First Meeting of the Council of Bishops of the ROCA Diaspora District

August 19/September 1, 2017 Valley Cottage, New York The Holy Martyr Andrew Stratelates and with him 2,593 Martyrs

Attendees: Andronik Bishop Stefan Protopriest Gregoriy Kotlaroff Protopriest Sergey Klestov Protopriest Nikita Grigoriev Hieromonk Joseph (Chetkovsky) Dimitry Dobronravov Yuri Lukin Mark Kotlaroff Alexandra Manak

Participating by telephone: Bishop Andrei Protopriest Oleg Mironov Protopriest Oleg Gritsenko Protopriest John Trepachko Nikolai Trepachko Deacon Timothy Clader Reader Alexey Klestov Dimitri Gontscharow

Agenda 1. Decision on the formation of the Diaspora District, consisting at the present time of 3 dioceses. 2. Adoption of Provisional Regulations of ROCA. 3. The question of a First Hierarch. 4. The procedure for holding meetings of the Council of Bishops with the participation of the District Council. 5. The question of the name of the Diaspora District in Russian and in English. 6. The procedure for accepting from the Patriarchate. 7. The canonical position of the Omsk clergy. 8. The question of the parish jurisdiction in Brisbane, Australia 9. Other matters.

...... The meeting began at 6:15 pm with the singing of Heavenly King.

Yuri Lukin: We must choose a secretary. Vl. Stefan, do you want to propose someone?

Bp. Stefan: A secretary only for today's meeting?

Yuri Lukin: I will make a sound recording and will transmit it to Vl. Andrei, so he can compose the minutes of the meeting. Vl. Andrei, do you agree?

Bp. Andrei: Yuri, we need to choose a secretary of the Council of Bishops, and not for just one session.

Yuri Lukin: Do you think that we should choose a secretary for the Council of Bishops now?

Bp. Stefan: Vl. Andrei, are you considered to be the secretary of our District?

Yuri Lukin: Vl. Andrei, if you agree, you will serve as secretary for today. And then the question of who should be appointed as secretary of the Council of Bishops will be decided later.

Yuri Lukin: The first item on the agenda is "Decision on the formation of the Diaspora District, currently consisting of 3 dioceses." Vl. Andrei, would you comment on this agenda item.

Bp. Andrei: Our meeting -- the Council of Bishops with the participation of representatives of the clergy and laity -- is a very important event. According to the canons, each Bishop rules his diocese, having in his diocese the fullness of hierarchical power. But there are questions that go beyond the boundaries of one diocese, and these broader church questions are decided in conciliarity, by the Council of Bishops led by the First Hierarch. This is the canonical order of church administration. We do not have this now. Although we are in communication we do not have a canonical Church administration. According to the canons and Decree No. 362, we must create an organ of conciliar church administration. That is why we are gathered here.

Yuri Lukin: Does anyone want to add anything to what Vl. Andrei said?

Bp. Stefan: But we will return to this issue later?

Yuri Lukin: We thought of discussing each issue in the order of the agenda or do you want to read all the questions first?

Bp. Andrei: Items 1, 2 and 3 are interrelated. They are essentially one question. We are talking about the formation of a Diaspora District, but the District must exist on the basis of some charter. This charter is Item 2 item of the agenda: "Adoption of Provisional Regulations of the ROCA." Again, the District must have a chairman, and this is the third item on the agenda. These first three items of the agenda are better discussed together.

Mark Kotlaroff: In that case, you need to read these first three items.

Yuri Lukin: (reads the first three items of the agenda).

Archbp. Andronik: Vl. Andrei, I have a question. The third item on the agenda is the question of the First Hierarch. Does this mean that we must definitely choose a First Hierarch now or can the senior bishop of our District simply serve as the chairman?

Bp. Andrei: Vladyka, we must make a decision on this issue.

Prot. Nikita: Vladyka Andrei, I have a small question for you. Do you think our current meeting is authorized to make a decision on the formation of the Church District? Did I understand you correctly that you questioned the authority of our meeting to create such a District?

Bp. Andrei: No, Fr. Nikita. This meeting was called for the purpose of making such a decision. The decision on the formation of the District, in accordance with Decree No. 362, must be made by the Bishops. Under Decree No. 362, a bishop who is cut off from the higher Church authority, should contact other bishops and form a District. But we do not have a higher Church authority, we are all in this circumstance ... The separate existence of dioceses as we now have is uncanonical. We not only have the right but we have to do it. It is our duty. Moreover, by Decree No. 362 this obligation is assigned to the senior bishop in the group. Among us this is Vl. Andronik. This should be on his initiative, his authority. He must demand it. And the fact that our meeting is expanded, to include the participation of the priesthood and laity, again corresponds to the decisions of the Local Council of 1917.

Bp. Stefan: I want to add about the first item: we all immediately agree that we accept Tikhon’s Decree No. 362, as the foundational document for our times. This is undisputable.

Yuri Lukin: I want to clarify that Vl. Stefan is commenting on the first point of the draft "Provisional Regulations of the ROCA." I propose we go to the analysis of this document. Of course, only the Bishops have the right to vote on the issue of whether or not to accept this document.

Bp. Andrei: We need to keep to the order of the agenda. Item 1 of the agenda: Decision on the formation of the Diaspora District. Do we make this decision?

Multiple voices: Yes.

Bp. Andrei: So, we have formed the Diaspora District?

Archbp. Andronik: Yes

Bp. Stefan: There is no question on this item.

Prot. Nikita: In my opinion, this leads to the next question. Maybe it's worth examining now. When Vl. Stefan was under Vl. Tikhon, he was appointed bishop not only of Trenton, but also of North America. Vl. Andronik was also considered to be ruling bishop in North America. Is it not necessary to establish the boundaries of their dioceses now, i.e., what are these boundaries? Since we are now in the same District, should we not specify the boundaries of the dioceses?

Bp. Stefan: Clergymen and lay people do not elect bishops for themselves. We can discuss this later.

Bp. Andrei: On the 2nd item of the agenda, "Adoption of the Provisional Regulations of the ROCA." This text was sent in advance for all to study. Corrections were made. Should we now go through this whole text again, or, if everyone is already acquainted with it, should we simply accept it as it is?

Yuri Lukin: I think that we need to go through the whole text, this is why we have gathered here.

Bp. Stefan: I have a somewhat delicate question: it is written here that the church districts should be in Eucharistic communion with each other, i.e., we must be in communion with other Districts. But what if this communion is impossible because of some kind of heresies?

Bp. Andrei: Well, it goes without saying, if for some reason it is impossible to have communion, then we will not have it.

Bp. Stefan: But I'm worried about the word "must". That is, will we not have the right to separate from another group.

Prot. Nikita: I think that what is meant here is that we must be in communion because we all share the same faith and belong to the same Church. We are only divided for administrative purposes into districts.

Bp. Andrei: Vladyka, in my opinion, the word "must" is useful because we have become so fragmented that people have a changed consciousness. They think that communion between churches is like a political union; for example, one country concludes an alliance with another for the sake of some interests. However, this is not how it should be. The Church is one. Communion should be maintained with all who are Orthodox, i.e., if there are no canonical reasons preventing communion with someone, then we should be in communion. It has become common today that people live next to each other but do not share church communion for no clear reasons. It is not right. So this word “must” helps to overcome such an incorrect consciousness, to overcome isolation. We are used to living in isolation.

Prot. Nikita: It seems to me that one phrase would clarify this point: to the words "should be in communion" we can add "if there are no canonical obstacles."

All Bishops agree to add a reservation: "if there are no canonical obstacles."

Bp. Stefan: (reads the draft of the Provisional Regulations in Russian, § I-3: Mark Kotlaroff reads the English translation.)

Yuri Lukin: Does anyone have any comments on this paragraph?

Bp. Stefan: I spoke with Vl. Andronik and we think that is too early for us to elect a First Hierarch, especially "for life." This is a complicated question.

Bp. Andrei: I have a comment. As Vl. Stefan said just now, and Vl. Andronik wrote about this earlier, it is premature to choose the First Hierarch now. We have too few bishops. In this instance, when the First Hierarch is elected from the episcopate, any of them can be elected. But if you do not choose the First Hierarch, then the senior in should be the chairman. We have Vl. Andronik.

Bp. Stefan: I agree.

Yuri Lukin: Can we ask the opinion of our ? Do you agree with such a decision?

Prot. Sergey: I agree.

Prot. Gregory: This is correct, according to the canons.

Yuri Lukin: Well, everyone agrees. How are we going to do it? Should we rewrite this clause of the Regulations that address the First Hierarch or should we clarify that the chairman is the bishop senior in consecration?

Bp. Andrei: You do not need to rewrite it. The Regulations represent the ideal situation, how our Church should be arranged. If we do not currently have the opportunity to elect a First Hierarch, this does not mean that we should not have a First Hierarch. As for commemoration, it seems to me that one should commemorate Vl. Andronik, ahead of the name of the local bishop, only without the addition of the words "First Hierarch," but simply "Our Lord, His Eminence Archbishop Andronik," and then the local bishop.

Prot. Sergey: I had this thought. If we do not choose a First Hierarch, why cannot one bishop preside at one Council meeting, another bishop at the next Council meeting and so on. This way we will have some idea of the abilities of this or that bishop. So that in the future we can choose the most suitable for us as a leader.

Bp. Andrei: I do not like what Fr. Sergey proposes. Maybe this is possible, as a temporary measure. But if our chairman changes every time, who will we commemorate as the senior most, as the locum tenens so to speak? Even if we do not have a First Hierarch, we must have some kind of locum tenens, albeit without the title. Someone must be the head of the Church after all as this corresponds better to canonical order.

Prot. John: I also agree with this. It is necessary to choose one. Otherwise there will be one chairman, then another. It will be chaos. It is necessary to choose one chairman who will assume the role of leader. If we have the chairmanship alternate, that will not be according to the canons.

Bp. Stefan: It can cause misunderstandings. If you look at other jurisdictions, they are designated by the name of the leader. And we thus immediately know of which jurisdiction we are talking about.

Bp. Andrei: I consider it important to commemorate the name of the chairman before the local bishop. First, it corresponds to the tradition of the Church Abroad. Then, if priests continue to commemorate only their bishop, there will be no visible sign that we have a common Church Administration. Of course, an announcement will be published on the Internet, but this will be forgotten. Whereas if Vl. Andronik is the chairman of the Council of Bishops, this will be a visible sign of our unity.

Bp. Stefan: I do not see any obstacles to commemorating Vl. Andronik as chairman of the Council of Bishops.

Prot. Nikita: The Temporary Chairman should not have all of the powers of a Metropolitan. He must be equal with all other bishops and not have special powers.

Archbp. Andronik: The main duty of the chairman is to summon Council meetings.

Yuri Lukin: Can we move on to the next item?

Bp. Stefan: (reads the draft of the Provisional Regulations in Russian, § 1-4. Mark Kotlaroff reads an English translation.)

Yuri Lukin: Vl. Andrei would you like to clarify this point or add something?

Bp. Andrei: The general regulations were drawn up on the basis of Decree No. 362 and the resolutions of the Local Council of 1917 and, of course, the Regulations of the ROCA that existed previously (the 1964 version). The idea here is that each district should be administratively independent. There should not be any governing bodies over several districts. At the same time, the districts will be in communion with each other. In the case of need, Councils can be convened, including bishops of several districts, as well as with the participation of the clergy and laity, as it was before in the ROCA -- All-Diaspora Councils. As for the term "extraordinary" councils, this name is taken from the documents of the Local Council of 1917. But these are all theoretical propositions, which are not directly relevant to us now. We do not have a second district now, with whom we could together organize councils.

Yuri Lukin: Does anyone want to add anything or disagree with this?

Prot. John: I agree.

Prot. Nikita: (reads the draft of the Provisional Regulations in Russian, § II:1-2. Mark Kotlaroff reads the English translation.)

Yuri Lukin: Does anyone want to say something. Do you have anything to add Vl. Andrei?

Bp. Andrei: Point two is taken from the 1964 Regulations.

Prot. Nikita: (reads the draft of the Provisional Regulations in Russian, § II:3. Mark Kotlaroff reads the English translation.)

Bp. Andrei: When we were preparing this Council, the question arose more than once if we should have Synod [of bishops]. Do not forget that the Church is governed by a Council of all the bishops. This is how it was in the former ROCOR. The Synod was only an administrative body with limited powers. Ultimate authority belongs not to the Synod but to the Council of Bishops. We do not need a Synod while we have only three bishops.

Bp. Stefan: Under this point it says that "The Diaspora Church District is administered by the Council of Bishops of the District under the Presidency of the First Hierarch." But we do not have a First Hierarch. Thus, under whose chairmanship? It is better to remove this item completely.

Prot. Sergey: We can add "under the chairmanship of the First Hierarch, and in the absence of the First Hierarch, under the chairmanship of the interim president."

Bp. Andrei: These Provisional Regulations depict how the Church should be built in theory. We cannot change the Regulations every time, adjusting it to our current situation.

Prot. Gregory: Vladyka Andrei, to prevent any misunderstanding, wherever the First Hierarch is mentioned we should add, that if he is not available, then the senior bishop is the chairman.

Bp. Stefan: We should change this wherever the First Hierarch is mentioned?

Bp. Andrei: I would propose that instead pf repeating this phrase wherever the First Hierarch is mentioned, we add a separate paragraph: "In the absence of the First Hierarch, the bishop senior in consecration." Then there will be no need to add this phrasing in every case.

Yuri Lukin: Does anyone besides Bishops want to comment on this?

Yuri Lukin: I consider it very important what name we adopt. There are a lot of jurisdictions that call themselves the Church Abroad, who have nothing in common with the Church Abroad in either spirit or faith. But nonetheless, I believe that we cannot reject this name; we must keep the ROCA name. We also need to somehow add that this is the Church that did not join in union with the MP. I understand that it is impossible to indicate this in the title itself. I do not know how to do this, that's why I'm asking. We must keep the ROCA name because if we change our name to just diaspora, district, then it will be another church altogether. It seems to me that it is our duty not to abandon this name but to defend it.

Bp. Stefan: But Met. Agafangel calls himself ROCA and uses the synodal seal with the Cherubim.

Yuri Lukin: Almost all the “splinters” call themselves the Church Abroad.

Prot. Nikita: But they add another special letter to this abbreviation, for example, ROCA(A).

Yuri Lukin: This format was created by A. Soldatov, the editor of Portal-Credo, to distinguish one group from another, but this is not the name of the jurisdiction itself.

Prot. Nikita: We can just leave it as ROCA, without any additions.

Archbp. Andronik: In English, we can leave it ROCA - Abroad

Bp. Andrei: Discussion of the name of our Church is on the agenda under item 5. We should follow the agenda and better we finish the discussion of the "Provisional Regulations."

Prot. Nikita: (reads the draft of the Provisional Regulations in Russian, § III-1-2. Mark Kotlaroff read the English translation.)

Prot. Nikita: Maybe the words "for life," given our circumstances, should not be used here. This is too delicate a question.

Bp. Andrei: We cannot write new canons. It is the canonical order of the Church that the First Hierarch is elected for life. However, he was not intended to be a dictator. If the First Hierarch, elected for life, behaves contrary to the canons, then the other bishops may depose him.

Prot. Nikita: Well, if all of the bishops are under his heel, what can they say? Then we will get the same story as we had under Met. Agafangel.

Bp. Stefan: This opens the door to trouble. It is better to remove the words "for life." When we consider the election of a First Hierarch we can return to this issue.

Priest Dimitry: I propose this option: "The Chairman of the District Council of Bishops is the First Hierarch of the District. The members of the Council are all the Bishops who are members of the church district.”

Everyone agrees with this option.

Prot. Nikita: (reads the draft of the Provisional Regulations in Russian, § III-3-4. Mark Kotlaroff reads the English translation.)

Yuri Lukin: I have a question. As was the case once with the Synod, there was a disagreement over the required quorum at a meeting of the Synod. Do we need to specify what constitutes a quorum for the Council of Bishops of the District?

Archbp. Andronik: I think the participation of all should be the quorum as we have only three bishops.

Yuri Lukin: What if someone cannot participate?

Bp. Andrei: Those not present can express his opinion on the agenda items and can participate with the help of modern means of communication. Even if a bishop is in the hospital, he will be able to present his opinion by phone.

Prot. Nikita: (reads the draft of the Provisional Regulations in Russian, § III-5. Mark Kotlaroff reads the English translation.)

Bp. Andrei: If one of the lay people wants to discuss this or that issue at the Council of Bishops, they must bring the issue to their Bishop for consideration, and the latter will present it at the Council.

Prot. Nikita: What if the Bishop does not want to do this but the layperson considers this question to be of paramount importance. Does a layperson have the right to submit their question to the Council of Bishops without the consent of his Bishop?

Bp. Andrei: They have the right, of course, to appeal to whomever they wish. But they have no right to add anything to the agenda of the Council. The point here (§ III-5) is about the agenda of the Council.

Prot. Nikita: Of course, laypeople cannot change the agenda of the Council of Bishops.

Prot. Nikita: (reads the draft of the Provisional Regulations in Russian, § III-6. Mark Kotlaroff reads the English translation.)

Prot. Nikita: I am confused by the following: This paragraph mentions the Russian Church, without the word Abroad. But if we are talking about the whole Russian Church, then when we call ourselves the ROCA -- this will already be de facto the Diaspora District of the ROC. So the main church is ROC, but we are its diaspora district? It this so or not? And in Russia, what will a District be called? The Russian District of the ROCA? But this does not make sense, does it?

Bp. Andrei: Fr. Nikita, again, this is the 5th item on the agenda. We are jumping ahead.

Prot. Nikita: (reads the draft of the Provisional Regulations in Russian, § III-7. Mark Kotlaroff reads the English translation.)

Bp. Andrei: I would like to clarify that this point is about council meetings in the same format as the previously held All-Diaspora Councils. The very name "extraordinary council" is taken from the documents of the Local Council of 1917. The Statute for the All-Diaspora Councils corresponds to the decisions of the Local Council, as it is stated in this paragraph (§ III-7). Initially a decision is reached by all the participants of the Council and then the Bishops Commission approves these decisions.

Priest Dimitry: I have a question about the word "extraordinary." Was this paragraph written in the same way as in the previous charter of the Church Abroad?

Bp. Andrei: Fr. Dimitry, I probably did not explain it clearly enough. The charter of the All- Diaspora Councils of the former ROCOR was in accordance with the resolutions of the Local Council, but in the decisions of the Local Council of 1917 the councils of this format, i.e., with the participation of the laity, were called "extraordinary." Of course, we do not have to keep this term. If someone does not like this word "extraordinary" we can replace it.

Priest Dimitry: "Extraordinary" sounds like something unusual happened, something out of the ordinary.

Archbp. Andronik: Fr. Dimitry, everything is clear here. This is the same as when we had All- Diaspora Councils. This was the term which they called it in 1917.

Yuri Lukin: Here in the Regulations it says that only the First Hierarch can convoke such a council. But would not this result in our being accused of convening the 6th All-Diaspora Council without Met. Agafangel?

Bp. Andrei: Yura, the ROCOR Regulations of 1964 do state that only the Metropolitan can convoke an All-Diaspora Council. Of course, we knew that we violated the canons. But this was unavoidable, we did this out of necessity. The fact of the matter is that Met. Agafangel, in formally applying the canons, created a dictatorship. There are situations where one cannot use legal mean to get out of an impasse.

Prot. Nikita: (reads the draft of the Provisional Regulations in Russian, § III-8; § IV-1-2-3; § V- 1-2. Mark Kotlaroff reads the English translation.)

These paragraphs of the Provisional Regulations are adopted with minor corrections.

Prot. Sergey: What would we do if, for example, Vl. Filaret were to join us? After all, he is a Metropolitan. Will we accept him as the senior [bishop]?

Bp. Stefan: There was a case of a Greek who came to the monastery in Jordanville, and Vl. Lavr said to him that he would be a hieromonk here. And he humbly accepted that his title of archimandrite was not recognized.

Prot. Sergey: I like Vl. Stefan's statement that when bishops from different groups speak amongst themselves, they should speak as equals in episcopal rank. It does not matter who is an archbishop or a metropolitan. Later on when a unification of peers occurs then will come the time to elect their leader.

Archbp. Andronik: When this situation arises, we will resolve this. And so we can move on to the next subject.

Prot. Nikita: (reads the draft of Provisional Regulations §V-3 in Russian. Mark Kotlaroff reads the English translation.)

Archbp. Andronik: May I suggest the following variant that Vl. Stefan and I decided on. I will commemorate Vl. Stefan but my priests will commemorate only their ruling Bishop. It will be the same in Australia because we do not have a First Hierarch.

Yuri Lukin: But there are now three bishops in the District, so each bishop will commemorate the other two?

Bp. Stefan: Why should we here in America commemorate Vl. Andrei, who is in Australia. It does not make sense.

Prot. Sergey: So, if we have a joint service, we need to commemorate first you, Vl. Andronik, and then Vl. Stefan?

Archbp. Andronik: It depends on where the service takes place. If it is in the diocese of Vl. Stefan, then initially it is necessary to commemorate him as the ruling bishop, and then the visiting bishop.

Bp. Stefan: And whom does Vl. Andrei commemorate? Whom do you commemorate, Vladyka?

Bp. Andrei: Vladyka, allow me to express my opinion. I do not like your proposal. I have two objections: first, the First Hierarch was always commemorated in the ROCA to the name of the ruling bishop. There is nothing new here. We do not have a First Hierarch, but we have a form of locum tenens, the senior bishop. It seems to me, it would be correct to commemorate Vl. Andronik as the senior bishop, but without adding the words "first hierarch." Thus, all the priests will commemorate him as the acting First Hierarch. I think it would be better that way. First, this will be clear evidence that we have a Council of Bishops and that each of our dioceses does not exist separately. For example, Fr. Sergey previously only commemorated Vl. Stefan, and now he will commemorate Vl. Andronik and Vl. Stefan. For the parishioners, it will be a clear indication that a change has occurred and that we have a central church administration. As for the commemoration of other bishops by the bishop, there must be some logic. We have three bishops now but what if have 10? Will we have to commemorate them all? In addition, we begin the commemoration with the words the "Orthodox Episcopate of the Russian Church" so already all the bishops are included. There is no need to commemorate each of the others by name. I think the priests should commemorate Vl. Andronik and then the ruling Bishop, and the Bishops will only commemorate Vl. Andronik. And Vl. Andronik, as the District chairman, in theory, will commemorate the leaders of other Districts when they are formed.

Bp. Stefan: Vladyka Andrei, whom have you commemorated so far? Bp. Andrei: I commemorate Vl. Andronik, as I did when I was a priest. And in your parish in Brisbane, I commemorate only you.

Yuri Lukin: What you are proposing, Vl. Andrei, puts walls around us that will prevent others from joining us. Someone may not want to commemorate Vl. Andronik as the first. I'd ask you a question: we'll go talk to Archbp. Vladimir (Tselishchev)? By he is senior to Vl. Andronik. So, will we have to commemorate Archbp. Vladimir if he joins us?

Archbp. Andronik: Even if a senior bishop joins the District, he will not be the senior in the district. It always happens this way. As Vl. Stephen mentioned about the archimandrite who was received as a hieromonk. Similarly, a bishop, if he is accepted, he will be the most junior in our district.

Prot. Nikita: What did we decide in regard to commemoration?

Mark Kotlaroff: I would say that I agree with Vl. Andrei, in the sense that when the name of the First Hierarch is enunciated, a different impression is immediately formed. The question is not who will be appointed as the first. Despite the fact that Vl. Andronik is my uncle, for me it would be all the same if Vl. Stefan was commemorated first. In this matter, as the Bishops decide so we will do. But the commemoration of the chairman of the Council is a good thing.

Bp. Stefan: I do not understand. Are you, Vl. Andrei, saying that you commemorated Vl. Andronik, and in Brisbane commemorated me. Is that so?

Bp. Andrei: Vladyka, we did not have the District [structure] before. Therefore, what I did before is no longer relevant. We must decide what we will do from now on.

Yuri Lukin: You can resolve this amongst the three of you, Vladyka. We do not need to participate in this.

Bp. Andrei: This is a fundamental question: should the priests commemorate the chairman of the Council, or only their ruling Bishop. It would be good if everyone spoke on this issue.

Prot. Nikita: If it is so decided. I agree to commemorate the senior Bishop of our Council, but the Bishops themselves must reach this decision among themselves.

Yuri Lukin: So, we will leave this point to the bishops themselves. Let's move on.

Prot. Nikita: (reads the draft of Provisional Regulations § V-4 in Russian. Mark Kotlaroff reads the English translation.)

Prot. Nikita: I would add a comment that all of this falls within the authority of the metropolitan. But since we do not have a metropolitan, it may be that the authorities listed in this paragraph (§ V-4) should not be granted to the senior bishop, the chairman of the Council. For example, according to this point, the First Hierarch convenes councils. It turns out that only the senior Bishop will be able to convene a council while the other bishops will not have the right.

Bp. Andrei: Fr. Nikita, but this is correct. One bishop cannot convoke a council without the consent of the chairman, this would be uncanonical. Although we do not have an elected First Hierarch, we have a senior bishop and without his approval the other bishops do not have the right to convene a Council. In the same way, every bishop addresses epistles only to his diocese, while the Chairman has the right to issue epistles to all dioceses.

Bp. Stefan: We still have the question of the clergymen in Omsk.

Prot. Nikita: There also still the last section of the "Provisional Regulations" that we need to consider.

Prot. Nikita: (reads the draft of the Provisional Regulations § VI. Mark Kotlaroff reads the English translation.)

Bp. Andrei: I will add all the changes made today to the text of the "Provisional Regulations" and send them to the Bishops for approval.

Yuri Lukin: We still have the 5th item on the agenda: the name of the ROCA Diaspora District in Russian and in English.

Prot. Nikita: In my opinion, the Diaspora District of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is redundant.

Bp. Andrei: I propose that we call ourselves the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad - ROCA. This will be our name. But as in further explanation of who we are, we can add the Diaspora District of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Prot. Nikita: I fully agree with this option. However, if the church District is not in the diaspora how can it be a constituency of the Church Abroad? -- that's the question.

Bp. Andrei: This is not for us to decide. It does not concern us. Let the Russian bishops decide for themselves.

Prot. John: You can remove "A" from ROCA, and then it will be: Russian Orthodox Church District Abroad.

Bp. Andrei: Fr. John, I will repeat in English what I have already said in Russian. I suggest that we leave our name as the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA). And in brackets we will add, the Diaspora District of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Prot. John: What will our full name look like on paper?

Bishop Andrew: РПЦЗ (ROCA)

Mark Kotlaroff: Fr. John, the names of ROCA and ROCOR were used equally by the former Church Abroad. But the Church Abroad that is registered under the name ROCOR is now under the MP.

Prot. John: I would like to understand how to change my website to reflect the fact that we now have the Diaspora District.

Prot. Nikita: As I understand it, our name is Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA). And below, in parentheses, or in a smaller font Diaspora District of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Prot. John: What about "Abroad District" or "District Abroad"?

Prot. Nikita: It's up to us to decide what sounds better.

Mark Kotlaroff: There are two proposals, Fr. Nikita: "Russian Orthodox Church Abroad - District outside of Russia;" or "Russian Orthodox Church-District in the Diaspora."

Prot. Nikita: I like the Diaspora District of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Yuri Lukin: What name is adopted?

Prot. Nikita: The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA), and below, in parentheses, or in a smaller font - the Diaspora District of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Yuri Lukin: Is everyone agreed? If we are agreed, let's move on. Item 6 of the Agenda "The procedure for acceptance of clerics from the Moscow Patriarchate."

Bp. Andrei: I propose that since at the moment we do not have a practical need to decide this, we can leave this issue to the next Council.

Yuri Lukin: Does everyone agree? Vladyka?

Archbp. Andronik: Yes

Yuri Lukin: All right. So the discussion of the 6th item is postponed. Item 7: The canonical position of the Omsk clergy.

Bp. Stefan: They commemorate my name. There are 11 priests in Omsk, and elsewhere in Russia, and some in Ukraine. Among them there is no common opinion as to who should lead them. Some favor one candidate, others another.

Bp. Andrei: Vladyka, I have two questions for you: how many are there among these priests?

Bp. Stefan: I do not know for sure. I do not correspond with all of them. It seems 3 or 4 are monastics.

Bp. Andrei: If they have 3-4 monastics, they must have a candidate for bishop.

Bp. Stefan: They should, but some do not want one, others -- another.

Bp. Andrei: Vladyka, another question: how many of them are you in correspondence with?

Bp. Stefan: Three or four people write to me regularly.

Bp. Andrei: Vladyka, I cannot agree with those who write to you that they do not want any bishop other than you. After all, this is in reality the same as not having a bishop at all. A church in such a situation cannot develop. For example, if someone has to be ordained a deacon or a reader, who will do it? This is an abnormal situation. Their group will inevitably disintegrate, people will leave. After all, they have about 10 priests, this is a whole diocese. This diocese will not only not develop, but it will die.

Bp. Stefan: They understand this. But this is a temporary situation, as for example before the fall of communism, some catacomb priests began to commemorate the Met. Philaret of New York. They never saw him but they continued to commemorate his name. This is possible in exceptional circumstances.

Bp. Andrei: Vladyka, you provided a good example. We know that the catacomb Church, which did not have bishops, disintegrated. I propose that we ask them to organize a diocesan meeting to discuss their situation, with priests and representatives of all parishes attending, and you could follow on Skype. Then you can better understand what is happening there. After all, you do not have contact with all of them and you do not know what their thoughts are as a group. You in communication with only a few and thus cannot check whether what they write to you is the truth or not.

Bp. Stefan: Unfortunately, there is no unity among them. At least two groups have already formed. We cannot reach a decision now; it is an unstable situation.

Yuri Lukin: I might express my opinion. First, at this time they have nowhere to turn as there is no other District there.

Prot. Nikita: But there are bishops.

Yuri Lukin: There are bishops, but the Omsk priests do not want to have anything to do with them.

Bp. Andrei: Vladyka, they must elect someone from among themselves to become bishop. It is sad that they have such disagreements that they cannot agree on one. It seems to me that you should not abandon them but should direct them to the canonical path.

Prot. Sergey: They have in common that they all left Archbp. Tikhon. So, they do have something in common.

Yuri Lukin: All right. Well, this issue can be discussed further among the bishops. The next question, item 8 is on the affiliation of the parish in Brisbane, Australia.

Bp. Andrei: My diocese is small, I have only one parish in which I myself serve. But even before my consecration, I began to serve in the parish of Vl. Stefan in Brisbane. There is a small parish there. If Vl. Stefan and Vl. Andronik bless it, I would request that this parish be included in my diocese. If this request is approved, I would like to continue to commemorate Vl. Stefan in this parish, as before.

Bp. Stefan: Who is the leader of the parish, is there a church warden?

Bp. Andrei: There was a division in the parish last year. The group that has remained does not have a parish council because part of the council left with Fr. Aleksey Mikrikov, while those who remained are very elderly. We can say that Olga, the sister of Fr. Sergey, leads the parish with the help of Alexey Klestov.

Bp. Stefan: I will write to them, Alexey Klestov and Olga, and ask them what they think about the future.

Yuri Lukin: the 9th item of the agenda is about other matters.

Priest Dimitry: Vladyka, I want to remind you that next year marks the 10th anniversary of the glorification of Vl. Filaret. It happened in our Holy Trinity Church. This question should be somehow considered.

Archbp. Andronik: We can arrange a celebration, a banquet.

Priest Dimitry: I do not know how this is usually done. We will of course do all that is necessary, but we need ideas from you, our bishops and priests. We should probably arrange a joint service.

Bp. Andrei: I have a question. Our meeting is coming to an end. First, we must have an episcopal meeting during which we will approve the final decisions on each item of the agenda. How should we hold this episcopal meeting? This is the first question. Then, we need to publish an announcement about our Council meeting. As the preparation of minutes and the approval of other documents will take some time, it would be good to immediately publish a short statement that we held this meeting and that the District was formed.

Bp. Stefan: We can call our meeting the first District Council.

Mark Kotlaroff: I want to make an announcement that we will have a Church Choir Conference on October 27-29, in Mountain View, with the blessing of Vl. Andronik. Please send your singers to this conference. This conference is dedicated to the myrrh-streaming Iveron Icon of the Mother of God. Many in our Church do not know about the Iveron icon. Joseph is a martyr, this year marks the 20th anniversary of his martyrdom. Please come to this conference so that it will become another celebration within our District and a symbol of our unity.

Priest Dimitry: One more announcement. The Fund of Blessed Xenia was organized by Vl. Philaret 40 years ago. It still exists in our church. This fund serves to support the needy and, for example, paid some of the expenses for our Youth Conference. Please do not forget about this fund and send your donations.

Yuri Lukin: Does anyone have any more questions? Can we conclude the meeting now?

Bp. Stefan: I still want to say one thing to Vl. Andronik and those who are still being attacked by the Met. Agafangel. If he imposes a ban upon you, nothing bad will come of this for you. Archbp. Tikhon and his synod have also banned me and deprived me of my episcopal title. But I am still alive and well. Pay no attention to this.

Yuri Lukin: We can now pray. The participants sing "Worthy It Is." The meeting concluded at 9 pm.