Protocol No. 49
Protocol No. 49 11\24 July 2004
Second meeting of the Synod of Bishops of ROAC
Presented:
1. Metr. Valentine
2. Archbp. Feodor
3. Archbp. Serafim
4. Bp. Antony
5. Bp. Timothy
6. Bp. Ambrosios
7. Bp. Hilarion
8. Bp. Gerontios
9. Bp. Sevastian
Listened:
1. Metropolitan Valentine who has told, that he has left in the USA to meet the clergy in jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church with the purpose of acquaintance with a life and activity of priests and faithful and to meet those who again has submitted the application with the request to accept them under omophorion of ROAC. Under stress of circumstances Metropolitan Valentine had to take off for Colorado to Bishop Gregory where he served the Divine liturgy, and then has a meeting and conversation with clergy and faithful, and also has answered interesting questions.
The conversation proceeded till the late night and at this time, probably, from over fatigue, he felt bad. The emergency was called and on the next day to Metropolitan was performed an operation on heart. After long treatment (about three months) he could serve on the Pentecost and to receive the Holy Mysteries of Christ. After the Divine liturgy faithful and clergy have asked him to stay again in monastic trapeza and to make a conversation with them, and also to answer some interesting questions. This request was fulfilled.
Further Metropolitan Valentine has continued the report on the condition Denver and Colorado diocese. In particular, the Chairman of the Synod has told, that he has familiarized with affairs of His Eminence Gregory's management of diocese and has come to unfavorable conclusions.
2. Unexpectedly for the Metropolitan, His Eminence Gregory has made an offer that he to write the application addressed to Archbishop Kalinnik, Chairman of the Greek Synod with the request to enter in prayerful and Eucharistic union with them, asserting, that Kalinik Synod is the Synod, professing Orthodox dogma and they have many Bishops. In reply to His Eminence Gregory's offer, M. Valentine set a question, that, if they (Kalinik Synod) profess Orthodox dogma why His Eminence Gregory has left this Synod and has passed in ROAC?
His Eminence Gregory could not answer, but began to promise to Metropolitan Valentine to help finance ROAC, i.e. to do payments - so-called "tithe" as it is specified in charter of ROAC, obviously hinting, that His Eminence Gregory is going to give to Metropolitan Valentine the solid sum (thirty thousand) American dollars.
3. To metropolitan Valentine there has come the friend and the fellow tribesman His Eminence Gregory by name Jerjis from Pennsylvania which has told, that it has brought " tithe" in the sum of thirty thousand American dollars and has gave them to His Eminence Gregory for ROAC, and then, in front of eight witnesses he started to recommend persistently to incorporate with Greek, Kalinik Synod. Metropolitan Valentine has answered, that if he brings even three hundred thousand dollars all this equally would not help, because "Orthodoxy is not bought and it is not sold!"
4. Since this moment from His Eminence's part, his fellow tribesman Jerjis and their confidants started an Internet persecution against Metropolitan Valentine and the clergy, who witnessed all conversations. And meanwhile the Apostolic canon says: "If someone from clergy will vex bishop, let him be deposed" (Ap. 55).
5. Further Metropolitan has told, that His Eminence Gregory urgently demanded the decree from him on the right to operate all churches in the USA, as he is the unique orthodox Bishop, promising help for ROAC in the sum of forty thousand American dollars. "This already is symonia", - the answer has followed on the part of Metropolitan Valentine. Not having received the positive answer, His Eminence Gregory has made the offer: to divide America into two parts: he and the future candidate for Bishop fr. Andrey (Maklakov) will govern all Churches in the USA. And in general he should rule over the clergy not only in the USA, but also in Bulgaria, Korea and even in China, having forgotten, that " Bishop should not divide area ... to receive a name of Metropolitan " (Fourth EC. 12).
6. It is necessary to pay our attention that the American continent never was and now is not initial territory of any of the local orthodox Churches, therefore all orthodox parishes created there and dioceses are missionary parishes and dioceses, whichever what from true-orthodox Churches they belonged. Dioceses and parishes of ROAC to America are not exception.
Corresponding features of management of missionary dioceses are stipulated in a rule 2 of the Second EC. This rule, in the basic part, establishes a principle of strict restriction of authority of any bishop in the limits of the diocese entrusted to him. However, in the end there is made the following clause: "Churches of God, in barbarous peoples, i.e. in non-Christians; a Latin equivalent - in partibus infidelibus), are forced to be ruled how it is observed up to nowadays usage of the Fathers".
Thus, in the text of a canon it is told, that the principle of restriction of authority of bishop only in his diocese should not be observed with reference to dioceses in not Christian grounds, and it is necessary to keep those ways of management which there have developed historically, even it and contradicted a principle of non-interference of the bishop in affairs of an another's diocese. So understood this rule and in Byzantium to what the Byzantian interpreters testify unanimously (Aristin, Zonara, Valsamon in interpretation on the given rule).
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.
7. Concerning to the dioceses of ROAC "usage observed hitherto" is their management by the Synod of ROAC. Therefore, existing there until recently diocese of Denver and Colorado, and also the administrator of ROAC in the USA were in submission to Synod by which decision the operative management of parishes in state of Colorado has been assigned to His Eminence Gregory of Denver and Colorado, and to the administrator of ROAC in other states of Americas.
Therefore all questions connected to clergymen of diocese of Denver and Colorado are in final conducting of the Synod of Bishops, and decisions on these questions, held by the ruling bishop, are valid only so far as they initially did not contradict decisions of the Synod and subsequently have not been cancelled by the Synod. It concerns also to any other diocese of ROAC which can be generated on the American continent or other missionary territories.
8. In one of conversations, His Eminence Gregory has demanded to forbid in service and to dismiss clergymen who are not in conducting of the Denver Diocese, and who are under the Synod: protopresbyter Vladimir Shishkov, protopresbyter Victor Melekhov, archpriest Spiridon Schneider, archimandrite Michael from Haiti and hieromonk Ilya, having forgotten or not knowing, that "any diocese should keep its own rights and anybody from Bishops should not extend authority to other diocese " (Third EC 8, Antioch 9, Cart. 64, 57).
Few days later His Eminence Gregory began to undertake repressive actions: without any reason he forbid from service hegumen Andrey (Maklakov), priest Dionisiy McGowen.
9. Archbishop Feodor reads the letter of fr. Andrey where he says, that His Eminence Gregory does not recognize my order about his transfer into other parish and by that has broken a rule "Bishops of each area should esteem their (Metropolitan) as a Head, not to do anything exceeding their authority without his reasoning, and to uplift his name in prays " (Ap. 34, Antioch 9).
10. Archbishop Feodor reads the official report of hegumen Andrey Maklakov, in which he says, that His Eminence Gregory does not recognize the decree of Metropolitan about the transfer of the hegumen Andrey to New York as a second priest at St. Nicols Church and also forbids him in service (the official report is applied) and by that breaks rule 66 of Cartage, that "Metropolitan can take the clergyman from Bishop subject to, and to make him deacon, presbyter or Bishop of demanding church.
11. Archbishop Feodor reads the application of priest Dionisiy McGowen, where in particular he says: "Being the witness of the unfair reference on the part of Archbishop Gregory to Metropolitan Valentine and his actions which in my opinion conduct to split, and expecting possible consequences, I address to the Synod to accept me and my parish directly in its conducting " ... " ... Archbishop Gregory have told to me, that I am not authorized to serve the Divine liturgy at myself in the parish. To me it was not gave any reason or an explanation ... " (the Official report is applied).
12. Archbishop Feodor continues to read to the letter of deacon Fotios (now priest), which in particular writes: "I humbly ask you to allow me to be directly under the Synod of Bishops ... This application I do because of initial infringements on the part of Archbishop Gregory, which has taken place recently and consequently to act in harmony with my conscience, I concern this problem with hope, that I can protect my soul and souls of those with me " (the Official report, the application and the letter are applied), and meanwhile the rule says: " Bishop should not forbid on predilection " (Serd. 4).
In result the clergy and faithful, having been indignant His Eminence Gregory's behavior, have left from under his jurisdiction and were asked to proceed under the Synod of Bishops of ROAC (copies of applications are applied).
13. Taking into account, that repeated conversations with His Eminence Gregory, advices, recommendations, have remained only words, and as it is known, to sew a word to deed is impossible, Metropolitan Valentine took decision to state in writing his errors and to advise him to leave temporarily on rest up to decision of the synod without the right of service of Sacraments, as foresaw, that His Eminence will not calm down and will revolt among the flock and monastic brotherhood, imposing every possible interdictions (the copy of the letter - recommendations is applied).
Have decided: To approve a position of Metropolitan Valentine and to consider useful to Church of God his advices and the recommendations stated in the Ukaz from 3\16 of June 2004.
14. The Chairman of the Synod has continued his testimony, that in spite of the fact that departure to Bulgaria was not recommended to His Eminence Gregory, however, he secretly has taken off for Bulgaria accompanied by archimandrite George and there served the Divine liturgy consecrating a deacon, and then together with clergy have taken off for Greece whereas Bulgaria is in conducting of the Synod and thus has broken Apostolic rules:
a) " Bishop should not pass autocratically from the diocese in another, and there to ordain and to do the Church affairs, not belonging to him, unless if there is definition of the Council about that. (Ap. 14) or the consent of local Bishop "( Ancyr. 13).
b) "The bishop should not teach openly in city not belonging to him, (Sixth EC 20), especially to humiliation of local Bishop " (Serd.11.)
c) " Bishop should not admire the clergyman belonging to area of another, and ordain without the consent of his Bishop, otherwise this ordaining is not valid" (First EC 16, Fourth EC. 20, Cart. 65,91,101, Sard. 15).
d) "The one who pass autocratically should be returned to his church, and his orders should remain not valid" (Ap..14, 35, First EC15, Second EC 2, Fourth EC 5, Antioch. 13, 21, 22; Sard. 1, 2, 3, Cart. 59).
15. The numerous complaints against archbishop Gregory are connected by that he insists on an obligatory baptizing of those who joins to ROAC, even these people were members of other true-orthodox churches earlier. Thereof, many orthodox Christians or could not join the Russian church, or could make it only after the extreme efforts spent for bypassing an obstacle on behalf of archbishop Gregory. Especially it concerns to those of orthodox Christians, which have joined true Church through ROCA before its apostasia, and now have remained without church shelter.
Not speaking about numerous cases with laymen (some tens families), it is necessary to specify, as on especially scandalous, on a case with archimandrite Michael and orthodox mission headed by him on the island Haiti, once included ROCA. Wishing to join the Russian church, archimandrite Michael has entered negotiations with archbishop Gregory, but has heard in the answer, that he can accept him only through baptism, then should be repeatedly baptized all those who was baptized by Archimandrite Michael, that is all a little bit hundreds person of his parishioners in Haiti (though all these parishioners were baptized in strict conformity with orthodox manner, in three immersions). In result, the acceptance in ROAC of the orthodox mission to 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 archimandrite 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 receiving order and, especially, through the baptism, as all kinds of receiving orders (baptism, christmation, repentance) are established only for reception in Church of those who earlier did not belong to it. However, as has time shown, archbishop Gregory has not heeded these admonitions.
The reason of it archbishop Gregory repeatedly stated, in particular, in his performances on the Internet. So, in 2001, acting on various Internets-forums, archbishop Gregory declared, that the person accepted in Orthodox Church by the second or third order (that is through christmation or repentance, but without baptism), never can become saint, even in a case of martyrdom. When as a return example to him specified on st. Elizabeth, he simply refused to trust facts of common knowledge of her biography (consisted that she has been accepted in Orthodoxy from a lutheranism through christmation).
Actually, behind His 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 high-grade Christians. The Russian church always realized, that in relation to heretics and the schismatics, wishing to accept Orthodoxy, in various local Churches existed and now exists various practice of application of the akrebia and oikonomia, and in a life of a same local churches this practice varied during history.
Such variety practice sometimes inevitably causes misunderstanding, however, as a whole, it is justified and never in history of Universal Church it happened epoch when a similar variety in application of oikonomia in relation to the communities separated from Church did not exist. So, a variety practice in the attitude of receiving orders of the same heretics and schismatics is mentioned in 1 Cannon of St. Basil the Great and in 95 of the Sixth EC.
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 such questions.
Not daring to bear judgments about validity of a measure of oikonomia or akrebia, 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 discernment of the fellow-bishops, who 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 archbishop Gregory is now guilty.
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 the Holy Baptism, namely, against the Apostolic rule 47 (repeated and in a rule 59 of Cart.). Archbishop 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 the holy apostles.
In a substantiation of this position he expressed, ostensibly on behalf of all Russian church, the opinion as if only ROAC and the Kalinik synod have grace of sacraments whereas all other churches of the world are failed.
This completely unjustified fanaticism of His Eminence Gregory is not a position of the Russian church at all, and for His Eminence Gregory it has served as the reason of heavy initial sins which are enough for his bringing to church court.
16. There are enough testimonies that His Eminence Gregory has broken numerous, above-stated rules of the Holy Apostles, Ecumenical and local councils, and also the rules of the Holy Fathers. Though the Synod of ROAC was not made formal legal proceedings and also a verdict is not made, it does not allow the right to somebody to consider permissible to interpret or especially to break the Sacred Canons which are the firm basis of the Holy Church.
17. His Eminence Gregory has admitted infringement of Sacred canons and of the Bishop oaths.
Considering above-stated the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church has decided:
His Eminence Gregory of Denver and Colorado not to be in communion ... to be on judgment, as one who made verdict against himself.
Considering the last events and His Eminence Gregory's applications on Internet, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church does not count more His Eminence Gregory as a Bishop of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church.
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.
