“Unity in Our Time”: What Has JP Been Smoking?

“Unity in our time”… JP, what are you smokin’, who’s your connection, what’s the price, and where can I get some?

I have recently seen with my own eyes that OCA priests have not vested and served in GOA liturgies, though all others do. The canonical status of the OCA is, of course, peculiar, with the autocephaly recognised only by a Moscow Patriarchate of nearly 40 years ago, under vastly different circumstances.

What I’ve noticed is that the Greek hierarchs here have gone silent about Jonah Paffhausen just after his intemperate, inconsiderate, and foolish comments during Lent. A number of bishops issued statements in response at that time, politely ripping him a new one, but, since then:  zilch. That means something is undoubtedly up. But, what that may be is unclear as yet. Like all well-mannered people, our bishops are keeping their cards close.

From what I’ve seen, the OCL is dealt with like a crazy, ranting cousin:  politely listened to because they’re family, but, their recommendations are completely ignored. It has no canonical or ecclesiastical status, and thus has no standing. It’s that simple. Greeks love to argue, of course, even when they’re wrong (as the OCL is!). The converts that get into the OCL are usually former Episcopalians or radical Latins that want to take over the Church and remake it in their own image. Everyone I know holds the OCL in scorn, and thinks people are simply wrong for participating in it. There have certainly been various scandals and problems, but, the OCL is by no means a solution, although it was ostensibly those scandals that led to its creation by disgruntled parishioners.

But, yes, I’ve seen that same division you mention:  the OCA and AOCANA (we call them “the Arabs”) on one side, and everyone else on the other. Saliba has too much power, and is grasping for more. You know all his pet evangelicals? They first applied to be accepted en masse into the Greek Archdiocese, but, they were told:  “No, you’re not ready. You need more instruction”. Among other things, they had “problems” with the role of the Virgin Mary in the Church! So, they got pissed, turned around, and went to the Arabs, who hoovered them right up, though at least demoting their bishops to priests (which the Greeks were not willing to do at all:  they wanted everyone to convert individually, without retaining their corporate structure or ordinations). So, just a few years later, the Ben Lomond schism happened, and a bunch of them solicited the Jerusalem Patriarch (talk about canonically odd!) to bring them under his omophorion. The rest stuck with Saliba and his treacherous gang. It’s a total mess.

A Good Ol’ Workin’ Chap

I asked a friend of mine in the Greek Church for their take on the noises about unity coming from JP and Co as of late. The above was their answer to me. Before you do anything else, do read the following on oca.org:

http://www.oca.org/news/1990

Read it? Good! You just looked at something that we should nominate for the Pulitzer Prize in Fiction! It doesn’t show the real world as it is… JP is stoking up the bong and inhaling deeply, friends and neighbours.

First, Orthodox Christian Laity (OCL) is not an official organisation of the GOA… indeed, one could say that it is a group of malcontents at odds with the GOA hierarchy. Most Greek circles hold it is in very low repute. That is to say, JP addressed a faction that is anti-clerical and in rebellion against its bishops. He did not speak to a group that is in good odour with the GOA. Then, we must add to this mutinous soupçon the fact that it took place at Antiochian Village, an official facility of the AOCANA. For Saliba to give the use of one of his facilities to a set that often attacks the GOA leadership is, essentially, an attack against the GOA. Note well that oca.org is pumping this meeting up as an important event. If we take this and add to it his attack on the GOA earlier this year, JP is in trouble. He is in the deep kimchi and all the King’s horses and all the King’s men will not be able to pull him out of it.

Apparently, there are already places were OCA clergy cannot concelebrate at a GOA liturgy. I should add that when Iggy had our church dedication liturgy on Saturday 30 May, only one GOA priest showed up (he was a classmate of the Iggster at a special programme at SVS… so he doesn’t count). The rector of the largest GOA parish (St Sophia in Albany NY) wasn’t there… neither were any clergy from Jordanville (we are a 90-minute drive (some 110 kilometres) from the monastery… so it was practical for clergy from there to have been present). Doesn’t sound too united to me! JP drew only 80 people to this event… I counted them. I was there. I saw the autos in the car-park and noticed that their licence-plates were from Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York State. It took people from three different states to come up with less than 100 in attendance. That is meagre, derisory in the extreme, I say. It calls all the puffery on oca.org into question.

The above destroys the oca.org article. There is no need to go into a long discussion on  the Chambesy gabfest. It was NOT a meeting of First Hierarchs, nothing of note happened, for they agreed to nothing binding. It was nothing but a pointless and windy talkathon… a bunch of irrelevant theologians made the usual lot of useless resolutions and said the usual empty phrases about unity. It would impress me if, let’s say, Fr Vsevolod Chaplin or Bishop Mark Golovkov were to have said something about this (they are trustworthy sources). Instead, we have the usual windy talk from Hilarion Alfeyev… don’t forget that KMG took major portions of the DECR away from him and that HA is only a titular bishop (Volokolamsk is in Moscow Oblast, some 125 kilometres from Moscow City, thus, it is directly under the Patriarch (in reality, under his vicar, Metropolitan Yuvenaly)).

Therefore, unity is not around the corner… indeed, by flippantly speaking to the disobedient and unruly buccaneers at OCL, JP put a serious and grievous roadblock on the way to real unity! I agree with my Greek friend. Something is in the works and JP is not going to like it when Demetrios Trakatellis gives him a good dose of Granny’s castor oil (with the open and hearty aid of KMG, you can bank on that).

Reading oca.org is like reading Pravda of old… there is little there that corresponds to reality, but, there is gold for those who are willing to dig for it. I’ll say this; it’s never boring covering the OCA beat… things keep getting curiouser and curiouser. Let’s see what’s next… JP as His All-Holiness Infallible Pope and Patriarch of all America, Canada, Mexico, and the Outer Islands? (Shaking my head in wonderment and bemusement) It DOES take all kinds, doesn’t it?

Barbara-Marie Drezhlo

Thursday 5 November 2009

Albany NY

Guess Who WASN’T Invited to Dinner?

Patriarch Bartholomew Archontonis (1940- ) is visiting New York City as part of his trip to the USA. He met with all the Orthodox First Hierarchs in the USA… except for Metropolitan Hilarion Kapral of the ROCOR. Why?

On Tuesday, 27 October, Patriarch Bartholomew Archontonis of the EP held an audience in New York City for “the Orthodox Primates of the USA” in the words of oca.org. The URL for the entire article is:

http://www.oca.org/news/1979

How wonderful! How grand! How… MISLEADING! There was an “Orthodox Primate” (“First Hierarch” is a more correct translation from the Greek or Russian) missing!

GUESS WHO?

Metropolitan Hilarion Kapral, Archbishop of New York and Eastern America, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, that’s who. This meeting took place in the seat of his see. Some shall protest, “This was a meeting of the SCOBA hierarchs”. Yes… but, Jarmus did not state that. He stated that Bartholomew met “the Orthodox Primates of the USA”… that is the direct quote from oca.org. Besides that, it took him TWO DAYS to post this. I would have had it up immediately after the meeting… that is what a conscientious and dutiful person does. Jarmus is not only a lazy dogsbody incompetent; he doesn’t know how to use the English language. JP is a fool to engage such a sort as “Director of Communications” (Jarmus, apparently, is literate enough to cash an OCA pay-cheque, though!). In addition, Jarmus did not see to it that the proper people posted photos of the event (digital cameras exist, sir… we can post photos from them on that very day).

However, my task today is not to excoriate Jarmus for his (usual and expected) inept bungling. Do note well that Vladyki Hilarion was not invited to this great love-feast and Dixie-Fry of “the Orthodox Primates of the USA”. He IS the ranking bishop of the MP in the US… yes, the ROCOR is autonomous… but, it IS a part of the Patriarchate of Moscow and all the Russias (Vladyki Hilarion did take part in the last MP Archpastoral Council in Moscow, after all). This was a highly interesting omission on the part of the EP handlers of Patriarch Bartholomew. Bart did not plan this… no superior in any organisation handles such detail… that is handed over to underlings (who often have their own axes to grind and agendas to advance). There was no mention of a separate meeting with Vladyki Hilarion on the official ROCOR website. He was in Atlanta GA on Monday 26 October, but, there is no further news of his whereabouts after that date on the ROCOR site. Could a meeting between Vladyki Hilarion and Bartholomew have occurred? Perhaps… but, there is no posting on any website that confirms such a meeting.

Why was Vladyki Hilarion not at the meeting of “the Orthodox Primates of the USA?” Jarmus’ slip in grammar is probably not completely innocent. There is a possible explanation for this… one that is not very edifying (after all, we are talking of human-beings with real emotions, not soulless automata). More recent arrivals may not remember it, but, there was a bitter and acrimonious conflict between the OCA and the ROCOR from 1965 until (circa) 2000. ADS fomented this… as so many other cancers in the Church were. Trust me, this dispute was deep and it caused grievous wounds to both parties. It was one of the major causes of the decline in membership that both bodies suffered in this period (the other major reason was that gossip ran rampant in many parishes… typically, our parishes are so small (often, fewer than 200 parishioners, all told) that such personal silliness and spitefulness causes greater harm than in larger organisations). Both bodies hid this by not issuing accurate membership figures. We only have two citations from reputable “public figures” on this… Jonathan Ivanoff of the OCA stated officially that membership had declined 6 to 12 percent per annum for at least a decade. Alexander Lebedeff of the ROCOR stated that very few of the students that had gone through his church-school classes were still in the Church, and that New Russians (post-1991 Russian immigrants) made up 80 percent of the membership of the larger urban parishes of the ROCOR. In short, this was one of the most severe self-inflicted wounds in American Orthodoxy.

Obviously, the sentiments of that period are not dead. It is clear that the EP planners were in touch with people such as Lyonyo Kishkovsky of the OCA. LK could have gently reminded them to invite Metropolitan Hilarion as a courtesy… no doubt, what he did was more sinister. He simply did not mention him, and the Greek parties went ahead with planning, not realising that LK was omitting a key figure in American Orthodoxy by his silence. This raises questions about how deep the reconciliation between the OCA and ROCOR truly is and what the MP is going to do to resolve the present disunity in Russian Orthodoxy in the US and Canada. It also raises doubts on SCOBA itself… for the ROCOR is part of the MP, no? The reconciliation did not happen yesterday… it occurred in May 2007, over two years ago.

Of course, there were always personal contacts between Russian Orthodox people… in Washington DC, a priest at the OCA parish and a priest at the ROCOR parish were brothers-in-law. Amongst ethnic Russian people, friendships and family ties proved stronger than the “official” conflict (which was, basically, a private feud between ADS and Grabbe). However, we lost many of our children due to the disedification caused by the antics of the combatants. The most fanatic were  amongst the convert cohort… the worst were SVS in Yonkers and Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston. I remember an OCA priest claiming in 1984 that ROCOR was not Orthodox and that no other Local Church admitted them to communion (admittedly, he was one of the MP priests that went to the OCA after Feodosy Lazor became First Hierarch of the OCA in 1977). This priest is still active… and he is an authority-figure, interestingly enough.

I might add that a pall of silence from official quarters covers this haemorrhage. No one is not allowed to speak of it… nor can one speak of its major cause… it has gone down the memory hole. True, some public figures have spoken of it… but, nothing of substance happens as a result. My view is clear… we must have frankness on the actions of public figures in the past… otherwise, we learn no useful lessons and we shall repeat our previous mistakes (and they are usually worse the second or third time around). Mark down well that no one in the higher levels of Orthodoxy in the US wishes to speak of past errors… and, often enough, those of us who bring such up face accusations of disloyalty and slander. I would say that a membership decline has occurred… and that it is mainly due to our own freely-chosen actions. We have to discuss this openly to prevent such happening again. If we do not… trust me, the scandals of the past shall hold no candle to the scandals that we shall be handed in future.

Metropolitan Hilarion was not at the New York meeting with Bartholomew… that’s a fact. He belonged there… that’s a fact (he IS a First Hierarch, after all, of a larger establishment than some of those represented at the fete). The fact that he was not there was a scandal. Jonas Paffhausen was there… and the autocephaly of the OCA is not accepted by the EP. Hilarion Kapral was not there… and the EP considers the ROCOR a canonical church body. THAT’S a contradiction in terms, friends and neighbours. I looked at the official itinerary of Bartholomew and there was nothing about a meeting with Hilarion (are they to meet after the Patriarchal liturgy in New York City on Sunday? There is nothing to show such).

As Alice said… things get curiouser and curiouser. I’ll say this… events in Orthodoxy are never boring or dull… there’s always an odd twist to them, isn’t there?

Barbara-Marie Drezhlo

Saturday 31 October 2009

Albany NY

The Pope, the Patriarch, and the Relationship of the Churches…

Archbishop Christodoulous Pereskaveidis of Athens and all Greece (1939-2008), First Hierarch of the Local Church in Greece, ruled 1998-2008

My thoughts, which are presented below, are not a reproach against the person of His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Rather, they express the apprehension held by a large part of the faithful, so, I humbly make them public so that he could think and reflect on them. He is a wise man! The fact is, as we all know, the wise learn, they multiply their wisdom, by listening to all, even youths and earthworms.

As for me, I act according to the well-known axiom, “Plato may be my friend, but, the truth is even dearer to me”. I dare to speak the truth, when others keep silent; I speak the truth, when others issue flattery; I speak frankly, when others dissimulate. If the late Archbishop Christodoulous were alive today, he would confirm this. All too often, I caused him pain by my words, doing so in the name of love and truth. Christodoulous, who was given the cold shoulder by the mother-church after the dismal scenario played out in the Phanar! ¹ Who can forget that truly terrible ceremony, which, unfortunately, was the work of the patriarch himself?

* * * * * *

His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew returned to the centre of public attention in relation to the theological dialogue between East and West, between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. As a result of his recent fourth visit to the Vatican in October 2008 to attend a conference of Catholic bishops, he provoked a climate of fear in our midst. Many noted his statement that his presence at the conference “was a manifestation of the action of the Spirit of God”. The impression is created that the patriarch is in a hurry; he is running, in a rush to combine the Churches. At least, that is how some of us understand his actions. We cannot ignore the protests of the pious faithful of the Church; we cannot by one stroke of the pen erase them all, saying to ourselves, “Let them leave! They are die-hard fanatics”. We must take into account that amongst them are bishops, priests, scholars, monks, teachers of theological schools, and many other worthy members of the Church of Christ.

The participation of our distinguished patriarch in a Catholic service and his joint prayer with the Pope of Rome causes not only apprehension, but, also, enormous grief. This is not allowed by the Holy Canons! Under the canons, he has already condemned himself for his dreadfully presumptuous actions in the Liturgy in Ravenna, done a few years ago. Yes, now, too, the canons condemn him. Patriarch Bartholomew overstepped the permissible boundaries in the communication between the East and West; indeed, the joint recitation of the symbol of faith is a liturgical act. Of course, it did not reach the level of participation in the common Chalice, in joint celebration of the Bloodless Sacrifice, but, the confession of faith does not cease from this to be the same. If we have such a difference in doctrine, if the theological dialogue at the last stage (Ravenna in 2007) gave rise to so much turmoil amongst Orthodox, our steps must be very careful and measured.

I understand that contacts between religious leaders are needed. Therefore, so that the efforts of their subordinates in the Church are successful, the leaders need to discover ways to do this. But, I cannot understand why it is necessary to ignore the limits laid down by the Fathers. I can attend the Catholic liturgy as an ordinary visitor or a tourist, but, as a bishop, I cannot give a blessing by saying “Peace be to all”. In addition, I cannot, along with the Catholics say “I believe”, even if it were the conventional text of Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Otherwise, it is a form of complicity in joint prayer, to which His Holiness has not received authorisation from the other Local Orthodox Churches. It is an action based on personal caprice.

Archbishop Stylianos of Australia protested with great vehemence against steps of this kind, and, in general, against the breaches of the limits he observed in the theological dialogue. He is a bishop of the Ecumenical throne, a great friend to our patriarch, a professor and long-standing moderator and co-chairman of the Mixed Commission for Theological Dialogue. But, the fathers of Holy Mount Athos did not protest, even though we had expected that. I am simultaneously surprised and puzzled concerning their silence! Usually, in other cases, they were more vociferous than the rest of us, but, in this case, they were as silent as the fishes. Why is there such a double standard? Such behaviour is not worthy of emulation! The only (and most welcome) exception was the statement issued by the abbot of Xeropotamou Monastery, Fr Joseph, during the visit of His Holiness Bartholomew to his monastery. I shall cite below his wise and memorable words of greeting addressed to our patriarch.

Xeropotamou Monastery on Mount Athos

“Let not the holy prayers of Your Holiness be maimed and distorted because of the weaknesses of our monastic witness of our faith, because everything that comes not from faith is sin, as the Apostle says (Romans 14:23). Here, Your Holiness, allow us to address you with filial boldness, and bring to your attention two themes that are close our heart and tempt our monastic conscience and the consciences of many pious Orthodox Christians who come to us. Firstly, one sees a continued acknowledgment by Your Holiness in official speeches, joint prayers in church, and appearances on television, of representatives of the incorrigible and uncorrected contemporary papacy. Secondly, some say that there is no ecclesiological and theological witness to Orthodoxy through the participation of our representatives to the World Council of Churches, thusly, bringing about a tacit adoption of Protestant ecclesiology, which defines the structure and functioning of this quasi-Protestant organisation.

Your Holiness, together with St John Chrysostom, we, your humble and unworthy servants, say to you, ‘Do not accept any false teaching under the guise of love’. We, the humble monks of the Xeropotamou Monastery, along with many pious people, share the concern that we should continue to abide in the faith given by the Holy Apostles and Holy Fathers. In our love for the heterodox, we should extend to them our sincere assistance. We shall be able to help them only if the Orthodox point up the consistent position of the Church, indicating to them the scale of their spiritual sickness and showing them the way to healing.

With deep pain in our hearts, we most reverentially ask you that we do not accompany any further theological dialogue with joint prayers and participation in liturgical and prayer services of each other, as well as other actions that may create the impression that our Orthodox Church accepts the Catholics as a Church at present, and that the Pope of Rome is the canonical bishop of Rome. Such actions introduce error into the impression of the state of unity existing between Orthodox and Catholics, giving them a false sense that we think of them as being Orthodox. And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but, the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13: 13). By your paternal love, please, forgive us this deviation into confessional issues, and look at the humble persons of our brotherhood, which looks upon you with great respect”.

Metropolitan Amvrosios of Kalavryta and Aegialia, of the Local Church of Greece, the author of this article

I stated the above as an introduction in order to turn to the other side of the question of the relations of Orthodox and Catholics.

1. No, absolutely no, attempt at rapprochement will be able to bring results, if the Catholics do not cease to engage in proselytism among the Orthodox in Russia, the Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and other countries of the former Eastern bloc.
2. No attempt at rapprochement will be able to bring results if the Catholics do not abolish the Unia in Greece and elsewhere.
3. No, absolutely no, attempt at rapprochement will be able to bring results if the Catholics do not repent of the blame, laid on their shoulders in recent years, when they shed the innocent blood of Orthodox in Bosnia, Croatia, and elsewhere. All of this was in the name of the faith and of Christ.
4. No, absolutely no, attempt at rapprochement will not be able to bring results if the Catholics do not repent of the blame laid on them for the funding that the Vatican gave to the Muslims during the war in Bosnia against the Orthodox. This crime was committed only a few years ago.

When we brought aid into Serbia personally, we had the opportunity to visit the battlefield, at the frontline, in the zone of combat, when the Serbs were besieging Gorazde. I heard the words of the heroic General Mladić personally. He said that a) in the United Nations trucks carrying food for the Muslims, weapons and ammunition was hidden under the food, and b) the Vatican financed the purchase of the weapons! A little later, a senior official at the Ministry of Defence of Greece told me the very same information on a very confidential basis.

Even if the official visits between Constantinople and the Vatican continue, even if joint prayer and concessions continue, even if the Orthodox take steps of goodwill, there can be no real merger of the two churches if a repentance for all past crimes is not given first, which inevitably leads us to the recollection of similar cases and crimes going back to the period of the Crusades. Since then, it seems, nothing has changed.

Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac (1898-1960), supporter of the Croatian Ustaše massacre of Serbian Orthodox in World War II (shown here with Ante Pavelich, the Nazi collaborationist ruler of Croatia). If Rome wishes to be our friend, they must remove this thug from the list of saints.

We found important documents relating to our subject. They deal with events that happened long ago in the Second World War in Serbia connected to Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac. They are of great importance, because they prove, at base, that Rome gave a secular foundation to the institution of the papacy and the church, Rome became the secular state of the Vatican. Over the centuries, it has not changed any of its methods or behaviour. The end justifies the means, up to the murder of infidels, that is, “wrongfully-believing” Orthodox. Lord, have mercy!

The Italian writer Marco Aurelio Rivelli wrote the book, Archbishop of Genocide (see: www.mkka.blogspot.com), which deals with the position of the Catholic bishop of the specific area in those years. A quote from the forward to his book stated, “Railway wagons full of prisoners were sent to the concentration camps. ‘Rotten Fruit’ was chalked on the exterior of the wagons, whilst, inside, they were loaded with Orthodox Serbs marked for death. In one concentration camp alone, some 700,000 Orthodox were done to death! This was the genocide of Stepinac! This ‘archbishop of genocide’, as he was aptly named, was recently added by the Catholic Church to the list of its saints! On what basis can we discuss church unity?” (From the Foreword to the book Archbishop of Genocide, written by His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos Liapis of Athens and all Greece, at the time, metropolitan of Thebes and Levadeia, 2000).

Even if the official visits of the heads of the churches to Rome or Constantinople continue, the union of the churches will remain an impossible and, therefore, misleading dream. Don’t worry about the “zealots” and the “super-super-orthodox!” The guards know everything! If it is necessary, we will all stand in defence of our faith. We will not abandon you, our beloved Orthodoxy.

Metropolitan Amvrosios of Kalavyrta and Aegialia

Translated from the Greek by Anatolia Churyakova

3 December 2008

Footnote:

1. In 2003, dramatically worsened relations between the leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, on the one hand, and the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece and Archbishop Christodoulous personally, on the other hand, came about as result of differences on the order of appointment to the episcopate in 36 dioceses, the so-called New Territories (Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, and Northern Aegialia). Since 1928, these were nominally under the canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but, in practise, they were under the Local Church of Greece. On 30 April 2004, Patriarch Bartholomew broke Eucharistic communion and ceased commemoration of Archbishop Christodoulous. Amongst the accusations by the Phanar and were recriminations concerning the “collusion” of the Archbishop with the Russians with a view to weakening the influence of the office of the Ecumenical Patriarch. A month later, there was reconciliation and a restoration of relations was achieved on the conditions of Constantinople.

10 February 2009

Pravoslavie.ru

As quoted in Interfax-Religion

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=radio&div=1090 (in Russian)

Editor’s Note:

Please, note the original source of this article in Russian. Pravoslavie.ru is the official website of the Sretensky Monastery in Moscow, one of the foremost publishing centres of the MP. Archimandrite Tikhon Shevkunov is the superior, and he is the confessor of the Putin and Medvedev families. Therefore, we are not talking of some individual’s website or blog. This site, for all intents and purposes, is a semi-official voice of the MP.

This piece was done in December, but, not published until February. In short, Fr Tikhon waited for the new patriarch to be installed. There is no doubt that this piece was passed to the DECR for its approval before posting. In short, the position of Patriarch Kirill is far less friendly to the papists than is supposed by the ignorant pundits of Zenit or Asia News or the International Herald Trib.

I believe it is safe to say that there shall be no “Florentine Union” any time soon (or, any time later, for that matter). Rome still arrogantly demands that its primacy be accepted, with all of the Roman innovations of the past millennium. The ones most hurt by this are the Uniates. Rome shall turn on them with a vengeance once they are shown to be not useful for the Vatican’s plans. I feel sorry for these people… they must toe the Roman line in everything (Rome bans married priests in the USA, for instance) and they must be obedient little “Stepin Fetchits” for the pope. I can’t understand why these people just don’t come on over to us… However, one cannot force a Prodigal to return, one must wait patiently for them to come on their own. May that day be soon…

Patriarch Kirill has the Potential to be the De Facto Leader of the Orthodox World, Wielding as Much Influence as the Vatican

Kirill Frolov, the head of the Ukrainian department of the Institute of CIS, said that one of the challenges of the new Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia shall be the transformation of the Moscow Patriarchate into a body no less influential than the Vatican. “When we say that the MP should not be less influential than the Vatican, this is a totally logical question, not only qualitatively, intellectually, spiritually, but, also, quantitatively”, he said on Monday evening at a roundtable discussion in Moscow. Professor Frolov, who also heads the Moscow branch of the Union of Orthodox Citizens (Soyuza Pravoslavnykh Grazhdan SPG), stated that there are about a billion Catholics all over the world. “We have every right to say that the Orthodox could be as numerous as well”, he stated.

In his opinion, the Orthodoxy could achieve such parity by means of “a demographic resurgence of the Russian people and through the activity of Orthodox missions”. Another part of the “Orthodox billion” could be made up of “conservative Christians of the West, who face a crisis in Protestantism, with its degeneration into the blessing of homosexual marriages and the female priesthood. In this context, I am an opponent of the withdrawal of MP from the World Council of Churches, because it is a great mission field”, Professor Frolov noted.

He pointed up that there are anti-Church forces that wish to transform the MP into a museum of antiquities, an archaeological faculty, and a sect of old babas, who did not want to see it “united and strong”. According to him, in recent times, these forces began to use “anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox language, in terms similar to those used by Zbigniew Brzeziński, (former National Security Advisor to the US President: Interfax), in reference to the Church, alleging that the missionary activity of the Church in society, the attraction of young people, and the active use of the Internet and television was not in line with Orthodox ideas.  These forces were united against the election of Patriarch Kirill, and some of them used political strategies to try to create an intra-Church counterweight to Kirill in the person of former Bishop Diomid, but, all these attempts ended in utter collapse and failure”.

He emphasised that the “conclusive result” of the election of Patriarch Kirill by the Local Council suggests that “no meaningful opposition to His Holiness the Patriarch exists; he possesses the confidence of the Church and the responsible part of the national political élite”. Professor Frolov added, “There was no alternative to the election of the patriarch Cyril, either it was that, or, the disappearance of the Russian church from history, and the majority of the members of the Local Council understood this very well. The Church proved to be far more intelligent and mature in its actions than was expected by sceptics, even those within it”.

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia has all the qualities needed to unite the entire Orthodox world around him, he said. “One of the important tasks of patriarch Kirill is the consolidation of the Orthodox world. I think that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (historically considered the “first among equals”: Interfax) will come to Moscow to see him. Any attempt of Patriarch Bartholomew to set himself up as an ‘Eastern Pope’ during the lifetime of Patriarch Kirill is doomed to failure”, Professor Frolov stated.

He also expressed his opinion on the need to “optimise the church staff, to create a single effective team that shares the principles of the new First Hierarch of our Local Church. Without such optimisation, we will not be effective; we will not preserve the unity of the Church on the former Soviet space. In order to stop the Ukrainian authorities’ attempts to separate the Ukrainian Church from the MP, the MP must be competitive”. However, as Professor Frolov said, “If the MP loses the Ukraine, it would cease to be the largest local Orthodox church (not so, Professor Frolov is engaging in hyperbole here: editor’s note), it would be a blow to the entire Russian civilisational and geopolitical project”.

17 February 2009

Interfax-Religion

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=28882 (in Russian)

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=28883 (in Russian)

Editor’s Note:

Far from being Rome’s fawning flunky, as too many Western and pro-Vatican pundits have thought, Patriarch Kirill appears to be going on the offensive. Firstly, defensive measures are being taken. Anything that Vladimir Sabodan of Kiev wants, Vladimir Sabodan is going to get. The MP is going to hang on to the UAOC (MP) at all costs. This is going to push the MP in direction that opposes Rome. Some factions in the Vatican are attempting to use “autocephaly” as a means of Uniatising the Ukraine. This has had opposite the intended effect. The Orthodox are coalescing around Moscow; they are defending the ancient apostolic Church against papal aggrandisement.

Bartholomew and his “rotten borough” Patriarchate are going to be put in their place by Moscow and Kirill. 65 percent of all Orthodox are in the MP. Therefore, according to our ecclesiology, it, not Istanbul, is “the first amongst equals”. Remember, Constantinople gained that position “because it was the imperial capital”. It is an imperial capital no more, and its Christian population is gone. It is now time for all Orthodox world-wide to gather around the banner of Moscow. If not, you will fall prey to Uniatism and submission to the papacy. You may have the vigour of the MP or you may have a “museum of antiquities” led by a Jesuit-educated lickspittle. Are you coming with us?

Fr Nikolai Rehbinder of the Paris Jurisdiction Hopes that Patriarch Kirill shall Unite the Russian Parishes in Western Europe into One Body

Andrei Dmitrievich Schmemann (1921-2008), founder of the loyalist organisation OLTR, defender of Church Tradition, identical twin brother of Aleksandr Dmitrievich Schmemann. The light and the darkness, indeed! Vechnaya pamyat, rab bozhii Andrei!

Paris, 9 February 2009 (Interfax):

Fr Nikolai Rehbinder, the Rector of the of Meeting of the Holy Virgin into the Temple in Paris, and head of the Russian Student Christian movement, agrees with the intent of Patriarch Kirill to change the status of the Russian parishes in Western Europe. “I wish that the idea of establishing a single self-governed Russian Church in our countries, as some have suggested, should be revived. We need to address this question yet again. We must do it for the welfare of the Orthodox Church in our region”, Fr Nikolai told the RFI radio station when he was asked what he expected from the new Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia. In his opinion, self-governance is not “an end in itself”, but, only “a transitional and better-organised structure on the way to establishing a Local Church”.

Fr Nikolai noted, “If people have settled in our countries, they should gradually establish a Local Church with a structure that will include everyone. There will be Russian parishes, Greek parishes, Serbian, Romanian, and French ones, all included in one Local Church. This is the future”. He also noted that Russian Orthodox believers residing in Western Europe “have always been attracted by the Russian Church and always understood and loved it. Our fathers always considered themselves Russians belonging to the Russian Church. We were under jurisdiction of Constantinople only for external reasons. It was always considered a temporary thing”, Fr Nikolai said.

Interfax-Religion

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=28736 (in Russian)

Editor’s Note:

Fr Nikolai is related to Seraphim Rehbinder, the head of the OLTR, an organisation banding together the members of the so-called Paris Jurisdiction who are loyal to the true Church tradition and faithful to their Russian roots. It should also be noted that the OLTR was founded by Andrei Dmitrievich Schmemann, the loyal identical twin brother of the heretical Aleksandr Dmitrievich Schmemann. Betcha that SVS did not tell you about Andrei Dmitrievich and his ardent efforts in defence of Church Tradition, did they?

In short, it appears as if this misbegotten body in Paris is ready to fall apart. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. They use the same nasty tactics as the Syosset/SVS mafia, and they deserve the same fate. Their tactics are beneath contempt, and they were put in place by Aleksandr Dmitrievich Schmemann.

Bishop Job Osacky of Chicago typified this attitude by saying, “You do not agree with me. That means you are not with me. That means you don’t like me. That means you are against me. That means you’re out to get me. That means you are attacking me. That means I have to destroy you”. Vladyki Job showed his utter frustration with such people by saying, “But, my friends, our reality has shown that the exchange would not take place. The second person would never have been given the opportunity to respond, and the attack by the first person, with the motive of character assassination would begin. And, my sisters and brothers, there would be no opportunity for discussion, for dialogue, or for compromise. This scenario was repeated again and again, and continues today, and has become the basis for promoting personal agendas and lusting after power and authority. Is this noble; is it righteous; is it Christian? Can it ever be justifiable as being ‘for the good of the Church?’ God forbid! And may He help us all, because this is how we’ve been operating in the Holy Synod and Central Church Administration for years, and we are slow to adopt an alternative”.

Add to this the disgusting episode of the so-called “Orthodox theologian” Olivier Clément receiving papist communion without repentance (and basically accepting papal supremacy), one can see that the Paris body must go. The sooner, the better.

Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev Withdrew His Name from Consideration as a Candidate for the Post of Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia

Metropolitan Vladimir Sabodan of Kiev withdrew his name from consideration in the upcoming election to choose a new Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia. This became known just a week before the convening of the Local Council, which will elect the new First Hierarch of the Moscow Patriarchate. The sessions of the Council will be held in Moscow from 27 to 29 January.

This announcement by Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev riveted the attention of not only believers, but, also, those who are more interested in politics than in religion. There are reasons for this fact. Without a doubt, for many years, religious life in the Ukraine has been anything but calm. Worldly affairs are the main culprit in this, that is, nationalist politics, which sought, as much as possible, to distance the Ukraine from Russia. Sadly, the nationalists were not shy in embroiling faith and religion in their designs. For example, part of the Ukrainian élite, led by President Yushchenko, has long supported schismatic factions within Ukrainian Orthodoxy and tried repeatedly to separate the Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church (MP) (UAOC (MP)) from the Moscow Patriarchate. Today, there are three Orthodox bodies in the Ukraine. Only one, the UAOC (MP), is canonical and recognised by the other Local Orthodox Churches in the world. The other two are nothing but schismatic groups. They agitate for an autocephalous Ukrainian Church independent of the MP, and are even willing to involve the Ecumenical Patriarchate in their plots.

The threat of a schism is very real. However, an important event occurred this summer. Whilst taking part in the events marking the 1,020^th anniversary of the baptism of Russia, which were widely celebrated in Kiev, the late Patriarch Aleksei II of Moscow and all Russia managed to prevent a schism in the Church. When he was in the Ukraine, he met with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Then, the two First Hierarchs came to an agreement not to allow a schism in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. However, after the death of Aleksei II on 5 December 2008, the political leadership of the Ukraine decided to re-assert their demand for a autocephalous Orthodox Church in the Ukraine. It is possible that clamorous declarations shall be made during the time of the upcoming Local Council.

According to Kirill Frolov, the head of the Ukrainian Department of the Institute of the CIS, “Metropolitan Vladimir’s withdrawal from the election for the First Hierarch of the MP changes everything. His Beatitude disrupted their plans by his refusal to stand as a candidate for the post of Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia. Moreover, he proposed no other figure from the Ukraine to take his place as a candidate. Thus, he foiled the plan of some in the Ukrainian leadership to nominate a single Ukrainian candidate for the post of Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia. He did it in such a way that the nationalists could not take public offence. Thus, now, there is no ‘Ukrainian’ candidate. Therefore, there will be no ill-effects in the UAOC (MP) due to the election of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia”.

What is connected with the withdrawal of Metropolitan Vladimir? He, indicating that some saw him as a likely successor to Aleksei II, said, “Thank you for such a high honour, but, I wish to appear before God as the Metropolitan of Kiev. The Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia shall be someone whom God is going to name and you are going to choose him”. Some explain the decision of the Metropolitan by saying that he did not want to participate in political games.

In addition, in doing so, Metropolitan Vladimir is trying to preserve the unity of Orthodoxy in the Ukraine. In the opinion of Professor Frolov, “The Ukrainian hierarchy understands that the patriarch must not be selected on the basis of nationality or ethnicity, but, on the basis of his fitness for the historical tasks facing the MP. These historical tasks are the preservation and ingathering of historical Russia, and the returning of all of our people to the bosom of Orthodoxy, by going forth into the world beyond the church gate. It is a global mission, both domestically and in the international arena. Besides, we must have a dialogue of equals with the other world religions. We shall not take a subordinate role to anyone.  The Orthodox Church in Russia should be evaluated by others as an influential world force, not as a local ethnic religion”.

Today, the future of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy largely depends on who will become the new First Hierarch of the MP. However, the withdrawal of Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev gives reason to hope that a schism within the MP will not happen. If he remains at his post, the chief hierarch of Kiev would continue to defend the ideal of church unity.

21 January 2009

Yelena Antropova

Voice of Russia World Service

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=rus&q=98778&cid=22&p=21.01.2009 (in Russian)

Editor’s Note:

Mark well that Vladimir does not indicate, in any way, how he will steer the votes of his influential bloc. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn, that is, conclusions with a basis in fact, not bootless speculation. Vladimir continues to smile the smile of the Mona Lisa… enigmatic, yet, full of purpose. Only time shall tell us the full import of this… prepare to be surprised.

The Memory of Patriarch Aleksei II was Honoured in Tallinn

Patriarch Aleksei Rediger of Moscow and all Russia (1929-2008), may his memory be eternal!

On Tuesday, a Pannikhida on the fortieth day after the death of Patriarch Aleksei II was held in Tallinn at the Cathedral of St Aleksandr Nevsky Cathedral. Patriarch Aleksei II of Moscow and all Russia, who headed the Moscow Patriarchate for more than 18 years, died on 5 December 2008 in his eightieth year. The Pannikhida was served by clergy headed by Metropolitan Kornely Yakobs of Tallinn and all Estonia, and it was attended by representatives of the Foundation of St Andrew the First-Called, headed by its president, Sergei Shcheblygin, as well as Russian Ambassador to Estonia Nikolai Uspensky.

The guests from Russia visited the graves of the parents of Aleksei II, which are located in the cemetery of St Aleksandr Nevsky, laid a wreath at the monument to Soldier-Liberator (the “Bronze Soldier”) at a military cemetery, and watched the construction of an Orthodox church in the Tallinn area community of Lasnamäe. In the autumn of 2003, Patriarch Aleksei visited Estonia and blessed the cornerstone on the grounds of the future church-building. The main sacred object of the planned cathedral would be a miraculous icon of the Mother of God, “She Who is Quick to Hear”. On 7 January, the Tallinn City Administration approved a decision to name the area before the new church, calling it Patriarch Aleksei II Square. Mr Shcheblygin, speaking for the Foundation of St Andrew the First-Called, told journalists that after the delegation returns to Moscow, the Foundation will consider providing financial support for the construction of the cathedral. “After we return from this trip, we will, once again, put the issue before the Stewardship Council on the need for this assistance. if our economic situation allows it, we will be happy to take part in the construction”, he said.

Patriarch Aleksei II (Aleksei Mikhailovich Rediger) was born in 1929 in Tallinn in the family of a priest. In 1950, he graduated from the seminary in Leningrad and was ordained to the rank of priest. In 1953, he graduated from Leningrad Theological Academy with the degree of candidate of theology, in 1961, he was consecrated the Bishop of Tallinn, in 1964, he became an archbishop, and, in 1968, he became the Metropolitan of Tallinn and all Estonia. Since 1990, Aleksei was the First Hierarch of the Patriarchate of Moscow and all Russia.

14 January 2009

Nikolai Adashkevich

RIA-Novosti

http://www.rian.ru/society/20090114/159144020.html (in Russian)

Editor’s Note:

In connection with this story, one must be clear on which Estonian Church was offering prayers for His Holiness. There are two Orthodox bodies in Estonia, one, under the MP, is canonical and recognised by world Orthodoxy. The other is a renegade body organised by the EP merely to steal property and money in Estonia (it proposes to RENT church properties to the MP with the connivance of the Estonian nationalists), it is considered uncanonical, and it is recognised only by the EP (thus, placing it outside the pale of the Orthodox pleroma). The MP body is by far the larger, and this is a clear warning to all that the EP believes it has the right to interfere on the canonical territory of any Local Church (as it has proven in the USA and Britain, by the way).

Kaufft nicht bei Bartholomew!

The Ukrainian Church Question in Anticipation of the Forthcoming Local Church Council

Who shall replace him?

The forthcoming Local Council of the MP has caused a new wave of discussion regarding the Ukrainian church question. What course shall the new patriarch take? Shall he continue the path taken by His Holiness Patriarch Aleksei II, to maintain the unity of the MP, or shall he consent to the gradual “autocephalisation” of the Ukrainian church? In the early 1990s, the Ukrainian church question was aggravated by the schismatical activity of the former Metropolitan Philaret Denisenko. When he lost the election for the post of Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia in 1990, Philaret conceived the notion of becoming the “Patriarch of Kiev”, and concentrated his efforts on separating the Ukrainian flock from the Mother Church, in which activity he received aid from the then-President of the Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk.

It should be clear that, in itself, the idea of autocephaly is not illicit. History records examples of Churches that were previously a part of one or another Local Church becoming autocephalous bodies. However, before autocephaly can arrive [for the Ukrainian church], it is necessary that there should be a unanimous consensus of the episcopate, clergy, and people, but, today, there is no such unanimity. On the contrary, the vast majority of believers are in favour of maintaining unity with the MP in its current canonical borders. It is appropriate to recall the words of Patriarch Aleksei II at the Archpastoral Council of 1992, “In order for us to consider autocephaly, calm is necessary. But, in our time, we see destruction of economic, national, and human relationships, separation and confrontation, which has beaten down our people. To preserve our unity is to heed the voice of God”. Today, these words of our late First hierarch sound like his last will and testament for us.

Some ask, “Why should we decide the fate of Kiev in Moscow?” His Holiness gave the answer to this in his address of 1992, “We are all responsible for what happens in the Ukraine”. Today, some say, “The Ukrainian Church itself shall solve the question of the Ukrainian Church”. However, we all bear responsibility for what happens in our Church. ALL OF US… in Russia, in the Ukraine, in Byelorussia, in Moldova, in the near and far abroad… are the members of a single church body. In the words of the Apostle St Paul, And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it (1 Corinthians 12:26).

St Sophia Cathedral, Kiev

There are two proposed solutions for the resolution of the Ukrainian church question, but, both are equally dangerous and fraught with unpredictable consequences. The first belongs to the present Ukrainian junta, and can be simply stated as “An independent Ukraine must possess an independent Local Orthodox Church”. All “branches” of Ukrainian Orthodoxy would be united in this body, the canonical UAOC (MP), and two schismatical bodies, the so-called “Patriarchate of Kiev” led by Philaret Denisenko and the so-called “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church”. This project is based in political schemes and does not take into account the realities of church life. It is not possible, through a simple stroke of the pen, to join into one body a canonical Orthodox Church and uncanonical structures, merging legitimacy and illegitimacy.

Another plan comes from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which is actively trying to establish itself in the Ukraine. The EP, in contrast to the Ukrainian régime, is, by no means, interested in establishing an autocephalous Ukrainian Church. However, it aids the Ukrainian leadership in attempting to disrupt church relations between Moscow and Kiev in order to subordinate the Ukrainian Church to itself. To begin with, it proposed that both groups of Ukrainian schismatics, which the EP would legitimatise, after which it would create a dependent exarchate similar to that found in Crete, that is, it would not even be autonomous (the head of this body would be chosen in Istanbul, not Kiev).

This project is never officially adverted to, but, its details have become known thanks to leaks from the Phanar on the eve of the 1,020^th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia. The Ukrainian junta planned to use the celebration to promote this plan, and Patriarch Bartholomew was invited to Kiev for this very purpose. Before the start of the celebrations in Kiev, Metropolitan Kirill found it necessary to exert much effort, in concert with the Holy Synod of the UAOC (MP), to foil the realisation of the machinations of the EP.

Patriarch Aleksei Rediger of Moscow and all Russia [1929-2008] in Kiev for the 1,020th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia in 2008. Metropolitan Vladimir Sabodan (1935- ), the First Hierarch of the UAOC (MP) is on his right.

His Holiness Patriarch Aleksei went to Kiev over the protests of his doctors, largely, because the situation demanded his personal presence and authority. The resulting events are known to all of us. The Ukrainian junta attempted to inflate the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew, viewing him as the equal of the Pope of Rome, whilst they treated Patriarch Aleksei as a mere bishop from a neighbouring country. However, the faithful greeted the head of the MP with the words, “Aleksei, our Patriarch!” The unity of the Church was preserved and strengthened, but, on his return to Moscow, His Holiness found it necessary to rest for a month and undergo further medical treatment.

Why does the EP show such an interest in the Ukraine? First of all, it expects the Ukrainian Church to substantially strengthen its own positions. It is no secret to anyone that the EP has virtually no flock in Turkey, and, in the diaspora, the number of parishes under him are unlikely to exceed 1,000. Meanwhile, in the Ukraine, if one counts only the schismatical parishes, according to various estimates, there are about 4,000. In addition to this, the number of parishes in the canonical UAOC (MP) is more than 11,000. To obtain a real flock and to increase the number of parishes under his authority by fifteen times, or, at the worst, some five times… that is a very attractive prospect.

Is this concept of a separate Ukrainian Local Church necessary? What, other than to further tension, and, possibly, bring new divisions, can it bring?  In any event, it is obvious that the major portion of the episcopate, clergy, and flock of the canonical Ukrainian Church shall remain united with its Mother-Church, the MP. No new structure, no matter if it is created by Ukrainian politicians or by the manoeuvring of the Phanar, will be able to unite all of the Orthodox believers in the Ukraine. Rather, it would only be a new and additional obstacle to unity. The Ukrainian Church itself must decide its own destiny. It does not need outside help to determine its future course. The EP complains about the “delay” in the resolution of the Ukrainian question, it insists on the “fastest” end to the schism. The Ukrainian secular leadership echoes this demand. However, we cannot forget that the Ukrainian régime bears the full responsibility for the birth of the schism. Specifically, it supported Philaret when, in contravention of all the canons, he arbitrarily proclaimed autocephaly and it handed over to Philaret’s minions churches and monasteries that, by all rights, belonged to the canonical church.

Three conditions are necessary for the resolution of the Ukrainian Church question.  First, we must not act in haste. So far, the chief schismatic is still active. As long as he is able to determine the course of his “church”, one cannot expect that he or other schismatics shall return to the bosom of the canonical church.

Metropolitan Vladimir Sabodan of Kiev (1935- ), with loyal Cossack guards

The support of the secular government to the schism delays, and cannot advance, the time of the resolution of the unity of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. Secondly, we need a wise head of the church in Kiev, a man of unquestionable authority, who would be capable of uniting around himself the entire flock. This man exists. He is His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir Sabodan. Thus far, he has been steering the ship of the church steadily on the proper course. Thirdly, and, finally, we need a leader in Moscow who, in close collaboration with the leadership of the Ukrainian Church, will continue the efforts of the late Patriarch Aleksei in the strengthening of our Church unity.

The Local Council, which shall be composed of bishops, clergy, monastics, and laity, representing all the different dioceses of the MP, shall vote on their preference for the next patriarch.  One thing is obvious. If we wish to maintain the continuity of the present course, the Patriarch must be one of the closest confidants of His Holiness. In this case, the preservation of the unity and integrity of the MP shall remain a top priority of church policy. Some say, “We need a man of prayer as a patriarch, not a diplomat or politician”. Today, the patriarch cannot only be a man of prayer. He must be a warrior, capable of mobilising the army of faith, he must be a strong personality, capable of joining about himself the vigorous circles in the church, he must be a pastor, a man of prayer, a missionary, a diplomat, and a politician. Thus was His Holiness Patriarch Aleksei of Blessed Memory. His successor must be so, as well.    

21 December 2008

Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna and Austria

Representative of the MP to the European International Institutions

Bogoslov.ru

As quoted in Interfax-Religion

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=radio&div=1019 (in Russian)

Editor’s Note:

This shall reward you with a second or third reading. Indeed, if you were to replace “Ukrainian” with “OCA” in the sections where he speaks of autocephaly, one comes away with interesting conclusions. Remember, the OCA was NOT the product of unanimity amongst the bishops, clergy, and people, it was a hothouse creation of Alexander Schmemann and the squiffy pseudo-academic lot at SVS. Apply Vladyki Hilarion’s words to that situation… well; it does make for a stimulating read, no?

As for the forthcoming election, it is becoming clearer that Kirill is becoming more desperate. He is inserting himself into every situation; he is making himself the hero of every crisis. He should take a care, for such things do tend to backfire. Do bear in mind that he has powerful enemies such as Metropolitan Sergei of Voronezh and Metropolitan Mefody of Kazakhstan. I believe that the Holy Spirit is going to go three for three, and that we are going to see a real hat trick. That is, expect the unexpected… who expected that Jonas Paffhausen was going to end by wearing a white hat?

One can say this… it is going to be anything other than dull… God is still in His Heaven, after all.

Fr Vsevolod Chaplin says that the EP Should Not Trespass on the Canonical Territories of the Other Local Churches

Moscow, 13 November 2008 (Interfax):

The Moscow Patriarchate believes that the Ecumenical Patriarchate should abandon its universalist ambitions and it should open itself to fraternal inter-Orthodox dialogue. “When a question arose regarding the status of the Church in Estonia, the EP unilaterally and without any consultations established its own parallel structure there. Brothers do not act like that”, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, the deputy head of the MP Department for External Church Relations, said in the course of a programme on the television channel Soyuz (Union).

Fr Vsevolod, along with other spokesmen for the MP, spoke on the situation in Estonia, where the EP set up the so-called “Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church” in 1996, a body not recognised by any other Local Church in the Orthodox world. He noted that the Orthodox world should be united so that the Local Churches could answer the challenges of the contemporary world together. “We should always be careful, polite, and sincere with each other, and we should always seek out an exchange of ideas if we should encounter problems over different visions of the future of the Church, different traditions, or different particular opinions. It is only on this basis, through a constant fraternal dialogue within the Church, that we can strengthen the unity of the Orthodox world, as is commanded by Our Lord”, Fr Vsevolod is convinced.

As far as the Estonian question was concerned, he stated, “It is utterly wrong to make use of political movements to tear believers away from the body of their Mother Church. As soon as factions in the Church think that they can benefit from political changes, if they think that they might obtain this by humiliating their brothers and sisters, by trampling on their rights, history shall hold them up to scorn. Therefore, the MP does not act like our brothers from the EP do”, he emphasised. “When we were petitioned to establish our jurisdiction over part of the Georgian Church, we said clearly that the solution of the question of who has pastoral guidance of the faithful in South Ossetia and Abkhazia is possible only through direct dialogue between the Patriarchates of Moscow and Georgia”, he said. Fr Vsevolod also questioned the assertion of the EP that “the entire Orthodox diaspora, that is, all the Orthodox believers living outside the canonical territories of the recognised Local Churches, is under its authority”.

He observed that, in practise, this means that ethnic Greek bishops are assigned to dioceses in the diaspora. “These bishops are in complete subordination to the Phanar, they act only in its interests, and they force the people in the diaspora, that is, people of entirely different nationalities, to kowtow to these interests. Most Orthodox nationalities do not agree with this at all, and that includes Russians, Ukrainians, Moldavians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Orthodox Arabs, amongst many other peoples. The faithful of the different Local Churches have different traditions, different ideas on pastorality, and use different languages”, Fr Vsevolod reiterated. In his view, we cannot breach the ancient Church traditions, therefore, it is important to structure the life of the Orthodox diaspora “so that each group, which relates to one or another Local Church historically, shall preserve the right to preserve its entire Church tradition, including its language, its distinctive way of serving the liturgy, and its own pastoral approach, as they were formed in their particular motherlands and Local Churches. Moreover, the faithful living in the diaspora from the various Orthodox homelands wish to preserve a spiritual connection with their motherland and with its Local Church. No one has the right to or can deprive them of this link against their will”, Fr Vsevolod emphasised in conclusion.

Interfax-Religion

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=27316 (in Russian)

Editor’s Note:

(Drum rolls and blaring trumpets sound)

If you are sensing the announcement of yet another infamous “Big Green Weenie Award”… you are entirely correct! Less than half of the Russian text found its way into the English translation.

FOR SHAME, INTERFAX!!

The translator (or translators) appears to be soft-headed concerning the Catholics and the EP. Chunks of Russian text go missing that make the point. That is CRIMINAL.

The EP has to be taken down a peg or two. Black Bart is not the “Orthodox pope”, and the Orthodox world does not answer to the Phanariot conventicle. Over 70 percent of the Orthodox faithful worldwide are in the MP. Since 1453, it has been the centre of the Orthodox world. It is the largest Church, it is the strongest, and it is the only Church capable of withstanding the heterodox unaided. Russia stands against the materialist nihilism of the West; the Phanar has surrendered to it, being led by a cabal of Masonic prelates. Russia is being kind; it is giving every chance for the EP to repent and return to ordinary Orthodoxy. If not, the EP may cease to exist. After all, Rome was once a recognised Orthodox patriarchate…

The Conference of European Churches is Distressed by the Decision of the MP to Suspend its Membership in the Organisation

Moscow, 13 October 2008 (Interfax):

The Conference of European Churches regrets that, last Saturday, the Moscow Patriarchate decided to suspend its membership in the organisation. Earlier, the MP Department of External Church Relations reported, “The reason for this decision was that, in contravention of the Constitution and rules of the CEC, it refused to consider the membership bid of the Estonian Autonomous Orthodox Church, which is a self-governing Church under the aegis of the MP”. The DECR noted that in November 2007 the CEC accepted a bid for membership form the so-called “Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church”, a body that is under the EP, but, is not recognised by any other Local Orthodox Church. Meanwhile, the President of the CEC, Pastor Jean-Arnold de Clermont, in a statement issued to Interfax-Religion on Monday, said, “The CEC is deeply distressed by the decision of the MP to suspend its membership in our organisation”. In his opinion, the position of the CEC is that before it can make a decision regarding the membership of the EAOC (MP) in the organisation, it is necessary for the EP and MP “to reach a consensus” on the disputes surrounding the Church question in Estonia. At the same time, Rev de Clermont stated that at the meeting in February 2009 of the Presidium of the CEC, “We must try to make specific progress in finding a solution that shall be acceptable to the MP”.

Interfax-Religion

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=26897 (in Russian)

Editor’s Note:

Why was a search for consensus not an issue in November 2007 when the EP group made its application for membership? This reeks of US State Department manipulation of the EP. Do recall that the Phanar has lately made noise regarding making the Phanar an exterritorial enclave in Istanbul, much like Vatican City in Rome. This is a project backed by neocons in Foggy Bottom. It has little support elsewhere, especially not from the Turks, I must say! It is an attempt to ape the papacy, not in any of the good ideas it has had, mind you, but, in all of its worst Papo-Caesarism. It is certainly not Orthodoxy.

I should add a note concerning “canonical churches”. Many in the USA, especially Anglo-Saxon converts are misled on this point. One such convert even posted on their site that there were “16 canonical churches” in the USA. What bilious rot and nonsense! There can only be ONE canonical Church on a given territory. That Church can give permission to others to operate, to be sure. However, it does not break the principle that there is one canonical Church per territory. Which Church is canonical? That is simple. It is the Church that first established an episcopate in a given land. That is to say, the USA, Canada, and Alaska are the undisputed territory of the MP, as it was the MP that first planted a hierarchy here. There is no doubt that others can operate, but, only if they receive the blessing of the canonical Church (which in the US, Canada, and Alaska is NOT the EP).

All other definitions of “canonicity” are specious. SCOBA is nothing but an EP-sponsored talk-shop that has nothing to show for its existence. Unity is not going to be reached using a “political” model, which is all one hears at present. There shall be no “American Orthodox Church” until the church has been rooted here for some 500 years. Russia embraced the Faith in 988, and it became autocephalous in 1448. We have a long path to travel before there is an “American” Church, and no amount of bloviating from recent Angliochian converts or rants from cloistered intellectuals can change that.

We have much work to do… the result shall not be seen in our lifetime… or in those of our grandchildren. However, the future is worth our effort.