These two documents are the documents with which Bp Irenei Steenberg instituted the 2021 schism of the ROCOR Diocese in Great Britain from the Moscow Patriarchate Archdiocese of Orthodox Churches of Russian Tradition in Western Europe.
Summary Timeline.
On 17 December 2020, Metropolitan John of Dubna, the ruling Bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate Archdiocese of Orthodox Churches of Russian Tradition in Western Europe (hereafter MP Archdiocese), received the Greek Catholic Priest, Fr Jacob Siemens, into the ranks of the clergy of the MP Archdiocese, by vesting and concelebration.
On 23 January 2021, in his Directive 359/E, the ruling Bishop of the ROCOR Diocese in Great Britain, Bp Irenei Steenberg, rejected the reception of Fr Jacob, stating that it is absolutely impossible for a Catholic Priest to be received into the Orthodox Priesthood by vesting and concelebration. In the same Directive (issued only four weeks after the reception itself), Bp Irenei severed the sacramental communion and canonical unity of ROCOR in the British Isles with the MP Archdiocese, thereby initiating a schism:
You may neither concelebrate nor participate liturgically, or in any ecclesiastical measure, with the aforementioned James [sic] Siemens, nor with any clergy or local institutions of the Archdiocese / Exarchate in the British Isles. Further, if You have any spiritual children or parishioners who at times have attended Exarchate parishes in the UK for reasons of proximity, etc., you must inform them that until this matter is resolved, they may not receive the Sacraments at any parish of the Exarchate in the British Isles.
On 26 February 2021, with his Notice 390/E, Bp Irenei issued the public announcement that, since Fr Jacob had not been (re)ordained at his reception, he was not a Priest, and anyone in authority who said otherwise – i.e. Metr John of Dubna, who received him – was guilty of “spiritual deception”:
In December of last year, the Archdiocese, based in Paris, supposedly received a Dr James [sic] Siemens into Holy Orthodoxy, though without Baptism or Chrismation, and now promotes him as a ‘priest,’ though this individual has no Orthodox ordination – in direct violation of the Holy Canons of the Church. … Dr Siemens is, according to the Holy Canons of the Orthodox Church, not a priest but a layman, and therefore has not received the grace of ordination to perform any rite or sacrament of the Orthodox Church. A ‘baptism’ performed by a non-priest is not a Baptism; ‘confession’ performed by a non-priest is not sacramental Confession; the ‘liturgy’ celebrated by a non-priest is not the Divine Liturgy and those who approach a chalice offered therein do not receive Christ’s precious Body or Blood, whatever may be said by the individual offering it or those in authority over him. This is but spiritual deception, and risks leading the unwitting faithful into the trap of false sacraments and false faith.
Response of the MP Archdiocese.
In response to the Bp Irenei schism, released a statement explaining the canonical and theological illegitimacy of Bp Irenei's actions. In particular, the statement clarifies the following:
1. The reception of Catholic Priests by vesting and concelebration is standard practice in Russian Orthodoxy. It is standard practice in the Moscow Patriarchate generally, in the MP Archdiocese in particular, and has been the traditional practice of ROCOR. This form of reception of Catholic Priests was the consistent practice of canonised saints, such as St Tikhon of Moscow. Notably, St Alexis of Wilkes-Barre was a Catholic Priest received into Orthodoxy by vesting and concelebration. As such, Bp Irenei's absolute rejection of the reception of Catholic Priests by vesting and concelebration is incompatible with, and indeed a rejection of, Russian Orthodox tradition. So a schism initiated on this basis is entirely illegitimate.
2. As a ruling Bishop in a ROCOR Diocese, Bp Irenei's jurisdiction extends only to those clergy within his own Diocese. However, neither Fr Jacob nor Metr John are clergy within Bp Irenei's Diocese, and as such Bp Irenei has no authority to pass judgment over either. Rather, by passing summary judgment over both Fr Jacob and Metr John, Bp Irenei illegitimately assumed for himself the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical bodies which do have jurisdiction to pass judgment over them. In passing judgment over Fr Jacob, Bp Irenei illegitimately assumed for himself the jurisdiction of the ruling Bishop of the MP Archdiocese. And in passing judgment over Metr John, Bp Irenei illegitimately assumed for himself the jurisdiction of the Archiepiscopal Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate. Both actions are grave violations of the canonical order of the Russian Orthodox Church, and as such are entirely illegitimate.
3. When a ROCOR Bishop feels empowered to act in such opposition to both the tradition and canonical order of the Russian Orthodox Church, serious questions are raised about the current status of ROCOR and its commitment to the 2007 Act of Canonical Communion. Schism should be an absolute last resort, not something into which a Bishop jumps in a period of just over four weeks. The speed, if not eagerness, with which Bp Irenei Steenberg, as a ROCOR Bishop, instituted a schism with an Archdiocese of the Moscow Patriarchate – thereby jeopardising the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church more broadly – suggests that such a course of action enjoys broader support within ROCOR. And the Act of Canonical Communion will not remain viable if ROCOR Bishops are so quick to jump into schism whenever a Diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate does not fall into line with their criticisms. As such, the events of Bp Irenei’s schism call forth a need for ROCOR to make clear its continued commitment to the Act of Canonical Communion, and hence its commitment to sacramental communion and canonical unity with the larger Russian Orthodox Church, whose internal practices and theology is not always the same as that of ROCOR.
4. The stated theological basis of Bp Irenei's schism makes clear the need for serious discussion and dialogue between ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate (including the MP Archdiocese) regarding the question of the reception of heterodox – a question on which ROCOR, particularly in North America, has come to differ greatly from the Moscow Patriarchate. But such a dialogue cannot be simply a one-way criticism, in which primarily North American ROCOR participants survey the history of the Moscow Patriarchate’s practice, making criticisms on points where such practice differs from their own. Rather, what is especially needed at this point is to consider how ROCOR’s sacramental theology and practice has come to diverge so greatly from the Moscow Patriarchate’s practice that a ROCOR Bishop could lead his Diocese into schism from an Archdiocese of the Moscow Patriarchate, ostensibly to “protect” his Diocese from the standard practice of the Russian Orthodox Church itself. Here, in particular, there is need for a serious consideration of the transformation of North American ROCOR’s sacramental theology since approximately the late 1960s, particularly under the influence of Greek Old Calendarist thought. A discussion on the question of reception with reference to ROCOR can only be fruitful if there is an understanding of how Greek Old Calendarists were able to lead substantial elements of ROCOR to reject the settled sacramental traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church – the very Church whose traditions ROCOR was established to preserve – in favour of extreme positions of modern Greek origin which diverge so greatly from Russian Orthodox tradition. It is to be hoped that – through such a consideration, in which not only do ROCOR participants offer criticisms the Moscow Patriarchate’s historical particularities, but in which the Moscow Patriarchate’s participants criticise these historical transformations in ROCOR – a new clarity would be achieved, across the Russian Orthodox Church, of the need to hold fast to the standard Russian Orthodox practices regarding reception, as these are expressed not only in the liturgical books of the Moscow Patriarchate, but above all in the living witness of Russian Orthodox saints such as St Tikhon of Moscow and St Alexis of Wilkes-Barre.
Comments