ADDRESS by Bishop Hilarion of Kerch
at the Extraordinary Clergy Meeting of the Sourozh Diocese
25 May 2002
Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing
and learning what he does?
John 7:51
Your Eminences, Your Grace, Reverend fathers and brothers
in Christ,
I was supposed to be absent from England until the
beginning of June. This meeting, therefore, was meant to take place in
my absence. However, having heard about its being scheduled for today,
I decided to change my plans and come back in order to attend it. I believe
that this is a unique opportunity for me to address you directly and to
respond to some of the things that have been said about me in recent months.
It will also be a precious chance for me to listen to your concerns and
criticisms.
My appointment I shall begin by telling you about my
appointment to this diocese on the initiative and at the request of Metropolitan
Anthony. This appointment has a long pre-history. I met Vladyka Anthony
for the first time more than twenty years ago in Russia. Then, in 1990,
when I attended the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church as the
official representative of the clergy of the Lithuanian diocese, I proposed
that Metropolitan Anthony be elected the Patriarch of Moscow. I did it
with his full consent, though neither he nor I believed that such nomination
could possibly work. In 1991 Vladyka Anthony supported me when I openly
opposed the Soviet intervention into Lithuania. From 1993 to 1995, when
I was a student in England, I met Vladyka regularly, and our acquaintance
grew into a deep spiritual relationship. It was at that time that Vladyka
first asked me whether I would consider coming to England in order to
serve in the Sourozh diocese. At that time I declined the invitation because
I wanted to return to Russia. Having returned, I was appointed a staff
member of the Department for External Church Relations and began to work
under Metropolitan Kirill. In 1999 Vladyka Anthony asked me once again
whether I would come to England. This time I responded positively. Vladyka
then wrote a letter to Metropolitan Kirill, asking that I should be released
from the Department and sent here. On my part, I approached Metropolitan
Kirill with the same idea. The Metropolitan was adamantly against my moving
to England. 'Just forget about it: you will NOT go there', he said. In
March 2000 he wrote a letter to Vladyka Anthony informing him that he
had other plans for me. On 11 November 2000, however, Vladyka Anthony
sent him another letter in which he stressed the necessity of my coming
to Cambridge University as a scholar. 'Apart from that', added Vladyka
Anthony, 'sooner or later Vladyka Anatoly will ask for retirement, and
we will need another Assistant Bishop, purely Russian. When I retire or
migrate to eternal mansions, his role, carefully conceived, may embrace
a significant part of the pastoral work among our ever growing Russian
flock. Vladyko, I beg you: change your mind and grant us,- and not only
us but the ENTIRE Russian Church,-a faithful and experienced labourer
in the difficult and ever expanding field of pastoral and inter-church
work. I insistently ask you, Vladyko, follow my advice'. As far as I know,
there was no response to this letter; neither was there any reaction to
a similar letter addressed to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.
In March 2001 Metropolitan Anthony wrote another letter to the Patriarch,
in which he complained about his poor health and asked that Bishop Basil
be appointed the diocesan bishop. In his letter he once again raised the
question of my appointment to this country: 'I would like to ask you,
Vladyko, to appoint Hegumen Hilarion to England as an Assistant Bishop
for the Sourozh diocese. We need a Russian bishop, to help Archbishop
Anatoly and the new diocesan bishop. The quantity of Russians has grown
so much that neither myself nor Vladyka Anatoly can cope with the pastoral
work, which requires education and spiritual formation of the newly-arriving
Russians. From the enclosed letter you will see that Cambridge University
has agreed to provide a stipend for him for three years in order that
he should become the head of the Theological Institute, founded by our
diocese... Father Hilarion is already known in England through his theological
works, and if he becomes the head of the Institute, this will help us
gain a new victory... I ask you, dear Vladyko, not to postpone these decisions'.
The decisions, however, were postponed again and again, mainly because
of Metropolitan Kirill's resistance. They may not have been taken at all
had Metropolitan Kirill not come to England in November 2001, accompanied
by myself, in order to meet Vladyka Anthony. During this meeting he agreed,
not without much hesitation, to release me from the Department for External
Relations. He also asked Vladyka Anthony, on behalf of the Patriarch,
not to retire but to remain the diocesan bishop. In his letter to the
Patriarch of 18 December 2001 Vladyka Anthony wrote: 'I am now addressing
you with an additional request: to appoint Father Hilarion an Assistant
Bishop, who will be entrusted, as I wrote you before, with lecturing at
Cambridge University and with special care for the Russian flock, which
ever grows... Until now it was Vladyka Anatoly who was occupied, heartily
and successfully, with the Russians. But as you know from his own petition,
the time has come for him to retire. I am now asking you to 'formally'
comply with his request, permitting him, however, to remain in England
until the time when the church is built and a parish is finally formed
in Manchester. The newly-installed Bishop Hilarion will then be occupied
with the Russians, both in London and on the entire territory of the diocese,
both in Britain and in Ireland...' It was this correspondence that prompted
the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church to comply with Archbishop
Anatoly's request and to grant him retirement, electing me his successor
and therefore transferring his title to me. I was consecrated on 14 January
2002, and Bishop Basil of Sergievo, whom I have known for almost ten years,
was among those whom I invited to take part in my ordination. I gave you
this detailed account of my appointment, with quotations from Metropolitan
Anthony's letters (which were not confidential and are available from
the archives of the Moscow Patriarchate) in order to dispel rumours and
disprove various statements made in this regard, such as: a) that my appointment
was initiated by Metropolitan Kirill, who sent me here as his 'agent';
b) that the Moscow Patriarchate, without Metropolitan Anthony's consent,
initiated Archbishop Anatoly's retirement; c) that I was invited here
as a priest but came as a bishop. I regret if, by quoting Vladyka Anthony's
letters, I disclosed some information which was to remain under a bushel.
But it seems there was no other way to answer the accusations made against
me and against the leadership of my Church.
My first two months in the Sourozh diocese I came to
London on the 1st of March and straight from the airport went to see Metropolitan
Anthony in order to receive from him detailed instructions as to what
I was expected to do. Vladyka told me that I should not concentrate too
much on the London Cathedral but should spend most of my time visiting
the other parishes in order to come to know personally the priests and
the laity of the diocese. Apart from that, he said, I should serve at
least once a month in Cambridge and begin working with the Orthodox Institute.
The rest of my time, he concluded, could be dedicated to London. Having
received these instructions, I first went to Cambridge to see what was
the situation with my appointment there. To my regret, I discovered that
little had been done before my arrival to prepare the ground. It is only
after I came that people started to calculate what my salary should be,
to investigate whether I needed a work permit, and to define my relationship
with the Cambridge Orthodox Institute. Even now this work is still going
on. Therefore, almost three months have passed since my arrival, but I
have not yet been formally appointed by Cambridge. Being not formally
appointed, I am not allowed even to use the Faculty building and therefore
have not much to do in Cambridge. From my conversations with the present
leadership of the Orthodox Institute I realize that there is no longer
a question of me becoming its 'head', as had been suggested by Metropolitan
Anthony. On the contrary, my role in the Institute is redefined and is
now meant to be rather marginal. In particular, I am not asked to express
any opinion about the future of the Institute, I have not been invited
to any meeting of the Directors, and all decisions as to the Institute's
management and development are taken in my absence. My involvement with
the London parish has also been quite limited. Only once did I celebrate
the Divine Liturgy on Sunday, only once was I allowed to preach. I did
concelebrate with Vladyka Anthony two or three times, I did conduct a
couple of Saturday vigils, and did give three talks to the people: one
in English and two in Russian. Apart from that, however, I had not much
chance to be exposed to the parish. This was not my choice: this was,
as I said, the recommendation I received from Vladyka Anthony.
It is therefore quite painful for me to hear that I
am 'inaccessible' and that people in London do not see much of me. I hope
that in the future I will be allowed to be more actively involved in the
life of the parish, otherwise I will never have a chance to come to know
it, neither will people have a chance to know me. Following Vladyka's
instruction, I gave most of my attention in March and April to the parishes
outside London. I embarked with much enthusiasm on visiting them and in
two months covered more than 7.000 miles, travelling westwards to Oxford,
Swindon, Tavistock and Truro, eastwards to Cambridge, Walsingham and Norwich,
northwards to Nottingham and Durham, southwards to Portsmouth and Exeter.
I spent Easter in Dublin, celebrating, for the very first time, in the
newly opened church of St Peter and St Paul. I learned how to drive on
the left side of the road (in the beginning I tried the right side, but
soon discovered that this discomforted quite a number of other drivers).
What I did not learn was to drive and to read the map at the same time:
I entrusted the latter task to one of the subdeacons travelling with me.
My impression of all the parishes was very positive, and I learned a lot
from talking to the priests and the congregations. It seemed to me that
good personal relations between me and at least some of the priests began
to be built, and that mutual trust began to grow. At the same time I started
to hear criticism of myself as being an 'inspector' sent by Metropolitan
Kirill to audit the diocese and to implement the changes which would result
in the diocese being transformed into a branch of the 'Moscow Church'.
These accusations were made against me, in particular, by Father Sergei
Hackel (whose parish I did not visit) at a small meeting in the London
Cathedral on Holy Wednesday. Father Sergei pointed out that I was not
personally responsible for the situation and that it was the way I was
appointed by Moscow that had created dissatisfaction among the clergy.
The problem, Father Sergei said, is not so much with Bishop Hilarion,
who is young and only begins his service as a bishop, but with Metropolitan
Kirill and the Moscow Patriarchate in general, who have wrong ideas about
the diocese and charged the newly ordained bishop with implementing them.
During this meeting Vladyka Anthony expressed some of the thoughts which
he later repeated at the annual general meeting of the London parish.
From his comments I realized that there is a group of people in the diocese
which repeatedly give Vladyka misleading or one-sided information about
my activity and, more generally, about what is going on in the diocese
and outside it. They are trying to build a wall between him and me, to
incite him against me by presenting me as an agent of 'Moscow', by ascribing
to me the sayings which I never pronounced and the things I never did.
They also slander the leadership of the Russian Church, including the
Patriarch, the Holy Synod and Metropolitan Kirill. One piece of information
they spread was especially peculiar: during Passion Week they told Vladyka
Anthony that he would be forced to retire and that I would be made his
successor. This, to me, was a clear provocation, but Vladyka did send
an urgent fax to the Patriarch asking not to release him of his duties.
The Patriarch was highly surprised and disappointed by this request, for
neither he, nor the Holy Synod had wanted Vladyka Anthony to retire. Another
incident of a slightly different kind took place on Holy Saturday. Several
weeks before I asked Vladyka Anthony whether it would not be a good idea
to write some kind of message addressed to those people who come to church
on Easter to see the procession with icons and then leave the church.
I thought such a message could be distributed among them some ten or fifteen
minutes before the service starts. Vladyka supported the idea and asked
me to write this message. Having written it, I left it to Vladyka for
approval. In about a week I asked him about his reaction and he said that
the message was fine. 'Should anything be changed, or added, or omitted',
I asked. 'No, everything is OK', he answered. 'Can we proceed with photocopying
and distributing it?', I asked. 'Yes, sure', he said. On Holy Saturday
some copies of the message were brought to the altar of the London Cathedral.
Here they were discovered by one of the priests, who read the text and
went straight to Vladyka Anthony. I do not know what he was telling Vladyka,
but as a result of this talk my message was banned from distribution in
London. Subsequently I was accused in having written a message which was
not approved by Metropolitan Anthony. I do appreciate that the diocesan
bishop has the full right to change his mind even at the last minute,
but I do not think what happened in this particular case (as in other
similar cases) was my fault. I acted in the interests of the diocese and
with the blessing and approval of the diocesan bishop.
Due to the activity of the same group of people, to
which, very unfortunately, several priests belong, all sorts of rumours
were spread about me. Though I am receiving no salary either from the
diocese or from Cambridge and in fact support myself and my mother mostly
from my savings, these people began to refer to me as someone 'possessed
with money', pointing to the fact that I bought a car upon my arrival
to this country. They criticize my liturgical style, which they describe
as 'pompous', though I sincerely believe that an episcopal celebration,
while being solemn and dignified, can also be humble and prayerful. They
try to oppose me to Bishop Basil, to create the situation of unhealthy
competition between the two Assistant Bishops: such competition, I believe,
should be avoided at all costs. Many of you have been contacted by these
people who retold you what I had allegedly said. Some of my sayings returned
to me in a completely unrecognizable form. I will give you just a few
examples. During my meeting with the English-speaking part of the London
parish I said that eventually some more parishes should be opened in London
because London is far too big to have only one Russian Orthodox parish.
The corrupted version of these words was as follows: 'He said that the
London parish should be split into two'. At the same meeting I said that
we must begin to think about the next generation of the clergy and that
there are a number of candidates for ordination, both of English and Russian
origins, including some from among the theology students. It was then
reported that I am planning to expel all English priests and ordain Russian
students in their stead. Speaking of the parish in Walsingham, I mentioned
that it is very small and that I see its future in further developing
it as a pilgrimage centre. The corrupted version of this was that I am
saying that this parish should be closed. Never in my life was I faced
with so much misinterpretation, misunderstanding, misjudging and misquoting.
I regret to say that some of these my alleged sayings are spread among
you and among your parishioners deliberately by those who oppose the very
idea of my presence here. I beg you, dear brothers and concelebrants in
Christ, if you hear from someone that I said something and if this my
alleged saying sounds silly, or offensive, or indecent, give me a ring
and ask whether I really said it or not. From now on I will record all
my presentations and talks: not because they are worth anything, but in
order to have a proof of what I said and what I did not. You have all
received an invitation to this meeting which ends with a rather mysterious
phrase about the diocesan statutes that are 'not worth the paper they
are printed on'. Though the letter is signed by Bishop Basil, this phrase
is singled out as a quotation from someone else. Because the meeting was
to discuss my situation within the diocese, I took it (so, I am sure,
did some of you) as one of my alleged sayings and rang Bishop Basil to
find out more. It turned out that the quotation was not from me. Why,
then, was it included in the letter of invitation? I am now charged by
Vladyka Anthony with always using the word 'rule' and not 'serve' in my
presentations. When and where was I using this word? Did you, Vladyka,
hear it or did someone else tell you about me using it? You attended my
presentation only once and expressed a very positive opinion about what
I said: when I asked you, as I always do, whether anything from what I
said was wrong or mistaken, you said that everything was fine. My other
presentations took place in your absence, and I deny that I expressed
the view of the bishop as a 'ruler' that is now ascribed to me.
My views of the episcopal service were expressed in
my acceptance speech, which was translated into English and published
by the 'Sourozh' magazine. These views have not changed. I came here not
to 'rule', but to serve. First of all, to serve you, Vladyka, to help
you, together with Bishop Basil, in looking after the diocese. Secondly,
I came here to serve all of you, the priests and the deacons of the diocese:
to visit you, to listen to your concerns, to help you in whatever way
I can, to pray for you, as I always do, to learn from you, to share my
ideas with you and to seek your advice. And finally, I came here to serve
the people, not only the Russians, but everybody: the English, the Irish,
the Ukrainians, the Belorussians, the Georgians, the Moldavians, all those
who constitute this unique diocese or are its potential members. Vladyka,
you have now announced that you gave me two or three months 'to form an
opinion whether I am prepared or not to continue in the style, and with
the ideals, which you have developed in the course of now fifty-three
years'. I do not need three months to form an opinion: I had more than
ten years to form it. If my opinion were not formed, I would not have
nominated you as the Patriarch of Moscow in 1990. If my opinion were not
formed, I would not have propagated your teachings and would not have
written forewords to your books, referring to you as one of the Fathers
of the Church. If my opinion were not formed, I would not have asked you
to be my spiritual director and would not have come to you for confession.
If my opinion were not formed, I would not have agreed to come to serve
you and your diocese, having previously spent two years in it. If, however,
three months are necessary for the diocese to form an opinion about me,
then of course I am prepared to wait, and not only three months, but if
necessary, three or ten or thirty years. Frankly speaking, I cannot see
how any honest opinion can be made about me in three months. You, Vladyka,
spent here fifty-three years, while I am now given three months to 'find
my feet in the diocese'. Many of those sitting in this room saw me once
or twice, some see me for the very first time. Do you really believe we
can 'form a unit' in such a short period? Do you really think I can 'make
a very rich contribution' to the diocese in three months? One thing in
your announcement is particularly hurtful: your statement that I came
here as a bishop 'without having had any experience of the life and the
style of life of the Diocese of Sourozh'. Vladyka, in 1993-1995 I spent
two years in this country as a hieromonk, serving regularly in the Sourozh
parishes. My 'home' parish was in Oxford, but for some time I also visited
Bristol every fortnight. Apart from that, I came occasionally to London,
attended diocesan conferences and other similar events. Was there any
problem with me at that time? No, all the problems arose now, when I came
here as a bishop. But are these problems related to my personality, or
to my views of the diocese, or to what people say about my views, or to
what people say about the instructions that I allegedly received from
Moscow? Since I have not yet had a chance to explain what I think about
the diocese and about my role in it, I will ask you to allow me to do
this now, the more so that the next clergy meeting will take place only
in October, while my three month 'trial period' will expire in mid-August.
My vision for the future of the Sourozh diocese It
seems to me that the diocese is unique in that it is a creation of one
man, who is still in charge of it and, I hope, will continue to serve
it as the diocesan bishop for many more years. Vladyka Anthony's personality
and spirituality has so deeply affected all levels of the diocesan life
that it is practically impossible to imagine the diocese without his active
participation. A most difficult task will be laid upon the shoulders of
his successor, whoever he may be and whenever he may step in: to preserve
intact what has been achieved during more than half-a-century of Vladyka
Anthony's service to the diocese. To preserve, however, does not mean
to conserve. The diocese cannot only be looking at the past without developing
any strategy for the future. And if one were to think about the future
of the diocese, several points, I think, could be made. First of all,
the Sourozh diocese is international, open to people of various backgrounds.
It should never be transformed into a national ghetto, be it Russian,
or English, or any other. The English language must be the principal language
of the diocese, simply because the diocese is located in an English-speaking
country. But each particular parish, depending on its demographic balance,
may choose any other language to be used on an equal basis with the English;
in some parishes other languages than English, such as Slavonic or, for
example, Georgian, can predominate. The decision about the use of language,
as also that about following a particular calendar, should be a prerogative
of each parish, and no universal pattern can possibly be applied to all
the parishes. I am deeply convinced that people of different national
backgrounds can peacefully coexist with each other. Tensions can be overcome,
but in order to do this, a very careful consideration should be given
to people's concerns with regard to the present situation. I have heard
from a number of English-speaking people, for example, that they are frightened
by the flow of immigrants from the former Soviet Union: these now constitute
the majority of parishioners in London. On the other hand, I hear many
complaints from the Russian-speaking people, who say that they are 'second
class citizens' in the diocese, that they are underrepresented in the
diocesan structures, that they fear the diocese may one day be transformed
into an English Orthodox Church (there is a lot of talk on this particular
subject) and that even that loose connection which the diocese now has
with Moscow may be lost. There is a Russian Orthodox parish in this country
which considers itself under the Patriarchate of Moscow but not within
the Sourozh diocese, and this is precisely because of the fear that the
diocese will move towards a kind of independence which many people will
not welcome. Some London parishioners are even saying that under the guise
of protecting the diocese from 'Moscow intervention', another project
is being developed, namely the surrender of the diocese, or at least the
London parish, to the Greeks. The tensions between the 'anti- Moscow'
faction and a group loyal to Moscow within the diocese have now grown,
and, very unfortunately, my arrival to this country has contributed to
this growth. The 'anti-Moscow' faction, to which a few priests and some
lay people belong, is against any real link with what they still consider
the 'soviet church': for them I am the evil personified and they do whatever
they can to expel me from the diocese. On the contrary, the other group,
which, I think, is much more numerous but much less vocal and less influential,
feels that I should be defended. The real issue, however, is not myself
but the position of the diocese with regards to the Russian Church in
general. My proposal would be that instead of repeating various stereotypes
about the Russian Church and its leadership, instead of stirring up passions
around the alleged 'Moscow intervention', a serious consideration be given
to the very question of the diocese's relationship with Moscow. There
are tensions, there are fears, there are rumours, but little is done to
come to a better understanding of what is truly the Russian Church's view
of itself, of the Sourozh diocese, and of its relationship with the diocese.
It is my deep conviction that the diocese must preserve its unique character
and should not become a branch of the Department for External Relations
or any other similar structure of the Moscow Patriarchate. In order to
protect the diocese from this, its statutes must be brought to the Patriarch
and the Holy Synod for approval. There is a controversy around the statutes:
some regard them as an implementation of the decisions of the Local Council
of 1917-1918, some see in them a significant step towards an independent
English Orthodox Church, others say, to quote Bishop Basil's letter, that
'they are not worth the paper they are printed on'. My personal view of
this matter is the following: I think the statutes are a real achievement,
a fruit of several decades of work, and they generally reflect the spirit
of the diocese. But the overall impression which one gets when reading
them is that their authors know very little about how the Moscow Patriarchate
as a whole functions at present. For example, the complicated procedure
of the election of the diocesan bishop, which presupposes a long correspondence
between the Holy Synod and the Diocesan Assembly, with the possibility
of many candidates being proposed by the Assembly and refused by the Synod,
seems to be rather unrealistic. The Holy Synod meets four or five times
a year, normally for one day each time, and takes decisions about the
appointment of bishops to various dioceses. The last session of the Synod,
for example, elected five bishops in one day. It is rather difficult to
imagine that the Synod would be engaged in a lengthy correspondence with
the Assembly and would postpone its decisions until the correspondence
is completed. Another problem about the statutes is that some of their
articles do not entirely correspond to the statutes of the Russian Orthodox
Church. This does not mean that they should be changed, but it does mean
that some kind of negotiations between Sourozh and Moscow is necessary
in order to have the statutes approved. My suggestion would be that a
working group be created, consisting, perhaps, of two people from the
diocese and two from the Patriarchate, and that the Sourozh half of the
group go to Moscow and meet the other half in order to read the statutes
together and identify the areas of disagreement. If you entrust me with
this task, I would be prepared to lead such a group and to negotiate the
statutes with the Patriarchate on behalf of the diocese. The other area
which is worth looking into is the formation of the clergy of the diocese.
I have heard bitter complaints from some of you about the fact that deacons
and priests are being ordained but nobody is particularly in charge of
preparing them for ordination, of training them theologically and liturgically.
Previously, when I was still in Moscow, I was occupied with preparing
people for ordination: many of my students are now serving as priests
in various parts of the world. If any of you would be interested, I can
help you with this: I can, for example, invite newly-ordained deacons
for a week or a weekend, celebrate the Liturgy and other services together
with them and help them to feel more comfortable, less insecure in the
altar and in front of the holy table. It seems to me that the relationship
between the priests and the bishops in the diocese can be improved. There
are a few priests who have constant access to Vladyka Anthony, but there
are many who hardly have any possibility to see him. There are parishes
in which two or three or now four bishops serve together, while there
are other parishes which have not been visited by a bishop for several
years. In some outlying parishes priests feel isolated and marginalized:
their involvement with the diocese is limited to a couple of clergy meetings
and one diocesan meeting per year; their anniversaries pass unnoticed;
they do not receive any signs of appreciation of their service from the
diocesan leadership. One theme constantly returned in my conversations
with the priests of the diocese: the ecclesiastical awards. It is generally
assumed that the Sourozh clergy do not need any awards (it is even claimed
that Vladyka Anthony is against awards in principal, which, as I discovered,
is not true), and some of the priests who have served the Church for decades
are not awarded even a gilded cross. One can, of course, question the
very necessity of the elaborate system of awards peculiar to the Russian
Church, but one cannot deny that it is the only existing system that allows
the bishops to show a sign of appreciation to the priests. As far as I
am concerned, I would be prepared to keep a diary of your anniversaries,
patronal feasts and other occasions which you do not want to pass unnoticed
and in due time to present your names to our diocesan bishop for consideration
and appropriate action. More important, perhaps, than the question of
the ecclesiastical awards is that of the priests' salaries. In most parishes
priests receive a symbolic stipend from the parish or no stipend at all:
they are therefore obliged to work full time elsewhere and dedicate their
free time to the church. As a result, many priests are overworked and
permanently exhausted, there have been cases of breakdown. I have no immediate
answer to this crucial issue but would be prepared to investigate the
possibilities of attracting additional funds in order to at least partly
sponsor some of the priests. At present no systematic fundraising is going
on in the diocese, while I am sure that there are sponsors who can contribute
to the diocese's well-being and development.
Looking for the future of the diocese, one must also
think about bringing to the Church those people who have their roots in
the Orthodox tradition. There is an estimated number of 200.000 or 250.000
Russian-speaking people in this country, of whom some would come to our
parishes if such parishes existed in the places where these people live.
There are no Sourozh parishes even in such big cities as Birmingham, Liverpool,
Reading, Sheffield, not to speak of many smaller cities and towns. Where
we are not present, some other groups become active, such as the so-called
'Russian Autonomous Church' headed by 'Metropolitan' Valentin of Souzdal:
this group have now opened a parish in Birmingham. I have frequently spoken
of the necessity to open new parishes, and my words were, as usually,
misinterpreted and misquoted: some people started to talk about an 'expansionist
strategy' orchestrated by Moscow, others of the proposed 'russification'
of the diocese. I would like to assure you that there is no such danger
both because any newly created parish will be open to everybody, and because
any parish which starts as predominantly Russian-speaking will be gradually
transformed into an English-speaking one. But there are a lot of Orthodox
or potentially Orthodox people in this country who are nor 'covered' by
the Sourozh diocese, and I am convinced that we must do more to help them
to find their spiritual homeland. In order to work with them, we need
a 'fresh blood', we need a younger generation of priests, which is now
almost absent from the diocese. There should be a mixture of generations
in the diocesan clergy in order that the younger ones learn from the older
ones and in order that continuity be provided. If we do not do something
now, in five or ten years the diocese will be faced with a big vocational
crisis, similar to that faced by some other Christian Churches in the
West. The candidates for ordination, however, must not be 'imported' from
Russia or elsewhere: they must either be of the local origin or, if they
are from outside, grow into the local situation; they must speak good
English and appreciate English culture; there must not be any cultural
barrier between them and the society in which they live. The diocese also
needs a more permanent monastic presence. As you know, there is no monastery
in the diocese, and the monastic species is practically extinct from it
(bishops constitute the only exception). The monastery in Essex continues
to be the main centre of Orthodox monasticism in this country, but there
is an ongoing tension between it and the Sourozh diocese: something, I
believe, must be done to ensure a better mutual understanding. People
speak of the Sourozh diocese as 'anti-monastic': I personally do not believe
this is the case, but I do think more can be done to create an ample space
for the development of monastic tradition within the diocese.
* * *
To conclude, I would like to state very clearly that
I came here to help Vladyka Anthony and that I received no official word
from either the Patriarch or the Synod or Metropolitan Kirill about Vladyka's
retirement and the appointment of his successor. On the contrary, I was
told that Vladyka will stay for as long as he wants and was instructed
to help him and to obey his orders: this is what I have been doing and
will do in the future. I will also make every effort to cooperate with
the other Bishops in the diocese in order to ensure that unity, peace
and mutual trust should be reigning among us. I can guarantee that I will
not impose anything on the clergy, will not attempt to 'rule' the diocese,
will not visit those priests who do not want me to visit them and their
parishes. I can guarantee that I will initiate the process of my retirement
or removal from the diocese if after some time it becomes clear that most
of you are against me. But I do not think three months would be sufficient
for you to form your opinion and am therefore asking for more indulgence
and patience on your part. If you would be willing to offer me your love,
your trust, your support and your advice, you will soon discover in me
someone who is ready to help you and to serve you in many ways. I am prepared
to work for forming one unit with you, using Vladyka Anthony's expression.
Whether we shall achieve this goal, however, depends not only on me: it
also depends on you. Let us work together, let us be open, let us not
judge one another, let us trust one another, and 'let us love one another
that with one mind we may confess Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Trinity
consubstantial and undivided'.
|
