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.