Category Archives: Diaspora

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.

 

Questions and Answers on the Third Day of Pentecost 2023 After the Ukraine: Religion, Faith, the Orthodox Church and the Diaspora

Religion and Faith

Q: What is the point of religion?

A: Religion is pointless.

Q: What do you mean? You are a priest!

A: Religion is manmade and man-inspired. It is an invention, an institution, devised for use by States in order to manipulate their populations. This is the opposite of Faith, which is God-made and God-inspired. Unlike Religion, Faith is not devised by men, but revealed by God. The point of Faith is to know and acquire God, Who is Love. All words and phrases such as ‘salvation, going to church, praying, acquiring the Holy Spirit, repentance, redemption, overcoming sin, defeating death, venerating the saints, grace, the sacraments, understanding the Scriptures’, mean precisely this – knowing and acquiring Love.

Faith is then the opposite of religion, whose aim all too often becomes knowing and acquiring hatred. We can see this very clearly in the institutional Religion of the anti-Faith pharisees in the New Testament, who hated and then murdered Christ, the Son of God/Love – they murdered Love. And the modern pharisees, full of the same old hatred, just go on doing this today, as we have seen very recently! If Christ came back, they would most certainly crucify Him again, as the Greek author Kazantsakis wrote 75 years ago.

Q: Why then are there different faiths?

A: All faiths agree that humanity and all creation are at the bottom of the mountain and God/Love is at the top of the mountain. Faith is to help us climb the mountain, resisting all the temptations against Love. We all start at the bottom and inevitably take different paths up the mountain. At the bottom we can find many paths that lead upwards, but how far do they go and how will we best fight off the attacks from the demons who sit along those paths? What is the best and easiest path? Many paths seem to peter out quite soon or end in insurmountable heights and obstacles. And do they all lead upwards anyway? Or do they just go round and round the mountain? Do the other paths join the Orthodox Christian paths at a certain level?

Personally, I have no need to condemn others for taking other paths, as others inevitably do. All I have is my own spiritual experience, that the Orthodox saints have got to the top of the mountain on their paths, despite the enemy of humanity, the devil and his minions. Therefore, I try to follow those paths. As for those who take other paths, it is none of my business. I am not an insecure neophyte who needs to condemn others in order to justify himself.

The Ukraine

Q: Do you support the Russian side in the war in the Ukraine?

A: As a priest, I am on the side of all the suffering and on the side of peace. I cannot be anywhere else. I cannot support killing by anyone. This conflict was begun by the USA through its puppet government which it installed by violence in Kiev in 2014 with the support of its EU/NATO vassals. It is tragic and unnecessary. And sadly, as they say, those who sowed the wind are reaping the whirlwind. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have died so far, then there are the hundreds of thousands of maimed, psychologically crippled and bereaved. Let alone the millions of Ukrainian refugees (2 million in Russia) and millions of others in Europe, especially in Poland. And then there are the Russian dead (see below).

Q: Some American converts to ROCOR say that they support the Russian side against the Ukraine because that conflict is a battle for Holy Rus. What would you say?

A: The phrase ‘Holy Rus’ refers to the ancient past. After the ravages of Soviet atheism, it no longer exists – it has not been reconstituted. Today Russia still  has twice the abortion rate of the West and very high rates of divorce and alcoholism. Today, instead of ‘Holy Rus’, we use expressions like the Orthodox Christian world, Orthodox Civilisation, the Orthosphere. And if you kill others, you do not belong to the Orthodox world.

Q: What will happen to the ‘Orthodox Church in the Ukraine’, the OCU, so recently set up by Constantinople with US money?

A: It will die out and disappear because it is a temporary passing phenomenon, born out of the US State Department’s plotting imagination and the refusal by Moscow to give the Ukrainian Church autocephaly – which it almost did in the 1990s. The UOC was only ever a purely political organisation, born of the US-controlled Ukrainian State and the US-controlled Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Q: If you are neutral in this war, why are you convinced that Russia will defeat the Western-backed government in Kiev?

A: Quite simply, because I am a political realist, have sources in the Ukraine, and do not listen to tabloid/BBC/CNN type propaganda, which simply repeats the lies of the Kiev Department of Propaganda, which itself is run by American PR companies.  Look at the facts:

First of all, Russia will win, perhaps even in several months’ time, because this conflict is existential for it, but not at all for the Western elite. In other words, it is everything for Russia. It cannot lose. It has military, economic and diplomatic superiority, the backing of most of the world. It is not repeating the mistakes made by the Russian Empire in 1914, which naively thought that Britain and France were on its side, when in fact they fomented both the German attack and the overthrow of the Tsar, using internal traitors, lack of censorship and malcontents. Russia has learned from its mistakes then, it has at last lost its illusions.

Secondly, so far this is not even a war from the Russian viewpoint, let alone an ‘unprovoked full-scale invasion’, as the propagandists call it. The Russian Army has not yet even fought directly in it. The ‘Russian’ side is composed of the pro-Russian Ukrainian people’s militias from Lugansk and Donetsk (the Donbass), who are fighting for their freedom, Chechen volunteers and the 50,000-strong Wagner Company, which is composed of about 75% ex-convicts and about 25% of professional volunteers, the latter often officers recruited from the Russian Army. It is backed by vastly superior drone-guided Russian artillery, missiles and units from the Russian Air Force and the Black Sea Fleet. The always weak Kiev Navy no longer exists, its last ship was sunk last week, and the always weak Kiev Air Force has been virtually wiped out. Now, in modern warfare, the winner is always the one who has air superiority and can mount a naval blockade.

So far, since February 2022, it seems that some 20,000 pro-Russian Ukrainians and Chechens, 13,000 ex-convict volunteers and 4,000 Russian volunteers have died on the Russian side. Total casualties on the Russian side are therefore about 37,000. However, it appears that the Kiev Army has lost at least 300,000 dead, not including wounded. The ratio is 1:8 or even 1:10. Why? Because of the superiority of modern Russian technology (the Kiev forces have mainly used old Soviet arms or old NATO arms) and its vast quantity. The greatest Kiev defeat so far, greater even than Mariupol, was in Bakhmut, which fell on 20 May 2023 (this defeat was censored by the Western media, like so much else) after nine months of fighting in this horrible war of attrition. The town of Bakhmut, where some 70,000 people once lived, is in ruins. Whole blocks of flats were dynamited by the fleeing Kiev forces, just as they did in Mariupol.

The first NATO-trained Kiev Army was defeated in March 2022 and the war could have ended then. However, the second Kiev Army, rearmed with equipment from the former Soviet, now NATO, bloc in order to prolong the conflict, was defeated in the autumn of 2022. Now the third Kiev Army, armed to the teeth and trained by the US/NATO, is also being defeated. I would give it a maximum of another eleven months, simply because this is a war between Washington and Moscow, being fought on the battlefields of the Ukraine till the last Ukrainian cannon fodder is dead.

Since February 2022, the pro-Russian forces (and even Russia itself, in minor and suicidal incursions by Kiev forces, carried out for propaganda purposes) are being attacked from ever deeper inside Kiev-controlled territory. This means that pro-Russian forces, and probably eventually the million-strong Russian Army itself, will in turn be forced to penetrate ever deeper into Kiev-controlled territory and possibly (and unwillingly) even go as far as the Polish border. After it has set up a government in the New Ukraine, centred in a Kiev independent of the USA, it will withdraw.

Small parts of the old Soviet-established Ukraine (yes, the West is defending a purely Soviet creation in the Ukraine, 32 years after the disappearance of the Soviet Union) may be transferred to Poland, Hungary and Romania. There persecuted minorities have long laboured under Kiev’s dreaded secret police, the CIA-trained SBU. As for the south and east of the Ukraine, whose unhistoric borders were set by the USSR, probably including Odessa and as far as Transdnistria, they will go to Russia. An independent Ukraine, free of the US, will exist. Russia has no desire at all to occupy it, just to neutralise it as a threat to itself and free the Russian areas, part of Russia until 1954 or 1922.

Thirdly, the vast majority of the world either supports Russia (e.g. China, Iran etc) in this operation, or is neutral (e.g. India, Africa, Latin America etc) and does not support the West, which is only 12.5% of world population and whose GDP is quite outmatched by BRICS, even without the rest of the world, which is also dedollarising. Dedollarisation has been caused directly by sanctions against Russia, which have undermined all confidence in the dollar. The debt-ridden West is isolated in its G7 ghetto, its only weapons are boomeranging sanctions, which have caused huge inflation in their own countries, and plots to overthrow popular governments, as recently in the now chaotic Pakistan. The EU head of diplomacy, the unelected Josep Borrell, has admitted twice that the whole conflict in the Ukraine could end in days if the West stopped arming Kiev. By arming the Kiev forces against their own people, the West is simply prolonging the agony. Every death should be on the conscience of the Western elite.

The huge error of the Western elite in all this is its hubris in believing its own delusional propaganda. Russia is a Superpower, with advanced arms the USA simply does not have.

The West has yet to learn to respect different civilisations, which it has not been doing for exactly a millennium, when it definitively began to reconstitute the incredibly cruel pagan Roman Empire and adopted its techniques of ruthless organised violence to conquer and exploit the world (See Note 1 at the end). That organised violence began with its Crusades in the 1030s in Iberia, Sicily, England (in 1066), then in the Middle East and later in southern France, then developed into colonialism and imperialism, continuing to this day. This is clearly not Christian, but pagan.

Even today, what was once called Orthodox Christian Civilisation, however far it is from the actual practice of Orthodoxy – and it is far from it – is radically different from Western-Secularist Civilisation through its cultural values alone. And the fault-line between Orthodox Christian Civilisation and Western-Secularist Civilisation passes through the extreme west of today’s Ukraine, the part that used to belong to Catholic Poland and before that to Catholic Habsburg Austria and, frankly, it should return there.

The Future of the Russian Church

Q: So, after what you see as a Russian military and political victory, do you see the Moscow Patriarchate taking over the whole of the Church in the Ukraine?

A: No, not at all! Whatever the outcome, and regardless of whether I am right or wrong in my view that the Russian State will win against Washington’s war in the Ukraine, the great loser in this whole affair is the Moscow Patriarchate. It is a catastrophe for it, though it still does not seem to realise this.

First of all, the Russian State and the Orthodox Faith (unlike the Moscow Patriarchate) are two very different things. The Russian State wants to destroy anti-Russian Nazism in the Ukraine, so it will gain national security and US bases, biolabs and missiles aimed at Moscow will not exist on its borders. The Russian State wants a militarily and politically neutral Ukraine, like Austria and Finland used to be, before they were forced to join NATO. As regards the Orthodox Faith, it is obvious that the still largely atheist Russian State has no ability or desire to enforce churchgoing in the Ukraine in the future. People in the New Ukraine that may take shape a year from now, perhaps with a population of 10-20 million, will be free to go to any church they want. For most of them that will mean not going to any church at all (as in Russia, where also only about 2-3% go to church regularly).

However, churchgoing Ukrainians will certainly not go to Moscow Patriarchate churches after the conflict in the Ukraine is over, as they see in it an anti-Ukrainian Russian nationalist organisation. For example, just two weeks ago we were in Bari, where we concelebrated at the Liturgy for St Nicholas Day. It was interrupted by about 10 Ukrainians, including a Constantinople OCU priest, who shouted ‘Satanist’ at us. They were shouting not at us Romanians, Moldovans and English, but against the bishop who was from the Moscow Patriarchate. That is how they feel. The level of hatred is that great.

I think that Churched Ukrainians will only attend a future de facto and de jure autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Metr Onufry. In other words, Moscow will have to give autocephaly. The present de facto autocephaly may even get recognised by other Local Churches before Moscow actually gives it, exactly as happened with the Polish Orthodox Church in the 1920s (2). The UOC already gets great sympathy from other Local Churches, which see the Moscow Patriarchate as enslaved to the Russian State. The same is true for Russian churches in many other countries, where the Moscow Patriarchate, as a Soviet-era institution, is still in the grip of Soviet centralisation and, as a post-Soviet institution, is in the grip of oligarchic Business. Most Russian Orthodox churches outside Russia also want freedom, autocephaly, from the now nationalist Moscow Patriarchate, not just those in the Ukraine.

All those that received autocephaly from Moscow in the last century, in Poland and in Czechoslovakia and in the OCA in North America (even if the last case is disputed), are pleased to be outside Moscow’s control. So are most Orthodox in Latvia now, even if its autocephaly was uncanonically given it by the Latvian government (again, exactly as in Poland in the 1920s (2))! In Lithuania and Estonia, Orthodox are in great difficulty, as both have schisms, and, as in the Ukraine, this is because Moscow refused to give autocephaly in time, in the 1990s. One post-Revolutionary émigré fragment of the Moscow Patriarchate, the very Moscow-critical, very independent and very Western Archdiocese of Western Europe is also in great difficulty, because it does not have autocephaly and is at present trying to get another three bishops consecrated, but it needs Moscow’s approval. It may not get it.

Another post-Revolutionary emigre fragment, ROCOR, in New York, has done exactly the opposite to the above Archdiocese group, in quite suicidal fashion. Between 1927 and 2007 it had total independence, de facto autocephaly, from Moscow and canonised the New Martyrs and New Confessors. That was an act of spiritual courage and of independence, though it was not strictly canonical, as Moscow had not granted it permission to be autocephalous and canonise saints on its territory.

However, in 2007 an act of canonical unity between Moscow and ROCOR was agreed and signed. I was there. That was good, because it legitimised ROCOR independence and its acts, which previously had been disputed. However, tragically and dramatically, instead of using that de facto and de jure independence and freedom, ROCOR renounced it and came to enslave itself to Moscow. After exactly a decade of missed golden opportunities, since precisely 2017, the centenary of the Bolshevik Revolution, that spiritual unity has become a purely political union with the Moscow Patriarchate, exactly as Patriarch Kyrill quite specifically described it to a Russian Metropolitan friend in 2018.

As a result of this spiritual surrender six years ago, ROCOR decided to agree to anything that Soviet Centralising Moscow and post-Soviet oligarchic Business Moscow wants. The dollar above Christ. ROCOR has been bought out by money. The more gifts that were accepted, the less freedom it had. Even more tragically, it was not forced into this sell-out by Moscow, it was its own voluntary choice after ten years. What happened? Sadly, seeing how luxuriously the bishops lived in Moscow, they wanted the same. So they sold themselves. At one time ROCOR bishops lived as poor and humble monks. They, all gone now, must be spinning in their graves. How are the once (spiritually) mighty fallen….

Thus, ROCOR has lost its heritage of spiritual freedom and independence. And therefore it will not last much longer, for God is not mocked. Its sectarian extremism and nationalism, that is, the exclusion of all other Orthodox, including Ukrainians, will not last long where it is, outside Russia, in the Diaspora. The Diaspora is unkind to inward-looking, racially exclusive and extremist ghettos. The old humble ROCOR of saintly confessors has been replaced by the ethos of a right-wing American missionary sect, remarkably similar to the Mormons. This is completely alien to others and to all normal Orthodox, Serbian, Bulgarian, Moldovan, Romanian, Greek, who simply ignore it, which is not difficult, as ROCOR is so small. Byzantine-rite Mormonism only attracts the few, the wrong sort, the right-wing sectarian, the negative, not the many, the positive, on whom you can build. Such sectarianism does not export to territories outside the USA, where ROCOR is dying out in one suicidal act after another, from France to South America, from Indonesia to England.

Q: You sacrificed fifty years of your life for the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church, so how do you feel now that you are outside it and it is falling apart?

A: Well, that is not true. I am not outside it. I am in spiritual unity with the suffering Russian Church of the Saints and the New Martyrs and Confessors. I am only outside the Soviet-style administration, which, by the way, has always admired the immensely rich Vatican, like the Statist Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad, whom we remember dying in the arms of the Pope in 1978. This is because it has always admired the mentality of the State-Church or rather the Church-State. Power and riches. Such a view of the Church as a mere political administration based on power and riches does not have any canonical authority, just as forced episcopal signatures have no canonical authority.

As regards sacrificing my life, more exactly I have given fifty years of my life for the Orthodox Church in the Diaspora. In the 1970s and early 1980s I saw the Church of Constantinople reject a future for Orthodoxy by preferring nationalism and politics to transmitting the Tradition to others and to future generations. Now I have seen the Russian Church do the same, with its nationalism and politics, and so it is falling apart. If it continues, the only clergy that will be left are money-minded careerists who have little or no faith. Too bad for them. You cannot impose freedom on those who prefer tyranny, as we know from Dostoyevsky’s Legend of the Grand Inquisitor. There are those who do not want the Truth to set them free….

However, the Russian Church can fall apart positively, in the sense that it can unburden itself of its Soviet-style centralist administration and instead become a Family or Confederation of free Churches. Fortunately, there are other Orthodox, those of the spirit of the persecuted St Seraphim of Sarov, of the persecuted St Nectarios of Pentapolis, of the persecuted St John of Shanghai, of the persecuted Elder Nikolai (Guryanov), of the New Martyrs and Confessors. Long ago we committed ourselves to them and we will not renounce them and their spirit. We belong to the Persecuted Church, not to the Persecuting Church.

Q: But aren’t you frightened of what those Russians have tried to do to you?

A: St Paisios the Athonite, whom I met on Athos in 1979, said: ‘Believe in God and fear nothing’ (Πίστη στο Θεό και να μην φοβάστε τίποτα). That is what I have always done, come grasping greed, secret atheists, nationalist bureaucrats, modernists, ecumenists, freemasons, covid lockdown enforcers, perverts, spies and schismatic right-wing neophytes. We have seen all these enemies of the Church in power in Her administration from Judas until this very day, but the Church has always triumphed and will always triumph against all these extremists. Fear not!

Q: So does the Moscow Patriarchate have any future?

A: No, as such it does not. It has become a straitjacket and several conscientious priests are leaving it. As I said, the great loser in the conflict in the Ukraine is undoubtedly the Moscow Patriarchate, regardless of who wins militarily. It has lost credit and those clergy who have backed war have lost face. They are seen as militant nationalists, whose spirit is that of that very strange, nationalist, khaki-painted Cathedral of the Armed Forces of Russia, near Moscow (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/20/orthodox-cathedral-of-the-armed-force-russian-national-identity-military-disneyland).

The Moscow Patriarchate has already lost a range of territories, the Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and is now losing Moldova and its Western Diaspora, and in a few years’ time most probably Belarus and Central Asia too, all through politics. It has not followed the Gospel. If you do not follow the Gospel, you will die spiritually. That is the spiritual law. It happens to them all. I have seen it so often over the last fifty years and recently here too. It is spiritual suicide not to follow the Gospel and to attack those in the Church who have integrity.

However, here we have to distinguish carefully between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church. The former is a purely Soviet and post-Soviet institution, like the émigré fragments in Paris and in New York, whose existence was also shaped by the Soviet Union, though by reaction. It is a historical blip, a temporary administrative arrangement that began in 1925 after the death (by poisoning?) of the holy Patriarch Tikhon, whose signatures were also forced. In 50 years’ time, the Moscow Patriarchate will no longer exist. In fact, I do not think any of these three fragments will exist even in 25 years’ time. In fact, I sometimes wonder if they will still exist even in two years’ time, in 2025. On the other hand, the Russian Orthodox Church with its thousand-year history of saints most certainly does have a future. It will continue to be by far the largest of the to-be-extended family of Local Orthodox Churches, even though autocephaly must go to its parts in the Ukraine, Central Asia (based in Kazakhstan), Moldova (if it is not too late – see below) and the Baltics, at the very least. The number of Local Orthodox Churches could then hit 20.

The Diaspora

Q: If they happened, how would such a series of new autocephalies affect the Diaspora?

A: We can already see the effect. The UOC has opened over 40 parishes in Western Europe and will open more. Why? Because Ukrainian refugees refuse to attend churches where Patriarch Kyrill is commemorated. Those Ukrainians who cannot go to their church in London come to us, as we are politically independent, unlike the Moscow Patriarchate and its ROCOR branch. If the Ukraine becomes autocephalous, Orthodox from Moldova and the Baltics will surely also open their own Diaspora churches.

On the one hand, this fragmentation is negative, because it further fragments the Diaspora, destroying the once multinational but now nationalist Moscow Patriarchate Exarchate of Western Europe, based in Paris (whose members are mainly Moldovan, Baltic or Ukrainian anyway). On the other hand, once the Diaspora is cleansed of the US-driven politics of Constantinople and the politics of the old-fashioned Soviet Centralist Moscow and post-Soviet oligarchic Business Moscow, some kind of Diaspora unity can be achieved, a unity which could never have been seen before. Diaspora disunity only ever existed because of politics. Diaspora unity will only ever exist because it will be free of politics.

Both the Greek and Russian Patriarchs are elderly. We await the new generation. God willing, there will be a reversal of policies and a great cleansing from the corruption and perversions which come from power and the love of money, with that taste for luxury products and big black cars.

Q: As you have so many Moldovan parishioners and clergy, how would the existence of an autocephalous Moldovan Church outside Moldova affect you?

A: Politically, Romanian-speaking Moldovans do not want to join Romania, despite the very unpopular US puppet government there. If it joins the EU (as long as the EU still exists), it will join it as an independent country. However, I think it is much more likely that Moldova, together with Turkiye, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania and Montenegro, followed by Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus once freed from the EU, will join BRICS, the Planetary Alliance of Sovereign States (PASS), or whatever it will be called by then.

This would make a south-east European bloc within BRICS, reuniting that group of countries economically. This will pave the way for the other European countries to leave the doomed and collapsing EU, a temporary post-1945 organisation, and also enter BRICS. We have to go towards the future, not the past. This means economic integration and so political co-operation between Europe and Asia, Eurasia, led by Russia, China, Iran and India, which is inevitable.

However, whatever the politics, given that the Moscow Patriarchate refuses outright to give the Moldovan Church autocephaly, ever more Moldovan parishes are now leaving the Moldovan Church of the Moscow Patriarchate for the Moldovan Church of the Romanian Patriarchate. This latter group, for now called the ‘Metropolia of Bessarabia’, carefully observes all Moldovan customs and keeps the old calendar. It now has some 25% of all Moldovan Orthodox in Moldova. Its bishops are monks.

The movement to it is accelerating rapidly because of the conflict in the Ukraine, because of Moscow’s centralisation, because of corruption, and because of the mistreatment of Moldovans in the Diaspora under the ever more Russian nationalist Moscow Patriarchate. Nobody wants to be treated as a second-class citizen, neither Moldovans, nor English.

The only areas of Moldova where there is loyalty to the Moscow Patriarchate is the almost wholly Soviet Transdnistria and the autonomous pro-Russian Gagauz region (the total population of both regions is about 500,000, with an area similar to a large English county). These will join the Russian Federation anyway.

What is possible is that the many Moldovan parishes and their clergy (70 in Italy alone) in Western Europe may leave the Moscow Patriarchate and open some kind of autonomous Moldovan/Bessarabian Archdiocese under the Romanian Church in the Diaspora. The Romanian Orthodox Church outside Romania is now the largest Diaspora Church, with well over five million people, nearly 1500 parishes and over 70 monasteries and convents. Whatever its weaknesses, it dwarves the Russian and the Greek Diasporas, let alone the other Diasporas, which are relatively very small. The Romanian Diaspora is not dying out like them, but is full of young people and children. If the Moldovans join this Diaspora, as an autonomous old calendar Archdiocese under the Romanian Church in the Diaspora, it will grow even bigger.

However, a word of warning. In my lifetime I have already seen two Churches die out. The first was ROCOR in England. I remember how 40 years ago its large London Cathedral (it now has a very small church instead) was full, with 400 people every Sunday; however, the average age was about 80. They have all gone. Today, apart from a few strange converts, ROCOR is populated by those from the ex-Soviet Union who have no ROCOR tradition, the old emigres have all gone. It died out because the old emigres totally failed to hand on their faith to their descendants.

Now, 40 years on, I see the same in the Greek Church. One parish in London that used to get at least 800 people every Sunday even 30 years ago is now down to 30. The average age is also 80. The same problem. Almost the only children in Greek churches in London are Romanian/Moldovan. However, what will happen in 40 years’ time to the Romanians and Moldovans? Will their children and grandchildren fill their churches or will they too be virtually empty?

The Romanian language does have two advantages:  It is a Latin language and it uses the Latin alphabet. As such it is much closer to Western languages in terms of vocabulary and alphabet than Greek and Russian. But that is not enough. The faith has to be transmitted to the next generations. I already do baptisms completely in English for the children of Romanians and Moldovans who came here as children twenty years ago. I have spoken to our bishop, Metropolitan Joseph, about this reality, but as a pastor he is already well aware. For the moment in England there are only four Non-Romanian priests, those of our group. In France and Belgium, however, he has in his Autonomous Metropolia one French bishop and 15 French priests. So there is hope.

 

Notes:

  1. Below are quotations from an account of the history of the Roman Empire some 2,000 years ago. Do they sound familiar? The contemporary oligarchic American Empire comes immediately to mind…..

Might is right and military power is the only international law. The …… had no problem demolishing whatever stood in their way.

Those who opposed ……. domination, and who tried to defend the traditional values of their own people, faced a double enemy: the one without and the one within.

Robber, slaughter and plunder they misname ‘Empire’; they make a wilderness and call it peace.

They were offered …. citizenship, so long as they had enough money and an urban residence.

The unsuspecting Non- ….. spoke of these new habits as civilisation, when in fact they were only a feature of enslavement.

In this way, the 10% of ….. who lived in the cities exploited the 90% who lived outside.

The name of …… citizens, at one time not only greatly valued but dearly bought, is now repudiated and fled from, and it is almost considered not only base but even deserving of abhorrence.

When it came to institutionalised cruelty on an industrial scale, the ……. could teach the others a thing or two.

He makes it quite clear that ………’s objective was the enslavement of the world.

The ideology of that Empire was an ideology of power and world dominance.

….. established its Empire by destroying other civilisations.

……. lived behind frontiers, and what lay beyond was dangerous. That applied as much to their mental world as to their geography.

The Empire was, by this time, an economic basket-case. The machine had to keep feeding itself with plunder.

It’s surprsing his name is not better known in the West. But then, in the West it is only the ….. version of events that counts, and that does not include successful enemies.

….. needed to build an ideology that encouraged people to see their rulers not just as overlords, but as the defenders of civilised values, and they knew a thing or two about propaganda.

…… emphasised its transcendent magisterial authority, its right to judge the living and the dead and to determine people’s fate for all eternity.

  1. https://www.rocorstudies.org/2023/05/30/autocephaly-and-principles-of-its-application-with-reference-to-the-church-of-poland/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=demo-newsletter_1