37
edits
Changes
Additional information incorporated
[[Image:Anthony Bloom.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Metr. [[Anthony (Bloom) of Sourozh]]]] In the initial decades of the existence of the diocese, the diocese was centred in London and Oxford, consisting mainly of upper middle-class ex-Anglican converts and families of the first emigration from Russia. During these years the political situation between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union meant that the Moscow Patriarchate could exercise virtually no control over Sourozh diocese. Metr. Anthony encouraged the development of a distinctive style, liturgical practice and ethos within the diocese which reflected the fusion of Franco-Russian emigres and Oxford-London ex-Anglicans in the diocese. This included native-language liturgy, frequent communion, discression over confession before each communion, a relaxed attitude to tradition Russian church dress (e.g. for women: skirts and headscarves), permission of marriage on Saturdays and an avoidance of celebrating the full hierarchical liturgy according to the standard [[typikon]] of the Russian Orthodox Church.
From the last years of the Soviet Union, large numbers of Russian Orthodox economic migrants arrived in the United Kingdom from Russian lands. Many were surprised by and uncomfortable with and unhappy at the idiosyncracies of ethos, style and liturgical practice which were standard in the diocese. A vocal minority of these Orthodox from Russia began to complain vociferously to the Diocese and, later, to the Moscow Patriarchate itself. In their own eyes, they sought the conformity of the ethos and liturgical practice of the diocese with the standard [[typikon]] of the Russian Orthodox Church; in the eyes of the Oxford-London ex-Anglicans, this amounted to the [[Russification]] of the diocese. During the lifetime of Metr. Anthony, tensions reached a high-point during the 2002 when [[Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev]] was Bishop of Kerch.
Shortly before his death, in a manner which is not standard in the Russian Orthodox Church (where bishops are standardly appointed by the [[Holy Synod]]), Metr. Anthony nominated as his successor [[Bishop]] [[Basil (Osborne) of Sergievo)]]. After Metr. Anthony's death in 2003, the Holy Synod made Basil administrator of the diocese, but did not name him ruling bishop.
[[Image:Basil Osborne.jpg|left|thumb|150px|Bp. [[Basil (Osborne) of Sergievo]]]]
Tensions between the establishment in Sourozh and worsened considerably in the new voices came years following Metr. Anthony's death. They began to a head escalate significantly in April 2006December 2005, when Bp. Basil requested from with the Moscow Patriarchate that he and any in his diocese who wished to follow him be allowed suspension of [[canonical releaseFr Andrei Teterin]] by Bishop Basil, on grounds of disobedience, following a speech which Fr Andrei made, in which he denied that Metropolitan Anthony was a Father of the Church, asserted that one must be loyal to enter into the aurthorities of one's own [[Ecumenical Patriarchatejurisdiction]], specifically and insisted that the [['Russian Christian movement' should have the word 'Orthodox Exarchate ' in Western Europe]]its name. After pressure from Moscow, a diocese of parishes of Russian tradition whose bishop answers Fr Andrei was reinstated - although he continued to be an active agent undermining the Ecumenical Patriarch. The character of the Exarchate is similar to the course charted by Anthony in that its parishes are mainly using local languages and appealing to the cultures episcopal authority of Western EuropeBp. Basil.
Initially, the Patriarch of Moscow, [[Alexei II (Ridiger) of Moscow|Alexei II]], asked to discuss the matter with Basil, but demanded that when he retract his letter discovered Basil had already written to Constantinople, in which he had broached demanded the subject with Ecumenical Patriarch [[Bartholomew I (Archontonis) retraction of Constantinople|Bartholomew I]]this letter, and refused to meet Basil until he received such retraction. Basil refused to retract the letter, and learnt soon afterwards that the Moscow Patriarchate intended to retire him.
[[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. 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. The situation has not yet been resolved.
==External links==
