Web Site Archives

The following is an archival document from the Diocese of Sourozh web site, dating from before the web site's update in April 2007. These archival documents are provided for the benefit of those sites which maintain links to older documentation. Please also visit the current web site of the Diocese of Sourozh.

The Declaration of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church relating to the decision of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople concerning the reception into its jurisdiction of Bishop Basil (Osborne)

In order to preserve the unity of Universal Orthodoxy and witness peacefully to the Gospel of Christ it is absolutely necessary for the Local Orthodox Churches that relations between them should be guided by the immovable standards set out in the canons of the Holy Apostles, the holy Ecumenical and Local Councils and the holy Fathers of the Church.

In particular, the holy canons ordain that ‘the privileges of the Churches should be preserved’ (Canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council) and caution ‘that none of the bishops who are most beloved by God should extend their authority to another diocese, which has not previously and from the beginning been under them or their predecessors’ (Canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council). In the same canon the Fathers of the Third Ecumenical Council characterised a violation of this basic canonical principle as ‘a novelty, introduced contrary to the resolutions of the Church and the canons of the Holy Apostles, encroaching on the freedom of all’. For this reason they indicated that if thereafter anyone ‘should put forward a resolution conflicting with this, let it now be decreed to be invalid, as is pleasing to the whole Holy and Ecumenical Council’.

Meanwhile, according to the statement released by the Secretariat of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and later confirmed by the letter of His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, on 8 June this year, the former Bishop of Sergievo, Basil, who was recently dismissed from administering the Diocese of Sourozh of the Moscow Patriarchate, has been received into the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. It was also declared that the Right Reverend Basil had been elected as an assistant bishop to Archbishop Gabriel of Comana with the title of Bishop of Amphipolis, and received into the Western European Exarchate of Orthodox Parishes of the Russian Tradition, in the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

By virtue of the above-mentioned resolution of an Ecumenical Council, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church does not recognize the validity of this decision and considers that it contradicts the holy canons. Bishop Basil remains within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate and any decision regarding his future situation is the prerogative of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church.

At the same time, such an obviously unbrotherly act of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople towards the Russian Orthodox Church creates a clear threat to the unity of the Holy Churches of God and undermines the canonical foundations of their mutual relations. For, by its above decision, the Most Holy Church of Constantinople, contrary to many Conciliar resolutions (Canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council, Canon 2 of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council, Canon 3 of the Council of Sardica), arrogantly takes to itself the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other Local Churches. What has occurred witnesses to the striking incompatibility of the present actions of the Throne of Constantinople with Orthodox ecclesiology and the canonical tradition of the Universal Church, and to an extremely dangerous obscuring of canonical consciousness.

As a basis for its decision, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople refers to Canons 9, 17 and 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. However, this reference is manifestly illegitimate and implies a reinterpretation of the above canons which is anti-historical and contrary to the spirit of the canons.

The above-mentioned canons of the Council of Chalcedon do not in any way grant to His Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople the right to intrude into the affairs of other Local Churches and, in particular, to take into his jurisdiction a hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church without the letter of dismissal stipulated by the holy canons (Apostolic Canon 33, Council of Carthage, Canon 32).

The true meaning of Canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which indicate the possibility of judicial appeal to ‘the Throne of Imperial Constantinople’, is convincingly explained in the ‘Pedalion’ or Rudder of St Nicodemus the Athonite, which is accepted in the code of canons of the Church of Constantinople itself: ‘The Patriarch of Constantinople does not have authority to act in the provinces and territories of other Patriarchs...Constantinople is...the judge of the Metropolitans within its jurisdiction, but not of those in the jurisdiction of other Patriarchs, because only an Ecumenical Council, and no-one else, is the ultimate and universal judge of all Patriarchs’.

Similarly, in interpreting Canon 17 of the Council of Chalcedon, the authoritative Byzantine commentator John Zonaras emphasizes that: ‘The Patriarch of Constantinople is not the judge of all Metropolitans without exception, but only of those within his jurisdiction. For he cannot draw to his tribunal the Metropolitans of Syria, Palestine, Phoenicia or Egypt, against their will; but the Metropolitans of Syria are subject to the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch, the Palestinians to the tribunal of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and the Egyptians must be judged by the Patriarch of Alexandria, by whom they have been consecrated and to whom they are subject’.

In the case of Bishop Basil there could be no question of judicial appeal, inasmuch as his case has not so far been examined by the Hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church in a judicial manner. When the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople took its decision, the case of Bishop Basil was the subject of investigation by a special commission appointed by the Higher Church Authority of the Moscow Patriarchate to study the reasons for the crisis which had arisen in the diocese which had been in the administration of His Grace Bishop Basil.

Nevertheless, prior to and apart from the judgement of the Local Russian Church, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople considered that it was possible to implement its decision, without a comprehensive investigation of the case, without hearing witnesses, without addressing itself to the Hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate and without even first informing it of the step it was taking.

With respect to Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, it is vital to recall that it concerns only certain provinces, the boundaries of which represent the limits of the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the bishops ‘of the barbarians’. The concept that this canon extends the authority of the Throne of Constantinople to all territories that are not part of one or another Local Church is a novel interpretation, and one that is not recognised by the Orthodox Church as a whole. As soon as such an interpretation arose, its implementation led many times over to grave disorders in relations between the Local Orthodox Churches and caused serious harm to the unity of world Orthodoxy. The Russian Orthodox Church has repeatedly called for this teaching, unheard of previously, to be examined by all the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches at a future Pan-Orthodox Council. Today, however, to our profound sorrow, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, without waiting for this issue to be decided by the whole Orthodox Church, has taken its pretensions even further. In his letter No. 631, dated 8 June 2006, addressed to His Holiness Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and All Russia, concerning Bishop Basil (Osborne), His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, citing this particular interpretation of the above-mentioned Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, asserts that the Patriarchate of Constantinople ‘at the present time restricts itself to implementing it only in those cases where representatives of the diaspora ask of their own accord to be taken into the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Throne’. It is thereby proclaimed that not only His Grace Bishop Basil, but also any hierarch or cleric, outside the limits of the geographical borders of his Local Church, can now be received into the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, without the knowledge of the hierarchs who ordained him, without a canonical letter of dismissal and without the permission of his Hierarchy.

We are convinced that acts like these, which destroy mutual trust and undermine the peace and joint witness of the Local Churches, open the way to further abuses, which may have disastrous consequences for Orthodox unity.

The Church of Constantinople, which takes precedence in the holy diptychs, instead of being pre-eminent in brotherly love and in guarding the canons of the Church, has participated together with Bishop Basil in violating the canons. He did not fear to go against the universally accepted standards set by the canons (Canon 33 of the Holy Apostles, Canon 32 of the Council of Carthage, Canons 14 and 15 of the ‘Twice-repeated’ Council) and he broke the oath of obedience to the Holy Synod which he made when he was consecrated bishop. Furthermore, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has to all intents and purposes stated its readiness to act in a similar way in the future, which can only aggravate the highly dangerous discord that exists in the Church.

For this reason the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church categorically rejects the uncanonical resolution adopted on 8 June this year by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and with deep regret, calls the attention of the Orthodox world to it. We await from the Patriarchate of Constantinople effective steps to correct the negative consequences of the decision in question and also the renunciation of similar acts in the future.

The Holy Synod calls His Grace Bishop Basil to repentance, without which his further service in the Church is impossible. Should Bishop Basil fail to repent, then a church court may take the appropriate decision in relation to him.

Conscious of the general responsibility to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4, 3), we call upon our brothers in Christ the Saviour to restore justice and love, ‘that we may not be seen to bring the smoke of the arrogance of the world into the Church of Christ, which brings the light of simplicity and the daylight of humility of mind to those who wish to see God’ (The Epistle of the African Council to Celestine, Pope of Rome).