37
edits
Changes
→Recent history
After learning of this intention, but before being retired, Basil issued letters of canonical release to all his clergy, letters either held back from, or backdated to, the beginning of February. This has been interpreted by some as a deliberate attempt to sabotage the diocese, although this matter - like the canonical validity of the letters themselves - is contested between the pro-Moscow and pro-Paris Exarchate groups. (Moscow's objection was that letters of release are given by one bishop to another, releasing a priest from the first bishop's omophorion to go under that of the second bishop; these letters however were (a) given to the clergy themselves, ''en masse'', and (b) did not specify to what bishop they were being released.)[http://www.sourozh.org/info/letters/letter220506.html]
[[Archbishop]] [[Innokenty (Vasilyev) of Korsun]] was sent by the Patriarchate to read out a patriarchal decree at the Sourozh [[cathedral]] in London retiring Basil and placing control of the diocese under Innokenty. Basil's response was to appeal to the arbitration of the Ecumenical Patriarch, citing [[canons]] 9 and 17 of the [[Fourth Ecumenical Council]], which grant to clergy the right of appeal to the Exarch of their diocese or to 'the throne of the imperial city of Constantinople'.[http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-105.htm] Bishop Basil and his supporters have interpreted these canons to demarcate a general ecclesiastical principle that in general a dispute with a superior hierarch may be referred to Constantinople. [http://users.ox.ac.uk/~manc0343/canons_sourozh.html] This interpretation is rejected by Moscow.[http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?page=31763]
On [[June 8]], 2006, the [[holy synod]] of the Ecumenical Patriarchate announced that it had considered Basil's appeal and unanimously decided to receive him into its Russian Orthodox Exarchate in Western Europe as an [[auxiliary bishop]]. It then elected him to this position with the title of ''Bishop of Amphipolis'', serving as an auxiliary of Abp. [[Gabriel (de Vylder) of Komana]][http://www.ec-patr.gr/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=678&tla=en] and having authority over a vicariate of the parishes which have chosen to follow him into the Ecumenical Patriarchate.[http://www.exarchat.org/article.php3?id_article=563] This represents only a partial acceptance of Basil's request (which was to be received as a diocesan bishop of a diocese ''alongside'' the Franco-Russian exarchate). Moreover, Constantinople's pronouncement was based not merely on the two canons cited by Bishop Basil in his appeal, but also by canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the canon which, according to the Patriarchate of Constantinople's interpretation, grants jurisdication of all 'barbarian' lands (i.e. all lands outside canonically-defined territories) to Constantinople. (The interpretation of this canon is also disputed by Moscow.) The significance of the addition of this canon is at present unclear.
