ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE

Exarchate of Parishes of Russian
Tradition in Western Europe

Meeting of the Presbytery of the Vicariate, October 2007

The autumn meeting of the Presbytery was held on Friday-Saturday 26/27 October 2007 at the Lancaster Hall Hotel, London. Fifteen priests and deacons gathered, and apologies were received from two more. 

Our ecclesiological position
In this main item of the meeting, Bishop Basil presented reflections which derived from the work of Fr Grigorios Papathomas, canonist at the Institute of St Serge, from the theology of Fr Nikolai Afanassieff of St Serge, and from further developments in the work of Metropolitan John Zizioulas. The conciliar principle is at the heart of all church relationships, whether the relationship between the bishop and his diocese, between a metropolitan bishop and his diocesan bishops, between a patriarch and his metropolitans, or between patriarchs. The 34th Apostolic Canon defines this relationship as Trinitarian, i.e. it is not a chain of command, but the formation of one mind in which at each level the one who is first concedes to the others, and they to him, until unanimity is reached.

This principle of unity between the church structures of the Christian world from small to large, can be seen being worked out at the patriarchal level in the history of the Church’s expansion. Four ancient patriarchates had borders with the non-Roman world through which they sent out their missions, and it was generally agreed that Antioch should preside over the east, Alexandria over the south, Constantinople over the northeast, and Rome over the west.

This agreed pattern only broke down at the time of the Crusades, when for the first time structures obedient to one patriarchate (the Roman) appeared in the territories of other patriarchates. This breakdown was sealed by the fourth crusade against Constantinople in 1204. After this, Byzantine canonists began to see Constantinople as inheriting the position of Rome among the four remaining patriarchates; and the separate and parallel development of Roman structures was compounded after 1492 by the discovery of the New World and the extension of Roman influence around the world from west to east.

Nevertheless the Church has always sought to return to the original principle of its development, though with Constantinople taking the place of Rome. Even as the aftermath of the First World War stripped the Ecumenical Patriarchate of its population and territory and prompted migration westwards, the diasporas developing in the West were at first placed under Constantinople (for example, the diasporas of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Greece, Poland and Albania, together with most of the Ukrainian diaspora, remain in this position). Priests from the mother countries were sent to serve the different communities, but were placed under Constantinople’s ecclesiastical authority. In 1920, a group of Russian bishops petitioned the Patriarch of Constantinople for permission to organise church life among the Russian émigrés in Western Europe. They were given permission to do so provided it was done under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch. However, the difficulties of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as a result of the Asia Minor disaster of 1922 made possible the autonomous development of a Russian diaspora – a distortion which was not followed by others until after the Second World War, when Serbian, Romanian and Antiochian bishops first appeared in the West. In the end this has led to ‘radical autocephaly’ with national churches claiming world-wide jurisdiction

The present situation in the diaspora cannot be squared with Orthodox ecclesiology, as is well known. By contrast, the principle that the 34th Apostolic Canon governs the relationship between patriarchs, as well as all the relationships at lower levels, is found in the pan-Orthodox Chambésy agreements of 1992.  It is a position which we should hope to work out in greater depth as one around which the Orthodox world could unite in the future.

Many reports on other topics paralleled or took up these points:

Liturgical texts and music.   It is hoped that the new situation will provide opportunities for the Episcopal Vicariate and the Archdiocese of Thyateira to co-operate in this area. The 22 parishes in Thyateira which have English as their main language or have taken over elements of the Russian tradition have much in common with us.  Consideration will be given to forming two parallel liturgical translations allowing for choice between ‘thou’ and ‘you’ grammatical forms, while preserving the richness of vocabulary which our translations have preserved.  Fr Michael Fortounatto is putting together a musical obikhod for Clapham which will be offered to other parishes when it is ready, and musical versions are also available from Norwich.

Co-operation with Thyateira parishes.  A number of examples were given of increased co-operation at parish level with the Archdiocese of Thyateira, notably at Sheffield and Keswick / Preston and in Scotland. Differing attitudes to Confession among people from different backgrounds were discussed, and the desirability of finding a middle position around which those who wish to do so could unite.

The current situation at parish and Vicariate level.  
1. Reports from parishes indicated increasingly harmonious relationships within the parishes, steady continuation of parish practice, and in some cases rapid new development or potential for development, notably in Clapham, Guildford, Sheffield, Keswick and Aberdeenshire. Increasing numbers of Romanians and in some cases Bulgarians attending were noted, particularly in Norwich and Aberdeenshire.

2. Contacts have been made between some of our UK parishes and French counterparts in the Archdiocese:  Norwich with the Parish of St John the Theologian in Paris, and Clapham with the French-speaking crypt parish at Rue Daru.

3. A legal challenge has been made by the Diocese of Sourozh to the meetings held in accordance with the trusts deeds of the Diocese of Sourozh and the London Cathedral parish. Developments are awaited.

Visit of Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All Russia to Paris (3-4 October 2007).   Apart from contacts with his own clergy and parishioners, Patriarch Alexis met members of the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops in France, made contact with the French Government, and celebrated a panikhida at the Russian cemetery of Ste-Geneviève-des-Bois. It is understood that the French Government expects to deal with Orthodox issues through the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops in France rather than by making bilateral arrangements with individual Churches.

Conference on Metropolitan Anthony in Moscow.   A number of members of the EV gave papers at this conference, stressing the need to seek to apply MA’s approach to church life in Russia as well as in the UK.

Other business.   A number of more specific topics were reported on and discussed briefly:
1. Fr John Marks was elected Vicar-General.
2. The call for nominations for the Assembly elections has generated 33 nominations for 15 places.
3. Candidates for ordination are to receive consideration by a committee comprising, possibly, two clergy and two laity.
4. Books of baptismal certificates are to be issued in the name of the Vicariate.
5. Parish websites are encouraged, under the direction of the clergy in charge.
6. The Liturgical Texts Committee hopes to publish the Canonical hours in the near future.
7. The conference next year will be on 23-26 May at All Saints Pastoral Centre, St Alban’s, which has facilities permitting a children’s programme.  The pilgrimage to Constantinople was described as ‘life-changing’ and will be repeated.   A pilgrimage to Amphipolis in 2008 was also mooted.
8 The benefits and difficulties of holding a Vicariate Liturgy were discussed.

Next Meeting.   The success of this residential meeting, which had generated some excellent discussions outside the formal sessions as well as inside, led to fixing the next meeting as another residential meeting, to take place on 29th February to 1st March 2008.