His Eminence Diomede (Dzyuban), Bishop of Anadyr and Chukotka
Last week, a number of media outlets published an appeal from clergy, monastics and laity of the Anadyr and Chukotka diocese “to all the faithful children of the Orthodox Church,” which was signed by Bishop Diomede of Anadyr and Chukotka. This appeal contains, in particular, criticism of the “heretical teaching of ecumenism, the development of spiritual conciliation, neo-Sergianism, which subordinates church power to secular, often godless power. The justification and blessing of personal identification of citizens, approval of democracy, calls for voting for certain political leaders contrary to church canons and in violation of the conciliar oath of 1613 are indicated.”As Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, noted last Thursday, answering questions from journalists in Moscow, “this letter appeared precisely on the eve of the signing of the act of canonical communion with the Church Abroad. And it reflected the protest sentiments that take place in the extremely radical part of the Russian Church Abroad. “I believe,” said the bishop, “all this is aimed at disrupting the signing of the agreement and preventing the Russian Orthodox Church from restoring its unity.” In his opinion, the unexpected appearance of this letter convinces us that it is not so much Bishop Diomede who is incriminating, but rather a certain group of people who are still in the shadows, but will be found and accused of provocation. Metropolitan Kirill also recalled that discussions on the issues raised by Bishop Diomede have been ongoing for a long time in the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as in the framework of bilateral negotiations with the Church Abroad. And during this dialogue, it was already decided what is acceptable and what is unacceptable from the point of view of Orthodox theology. It is clear that the discussion can continue to continue. And we would welcome a broad discussion on this topic within the Russian Orthodox Church, noted Metropolitan Kirill.
Last Friday, we recorded telephone comments on the address of Bishop Diomede from our regular authors.
Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy Alexey Ilyich Osipov is at the microphone.
– I could make several points. It is simply impossible to analyze it all as a whole, since a number of ideas were expressed and the analysis of each of them would, of course, require quite a lot of time. Therefore, I would like to speak only on some points that especially attract attention. My impression is that this appeal is not sustained either from a canonical point of view or from a spiritual and moral point of view. I said it very gently, in fact, it is erroneous. In both cases.
What exactly do I mean?
The first thing that especially draws attention to is the very nature of the appeal. The preamble contains very good words from the Gospel of Matthew about if your brother has sinned against you, then go and tell him the truth between you and him alone, and so on. Nowhere else is a word said about whether Bishop Diomede spoke with His Holiness the Patriarch, or whether he spoke with members of the Synod. But he was a member of the Councils of Bishops. Nowhere does it even say whether he spoke at these councils. Surely he had the opportunity to express all these complaints. And suddenly, instead of “convicting between you and him alone,” there is a speech. It's not simple! Not an appeal to the Synod, not an appeal to His Holiness the Patriarch, but an appeal to all archpastors, pastors, clergy, monastics and so on. He took upon himself too high a mission, one to which only His Holiness the Patriarch and the Holy Synod have the right. This side, first of all, immediately evokes the appropriate attitude. What is the spiritual and moral state of a person who is capable of such an act?
And then – the title of the appeal itself. Again, everything is in the same vein: “it’s time to stop lawlessness.” Don’t Christian relationships between believers, especially between archpastors, require brotherhood? Namely brotherhood, serious friendly discussions based on church teaching. Here right away, right away: “it’s time to stop lawlessness.” Already an exposure. This is simply completely bewildering. Can a Christian even do this?
These are, perhaps, the most common and serious bewilderments that this appeal causes.
But then look at the issue itself, what claims are put forward in this appeal. The heretical teaching of ecumenism, spiritual compromise with the atheistic government... Instead of denouncing the anti-people policies of the existing government, you hear denunciations of the anti-people policies of the Church. I won't list them. These problems are not at all simple, this time. Secondly, in reality everything is far from being as it appears in this appeal. These are the most serious questions. Here, without any justification, without any evidence, some kind of accusation is stated, looking from top to bottom. Is this worthy of the person who writes like that?
Further. Bishop Diomede says that he did not expect that this appeal would be published against his will. If this is so, if he does not agree with it, he could cancel the appeal and say that he has no involvement in it. However, this again did not happen.
Indeed, Lord Diomede touches on problems that are widely heard, some of them are truly serious problems. Others are far-fetched things that have no ecclesiastical basis, neither moral nor doctrinal. In particular, about the INN, on which there was already an appeal from the Holy Synod, and entire conferences were held. If you disagree with something, please give your analysis and justification. We don't find any of this.
So, all attention is turned to problems external to the Church. Here there is democracy, and power, and ecumenism, and a church summit, and so on. And nowhere - not a word, no reference to the problems of internal church, spiritual life.
Recently, His Holiness the Patriarch said in his address: it’s time for us to end the external construction of the Church and begin internal, spiritual construction. That's really the problem. That's really what's most important. It is not in Bishop Diomede’s address. That is, the impression is that this appeal was written by people who are church-politicians, and not by people who are concerned about the spiritual and moral development of church life at the present time. Moreover, the address is somewhat, I would say, illiterate, even syntactically illiterate. All this is written in some kind of semi-childish language, at a school level. So after all, they don’t do it. Moreover, given the scale of the audience to which this appeal is directed.
Well, here are perhaps some of my most general impressions of this appeal.
We asked Archpriest Valentin Asmus, a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy, to comment on Bishop Diomede’s statement.
– Bishop Diomede’s appeal sounds very sincere. But despite this, it is completely unconvincing. Because it proves the unprovable. It proves that our Church is mired in ecumenism, in hyper-ecumenism, that is, in compromise not only with Christian non-Orthodox confessions, but also with non-Christian religions.
In fact, our Church has long experienced that fascination with ecumenism, which was characteristic, to be honest, probably of all Orthodox Churches, for a certain time in the decades after the Second World War. And in our time, our Russian Orthodox Church is, I am not afraid to say, at the forefront of the struggle against the excesses of this ill-considered, frivolous ecumenism, which has previously caused damage to Orthodoxy and continues to do so. I think it was our Church that initiated the fact that the union with the Monophysites planned by some Orthodox Local Churches did not take place. Monophysites are Christians who are closest to the Orthodox among all other Christian denominations. And yet, our Church was on guard of Orthodoxy in all its severity. And this reunion did not take place, primarily because the Russian Orthodox Church opposed it.
The Russian Orthodox Church opposes Orthodox-Catholic ecumenism, against Uniatism, which is being aggressively propagated and defended by modern Catholicism with clever techniques.
Therefore, we cannot in any way say that the Russian Church in our time is mired in ecumenism. Why is it necessary to expose her for something of which she is not guilty?
Unfortunately, the thought here suggests itself that these denunciations (I don’t know how much this depends on the desire, on the goal-setting of the author of the appeal) could interfere with the almost ready union of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad. This unification was prepared by great spiritual, theological and administrative efforts of both parts of the Russian Church, and this unification would be the greatest benefit for Ecumenical Orthodoxy, and especially, of course, for the Russian Church. And, in particular, because this unification would precisely strengthen the criticism of ecumenism in the Russian Church. We know how much attention the Russian Church Abroad paid to this criticism of ecumenism. And now, in a healthier environment of unity with the entirety of the Russian Church, this criticism of ecumenism would be even much more convincing. And not only for all the children of the Russian Church, but also for the Orthodox world as a whole. So, under no circumstances should we now interfere with the unification of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate with the Russian Church Abroad. Let’s not ask who needs to stop this unification and why. Let us pray that this unification will take place, and let us hope that Orthodoxy will overcome, by the grace of God and, of course, also by our humble human efforts, those divisions, sometimes very serious, that continue to torment it. Let us not multiply these divisions. We will fight in every possible way against everything that divides the Orthodox servants of the Triune God, the Orthodox servants of the truth of Christ.
We also contacted by telephone a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy, Doctor of Church Law, Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin.
– The speech of Bishop Diomede of Chukotka concerns too important issues and therefore his appearance without prior discussion in the Synod seems canonically unacceptable. The content is extremely radical, if not provocative. There questions are raised on the merits of the case that have no basis, for example, about the oaths at the Zemsky Sobor of 1613. What does this have to do with our modern life, when almost four centuries have passed since then? Therefore, this is an act that deserves deep regret. Naturally, it carries the danger of being drawn into schism by certain clergy or laity who are not firm in their views, in their church convictions, or canonically illiterate. Well, in general, all those who may be victims of temptation.
Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, Deputy Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, commented on the statement of Bishop Diomede of Anadyr and Chukotka.
– Of course, Bishop Diomede has the right to his opinion, and the topics he raises are discussed in our Church. They are discussed at the Holy Synod, and at the Council of Bishops, and at the Theological Commission, and in the internal church discussion, which is going on today in a variety of forms. I think that they will be discussed further. And this is not bad, because it is important that the voice of the hierarchy, the clergy, and the church people be heard on such complex issues as relations between faiths, relations with other religions, government authorities, and secular society. We must discuss these topics and not be afraid to express views, even radically different from those dominant in our society or in the world of political culture.
But at the same time, one circumstance is alarming. The situation that has developed around this letter is being joyfully and readily used by the enemies of the Church, used to split it, divide it, and sow intrigue in church life. Look with what energy this situation was picked up by anti-church journalists, the same Mr. Pozdnyaev from the newspaper “Novye Izvestia” or the portal Kredo.ru, some commentators who are trying to sow discord between our Church and the Church Abroad. On the Internet you can read calls to collect signatures for this appeal and to organize political demonstrations under the guise of religious processions.
I am afraid that this letter, whether Bishop Diomede wanted it or not, has become a very convenient occasion for activating those forces that would like to bring division into the Church. Including those forces that would like to disrupt the process of reunification of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad.
Look, the same Mr. Nazarov, who at one time was a defector from the Soviet Union and returned here after several years of living in the West, is now actively trying to disrupt the dialogue between the Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate. With great energy, with great enthusiasm, he propagates the conflict situation that he is trying to create around Bishop Diomede’s letter. There are forces in Russia and in the world that are trying to divide our hierarchy, to divide our clergy, the church people; there are forces for which the reunification of the Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate is like a bone in their throat. And these forces very actively took up the public work on the situation that arose after Bishop Diomede’s letter. These forces are rejoicing; they, it seems to me, are trying to use this letter to try to take power in the Church. The tasks of these forces are to divide, to stage a revolution in our Church in order to try, as it was once customary to say, to steer, that is, to control the situation in the Church for their own personal purposes and for the purposes of those centers, maybe Russian, maybe international, which allocate funds for the activities of these forces.
Therefore, it seems to me that to evaluate this whole situation, you need to apply the Gospel criteria - you will know them by their fruits. If the fruit is division, if the fruit is an attempt to manipulate the relationship between the hierarchy and the clergy of our Church, an attempt to pit people against each other, then the fruit will be sad. And I would be sincerely sorry if the name of Bishop Diomede and his position became a bargaining chip in the game of political manipulators and those power-hungry forces who would like to make the Church of God, the united Church, a field for their ambitions, a field for in order to put the Church at the service of their personal interests or the interests of this world.
At the end of this discussion, we would like to introduce you to the opinion of the rector of the Church of the Holy Martyr Tatiana at Moscow University, professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Maxim Kozlov.
– I think that today it would be extremely important for us to avoid some kind of extreme judgment and partisanship. By starting from what was said in the address of Bishop Diomede, we would refuse to look at the essence of what, in fact, is contained in his address. So that we don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
It is reasonable to consider the fact of this appeal from two sides. From a canonical point of view and the nature of the presentation of this appeal, it seems difficult to find arguments in defense of how this was done. And Bishop Diomede himself testifies that he, it seems, had no intention of distributing it in this way, but was preparing the text for some publication, although it is not entirely clear how, perhaps against his will, this text got out of control and became so widely known. However, the author, I think, acted honorably in any case, without giving up what belonged to him. This does him credit. But in any case, presenting this kind of appeal to the fullness of the Russian church people, of course, exceeds the competence of an individual bishop. Actually, it would be canonically reasonable for him to make this or a similar appeal to the Holy Synod, and, if necessary, to the Council of Bishops, if, for example, the consideration of the issue by the Synod did not completely satisfy him. Here, the correct procedure was, of course, violated, and this is all the more upsetting because it gives rise to all sorts of forces and people inclined to rock the unity of the church ship, to pull it now to the right, now to the left, to speculate on this and use the fact of Bishop Diomede’s sincere heartache in order to harm the Russian Orthodox Church.
If we talk about the content of this letter, then, I think, it reflects, like a mirror, the ethical problems of both our modern church life and the consciousness of modern believers, of which the bishop is as much a part as we all are, a part of the modern church people. This brings together real internal church problems that concern many, many of us, on a number of points. I can say that Bishop Diomede’s views resonate with me as well. For example, on the issue of ecumenism and the desirability of leaving the World Council of Churches, in the fact of being in which I also see nothing good. Or about a certain kind of servility, which, we admit, is indeed observed today at different levels of church life. I would not use the terminology of Bishop Diomede’s address, but we all feel that not every church person, regardless of rank and position, is always able to maintain that balance of the symphony in relation to the powers that be, the violation of which is so painfully perceived by the church people precisely as servilism, servility. And we all know that, given the excellent declarations in the “Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” life can be different, and this concern is understandable.
But along with these objectively important things in circulation there are also traditional cliches of right-wing radical parachurch consciousness, that jealousy when they strive to be holier than the Council and His Holiness the Patriarch. And it is this combination of good and right with obvious errors and misconceptions that seems most dangerous in this letter. After all, many problems that were raised in their time by renovationists or neo-renovationists were and are real problems of church life, but, being combined with their abuses, untruths, and falsely posed questions, they were not resolved for a long time, because well-intentioned people started from the whole complex of issues that they put.
I’m afraid that the same thing might happen with those topics, those questions that Bishop Diomede would like to discuss. In any case, I think we all need to pray that this situation will in no way affect the unification process with the Church Abroad, the restoration of our Eucharistic and canonical unity, and that all of us, preserving the unity of faith in the union of peace, will not give anyone to take advantage of this opportunity to tear apart the robe of the one Church of Christ.
By the decision of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of June 28, 2008 (magazine No. 56), Bishop Diomede of Anadyr and Chukotka was banned from the priesthood and removed from the administration of the diocese. The Holy Synod appointed Archbishop Mark of Khabarovsk and Amur as temporary administrator of the Anadyr diocese.
Archbishop Mark arrived in Anadyr on July 4, 2008. On the day the new temporary director of the diocese arrived in Anadyr, he met with journalists, during which he announced that he had come to Anadyr, fulfilling the obedience given to him by the Holy Synod. With Archbishop Mark, shrines arrived in Chukotka, donated to the entire Far East by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus' - a copy of the miraculous icon of the Mother of God “Quick to Hear”, written on Athos, a particle of the Life-giving Tree of the Cross of the Lord and particles of the holy relics of the Apostles Peter, Paul, James Zebedee and Saint Mary Magdalene, Equal to the Apostles.
When asked about Bishop Diomedes, Bishop Mark replied that at the meeting he would be given all the honors corresponding to the rank of bishop and the most favorable reception. Unfortunately, Bishop Diomede avoided meeting with the temporary administrator of the diocese who had arrived and soon left Anadyr. Currently, Bishop Diomede resides in the remote village of Cape Shmidt on the Arctic coast of Chukotka.
The absence of the former ruling bishop complicated the transfer of statutory, administrative and financial documents of the Anadyr diocese. Several meetings took place with employees of the diocesan administration and the clergy of the diocese from among the supporters of the former bishop, which took place at their request in the presence of representatives of the police and the Accounts Chamber of the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug. During the negotiations, employees of the diocesan administration gave written obligations to transfer documents, keys to churches in Anadyr and seals of the diocese and parishes. These agreements were repeatedly violated and, ultimately, were not fulfilled, with the exception of the transfer of seals and part of the keys. As a result of this, the temporary administrator of the Anadyr diocese, Archbishop Mark of Khabarovsk and Amur, filed a statement with the prosecutor's office regarding the theft of the statutory, administrative and financial and economic documentation of the Anadyr diocese.
Only after this did things move forward. On July 15, as part of investigative actions, law enforcement officers, in the presence of witnesses, seized documents from the warehouse of the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord in Anadyr and from a private apartment, where they were located in violation of legal requirements for the storage of such documentation. Currently, the seized documents are kept sealed in the investigation department.
Unfortunately, during the negotiations, supporters of Bishop Diomede allowed themselves quite sharp attacks against the new ruling bishop - for example, during negotiations in the Department of Internal Affairs of the city of Anadyr, they declared in an insulting tone that “Archbishop Mark is not an archbishop for us, he is lying and has sold out.” for thirty pieces of silver”; They accused Bishop Mark of violating paragraph 9 of the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church by filing a complaint with the prosecutor's office regarding the theft of statutory and financial and economic documentation for calling on the secular authorities to intervene in internal church proceedings on canonical issues.
This and many other puzzling questions that confuse the clergy and laity from among the supporters of the banned bishop are the result of their poor awareness and low theological preparation. This also includes the lawless theft of antimensions from churches and the celebration of “alternative” Liturgies in private apartments. Due to the fact that supporters of Bishop Diomede from among the clergy are prohibited from entering the priesthood, these actions fall under the 4th rule of the Council of Antioch.
During the 8 years of management of the diocese by Bishop Diomede, normal conditions for the spiritual life of believers were not created. Proof of this is the empty churches and the meager number of signatures on appeals in defense of the former administrator of the diocese. For example, the latest appeal published on the Internet, loudly entitled “Appeal of the Orthodox Christians of Chukotka,” was signed by only about 80 people from several settlements, which is less than one percent of the total number of residents of the district. And such a number of believers is the result of the archpastor’s eight-year labors.
As you know, one of Bishop Diomede’s addresses was the result of a diocesan meeting. It turned out that the signatures of several clergy were added in their absence at this meeting. And the signature of priest Leonid Tsapok appeared under the appeal as follows - he only signed the minutes of the meeting (which recorded his disagreement on literally all points). As a result, his name inexplicably ended up under the “Appeal”.
According to the testimony of some of the clergy of the diocese (hieromonk Nikolai from the village of Egvekinot, hieromonk Andrei from the village of Bilibino, priest Evgeniy from Pevek), their signatures also fell under the famous appeal by deception.
It is also characteristic that these four clergy, who have seminary and academic education and do not share the views of Bishop Diomede, serve in the most remote settlements, while the priests who support the actions of the banned bishop most often do not have any spiritual education, and sometimes even secular education, except high school, but at the same time they stay, for the most part, in the capital of the district.
Currently, regular services are held in churches in Anadyr by the clergy of the Khabarovsk diocese and priests of the Missionary Department of the Moscow Patriarchate temporarily sent to Chukotka.
Contacts have been renewed with the local newspaper “Far North”, radio and television. Printed publications condemned by the Hierarchy, such as “Easter of the Third Rome,” “The Spirit of a Christian,” and “Alarm,” were removed from church shops. In their place appeared the magazines “Foma” and “Neskuchny Sad”.
A trip of the clergy to the parishes of the Anadyr and Chukotka diocese is expected in the near future.
And about. rector of the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord in Anadyr
Hieromonk Agafangel (Belykh).
Graduated from the 9th grade of secondary school No. 8 in Perm. In 1994-1997 studied at vocational school No. 19 in Perm.
In 1997, he entered the Faculty of Chemical Technology of Perm State Technical University, majoring in “Machines and apparatus for industrial production and construction materials.” At the end of the 3rd year, I transferred to the correspondence department. In January 2002, he defended his thesis with a bachelor's degree in the direction of “Technological machines and equipment.”
Since April 2002 - resident of the St. Michael-Arkhangelsk Monastery in the village. Kozikha, Novosibirsk region. The monastery hosted various obediences related to the construction of the Trinity-Vladimir Cathedral in the courtyard in Novosibirsk. From June 2003 - regent of the monastery fraternal choir, from April 2008 to April 2011 - dean of the metochion.
On March 31, 2006, the abbot of the monastery tonsured him into monasticism with the name Matthew in honor of the holy Apostle and Evangelist Matthew.
In 2002-2007 Studied at the Tomsk Theological Seminary (by correspondence).
Former bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, who accused the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church of “deviations from the purity of Orthodox doctrine”
The former bishop of Anadyr and Chukotka (in the world - Sergei Ivanovich Dzyuban), who accused the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church of “deviations from the purity of Orthodox doctrine.” The author of the message “To all the faithful children of the Holy Orthodox Church,” which in February-March 2007 the media associated with the likely prospect of a grandiose schism of the church. In June 2008, Diomede’s activities were condemned by the Council of Bishops, which decided to deprive him of his dignity if the bishop did not repent before the next meeting of the Holy Synod. At the same time, a special commission of the Russian Orthodox Church, which studied Diomede’s speeches, proposed to bring him to a church court. In July 2008, he anathematized the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II. Deposed from office in October 2008.
In 1986, Dzyuban entered the Moscow Theological Seminary. On July 3, 1987, in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, he was tonsured a monk by the abbot of the monastery, Archimandrite Alexy (now Archbishop of Tula and Beflevsky) and took the name Diomede. On July 18 of the same year (on the day of memory of St. Sergius of Radonezh and the 650th anniversary of the founding of the Lavra) he was ordained hierodeacon by Philaret, Metropolitan of Minsk and Slutsk, Patriarchal Exarch of All Belarus.
In 1989 he graduated from the Moscow Theological Seminary and entered the Moscow Theological Academy, from which he graduated in 1993. On September 1, 1991, in the Donskoy Monastery on the day of the 400th anniversary of the Donskaya Icon of the Most Holy Theotokos, he was ordained a hieromonk by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus'.
Since 1991, he was on a business trip to the Kamchatka and Magadan (and temporarily Sakhalin) dioceses. In the Magadan diocese he carried out missionary obedience, traveling around the settlements of the Magadan region and Chukotka. Since 1992, he became rector of the Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and subsequently became rector of the newly rebuilt Holy Trinity Church in the city of Elizovo, Kamchatka region. On August 28, 1993 he was elevated to the rank of abbot, and on July 21, 2000 - to the rank of archimandrite.
On July 19, 2000, by decision of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, a diocese was created in Chukotka, and on August 10, 2000, Diomede was ordained Bishop of Anadyr and Chukotka. Meanwhile, under Soviet rule in Chukotka, according to official data, there was not a single believer, although Orthodoxy in those parts had been known since the middle of the 17th century, and active missionary service began at the end of the 18th century.
Bishop Diomede's relationship with the authorities was quite complicated. If, under Governor Alexander Nazarov, Orthodoxy was supported in Chukotka (the governor even asked Patriarch Alexy II to help in the establishment of Orthodoxy in the region, and he sent five priests and 14 graduates and students of the Belgorod Seminary to the autonomous district; in fact, after this the issue of opening episcopate in Chukotka), then under Governor Roman Abramovich, according to Diomede, a lot of preachers from America appeared in the region (since it has become much easier to get into the district, and no one persecutes foreigners there) - who, from the bishop’s point of view, are sectarians .
True, the governor nevertheless allocated money for the construction of a new cathedral - according to the media, from personal funds, and this partly reconciled the bishop with Abramovich (in 2005, Bishop Diomede consecrated this Cathedral of the Life-Giving Trinity - the largest wooden church in the world). The media claimed that, according to rough estimates, during the two years in power, Abramovich allocated the same amount of funds for the construction of Orthodox churches in the region as was allocated over the previous 10 years. This greatly contributed to the fact that by the beginning of 2007 there were already 17 parishes in Chukotka and the construction of the first monastery was planned.
At the beginning of February 2007, an open letter from Bishop Diomede “To all the faithful children of the Holy Orthodox Church” appeared on religious and patriotic Internet sites, in which he accused the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church of “departures from the purity of Orthodox doctrine.” In this message, the bishop reproached the leadership of the Patriarchate for “spiritual conciliation, subordinating church power to worldly, often atheistic”, and the lack of “exposing the anti-people policies of the existing government, leading to the collapse of the state, demographic crisis and other negative consequences.”
The bishop also expressed concern about “the violation of the principle of conciliarity in connection with the long absence of convening the Local Council and the transfer of its most important functions to the Bishops’ Council” - that is, the fact that church life is strictly regulated by bishops, and in the intervals between councils (which occur every four to five years) all issues are resolved by a narrow circle of members of the Holy Synod. Diomede also deserved special condemnation for the fact of “justifying and blessing the personal identification of citizens with the erroneous assertion that the adoption of external signs and symbols imposed by new times cannot harm the soul without its conscious renunciation of God.” In addition to Diomede, the letter was also signed by Abbot Elijah (Empulev), Priest Sergius (Bakharev), Priest Evgeniy (Pilipenok) and monk Gabriel (Larionov).
According to Novye Izvestia, the bishop's message was urgently conveyed to Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus'. However, he postponed consideration of the document - in connection with the beginning of Lent. At the same time, according to the RIA Novosti news agency, this letter was not received by the office of the Moscow Patriarchate.
But close attention of the press to the letter was attracted only on March 1, 2007, when the newspaper “Novye Izvestia” outlined the contents of the bishop’s appeal. By that time, the media had already claimed that in many central regions the collection of signatures in support of the bishop had begun and that we were talking about a church schism of incredible proportions.
The press service of the Moscow Patriarchate called Diomede’s statements evidence of his “ignorance and ignorance” and stated that they did not consider the letter to be evidence of a schism in the Church. At the same time, the head of the press service of the Moscow Patriarchate, priest Vladimir Vigilyansky, admitted that Bishop Diomede’s letter caused a wide public outcry, and suggested that the Holy Synod would soon express its opinion regarding the bishop’s message.
On June 24, 2008, the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church opened in the Moscow Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Diomede himself refused to come to the Council, citing poor health. On the opening day of the Cathedral, a clash occurred near the walls of the temple between supporters of Bishop Diomede and activists of the Nashi movement. Three days later, the Council of Bishops decided to deprive Diomede of the rank of Bishop of Anadyr and Chukotka: disobedience to the hierarchy and the schismatic activities of the bishop were cited as the reason for his deposition. It was noted that Diomede may repent before the next meeting of the Holy Synod, otherwise the decision made will automatically come into force immediately after the meeting of the Synod.
At the same time, a special theological and canonical commission of the Russian Orthodox Church, headed by the Patriarchal Exarch of All Belarus, Metropolitan Philaret of Minsk and Slutsk, studied the documents signed by Diomede and came to the conclusion that they discredit the authority of the church and “actually provoke a schism.” In this regard, on June 27, 2008, Filaret signed the commission’s conclusion, which states that “Bishop Diomede of Anadyr and Chukotka is subject to ecclesiastical court.”
On June 28, the Holy Synod removed Bishop Diomede from the administration of the diocese and prohibited him from holding divine services. However, Diomede stated that he did not intend to obey the synodal decision and promised that he would continue to serve, despite the ban, since he had nothing to repent of, and he did not consider himself guilty. Moreover, he sent a complaint against the decision of the Council of Bishops to the Church Court and, according to a representative of the Chukotka Diocesan Administration, expressed his intention to personally speak in court against the Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev) of Kaliningrad and Smolensk, “accusing him of treason Orthodoxy". It was noted that Diomede, in particular, accused the Metropolitan of “spinning his funds in Western banks and running his own business in the West.” It was not reported when the meeting of the Church Court was to take place.
On July 17, 2008, Diomede made an open statement in which he decided to transfer the Anadyr and Chukotka diocese to self-government and anathematized the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II, as well as his other opponents - Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad and Metropolitan Philaret of Minsk and Slutsk.
In the same month, Archbishop Mark, who replaced Diomede as head of the Anadyr and Chukotka diocese, announced the theft of all its constituent and registration documents, personnel documentation, as well as accounting and tax reporting. He suspected Diomede, who, according to him, was hiding at Cape Schmidt in the north of Chukotka, of large-scale thefts and sent a statement to the district police department and the prosecutor's office with a request to open a case against the disgraced bishop for illegal embezzlement of diocese funds. However, in August of the same year, Diomede returned to Anadyr: it was reported that he was indeed in the village of Cape Shmidt, where he lingered because the bad weather remained there for several weeks, and he did not have the opportunity to cross to the “mainland.”
The meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was supposed to decide the fate of Diomede, was supposed to take place on September 2, 2008. However, on the appointed day, representatives of the press service of the Moscow Patriarchate announced the postponement of the meeting “for an indefinite time” (the reason was not given). The meeting took place on October 6, but Diomede did not attend. On the same day, the decision of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church to defrock Bishop Diomede came into force.
However, even after he was demoted to an ordinary monk, Diomede did not obey the decree to deprive him of his episcopal rank. On November 10, 2008, his decree was distributed on the Internet, which announced the re-establishment of the Holy Governing Synod, as it was before the revolution - that is, without the Patriarch. Reporting this, Nezavisimaya Gazeta called the situation comedic, clarifying that the institution created by Diomede included only the former bishop himself and his brother, who were supported exclusively by a small parish in the village of Cape Shmidt in northern Chukotka, where Diomede began serving as a priest.
According to Novye Izvestia, everyone who dealt with Diomede spoke of him as a man of principle and fearlessness, who did not take money for christenings, weddings and funeral services and who harshly criticized his superiors [
The first concelebration of the chairman (and the only member in the rank of bishop) of the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (SPS ROC), Bishop of Anadyr and Chukotka Diomede (Dzyuban) and the former hierarch of the ROCOR (V-F), Archbishop of Sevastopol and Crimea Martin (Lapkovsky) took place on February 6, on the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee, in the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord in Voronezh.
According to the official blog of the Union of Rightist Forces of the Russian Orthodox Church, at the end of the liturgy, both hierarchs went to the pulpit, where each of them said his word to the pilgrims. The two hierarchs, as Archbishop Martin states in his blog, prepared “in defense of the Name-Glorification, which to many smart heads seems like an exhausted trifle,” “a document with a categorical condemnation of the heresy of name-theaty and other innovations that distort the patristic teaching.”
Bishop Diomede broke off communication with the episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church MP, while at its Anadyr See, in 2008 - in protest against the Interreligious Summit in Moscow, organized by Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev). This summit was, from Diomede's point of view, a triumph of ecumenism and globalism, incompatible with Orthodoxy. Bishop Diomede was supported by clergy and laity of a number of dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church MP, who formed a movement that subsequently split into a number of “splinters,” the most notable of which is headed by Diomede’s brother, Bishop Theophilos. For several years, Bishop Diomede did not appear in public, which gave rise to rumors about his capture, illness and even death. In the Russian Orthodox Church MP he is considered defrocked.
The future Bishop Martin moved from the ROC MP to the ROCOR back in 1990, when he served in Crimea. Subsequently, during the collapse of the ROCOR(V), he became the bishop of Istra and South Russian ROCOR(V-V), then actively supported the seizure of Crimea and entered a new jurisdiction - ROCOR(V-F). More than a year ago, he broke off communication with her, denouncing her bishops of the “heresy of name-wrestling”; his new jurisdiction was named ROCOR(V-M).
On January 24 (February 6), 2018, in the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord in Voronezh, His Eminence Diomede, Bishop of Anadyr and Chukotka, and His Eminence Martin, Archbishop of Sevastopol and Crimea, celebrated the Divine Liturgy together. At the end of the liturgy, both hierarchs went to the pulpit, and each of them said his word to the pilgrims.
Loading...
