16,951
edits
Changes
m
link
He was retired from his position as administrator of the Sourozh diocese after seeking incardination into the Ecumenical Patriarchate without receiving release from Moscow.<ref name="Innokenty1">[http://www.sourozh.org/info/letters/letter230706.html Letter "To all the clergy and faithful of the Diocese of Sourozh"] - Abp. Innokenty of Korsun, July 23, 2006</ref> In a letter sent to the Patriarch of Moscow without notice to his [[clergy]], Bishop Basil requested that he and the whole of the Diocese of Sourozh (and not simply those members who wished to follow him) be released from the [[jurisdiction]] of the Moscow Patriarchate, to be received into the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch as a new [[diocese]] existing alongside Constantinople's Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe.<ref>See Bishop Basil's letter of 24 April, 2006.[http://www.sourozh.org/archives/docs/BB2Patr240406_en.html] On taking this decision without consulting his clergy or diocesan council, see his statements online.[http://www.dioceseinfo.org/DOCUMENTS/Diocese/BB160506.htm]</ref> Without awaiting a full response from the Patriarchate of Moscow, he wrote to the Ecumenical Patriarch on [[May 2]], 2006, again repeating his desire to establish a new diocese under Constantinople.<ref>So the text of his brief letter to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.[http://orthodoxe.free.fr/files/BBtoEcPatr01.pdf] In this letter, unlike his original letter to the Moscow Patriarchate, he indicates that the new diocese would be made up of himself, "together with those clergy and parishes that wish to follow me."</ref> Announcement of Bishop Basil's retirement by the Synod of Moscow followed upon his refusal to withdraw this letter to Constantinople. Following announcement of his retirement in the Sourozh [[cathedral]] in London, Basil immediately appealed the decision to the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the basis of Canons 9 and 17 of the [[Fourth Ecumenical Council]] and also Canon 28 of the same Council. Such canons, some argue, endow the Constantinopolitan Patriarch with the privilege of the "ekkliton" (read, hearing appeal) and granting it jurisdiction over regions not already subject to the other four senior Patriarchates, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. It should be noted, however, that this interpretation of these canons is not undisputed, and runs contrary to the classical interpretations of the canons found in the canonical commentaries of the Church.<ref>For a canonical commentary on this canon, see: [[Prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate]]. As an example of the variances in interpretation, regarding Canon 9 of Chalcedon, St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain comments: "[This canon] did not say that if any clergyman has a dispute or difference with the Metropolitan of any diocese or parish whatever, they must be tried before the Bishop of Constantinople…." Zonaras likewise says that the Bishop of Constantinople is not necessarily entitled to sit as judge over all Metropolitans, but (only) over those who are judicially subject to him, and that "The Bishop of Constantinople must hear the appeals only of those who are subject to the Bishop of Constantinople, precisely as the Bishop of Rome must hear the appeals only of those who are subject to the Bishop of Rome." In D. Cummings, trans., ''The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the Holy Canons Saints Nicodemus and Agapius'' (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 255.</ref>
The Ecumenical Patriarchate subsequently accepted Bishop Basil into its jurisdiction on the basis of his appeal which followed, although Moscow had not issued a canonical release and had instructed him not to be received into another patriarchate until matters could be looked into by an appropriate commission. Additionally, it requested his presence in person numerous times, which Bishop Basil refused to heed on all occasions, instructing others to do likewise.<ref>Facts that were eventually reported by the [http://www.sourozh.org/archives/docs/commission_en.html commission established to investigate the issue]. This report also noted the bishop's use of the internet to propagate information on the disputes outside of official channels.</ref> Given these circumstances, the Moscow Patriarchate did not regard his incardination into the Ecumenical Patriarchate as valid, nor did it recognize the title ''Bishop of Amphipolis'' given to him by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on [[June 8]], 2006.<ref>[http://www.ec-patr.gr/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=678&tla=en Press Release for the Election of Bishop Basil of Amphipolis] - Ecumenical Patriarchate, June 8, 2006</ref> Considering him still a bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, but in retirement, it referred to him in official correspondence without titular connection, as 'The Right Reverend Bishop Basil (Osborne)'.<ref name="MP1">[http://www.sourozh.org/info/docs/synod190706_en.html Decision of the Holy Synod concerning Bishop Basil (Osborne)] - Moscow Patriarchate, July 19, 2006</ref> Similarly, it did not regard as valid the 'letters of release' issued by Bishop Basil to all his former clergy in the [[Diocese of Sourozh]]- letters either backdated or prepared earlier, in early February.<ref>As noted in a [http://www.sourozh.org/archives/letters/letter220506.html Letter by Archbishop Innokenty] - 22 May 2006.</ref> Bishop Basil was summoned to appear before the MP [[synod]] on[[ July 17]],<ref>[http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=1559 Russian Church: It considers Osborn's move to Constantinople's jurisdiction invalid as he is still one of its bishops fax, June 14, 2006</ref> Bishop Basil declined to appear. From July 19, 2006 the Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate placed him under temporary [[suspension]], forbidding him 'from celebrating divine services until his repentance or until the decision of the matter by a court of bishops'.<ref name="MP1" />
The resolutions of the Moscow Patriarchate of [[July 19]], 2006, therefore made Bishop Basil's canonical stature a matter of intense dispute between Moscow and Constantinople. According to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Basil could legitimately celebrate as a bishop; according to Moscow, he was forbidden to do so. Accordingly, no communicant of the Moscow Patriarchate who wished to remain faithful to the decisions of his hierarchy could knowingly participate in a [[Divine Liturgy|Liturgy]] at which Basil celebrated as a bishop, nor could they receive Holy [[Communion]] from him. Similarly, after these resolutions, no Moscow Patriarchate [[priest]] could [[concelebration|concelebrate]] with Basil.<ref name="Innokenty1" />
