Protocol No. 48
Protocol # 48 July 2/15, 2004
The first session of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church began in the graduation hall of the Monastery of the Placing of the Robe after the Divine Liturgy at 12 o'clock with the singing of "O Heavenly King."
Present:
1. Metropolitan Valentine, President of the Synod of Bishops
2. Archbishop Theodore
3. Archbishop Seraphim
4. Bishop Irenarch
5. Bishop Ambrose
During its session, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church considered numerous complaints received from the clergy and laity of the Russian Orthodox Church, and also from other True Orthodox Churches, concerning the actions of His Eminence Gregory (Abu Asaly) of Denver and Colorado:
1. Requiring baptism for reception into the ROAC of True Orthodox Christians coming from other Churches.
2. Not submitting to the lawful decisions of the Synod of Bishops.
3. Interference in ecclesiastical affairs beyond the boundaries of his own diocese and, in particular, performing an ordination of a clergyman there without the agreement or knowledge of the local Church authorities.
4. Arbitrary and unfounded repressions upon the clergy under his authority.
Some of these complaints had been handed to His Eminence Metropolitan Valentine during his stay in the USA while on his pastoral visit, as a result of which, Metropolitan Valentine, in writing and orally, addressed His Eminence Gregory with words of instruction and brotherly advice. However, his words were to no avail, and to the contrary, His Eminence Gregory himself turned to the Synod of Bishops of the ROAC with accusations against His Eminence Metropolitan Valentine.
Having examined the essence of the matter, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church has come to the following conclusions.
The actions of His Eminence Gregory during the entire time of his tenure within the bosom of the Russian Church has been marked by violations of church discipline, and what is especially intolerable, the Holy Canons.
Notwithstanding the numerous promises made by His Eminence Gregory, this situation has not only gone uncorrected, but has become worse and worse, until it has finally reached a point where it is no longer tolerable.
To take just the most important and most intolerable violations of the Holy Canons perpetrated by His Eminence Gregory into consideration, then that would be:
1. The re-baptizing of Orthodox Christians
Many of the complaints against His Eminence Gregory are connected with his insistence upon the necessity of baptizing those who wish to unite with the ROAC, although these people had earlier been members of other True Orthodox Churches. The results of this are that many Orthodox Christians either were not able to join the Russian Church at all, or were able to do so only after extraordinary efforts were expended to overcome the obstacles that were placed before them by His Eminence Gregory. This is especially true of those Orthodox Christians who had united to the True Church in the person of the ROCOR before its apostasy, and who now find themselves to be without a church roof over their heads.
Not speaking about numerous cases with laymen (some tens families), it is necessary to specify, how on especially scandalous, on a case with archimandrite Michael and orthodox mission headed by him on island Haiti, before included in ROCA. Wishing to join the Russian church, archimandrite Michael has entered negotiations with His Eminence Gregory, but has heard in the answer, that he could be accepted only through baptism, then all those who was baptized by archimandrite Michael should be re- baptized, that is all several hundred people - his parishioners in Haiti (though all these parishioners were baptized in ROCA in strict conformity with orthodox manner, in three immersions). In result, the acceptance in ROAC of the orthodox mission in Haiti has been postponed, and it managed to be solved positively only when metropolitan Valentine could visit the USA personally.
From the very beginning of stay of the archimandrite, nowadays His Eminence Gregory in ROAC, it was repeatedly specified to him, that acceptance in the Russian Church of true-orthodox Christians from other Churches cannot be accompanied by any kind of receiving order and, especially, a baptism, as all kinds of receiving orders (baptism, christmation, repentance) are established only for reception in Orthodox Church of those who earlier did not belong to it. However, as time has shown, His Eminence Gregory has not heeded to these exhortations.
Actually, behind Eminence Gregory's such position there is a radical denying of the traditional practice of the Russian Church and, hence, denying of that many thousand Christians accepted thus in Orthodoxy by the Russian Church, became complete Christians. The Russian church always realized that in relation to heretics and schismatics, wishing to accept Orthodoxy, in various local churches existed and now exist various practices of application of the akreibea and oeconomia, and in the life of a certain local church this practice varied during history. Such variety of practices sometimes inevitably causes misunderstandings, however, as a whole, it is justified and never in history of Universal Church it happened an epoch when a similar variety in application of the oeconomia, in relation to the communities separated from Church, did not exist. So, a variety of practices of the receiving of the heretics and schismatics are mentioned in the rules 1st of St. Basil the Great and 95th of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
Understanding all this, the pre-revolutionary Russian church, as well as now ROAC, never asserted about own practice as about unique, but at the same time never counted unique practice of others local churches, reserving the right to itself on the independent decision of similar questions. Not daring to bear judgements about validity of a measure of oeconomia or akreibia, used in others true-orthodox churches, the Russian Orthodox church simply accepts without test as true-orthodox Christians of all those who was considered as those in other true-orthodox church. In this case ROAC considers necessary to trust to the estimation of the brothers - bishops, established in this or that true-orthodox church corresponding disciplinary norm. However, recognizing initial discipline inside other true-orthodox churches, ROAC cannot admit cases of infringement of its own disciplinary order, in what it appear guilty His Eminence Gregory.
To a great regret, His Eminence Gregory has sinned not only against developed practice of the Russian church and its internal discipline, but also against the most fundamental canons concerning a sacred baptism, namely, against the Apostolic rule 47 (repeated and in a rule 59 of the Cartage council) which rules " bishop or priest, if baptize again already truly baptized person, to be thrown up from a dignity, as a mocker to the Cross and death of the Lord ". His Eminence Gregory, Insisting on necessity of a baptism even for those who has received a correct baptism in three immersions in one of true-orthodox churches, has acted as the obvious opponent of sacred apostles.
In a substantiation of this position, he affirmed, ostensibly on behalf of all Russian church, opinion as if only ROAC and Kallinikite synod have grace of the sacraments, whereas all other churches of the world are graceless. This completely unjustified fanaticism of His Eminence Gregory is not at all a position of the Russian church, and for him it has served as the reason of heavy canonical violations, which are enough for bringing him to the church court.
2. Insubordination to lawful orders of the Synod of Bishops and his Chairman of ROAC.
The submission to the legal requirements of the Synod of Bishops of ROAC is required by the Bishop's oath given by His Eminence Gregory at the ordination. This submission is conditioned by the Sacred Canons, determining the rules for the management of dioceses.
In case of the dioceses formed by ROAC on the American continent, it is necessary to mean, that these dioceses are missionary, or, in language of canons, "in the grounds of the barbarians" (?í âáñâáñéêï?ò ?èíåóé,in partibus infidelibus), that is why for them there is a special order of management determined in 2 cannon of the Second Ecumenical council, and this order differs from certain in this and others Canons order of management of internal dioceses of the local church.
So, if, with reference to an internal diocese of the local church, the head of the local church has no right to interfere with internal affairs of a diocese and, in particular, to take away therefore clergymen without the consent of local ruling bishop, but in relation to a missionary diocese this principle is not applied. Instead of it, according to 2 cannon of the Second Ecumenical council, "Churches of God, in the barbarian peoples (?í ôï?ò âáñâáñéêï?ò ?èíåóé) are forced to be ruled, on usage of what the Fathers observed hitherto ".
As an example for "episcopacies at barbarians", Valsamon (XII century) adduces "Alania [Northern Caucasus], Russia and others; for Alans belong to district of Pont, and the Russians - to Thracian " (in interpretation on 28 cannon of the Fourth Ecumenical council). Now America is the same missionary territory what in XII century was Russia in relation to Byzantium, and, such position was kept hardly probable not till XV century.
According to literal sense of a cannon 2 of the Second EC, confirmed with his Byzantine interpreters Zonara, Aristin and Valsamon, a determining principle of management of a missionary diocese are the established custom which should not conform with a principle of non-interference to internal affairs of a diocese on the part of other bishop and furthermore First Hierarch and the Synod. With reference to the parishes of ROAC on the American continent, "the established usage" is their submission to the Synod of ROAC, and His Eminence Gregory's authority has character of operative management, without the right to make final decisions, that is such decisions which could not be reconsidered by Hierarchial Synod of ROAC extrajudicially.
Therefore it is necessary to recognize lawful actions of Metropolitan Valentine, who satisfied the applications of former clergymen of diocese of Denver and Colorado about their withdrawal from the omophorion of His Eminence Gregory, whereas his complaints to these actions of Metropolitan Valentine and his attempts to apply to the specified clergymen a measure of suspending, it is necessary to recognize as illegal.
His eminence Gregory's corresponding actions are infringement of the 2 cannon of the Second EC and thereof, fall under suspending, following infringements of those Sacred Canons which speak about necessity for the bishop to submit to a council of the bishops (Àpost. 34; Àntioch. 9), and also under suspending, following infringement of the bishop's oath.
3. Intervention in church affairs outside the diocese.
Not informing anybody, without the permission and almost secretly, His eminence Gregory has taken off for Bulgaria where, accompanied by archimandrite George, served the Divine liturgy and has ordained a deacon.
It is necessary to remind, that the parishes of ROAC in Bulgaria are in direct conduct of the Synod and never entered into His eminence Gregory's diocese. Therefore his actions in Bulgaria has brought in distemper to a church life in this country and has broken a lot of sacred canons, namely, the following: the Apostolic rule 14 and rule 13 of Ancyra council (forbidding to bishop to pass from one diocese in another and to ordain there without the consent of a council of bishops or local Bishop), 20 cannon of the Sixth EC and 11 cannon of the Sardica council (forbidding to bishop to preach openly in an another's diocese), 16 cannon of the First EC, 20 cannon of the Fourth EC, 65, 91 and 101 of Carthage council, 15 can. Of the Sardica council (forbidding the ordination of clergymen in an another's diocese without the consent of local bishop), and also Apostolic rules 14 and 35, 15 of the First EC, 2 of the Second EC, 5 of the Fourth EC, 13, 21 and 22 of the Antioch council, 1, 2, 3 of the Sardica council, 59 of the Carthage council (forbidding to bishop to dispose in a diocese not belonging to it).
4. An arbitrariness concerning subordinated clergy
Presenting to clergy, subordinated to him, a lot of unreasonable requirements, His Eminence Gregory, eventually, without any instruction of the reason and not issuing the written decree, has tried to forbid in serving some of the clergymen. The Synod of Bishops has recognized correct actions of Metropolitan Valentine, who has declared these prohibitions void. His Eminence Gregory 's actions in this case have been recognized as breaking the 4th cannon of the Seventh EC, which forbids to bishop to release somebody from serving unreasonably and in this case he becomes subject to the same punishment, which he wanted to impose unreasonably on others.
* * *
We have to repeat, that this count out of His Eminence Gregory's canonical violations is not complete and it is only an extract of the materials, which the Synod examined.
The Russian Orthodox Church is under the obligation either immediately stop the lawlessness, which His Eminence Gregory is doing, either decline from itself all responsibilities for his actions, bringing him to God's judgment and to his own conscience, and also warning all true orthodox Christians, whatever Church they are, to preserve themselves from communion with His Eminence Gregory, in case if he would not make repentance and correct himself.
Therefore the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church decrees:
1. To propose to His Eminence Gregory of Denver and Colorado to justify himself or to repent on each one of the accusations in front of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, and after that the Synod will take under consideration his status in ROAC.
2. In case if His Eminence Gregory of Denver and Colorado wouldn't do that in a period of one week, the Synod would not regard him as a member of ROAC anymore and would not have with him communion in prayer, and to all the clergy and faithful who were under his omophorion till now the Synod will offer to pass under the direct ruling of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church.
PRESIDENT OF THE SYNOD
VALENTINE Metropolitan of Suzdal and Vladimir
Members of the Synod of Bishops:
Archbishop Theodore
Archbishop Seraphim
Bishop Irenarch
Bishop Ambrose
Secretary of the Synod: Hieromonk Theofan
This protocol was sent to Dormition Skete via e-mail from an unknown person
in Suzdal, Russia. It was sent in the Russian language, knowing full well that
we would not immediately understand the content. We had to pay a translator to
put it into English.
