Home

 
 
 

 

BUENOS AIRES: Apri 27, 2010
An Argentinian Court Denies the Claims of schismatics 

According to reports by parishioners of Resurrection of Christ Cathedral in Buenos Aires (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia), a decision handed down on April 15, 2010, by Argentina’s Civil Appellate Court rejected an appeal made by a group of schismatics who had earlier seized control of the “Russian Orthodox Congregation in Argentina” (Congreraciîn Ortodoxa Rusa de la Argentina).

The schismatics appealed an earlier ruling made by the Inspector General’s Office of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Argentina of September, 2009, in which all the decisions made at the “general assemblies” and “council meetings” of the Congregation that the Congregation itself and all church property allegedly no longer belonged to ROCOR were entirely invalid. 

The Civil Appellate Court (Camara civil de apelaciones) rejected as unlawful the attempts made by the schismatic group to seize the legal structure and church property belonging to ROCOR in Argentina, and fully supported the decision of the Inspector General. The Court based its decision on a series of findings in principle. 

Firstly, the court recognized the specifics of the original decisions laid out 60 years earlier by the founders of the Congregation outlining the primary goal of this legal entity: to administer the properties of ROCOR in Argentina. The Court stressed that the Regulations [Ustav] of the Congregation unequivocally designated that ROCOR is headed by the Synod of Bishops and specified its address in New York.

This original fundamental determination by the founders of the Congregation cannot now be retroactively amended by a chance majority of present members, the Court found, since this would amount to the creation of an entirely new organization with different goals.

Pursuant to this, the Court confirmed the Inspector General’s prior ruling that all the decisions made by the schismatics during their general assemblies and council meetings were not only utterly invalid but are deemed never to have been made and non-existent.

In conclusion, the Court decreed that all legal expenses in this matter must be paid by the appellants.  

Buenos Aires, April 25, 2010