1,348
edits
Changes
Added some footnotes
In his position in the Ecumenical Patriarchate's Exarchate in Western Europe, Bishop Basil's authority is over a newly-formed vicariate of parishes in the British Isles entitled the [[Episcopal Vicariate of Great Britain and Ireland]], which currently consists of a small number of parishes and some smaller Eucharistic Communities that elected to follow him in his departure from the Diocese of Sourozh (these are enumerated and discussed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Vicariate_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland#Parishes_and_Communities here]).<ref>[http://www.exarchate-uk.org/Parishes/parishes_index.html Parishes of the Vicariate]</ref> As part of this role, he sits on the council of the Exarchate.<ref>[http://www.exarchat.org/article.php3?id_article=563 Communiqué N° 12-06 du Conseil de l'Archevêché et Déclaration]</ref>
He was forcibly retired from his position as administrator of the Sourozh diocese after requesting release from Moscow and incardination into the Ecumenical Patriarchate, along with those of his flock who wished to follow him.<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> The announcement of his retirement came upon his refusal to withdraw his letter to Constantinople (sent after his request for release from Moscow) which requested incardination and noted his request for release from Moscow.<ref>[http://orthodoxe.free.fr/files/BBtoEcPatr01.pdf Letter to Patriarch Bartholomew I] - Bp. Basil (Osborne), May 2, 2006</ref> After his forced retirement was announced in the Sourozh cathedral in London, Basil immediately appealed the decision to the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the basis of Canons 9 <ref>"If any Clergyman has a dispute with another, let him not leave his own Bishop and resort to secular courts, but let him first submit his case to his own Bishop, or let it be tried by referees chosen by both parties and approved by the Bishop. Let anyone who acts contrary hereto be liable to Canonical penalties. If, on the other hand, a Clergyman has a dispute with his own Bishop, or with some other Bishop, let it be tried by the Synod of the province. But if any Bishop or Clergyman has a dispute with the Metropolitan of the same province, let him apply either to the Exarch of the diocese or to the throne of the imperial capital Constantinople, and let it be tried before him." (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. 253)</ref> and 17 of the [[Fourth Ecumenical Council]] and also Canon 28 <ref>"Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and aware of the recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius the Great of pious memory, who became emperor in the imperial city of Constantinople otherwise known as New Rome; we too decree and vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the most holy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome. And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital. And motivated by the same object and aim the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the like priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome, with good reason deeming that the city which is the seat of an empire, and of a senate, and is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges and priorities, should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her. And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed try the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him."(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. 271-276)</ref> of the same Council, such canons, it is argued, 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 patriarchatesPatriarchates, 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. For example, regarding Canon 9 of Chalcedon, St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain comments:
:"So it is evident that the Canon means that if any bishop or clergyman has a dispute or difference with the Metropolitan of an exarchy, let him apply to the Exarch of the diocese; which is the same thing as saying that clergymen and metropolitans subject to the throne of Constantinople must have their case tried either before the Exarch of the diocese in which they are situated, or before the Bishop of Constantinople, as before a Patriarch of their own. It 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…. That is why Zonaras too 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 (interpretation of c. XVII of the present 4th C.). And in his interpretation of c. V of Sardica the same authority says: "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." <ref>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. One might also point out the absurdity of ''not'' reading the canon as St. Nichodemos suggests. You would have to conclude that Constantinople could even overrule Rome... something that even the pre-schism Roman Church would never have accepted, nor is it likely that any other Patriarchate of that time would have either.</ref>