that if they do not become part of the sycophantic choir praising Philip Saliba, they shall find themselves out, and very smartly at that.

So, who shall lead us out of the desert? Some people think it shall be Hilarion Alfeyev, a good man (a bit squiffy on doctrine, though), but, I believe that Moscow is going to keep him as its “diplomat” to the EU (that is what his job is, in essence) because no one else has his diplomatic and linguistic ability.

I think that the best candidate for Metropolitan of the US would be… Archbishop Vikenty of Yekaterinburg.

He cleaned up a similar mess in his diocese when he took over in 1999, as his predecessor was guilty of corruption and homosexuality. The Diocese of Yekaterinburg (the third-most-important diocese after Moscow and St Petersburg) is now cleansed because of Vladyki Vikenty’s efforts. He is a great pastor, and he spares no effort in preaching and living the traditional faith. I do NOT care if he does not speak English at present. We need a MORAL and PURE leader. If he does not speak English, he can learn it. In any case, we do not need speeches, we need a SHINING EXEMPLAR who shows the way in how he acts, not how he speaks.

Vladyki Vikenty walks the walk, and if it takes him some time to talk the talk, people shall forgive him, for the former is more important than the latter.

Following this submission, I shall post some more information on Vladyki Vikenty and the circumstances surrounding his elevation. You shall see that he is the ideal man to clean up our mess here in America. I also shall post (without editing) the MP Report on the Sourozh crisis in England. Reflect on the fact that it took the MP only 100 days to solve the problem… how long has the OCA mess been chugging along? What sort of action do you desire?

You may listen to Syosset/SVS and see that their crisis has dragged on since October 2005… some 30 months! Or, you can join yourself to the good tree of Moscow that kicked out a pederast bishop and solved a later crisis in three months. I know where I stand… what about you?

Vara Drezhlo

Sunday 2 March 2008

Moscow, 4 June 2007 (Interfax):

Droplets of myrrh came out on the portrait of Patriarch Aleksei II on Trinity Day (Russian colloquialism for Pentecost: editor’s note) in the church of St Aleksandr Nevsky in the town of Nizhniaya Salda near Yekaterinburg. “It is a sign from God! The Lord himself has marked the patriarch’s image to strengthen our faith!” parishioners said, according to the newspaper Tvoi Den (“Your Day”).

The portrait of the patriarch was put in the church next to the iconostas three years ago. Passing by the church shop at the Church of Christ-on-the-Spilled-Blood in Yekaterinburg, the rector of the church in Nizhniaya Salda, Fr Mikhail Parygin, saw the primate’s portrait in a wooden frame in a shop window. “My heart rejoiced when I saw the image of His Holiness. I bought it immediately, as if angels stopped me before it”, Fr Mikhail said.

The miraculous myrrh was discovered by parishioners. The portrait began exuding fragrance shortly before matins. “I came the other day to the church to pray for the health of my relatives. As usual, I came up to the patriarch’s portrait and suddenly saw droplets of myrrh beading up on the picture. I had a lump in my throat. I ran to Fr Mikhail straight away to tell him about the miracle”, parishioner Lyubov Ivanovna related. The priest admitted that, at first, he refused to believe what the woman said and it was only after he came to the Patriarch’s picture that he “was numbed as he saw myrrh trickling down in small drops from the right bottom corner of the portrait”.

Having learned about the portrait of the patriarch exuding myrrh, Archbishop Vikenty of Yekaterinburg and Verkhoturye came to Nizhniaya Salda. Having seen the emanation with his own eyes, the archbishop said, “The myrrh may be a sign of tears of joy. The Russian Orthodox Church has united through the efforts of His Holiness, and the Lord is rejoicing in His children”.

Interfax-Religion

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=3143 (in English)

In an unusual disciplinary action, the Russian Orthodox Church (sic) has removed a Bishop who has been widely accused of corruption and sexual impropriety. Church officials said today that Bishop Nikon, 39, was being “retired” from his Yekaterinburg diocese for provoking divisions among the clergy and believers. The decision, which follows more than six months of appeals from local priests, is intended to put an end to one of the most damaging church scandals since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Not only did the episode spur debate within the church. To the embarrassment of the church, it was also seized on by the Russian press. “This is the first time that a bishop has been removed with such a public fuss”, said Anatoly Krasikov, the head of a research institute on church-state relations. “Clergymen have been removed for drunkenness, but those scandals were handled quietly. This case was talked about throughout the church”. Clergymen said they expected Bishop Nikon to leave Yekaterinburg within a week. The Bishop has previously declined to discuss the allegations and could not be reached today for comment.

His successor in Yekaterinburg, the church’s third-most-important diocese, is 45-year-old Bishop Vikenty. In contrast to Bishop Nikon, who owed his appointment to connections with powerful Soviet-era church officials, Bishop Vikenty has a strong background in theological studies and a record of service in some of the poorest regions of the former Soviet Union. The Bishop was born in the former Soviet republic of Moldova. His original aim, church officials said, was to live as a monk. The church later assigned him to restore a monastery in Moldova. Most recently, he served as the Bishop of Abakan and Kyzyl, two towns in the Tuva region near the Mongolian border. It was not a glamorous position. The region has only 15 churches.

While his appointment will almost certainly improve the church’s image, the move did not come easily. The Russian Orthodox Church (sic) has been struggling to re-establish its moral voice in post-Soviet society while maintaining church unity. Like Russia’s political institutions it grants its representatives in the nation’s far-flung regions considerable authority and takes a dim view of challenges to their authority. The Holy Synod was split at first, according to Mr Krasikov. Two abbots from the Yekaterinburg region who initiated the complaints against Bishop Nikon were ordered by the Holy Synod to leave their monasteries for repeatedly pressing their case. In the end, however, the mounting allegations and the unusual public vetting of the Bishop’s private life in the Russian press appeared to persuade the Holy Synod that it had to act. More than 50 priests had accused Bishop Nikon of demanding huge fees to resolve administrative disputes, drunkenness, and open homosexuality.

The Synod’s ruling avoids direct reference to the allegations swirling around the Bishop, saying only that his mistakes “have led to division among the clergy and lay people”. Under the ruling, Bishop Nikon will be stripped of his church rank but will not be defrocked. The ruling does not say whether the two dissenting abbots will be restored to their monasteries. But, it says a new commission will look into the scandal.

July 22, 1999

Michael R. Gordon

New York Times

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807EED8173EF931A15754C0A96F958260

By a decision of the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate at a session held this Tuesday under the chairmanship of Patriarch Aleksei II of Moscow and all Russia, Bishop Nikon of Yekaterinburg and Verkhoturye was relieved as archpastor of the Diocese of Yekaterinburg and sent into retirement. The reason for the punishment of the infamous bishop sounds, in church fashion, mild. He is accused of “causing division amongst the clergy and laity”, and also “causing confusion amongst believers and the public”. Thus came to an end a serious church crisis that shook the Diocese of Yekaterinburg for quite some time.

The issue is the furious conflict that arose between Bishop Nikon and a large group of priests and monks, who were supported by a great number of laity. A stream of complaints against Vladyki Nikon was sent to the Holy Synod in Moscow. He was accused of what in secular life is called abuse of office, arbitrariness, bribery, etc. The complaints reported that the bishop was guilty of drunkenness, and, most horrifying, of the sin of sodomy (simply put, homosexuality) and seducing young monks.

The problem that had arisen was discussed earlier at a session of the Holy Synod; in the end, the bishop received a censure and Hegumen Avraam and Hegumen Tikhon, the chief opponents of the bishop, were removed from their positions. However, activists for integrity in the church did not settle down and the flow of complaints against the bishop did not cease. Moreover, on the streets of the cities in the Urals, believers began carrying signs such as “Nikon, the sodomite and heretic”, and the laity of Nizhny Tagil declared that their city was a “Nikon-free zone”.

Archbishop Vikenty of Abakan and Kyzyl was appointed to replace Bishop Nikon as archpastor of the Diocese of Yekaterinburg.

22 July 1999

Anatoly Dzhapakov

Aleksandr Korolev

Trud (original source)

PDS Russia Religion News (quoted source)

http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/9907e.html (in English)

Moscow, 22 July 1999 (AP):

The Russian Orthodox Church removed a bishop who was accused of sodomy and extortion, officials said Thursday. The Holy Synod, the church’s supreme body, ruled earlier this week that Bishop Nikon of Yekaterinburg retire to a monastery far away from his diocese in central Russia. He is one of the highest-ranking church officials to be removed in recent years.

The Synod said in a statement that the decision was prompted by Nikon’s “mistakes”, which “led to a division between clergy and lay people and caused confusion among believers and the public”. It said Nikon himself asked to be relieved of his duties “for the sake of church peace”. The Synod did not mention allegations made by other priests that Nikon engaged in sodomy and extortion. The church has also set up a special commission to investigate the charges against Nikon, and may consider punishing him further. “If found guilty of sodomy, he must be defrocked”, Fr Hilarion Alfeyev, a priest with the Moscow Patriarchate, told The Associated Press.

Nikon was appointed to preside over the Diocese of Yekaterinburg, one of the church’s largest, in 1993 when he was just 33, an unusually high position for such a young man. He gained notoriety last year when he confiscated writings by Orthodox theologians he did not agree with, and then publicly burned the texts. The Synod then sent an inspection team to check reports of Nikon’s alleged misbehaviour, including allegations that he demanded money to resolve disputes and tried to seduce young men in his seminary. The team said it did not find sufficient evidence, and the Synod in April ruled to keep Nikon on the job while removing some of his most vocal foes. But, the protests continued, and Nikon’s critics leaked some of their allegations to the media, prompting the Synod this week to change its stance and send him to a remote monastery.

Associated Press (original source)

PDS Russia Religion News (quoted source)

http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/9907e.html (in English)

The Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate decided the fate of the notorious Bishop Nikon of Yekaterinburg, about whom much detail has been provided in our supplement, NG-religii. He was sent to the Pskov Monastery of the Caves to repent, pending final resolution of his case. This decision of the Holy Synod becomes the first official acknowledgment and constructive response by the hierarchy with regard to such a high personage in the church hierarchy, against whom accusations of the sin of sodomy were made.

21 July 1999

Yevgeny Strelchik

Nezavisimaya Gazeta (original source)

PDS Russia Religion News (quoted source)

http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/9907e.html (in English)

On Monday, 2 August 1999, at 20.20, the flight from Krasnoyarsk that carried His Eminence Vikenty, Archbishop of Yekaterinburg and Verkhoturye, landed at Koltsovo airport. At the stairway of the plane the bishop was met by Archpriest Vladimir Ziazev, rector of Nativity of Christ parish, Archpriest Nikolai Ladiuk, rector of Transfiguration of the Lord parish, and Hieromonk Dimitry Baibakov, rector of St Panteleimon the Healer parish. After blessing the clergy, the bishop was greeted by representatives of the government, including A. G. Kobernichenko, Vice Premier of Sverdlovsk oblast, and V. P. Smirnov, advisor to the governor.

A large number of journalists covered the arrival of the new archpastor, which indicated the great interest of the general public in their new archpastor. All five local television stations attended the arrival of the bishop and conducted an interview with His Eminence at the airport. In the room of official delegations the ruling bishop held his first meeting with representatives from the oblast authorities, which proceeded in an atmosphere of complete mutual understanding and readiness for fruitful cooperation.

At Saint John the Baptist Cathedral, despite the late hour, parishioners of the city’s churches and clergy who came from all over the diocese joyfully greeted the arriving bishop. Archpriest Ioann Osipovich, one of the oldest clergymen of the diocese and a member of the diocesan council, delivered an emotional greeting speech in the name of the clergy. Then, a molieben of thanksgiving was held. The bishop addressed the flock with his first archpastoral exhortation in the land of the Urals and he blessed the overflow crowd of worshippers in the cathedral church.

3 August 1999

Pravoslavnaya Gazeta (original source)

PDS Russia Religion News (quoted source)

http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/9908a.html (in English)

The Report of the Communications Service of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Work of the Commission for the Investigation of the Crisis in the Diocese of Sourozh

The present report has been compiled from materials gathered by the Commission investigating the crisis in the Diocese of Sourozh. This is connected with the decision of the Diocesan Administrator, Bishop Basil of Sergievo, to go over to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Commission was appointed by decree of His Holiness Alexis, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, on 9 May 2006, and approved in the Minutes of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of 7 June 2006.

The temporary Administrator of the Diocese of Sourozh, Archbishop Innokenty of Korsun, was appointed Chairman of the Commission. Other members were Archbishop Mark of Berlin, Germany, and Great Britain (ROCOR), Archpriest Nikolai Balashov, Secretary for Inter-Orthodox Relations in the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate (DECR) and Priest Michael Dudko, Secretary for Church-Society Relations of the DECR.

The Commission examined oral and written evidence collected by it at two meetings: on 27 and 28 May in Oxford and 29 and 30 May in London, and also from 17 to 20 June in London. There were press interviews with those who were directly involved in the conflict, as well as those who witnessed it, and likewise documents and official correspondence on matters concerning the Diocese of Sourozh. Also there were documents of the Charity Commission, Trust Deeds, and other documents concerning Diocesan and Parish property, as well as minutes of Parish meetings, meetings of the Parish Council of the Cathedral, and meetings of the Diocesan Council and the Diocesan Assembly of the Diocese of Sourozh. These documents totalled over 2,500 pages.

The Commission‘s task was to make an objective and unprejudiced study of the crisis which had unfolded in the Diocese, on the basis of documents available to it, as well as oral and written evidence presented to the Commission by those involved in the events linked with the crisis, and by those who witnessed it.

The work of the Commission was timed to begin with the Annual Conference of the Diocese of Sourozh in Oxford. All those present were given the opportunity to share with members of the Commission their views as to why the crisis had taken place. The clergy, laypeople, and members of parish councils at the Conference were all asked for their views.

Members of the Sourozh Diocese were invited to meet the Commission on several occasions, through announcements made after services at the Cathedral and during the Diocesan Conference in Oxford. These were also placed on the official website of the Sourozh Diocese and the Cathedral notice-board. In particular cases, witnesses were invited to give their testimonies in person, either orally or else in writing. 52 individuals decided to do this before the Commission. Apart from this, 17 written testimonies were sent to the Commission.

Despite being invited three times, Bishop Basil refused to meet the Commission as a whole and he also declined a separate meeting with Archbishop Innokenty and Archbishop Mark.

The Commission noted that materials placed on the website set up with the blessing of Bishop Basil, www.dioceseinfo.org, in effect recommended members of the Sourozh Diocese not to co-operate with members of the Commission and this complicated the Commission‘s work.

At the same time, the Commission had at its disposition publications from the Russian and British press, as well as from the website set up with the blessing of Bishop Basil. In these publications, Bishop Basil himself and his supporters set out their views on the crisis and its causes. These publications were also scrutinized by the Commission.

All the information presented in this Communication is confirmed by documents and testimonies collected by the Commission and made available to the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

A Note on the Diocese of Sourozh

The basis of the Diocese of Sourozh was the Parish of the Dormition in London, which existed as the Embassy Church since 1716. Since it began it has changed address on several occasions. At the present time, it is situated in the building of the former Anglican All Saints Church.

After 1917, the Parish was in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Church Council Outside Russia. In 1926, the Parish split into those who continued to support the Karlovtsy Synod and those who supported the West-European Diocese. Each group took services in turn.

In 1931, the Parish was taken into the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

In 1945, together with the Exarchate of Western Europe, the Parish was reunited with the Moscow Patriarchate, but remained within this jurisdiction after the Western European Exarchate had returned to the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1946. At that time the Rector of the Dormition Parish was Archpriest Vladimir Theokritov (+ 1950).

In 1948, Hieromonk Anthony (Bloom) came to London, having been appointed chaplain to the Anglican-Orthodox Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius. On 1 September 1950, Hieromonk Anthony became Rector of the Russian Parish of the Dormition in London.

By that time, the Parish of the Dormition was not the only parish in Great Britain. On the initiative of N. Zernov, a Russian Orthodox centre was founded in Oxford. This was ‘The House of St Gregory and St Macrina’. Oxford became the centre of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius. Other parishes appeared, set up by Russian Orthodox communities.

In 1957 the Vicariate of Sergievo of the Exarchate of Western Europe (Moscow Patriarchate) was formed in Great Britain. Anthony (Bloom) became Bishop of Sergievo.

On 10 October 1962, the independent Diocese of Sourozh was formed, headed by Archbishop Anthony (Bloom) with the title of Sourozh.

On 1 January 2006, the clergy of the Sourozh Diocese consisted of 2 bishops, 24 priests, and 13 deacons. There were 9 parishes and 25 ‘eucharistic communities’ (communities consisting of a small number of families, where services are conducted once or twice a month), making a total of 34. 7 church buildings belonged to the parishes, 7 were private properties and the other buildings belonged to various Christian denominations.

On the basis of evidence submitted, the Commission came to the conclusion that the critical events linked to Bishop Basil’s decision to go over to the Patriarchate of Constantinople were the result of a long build-up of tension in the Diocese. Nearly all the witnesses questioned by the Commission spoke unanimously of this. This is also confirmed by the documents made available to the Commission.

One of the first signs of the build-up of tension were the events surrounding the stay in Britain of Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev). On the basis of the materials at its disposition, the Commission considered it important to point out that the appointment of Bishop Hilarion as a vicar-bishop of the Diocese of Sourozh came about exclusively in connection with the repeated and insistent demands of Metropolitan Anthony, who valued Bishop Hilarion as a bishop who could take pastoral care of the Russian-speaking part of the flock.

Witnesses mentioned that Bishop Hilarion was highly educated, had pastoral abilities, and was able to mix freely with both the Russian-speaking and the English-speaking flock. During his stay in Great Britain, Bishop Hilarion was initially well accepted by both parts of the flock. The lack of acceptance of Bishop Hilarion can be explained by actions which were interpreted by one part of the community as attempts to change established customs in the Diocese.

Bishop Basil stated that his conversations with Metropolitan Anthony about the possibility of going over to the Patriarchate of Constantinople date back to that time. This contradicts the repeated public assurances of Metropolitan Anthony of his unconditional loyalty to the Moscow Patriarchate.

Bishop Basil also stated that the preparation of ‘letters of dismissal’ for clergy of the Diocese dates back to that time and that these were written with the knowledge and approval of Metropolitan Anthony.

If this was the case, then, their preparation was kept secret, since some of the closest and most trusted assistants of Metropolitan Anthony did not know of them. According to several testimonies, Bishop Basil himself stated even then that “he had no future in the Patriarchate”.

The Commission noted that on 13 May 2002 an attempt was made to change the way in which property connected with the Cathedral was managed. On that day, there was a Parish Council meeting, at which changes to the 1944 Trust Deed were put forward. According to the 1944 Trust Deed, the management of parish property and decisions regarding issues about “the continuity of parish life and the identity of the community” remained within the competence of the Parish Council. The members of the Parish Council were elected by the Parish.

The proposed changes would have allowed property to be removed from the control of the Parish Council and handed over to the exclusive competence of unelected members of the committee of Trustees of the Parish. The attempted change was unsuccessful.

Some witnesses considered that this attempt to change the way that property connected to the Cathedral was managed was designed to ease the transfer of property, in the case of a change of jurisdiction from the Moscow Patriarchate to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

During a talk given in the Cathedral on 28 November 2002, Metropolitan Anthony himself said, “It is not a question of taking this building or any other church property away from our native Church, but of defending it, as is mentioned in the statutes of the Moscow Patriarchate, where it says that everything must be done in accordance with local laws…It is not a matter of appropriating this building or any other church property of our Diocese, but of our Diocese keeping this property intact for the Russian Church. In saying this, I hope that I have reassured those who think that we want to have the ability to separate ourselves from our native Church and take its property with us”. Such declarations were also made by Metropolitan Anthony at the Parish Council meeting on 6 November 2002.

Finally, in order to refute any suggestion that there was any intention to remove the Cathedral or the Diocese from the Moscow Patriarchate, a joint statement of Metropolitan Anthony, Archbishop Anatoly, and Bishop Basil was made on 5 January 2003 and made public at the General Meeting of the London Parish on 12 January 2003. However, the suggestion by several parishioners that this statement be published was not carried out; inasmuch as Bishop Basil stated that it had to be edited. Neither was this statement sent to His Holiness the Patriarch.

However, documents confirm that at the Diocesan Assemblies and at Parish Council meetings the question of changing the management of property was clearly discussed in the context of “a possible conflict with Moscow about property”.

Witnesses call the period between July 2002 and December 2005 relatively calm. All the witnesses noted that Metropolitan Anthony’s funeral was an extremely significant event for the Diocese, which spiritually united all its members.

Many documents testify to the fact that Bishop Basil and diocesan clergy openly supported the initiatives of the Moscow Patriarchate connected with the organisation of the Church in Western Europe.

Nevertheless, the Commission considered it necessary to point out that critical events were taking place at this time.

It is clear from evidence submitted that even in 2002 Bishop Basil was trying to persuade Metropolitan Anthony to go over to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This met with strong objections from the Metropolitan. Later on, Bishop Basil often used to talk of the possibility of going over to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The situation developed further under the influence of Metropolitan Anthony’s decision that Bishop Basil should take care of the English-speaking part of the flock and Archbishop Anatoly the Russian-speaking part, “not under Bishop Basil, but, working together”, in other words virtually independently of one another. This was stated by Metropolitan Anthony at the Extraordinary Meeting of the Cathedral Parish on 12 January 2003.

At the same time as repeatedly publicly confirming his loyalty to the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Anthony also carefully wished to preserve the original features of the Diocese, which was later interpreted by supporters of the separatist current in their favour.

Witnesses say that relations between Archbishop Anatoly and Bishop Basil were tense and this was expressed particularly clearly immediately before Bishop Basil’s decision to change jurisdictions. Letters of Bishop Basil and Archbishop Anatoly at that time also witness to this.

On the basis of evidence submitted, the Commission considers it necessary to point out that Archbishop Anatoly lived in a damp basement flat and for a long time his monthly salary was at a level several times inferior to that of other members of the Cathedral clergy. Archbishop Anatoly was distanced from decisions regarding the running of the Cathedral, including liturgical decisions. Witnesses spoke of instances when some of the parishioners and choir members behaved in a rude and tactless manner and did not carry out Archbishop Anatoly’s instructions when he was celebrating.

In his open letter of 9 May 2006, Bishop Basil speaks of insufficient help given to him by Archbishop Anatoly in caring for the Russian-speaking flock, and his support of “dissident” attitudes.

The Commission considers it important to note that witnesses unanimously testified that the critical events concerned only the Cathedral in London. There was no tension in the other parishes of the Diocese. The fact that they belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church did not hinder English-speaking priests from working with their flocks.

Letters of Russian-speaking parishioners from 2002-2003 mention that there were not enough Russian-speaking priests in the parish to celebrate services and, in particular, to confess, that English was gradually used more and more as a liturgical language, and that this was disproportionate to the actual number of English people at the Cathedral, that Bishop Basil was not trusted and that he spoke about the possibility of going over to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Those who wrote these letters called attention to the neglect of Russian Orthodox traditions in the way that both regular and occasional services were celebrated.

The reply of Metropolitan Kirill, the Chairman of the External Relations Department of the Moscow Patriarchate, according to the appraisal of Bishop Basil himself, tried to support the unity and to preserve the integrity of the Diocese.

The problems mentioned came up between 2002 and 2005, and also later, at Parish Council meetings and at General Meetings of the Cathedral, but were not dealt with effectively.

Bishop Basil’s decision to go over to another jurisdiction was preceded by the very recent conflict linked to Archpriest Andrei Teterin. The Commission noted that Archpriest Andrei was found in Russia by Archpriest Michael Fortounatto and was sent to serve in London at the personal and insistent request of Bishop Basil.

Witnesses mentioned the pastoral qualities of Archpriest Andrei Teterin and his high authority among all parishioners at the beginning of his stay in London. Towards the end of his service, Archpriest Andrei Teterin began to express the interests and needs of that part of the parishioners who wanted to see practices in the parishes brought into line with those to which they were accustomed before coming to England.

From December 2005 onwards, Archpriest Andrei Teterin harshly criticised not only established liturgical practices, but also the leadership of the Diocese and clergy of the Cathedral.

The bans imposed on Father Andrei by the leadership of the Diocese because of his outspokenness at the Conference of the Russian Christian Movement seem excessively strict. The Commission noted that his suspension was accompanied by a prohibition not only to be in the altar, but also to be in the church itself, which seems unthinkable from a canonical viewpoint.

The conflict between the Diocesan leadership and Archpriest Andrei Teterin developed in a written form. There was no personal contact and Archpriest Andrei was not summoned for a discussion and this only made the situation worse.

In his correspondence with Bishop Basil, Archpriest Andrei Teterin used disrespectful and improper expressions, which are inadmissible for one ordained to the priesthood.

The dismissal of Archpriest Andrei Teterin aroused indignation among a significant part of the Russian-speaking parishioners and this was reflected in internet polemics and letters sent to Moscow requesting support.

Bishop Basil’s accusations that the DECR supported the protestors in the parish are not founded on solid facts and are not supported by documentary evidence.

Contrary to the assertions of Bishop Basil, support for his efforts, aimed at normalising church life and especially at reconciling the various groups of the faithful in the Sourozh Diocese, was repeatedly expressed in letters sent to him by His Holiness Patriarch Alexis and the leadership of the DECR.

On 20 March 2006 Bishop Basil sent out a decree dismissing six members of the Cathedral Parish Council who had openly advocated closer links between the Diocese of Sourozh and the life and practices of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Commission noted that the members of the Parish Council who had been dismissed had been elected by the Parish Meeting, in accordance with established parish procedures. The dismissal of members of the Parish Council by decree of the Diocesan Administrator contradicted established procedures for the replacement of members of the Council. Since, according to the Trust Deed, members of the Parish Council are responsible for managing parish property, the dismissed supporters of the Moscow Patriarchate might well have thought that this was a preparation for going over to another jurisdiction.

The letter addressed to His Holiness Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All Russia, stating his intention to transfer to the Patriarchate of Constantinople was sent by Bishop Basil just when the Secretary for Relations between Church and Society of the DECR, Fr Michael Dudko, was in London. He had gone to London to help with services at the Cathedral during Lent and Easter. This need had arisen in connection with the removal of Archpriest Andrei Teterin. Bishop Basil was positive about the fact that Fr Michael had been sent to London. Subsequent assertions by Bishop Basil that Fr Michael Dudko had refused to meet his supporters do not correspond to reality.

On 24 April 2006, Bright Monday, Bishop Basil sent a letter to His Holiness Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All Russia, stating his intention to go over to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. On 4 May, this letter arrived at the DECR for translation into Russian. On 5 May, His Holiness Patriarch Alexis sent a reply to Bishop Basil, exhorting him to continue his work in caring for the flock of the Sourozh Diocese within the Russian Orthodox Church.

On 2 May, without waiting for His Holiness’ reply, Bishop Basil sent a letter to Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople with a request to be received into his jurisdiction. A day before this, on 1 May, Bishop Basil had sent out a letter to the clergy of the Sourozh Diocese with an appeal to follow him into the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

The Commission noted that the letters had been sent off without consulting the clergy and laity of the Diocese. The fact that a letter had been sent to His Holiness Patriarch Alexis was not revealed for some days.

Without waiting for a reply from the Moscow Patriarchate, Bishop Basil sent a letter to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which he then refused to withdraw. Despite a request not to reveal his decision to leave for another jurisdiction until he had learned of the contents of the reply of His Holiness Patriarch Alexis, handed to him before the liturgy in London on 7 May, Bishop Basil made an announcement to the Parish that day about the step that he had taken, without acquainting himself with the reply.

Bishop Basil did not avail himself of the offer to meet His Holiness Patriarch Alexis in order to discuss the situation and did not reply in writing to the appeal of the Head of the Russian Orthodox Church to him.

His reasons for going over to the Constantinople jurisdiction and the timing of it were set out by Bishop Basil in his Open Letter to members of the Diocese of Sourozh on 16 May 2006.

Bishop Basil wrote that he had decided to go over to another jurisdiction, “because it had become obvious that the Moscow Patriarchate was planning to make the Diocese of Sourozh correspond to its idea of a ‘normal diocese’ outside Russia”, and that, in his opinion, their first concern would be the recent arrivals from the former Soviet Union.

Bishop Basil also explained his departure by his lengthy temporary status as Diocesan Administrator, the lack of help from Archbishop Anatoly, the confrontation with Archpriest Andrei Teterin and part of the Parish Council, the internet campaign against him as Diocesan Administrator, and, in the words of Bishop Basil, the fact that, “I saw that I was gradually being worn down under pressure from the opposition”.

The personal nature of the decision, that is, the lack of any preliminary consultations with the clergy and the Diocesan Assembly, are explained by Bishop Basil as his fear of dismissal, before such time as he could take steps, “so that the clergy would be released from obedience to the Patriarchate”.

In this connection, the Commission noted that there is no evidence that anyone wished to make ‘the first concern’ of the Sourozh Diocese the care for new arrivals from the former Soviet Union, to the detriment of continuing care for English people and representatives of the old emigration. For some years after the death of Metropolitan Anthony, church life there has kept its original features in full, in accordance with his vision of the future of the Sourozh Diocese.

Neither is there any evidence that the Moscow Patriarchate put in doubt the traditional diocesan mission to English speakers.

Despite the naming of His Grace Bishop Basil as Bishop of Sergievo, and not of Sourozh, this fact did not have any influence on his full authority as the Diocesan Administrator officially appointed by the Holy Synod.

At the same time there were many protests from members of the Diocese, which mentioned his inability to put forward a programme of diocesan life suitable for all its members, both English and Russian-speaking. The adoption by him of the episcopal title of Sourozh, corresponding to that of the Diocese, but without changing anything in the scope of his powers, could have led to even sharper controversy.

The confrontation with one member of the diocesan clergy, Archpriest Andrei Teterin, had already been overcome by his ejection from England when the decision to go over to another jurisdiction was taken.

A confrontation with part of the Parish Council did indeed take place, but on issues which really troubled the parishioners at the Cathedral and members of the Diocese. The calming of this confrontation was a management problem, which should have been implemented gradually with the participation of all members of the Parish and the Diocese, taking into account their interests.

What Bishop Basil called in his Open Letter “an internet campaign” was not an action organised by anyone and aimed at discrediting Bishop Basil. In the Forum of Deacon Andrei Kuraev, among a great many others, a free discussion arose spontaneously, in which supporters and critics of Bishop Basil took part.

The tiredness of Bishop Basil, connected with solving problems in running the complex Sourozh Diocese, of which he speaks in his Open Letter, was his personal problem, which should not have been dealt with by changing jurisdictions.

The personal nature of the decision he took to go over to another jurisdiction does not correspond to the spirit and the letter of the statutes of the Diocese of Sourozh, to which Bishop Basil professes loyalty.

The secrecy which surrounded the decision to change jurisdictions cannot be explained, as Bishop Basil tries in his Open Letter, by a possible move to counter the handing out of letters of dismissal. As Bishop Basil himself testifies, these ‘letters of dismissal’ had already been prepared beforehand in February.

Some witnesses explained the timing of the move to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople by the imminent re-elections to the Parish Council. In connection with the increasing numbers of new Russian-speaking parishioners with the right to vote, the supporters of unity with the Moscow Patriarchate could have obtained a majority on the Council. This would have complicated the transfer of property to another jurisdiction. In this connection, witnesses pointed out infringements of electoral procedures to the Parish Council in recent years.

The so-called “letters of dismissal” were not sent out by Bishop Basil to all clergy of the Diocese. These letters were not sent to those members of the clergy whose loyalty to the Russian Orthodox Church was beyond doubt.

Some members of the clergy who received so-called “letters of dismissal” had not requested them from Bishop Basil. The so-called “letters of dismissal” were sent out by Bishop Basil on 11 May 2006, that is, at a time when he had already been released from running the Diocese and had been retired until the affair had been examined.

The so-called “letters of dismissal” were signed and dated 2 February 2006. This must mean that Bishop Basil had already “dismissed” his Diocese then, which does not correspond to reality. In fact, diocesan life had been going on as before. Witnesses remark that, until they were sent out on 11 May, they had not known of their existence.

The so-called “letters of dismissal” were not addressed to a particular bishop, but written out to clerics with the words, “To whom it may concern”. This contradicts the canonical sense of this document and is unprecedented in the practice of the Church.

The Commission particularly noted that even after the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople had decided to receive Bishop Basil into its jurisdiction and given him the title “of Amphipolis”, Bishop Basil sent out letters with this title on them to clerics of the Sourozh Diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate with an appeal to follow him. Regardless of any assessment of the canonicity of the decision of the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople, such conduct by a bishop towards the clergy of another jurisdiction is unprecedented and inadmissible.

Members of the Commission emphasised that the accusation of nationalism among Russian-speaking supporters of the Russian Orthodox Church were refuted by numerous testimonies of witnesses. English people questioned by the Commission had not noticed any prejudiced attitudes towards them on the part of other members of the Parish and Diocese. There is no evidence of any significant national conflict in the Parish or in the Diocese.

Many witnesses named “the lack of financial transparency” in the life of the Cathedral in London and the Diocese as a whole as one of the reasons for the crisis, as this left open the possibility of misuse of moneys.

Bishop Basil’s poor execution of his administrative duties in running the Diocese and his lack of real pastoral contact with the Russian-speaking flock served to deepen the crisis.

Having reported on the course of the investigation and the evidence collected on the critical events in the Diocese of Sourozh, the Commission asked the members of the Holy Synod to bear in mind that the facts presented may be incomplete, but, that this is connected to the resolute refusal of His Grace Bishop Basil and his close entourage to co-operate. The Commission expressed the hope that this gap could yet be filled by the personal explanations of Bishop Basil.

21 August 2006

Interfax-Religion

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=documents&div=90 (in English)