Category Archives: Diaspora

Q and A: On the Suicidal Path Taken by ROCOR since 2007

Nobody goes to heaven by sending others to hell.

Q: Looking back twenty years after the 2006 Church Council on the relics of St John of Shanghai, what do you think that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) should have done after its reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007?

A: ROCOR played a very important role in the last half of the last century. Do not forget that from 1950 until 1966, it had a saint in its midst, Archbishop John of Shanghai and Western Europe. Then it witnessed to the Western world of the persecution of the Church by the Soviet atheist State, the inherent worldliness of KGB-manipulated ecumenism and modernism, it spoke in spiritual freedom in the place of its brothers and sisters in the Patriarchal Church, who were enslaved as hostages inside Russia. Having sent representatives to the Second Vatican Council, ROCOR’S greatest moment came in 1981, when, although sixty-four years late, it began the work of canonising the New Martyrs and Confessors. This work is not complete, as archives open, as we see from the July 2026 Synod in Moscow, where new names of New Martyrs and Confessors have entered the Church calendar.

Indeed, from the Year 2000 on, ROCOR no longer served a purpose, since the Church inside Russia had been freed from the State, as proved by the fact that it too had at last begun to canonise even more New Martyrs and Confessors. Since the generation of those who had been adults before the Revolution of 1917 had all but died out by 2000, ROCOR’s destiny was to become four autonomous Metropolias, part of the Mother Church, taking over its Diaspora, as its title of ‘Russian’ was already becoming mythical. If it had joined in with Moscow, it could have spearheaded Russian Orthodox missionary work and witness in the Diaspora, co-operating with others, separating out into four regional Diaspora Metropolias. It would not have become the Moscow Patriarchate, but simply the Russian Orthodox Metropolias of Northern America, Latin America, Western Europe and Oceania.

This is exactly what I worked for after 2007, the event of unity for which we had patiently been waiting since the repentance of Moscow at its Jubilee Council in August 2000. But ROCOR did not work for this after 2007. In May 2006, standing at the Fourth ROCOR Council in San Francisco, where I was one of the ten speakers, I heard the former US ambassador to Kiev, John Herbst, whispering behind me to the then Bishop Agafangel from Odessa, saying: ‘This looks bad. We shall have to work against it from inside’. He was talking about ROCOR’s Conciliar decision (by over 95% to under 5%) to merge with Moscow. He meant that since the decision had been taken, ROCOR would have to be sabotaged from inside, its infiltrated key assets, jealous narcissistic psychopaths, would be activated. And that is exactly what they did, using their agents, who had long ago been planted inside ROCOR for future promotion.

The Moscow Patriarchate? How naïve they are, just like the Russian State, outwitted, as usual, by the infiltration of the CIA! The first indication came immediately in May 2007, when directly after the service in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow, where I had concelebrated, one of the most senior CIA-asset priests in ROCOR (he is still alive) turned to me and said in English: ‘We’ve done it’. I knew what he meant by that, though he thought that I did not. I was not a recruit. In May 2007, after the Act had been signed, one ROCOR bishop returned to his country to be greeted by his colleague, the local Moscow bishop, with a smile and the words: ‘Now we are one, we can work together as one’. The ROCOR bishop, a CIA asset since the 1960s, answered him shockingly, that nothing of the sort was going to happen. And herein lies the sin of ROCOR – it did not merge and so lead the way in the Diaspora.

At best it became a museum Church, a relic of the past, turning in on itself, and claiming exclusivity before the outside world as an ideological ghetto, all financed by you know who. Incredibly enough, some extreme right-wingers, later schismatics, in ROCOR before 2007 had actually predicted that Moscow would take over and destroy ROCOR, once the Act of Canonical Communion had been signed in 2007. This was a lie born of the paranoia of elderly pharisees, who were afraid of losing power. In fact, as we have said, it was just the opposite, it was ROCOR which deceived naïve Moscow, using its newly-obtained paper unity with Moscow in order to claim canonicity and so destroy itself. In reality, the small but poisonous American faction gradually destroyed the ROCOR of St John of Shanghai, whom it had already persecuted, suspended and effectively killed in 1966, now hypocritically claiming him as their own!

It denied that he had ever given his shoes away to the barefoot poor, saying that he did not wear shoes because he found them uncomfortable! (I quote a ROCOR bishop). ROCOR sent its control freaks outside the USA to impose its unexportable, Protestant-based, US imperialism on other countries, so ‘draining the swamp’, in fact, however, creating the swamp. It set up the new ROCOR as a sect, that was de facto in communion with no-one, because it considered that all other Orthodox were hated heretics and needed rebaptising. This was to reject the Catholicity and communion of the Church, as is typical of all sects. All it could do from this moment on, as the Russians and Russophiles of the Tradition left ROCOR or were even openly expelled from it, as we were, was to recruit young, naïve, male Protestant converts of the Zionist Evangelical type to replace the people and refill their ranks.

The old ROCOR was killed and the new ROCOR of ignorance of history and Russia, pharisaic condemnation and right-wing fanaticism (the same playbook as had been tried by the Grabbe faction in the 1960s and 1970s) and podcasts for incels, was substituted for it. The new ROCOR flattered their pride, telling neophytes that they had at last found ‘the One True Church’, hypnotising them into spiritual illusion (in Russian ‘prelest’). It was spiritual corn syrup for naïve Americans and a pool of votes for the desperate Republican Party, openly and naively supported by the then ROCOR Metropolitan. ‘You see’, he said, ‘we must vote Trump, as he took part in the anti-abortion march for life in Washington’. Astounded by his naivety, I thought, does he not understand that some politicians will do anything for votes? Does he not know about the misogyny of this man? Does he not know about his Epstein connections?

One day, after this nightmare is over, Moscow will wake up, ceasing to be distracted by the tragedy in the Ukraine, by the Greek invasion of its canonical territory there and in the Baltics, by nationalist centralisation, by the error in Africa, the distressing episcopal scandals of careerism, corruption and depravity, and behave as pastors and not as politicians. Then it will at last deal with ROCOR’s rebellion against the Orthodox Tradition and communion, and apostasy from it, too late realising the huge self-imposed losses of pastors, people and international credibility. Meanwhile, the other fifteen Local Orthodox Churches continue to witness, and we continue in them and with them. Moscow will have to catch us, through overcoming its schisms, restoring communion and concelebration, decentralising its Non-Russian parts, returning to the canonicity/conciliarity/catholicity of the Church.

 

 

Orthodoxy in Western Europe After the Ukraine Debacle

The Political Situation

The conflict in the Ukraine has dragged on for years, perhaps because Russia had to be ready for a war to defend itself against Western Europe. Now the West has been divided into two, with the USA abandoning Western Europe and even withdrawing from NATO after its defeat by Iran, Russia is ready. It can defend itself in a war against Western Europe. The latter’s elite wants to launch that war as soon as possible. However, the people of Western Europe have no interest whatsoever in such an attack on Russia – the words of its elite are probably just empty bluster. In any case, the hated pro-Zelensky elite of Western Europe is collapsing, with the most aggressive, Starmer, gone first.

The most disliked man in the UK, a tedious and depressing bureaucrat, the dullest of all sociopathic, Establishment-appointed functionaries, with a fake wife and Ukrainian ‘male models’, has gone. The peoples of Britain cheer with happiness, even if he is replaced by his clone, Burnham. The highly unpopular Merz and Macron may be next to fall, together with all manner of sexual perverts and cocaine addicts who belong to the Globalist elite. After this, new leaders may begin siding with their peoples. Spain has already started in its campaign against Zionist genocide. Italy and Ireland are beginning, with Poland objecting to the genocide of the Kiev Fascists against the Poles in 1943.

After four lost years of diplomatic moderation and caution, Russia will reluctantly be obliged to take over all of the Ukraine, if it wants to demilitarise and denazify it. Then it will be in a position to negotiate with its neighbours: ‘Leave NATO and we will return the lands in the Ukraine which Stalin stole from you, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Poland’. Years late, a New Ukraine can at last be dragged out of its corruption, poverty and the oppression of its Zionist bandit-oligarchs and cocaine addicts, to Russian standards of living. This will leave the Orthodox Church problem to be solved at last, but only as part of the resolution of the general Church architecture problem in Western Europe.

The Church Situation

In 1988 we proposed that there should be a new Autocephalous Local Western European Orthodox Church, in six and then perhaps eight Archdioceses. The latter could eventually become Autocephalous Local Churches in their own right. These six or eight Local Archdioceses were: Italia = Italy, San Marino, Italian-speaking Switzerland and Malta; Iberia = Spain, Portugal, Andorra and Gibraltar; Iona = The British Isles and Ireland; Gallia = France, Monaco and French-speaking Belgium and Switzerland; Scandinavia = Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark; Germania = Germany, Netherlands, Flanders, Luxembourg, German-speaking Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Austria.

The latter three countries may now have enough Orthodox to be separated from an Archdiocese of Germania. And the two and a half countries of Benelux might one day be big enough to separate too. Eight new Local Churches? Geographically, nothing has changed since 1988, but much has changed in other respects. The Constantinople Church is now much smaller, as it dies out, though a few living parts have moved out of the Greek ghetto. The three parts of the Russian Church finally reached unity, until the now fully Americanised CIA ROCOR fell into schism from the Archdiocese of Western Europe. Now the latter is proposing to consecrate its Moldovan bishops, defying Moscow like Riga.

Above all, despite the presence of Ukrainians, Serbs, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Antiochians and Georgians, Orthodox Western Europe is dominated by the Romanian Church. Divided into two Autonomous Metropolias, there are now over four million Romanians and Moldovans (some of the latter also form the bulk of the Moscow presence, with two bishops) in Western Europe. With ten bishops, the Romanians and Moldovans have nearly 1300 parishes and thirty monasteries. This is about 65% of all Orthodox. Moreover, the Romanian Church is very close to the canonical Ukrainian presence. The two peoples get on very well and there are bilingual parishes, as in Romania and the Ukraine.

The Future?

The Patriarchate of Romania could yet move to establish an Autocephalous Western European Orthodox Church, given its majority situation, Latin language and its incarnation into several parts of Western Europe. It full well knows that, in any case, the Greeks and the Russians would not initially take part in any new Autocephalous Western European Church. They boycott localisation, as they both suffer from their anti-Incarnational, anti-Catholicity imperial ideologies, namely, ‘Hellenism’ and ‘the Russian World’. The hope would be that the below eight national Diaspora groups would band together, initially leaving Greeks and Russians out in the cold, as they so clearly desire.

Romanians, Moldovans, Serbs, Ukrainians, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Antiochians and Georgians together? The parishes of the Paris Archdiocese of Western Europe would join such a new Western European Local Church quickly, leaving Moscow Russian nationalists, ROCOR American Protestant nationalists and Greek Phanariot nationalists to die out in self-imposed isolation. Their second and third generations would vote with their feet, leaving the empty buildings and the old peoples’ homes behind them. What of the other European countries, which are not included above and are not part of a Local Church (Slovenia, Croatia, Czechia, Slovakia and Poland)?

It seems to me that Finland and the three Baltic States should have their own single Baltic Church, with autocephaly granted by Moscow. All pro-Romanian parts of Moldova should return to the Romanian Church. And similarly, Hungary should have its own Church, if the 600 parishes of Carpatho-Russia return to Hungary and not to Slovakia. If to Slovakia, then Hungary should form its own Archdiocese, linked with the Romanian Church, which already has a bishop and diocese there. In a Russia in BRICS, where sovereignty is the norm, the Moscow Church would have to reform itself, at last escaping its Imperial and Soviet straitjacket, and grant autocephaly to the New Ukraine and Belarus.

 

 

Towards the Future Local Orthodox Church of Western Europe

The Reconstitution of the Lost Local Church of Western Europe

For over fifty years we have actively prayed and worked for the restoration of the Local Orthodox Church of Western Europe. Unlike future Local Churches in the Americas and Oceania, this would be a spiritual restoration of what existed here, before the 11th century schism from the Orthodox Church by the Latin-speaking Patriarchate of Rome. Clearly, this would not be a literal restoration, which is impossible without a time machine – to think otherwise is the error of Western riters. Thus, in the 11th century, Old Rome fell. Meanwhile, New and Christian Rome had been established as the Capital of the Empire, on the edge of Europe, looking towards Asia, and that did not fall. The Western provinces had fallen to provincialism, so breaking off from the Christian Capital. (Indeed, in 1204 the Western barbarians sacked and looted the Christian Capital).

Old Rome fell because it had taken on the imperialism of the Pagan Roman Emperors, imposed by admiring barbarian Frankish leaders. The new 11th century Patriarchs (‘Papae’) of Old Rome, all Franks, claimed absolute authority over the whole Church, notably in the ‘Dictatus Papae’ of the German Hildebrand in 1075. Thus, the Pope became the ‘Pontifex Maximus’, the only intermediary between God and man. This was expressed in the invention by Old Rome of the filioque ideology of the second half of the 11th century. This claims that the Holy Spirit, the power and authority of God, proceeds from the replacement/vicar of the Son of God on earth, which that Patriarch claimed to be. This was in order to justify his universal power grab, expressed in the contradictory claim that he was both ‘Roman’ and yet ‘Catholic’.

They would eventually even declare that the Popes of Rome are infallible, though that was already inherent in the manifesto of 1075. Repaganised, Old Rome had made itself into the provincial ‘Roman Catholic’ Empire with absolute authority, cutting itself off from the Church in 1054. At once protests began within its territory of Western Europe, which was dominated by the Latin and Germanic peoples. These protests were met as ‘heresies’ with violent persecutions and inquisitions by what had once been a Church hierarchy, now a wealthy, feudalised and sadistic elite of ‘Princes of the Church’, who led armies and massacred freely. Eventually those protests resulted in the defection of a majority of the Germanic peoples and, initially especially, of others in the 16th century ‘Protestant Reformation’, in fact a ‘Deformation’.

Thus, Western Europe was controlled by Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, which errors were later exported to European overseas colonies, carrying division worldwide. Today, Roman Catholicism remains, despite the scandals of pedophilia and financial corruption, but Protestantism is dying out much more rapidly. National Protestant Churches, like the National Churches of Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, as well as other Protestant groups like Methodists and Quakers are simply closing down and disappearing. However, the question remains as to which of the Local Orthodox Churches could lead the restoration of the Local Church of Western Europe by gathering all Orthodox and those of goodwill together, and not imposing some narrow nationalist politics?

Which Local Church Will Lead the Reconstitution?

The centralising and nationalist ideologues of the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople have never actually been interested in doing this, despite certain of its frustrated bishops and clergy showing such an interest. In reality, that Patriarchate has been so dominated by politics and hence so spiritually weak that its Vatican-visiting leadership appears to want to be a minor department of Roman Catholicism, only Greek-speaking and Greek nationalist. Personally, I realised this in 1982 after talking with the late Fr John Romanides, totally isolated in his views, though he was still captivated by Hellenism (Greek nationalism). His isolation was due to the domination of the episcopate of his Patriarchate by politicians, ‘Princes of the Church’, not by men of Faith, the authentic shepherds of the flock, like Sts Spyridon and Nicholas.

From 1982 on, if not before, I had hoped that the Russian Church would take the lead in the construction of a new Local Church, despite its threefold Diaspora divisions. For this, the Diaspora divisions would first have to be overcome and so I worked towards this throughout the 80s, 90s and 2000s. I helped to oppose secularising modernist and ecumenist liberalism, on the one hand, and censorious old calendarist and obscurantist phariseeism on the other hand. We saw great hope when came the fall of the atheist USSR in 1991. This was followed by the admirable 2000 Jubilee Council in Moscow with at long last the first canonisations of New Martyrs and Confessors and the 2003 statement of Patriarch Alexiy II regarding a future Western European Church. Finally, came the triumph of Russian Diaspora unity in 2007 and 2019.

However, in 2022 the CIA decided otherwise and destroyed that unity through the schism of a London asset planted in a Russian-American sect, which had infiltrated the Church inside Russia via certain extremely naïve senior hierarchs of that Church. This destruction was at the same time aided by a wave of Russian nationalism, which meant that the Russian Church suicidally lost the loyalty of Ukrainians, Moldovans, Western people and almost all who are not Russian. The international period of the New Martyrs and Confessors had been renounced by its bishop-politicians. Since the ‘Russian’ Diaspora in Western Europe is based not on Russians, but on the above Non-Russian national groups, Ukrainians, Moldovans and Western people, the divided Russian Church will not be able to lead in the reconstruction of the Local Church.

Although quality can be more important than quantity, until about 1965, most Western Europeans would have looked to the Russian Church to lead any possible restoration of a future Western European Local Church, simply because Russians were the majority Orthodox nationality there. From 1965 until about 2015, most would have looked to the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople, since they in turn had become the majority. Today, after the influx of well over four million young Romanians and Moldovans with EU Romanian passports into Western Europe since 2007 and the births of their children here and the organisation of a Romanian Church structure with ten bishops (and more to come), we look to the Church of Romania to lead the way in uniting all Orthodox in a future Local Church. Is this realistic?

The Romanian and Russian Churches: Advantages and Disadvantages

The Romanian Orthodox Church, the second largest Local Orthodox Church, has certain advantages. Unlike the Constantinople and Russian Churches, it is in communion with all Orthodox, resisting the political extremes of cutting of communion and attacking the catholicity of the Church. Its language is a Latin language in the Western Latin alphabet, not unlike Italian. (From Roma to Romania?) And though Romania suffered under Communism, it was not so much that the Tradition of Orthodox Life and hesychastic life were destroyed, only suppressed for a time. But unlike the Westernised Greek Churches, it was only recently persecuted and produced many New Martyrs and Confessors. However, unlike the Russian Church, it was not so persecuted that it was virtually eliminated and became a convert Church, without living traditions.

The result is that most Romanian clergy generally see themselves as servants of the people and encourage popular participation in services together, opening the royal doors, reading the eucharistic canon aloud. This is helped because the Romanian Church celebrates the services in an accessible language. This is quite unlike the Russian Church, where clergy are all too often a professional caste separated from the people. Choirs are often professional and the services are cloaked in inaccessibility and in a 17th century language which is largely not understood. The result is that the people prefer Akathist hymns to Vespers and Matins. Akathists are written more or less in Russian and all can sing the simple melody. Similarly, Russian piety prefers services of intercession and memorial services to the complex liturgical cycle.

This inaccessibility is the result of the State-run bureaucratic clericalism introduced by Emperor Peter I after 1700, with its purely subjective and favouritising system of civil service awards, is most obvious in the withholding of communion. This means the very rigid insistence of most Russian priests on confession before communion, although, hypocritically, they do not do that for themselves. However, this Protestant-style State domination of the Church, copied from the Netherlands by Peter I, leads to the ritualistic and militaristic ethos in the Russian Church. This is unlike in any of the other Local Churches, from which it has been very isolated for centuries. For some the Russian Church is only about standing through services, dressed like an army in a particular ‘uniform’, which is specific to Russians, not to all Orthodox.

The Russian Church also excluded itself from the local assembles of Orthodox bishops, at long last organised in 2009 throughout the 12 regions of the Orthodox Diaspora. True, these assemblies have not become popular, on account of their political and completely undemocratic domination by the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople and their lack of transparency, refusing for example to publish the minutes of their meetings. This means that most Orthodox have no idea that they even exist and do not feel involved in them in any way. Nevertheless, they do exist. However, Russian self-exclusion from them means that all the other Orthodox, Greeks, Romanians, Antiochians, Serbs etc are slowly starting to forge local Diaspora unity without the Russians. This is the path towards new Local Churches. Self-exclusion is a great mistake.

Nevertheless, the Romanian Church like any other does have its weaknesses. For instance, a few of its clergy have a reputation for love of money which compromises the principles of Orthodoxy and those clergy in the eyes of the faithful affected. However, its greatest weakness may be Romanian nationalism. This is a State Church, like the Church of Greece. If it follows in the suicidal footsteps of Russian and Greeks and falls into nationalism, it will fail to transmit the Orthodox Faith to succeeding, locally-born generations, who are integrated in all ways into the local culture. Then, like the Russian Church over the last fifty years and the Greek Church today, it will have to bury its last priests and sell off its empty churches, as we have witnessed so often in the Russian Church and recently the Greek Church since the 1970s.

The Future Local Orthodox Church of Western Europe

In our context, Western Europe can be defined as the 22 countries of ex-Catholic and ex-Protestant Europe, the exceptions being in countries in the east of the Western half of Europe. In order of size, these countries are: Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Iceland, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco and San Marino. They speak twelve different national languages. Thus, in this list we exclude countries outside Western Europe, in Central and Eastern Europe, such as the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia and ex-Yugoslavia. These have historically been canonically dependent or dominated by Local Churches, like the Serbian, the Polish, the Czechoslovak, the Romanian and the Russian.

Initially, as we already suggested in our report of 1988, called ‘Vision or Dream’ a regional but multinational Metropolia could be established. This would be based in Paris and have six regional Archdioceses, set up around Western Europe. Perhaps, in the long term, even if it is quite far ahead of us, each could become the foundation for a future Local Church, once other smaller Local Churches have entered into co-operation with the majority Romanian Church and its suggested structures. However, initially, this would look as follows: A Metropolitan of Paris and All Western Europe, First Hierarch of the Orthodox Church of Western Europe, with, initially, a Synod of 24 bishops. This would be made up of 6 archbishops and 18 bishops. They would look after over six million Orthodox of various nationalities who live in Western Europe.

Gallia:

One Archbishop and three bishops with titles in France, Wallonia, French Switzerland and Monaco, representing Romanian, Greek, Russian, Serbian, Moldovan, Ukrainian etc

Italia:

One Archbishop and three bishops with titles in Northern Italy and San Marino; Central Italy; Southern Italy and Malta, representing Romanian, Moldovan, Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian etc

Iberia:

One Archbishop and three bishops with titles in Spain; Catalonia, the Basque Country and Andorra; Portugal, representing Romanian, Moldovan, Greek, Russian, Serbian, Ukrainian etc

Germania:

One Archbishop and three bishops with titles in Germany; Switzerland and Liechtenstein; Austria; the Netherlands, Flanders and Luxembourg, representing Greek, Russian, Romanian, Serbian, Moldovan, Ukrainian etc

Iona (Isles of the North Atlantic):

One Archbishop and three bishops with titles in England; Ireland; Scotland; Wales, representing Romanian, Greek, Moldovan, Russian, Serbian, Ukrainian etc

Scandinavia:

One Archbishop and three bishops with titles in Sweden; Denmark and the Faeroes; Finland; Norway and Iceland, representing Romanian, Serbian, Russian, Greek, Moldovan, Ukrainian etc

We suggest that the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of each region be chosen from the majority Orthodox nationality living in that region. Each regional Archdiocese should, if possible, have a bishop for other Orthodox peoples present, forming a kind of local Synod. When a new Metropolitan has to be chosen, every bishop in each regional Synod should have a vote. Clearly, with time, there would be bishops from local nationalities, Spanish, German, English, French etc. All bishops would be at least bilingual, if not trilingual. With time, the number of bishops would probably increase, according to local needs and the nationalities represented. This is what we have tried to do on a miniature and modest level in our parish, with three priests representing and respecting each nationality, calendars and customs.

 

After Imperialism, Commonwealth: The Russian Church After the Dissection of the Soviet Ukraine

Introduction: The DeSovietisation of the Ukraine

The Soviet Ukraine was a creation of three bloody tyrants, Lenin, Stalin and Khrushshev, between 1922 and 1954. It is the decisions of these tyrants that the West has supported all these years. That Ukraine was always divided into three parts, Eastern, Central and Western. After the conflict there is over, quite possibly this year, the Eastern part (with the south), called Novorossiya, will return to Russia; the Central part and some of the Western part will become the New Ukraine, which we shall call Kievska Rus, a mirror image of the equally landlocked Belarus to the north; most of the Western part will return to Poland, Hungary (and perhaps Slovakia) and Romania, from where Stalin stole it. But what will happen to the Russian Church, deprived of several thousand churches and priests in Central and Western Ukraine? Having identified with the militant Russian nationalism of the Russian State, the Russian episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church has lost the loyalty of Ukrainians.

The Defeat of Post-Soviet Centralisation and the Remedy of Autocephaly

Why would those Ukrainians continue to be subject to the Muscovite Church of Russians, who have killed or maimed their grandsons, sons, husbands and fathers? That Russian episcopate has in general renounced Non-Russian nationalities, whom it has in effect either ignored or else persecuted. It has renounced the Orthodox in Kievska Rus (mainly the old Central Soviet Ukraine), and in the west of that Soviet Ukraine. In the latter, Orthodox who live in areas which return to Poland will rejoin the Polish Orthodox Church, any who return to Slovakia will rejoin the Church of the Czechs and Slovakia, those who return to Romania will rejoin the Romanian Orthodox Church (some already have), and those who return to Hungary will have to be awarded Autocephaly in a new Hungarian Orthodox Church. As for the Orthodox who live in an independent Kievska Rus, they will also need Autocephaly, which they have already de facto had since 2022, thus creating an eighteenth Local Church.

Thus, that Russian episcopate has also renounced the multinational Russian Church of the emigration, which I served for 47 years, and its heroes like St John of Shanghai and his successor Archbishop Antony of Geneva. It has renounced all the others who carried the mission of the Church to Non-Russian nationalities, including the Estonian-born Patriarch Alexiy II, who in 2003 saw the Russian Church in Western Europe as the foundation-stone of a new Autocephalous Church there. That episcopate has therefore renounced the remains of the Russian emigration. The smaller part, based in Paris, is now destined to merge into a larger Non-Russian Orthodox Church of Western Europe (see below). The larger part, based in New York, completely out of control and unchecked by Moscow, has lost its way in uncanonical disorder, identifying with sectarianism, the pedophile warmongering Trump regime and the CIA, several of whose assets belong to its clergy.

Moscow has also renounced its own emigration, most of which is in Western Europe, but also in Northern America and Latin America. This is heavily dependent on Moldovans, especially so in Ireland and in Iberia and Italy, where both bishops are Moldovans. For Orthodox in Moldova are returning to the Romanian Church, some 300 parishes leaving Moscow so far. Once Russian troops arrive in Odessa, after which NATO, the EU and the UK will begin to collapse, that return to the Romanian Church in the face of Russian nationalism will turn into a rush. The Russian nationalist episcopate has also renounced Orthodox in the Baltics, who need independence (autocephaly). It is also renouncing the Orthodox in Belarus and in the five stans of Central Asia, in both of which some voices are asking for new autocephalies. This means that the Russian Church will be reduced from 145 million faithful to 105 million.

Virtually all of these will be living in the Russian Federation and in a Novorossiya reunited with that Federation. Just a few will be left living outside it, attached to Russian embassy and consulate churches in and around the capitals of the Western world, in Japan (20,000?), South-East Asia (20,000?) and in China (100?). As for those in Africa, Moscow will have to negotiate autocephaly for Africans with the Patriarchate of Alexandria, with the mutual exit of interfering and imperialistic Greeks and Russians alike. An African Patriarchate of Alexandria, with an administrative centre perhaps in Kenya, will follow. Thus, there will be autocephalies for Kievska Rus, Belarus, Central Asia, the Baltics, Hungary, Western Europe (under the majority – the Romanian Church), Northern America, absorbing the renamed OCA, and Oceania (both under majority Constantinople) and in Latin America (under majority Antioch).

Conclusion: The Defeat of the ‘Princes of the Church’

This will create twenty-four Local Orthodox Churches instead of sixteen as now, with two of those, the Patriarchate of Alexandria and the OCA, renewed and reconstituted. The eight new Autocephalies will cover Kievska Rus, Belarus, Western Europe, Central Asia, Hungary, Latin America, Oceania, and the Baltics. The Russian Orthodox Church will have been humbled, taking its place as one of the renewed Family of Churches. It will have lost its imperialist temptation to dominate all, just like discredited Constantinople. Both Patriarchates were contaminated by Imperialism. Both will have to accept that they are merely parts, however large, 50% of the whole Church, and however ancient, dating back to Constantine, of a Family of equals, a Commonwealth. This will see restored the Catholicity of the Church, a Family in communion with each other and the defeat of imperialist and nationalist centralism.

 

 

Half a Century in the Orthodox Church in Western Europe (1)

Introduction: Nothing New Under the Sun

Apart from one year in Greece and several months in the Soviet Union, and then in Russia and the Ukraine, with brief visits to Orthodox in Moldova, Romania, Belarus, Czechia, Slovakia, Finland, Serbia and Bulgaria, I have spent 51 years as an Orthodox Christian in Western Europe, 41 of them as an Orthodox clergyman in Western Europe, in France, Portugal and England, but with liturgical celebrations in Belgium, Switzerland, Austria and Germany. My conclusions?

First of all, there is nothing new under the sun. This is because human nature does not change. Anyone who reads the Acts of the Apostles or the writings of the Church Fathers from the first centuries knows that all the difficulties and scandals of today have already occurred in the past. Of 80,000 Orthodox priests, I have perhaps met perhaps 1,000 and of the 1,000 Orthodox bishops, I have met about 100. I have never seen anything new compared to the past.

Seven Local Churches exist in the Western European Diaspora today: the Romanian, the Greek (Constantinople), the Russian (divided into three parts, one of which refuses to be in communion with another, so is in fact in schism, as well as the 100 new but independent parishes of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church), the Serbian, and then the three very small groups under the Churches of Antioch, Bulgaria and Georgia. Only the three first big Churches carry any weight in terms of the Diaspora Church as a whole.

The Three Big Churches in 1976

Fifty years ago, there were two Russian bishops in this country. As they were both Russian, they were, naturally, at daggers drawn and out of communion with one another. One was an anthroposophist (look it up), a great eccentric who believed in Atlantis. The other one was a notorious womaniser. A few English people were allowed to join the two Russian groups, usually provided that they learned some Russian. This was because both groups were rapidly dying out (1917, after which most of the still living but elderly Russians had come here, was nearly sixty years before 1976). Priests, very few of them lived outside London and they were also elderly, spent much of their time doing funerals.

Fifty years ago, the Patriarchate of Constantinople in this country was dominated by Greek Cypriots, whose lives were largely devoted to Hellenism. Most had arrived here between 1950 and 1974. A homosexual archbishop preferred to ordain his boyfriends and one of his vicar-bishops was a pedophile, who at that time got away with it. Of course, there was at least one bishop who was excellent and many very virtuous priests and pious people. However, the opening to non-Greeks was all but non-existent. From the archbishop down, English people were told to go away, at best being told to join the Church of England or else to learn Greek, ‘if you want to become a Greek’, at worst being told to ‘go away’ by one Cypriot priest, only in the most vulgar way possible in the English language.

Fifty years ago, the Romanian Church was more or less inexistent, as the whole country was controlled by the Romanian Secret Police.

The Three Big Churches in 2026

Today, the Russians remain in small groups here, small because they have all failed to pass on the Faith to locally-born children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren and so on. No Russian group has learned how to cope with assimilation. Today, the larger (still small) group is 100% attached to the Russian Federation, politically and in all other ways, and is much compromised by scandals. The smaller group, dominated by American Trumpians, just encourages the crazies and so spawns old calendarists, just as the Russian Church inside Russia once spawned old ritualists, and is much compromised by appalling scandals. Another even smaller group just hangs on. All three groups are dying out – for all have survived largely because of immigration from Moldova. By far the saddest thing about the Russian Church is that it did not learn from history and so it has condemned itself to repeat the same mistakes as before the Revolution. Today, inside the ex-Soviet Union, the Russian Church strangely resembles the pre-Revolutionary Russian Church, with the same politicisation, the same militarisation, the same empty ritualism, the same inhuman rigidity, the same pharisaic and blind repetition that only they are ‘canonical’, the same blind obedience to the hierarchy and the State, regardless of Christ and His teaching.

Today, the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople in this country, although still dominated by Greek Cypriots whose lives are largely devoted to Hellenism, has a very dynamic archbishop, whose English is better than his Greek, and who is desperately trying to save his archdiocese from self-extinction despite his elderly flock. As he said to us a few months ago, he has one hundred priests who are so old that they are likely to die within the next five years and three candidates to replace them. For forty years the previous administration ignored all the warnings that this would happen. The saddest thing about the Greek Church is that they did not learn from the suicide of the Russian Church, so they are condemned to repeat the same suicide and also die out.

The Romanian Patriarchate is today by far the largest Church as a result of the immigration of four to five million Romanians and Moldovans here over the last 20 years. Overall, our two Autonomous Romanian Orthodox Metropolias in Western Europe have 10 bishops, 1,283 churches and 30 monasteries, which makes them by far the largest Local Church in Western Europe. We are about four times larger than the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople in Western Europe, five times larger than the Russian Church in Western Europe (most of which is composed of Romanian-speaking Moldovans) and incomparably larger than the tiny ROCOR and Antiochian dioceses, both with less than 100, mainly tiny (between 10 and 50 people), communities.

Conclusion: The Challenge for the Romanian Church

Between 1917 and 1962 by far the largest Diaspora Church in Western Europe, albeit divided into three warring groups, was the Russian Church. Between 1962 and 2007 by far the largest was the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But they both lost their dominating positions and indeed the respect of others, the Russians through their isolationist totalitarian politics, which excludes Non-Russians, and their lack of communion with others, the Greeks through their sheer racism. Today some 85% of Orthodox here are Romanian or Moldovan. Can the Romanians, now by far the biggest group, keep their position and the respect of others?

The Romanian Church has many devout clergy and people. It has the Carpathian spirit of solidarity. We are together in the Romanian Church, this is the People’s Church, with a sense of community, family and friendship. The Romanian language is a Latin language, written in the Latin alphabet. There is neither the politics, nor the military-style rigidity of the Russians, nor the racism of the Greeks. Moreover, and most importantly, the Romanian Church alone is in communion with everyone, in schism with no-one. However, the Romanian Church still faces two great challenges.

The first weakness of the Romanian Church, at least in Romania, is the temptation of money. Any Romanian layperson will tell you of a bad experience in Romania with a member of the clergy who demanded money from them. This is why some Romanians have become Protestants. I have not seen this temptation in the Romanian Diaspora, but we cannot be complacent. The second weakness of the Romanian Church is the potential lack of openness to others, in other words, the weakness of nationalism. To found a new Local Church in the Diaspora means to be open to others, to warring Greeks and Russians in particular, to be able to co-operate with others in a common language, accepting different languages, calendars and customs, and not imposing one’s own. Is this possible? Will it too fail to learn from history and repeat the errors of the Russians, repeated by the Greeks? We await the inevitable verdict of the history of the future.

 

 

Keeping the Faith: Pastoral Considerations and Church Unity in the Diaspora

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

Psalm 133, 1

Exactly 50 years ago I stood in the then newly-built Serbian church in Birmingham and listened to a sermon given by the late Fr Vladimir (later Bp Basil) Rodzianko. He spoke of the ‘sin of jurisdictions’ and looked forward idealistically to a time when there would no longer be any jurisdictions. I knew then that that was unrealistic. Indeed, 50 years have passed and there are now more ‘jurisdictions’ than ever. After over fifty years of life in the Orthodox Diaspora in Western Europe, divided into several separate Church jurisdictions, I have come to certain conclusions.

These conclusions were fed firstly by observing how the post-1917 Russian Diaspora died out in Western Europe (as a clergyman in Paris in the 1980s and 1990s I buried many of its last very elderly representatives, who had been adults before 1917). Then, secondly, I have seen how the 1950s Greek Cypriot Diaspora has also nearly completely died out in Britain. They both died out because they failed almost wholly to pass on the Faith to their locally born generations.

In 1973, I met the future Metr Kallistos (Ware), who tried and failed to unite local Russian, Greek and Serbian Orthodox into one shared church in Oxford. In 1980 I met the late Fr Alexander Schmemann, who invited me to become a priest in the USA. I politely refused his offer, as I felt my place was in Europe. I witnessed how in North America his attempt to found a new Local Church, called the OCA (the Orthodox Church in America), failed to unite Orthodox there – it unites only some 10-15% of Orthodox. Both were valiant attempts by sincere and often admirable people to do good, but both failed.

Others also tried to do something in this respect, like those who argued with each other, Fr (now St) Sophrony (Sakharov) and Metr Antony (Bloom), who tonsured me reader in 1981. The outstanding figure with Fr Sophrony was undoubtedly Fr Raphael (Noica), who gave me very good advice between 1975 and 1983. Another influence was Protopresbyter Alexei Kniazev, the rector of the St Sergius Institute of Orthodox Theology, where I studied.

However, the most outstanding figure I met was Archbishop Antony (Bartoshevich) of Geneva, who ordained me priest in 1991, after I had served for seven years as a deacon. He led the multinational Archdiocese of Western Europe, veering neither towards liberal modernism, nor to sectarian old calendarism. He was the successor of St John Maximovich as Archbishop of Western Europe. Clergy of seventeen different nationalities concelebrated at his funeral.

One of the problems with the experiments in Oxford and the USA was the lack of respect for the people in the parishes. Firstly, any Diaspora parish must use at least two languages, that of the main national group (or national groups, if there is more than one) and the local language. The latter is necessary for the children and grandchildren of immigrants in the Church, for the locally-born spouses of the inevitable mixed marriages, as well as for those received into the parish from local people who wish to join the Orthodox Church.

We do not wish the children of immigrants to lose the language of their parents, but they go to school in English, they think in English, they speak their parents’ language with an English accent. If they can understand the Church in English, then they will not reject the Church in the language of their parents. This is a psychological fact and, as any pastor will tell you, more than 50% of what we do is understanding our parishioners’ psychology.

Respect must also be shown for the calendars used by the parishioners, and for their cultures and customs. In order to do this, there may need to be at least two priests of different nationalities in each parish and choirs must be organised. We have seen too many cases of just the opposite, of disrespect and even mockery for different languages, calendars, cultures and customs. That is unacceptable because it is unChristian. Expressions of hatred for others are unChristian and eventually will lead to the downfall of parishes and even of whole dioceses. We are eyewitnesses of this. You cannot build a Church on negativity or hatred.

Here is a brief outline as to how we could perhaps proceed to keep locally-born generations inside the Church and also to help unite the Diaspora Church, which is divided administratively. The secret is in not being exclusive. Thus:

  1. No National Flags

A Church with flags is a Church which divides. Christ has no flag. Our only ‘flag’ is the Cross. Flags belong to the secular world, not to Christ. The absence of a flag, Russian, Greek, Romanian, Serbian or other, does not of course mean that it can be replaced by a local flag, by some sort of local nationalism, British, American, French or other. That is just as negative. If we want to have flags with their nationalism, let us keep them at home and not bring them to church.

  1. No Political Ideologies or ‘Isms’

Ideologies, or ‘isms’, are always divisive because they are narrow and sectarian. For instance, I have witnessed how the OCA tried to impose the new calendar on Slav origin parishes in the USA and condescendingly impose non-traditional, liberal and even modernist liturgical practices on them. This was very divisive and as a result many parishes left the OCA and many more did not want to join it. They felt they had been excluded.

On the other hand, I have also witnessed how certain clergy in one Russian emigration splinter tried to impose an extreme right-wing ideology, allied with old calendarism. They promoted themselves rather pharisaically as an exclusive ‘One True Church’, refusing concelebration and communion with the Local Churches, as ‘they are in error’ and ‘we do not like them’.

This sectarianism was very divisive and it only attracts converts from Catholicism and Protestantism with pathological problems, while turning away from the Church those with healthy psychologies. Such an aggressive splinter can never be part of a future Local Church and does not want to be. That is why we belong to the Romanian Orthodox Church, away from all extremes and schisms.

  1. No Money

What makes Orthodox of all nationalities reject their own Church more than anything else is the story that the clergy are only interested in money. Fixed tariffs for baptisms, weddings, funerals, memorials etc are fatal in this respect. The stories of laypeople about such matters, true or untrue, are legion. Either priests must have a secular profession and parishioners pay only for the often high costs of the church-building, or else an arrangement must be made with parishioners that they make known their salaries and they give a percentage of their salaries to the priest. In this way the priest’s salary will be the average of their salaries. For example, if there are 100 salaried parishioners, they could each give 1% of their salary to the priest. If there are 200 salaried parishioners, they could each give 0.5% of their salary to the priest etc.

The Church as a Family

Without national flags, political ideologies or money scandals, if we wish to keep everyone together inside the Church, then we must experience the Church as a warm and loving Family, to which all Orthodox can belong.

Orthodox who have been uprooted from their homelands, usually for economic or else, as in the Communist past, for ideological reasons, want to belong to something. Perfectly naturally, they have a problem of identity. ‘Who am I’?, they ask. However, those born locally, of such Russian, Greek, Romanian, Serbian or other immigrant parents, and who all speak the local language better than that of their parents, also want to belong to something, they also have a problem of identity. I tell all my people that, although we have a State passport with a flag on it, our spiritual passport has no flag, or political party, and under the Nationality section, it says: ‘Orthodox Christian’. This is our spiritual nationality and identity, we belong to the Orthodox Christian Family. Our unity is in our common Orthodox Christian Faith and Love.

 

On the Six Divisions in the Russian Orthodox Church in the Diaspora

In the twentieth century the Russian Orthodox Church outside the borders of Russia split into six groups, three splits took place for ethnic reasons and three splits took place for political reasons.

The Three Non-Russian Ethnic Divisions

Firstly, there was quite a large Carpatho-Rusyn group in the USA, founded by immigrants who had been forced into Uniatism. They had arrived in the US from 1880 on, not from the Russian Empire, but from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Once in freedom in the USA, most of them returned to Russian Orthodoxy (the strongly Uniatised did not and were called by the absurd term ‘Ruthenians’). The return was for two reasons. Firstly, an infamous Roman Catholic Archbishop in the USA, called John Ireland (1838-1918), refused to let the Carpatho-Rusyns have married clergy and, secondly, he tried to steal their churches from them. As a Roman Catholic bishop (just like ROCOR bishops today), he did not understand that Carpathian Orthodoxy is founded on churches built or paid for by the people for the people. In real and not clericalist Orthodoxy, the hierarchical principle is always balanced by the congregational principle.  Led by the future saint, Fr Alexis (Toth), most people returned to the Church. The People’s Orthodoxy always triumphs over greedy clericalist bishops, who have the State mentality and dreams of power and riches. The Carpatho-Rusyns came to form a group known as the Metropolia and then from 1971 on the OCA (Orthodox Church in America).

After 1945 there formed second and third groups, a small Belarussian group and a very large and also very nationalistic Ukrainian group, mainly in Northern America, but also to some extent in Western Europe and elsewhere. After the fall of the Soviet Empire in 1991, most of the Ukrainian group, hating Russians, ended up under Constantinople. The small and weak Belarusian group more or less died out.

The Three Russian Political Divisions

As for the ethnic Russians in the Diaspora, after 1917 they too split into three. Initially, until the 1990s and renewed emigration, the smallest group was the Moscow Patriarchate group. This was at the centre of Soviet patriotism, which after 1991 transferred to Russian Federation patriotism. Many in this group never dared contradict whoever was in power in Moscow, whether they intervened in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan or the Ukraine. A blind patriotic loyalty even to an atheist regime (!) prevailed among some in this Church. For them, the Russian Patriarch is an ethnarch, in the same way as the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople is an ethnarch. For example, when Orthodox in Latvia were recently obliged by the local government to stop commemorating the Russian Patriarch, many there stopped going to church. I was asked if people should continue to attend churches there. I answered: If churches there continue to commemorate Christ, then of course they should attend them. Clearly, for many, the commemoration of the Patriarch was much more important than the commemoration of Christ. This is a parallel to the Roman Catholic attitude to the Popes of Rome. For them too the Pope is the head of the Church. No Pope, no Church! And the same ‘phyletist’ disease is present among some in Constantinople, Moscow and elsewhere.

The second smallest group in the Diaspora after 1917 was the Paris-centred group. This was led by Westernised aristocrats and intellectuals, mainly from Saint Petersburg, who had betrayed the Tsar, organised the first ‘Revolution’ (palace coup) to overthrow him and showed loyalty to Western values such as liberalism, ecumenism etc. In general, they showed little interest in fasting, monasticism and piety. This is now an even smaller group, as it has largely died out.

The largest émigré group, called ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, also Russian Orthodox Church Abroad or in Exile), was always anti-Communist. However, since being anti-Communist is not the same as Orthodox Christianity (to the amazement of some of them!), this led them into deviations and perversions, such as Nazism, then the CIA, NATO, the Republican Party and American Imperialism. The erroneous idea was that anyone who was anti-Communist was their friend. That hatred blinded many of them to the fact that all those movements embodied hatred for Russia. And yet these people were supposedly pro-Russian! After multiple scandals in ROCOR over the last decade, involving narcissists, homosexual and pedophile clergy, this group has also become very small. Many have left it in disgust at its anti-Christian ethos and so it has in recent years become a rather irrelevant fringe group and a very great embarrassment to its Mother-Church in Moscow.

As for us, we continue to confess our loyalty to Christ and His Saints, the New Martyrs and the New Confessors, in faithfulness to St John of Shanghai and his successor the ever-memorable Archbishop Antony of Geneva. In 1975, we were already venerating the still uncanonised (after some 50 years!) New Martyrs and Confessors. Moscow refused to canonise them, like the two other groups – refusals all from lack of spiritual freedom. Apart from some quite exceptional individuals such as St John of Shanghai, all three groups also refused to venerate the Saints of the first millennium West when it was still Orthodox.

After the long overdue reconciliations with Moscow and apparent unity of the three ethnic Russian groups between 2007 and 2018, in the 2020s, the situation worsened sharply, as nationalism, Russian, American or French, seized hold of the leadership of the three groups. Moreover, as a result of Soviet-style nationalist centralisation, the Russian Church began to suffer from further splits with Orthodox in Estonia, the Ukraine, Moldova and Latvia. These splits spread everywhere outside the borders of the Russian Federation, among all who felt they had been treated as second-class citizens by the Centre and its emissaries. This left the Russian Church drifting rudderless and heading for shipwreck, as we continually described at that time.

Although we ordinary clergy and people were left leaderless and abandoned by politicians instead of pastors, we shall never respond to lies with lies, to slanders with slanders, to hatred with hatred. But neither shall we remain silent in the face of lies, slander, hatred, schism and sect. We shall continue to defend our canonical communion with the mainstream, all the Local Churches of the Orthodox Faith, and defend the spiritual freedom of our clergy and parishioners to be in communion with the whole Conciliar Church, to guard our Catholicity, and to keep the memory of the Saints, who are the identity of our Church. And in our case they are the identity of our England, as also of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. And no foreign sectarian and schismatic interloper from the USA has impeded us from so doing.

 

Winner Takes All: The Self-Destruction of the Church of the Russian Emigration

In the years following the so-called Russian Revolution in 1917, the Church of the resulting Russian Emigration split into three parts. A few, very few, remained under the Church centred in Moscow, which eventually became known as the Moscow Patriarchate. Most of the emigres considered that that was a ‘Soviet Church’, a Communist-controlled organisation and, since members of their families had died fighting against Communism and they had been exiled by it, they would have nothing to do with its Church. This vast majority of emigres themselves split into two, a smaller group and a larger group.

The smaller group, centred at its Cathedral on Rue Daru in Paris and existing mainly in France, was founded and led by Saint Petersburg aristocrats who had overthrown the Tsar in order to introduce a pro-Western regime, either a Constitutional Monarchy or else a masonic Republic. The larger group, called ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia), centred at first in Germany and then in New York, and with parishes above all in Germany, the Americas and Australia, was founded and led by emigres who, whatever their politics, were united by a profound hatred of Communists, who had stolen their land and wealth.

Obviously, now 108 years on after 1917, both groups are dying out, even though the New York group was much reinforced by the anti-Communist Russian emigration of 1945. As a result, the last pre-Revolutionary Archbishop of the Paris group died in 1981, and the last pre-Revolutionary Metropolitan of the reinforced New York group was deposed by his fellow-bishops in 2001 and died in 2006. Since then both groups have staggered on, declining in every way.

Both groups have since then much contracted, largely having failed to pass on the Faith to the descendants of the emigres, who are now in their fifth generation. Those born in the Diaspora have overwhelmingly been assimilated and lost all their Russian heritage. All that has survived is the political liberalism of the Paris group and the political conservatism (sometimes extreme conservatism) of the New York group. In other words, despite their radical contraction and the radical changes in their composition, their political identities have survived. However, their spiritual identity has been greatly weakened.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, these political identities have largely become irrelevant, mere history. Moreover, both the ageing and ever-smaller groups were dwarfed by the post-1991 emigration of young people from the former Soviet Union, who automatically became part of the much-expanded Moscow Patriarchate. These young people found the two old émigré groups to be museum pieces and so irrelevant. As a result, both émigré groups had to join the Moscow Patriarchate, though keeping a measure of internal independence.

Today, both groups are being dismantled, or rather, are dismantling themselves, as both suffer from the same suicidal disease: a lack of bishops who know the canonical Russian Tradition and, as a result of this total lack of leadership and Christian example, a lack of money. The flock will not follow wolves. For example, after 1917 both groups built some churches, or much more often, converted buildings for Orthodox use, the majority of them very small, built for fewer than a hundred parishioners. However, they also inherited some splendid pre-Revolutionary church buildings, such as:

In Italy the two churches in Florence and San Remo, currently under ROCOR, but formerly under the Paris Archdiocese.

In Paris the Cathedral of the Paris Archdiocese.

In France the ruinous churches in Cannes, Biarritz and Pau. Although it is forbidden to enter the Cannes church, as it is too dangerous, the increasingly aggressive and increasingly small and impoverished ROCOR is paradoxically engaged in a court action against its own Mother-Church, the Moscow Patriarchate, in order to obtain property rights over this ruin.

In Switzerland the ROCOR churches in Geneva, Lausanne and Vevey.

In Germany, several ROCOR churches, such as those in Wiesbaden, Darmstadt, Baden-Baden.

The two ROCOR convents in Jerusalem.

Most of these churches suffer from dwindling congregations and so dwindling income. Some are going to fall down, if they do not soon receive tens of millions of euros for repair and restoration. Clearly, in order to avoid this, only direct transfers of the buildings to the cash-rich Moscow Patriarchate can, as happened to the two former Paris Archdiocese churches in Nice and the former ROCOR church in Bari in Italy, solve the problem. In the matter of restoring historic buildings, the Moscow Patriarchate will be much aided by the Russian State, which is keen to recover pre-Revolutionary Russian historic monuments, even if they are in a ruinous state.

In this long game of chess between the 99%, the very large Mother-Church, and the 1%, the two tiny émigré fragments, there can only be one winner, the Mother-Church, the Moscow Patriarchate. It will take it all. As we said, this has already taken place in Nice and Bari, but also in Indonesia, where in 2016 ROCOR voluntarily handed over all its sixteen mission parishes to the Moscow Patriarchate, admitting that it could not cope with them. Once one of the last old, Russian-speaking ROCOR bishops has left the stage, many of the churches in Germany will certainly transfer to the Moscow Patriarchate, as their clergy and people come almost all from the ex-Soviet Union.

As one Moscow Patriarchate Metropolitan told me recently: ‘Their churches are like ripe fruit hanging from a tree which will fall into our hands’. In other words, the Patriarchate does not have to do anything, except to wait patiently for the Church of the Emigration to dismantle itself, as the Emigration self-destructs after the deaths of educated, Russian-speaking bishops, who are faithful to the Russian Orthodox Tradition, and not to weird old calendarist or new calendarist pseudo-theologies, or rather fantasies.

We have descended a long, long way from the hopes expressed by the ever-memorable Patriarch Alexei II in 2003 (yes, already nearly a generation ago!) that the Western European Metropolia of the Moscow Patriarchate would become the foundation of a future Western European Local Church. That is now a mere daydream to be forgotten in the cold light of reality, the incompetence, corruption and immorality of various bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate, the liberalism of a large minority in the Paris Archdiocese, who then left it, and the schismatic and sectarian isolation of the ROCOR bishops, who still have not left it and officially founded some weird pseudo-Russian old calendarist sect, which is what they are.

Anyone has the right to leave a Church which has broken communion with another Church. That is what was done when ROCOR broke communion with part of the Moscow Patriarchate. For anyone and everyone can leave a group which enters into schism. The floodgates are opened. Moscow went to the casino, bet all its money on the wrong number and the wheel has spun and chosen another. Russia has always been betrayed by the traitors of the fifth column. In the early 17th century, boyars betrayed it to the Poles, 1917 aristocrat-traitors destroyed the Russian Empire, in 1991 oligarch-traitors destroyed the Soviet Union, and today wealthy traitors have been allowed to undermine the Russian Church.

The results are the anti-Ukrainian, anti-Moldovan and anti-English actions of Moscow and its increasing centralisation, ritualisation, nationalisation and militarisation, as it has cut itself off from communion with other Local Churches. To return to even the situation of hope of 2003 will take decades. Just like the Patriarchate of Constantinople before it, Moscow has hit the ball into the court of others, who are busy constructing what Moscow failed to do. God gave Moscow an opportunity on a silver plate; it rejected it. Now it will have to deal with the suicidal consequences, exactly as we have been warning ever since 2003. The opportunity has been presented to others.

For the Orthodox Diaspora, does this matter? Probably not, because the policy of the Moscow Patriarchate in the Diaspora has increasingly become that of a nationalist ghetto. It lives in isolation from, and so is irrelevant to, the vast majority of Diaspora Orthodox, who are not Russian. The only hope is that the Moscow Patriarchate will cast off its present nationalist and racist isolationism, returning to communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church.

Only then will Moscow return to the glorious heritage of the two great Russian saints of the Diaspora, in the USA St Tikhon of New York and Moscow, and in Europe, St John of Shanghai and Western Europe, the latter the greatest man of the Russian emigration. They did not listen to St John, they persecuted him, suspended him, put him on trial and have done exactly the same to his disciples. The price they are having to pay for that is already very heavy indeed. God is not mocked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fourteen into Twenty-Four: The Patriarchs and First Hierarchs of the Fourteen Local Churches Meet on Mt Athos, 8 February 2026

On 6, 7 and 8 February 2026 the Patriarchs of Constantinople, New Jerusalem, Bucharest, Belgrade, Sofia, Tbilisi, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, and the First Hierarchs of the five other Local Churches, of Skopje, Warsaw, Nicosia, Prague and Tirana, together with Metropolitan Tikhon of the OCA, the Metropolitans of Kiev, Minsk, Riga, Uzhhorod and Kampala, the Metropolitans of the two Metropolias in Moldova, and senior hierarchs from the Diaspora, together with their delegations, met in the Skete of St Andrew. This church, built by the Russian Tsar Alexander II, is the largest church on the multinational Holy Mountain, which is under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

They were at last able to meet in freedom to resolve the only two issues which have troubled and divided the Church for generations. Firstly, they met to put an end to the schisms between the Patriarchates of New Jerusalem, Constantinople and Alexandria. Secondly, they met to grant canonical status to the many millions of Orthodox living in, and to Orthodox who for generations have been born in, Western Europe, the Americas and Oceania, entrusting their destiny in each case to organisation by the Patriarchate with the most Orthodox living on those territories, with the guidance of the Mother-Churches of the minorities.

By repentance for past errors, including allowing the CIA to penetrate the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria and New Jerusalem, directly through allowing its agents to be planted inside them, and indirectly through adopting its oligarchic mentality, and by the prayers of those present and of the monastics of the Holy Mountain of Athos, they reached the following resolutions:

New Jerusalem

As many will know, before this meeting the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Rus had been renamed the Patriarchate of New Jerusalem and All Rus and its headquarters had been moved to the New Jerusalem Monastery outside Moscow. It also refrocked all Russian Orthodox clergy who had been defrocked for political reasons since 24 February 2022 in Russia, Lithuania, Western Europe and elsewhere.

In accord with the Church of Constantinople, the newly-appointed Patriarch of New Jerusalem and All Rus and his Synod granted autocephaly to three new Local Churches, whose faithful had for centuries lived on its canonical territory. These are:

The Kievan Rus Orthodox Church (Kievan Rus is the new country established last year, whose territory corresponds to most of the western and central parts of the old Soviet Ukraine), headed by Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev. All Orthodox in Kievan Rus are called on to join this new Church, as the Patriarchate of Constantinople has now given up its jurisdiction there.

The Belarussian Orthodox Church, headed by the Metropolitan of Minsk.

The Baltic Orthodox Church (covering the territories of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland), headed by the new Metropolitan of Riga. All Orthodox in Finland, Estonia and Lithuania are called on to join these new Churches, as the Patriarchate of Constantinople has now given up its jurisdiction there.

Additionally, in accord with the other Patriarchs present, the new Patriarch of New Jerusalem and All Rus and his Synod granted autocephaly to a fourth new Local Church, the Carpatho-Rus and Hungarian Orthodox Church, whose territory covers the Zakarpattia province of the old Soviet Ukraine and Hungary. It is headed by the Metropolitan of Uzhhorod and Budapest, but has deaneries for Greeks, Serbs and other Orthodox nationalities present in Hungary under the new Church.

Constantinople

As many will know, before this meeting the new Patriarch of Constantinople, previously the Archbishop of Athens, and his Synod had moved the headquarters of the Patriarchate from Istanbul in Turkiye to Thessaloniki in Greece, with the absorption of the Greek Orthodox Church. This move was financed by a very generous donation made by the government of the Russian Federation for its infrastructure costs. However, Turkiye, together with Greece, remain the canonical territories of the now Greece-based Patriarchate of Constantinople and a bishop remains in Istanbul.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople recognised the (North) Macedonian Orthodox Church as an autocephalous Local Church.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople recognised the autocephaly granted by the Patriarchate of New Jerusalem to the four new Churches on the territories of Kievan Rus, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland, Carpatho-Rus and Hungary, and will recognise any autocephaly granted in the future, if necessary, to Orthodox in Central Asia, Japan, China and Korea by the Patriarchate of New Jerusalem and All Rus. All Non-Russian Orthodox on those territories must already join the local jurisdictions of the Patriarchate of New Jerusalem there in their own deaneries.

It recognised that the Patriarchate of Bucharest has sole authority to establish a Western European Orthodox Church for Orthodox living in its at present 21 countries of Iceland, Ireland, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France, Monaco, Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Portugal, Spain, Andorra, Italy, San Marino, Malta, since Bucharest has by far the largest number of Orthodox on those territories. It will be headed by the Romanian Metropolitan of Paris and Western Europe, but will have dioceses and deaneries for Greeks, Russians of all three Russian groups, Kievan Russians, Moldovans, Serbs, Bulgarians, Georgians and other Orthodox nationalities in Western Europe.

In return, all Local Orthodox Churches recognised that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has sole authority to establish a new Northern America Orthodox Church (USA, Canada, Greenland, Bermuda and St Pierre et Miquelon) and a new Local Oceanian Orthodox Church, in concert with all the Local Churches represented on those territories, since it has by far the largest flock there. Notably the Patriarchate of New Jerusalem cedes jurisdiction of its own parishes, withdraws the Tomos of Autocephaly of the OCA, and cedes jurisdiction of the churches of the OCA and ROCOR in Northern America, including the abolition of the OCA Synod in Washington and the ROCOR Synod in New York, to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. However, the first First Hierarch of the Northern American Orthodox Church will be Metr Tikhon, formerly of the OCA. Orthodox of Non-Greek nationality both in Northern America and Oceania, under the Metropolitan of Sydney and All Oceania, will be cared for in their own dioceses and deaneries under the new Local Church.

Alexandria

The new Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and his Synod ceded jurisdiction of all African countries, except for Egypt, to the Patriarchate of New Jerusalem, thus returning to its Patriarchal territory of 100 years ago. All clergy defrocked by the Patriarchate of Alexandra for political reasons since 2019 were refrocked. In return, the government of the Russian Federation made a very generous donation to the Patriarchate of Alexandria and to St Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai to continue Church life in Egypt and Sinai.

In accord with the other Patriarchs present, the Patriarch of New Jerusalem and All Rus and his Synod jointly granted autocephaly to all Orthodox on the territory of Africa, outside Egypt, founding the African Orthodox Church, headed by the Metropolitan of Kampala and his Synod of African bishops.

Antioch

The Patriarch of Antioch and his Synod was granted sole authority to establish a Latin America and Caribbean Orthodox Church, as it has by far the largest flock there. Orthodox of Non-Arab nationality in Latin America and the Caribbean will be cared for in their own dioceses and deaneries under the new Local Church.

Bucharest

The Patriarch of Bucharest and his Synod and the Patriarch of New Jerusalem and All Rus and his Synod jointly granted autocephaly to all Orthodox on the territory of Moldova, forming the Moldovan Orthodox Church. The Patriarchate of New Jerusalem refrocked all Orthodox clergy, who had been defrocked for political reasons for joining the former Metropolia of Bessarabia.

As mentioned above, the Patriarch of Bucharest and his Synod was granted sole authority to establish a new Local Church of the 21 countries of Western Europe (see above). Orthodox of Non-Romanian nationality will be cared for by self-governing dioceses and deaneries of their respective Local Churches, but under the new Western European Orthodox Church.

In this way, the number of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, now standing at 20 after the absorption of the Greek Orthodox Church into the Patriarchate of Constantinople and of the OCA into the Northern American Orthodox Church, and the foundation of the six new Autocephalous Churches, will be brought to 24 Local Churches, once the four new Diaspora Churches have been established within the next twelve months.

The ending of the schism between New Jerusalem, Constantinople and Alexandria was confirmed in the church of St Andrew by the concelebration of all those present on the Sunday of the Prodigal Son, 8 February 2026. This meeting is already being called ‘The First Athonite Council’ and ‘The Bread and Water Council’, since that was the only food and drink provided during the three days for the participants in the Council.

 

 

 

 

Peace for the Ukraine – and for the Orthodox Church?

US Disengagement?

Even before Trump had been elected, the US elite had realised that it had to disengage from its Ukraine project. Russia had not been weakened, regime-changed, dismembered and destroyed, as had been the US plan all along. Instead its economy was booming, becoming the fourth biggest in the world, President Putin was more popular than ever and BRICS had taken off. As for the illegal Western sanctions, they were ignored by 90% of the world and damaged only the West. The US puppet, Zelensky, in his bunker in Kiev is clearly delusional, taking, they say, cocaine and desperately threatening invasions of Russia, without troops, arms and munitions, and even nuclear war, without nuclear weapons.

The claim by President-elect Trump during his campaign that he would achieve peace in the Ukraine within 24 hours, even before he entered the Oval Office was all presupposition and hubris. How could he end a war which the US had already lost. and Russian victory is ending anyway? Peace does not depend on him, even if the tragedy began as a US proxy war. Peace depends on the actions of the Russian military and President Putin. Indeed, peace may come through Russian military victory and Ukrainian military collapse even before Trump assumes office. That would probably be very welcome to Trump, enabling him to begin as President unburdened of the curse of the Ukraine, which has ruined everything.

The fact is that the President-elect does not want to solve the conflict in the Ukraine, what he wants is to disengage from it, so that the US can save money and at last ‘pivot to Asia’. The Ukraine is now a distraction from US strategic interests. Trump wants to run away from Kiev, just as the US ran away from its failed wars in Saigon and Kabul. Trump can do this very easily, if Kiev collapses before Trump’s inauguration. He can simply blame Biden for everything. This will be his ’exit strategy’. The puppet-master has changed and so the puppets must change too. After all, Trump has from the outset stated that the war would never have begun, if he had been President at the time. And that may well be true.

Peace Talks?

But who can Russia talk too? The Russians cannot talk to the Ukrainians, as their President is illegitimate and talks with Russia were literally outlawed by Kiev in 2022. The Russians cannot talk to Europeans, as they have shown themselves to be delusional liars and treaty-breaking traitors ever since 2014. This can be seen from their refusal to implement the so-called Minsk Accords, which they openly confessed were simply delaying tactics. In any case, the narcissistic and so delusional European ruling class is discredited and hated by the peoples of Europe and represents only the past and its own selfish interests. That ruling class is unable to talk to Russia because it is incapable of dealing with reality – its defeat.

In any case, Russia will certainly not sit down and talk now, when it is on the brink of victory. Would the Allies have stopped in January 1945 to talk to Hitler? Russia will not stop now, victory is in sight. Anyway, as we said, Kiev has literally outlawed talks with Russia and its President is illegal, as his term of service ended earlier this year, like that of his Parliament. The war has continued for so long only because of Biden’s support and EU and UK backing. And bankrupt Europe cannot replace the US, as Europe has run out of money and arms and cannot let its own troops die there. And it is troops that the Ukraine needs, for it has lost nearly a million soldiers, 517,000 of them in the unfinished year of 2024 alone.

As a result, with no-one to talk to, the Russians are taking back more and more territory from the Ukraine, 100 years after it was illegally handed over to the Ukraine by the anti-Russian Bolsheviks. There will be no ‘frozen conflict’ or ‘stalemate’ here, just Russian victory. ‘Frozen conflict’ was possible two years ago. The only people the Russians could talk to now are the Americans – but under Trump. Trump is a businessman and wants to disengage from a loss-making business and must sack Zelensky. As the Americans no longer have any diplomats, the hope is that Trump will appoint the only European politician left – Victor Orban – to talk not only to the Russian President, but also to the Russian Patriarch.

The Russian President

The Russian President could express the following terms to Trump’s representative, perhaps Orban: Firstly, drop all 16,000 illegal anti-Russian sanctions and absurd criminal charges. Then, recognise as Russian the four Russian provinces which have already joined Russia, and, if they have been taken by Russia by then, the next four once Russian provinces of the south and east, including Nikolaev and Odessa on the Black Sea coast, and the three more once Russian provinces to the north-east (Chernigov, Sumy, Poltava). The Russian President would leave the rest to become again the real Ukraine, perhaps to be called ‘Kievan Rus’ (Kiyivska Rus’), more or less mirroring Belarus to the north.

Such a nationally homogenous, Ukrainian-speaking Kievan Rus would consist of 14 administrative areas, just over half of the original 27 (including the two that were in the Russian Crimea), its new easternmost provinces being Kiev, Cherkasy and Kirovohrad. This would represent an area of about 260,000 square kilometres and a pre-war population of about 16 million. This would draw Ukrainian refugees back from Europe. Kievan Rus would be a neutral, sovereign and independent nation, that is, demilitarised (free of NATO) and denazified (free of the EU) which are racist, anti-sovereignty organisations. Agreement could then be reached and Russia would by treaty guarantee the territorial integrity of all European nations.

Of course, they would have to make a condition that Moldova should carry out referenda for any groups among its border population, such as those in Transdniestria and Gagauzia, who may wish to join Russia. Similarly, referenda must be held for Romanian and Hungarian minorities on the borders of Kievan Rus who may wish to ‘go home’. If the three tiny Baltic statelets were at last obliged to grant human rights to their Russian minorities, there would be no threat from Russia to them. With such an agreement, the Western half of Europe would be secure and could slash its military spending. Then Trump would see his dream come true and abandon NATO, which could be dissolved, just like the EU.

The Russian Patriarch

The Russian Orthodox Patriarch also has to be involved in these talks. Leader of by far the largest Local Orthodox Church, the whole Orthodox Church of 200 million has been in chaos ever since the British-orchestrated palace revolt or ‘Russian Revolution’ of February 1917. Without the Russian Church, several key Local Orthodox Churches were taken over through political interference by Great Britain and, after the Second World War, specifically in 1948 with the forced removal by the CIA of Patriarch Maximos V of Constantinople, by the USA. Freedom for the Orthodox Church, the end of Western interference in its internal affairs, is essential for peace in the Ukraine and for justice in Church affairs.

There would have to be an agreement with the Russian Church, which has also suffered as a result of American policy in the Ukraine and elsewhere. This is principally because of the Zionist neocon ideology, implemented by Nuland, Pompeo, Blinken, Biden etc. This established a fake Church in the Ukraine, permitted the open persecution of the real Church there and also sanctioned the Russian Patriarch personally. What could the terms of the Patriarch be and what concessions could he grant in return? Here there has to be mutuality, as there have been excesses on both sides. Here are Russian Orthodox terms to be imposed on the Greek Churches by the USA, with compensation from the USA:

  1. Closure of the fake Church in the Ukraine, the OCU, with Constantinople withdrawing its absurd Tomos, which justified it. All stolen property is to be returned to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (see Concessions 1, 2 and 3 below).
  2. Release of all Orthodox in Finland, Estonia and Lithuania from the uncanonical jurisdiction of Constantinople, introduced from the 1920s on, on condition that all Orthodox there be granted a new Autocephalous Baltic Orthodox Church (see Concession 5 below).
  3. No more interference by Constantinople in the affairs of the Polish Orthodox Church and, especially, in those of the Church of the Czechia and Slovakia.
  4. Granting to the Russian Church of jurisdiction over all Africa, except for Egypt, which has its own historic Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, based in Alexandria (thus returning to the pre-1920s situation). This is on condition that Moscow establishes an Autocephalous African Orthodox Church there by 2050.

Russian Concessions:

  1. Immediate resumption by Moscow of communion and concelebration with the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria and other Greek Orthodox Churches.
  2. Immediate rescinding of all ‘suspensions’ and ‘defrockings’ of clergy in Russia, the Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania, Western Europe and elsewhere, which were carried out for political reasons because of clergy disagreements with political, nationalist or uncanonical sectarian ideologies, imposed by certain Russian bishops.
  3. Autocephaly for the Kievan Rus Orthodox Church within twelve months.
  4. Autocephaly for the Moldovan Orthodox Church on the remaining national territory of Moldova within twelve months, in concert with the Romanian Orthodox Church, in order to reunite all Moldovan Orthodox in one Church. The Moldovan Diaspora in Western countries would come under the care of the Romanian Orthodox Church.
  5. Autocephaly for all Orthodox (about 500,000 in number) in the three Baltic States and Finland, forming an autocephalous Baltic Orthodox Church within twelve months.
  6. All Russian Orthodox in the Diasporas in Western Europe, the Americas and Oceania are to be instructed, under threat of excommunication, to merge by negotiation into new Local Churches, to be founded on those territories by 2050. This would be conditional on all other Local Churches which have Diaspora jurisdictions issuing the same instructions to their Diasporas.