Tag Archives: Canonicity

A Public Letter of Support to Archbishop Jean Renneteau of Rue Daru

La diaspora russe, toutes jurisdictions confondues, avait une mission très simple: de rester fidèle à la tradition russe malgré la servitude involontaire de l’episcopat de l’Eglise russe en URSS et en même temps d’apporter la lumière de l’Orthodoxie aux indigènes dans leurs langues occidentales. Les meilleurs représentants de chaque jurisdiction de la diaspora ont fait précisément cela. On peux penser à St Jean de Changhaï de l’Eglise hors Frontieres et à son fils spiritual, l’archévêque Antony de Genève, à Mgr Basile Krivosheine du patriarchat de Moscou à Bruxelles, ou encore à l’archévêque Georges Tarassoff de la Rue Daru (un saint à mon avis; à quand sa canonisation?).

A chaque fois que l’on ne respectait pas la fidèlité à la tradition russe et à la mission dans les langues locales, on se vouait au suicide spiritual. Nous l’avons bien vu avec Mgr Georges Wagner à la Rue Daru, qui détestait l’utilisation des langues locales et a ainsi perdu beaucoup de clergé et de fidèles (par exemple l’actuel Mgr Athénagore (Peckstadt), l’archiprêtre Nicolas Soldatenkoff, l’archimandrite Georges (Leroy) et nous-mêmes, ou à la tentative de Mgr Georges Grabbe de l’EORHF aux Etats-Unis qui avait esssayé de faire de l’Eglise un outil politique et sectaire de la guerre froide, ou à des individus du patriarchat de Moscou, qui, privés du troupeau russe politiquement disaffecté, avaient essayé de recruter des ouailles parmi des occidentaux naïfs avec des résultats lamentables.

Ma matouchka Sabine, (née Sardo), était présente à la Crypte lors de la réception de l’actuel Mgr Jean Renneteau en 1974, qui a été ensuite ordonné par Mgr Georges Tarassoff. Nous le soutenons sans réserve. Il faut que la Rue Daru retourne a l’Eglise-Mère, après avoir perdu son chemin après le décés de Mgr Georges Tarassoff en 1981. L’Eglise hors frontières a fait cette expérience il y a 12 ans et ainsi a affirmé notre victoire contre le sectarisme style vieux-calendariste qui avait infiltré l’EORHF aux Etats-Unis. Aujourd’hui l’EORHF devient l’Eglise orthodoxe du monde anglo-saxon. Depuis peu c’est le patriarchat de Moscou qui a établi son Exarchat de l’Europe Occidentale à Paris, avec bientôt des centaines de paroisses, et devient l’Eglise de l’Europe continentale. C’est maintenant à la Rue Daru, quoique devenue petite, de faire partie de cet Exarchat de l’Europe continental et de lui apporter son expérience pastorale.

L’archiprêtre Andrew Phillips, Angleterre (ancien de Saint Serge)

Return to the Orthodox Church or Continue in Freemasonry?

The battle for the survival of real Orthodoxy in the fragmenting and ever smaller Paris-based Rue Daru group has now reached a culminating point. Thirty years ago we realized what the below author, the daughter of one of my professors, has realized today. In this article she demolishes the arguments of the sectarian ‘Fraternite’ (‘Brotherhood’ – a very apt name) group of Protestant-minded, anti-episcopal modernists and ecumenists who have been sabotaging Orthodoxy within the Rue Daru group for over fifty years. And all this under entirely pseudo-canonical and anti-Russian political arguments.

Anne Andronikof: An Open Letter to Fr Alexis Struve

https://www.egliserusse.eu/blogdiscussion/m/Anne-Andronikof-Lettre-ouverte-au-pere-Alexis-Struve_a5778.html

Dear Fr Alexis,

I was able to read your letter to the members of the pastoral assembly of July 15 2019, of which I am not a member, and I would like to make a few comments.

I fully agree with you that our future in the Archdiocese will inevitably be, and whatever decisions are made, other than what we are currently experiencing. It is indeed illusory to believe that it would be possible to find oneself “as before”.

However, I have an opinion radically contrary to yours on all other points.

Indeed, you write that the Archdiocese is not “Russian”, the vast majority of parishes having very few, if any, people of Russian origin. So far so good. However, we are much more “Russian” than Greek (or Romanian, Bulgarian or others) on the one hand because we have all opted for the Russian-Slavonic tradition. For those of Russian origin it is not really a choice, but for all others it is.

And on the other hand because the Archdiocese came from the Russian emigration and relies on the Moscow Council of 1917; that our attachment to Constantinople was from the beginning conceived as temporary, transitory, in anticipation of the liberation of Russia from the Communist yoke.

I therefore agree with our bishop that the return to the Patriarchate of Moscow is our natural, logical and in keeping with the spirit of the foundation of the Archdiocese.

If this option were chosen, everyone would be free to act according to their conscience, to remain or change their jurisdiction. It’s a personal choice.

You finish on the “scandal” of the prohibition (for clerics) of intercommunion with Constantinople. But the real scandal is the action of the Phanar in Ukraine, with the creation of the false autonomous church based on excommunicated clerics and flouting the territorial principle of the Churches. The rupture of intercommunion was a logical and healthy decision of the Orthodox world, and not at all caused by conflicts between prelates. Personally, if we had continued to commemorate Patriarch Bartholomew during the services, I would already have left.

For me, all this is a matter of the Orthodox conscience, stripped of all consideration of people, nationalities, clans …

Finally, our only hope of preserving our statutes and our functioning lies in our attachment to Moscow, which has officially confirmed their maintenance. In Russia, moreover, the separation of Church and State is inscribed in its constitution (Article 14). The fear of today’s Russia comes from a fantasy carefully maintained by the West, the EU being itself at the boot of the USA.

I would add that, financially, the Archdiocese (what is left of it at least) has every interest in attaching itself to the Moscow Patriarchate, the only one able and willing to invest money for the maintenance of the churches, the restoration of St. Sergius, the revitalization of the Institute. See how Constantinople has never done anything in this sense, see the state of the churches in Biarritz, Cannes …

As you know, my father did a great deal for the creation of parishes in the vernacular, and I myself chose the crypt as a parish, to which I am very attached, and in which I am very involved. It will be heartbreak for me to leave, if the Archbishop decided to sacrifice himself by returning to the jurisdiction of the Greeks.

I am also in favour of a Local Church, but it is clear that the Archdiocese has missed its mission, which will definitely be buried with the Greek option.

Anne Andronikof, parishioner of the crypt (Daru).

Additional remarks

“The Ecumenical Patriarchate remains the first and guarantees the unity and catholicity of the Orthodox Church”.

The primacy of honour does not imply a hierarchy of powers. Constantinople has shown that it is the guarantor of nothing at all, but rather a troublemaker, in constant search for survival.

Regarding Russia: “We live in too different worlds. ”

I have just spent a week in Moscow, where I had the impression of Western civilization. And I recently spent a week in Athens, where I felt in “a different world”, and where the Communist Party is very influential. I do not know what you think.

“The [Russian] Church is at odds with, if not dependent on, the civil authorities. ”

This is false. (See above)

“Yes, our origins and traditions are Russian, and it is certainly a wealth, but our sources are not Russia. Our sources are the renewal created by the “Paris School”, by the creative theologians of the Saint Serge Institute in permanent dialogue with the world. ”

What contradictions! The distinction between origins / traditions on the one hand and “sources” on the other hand is sleight of hand.

The theologians of the St. Sergius Institute have precisely maintained and developed all the wealth of “Russian” Orthodoxy, which has re-seeded Russia.

“One of the arguments of those who today wish to join the Moscow Patriarchate is faithfulness and obedience to the bishop. ”

See the above arguments having to do with faithfulness to the spirit of Orthodoxy and nothing to do with loyalty and obedience to the bishop. If the latter is wrong, it is up to the conscience of each one (as you say yourself) to take a position. It is an insult to, or at least a misunderstanding of, the thinking capacity of the basic Orthodox (of whom I am one).

Anne Andronikof
July 17 2019, Paris

 

Questions and Answers February 2019

Moscow/Constantinople

Q: What would you answer to those who claim that the present problems between the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow regarding the Ukraine are simply an ethnic problem?

A: No, it is not an ethnic problem, it is a dogmatic problem. It is all about faithfulness to Orthodoxy, that is, to the Oneness, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity of the Church.

Just imagine if the Russian Church had backed atheist-promoted modernists in Constantinople against its persecuted Patriarch (as Constantinople did in the 1920s in Russia against the heroic missionary Patriarch St Tikhon), interfered in the internal affairs and territories of other Local Churches, insisted on a racist and nationalistic ethos and so had opposed itself to any missionary, apostolic work and multinational activity, had fallen away from the Orthodox calendar, messed about with the Liturgy, canonized dubious political figures, promoted freemasonry, practised simony, preached ecumenism and semi-Catholicism (as Constantinople had already done in the fifteenth century), got itself paid by the US State Department, but the Church of Constantinople had remained faithful to the Orthodox Tradition. In that case we would be supporting the Church of Constantinople and not the Church of Russia. Canonical crimes are canonical crimes, regardless of the ethnicity of the culprits.

Moreover, it is now clear that Constantinople will not repent, as it is still justifying its outrageous acts. It is even going to sack the old bishops and appoint new Bartholomew-esque bishops in North America, Australia and the UK and so everywhere dig an abyss between itself and us Orthodox. Therefore, it is clear that this schism is at least semi-permanent. Only repentance on the part of the proud of Constantinople can overcome the problem they have caused and there is absolutely no sign of this at present.

Therefore, given the paralysis and irresponsibility of others, the Russian Church is now reorganizing its administration of the Non-Orthodox world, as in the now 15 countries in the Russian Orthodox Western European Exarchate. (Since the Synod on 26 February Malta has been added to it, leaving only the five Nordic countries and Germany, Austria and Hungary to be added in due course). The same thing is happening in the Russian Orthodox South-East Asian Exarchate with its Metropolitan of Singapore and now four dioceses, Singapore, Korea, Thailand and the Philippines and Vietnam. South Asia, mainly India and Pakistan, is at present a no-go area. (South-West Asia is largely the canonical territory of Antioch, as Africa is that of Alexandria, just as North Asia is Russian canonical territory). In the remaining continents of the New World, maybe we shall one day see a Russian Exarchate for Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean and possibly another for South America, leaving the rest of North America and Oceania to ROCOR, if competence is shown.

Thus, all faithful Orthodox of all nationalities will end up independent but in association with the Russian Church. This will recreate the canonical situation in North America before 1917, with all Orthodox united within the Russian Church, before Constantinople introduced division with its ‘jurisdiction’ 100 years ago. Only the modernists in the Local Churches will go under Constantinople. The tiny, modernist and unfaithful minority who want a Protestant, ‘reformed’ Orthodoxy, a Traditionless, gutless and saintless Halfodoxy, disunited, unholy, uncatholic and unapostolic, will follow the schismatics. This is simply a falling away from the Orthodox Church. In these latter times the chaff is being separated from the wheat. This is not some ethnic dispute, where there is truth on both sides, but a dispute in which there is right and wrong, Thirteen Local Churches against One evildoer. This is the great cleansing we have been awaiting for so long, the tares are leaving us.

Q: What is your policy regarding those who frequent churches under Constantinople and who want to take communion and other sacraments in the Russian Church? Do you refuse them?

A: Certainly not! We do not punish the people for the anti-canonical actions of an elderly US-run Turkish Patriarch, whom they never chose. As long as the Russian Church does not have a full network of parishes in the Diaspora, catering for all the faithful of all languages, we will give the sacraments to those who have no choice but to attend nearby Constantinople churches at times, even though they know that their Patriarchate is utterly wrong. Of course, if there are actually those among them who consciously support their Patriarch, then we cannot have communion with them because they are enemies of the Church of God. But such extremists do not approach the Russian Church anyway.

Q: The Patriarchate of Constantinople has only one Western Diocesan bishop, Metropolitan Athenagoras in Belgium. Will he stay with Constantinople?

A: This is none of my business, though I know that he fully shares in the Phanariot ideology. I also note that the only Non-Diocesan Western bishop under Constantinople, Metr Kallistos (Ware), has not expressed any indication that he will move either.

I remember Metr Athenagoras in the 70s when he was a young layman. He and his family left Rue Daru for the Greeks of Constantinople, if I remember rightly, in 1987, after the whole Bruges convert parish (and Peckstadt family) was mistreated by the tyrannical and unjust German Archbishop of Rue Daru, George (Wagner). (He was an ex-Catholic, who managed to alienate Russians with his Russophobia and Western Orthodox with his refusal to recognize any liturgical languages apart from Greek, Latin and Slavonic!! What a disaster – really Rue Daru never recovered from this German intellectual. I witnessed all this first-hand).

At that time the Bruges parish could have joined Moscow, though many of the Moscow bishops outside Russia were very corrupt. (I can still remember how in 2003 the Sourozh Diocese Cathedral was still refusing to have any icon of the Royal Martyrs (‘there is no space for them’, as they so eloquently said, in fact not about their empty walls, but about their empty hearts), even though Moscow had at last canonized the New Martyrs and was negotiating with ROCOR, and how that Cathedral also refused to sell books written by Fr Seraphim (Rose), who was very popular inside Russia.

Or else the Bruges converts could have joined ROCOR. However, to accept the Tradition and disciplines of the Church in all their integrity, as is normal for ROCOR, was far too much for them. They wanted a ‘pick and choose’ Orthodoxy for the consumer age. Such converts play a fantasy game and never want the real thing, skirting around it, like people who skirt around a lighthouse and are then surprised when they are wrecked on the rocks around the lighthouse.

Rue Daru

Q: What do you think is the future for this group after their meeting on 23 February?

A: Here the chickens have come home to roost and decisions have to be made at last after so many decades of putting off the question. These decisions cannot, like Brexit, be continually put off. A few will surely join one part or another of the Russian Church (as some already have), including perhaps the elderly Archbishop Jean himself. However, most will remain under Constantinople, and a few may go off to join various curious Protestant-style or New Age sects, where some of them originally came from.

Q: Will the Rue Daru parish in Rome join ROCOR?

A: I have no idea – you must ask those involved. What I do remember is how ROCOR lost this parish to Rue Daru in 1985 through the incompetent meddling of Bishop Gregory Grabbe, who had sent an old calendarist American convert priest there (he was later defrocked, like several other convert priests whom Bp Gregory had had ordained by the innocent and naïvely pure Metr Philaret). I was there at the time and remember it well. Rue Daru at once ordained a Russian-speaking man for the Rome parish and three months later made him an archpriest (such was the favouritism of Rue Daru also!)

Politics

Q: Do you think that Brexit will happen?

A: Only if the UK is democratic will it happen. Over 45 years have already been spent in the Brussels straitjacket. On the other hand, both the EU and the UK Establishments, including the Remainer Mrs May, are against Brexit. The mere fact that the people were once allowed to express their opinion was a miracle, but since then we have seen the battle of the people against the elite and anything can happen.

Q: Why do countries which have lost their monarchy veer between left-wing and right-wing governments?

A: Because such countries get governed by ideologies/philosophies of either left or right. Whenever this happens, injustices happen because such ideologies are based on ideals, not on reality. Idealistic intellectuals (like Lenin or Hitler) are ruthless because they always force reality to fit their personal ideology, slaughtering all the millions who refuse to accept it and silencing all others by fear. We can see this on a lesser level in recent UK history with the idealistic obsessions of Thatcher (‘the free market’), Blair (meddling in other countries and starting wars) and Corbyn (Stalinist socialism). The question these ideologues never answer is: Does my ideal actually work? And by definition no ideal ever works, precisely because it is ideal, not real, not realistic, not practical. If you govern with an ideology, you will always end up being tyrannical and being hated. You have to govern with a heart.

Q: There are only two faiths in the world which have always been persecuted, Orthodoxy and Judaism. Why?

A: Because they both contain Truth. Where there is no Truth, there is never any persecution. The Truth of Judaism is that God is One and that He is sending His Son to bring justice to the world (The Second Coming). The Truth of Orthodoxy we know (The First Coming).

Worldliness in the Church

Q: Why are there so many Orthodox in the Ukraine, Russia (and maybe other parts of the world, and this may have nothing to do with just Orthodoxy, but all religions) who can be heard saying, “My believing is inside me.  I don’t believe in Church but I believe in God.  I follow Orthodox traditions and go to church sometimes.”  Is this primarily a reaction to the influence and momentum of Communism, like the saying about how the Communists almost accomplished in Russia in 70 years what the Ottoman Empire failed to accomplish in the Balkans in 400 years?

A: You are indeed quite right, this saying is very common, but it is also universal. The reason for this is corruption (’institutionalization’) in the Church; clerics turning the Church and Faith into a business, a mere religion. This makes people cynical. We need churches which are free of the tables of moneychangers and we need bishops (the simoniacs are usually Greek and Romanian) and priests whose main concern is people’s souls, not their wallets. In the West no jurisdiction is free of this; I remember the old ‘pre-Revolutionary’ ROCOR of 45 years ago – it too sometimes had this money, money mentality, which was the bane of the pre-Revolutionary Church. Our universal Russian Orthodox task is not at all the restoration of the pre-Revolutionary Church (as some very ignorant people imagine), but the cleansing of the pre-Revolutionary Church.

Therefore, this is nothing to do with Communism. We need apostolic St Pauls, who work as tentmakers, not rich bishops with fancy cars. This has been the combat of my life; it is why I do not serve in a den of corruption. I have always refused to do so and for that reason they have never wanted me.

Russian Converts

Q:  Why are there personality tensions in the Church inside Russia, for example as in the recent internet conflict between Fr Andrei Tkachov and Fr George Maximov?

A: The Church inside Russia has many converts. It sometimes reminds me of what I saw in the West in the 1970s: young women dressed in long drab dresses and young men with long beards, crosses or prayer knots on display. The neophyte mentality – imitating the external dress of monks and nuns – works regardless of nationality and even if the parents were nominal Orthodox. Converts have to show off – just like neophytes in any religion, from Islam (long beards and a uniform) to Buddhism (people dressed in saffron robes and with shaven heads). It is converts who create this hothouse mentality, usually on the internet. It is all so immature. It is time for teenagers to grow up.

The Future

Q: When will there be a new Tsar in Russia?

A: It is vital to understand that this can only come about when Russian Orthodox are worthy of the last Tsar. You cannot have a next Tsar, if you do not love and venerate the last Tsar and all those who served him – and were martyred for it. Read what others said of the last Tsar and his family:

‘It was the holiest and purest family’. (The Tsar’s valet Volkov, when interviewed by the investigator Sokolov 100 years ago).

‘There, in that house (the Ipatiev House), blossom the great souls of Russia, smeared with the mud of politicians’. (The Holy Martyr Eugene (Botkin)).

When this happens, then we shall see headlines like this:

‘Tsar restores the unity of the Russian Lands’.

‘Christian troops from Russia liberate Eastern Europe from EU tyranny’.

‘Afghans plead with Russian Imperial forces to free them’.

‘Russian Tsar stands on the Mexican border and demands: ‘Tear down this wall, Mr Trump’.

Do not be surprised; everything is still possible.

 

The Patriarchate of Constantinople Falls into Schism

Just as the then tiny First Rome fell ingloriously in 1054, so now 964 years later, in 2018 the tiny Second Rome has also fallen ingloriously. For this is the historic meaning of the Phanariot decision to interfere in the canonical territory of the Russian Mother-Church, on US orders. As Metr Hilarion of Volokalamsk precisely predicted at the time in May 2016, the Phanariots would take their petty revenge in the Ukraine for the Third Rome’s refusal to support the heresies that Constantinople was peddling in Crete in 2016.

Now having taken on the notorious Ukrainian schismatics, including the defrocked and married Soviet-American ‘Patriarch’, Filaret Denisenko, and another Ukrainian group, run by the Canadian and US secret services, it means that the Phanar has finally lost its way after a century of anti-canonical errors. It all began with the hubris of power-seeking and flock-grabbing, followed by ecumenism and the new calendar, now it has ended in canonical ignominy. On Monday 15 October the Third Rome will make its judgement.

Already Archbishop Kliment (Vecherya) has called on all to discuss the possibility of anathematizing their Patriarch. We can only pray that this elderly man may yet repent for his insanity and foolishness. However, whatever happens, the Phanariot decision now clears the air. With several hundred thousand modernists and semi-Uniats who support the anticanonical Phanariots gone from the Church, it leaves some 217 million Orthodox to get on with Orthodoxy and at long last dissolve the logjam caused by the Phanar.

Despite the danger of persecution of the canonical Church in the Ukraine, now we can at last expect progress on relations between the Local Churches, the internal issue of the Diaspora, especially in the USA, but also in Western Europe and Oceania, on a century of Phanariot interference in the Russian and Ukrainian Diaspora, as also in Estonia. We can also expect progress on the external issue of the heresies of the Roman Catholic/Protestant world. We are breathing a sigh of relief. We can now go on unshackled and unhampered by deference and diplomacy to the spiritually and politically bankrupt.

 

 

Autocephaly for the Schismatics?

As Moscow prepares for the worst but hopes for the best (‘keep your mind in hell, but do not despair’), drawing up plans for what to do if the US-appointed Patriarch of Constantinople grants Ukrainian schismatics autocephaly, here is one person’s take on the situation:

13 May 2018. To Be Or Not To Be… That’s the Question! Shall Bart Grant Autocephaly to the Uncanonical Ukrainians?

Three weeks ago, a news item flashed through the Orthosphere:

Poroshenko wants Bart to make Kiev an Autocephalous Church!

I decided to “wait and see”… this looked “interesting”, but would it have “legs?” A senior archpriest commented:

This move of granting autocephaly will completely disrupt the worldwide Orthodox Church into a mess that won’t be healed for a long time if ever.

Another senior voice said:

I can’t see it working out without lots of pain and suffering.

After getting communications like this, I decided to let the issue sit and develop. Interestingly, it seems to have gone doggo, if not dead. Buffeted from all sides, Bart checked himself into hospital, then, he left, apparently none the worse. It appears as though HH spoke and Bart listened. Patriarch Kirill is the effectual primus inter pares in Orthodoxy, and all know it. Apparently, Bart was getting pressure from both ends (his American minders and HH), so, he checked into hospital to cool things down. It appears to have simply fallen off the face of the earth. My guess is that American and Canadian Galician nutters working for the American and Canadian special services came up with this cockamamie idea, sold it to their superiors, getting Poroshenko on board, without really informing Bart of what was going on. After this hiatus, the whole thing does appear to be “something run up by the apprentice whilst the blacksmith was out”.

Is it dead? I think not. The Yanks are getting desperate, as none of their foreign policy initiatives are working out at all. China and Russia set up the historic peace meeting in Korea… China, Russia, and Iran stymied American efforts to topple the legitimate Syrian government… China and Russia, possibly joined by the Continental members of the EU, signalled their intent to ignore Trump’s ripping up of the Iranian nuclear accord… the Ukraine can’t get its act together; it can’t topple the patriot Peoples Republics. Therefore, the USA may continue to press Bart to do this. So far, he’s resisted them. It’s been a behind-the-scenes affair… but Bart knows that if events actually came up to a decision, if he didn’t give in to Washington, he’d suffer the same fate as Emmanuel Vaportzis in 1948… the CIA would depose him and replace him with a willing stooge. Would he stand firm or would he punk out? No one knows (I hope that we never have to come to that point).

If Bart were to do this, it’d set up a schism as serious as the one of 1054. Happily, he appears to realise this and isn’t eager to do the bidding of the Anglos. Shall it pass? Only time will tell us… what with the usual shortage of crystal balls and time machines, I don’t know what’ll happen… no one does. Pray for this chalice to pass…