In English:
Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Russia: Faith cannot be driven away from the life of society
The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia Makes a Decision on the “Act on Canonical Communion”
Address of the Synod of Bishops to the God-loving flock of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
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

En français:
Patriarche Alexis de Moscou et de toute la Russie: «La perte du Kosovo signifie pour les Serbes la renonciation à leur propre histoire»
Métropolite Cyrille de Smolensk et de Kaliningrad: L’Eglise orthodoxe russe aujourd’hui (I)
L’évêque Hilarion a célébré ses quarante ans

Auf Deutsch:
Moskau und Konstantinopel glauben keinen Traenen

Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Russia: Faith cannot be driven away from the life of society

Message to the International Conference ‘Dialogue of Cultures and Interfaith Cooperation’ September 7-9, 2006, Nizhniy Novgorod

Distinguished Participants in the Conference:

It is very gratifying that the Russian chairmanship in the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, with which your Conference is timed, will be marked with a consideration of such an important and topical theme as dialogue of cultures and interfaith cooperation.

It is not right away that the European human rights thinking came to realize the role played by religion in the task of protection of human rights, which is a priority for the Council of Europe. Regrettably, even today some are convinced of the self-sufficiency of a human rights doctrine based exclusively on the materialistic understanding of the individual and society and focused on the interests of the individual.

This view however has been disproved by historical experience. The Preamble to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states that ‘the aim of the Council of Europe is the achievement of greater unity between its members’. Today it can be stated with certainty: the use of human rights in isolation from their moral basis can not only divide states but also atomize any society. That is why the implementation of human rights becomes a guarantee of peace and unity only if it is based on spiritual and ethical values.

Dialogue of cultures and preservation of their diversity is the only alternative to the crisis of the modern world order that has allowed the fruitless attempts to impose on all nations the impersonal models of political and economic development rooted in only one culture but declared universal and universally obligatory. This situation has facilitated the development of unprecedented forms of terrorism and extremism which we condemn and which should be opposed.

Faith, which is inherent in human conscience, cannot be driven away from the life of society. Evidence to it is not only the experience of the Soviet Union. It is my conviction that Western Europe will soon realize this, too, from its own experience. However, religious motivation of human actions can be not only a factor of peace but can turn into an instrument of fanaticism. Certainly, society and state should use the former opportunity, otherwise the latter one will be used by those who shun no means for achieving their low goals.

PACE Recommendation 1720 on Education and Religion, adopted in the end of 2005, states that ‘knowledge of religions is dying out’ and refers to the media’s ‘regrettable ignorance of religions’ and other realities in the continent. These disturbing remarks suggest that the peacemaking potential of religion remains unused. I hope that the recent initiatives of the Council of Europe to establish constructive relations with religious communities will help religion to stay invariably a factor of peace motivating people to ‘act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood’ as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights appeals.

The Russian Orthodox Church has repeatedly stated that it is religious education traditional for every nation that can help prevent the spreading of radical pseudo-religious ideas. In this we are at one with other religious communities in the world. Thus, the final document of the World Summit of Religious Leaders that was held on July 3-5, 2006, in Moscow states that extremism and terrorism can be really overcome only ‘through education and moral formation’. Nobody questions the need to study safety measures when there is a threat of man-made disasters. But people’s religious world, the knowledge of which has been kept by religious traditions for centuries, is often offered for a free search ‘by means of trial and error’. These ‘errors’ however have made the entire humanity pay for them today. They are especially dangerous when made by the mass media since journalists, who often commit blasphemy because of religious ignorance, tend to stir up religious strife against their will at the cost of innocent people’s lives.

I believe these and other issues will be given an in-depth consideration by the conference which has gathered together religious leaders, representatives of international organizations, authoritative experts, state and public leaders from many countries. I wish all the participants in the conference that you may search and find ‘the things which make for peace and things with which one may edify another’ (Rom. 14:19).

---

The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia Makes a Decision on the “Act on Canonical Communion”

The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, at its regular session on August 24/September 6, 2006, considered:

The report of the Secretary of the Commission on discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate, Protopriest Alexander Lebedeff, on the results of the seventh joint meeting of the Commissions held in late June of this year.

After an exhaustive discussion of the matter, decreed:

+ Metropolitan Laurus, President
+ Archbishop Mark
+ Archbishop Kyrill
+ Bishop Michael
+ Bishop Peter

---

Address of the Synod of Bishops to the God-loving flock of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

Dear in the Lord Fathers, Brothers and Sisters!

For 90 years now, the dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia have existed on all continents, along with monasteries, publishing houses and parishes. Everything that signifies church life: parish councils, sisterhoods, schools, youth groups, general parish meetings, magnificent choirs, altar boys, etc. gathered around them. All this arose as diocesan conferences and Church Councils convened, which regulated all of church life. Thus, through the chaos of the persecution of the Russian Church, the Russian Orthodox people gathered to stand around their Hierarchy, which found itself abroad, and strove to serve towards the emancipation and rebirth of their people on the foundation of the Orthodox Faith.

Within the boundaries of Russia, persecution took the form of the absolute destruction of faith in Christ. Much was destroyed, many suffered. But the Lord did not permit the disappearance of the Church in our Homeland. In those places where ancient churches survived, people are once again gaining spiritual nourishment. That which was destroyed is being rebuilt. Church life is rising from the ashes. Archpastors, clergymen and believers are trying to rebuild Orthodox Russia anew. This process of renascence requires effort and the strength of will, since it is necessary to conduct spiritual educational work with the descendants of the generations of godless violence which touched absolutely every person without exception. Many obstacles remain on this path, but we see that these obstacles, and the remnants of Soviet times, are gradually being overcome.

The day has arrived when we must seek the reestablishment of communion with the wellspring of our own traditions. For there are two wills at work—one being that of those Russians who are children of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, prepared in every way to cooperate in the reestablishment of church life and development of the spirituality of the people, and the other is from our brethren and sisters in Russia, who labor towards her rebirth and extend their hand to us.

Positive changes in the church life of our Homeland spurred the Council of Bishops of October 2000 to establish a Committee on the unity of the Russian Church and to bless the organization of scholarly conferences on church history with the participation of the members of our Church and representatives of the Church in Russia. These conferences were held in 2001 and 2002. Then, in December 2003, a Commission on discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate was formed. At the same time, the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate decided to create a similar Commission on dialog with our Church. This bore witness to the earnest and good-willed effort of both parts of the Russian Orthodox Church to make sense of the tragedy of our common history, so that we "may discuss peacefully… whatever question there is which separates your communion from us," as we read in Canon 92 (103) of the Council of Carthage, which called upon the flock to trust their Hierarchy, which possessed the right to heal the divisions between the Orthodox and the Donatists.

The "Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia," the by-laws under which our Church lives, demand that we regularize the situation of the Local Russian Church. It is important to note that a commission to revise the "Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia" was established before the year 2000.

This shows that even then it was apparent that our "Regulations" are in need of amendment. Since 2000, new possibilities emerged in this regard. Now, in connection with the adoption of the "Act on Canonical Communion," our by-laws can be reexamined, taking into account new possibilities.

Still, it is necessary to point out that we are not discussing the "self-abolishment" of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Our Church will exist as before, as attested to by the first paragraph of the "Act on Canonical Communion:" "The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, conducting its salvific service in the dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods and other ecclesiastical bodies that took shape through history, remains an indissoluble part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church." These words in the "Act" attest to the recognition on the part of the Moscow Patriarchate of our historical path and of the living bond between the entire Local Russian Orthodox Church and its part abroad, which always existed and which we never denied. This historical document will reestablish the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church, through this mutual act acknowledging the lawful status of the Russian Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate in Russia. Each side, preserving its identity as a Church, will continue to exist in full legality and independence, but now recognizing the other side and declaring the unity of the Russian Church. For this reason, this means the reconciliation and mutual recognition of each other while yet preserving our administrative self-governance, for we understand the needs of our clergy and of our flock better than they understand them in Moscow.

The IV All-Diaspora Council and the Council of Bishops that followed approved the steps towards reestablishing unity already taken by our Hierarchy, and blessed its continued progress.

The above-mentioned "Act" has been approved and confirmed by the Synod of Bishops, but it will be finally adopted when it is signed by the Primates of the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church. Working out the details of this signing, and also the Rite of the establishment of canonical communion has been assigned to the Commission on discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate. It is expected that it will embark on this task jointly with the Commission on dialog with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia at their next meeting. Then, the results of this meeting will be considered at the next session of the Synod of Bishops, which will be held in December of this year.

Dear in the Lord fathers, brothers and sisters! We do not intend to depart from our positions of principle, in particular with regard to the ecumenical movement. We intend to continue to firmly speak out in condemnation of the so-called "branch theory" and of joint prayer with heretics, which is emphasized in our anathema of ecumenism adopted by the Council of Bishops of 1983. This is reflected in the documents of the church Commissions confirmed by both Holy Synods and published in the official publications of the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church. From this we see that in the Moscow Patriarchate, our attitude towards the heresy of ecumenism has long ago been absorbed. That is why we are not compromising the inherited principles which have always guided us. Still, we were always open to dialog with everyone, but on the condition that this be done without any hindrance to Orthodox teaching. In the decisions of the Councils of Bishops we always held fast to the ecclesiology of moderation, and never rejected the presence of grace in the Moscow Patriarchate or in other Local Churches.

We will continue to maintain the spirit of our great fathers, the founders of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, following their legacy and the historical path of our Church. To carry this great inheritance to Russia is the mission we strive to fulfill.

We will always remember that only in the Kingdom of Heaven will everything be perfect and good, that in the Church on earth we will perpetually experience difficulties caused by human passions, failings, temptations and sins, which must be overcome by means of beneficial fraternal dialog and cooperation, condescension, understanding and a Christian attitude towards each other, as Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians: "correct such a one in the spirit of meekness" (Galatians 6:1).

In conclusion, let us remember Schema-Archimandrite Amvrossy (Kurganov) of blessed memory, the Abbot of Vvedensky Milkovo Monastery in Serbia, whence came several bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, since departed. The eminent church figure of the Russian diaspora, P.S. Lopukhin, writing on the Christian death of Fr Amvrossy, said: "I preserve in my memory this image of a man, weeping in joy on his death bed for Divine unity." Blessed Metropolitan Anthony said of Fr Amvrossy that in spirit he was closer to him than anyone.

May God grant all of us to experience this feeling of "spiritual joy in Divine unity," leading us to the successful conclusion of the process of reconciliation of the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church.

May the Lord help us! Amen.

---

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 SupremeChurch 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 an assistant 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 criticized 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 normalizing 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 organized 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 member of clergy who received the 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 emphasized 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.

---

Patriarche Alexis de Moscou et de toute la Russie: «La perte du Kosovo signifie pour les Serbes la renonciation à leur propre histoire»

Dans une conférence de presse du 25 août le patriarche Alexis de Moscou et de toute la Russie a répondu aux questions des journalistes concernant la situation dans la région autonome du Kosovo. «Pour le peuple serbe, a-t-il affirmé, la terre du Kosovo est sacrée, bénie par la présence depuis des siècles des centaines d’églises et des dizaines de monastères. Hélas, aujourd’hui avec l’approbation tacite des médias et de l’opinion publique occidentale ces anciennes églises sont détruites et le peuple serbe se trouve privé de son patrimoine spirituel.»

Le patriarche Alexis a insisté sur le caractère indésirable du projet de la création d’un Etat du Kosovo. «Plus d’une fois j’ai souligné que le Kosovo est une terre sacrée. Perdre le Kosovo signifie pour les Serbes perdre ses hauts-lieux de spiritualité et ainsi de renoncer à leur propre histoire.»

Au cours des pourparlers récents à Vienne les Serbes ont exprimé leur accord à la mise en place d’une large autonomie de la région du Kosovo au sein de la Serbie. Le patriarche Alexis a exprimé son espoir que la sagesse et le bon sens l’emporteront dans le règlement du conflit.

---

Métropolite Cyrille de Smolensk et de Kaliningrad: L’Eglise orthodoxe russe aujourd’hui

Extraits du livre «L’Evangile et la liberté. Les valeurs de la Tradition dans la société laïque» (Paris: Cerf, 2006)

Monseigneur, lorsqu’on parle de l’Eglise russe en Occident, on lui associe souvent la tradition de la «sobornost’», de la  «conciliarité», présentée par les slavophiles du XIXe siècle comme la marque propre de l’orthodoxie et notamment de la Russie. Qu’est-ce pour vous que cette sobornost’?

Le principe de la conciliarité est le fondement même de la vie de l’Église orthodoxe. Il est présent à tous les niveaux: dans la vie de la paroisse, du diocèse, de l’Église locale et, enfin, de toute la famille universelle des Églises orthodoxes. La conciliarité est aussi pour nous synonyme de catholicité, c’est-à-dire du ministère universel accomplit par l’Église dans le monde, sa capacité d’embrasser tous les peuples, tous les hommes.

La particularité de la conception de la sobornost’ des slavophiles du XIXe siècle, notamment celle de Khomiakov, consistait dans le fait qu’il la considérait non seulement comme le mode de fonctionnement de l’Église, mais aussi comme le fondement spirituel de l’organisation du peuple et de la société. La sobornost’ était pour eux bien plus que la démocratie. C’était la participation du peuple à la vie du pays, une participation inspirée par les principes éthiques chrétiens provenant d’une expérience de communion spirituelle et mystique dans l’Église.

Cette sobornost’ est-elle spécifiquement russe?

Effectivement, en plus de l’importance accordée au principe conciliaire, les slavophiles se distinguaient de ceux que nous appelons «occidentalistes» par une vénération particulière pour l’histoire de la Russie, un attachement à l’idée de la spécificité religieuse et culturelle russe, le refus d’emprunter sans aucune distance critique les fruits de la pensée occidentale. Mais en même temps ces slavophiles russes avaient une formation européenne, refusaient tout isolationnisme et étaient ouverts au dialogue.

Mais il me semble que la principale erreur historique aussi bien des slavophiles que des occidentalistes fut de n’avoir pas cherché à élaborer, d’un commun accord, par le dialogue, un paradigme du développement culturel, social et politique de la Russie. La polémique entre ces deux pensées n’a jamais débouché sur un dialogue et cela, en fin de compte, a contribué à la désagrégation de la société russe et à l’amplification des tendances révolutionnaires. Tout le monde sait quelle tragédie nationale s’en suivit. Je crois qu’il existe aujourd’hui des conditions propices à ce que la société russe renonce à l’idée d’un choix radical entre ces deux modes de pensée et se mette sur la voie de l’élaboration d’une idée nationale incluant ce qu’il y a de meilleur aussi bien chez les slavophiles que chez les occidentalistes. Il est très important que l’Occident accueille favorablement le choix qui sera fait par la Russie et n’y voie pas un danger pour l’édification de l’espace européen. De nos jours, au XXIe siècle, certaines idées des slavophiles peuvent nous paraître naïves, voire inconsistantes. Elles n’ont pourtant pas perdu de leur actualité et peuvent encore, je le crois, nous aider à mieux comprendre les processus qui se déroulent dans le monde d’aujourd’hui.

Certains théologiens russes de l’émigration, comme le père Nicolas Afanassieff, se sont réclamés de la sobornost’ pour fonder ce que l’on a appelé une « ecclésiologie eucharistique », selon laquelle l’Eglise se réalise avant tout dans la célébration du mystère eucharistique – et cela à l’encontre d’une ecclésiologie institutionnelle ou hiérarchique. Qu’en pensez-vous?

L’ecclésiologie eucharistique, sous la forme qu’elle a reçue dans la théologie orthodoxe au XXe siècle, est un remarquable exemple de la créativité de la tradition ecclésiale. Elle fut dans une grande mesure une réponse orthodoxe aux questions auxquelles l’Église occidentale était confrontée. En effet, l’ecclésiologie eucharistique est née plutôt dans le contexte culturel et théologique de l’Occident. De nombreux historiens du dogme considèrent à juste titre que l’ecclésiologie orthodoxe eut un lien très vivant, surtout par l’intermédiaire du père Yves Congar, avec les réflexions théologiques qui ont accompagné le concile Vatican II. Elles ont peut-être même exercé une certaine influence sur elles.

Je pense que nous devons concevoir l’ecclésiologie eucharistique non pas comme une doctrine achevée, mais comme une des interprétations – très fructueuse du reste – du mystère inépuisable de l’Église. Nous devons continuer à scruter la nature de l’Église, y compris à la lumière de l’Eucharistie.

Vous ne souscrivez donc pas à la position de certains tenants de l’ecclésiologie eucharistique pour lesquels l’Eglise se trouve tout entière dans la communauté célébrant l’eucharistie?

L’ecclésiologie orthodoxe professe que toute communauté chrétienne possède la plénitude de la vie ecclésiale. Mais c’est le diocèse, dirigé par un évêque, qui est la réalisation concrète de la plénitude, du plérôme de l’Église du Christ dans un endroit précis, dans une région. Voilà pourquoi le diocèse est appelé «Église locale» (mestnaïa Tserkov) dans le Statut de l’Eglise orthodoxe russe de 2000. Toutefois, sur le plan administratif, le diocèse n’est pas une entité autosuffisante: il fait partie d’une Église locale autocéphale (pomestnaïa Tserkov), en l’occurrence de l’Église orthodoxe russe. En tant que partie d’une Église autocéphale le diocèse demeure en communion avec les autres Églises locales qui composent l’Église universelle.

Le père Nicolas Afanassieff a beaucoup parlé du rôle du peuple de Dieu dans la célébration liturgique. Quelle place les laïcs occupent-ils aujourd’hui dans l’organisation et la vie de l’Église russe?

Les laïcs forment avec le clergé l’unique Corps de l’Église. Leur degré de participation à la vie de l’Église dépend avant tout de la façon dont ils comprennent et conçoivent leur propre rôle et leurs devoirs dans la communauté ecclésiale. La mission du prêtre, qui doit guider et servir ses ouailles, suppose une unité avec les paroissiens, une participation à la vie, aux besoins et aux épreuves des fidèles. Les gens viennent à l’église pour prier ensemble, mais les laïcs sont aussi appelés à participer d’une façon active à l’administration de la paroisse, comme responsables des finances, du déroulement des programmes éducatifs, sociaux, ou en contribuant à la construction ou à la restauration des églises.

La paroisse a de grands devoirs dans le champ de la diaconie sociale. Le concile épiscopal de l’Église orthodoxe russe de 2004 a recommandé aux fidèles d’accorder une attention privilégiée et de déployer beaucoup d’efforts dans le domaine du service du prochain. Il a été demandé au Département synodal du Patriarcat de Moscou pour le travail social et la bienfaisance de renforcer la coordination des projets de diaconie, en se souciant particulièrement des maisons d’accueil, des orphelinats, des pensionnats, des cantines populaires, ainsi que de l’organisation de l’aumônerie dans les maisons pour enfants malades, les hôpitaux, les hospices, auprès des personnes âgées, des drogués et des alcooliques, des émigrés, des victimes des catastrophes naturelles et des attentats. C’est aux laïcs avant tout qu’incombent ces responsabilités. Sans leur participation active ces tâches seraient irréalisables. Aujourd’hui des laïcs dirigent des maisons d’édition orthodoxes, ont des missions sociales et politiques. La sphère politique reste interdite aux clercs: ce sont donc les laïcs qui doivent représenter les intérêts de toute l’Église dans les organes de l’administration civile.

Constatez-vous des réponses à cet appel du Concile de 2004, un engagement plus grand des laïcs en tant que croyants dans la vie sociale russe?

J’en vois de nombreux signes. Depuis quelques années il existe en Russie une Union des citoyens orthodoxes dont font partie des scientifiques, des hommes de lettres, des artistes, ainsi que de nombreuses autres associations de laïcs orthodoxes. Leur objectif est d’inciter les fidèles à témoigner dans leur vie de la foi orthodoxe et de soutenir la culture russe traditionnelle. C’est un des exemples de la façon dont les laïcs peuvent contribuer à l’affermissement des valeurs chrétiennes dans la société. Aujourd’hui dans de nombreux diocèses et monastères on voit s’ouvrir des centres d’action contre l’avortement, des patronages, des centres de désintoxication pour les alcooliques et les drogués etc. Tout cela aide non seulement à panser les blessures sociales, mais – et cela est combien plus important – à témoigner auprès des hommes que la réalité peut être transfigurée par la lumière véritable du Christ.

Il est important de se rendre compte que de nombreuses personnes, en particulier des jeunes, cherchent une possibilité de servir l’Église, de prendre part à la mission chrétienne. La tâche du prêtre est de diriger ce désir vers les nécessités réelles. Il lui faut pour cela bien connaître ses fidèles, voir les capacités de chacun, déceler l’aspiration des paroissiens à tel ou tel ministère. Ainsi le prêtre contribue à la réalisation du principe conciliaire au niveau de sa propre paroisse.

Traduction du russe par Hyacinthe Destivelle et Alexandre Siniakov.
Suite dans Europaica 105.
Avec l’aimable permission des Editions du Cerf.

---

L’évêque Hilarion a célébré ses quarante ans

Le chef de la Représentation de l’Eglise orthodoxe près les Institutions européennes, l’évêque Hilarion de Vienne et d’Autriche, a célébré ses quarante ans.

Le primat de l’Eglise orthodoxe des territoires tchèques et de Slovaquie, le métropolite Christophore, lui a adressé un message de vœux dans lequel il a souligné l’apport de l’évêque Hilarion au développement du dialogue interchrétien et à la théologie orthodoxe.

Dans son message de vœux le métropolite Cyrille de Smolensk et de Kaliningrad, président du Département des relations extérieures du Patriarcat de Moscou, a également attiré l’attention sur le travail théologique de l’évêque Hilarion qui «lui a acquis une reconnaissance bien au-delà des frontières de la Russie».

Le pasteur Samuel Kobia, secrétaire général du Conseil œcuménique des Eglises, a de son côté affirmé: «Nous sommes très heureux que dans le domaine des relations entre les chrétiens l’Eglise orthodoxe russe soit depuis tant d’années représentée par un théologien aussi connu et respecté. Cela montre l’importance que l’Eglise orthodoxe russe accorde à la coopération interchrétienne.»

L’évêque Hilarion est né le 24 juillet 1966 à Moscou. Il est prêtre depuis 1987 et évêque depuis 2002.

---

Moskau und Konstantinopel glauben keinen Traenen

Autor Andrej Romanov (Bulgarien)

Die Probleme in der Surozher Dioezese der ROK haetten uns kaum besonders stark beruehrt - weder sind wir Pfarrangehoerige der ROK, noch leben wir auf den Britischen Inseln, wo sich die betroffene Dioezes befindet. Aber das Beunruhigende in der ganzen Geschichte ist, dass der Konflikt zwischen den zwei grossen Zentren der orthodoxen Welt - dem Oekumenischen Patriarchat und Moskau - von Jahr zu Jahr zunimmt und immer schwerer und schmerzhafter wird.

Es ist seit langem kein Geheimnis, dass die Beziehungen zwischen ihnen nicht freundlich sind. Sie stritten um die Kirchen in Estland und der Ukraine, um die russischen Pfarren in Frankreich. Vielleicht wissen nicht alle, dass sich zu einer bestimmten Zeit in den 90-er Jahren die Beziehungen so sehr zugespitzt hatten, dass die Patriarchen der beiden Kirchen aufhoerten, einander in der Liturgie zu kommemorieren. Das fuehrte so weit, dass waehrend der vor kurzem abgehaltenen Vollversammlung des Weltkirchenrates in Porto Alegre die Delegationen Moskaus und Konstantinopels an keinen gemeinsamen Gottesdiensten teilnahmen - als wuerden sie nicht ein und denselben Glauben bekennen. Und wenn wir bedenken, dass dies die Kirchen mit dem groessten Einfluss in der orthodoxen Welt sind - Konstantinopel ist durch Jahrhunderte ihr traditioneller Fuehrer und ein Zentrum ihrer griechischsprachigen Haelfte, und Moskau ist der Fuehrer der groessten orthodoxen Kirche der Welt und eine Autoritaet fuer ihre slawische Haelfte - koennen wir nur sagen: Wehe der orthodoxen Christenheit! Ihre Einheit wird in Teile zerrissen.

Die Ereignisse in der Dioezese von Surozh haben wieder Oel ins Feuer gegossen und den Konflikt geschuert, der uebrigens niemals zu schwelen aufgehoert hatte. Jede der Seiten waehnt sich im Recht, jede zitiert apostolische Regeln und Canones, die ihr jeweils Recht geben und den Gegner diskriminieren sollen. Ich bin kein Spezialist im Kirchenrecht und wage es nicht, die Gueltigkeit ihrer Argumente zu beurteilen. Das Einzige, was ich sagen kann, ist, dass das Verhalten Konstantinopels - vom rein menschlichen Standpunkt aus gesehen - nicht einwandfrei erscheint. Da nimmt man einen fremden Kleriker auf, ohne dessen Kirche zu fragen, und beauftragt ihn, einen Teil der Herde dieser Kirche zu leiten - das kann kaum als freundliches, gut gemeintes Verhalten angesehen werden. Es ist so, als wuerde eines Tages ein zorniger Bub der Nachbarn kommen und mir sagen, dass er sich mit seinen Eltern zerstritten hat, und mich bitten, ihn zu adoptieren - und ich wuerde nicht nur seinen Wunsch erfuellen, ohne seinen Eltern auch nur ein Wort gesagt zu haben, sondern ihn auch beauftragen, seine Brueder und Schwestern zu holen.

Natuerlich hinkt der Vergleich. Man kann einwenden, dass in diesem Fall die Eltern schlecht waren. Da koennen wir schon nur mehr die Haende heben - es ist fuer uns aus dem fernen Bulgarien schwer zu beurteilen, ob die ROK ihre Dioezese von Surozh gut oder schlecht geleitet hat. Aber schon allein die Tatsache, dass ein ansaessiger gebuertiger Englaender, Bischof Vasilij (Basil Osborne) zum Leiter einer russischen Dioezese ernannt worden ist, bringt zum Ausdruck, dass die ROK kaum in der Rolle eines strengen, Ohrfeigen gebenden Vaters aufgetreten ist. Das behauptet sogar auch Bischof Basil selbst nicht. Aus seinen Aeusserungen kann einzig gefolgert werden, dass er die Schuld an allem Bischof Hilarion Alfeev gibt - dieser sei ein Mensch mit krankhaften Ambitionen gewesen, der unter den Dioezesanangehoerigen von Surozh Zwist mit ihrem Patriarchat gesaet habe.

Eine interessante Beurteilung! Die Theologen kennen diesen Namen sehr gut - Bischof Hilarion Alfeyev. Fuer Nicht-Theologen moechte ich sagen, dass er einer der leuchtenden theologischen Hoffnungstraeger der Russischen Kirche ist, und vielleicht auch der gesamten orthodoxen Welt. Erst ganz vor kurzem hielt ich sein Buch ueber den hl. Gregor den Theologen in Haenden - eine fundamentale Untersuchung ueber diesen grossen orthodoxen Hierarchen. Und das ist nur ein kleiner Teil dessen, was er geschrieben hat. Er ist ein Kenner der alten Sprachen, der patristischen Tradition. Darueber hinaus begann Bischof Hilarion in den letzten Jahren, sich als kirchlicher Aktivist und erstrangiger Diplomat zu profilieren. Er leitete die Delegation der ROK bei der Vollversammlung in Porto Alegre; er vertritt die Russische Kirche schon einige Jahre in ihren Beziehungen zum Vatikan und zur Europaeischen Union - und er macht es glaenzend. Im Westen hoert man auf seine Meinung. Im Vergleich zu ihm erscheint Seine "Seligkeit" Basil Osborne allzu bescheiden, um nicht zu sagen unauffaellig. Niemand hat bisher etwas von ihm gehoert, sei es Gutes oder Schlechtes, niemand hat einen Artikel oder ein Buch von ihm in der Hand gehabt. Ich wage zu sagen, dass der Ruhm des Bischofs Basil einzig und allein dem Skandal von Surozh zuzuschreiben ist.

Worin konnten Hilarion Alfeev und Basil Osborne miteinander nicht einig werden? Bischof Hilarion wurde zu Beginn 2000 zum Vikarbischof des Metropoliten von Surozh Antonij (gemeinsam mit Bischof Basil) ernannt, auf Grund des ausdruecklichen Wunsches und der Bitte des Metropoliten Antonij und entgegen dem Wunsch des russischen Patriarchen Aleksij und des Vorsitzenden des Aussenamtes des Moskauer Patriarchats Metropolit Kyrill, die den glaenzenden jungen Theologen zur Verfuegung des Synods behalten wollten. Offensichtlich hat der verstorbene Metropolit Antonij in ihm seinen potentiellen Nachfolger und Fortsetzer seines Werkes gesehen. Aber das hat offenbar Bischof Basil ueberhaupt nicht gefallen. Bischof Hilarion behauptet, dass er isosliert war und durch die Gruppe um Bischof Basil behindert wurde. Der Letztere behauptet dagegen, Bischof Hilarion habe Intrigen gegen die Dioezese und gegen ihn geschmiedet. So oder so, letztendlich winkte der geplagte Bischof Hilarion ab und verliess die Dioezese von Surozh.

Neben allem anderen sind die Geschehnisse in Surozh ein tragischer Streit um das Werk des Metropoliten von Surozh Antonij - ein Name, der in der gesamten orthodoxen Welt bekannt ist. Metropolit Antonij hatte die Surozher Dioezese der ROK in den 60-er Jahren des vergangenen Jahrhunderts aus dem Nichts geschaffen. Und er blieb in den schlimmsten Jahren, als die Russische Kirche unter dem Joch des sowjetischen Atheismus buchstaeblich zertreten wurde, ihr treuer Sohn; er war ein Kaempfer und Ritter gerade fuer die russische Tradition, fuer die russische Orthodoxie. Und jetzt nach seinem Tod, wo die Russische Kirche endlich frei wird und wieder ersteht, trennt man sein Lebenswerk - die Dioezese von Surozh - vom Leib der Kirche, der er sein Leben geweiht hatte. Tragisch!

...So oder so, der Krieg zwischen den beiden Hauptstaedten der orthodoxen Welt flammt weiter auf, und wir muessen - wie es aussieht - neue Entwicklungen, neue epochale "Schlachten" in ihm erwarten. Bald wird der Russische Synod zusammentreten und die Taten Konstantinopels bestimmt anprangern. Und Konstantinopel wird Moskau offensichtlich nichts schuldig bleiben, usw., usf. - bis zum Abgrund. Bis zum Schisma.

Gott gebe, dass es nicht so kommen moege! Die Verantwortung der Bischoefe vor Gott und den Menschen fuer die Einheit der Orthodoxie ist gewaltig. Ich hoffe, dass sie das nicht vergessen werden.

Wir wollen hoffen, dass - im Gegensatz zum Sprichwort - Moskau und Konstantinopel letztendlich den Traenen der ganzen orthodoxen Welt Glauben schenken und ihre verderbliche Feindschaft beenden werden, welche die eine Herde Christi zu zerreissen droht. "Ein Reich, das in sich uneins ist, zerfaellt," sagt der Erloeser. So ist es.