Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev Speaks at St Vladimir’s Seminary

Last weekend, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, one of the luminaries of the Russian Orthodox Church, was invited by His Beatitude, Metropolitan Tikhon, the Primate of the OCA, to speak at St Vladimir’s Seminary. 

One of the attendees, Dn Alexander Hatcher, the Director of Public Relations for the Seminary, wrote the following. 

“Something Metropolitan Hilarion said at last week’s Searching the Scriptures event stuck with me.  It was the perfect statement to express why we brought His Eminence and other noted scholars together, why we were celebrating His Eminence’s multi-volume work, Jesus Christ:  His Life and Teaching (SVS Press), and why St Vladimir’s Seminary exists in the first place: 

“Jesus belongs to the entire world and to every person.  He has something to say to every human being, both to those who are already in the Church and to those who are on the path to it –and even to those who are far from it and from any religious affiliation at all. . .”

There’s nothing more that I can add.  Speaking (I’m sure) for many, I want to thank His Eminence for this book and his speech, and His Beatitude, for inviting him to give this lecture.

Below is Metropolitan Hilarion’s lecture.  I’m sure you will enjoy it.

Comments

  1. While he was there, did he happen to reiterate that Orthodox Christians are terrible sinners if they are opposed to the COVID vaccine?

    • Mikhail “terrible sinners if they are opposed to the COVID vaccine?”

      The issue of vaccination is not even a secondary one. Metropolitan Hilarion expressed his pastoral view (using word “sinful” not “terrible”).
      BTW, I tend to agree with him, does it make me less Orthodox?
      BTW 2, the lecture is very good.

      • Martin,

        He said, “All your life, you have to make up for the sin you committed.”

        After hearing his stance on Covid “vaccines” in addition to his long record of ecumenism, I tend to tune out everything he says.

        Regarding whether or not you are “less Orthodox” because you agree with him, is not my place to judge.

        • I’ve long admired his Eminence, but it is a major disappointment that in addition to his inexplicable attribution of of ‘sin’ to those who would decline ‘vaccination’, he continues to speak with arrogant contempt of them.

          https://gorthodox.com/en/news-item/covid-19-and-consequences

          Could such statements come from one who is even reasonably informed on the matter?

        • Mikhail “After hearing his stance on Covid “vaccines” in addition to his long record of ecumenism, I tend to tune out everything he says.”

          1. Epidemiological issue of Covid vaccines is indeed debatable. He has right to his opinion (that I more or less share).
          2. What do you have in mind? Does he preach the branch theory, or does he meets with the leaders of other religions?

          Mikhail “Regarding whether or not you are “less Orthodox” because you agree with him, is not my place to judge.”
          You do have right to judge me. Especially that I willingly give you right to do so. Go ahead, please 🙂

          • Martin and Mikhail:

            ROC’s statement on “vaccinate or repent” concerns Russian audiences and Russian audiences only. Alfeev is not aware of US context and how such vaccins were developed. In Russia, there are three vaccines, one of which, Sputnik-V, was developed using HEK293 stem cell lines. The other two vaccines (EpiVacCorona and CoviVac) did not use these lines and have no association with abortion. Patriarch Kirill did not take Sputnik, by the way, and CoviVac is considered the most Orthodox vaccine in Moscow now. My sources for that are BBC and Meduza, for whatever they are worth. (*PS: Alfeyev was vaccinated with Sputnik, by the way).

            • Gail Sheppard says

              Excellent point. I wonder if only the rest of us were hijacked by narrative. Russia and those countries with access to the Russian vaccine probably escaped the ravages of our vaccines.

              Brendan would probably know if they have something like VARES.

              I remember that the Russian people were REALLY hesitant about the vaccine when it became available. Some went to Georgia to get the vaccines from the West, poor people. They may not go to Church regularly but it looks like their Orthodox roots go deep.

        • I must have missed the verse in Holy Scripture where the Lord said “thou shalt submit to the powers of this world to allow thyself to be injected with experimental gene therapy.” Otherwise it’s hard to believe that one of the heads of ROCOR could be so blind as to equate not doing so with sin.

          ROCOR was always a bastion of sanity in a world in which much of the Church has become infested with modernist hierarchs, or so I thought. If Metr. Hilarion is allowed to get away with employing the terminology of the Church in a dishonest way to act a mouthpiece for the pharmaceutical industry and is not at the very least corrected by his fellow bishops then I may have to find a new jurisdiction.

          • Peter: ‘I must have missed the verse in Holy Scripture
            where the Lord said “thou shalt submit to the powers of this world
            to allow thyself to be injected with experimental gene therapy.” ‘

            I expect you are not using one of the more modern translations…

          • This is not Metropolitan Hilarion of ROCOR, but the head of the Department of External Church relations for the Moscow Patriarchate. You know, the one who is now in the same role as Patriarch Kyril once was and his “spiritual father” Metropolitan Nikodim. The one who continues to promote the ecumenical path that the two former heads were on!

            • Thank you for clearing that up, I’m very glad to hear it wasn’t Metropolitan Hilarion of ROCOR. And here I even took extra care to look his statement up and confirm it before posting, but wasn’t even aware that there were two of them!

              It’s still very sad to see the MP going further down the path of ecumenism and worldliness to the point of blind trust in the non-Orthodox not only with our worldly health, which is questionable enough, but now also with our immortal souls.

    • Pardon?

  2. William Tighe says
    • George Michalopulos says

      I saw this (about the move) a few days ago. Personally, I think it’s a good idea. Our institutions need to migrate to the Heartland if they are going to survive.

      Therefore I applaud the Regents for being perceptive enough to know which way the wind is blowing.

      My opinion.

      • Agreed. Getting out of the northeast where Orthodoxy, and Christianity, is dying is a good idea. If only HCHC would move out of the ethnic ghetto of New England, that would be great as well.

      • The further from Fordham University the better.

      • Just had a terrible thought, hopefully they don’t merge with HCHC, I’m sure Holy Cross would love that infusion of Yonkers money

    • Pretty good decision. SVOTS campus feels very cramped compared to STOTS and HTOS.

      The FSSPX upped sticks and move their entire seminary across the country a few years ago and they seemed to do well.

  3. “… SVOTS’ current location is untenable…”

    Sigh, I could have told them that 20 yrs ago but the value of the property should help them find a nice place in a Free State. Somewhere outside of the DFW metroplex would probably make the most sense but I doubt the north easterners could continence a move to “hicksville”.

    My money is on Virginia, so that it is somewhat near DC for political reasons along with the OCA HQ. Which would be unfortunate because it would just continue the overfocus on the NE US. Ok, I know. Virginia is technically Mid Atlantic, but their crazy politics are more NE.

  4. Metr. Hilarion’s attitude regarding the “lipstick” soured me on him. He might have many positive things to say, many true things. However, I’m not really interested in them. Anything good he has to say I can get from someone who isn’t in lockstep with the spirit of this present age. I’ve been feeling a similar way toward those at AFR.

    Refusing to get an experimental substance put into your body, which has thousands upon thousands of deaths and other adverse events associated with it, for a virus that already has a 99% survival rate, that’s being pushed by a godless, globalist regime is NOT irresponsible, much less a sin someone must atone or make up for for a lifetime. What IS irresponsible is not doing adequate research and exercising no spiritual discernment and using your position of influence to guilt-trip your flock into it.

  5. Where would they move? The centers of the Russian Orthodox tradition’s community in the US were (in order), Alaska, California, Pennsylvania (and westward across the Rust Belt to Minneapolis, and finally New York and NJ (due to the decline of the Rust Belt and due to the immigrant community, cosmopolitanism, and the large population concentration there in general).

    The South is growing, but is not yet a “center” per se for the Russian tradition. The South (particularly in New Orleans and Florida) has been one of the formative centers of the Greek tradition/community in the US though.

    The only realistic options that I see for a move would be:
    Somewhere else in the greater NYC region,
    California (because it’s a growing region and a historical Orthodox center), or
    combining St. Vladimir’s with another already-existing Orthodox educational center (eg. Hellenic College).

    • Though the OCA is implicitly of course Orthodox Christianity of the Russian tradition (an “American tradition” is still hundreds of years away from taking form, so there aren’t a whole lot of other traditions to choose from! Russian/Slavic or Byzantine, take your pick!), explicitly they’ve been trying to distance themselves from being “Russian” for decades now.

      Ostensibly as a means to missionize America, since anti-Russian sentiment runs deep in these lands.

      Texas is the best choice for SVS to relocate to — the beautiful St Seraphim Cathedral is in Dallas, and there is ample land and millions of people who profess Christ (mostly in the protestant form, but as they say, protestants make great catechumens!).

      Yet I agree — due to the power players in charge and their preferences, my guess is that SVS will stay in the Northeast or in the Mid-Atlantic, possibly Virginia. It would be silly to relocate it to Pennsylvania, because if doing that, why not just merge it with STS?

      For American missionary purposes, relocating to Texas is the best option. But would the SVS powers that be, professors, etc., be comfortable relocating to the Lone Star State? Time will tell.

      BTW, what ever happened to the OCA Chancery in Syosset — the so-called “Griswold estate,” or “Westwood,” for those who like mansions/estates to have names like pets do? Did it ever sell? Last I saw it was still on the market for $6.5 mil.

      • I just got off the phone with a source that tells me it’s Texas, but the exact location is as yet undecided.

      • “…protestants make great catechumens!”

        Thank you for that.
        I shall steal it… 🙂

      • George Michalopulos says

        Misha, that’s a brilliant idea!

        You’ve jogged a neuron to fire: if memory serves, the Venerable Dmitri of Dallas was in negotiation with SMU several years ago to open an Orthodox institute on their campus.

        Another good idea would be Wichita where HG Bishop Basil erected one of the great Orthodox cathedrals in the US. I believe that there is ample land attached to the present cathedral campus where something like this could take place.

        • George,

          That wasn’t me but someone called “FTS”. I try to stay clear of OCA internal matters.

        • What is wrong with the Yonkers location? Did the neighborhood go into decline, or did new students’ registration numbers decline because NY is less attractive as a place for students?

          • I think that it was simply to small for their needs, and probably too expensive.

          • Having visited SVOTS a number of times, I can tell you the neighborhood is definitely not in decline. The area is quite lovely, as is the campus.

            But the the campus is rather small, and it is landlocked with no more room to grow. Also, being in New York, the cost of everything is very high – for the seminary, for its faculty, and for its students.

          • Many of my professional organizations and engineering associates have relocated. N Y is expensive, fraught with union politics, has repressive laws, too many corrupt officials,,,,so they happily relocated. From day one, this site was known to be substandard, but the price was right, now it is no longer teneble

        • I think the seminary and many others are starting with answers to the wrong questions and this invalidates the entire argument. The press release from SVOTS started out by explaining that it would cost $100 mil. to renovate the seminary. Was this really the first question that was asked, “How much is it going to cost to renovate?” Can you imagine if every household and business started out with such a stupid question? The starting place is, “What is our mission and are we fulfilling it?” I would argue that the seminary has not been fulfilling its mission — which as I understand it was to prepare primarily men to serve the Orthodox church as clergy. This may sound stupid but the seminary’s mission is not to be a missionary, not to be some sort of beacon of theology, not to be a conference center, etc. — all of these things that the seminary has been involved with now for many years. They are sometimes nice, but they are not the mission of a seminary. That’s what distinguishes a seminary from say Harvard Divinity School. And look really hard at the statistics. The number of men entering the seminary from traditional Orthodox churches is down dramatically. Where would St. Vlad’s be without its female students or its Non-Chalcedonian students? The answer is up a creek without a paddle. Holy Cross was on triple probation from the state of Massachusetts primarily over money. The entire Claremont School of Theology campus in California was recently for sale. Does St. Vlad’s know something the rest of the world doesn’t in terms of making a viable brick and mortar school work? Will running off to Texas really solve these fundamental issues? I seriously doubt it. Like missions that sometimes ebb and flow with attendance, I personally think the seminary needs to take a good hard look at itself. If it is just about the cost of renovation, any idiot can see that they could cut their costs by joining with their sister seminary, St. Tikhon’s. One can only surmise that the only reason this decision wasn’t made is because of ego’s. God forbid that one side or the other show a bit of humility. I have watched this petty rivalry between the two schools for decades now. Come on folks, wake up! You’re not that big! Stop the ridiculous self-importance. Both schools, coming from the same Orthodox tradition and in the same jurisdiction can’t get together? How idiotic is this? Sadly, my opinion of Fr. Chad and the board of trustees has gone into the toilet. And as a little reminder, Fr. Chad’s last job was dean of St. Herman’s seminary in Alaska (not exactly the most exalted and important school of theology in the world). I really hope I am wrong, but this decision of St. Vladimir’s seminary looks to be fatal. This smells a lot like some people are really blowing up their level of importance. “Pride goes before a fall”
          (Proverbs 16:18).

          • >Holy Cross was on triple probation from the state of Massachusetts primarily over money.

            Please forgive me, I don’t understand what this means. Why would Massachusetts put Holy Cross on probation because of money? Was it an unpaid due/fee or something?

            • Db,

              This article from January 2020 gives a brief explanation. The probation took effect on December 10, 2019 and was lifted on March 4, 2021.

              https://ocl.org/hellenic-college-holy-cross-in-brookline-placed-on-probation/

              • Excellent article, thank you.
                But more thought-provoking are the comments following,
                particularly that from rjklancko, which I strongly recommend reading.

                • Believing the Church is supposed to be a social mission is just as much a heresy as ecumenism – humanistic tendencies is a western “Christianity” perversion. A very large amount of war was raged during Fr Seraphim Roses’ times – which you can read his letters – over the OCA and humanistic ecumenist nonsense. Thank God He kept us from having a singule jurisdiction, or smooshing every seminary together – see the fruits of all these theologian rationalists falling to covidism, and ecumenism.

                  That is the fruit when you keep thinking ‘catholics and methodists can teach the Orthodox a thing or two’. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Look from the blessed Bishops and Saints for what renewal actually is – the Liturgical life of the Church, not putting the name of Orthodox on hospitals just so ‘the world’ see’s us.

                  Either we want to live an Orthodox life, or we can try to make the Orthodox into a secular humanistic organization and be cast into the fire we chose.

                  MORE services, MORE strict as to our faith – MORE strict as to Catechumenate – otherwise you get these perversions creeping in from ‘very smart and very motivated’ westerners – of which I am one that must struggle against this constantly!

                  http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/restoration.aspx
                  “The Germans came to Kiev…. Churches were opened. The Lord helped us to re-establish the Protection Hospital Convent, in the church of which I became priest. Again one had to help people, feed them. We managed to re-establish the hospital, a home for the crippled and aged. But the famine was not only bodily, but spiritual as well. People who had been starved for the Church, for the Orthodox way of life, streamed into the churches. One had to quench their hunger. Then, after two years under the German Occupation, we had to throw everything over and be evacuated. The Soviets came. Together with a group of people close to me, I ended up in Berlin. I was assigned as chief priest of the Berlin cathedral. For the course of nearly two years, under ceaseless bombings, Divine services were celebrated every day in the cathedral. The Lord helped us to preserve the Divine gift of the Eucharist of Christ so as to strengthen and confirm in faith the souls of our Russian people who had fled from Communism or who had been brought by force to Germany. The church was constantly filled with Russian youth, who for the most part knew neither their homeland nor God nor the Orthodox way of life, but now instinctively were drawn to the Church, to Christ. One had to help them, caress them, teach them, instruct them.”

                  Or see St John of Shanghai addressing the Russian Church Abroad – this should be applied to every jurisdiction. The Orthodox Church and its Saints know what renewal is, it isn’t following westerners who have no understanding of prelest or a superficial understanding of internal spiritual struggle.

                  https://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/johnmx_sermons_2.htm#n6
                  The Spiritual Condition of Russians in the Diaspora

                  • Utrecht,

                    Could you clarify for me what you mean by ‘social mission’? Specifically, are you referring to social activism, i.e. pro-life activism, antiwar demonstrations, pro-religious practices advocacy, etc? Or do you have in mind things more like feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting prisoners, etc?

                    Thanks in advance for your response.

        • Nice. If I had a spare $6.5 mil, I’d buy it and donate it to ROCOR in honor of one of their former bishops, Met. Leonty (Turkevich).

          Now how’d that be for muddying the American Orthodox history waters?

          • I would rather the seminary go to ROCOR than get abandoned out of Orthodoxy.

            Met. Leonty was the OCA Metropiltan in 1950 to 1965 after the OCA left Rocor, I believe.

            I am glad OCA and ROCOR are in communion again.

            Peace.

            • Yes my comment was sort of in jest, highlighting the absurdity of the Orthodox jurisdictional morass we have in North America.

              Met. Leonty was indeed a hierarch of ROCOR through 1946, at which time (via the Cleveland Sobor in 1946) the Metropolia decided to separate from ROCOR.

              Regardless, Met. Leonty did his best to maintain friendly relations with ROCOR hierarchs. His character reference for ROCOR hierarch Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky) to the US gov’t in 1950 enabled Met. Anastasy to emigrate to New York, after the ROCOR HQ was forced to leave Serbia.

              From 1950-1965, Met. Leonty and Met. Anastasy were two Russian Orthodox hierarchs in New York, at one level “competing hierarchs” (one Metropolia, the other ROCOR). Yet I’ve also read they shared brotherly love with each other as much as possible and regularly met for tea.

              They both reposed within only a few weeks of each other in 1965. One is buried at St Tikhon’s, the other at Jordanville.

        • Anonymous II says

          If those walls could talk…

      • The extent to which the Russian-Slavic Tradition, as well as the Antiochian-Arabic-Syrian Tradition, differ from the Greek-Byzantine Tradition seems debatable. Occasionally all EOs are sloppily labeled “Greek Orthodox”.

        The Roman-Western Tradition pretty much consists of some “Western Rite” Orthodox and the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches, as well as the Eastern Catholic Churches to some extent.

        The Syrian Tradition most strongly seems to remain in the Assyrian-Nestorian and OO-Syriac Churches (including the Indian ones), as well as the Maronite (Catholic) Church to some extent.

        Then there are some other OO and RC Rites (eg. Armenian and Coptic). Albanian and Georgian Rites seem a mix of the Slavic and Greek Traditions, but also still their own things to some extent.

    • Do we really need a Russian tradition,,,,it is time we created an American Orthodox Christian tradition,,,, the time of the ethnic ghetto is over,, there are 300,000,000 lost sheep out there who need a shepherd

      • Staying rooted in a real Church Tradition going back centuries is not in conflict with reaching out to 300 billion non-EO Americans.

        For instance, the foundational Bishop St. Innocent of Alaska foresaw the creation of an American EO Church that would use English! But he was not saying to stop using the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

        Customs are different from Tradition, but perhaps there is some overlap.

        If you really prefer the American/English Tradition, you can find a Western Rite Orthodox Church. ROCOR and the Antiochians have them.

        Otherwise, being rooted and grounded in Tradition going back to saints and then to the apostles is one of the strong points of Orthodoxy.

      • RJK,
        OCA is in the Russian-Slavic Tradition in a broad sense. It is also “Eastern Orthodox” in Tradition, despite being located in the West and autocephalous here.
        It is not part of the “Russian Church”.

        Some nuance and overlap is both healthy and necessary in order to stay well connected to 2000 years of Christian Tradition.

        If you switch over to “100% pure American Tradition,” then de facto you are going to go off the rails in the eyes of the Orthodox world.

        “100% pure American Tradition” would probably be closest to Low Church Protestantism.

  6. There have been multiple moves in the past, such as San Francisco to Minneapolis in 1879, then to Tenafly NJ in 1905, then current locations. I would recommend WV for proximity plus beautiful environment. There’s a ROCOR monastery here for that reason.

  7. Very appreciative of the fact that he made a point of expressing the value of and his use of modern biblical scholarship to do his most recent work, recognizing the Truth both within and without the boundaries of the Orthodox Church. He is a true Orthodox scholar who follows the spirit of the Three Great Hierarchs, extrapolating the Truth from the best learning of his/their day and age. I also appreciate his ecumenical involvement, engaging other Christian churches while maintaining the integrity of the Orthodox Church.

  8. Metropolitan Jonah wanted to shut down St. Tikhon’s Seminary and merge it with St. Vladimir’s. Of course he was a St. Vladimir’s graduate, so he would think that way. Thank God such a terrible idea never came to fruition! I believe a much better idea would be to simply shut down St. Vladimir’s and merge it’s resources with St. Tikhon’s. If St. Vladimir’s really had wanted a merger, then now is the opportune time to explore this.

    Anyways, there’s nothing about St. Vladimir’s that really captures the soul. Their liturgics have always been problematic and The Three Hierarchs chapel has always been an eyesore. The legacies of Schmemann, Meyendorf, and Hopko, although they flourished during the Cold War with Russia, are now like rotted dying trees in danger of falling down. Time to cut it down. Evidently, even St. Vladimir’s now recognizes that there is no foreseeable future for them at their present location.

    St Tikhon’s, on the other hand, was founded and consecrated by actual saints. It’s monastery was consecrated by St. Tikhon of Moscow, along with St. Raphael of Brooklyn, St. Alexander Hotovitzky and St. Alexis Toth. It is the place where St. Nicholai of Zicha lived, taught at the seminary, and where he left this earthly life and entered into heavenly rest. It’s holy ground, and it has retained the original missionary vision and legacy of the Russian Church in America. It would make much more sense to use St. Vladimir’s resources to help build up St. Tikhon’s, rather than expending all that time, money, and energy in relocating elsewhere.

    • > Their liturgics have always been problematic
      Please forgive me, I am new to orthodoxy and don’t know what that means.

      • DB,

        St. Vladimir’s Seminary takes a different ideological approach to liturgics, and I would surmise this has resulted in the many liturgical anomalies we can see throughout the OCA. This is problematic, because not only does it serve to isolate the OCA from the rest of world Orthodoxy, but it also creates a rift within the OCA. St. Vladimir’s unique approach to liturgics can probably be attributed to their influential former dean, Father Alexander Schmemann. His book, Introduction to Liturgical Theology is pure garbage, to put it simply.

        • Rufus,
          what specifically do they do differently? What is their ideological approach to liturgics?

          • “What is their ideological approach to liturgics?”

            The Liturgical Theology of Father A. Schmemann, by Father Michael Pomazansky:

            http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/pom_lit.aspx

            What really matters is 1/3 of humanity, and about thirty million more people a day, are being injected with:

            https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056

            There’s innumerable other ways the “vaccines” can kill you, that come out almost daily:

            https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcibr2113694

            But I think they’re all secondary to shutting off DNA repair, the injected are probably going to be looking like mutants/zombies/theElephantMan, if they live long enough.

            And, countries around the world continue to make the vaccine/health passport more Mark of the Beast like everday, very “The Mark before the Mark” per St. Paisios.

            Looks like they’re going to give us some fall guys for the murder by medicine that generated the body count to produce the fear to push all this:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKdAJpBmIGs

            Yet, the standard protocols will no doubt remain:

            Remdesivir –> mucus/fluid build up in lungs –> Ventilator –> Madozilam = Death/Profit.

            No Ivermectin plus Zinc for you plebs, that’s for VIP, like Congess, for you that’s “horsepaste,” and not a Zinc ionophore (something that enables your cells to absorb more Zinc which is what does the virus killing).

          • DB,

            Colloquialisms and idiomatic expressions of the liturgy, on a simple parish level, are not necessarily problematic. They do not present any obstacles for someone new to the Orthodox faith. In fact, in whatever expression and vernacular you receive the Orthodox faith, it is a gift. It is something to be supremely grateful for, because it will always be valuable to you later in life.

            However, on a wider level, I feel the influence of Fr. Alexander Schmemann should be reevaluated. His influence through St. Vladimir’s seminary has brought about more disparity than unity, certainly within the OCA.

            Father Schmemann was interested in liturgical reform and renewal, perhaps having gleaned this from his being an attendee at Vatican II. His book Introduction to Liturgical Theology likewise presumed, as the Catholics, that the liturgy of the Church had somehow veered off course and was in need of a re-understanding, a return to it’s “roots”.

            A central idea that comes through Fr. Schmemann’s work, though not explicitly, is the protestant idea known as the “Constantinian fall of the Church”. This is basic anti-monarchialism. It’s the idea that the Church somehow fell with St. Constantine and when the Roman Empire became Christian. Thus, central to his ideology is trying to re-understand the Church and liturgy through the “purity” of pre-Constantinian times.

            • Important to note that Fr Alexander’s social critiques were spot on. He’d feel far more comfortable today in an American ROCOR parish than he would in a modernist OCA parish, that’s for sure. He thought women’s ordination, extra-marital sex, and homosexuality were in no way consistent with the Christian faith or with our Church tradition. To paint him as a current “modernist” is disingenuous. He lived in different times. A read of his “Journals” clues one in to this fact.

              He would find absolutely nothing in common between Orthodox Christianity and mostly all other Christian bodies today. This was not so back in the day – I think Fr Alexander still believed then that Orthodox Christians and mainstream American protestants could find common ground. Not anymore.

              Like many Orthodox leaders, he is not perfect and is a lot like anchovies — either you like him or you don’t, there’s not much in between. Back in his day, the ROCOR vs OCA/Metropolia divide was largely based on monarchical lines — ROCOR was always very pro-Russian monarchy, whereas Fr Alexander was with the non-monarchical group that was looking at whether Orthodoxy could thrive in a non-monarchical, “democratic” West. I think the jury is still out on that one.

              My chief beef with his perspective is that he did not seem to fully understand his secular, protestant American audience. Fr Alexander grew up firmly bathed 100% in Russian Orthodoxy, in Russian emigre France. Orthodox Church life and its fasts and feasts defined his youth and formative years. His mother locked their piano during every fasting period to ensure that sort of “entertainment” was off limits. He and his extended family were firmly Orthodox, through and through.

              Someone from that background is bound to question what could be done maybe better or differently within their Orthodox culture, what could be refined. Problem is, he projected his “theology” on a largely secular/protestant American audience who had about as different a formation/upbringing from him as one can have. American “converts” had no similar perspective. Even 2nd or 3rd generation American “cradle” Orthodox Christians didn’t connect with his experiential understanding of the faith or perspectives.

              You can’t describe to an American audience how parts of Orthodox worship need to be rediscovered or refined when they have no idea what an Orthodox life looks like in the first place. I don’t think he fully grasped this distinction. Fr Alexander seemed to assume that people shared his understanding of what a fully Orthodox life should look like when in reality they did not.

              I love many of his writings, but I don’t consider Fr Alexander the guru of American Orthodox Christianity that some consider him to be. His stalwart “disciples” are losing influence these days significantly, and his most “modernist” disciples will likely go the way of the Patriarch of Constantinople or will leave the Church altogether. But his work “For the Life of the World” and his “Journals” have remained among my favorite books now for decades. The anniversary of his repose is coming up in about two weeks – Memory eternal.

              • This is well said, FTS.

                Whatever one thinks of the content of Fr. Alexander’s work, his intent (in my view) was to work against mere ritualism (the idea that saying the ‘right’ words and performing the ‘right’ actions are what constitutes living in the true Faith). I cannot recall an instance (in his writings anyway) where he ‘got creative’ with Liturgics. On the contrary, he always referenced and called his readers back to the richness and theological depth of the Liturgy itself (as received, not as ‘recreated’ by him). How successful or accurate he was at doing so is another matter that does not concern my present comment.

                I also don’t think he can rightly be accused of modernism, although there are those in the more ‘Progressive’ quarters of the OCA who have managed to twist his words in ways he did not intend – just as they do with Scriptures, the Fathers, and everything else.

                • Brian,

                  Yes, exactly. Growing up bathed in Russian culture, without a doubt Fr Alexander experienced Russians who did not understand or care much at all about their faith. (Statistically, only about 3-4% of Russians who emigrated worldwide after the Bolshevik revolution described themselves as faithful or as any kind of churchgoers – the vast majority were inclined to view Church more as a cultural gathering place.)

                  His liturgical renewal efforts stemmed from this framework — targeting Russians and other Orthodox who had been immersed in Orthodox culture but didn’t grasp or understand the faith at all. Before the 20th century, well more than 95% of all Orthodox Christians existed only in fully Orthodox cultures. The idea of an Orthodox Christian living among “strangers” as most of us in America do today is a very new phenomenon.

                  But when Fr Alexander tried to project this “liturgical renewal” on an American audience, all sorts of mess resulted (and still results), since American protestants had/have no clue where he’s coming from.

                  This is how you get Americans making Fr Alexander into who they want him to be, rather than working to understand who he really was. He would find virtually all that passes as “modern American Christianity” today fully revolting and disgusting. He would find “lesbian bishops,” “women clergy,” “homosexual Christianity,” male couples “having babies,” etc., to be a bad off-color jokes and then would probably lament the fact that he ever emigrated to America when he realized that these people take themselves very seriously.

                  In 2021 America, Fr Alexander would feel much more at home at Jordanville than he would at any Episcopal church. That wasn’t the case during his heyday in the 1960s-70s-early 80s.

                  It’s a noble goal to work against mere ritualism in our faith. The Old Ritualists (Old Believers) are probably the best known in Orthodoxy for “mere ritualism.” The old joke goes (and it has some historical accuracy, too) that a groups of Old Ritualists believed that their brothel business failed because they asked God to bless it with the incorrect number of “Lord, have mercies.” Or the Old Ritualist who asks God to protect him as he goes out to rob someone…..

                  Of course I’m not saying that all Old Ritualists/Old Believers are this way, but working against mere ritualism is a virtuous goal. Fr Alexander certainly had noble intents in this respect.

    • Rufus, I totally agree!

  9. Happy Feast!

    Has anyone else seen this?! https://credo.press/239891/   
    Met. Mark is number 2 in the Rocor synod, it’s quite a statement.
    The European situation is therefore now permanent, European “wars” have a habit of spreading to the USA! I note in particular the tone towards the OCA, does this mean the ROCOR are also looking at breaking communion with the OCA! Also the comment about the MP, stating they are very different to the ROCOR, distancing themselves. Maybe something to do with Met. Hilarion’s recent visit? Something is happening, this may sound dramatic, are they looking at breaking away?

    Does this mean at the council of Bishops in Moscow (now in May) the Rocor bishops will not attend(?) since they will not/cannot concelebrate with those they are not in communion with? 

    This puts the MP in a position of having to make a choice, either the ROCOR or the OCA (and their European equivalent the MP Archdiocese), they cannot back both, what a mess!

    • Too early to tell. I’d like to see a full airing of the issues from both sides with references to canon law. At this point I still see it as a tempest in a teacup.

    • Before 2019 when the Rue Daru Exarchate switched from the CP to the MP, ROCOR had intercommunion with the Rue Daru Exarchate (CP). So this new turn of events is confusing, since the Rue Daru Exarchate hasn’t changed its doctrines in the last 3 years AFAIK, only its jurisdiction.

      Abp. Mark of ROCOR Germany in the interview says only ROCOR restored relations with the Russian Church and that the OCA flew away far someplace. This is incorrect regarding OCA -MP relations, but it means that Abp Mark values relations with the MP at least.

      In the Portal Credo article, Abp Mark didnt give specifics on why he was cutting ties with the Rue Daru Exarchate.

    • Religious Info Service of Ukraine says:
      ((There are also disagreements and divisions within the Russian Orthodox Church, in particular, Metropolitan John (Renneto), who was admitted to the Russian Orthodox Church, wants to join the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of France under the Metropolitan of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

      “The problems created by the actions of the former (Archbishop – Ed.) of Hariopol and the current Dubno John, after his decision to accept into the Moscow – controlled Paris Exarchate clergy and parishes that were separated from ROCOR and on which ROCOR imposed fines or even deductions,” the Archimandrite (Romanos – under the CP) notes.

      In addition, according to Father Romanos, ROCOR sued Moscow that until this issue is resolved, it will not participate in the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church. It is reported that he wants to return to the Assembly of Orthodox bishops of France under the Metropolitan of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to show that he is supposedly independent of Moscow,” the cleric of the Ecumenical Patriarchate writes.))
      https://risu.ua/en/the-russian-orthodox-church-did-not-find-support-for-the-second-amman-even-from-the-patriarchate-of-antioch—archimandrite-romanos_n122722/

      This could be rumors from the CP side. The info could be false that Met. Jean Rennato wants to go back under the CP, for example.

    • Philippe

      ROCOR bishops can participate in the general council, because they are the members. OCA cannot, because they are a separate jurisdiction.

    • At the ROCOR conference going on now in Belgrade — a conference focusing on the past and present of ROCOR — a talk by Metropolitan Onuphriy of Kiev and All Ukraine was delivered.

      Here is the link: https://www.rocorstudies.org/2021/11/28/to-the-organizers-guests-and-participants-of-the-international-academic-conference-links-between-times-conclusions-and-perspectives/

      Met. Onuphriy of Kiev and All-Ukraine is well-known as the incredibly longsuffering and likely saintly hierarch of the real/true Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is an autonomous church under the omophor of the Patriarchate of Moscow.

      If ROCOR was just itching left and right to break ties with the MP, highly doubtful that they would invite MP hierarchs to present at this international conference.

      The Soviet Union is gone, ROCOR’s purpose has been fulfilled. I love ROCOR and its history, but its continued existence as an entity opposed to the Russian Orthodox Church inside of Russia is crazy.

      It’s always tempting to see what we want to see, rather than what reality is. Often, when we see what we want to see but cannot see reality, it says more about us than it does about reality.

      Why do so many continue to want to see the Patriarchate of Moscow as militant boogeymen like it is still 1965? Even back in 1965, there were by all accounts thousands or millions of suffering Christians inside Russia. Why vilify them all?

      The modern reality is that the Church in Russia is the de facto leader of worldwide Christianity. The mainstream Church of Rome and the Protestant churches seem to have no intention of following Christ or of following the traditions that have been handed down through His Church throughout the ages (excepting a handful of traditional Roman Catholics and well-intentioned evangelical protestants who try hard but who neglect or refuse to see the historical reality of the Church).

      Yes, the sides have flipped completely in the past 30 years. Christ’s followers are vibrant and resurgent in Eastern Europe and in Russia, and also in pockets not traditionally associated with Christian culture (such as in parts of Africa). In the West, those who love and strive to live like Christ seem to be (sadly) few and far between. Plus, our culture in the West fights us every step of the way; the Christian life is always an uphill battle here.

      Best to get used to this new reality than to pretend that it’s not there.

      • Gail Sheppard says

        The sad reality is that many who are Orthodox haven’t embraced the phermona. Because they haven’t embraced it, they don’t know it when they see it.

      • FTS,
        I agree that it is a good sign that Met. Onufrey spoke to the ROCOR Belgrade Conference. I would like them to patch up their differences with the Exarchate. But the problem seems to be that now that Bp. Irenei and Bp. Mark have put their stakes into the ground, they don’t seem to be going to back down unless the ROCOR hierarchy intervenes. And ROCOR’s hierarchy seems to be siding with Bp. Irenei because it isn’t participating now in the MP synod meetings, at least according to the RISU Ukraine news source.

        So it looks like if ROCOR is siding with Bp. Irenei, then any intervention by the MP against ROCOR would just result in ROCOR leaving. Maybe the only thing that the MP can try to do if it really wants ROCOR to stay with it in that case would be to try NOT to intervene, and NOT to solve the problem, which is ironically the opposite of what some have suggested.

        The MP would have a pretty hard time telling the Exarchate (MP) to accede to the rules that Bp. Irenei is demanding (eg. accepting Uniates only by baptism, or by chrismation, as the case may be), since the MP would be controverting its own past policies. And on the other hand, if the MP agrees with the Exarchate and tells ROCOR UK that ROCOR UK lacks the authority to excommunicate the Exarchate, as Met. Jean claims, then ROCOR could just leave the MP again, which is certainly what the MP doesn’t want.

        Nor is it ideal though for the MP to have two major autonomous jurisdictions under itself to be out of communion with eachother, especially as time goes on, because the MP wouldn’t want to establish a precedent. So there is no easy solution in terms of the MP imposing its own decision. The best outcome would seem to be for ROCOR (globally) to direct ROCOR UK to reenter communion with the Exarchate (MP), but it isn’t clear that this will occur.

  10. And there we have it, folks. Not only does beloved Bishop Irenei have ROCOR’s full support, but ROCOR has essentially asked the MP to clean up their European mess and get their MP parishes realigned, not with the EP but with the MP, and has also tossed the gauntlet down at the OCA’s feet, asking, “Which side are you on? MP or EP? You cannot play both sides.”

    • I respectfully submit this lengthy and detailed article from the Archpriest Andrew Phillips in the UK, one of several at his site discussing our European goings-on:

      http://www.events.orthodoxengland.org.uk/reflections-on-an-international-scandal/

      It should be painfully obvious to all by now that our clergy, beloved though they may be, can sometimes be quite wrong and occasionally lacking in magnanimity and patience.

    • Dear Christine,
      There are signs of a very strange and troubling problem here with ROCOR-Western Europe that one can see between the lines.
      ROCOR has been happy with multiple ex-Uniate priests like St. Alexis Toth converting to Orthodoxy without getting an Orthodox Chrismation. That was the longstanding Russian Tradition.
      ROCOR was also happy being in communion with the Western European Exarchate of St. Alexander Nevskii in Paris when the Exarchate was part of the CP. And
      But now that the MP is apparently getting targeted by TPTB in Ukraine and by the CP, and the Exarchate is part of the MP, ROCOR-Western Europe is excommunicating the Exarchate (MP) for reasons whose timing makes no sense.

      ROCOR UK excommunicated the Exarchate (MP) over receiving a Uniate priest by vesting, the kind of thing that ROCOR didn’t react against previously. The ROCOR Orthochristian site even promoted the converting priest, Fr. Siemens: https://orthochristian.com/136869.html

      And ROCOR-Germany’s Abp. Mark’s public reasons for excommunicating the Exarchate (MP) are similarly hazy and questionable, as he claimed in the Credo interview that Abp. John of the Exarchate was violating the canons “at every step.” Really? At literally “every step”??? That sounds like a big polemical exaggeration even if ROCOR were correct.

      Fr. Andrew Phillips claimed that Bp. Irenei told him privately in the presence of others that Bp. Irenei (ROCOR UK) was planning to take ROCOR out of communion with Moscow too. Some commentators here were saying in response that it was up to the MP to correct relations between the Exarchate (MP) and ROCOR-UK. As you wrote, “ROCOR has essentially asked the MP to clean up their European mess .” But now I read in the RISU Ukraine news service that “according to Father Romanos, ROCOR sued Moscow that until this issue is resolved, it will not participate in the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church.” If that is true, then ROCOR is not really simply “waiting for” or “asking” the MP to resolve the issue per the MP’s own judgment. Rather, it suggests that ROCOR will only be satisfied with the MP ruling in ROCOR’s favor, since ROCOR according to RISU has already taken the step of boycotting participation in the MP’s Synod itself. That is, if ROCOR is not happy participating in the MP’s synod under the current state of affairs, how can you expect it to continue under the MP if the MP were to rule in the Exarchate’s favor and against ROCOR?

      Further, it is hard to imagine the MP ruling against the Exarchate MP on the matter of Fr. Siemens, since the Exarchate MP was simply following the longstanding Russian tradition. This in turn suggests that Fr. Andrew was correct and that Bp. Irenei was intending to take ROCOR away from the MP, knowing ahead of time that the MP would not likely stop the Exarchate from following the longstanding tradition.

      With this information in mind, what is really strange and troubling is not so much that ROCOR would object to accepting Uniate bishops into Orthodoxy through vesting (since ROCOR has a long known policy to the contrary), but the combination of the drastic steps that ROCOR-Western Europe is taking against it brother jurisdiction (and seemingly getting ready to take against the MP) and the timing of the action. That is, why wait until the CP targets the MP and the Exarchate joins the MP to take such drastic steps breaking relations against the Exarchate and foreseeably against the MP?

      • “ The ROCOR Orthochristian site even promoted the converting priest, Fr. Siemens: https://orthochristian.com/136869.html”

        The website OrthoChristian.com (also known as Pravoslavie.ru/English) – that is, the English language version of pravoslavie.ru (Православие.Ru) – is NOT run by ROCOR and is NOT a ROCOR website! It has nothing to do with ROCOR.

        The website is run by the wonderful monastics of the Sretensky Monastery in Moscow, under the omophor of the Patriarchate of Moscow. Its Abbot until 2018 was the well known monastic, Bishop, author, and general wonderful human being Metropolitan Tikhon Shevkunov. He is now the Bishop of Pskov in western Russia.

        Here’s the beautiful cathedral they built not long ago at the Sretensky Monastery:

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Martyrs_and_Confessors_of_the_Russian_Orthodox_Church

        If only knowing what one is talking about were a prerequisite for posting online! At least the online form provides a platform for exchange.

        • Thanks for writing back, FTS with your clarification. I thought that Jesse Dominick was one of the editors of OrthoChristian and took it that he and other staff belonged to ROCOR. I recall reading this someplace too, but I could be mistaken. But your information is more conclusive and Jesse himself gave a clarification below.

          I have been especially valuing and following OrthoChristian, Helleniscope, and Monomakhos for them speaking out about the CP’s new First Without Equals Ecclesiology for the last 3 years.

          Peace.

      • Hal, all this is speculation without an official statement from ROCOR and the MP. The only public statement by ROCOR here is the suspension of Fr. Andrew and the clergy that followed him. Until either of those two entities says anything, then we can only go on Fr. Andrew’s word and the statements by Rue Daru.

        As has been pointed out here already, Fr. Andrew is not exactly stable in his opinions. Credo and RISU are notoriously anti-MP, so will be happy to stir the pot, as is Archimandrite Romanos, an hysterical partisan of the EP. Taking any of this at face value would be foolish.

        So that leaves us with the lengthy statements of Fr. Andrew and Rue Daru’s UK deanery, and not much else. As I mentioned a day or so ago, two priests (one ex-ROCOR) have just left that jurisdiction for Antioch. Something’s going on there, too. Rue Daru is not being upfront about something.

        I maintain my position that we need to wait and see what the MP has to say about all of this.

        • Dear Basil,

          Fr. Andrew’s statement explicitly quotes a numbered directive given by Bp. Irenei, and so I take it to be factually correct. I am guessing that there could be a whole bunch of issues that neither ROCOR (Western Europe) nor the Exarchate (MP) is opening up about publicly. Back when the Exarchate was under the CP, perhaps those issues hadn’t come to the surface because they belonged to separate autocephalous Churches (MP vs. CP).

          Understandably CREDO PRESS and RISU could be trying to hurt ROCOR and MP relations. But some or all of their two articles’ data on this is factual: In particular, Bp. Mark (ROCOR GERMANY) says in his talk that the CREDO PRESS article cited. A video is uploaded to Facebook:
          https://www.facebook.com/fr.mikhailvolzhanskii/videos/641849840332523

          At 3 minutes in, Bp Mark (ROCOR-Germany) says that the Russian Orthodox community outside of Russian formed into 3 branches, the Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR), the Paris Church (ie. the Exarchate-MP), and the American Church (OCA), and that only the Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR) saved and restored its relations with the Russian Church (MP). He says explicitly, waving his hand, that the American Church “simply left” to somewhere far away, and the French Church flew away to the “Greek(?)” Church.

          In Russian, at 3:45 min, Bp. Mark says: “…A Французкая разлетелась к грепецскому(?)/грепетскому(?), Да?”
          I guess he meant to say “к Греческой Церкви”, but then slurred the words “to Greek” (k Grecheskoy) with the word “to Egyptian” (k Yegipetskomu). In any case, the context meant that he was referring to how the Exarchate based in Paris joined the Constantinople Patriarchate for decades.

          Next, at 3:50-4:55 into the video, he says, “After/Simply(?) that, I had to, a few weeks ago, totally forbid my priests from concelebrating with the priests of this jurisdiction that has now “as if” joined the MP. They are not serious, and are violating the canons at every step. One part (ROCOR), praise God, was preserved – a Russian Orthodox one. And we lost at(?) this(?) day, when this happened, but we didn’t lose them by church (doctrinal) questions, but by doctrinal ones.”

          In Russian at 3:50, he says “Просто/После того, мне пришлось, пара неделей назад, запретить своим священникам вообще сослуживать c священниками этой теперь присоединившихся как будто к Московскому Патриархату юрисдикции.”

          Then at 4:55, he says that ROCOR is following closely the decisions/decrees of the 1917 Local Council of the MP.

          So based on the video, it is unfortunately ROCOR Western-Europe that is not being open, Basil. Bp. Mark is claiming in effect that the Exarchate did not actually join the MP, and he is letting you in the public know in a round about “by the way” manner that he has directed his priests to avoid concelebrating with the Exarchate (MP), which is what Fr. Andrew has also claimed. On top of that, Bp. Mark isn’t telling his audience what exactly he banned concelebration with the Exarchate (MP) over, other than commenting that the Exarchate violates the canons “at every step,” which must, realistically speaking, be a polemical exaggeration.

          I also found an article on the “Vse Eresi” anti-heresy website claiming to belong to members of the MP backing up the idea that Bp. Mark (ROCOR Germany) has just imposed a concelebration ban on his priests regarding the Exarchate (MP). It interprets the word that I thought was “Greek/Egyptian” as Drebezgi (bounced away). Here is a quote from the Vse Eresi article paraphrasing what I translated above:

          Говоря об основных церковных юрисдикциях русской эмиграции, глава Германской епархии РПЦЗ МП заявил, что только его юрисдикция «возобновила связь с Русской Церковью», в то время как Американская митрополия (нынешняя Православная Церковь в Америке — ПЦА) «вообще улетела куда-то далеко», а Западноевропейский экзархат с центром в Париже «разлетелся в дребезги».

          https://vseeresi.com/2021/11/29/2021-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4-%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C-%D0%B2-%D0%BA%D0%BE/

          The Vse Eresi article supports the decision by ROCOR (Germany) regarding the Exarchate (MP) on the basis that the Exarchate (MP) accepted into its ranks a priest named Alexey Primakin. It says that this confirms what Bp Mark called the “total unseriousness” of the Exarchate (MP). The article links to another article on the same website saying that the MP had removed Fr. Primakin’s сан (clerical title, ie. he was defrocked?).

          Regards.

          • I need to make a clarification to what I wrote. I often said that ROCOR UK/Germany was breaking relations with the Western European Exarchate. I intended to refer to the “Archdiocese” (AROCWE-MP) based at St. Alexander Nevski on Rue Daru in Paris under Met. Jean of Dubna, which was long an “Exarchate” under the CP.

            The MP formed a “Patriarchal Exarchate” in the last few years for Western Europe (P.E.W.E. of the MP), and the Diocese of Sourozh (in the UK) belongs to it. I am not aware of ROCOR UK breaking relations with the PEWE (MP) or with the PEWE’s Diocese of Sourozh.

        • The ROCOR documents initiating the schism from the Archdiocese are now online. It seems that the quotation of those documents in the Archdiocese’s statement is accurate:

          https://ireneifiles.wixsite.com/home/post/the-bp-irenei-schism-from-the-moscow-patriarchate-archdiocese-in-the-british-isles-2021

          • Yes, but it’s just two documents with no context.

            If Bishop Irenei were to release a blow-by-blow account, as Rue Daru and Fr. Andrew already have, I’m sure that there would be a very different picture being painted.

            There’s also the question of Rue Daru’s acceptance of a defrocked MPO clergyman into its diocese – and its promotion of him. Then there’s the departure of two of their recently-received clergy into the Antiochian diocese in the UK.

            I’m not taking ROCOR’s side here, but there’s more to it than Rue Daru are letting on, which is why I think we need to wait until the Patriarchate makes an official statement.

            I’m not a member of a ROCOR parish, but have visited a few of them, as well as monasteries, and my impression is that there’s really no anti-MP sentiment and absolutely no desire for separation, as has been evidenced in this thread with the numerous recent concelebration and fraternal exchanges.

            As for Bishop Irenei, he may have been anti-MP have in 2006, but he never actually made the jump to the EP and was later ordained a deacon in the MP before returning to the States and joining ROCOR. To suggest that he is in some kind of long-term plot to undermine the MP is beyond ridiculous.

            • Dear Basil,
              The Documents are not short and do provide a blow by blow background like Fr. Andrew’s did, and in substance the two accounts agree, ie.
              A) AROCWE accepted Fr Siemens by vesting
              B) Bp. Irenei objected drastically to accepting Fr Siemens by vesting, claiming that this method is “wholly uncanonical”, and so on in agreement with Fr. Andrews.
              One thing that is left out was BP. Irenei expressing a plan to bring ROCOR out of the MP, but this statement was made off the record in the presence of others.

              If BP. Irenei were to release a polemical article backing up his decisions like you suggest, my guess is that it would not actually alter the picture given from the documents, and that the reasons that he would give would not be the real reasons. I say this because:
              First, he hasn’t given any other public explanations, and thus at this time he does not wish to give any more justifications than he already has. Therefore, whatever justifications that he would give in the longer polemical essay that you are requesting would just be a longer rehashing of the kind of reasons that he already gave.
              Second, Abp Mark of ROCOR Germany also said rather the same thing on camera very recently, ie. That AROCWE is “not serious” (in terms of Orthodoxy), is violating (unspecified) canons “at every step”, that the AROCWE “as if” rejoined the MP, and that Abp Mark “had to” ban concelebration by ROCOR Germany priests with AROCWE.

              Abp. Mark’s statements confirm the outward picture from Abp. Irenei’s documents, and also raise the same kind of issues. Among other questions:
              A) If AROCWE is not serious in Orthodoxy and is violating canons, why was ROCOR WESTERN EUROPE happy to be in communion with them until Geopolitical problems happened between the CP and MP? This suggests that whatever reason that BP. Irenei would give at this moment in a polemical article would not be the real reason, since nothing has actually realistically changed significantly in terms of AROCWE’s Orthopraxis in the last 3 years.
              B) If ROCOR GERMANY has a good case for taking a drastic step of severing communion over canons, why not specify the canons?

              You mentioned the defrocked MP clergyman. What is “MPO?” Hypothetically, the AROCWE could be performing dark actions and going off the rails in ways along the lines of that defrocked priest. But even if the secret real reason is something dark, we as the public, Orthodox laity would still be left with BP. Irenei giving us only chronologically unreasonable justifications. AFAIK, ROCOR is the only jurisdiction in the US that rebaptises converts. I don’t know how many accept ex-E.C. priests by vesting. And how can we go along with that, as it would set a precedent?

              Imagine if, during a time of geopolitical trouble against your Church, your own bishop of 4 decades announces that he is going to break communion with his own jurisdiction over a practice that some or most EO Churches have followed for centuries since medieval times. You have heard of at least a few scandals like missing funds, and you think that hypothetically they might be the real reason. Nonetheless, you would still be stuck with the fact that the official reason given by your bishop did not make realistic sense. If it was applied consistently, your bishop would go into schism with other EO churches in the US as well.

            • I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with you here.

              There’s a timeline that’s given with the documents, and there’s also the Archdiocese’s statement – both of which provide lots of context.

              So you can’t reasonably claim that “it’s just two documents with no context”.

              But I do agree with you that I’d like to know more about these two clergy who recently left the Archdiocese. Were they part of the group that came from ROCOR’s Western European diocese? And why did they leave? Does anyone have more information?

              I honestly don’t see how you can say that there’s “absolutely no desire for separation” from the Moscow Patriarchate, since two ROCOR Bishops in Europe have now severed communion with an Archdiocese of the Moscow Patriarchate.

              As for Bp Irenei, well, he left the MP almost as abruptly as he joined it, and there is a written record stretching back 15 years of him expressing hostility to the MP. IMHO, the jury’s out on Bp Irenei’s motives in all this.

              Apart from anything else, I can no good reason for the way Bp Irenei started a schism after only four weeks. The most obvious explanation I can see is that the reception of the Greek Catholic cleric was just a pretext for breaking communion with the Archdiocese.

      • Jesse Dominick says

        Just a clarification – OrthoChristian isn’t a ROCOR site, but rather is the site of the Pskov Caves Monastery and Metropolitan Tikhon of Pskov.

      • Dear Brother Hal, thank you so much for your thoughtful and detailed reply! I can tell that you are someone close to the situation, and you are grieved and concerned by what you’ve seen. I don’t have that proximity, so everything I’ve offered is armchair quarterback musings. I completely understand your need to make sense of a situation that seems unjust. (Believe me –been there, still doing that.:)

        I cannot help but wonder if there are far more complicated issues at play here than this one situation caused by the reception of a Catholic priest by an MP metropolitan who was just one year ago under the EP. There are really serious and consequential political issues happening between the EP and the MP right now. Take for example the brewing conflict in Ukraine over what the EP has done there in creating a fake church with a fake metropolitan and fake priests. The EP has essentially started a war!!! Facing zero consequences (and with most of the world clueless as to their nefarious actions due to a lack of understanding Orthodoxy’s church structure and history) the EP is directly responsible for what is happening in Ukraine. The EP has created global chaos and confusion by declaring its patriarch above all others, giving him the heretical status of pope. When you consider that the EP and the MP are involved in competing global politics in Syria, Ukraine, Turkey, Greece, just to mention a few, then I think it is fair to say that there are also complicated issues working themselves out in Europe among jurisdictions.

        Every jurisdiction is at a crossroads right now because of the EP’s actions to elevate their patriarch above all others and to break canon law and create a noncanonical church. Smaller jurisdictions such as ROCOR and the OCA are standing at that crossroads right here and right now. They are deciding if they will side with the EP or not. It’s easy here in North America to see clear and consistent evidence that ROCOR has actively and vociferously aligned itself with her Mother Church, the MP. And only Metropolitan Tikhon knows why the OCA is playing both sides like Chamberlain. I believe what we are seeing in Europe is a struggle for various parishes and dioceses to determine what they are going to do. It is messy, and it is going to get messier as the EP continues its egregious incitement to war. There will undoubtedly be more politics played out in situations that are in actuality about far more complicated issues than what meets the eye.

        This upsetting small fissure is just the tip of the iceberg of a global reckoning. It is time for every Orthodox Christian to decide which side of the battle they are going to fight for: The One Holy Orthodox Church, or Patriarch Bartholomew and his EP.

        • Christine,

          Thank you for your nice words. As it happens, I was in occasional communication with Fr. Andrew a few years ago about a personal project, both by email and telephone, and felt that he was both reliable in the information he was giving me, and that he was trying to be helpful.

          I agree with your comments about the big problems that the CP is creating for world Orthodoxy. I have objected in the past when talking with Catholics that the Pope’s ecclesiological makes it impossible for us to join in communion with Rome, because the Pope in effect sees us as Eastern Catholics under his rule. There is no room for major doctrinal disagreement with the Pope in Catholicism and he has the right to impose his own solutions on Eastern Catholics and every one else.

          This is in essence the road that P. Bartholomew is starting down, and the CP leadership has in the last few years published quite a few articles emphasizing his new ecclesiology, specifying that he has the right to both give and take away autocephaly anywhere.

          Given this background, the AROCWE’s (under Met. Jean of Dubna) decision to leave the CP in 2019 when the CP tried to dissolve the AROCWE looks like a good step for the AROCWE’s survival and the continuation of an Orthodox world beholden to recognizable EO ecclesiology. So I am looking into these latest developments as someone who would like ROCOR, AROCWE, and the MP to fix whatever problems are causing them any division. And so when the ROCOR of Western Europe decides to ban concelebration with AROCWE for a practically unreasonable basis, it’s disturbing. In other words, even though ROCOR has a longstanding position on baptising or chrismating its own ROCOR converts from Eastern Catholicism, ROCOR UK’s sudden breaking of ties with AROCWE over this long-known difference issue does not make sense chronologically.

          I believe that Fr. Andrew is quoting Bp. Irenei’s numbered Directive correctly. Fr. Andrew was the chancellor for ROCOR UK, this would count as an official business record, and he says that Bp. Jean gave his blessing for publishing his open account of events. And Bp. Jean probably did give permission, or else he would be successfully demanding that Fr. Andrew rescind it, as Fr. Andrew is now under his omophorion. Plus, now we have Abp Mark (ROCOR-GERMANY)’s video statement confirming a ban on concelebration between ROCOR-Western Europe and AROCWE.

          If one were to take ROCOR UK’s side, one could imagine that Abp. Irenei knows some “dark” secrets about AROCWE that are so dark that he must break relations while not being able to speak up about them. But even in that case, the specific pretext for breaking relations at this moment, the acceptance of a Uniate priest into Orthodoxy via vesting, is not chronologically reasonable. Imagine if ROCOR were to anathematize the Serbian Church for allowing a priest to bless Serbian blood-sausage in violation of the Council of Jerusalem.

          I can think of other violations of canons that wouldn’t make sense chronologically for ROCOR to suddenly use as a basis for cutting ties. Let’s look at where this situation would go if conversion via vesting were the real basis for AROCWE cutting ties. Is ROCOR going to cut ties with every other jurisdiction that does follow stringent modes of accepting converts? Is ROCOR going to cut ties with the OCA and every other EO Church who accepts converts from traditional Trinitarian heterodox without giving them an Orthodox baptism or Orthodox chrismation? AFAIK, the MP in Russia also currently accepts Trinitarian converts to Orthodoxy without rebaptising them. Since the usual current practice in the EO Churches in the US seems to match the longstanding Russian practice of accepting new converts from Trinitarian communities without rebaptising them, is ROCOR US going to make a new policy demanding rebaptism for all such non-ROCOR EOs as a prerequisite for them communing in ROCOR?

          Due to the timing, I am rather skeptical that ROCOR UK’s real reason for breaking relations with AROCWE is the vesting of Fr. Siemens, since this practice was known for a long time, yet was not previously a reason for ROCOR breaking relations. If ROCOR UK has other reasons for breaking relations, it hasn’t announced them, and in this case, theoretically AROCWE and Fr. Andrew might not even know what those real reasons are. And since we don’t know the real reason, it could be something that we would agree with, or something that we would strongly disagree with.

          But at the moment, we are just left with official reasons for breaking communion that appear to me neither timely nor the real reasons. I am in the OCA, and am pretty happy that ROCOR finally after many years reentered communion with the OCA and MP, and it would be sad if that ceased.

          Regards.

  11. Outside Observer says

    Some things I’d like to point out:

    There is a INCREDIBLE amount of confusion in this thread about the situation in Europe. Moscow has not two, but four jurisdictions in Western Europe:

    1) Patriarchate Exarchate in Western Europe, directly under the Moscow Patriarchate. This was formed in 2018 (with its center in Paris) out of the parishes and dioceses that had remained loyal to Moscow all throughout the 20th – early 21st centuries.

    2) Archdiocese of Orthodox Churches of Russian Tradition, also centered in Paris. This was under Constantinople from 1931 until late 2018, when Bartholomew stupidly tried to dissolve it. The majority of this Archdiocese (including the leader, Archbishop John) then went under Moscow. Patriarch Kirill accepted them into communion in 2019, and raised John to the rank of Metropolitan. Kirill also generously blessed the Archdiocese to elect and consecrate two new assistant bishops, something Bartholomew had refused to give them for some time.

    3) ROCOR’s two dioceses in Western and Central Europe — one for British Isles and the Francophone countries, and another for Germany. ROCOR, of course, has been under Moscow since 2007, albeit retaining a wide autonomy.

    4) Finally, still in development, is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Moscow Patriarchate (led by Met. Onufry of Kyiv) establishing its own parishes recently in Italy, where there are a lot of Ukrainians.

    Many of the comments in this thread evince a confusion between # 1 and # 2. The current kerfuffle in Europe is between # 2 and # 3. It is unclear to what extent # 1 is involved in this kerfuffle. Archpriest Andrew claims that Bishop Irenei of ROCOR refuses to concelebrate with # 1 because # 1 concelebrates with # 2 but there really isn’t much corroboration of that.

    Now, some things to point out:

    As late as July 12 (when there was already trouble in Western Europe), Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) concelebrated with Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) in the Synodal Cathedral in NYC. https://www.synod.com/synod/eng2021/20210713_ensynod.html That doesn’t sound like a schism being planned.

    In October (when the trouble in Western Europe was in full swing)), ROCOR Archbishop Peter of Chicago went to Ukraine and concelebrated with the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate: https://www.chicagodiocese.org/news_211008_2

    On November 3 there was concelebration between Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) and Metropolitan Joseph of the Antiochian Archdiocese, in the Synodal Cathedral in NYC. I don’t think that would have happened if ROCOR is already in a quiet quasi-schism with Moscow given the very close relations between Moscow and Antioch.

    Finally, as pointed out above, Met. Onufry’s involvement in the ROCOR conference in late November, plus Met. Mark of Berlin meeting with the Patriarch of Serbia Porfiry, who is very much aligned with Moscow.

    None of these would be possible if ROCOR were in some sort of silent schism with Moscow itself (as opposed to a local tiff with some local Russian dioceses).

    Now all these does not mean that ROCOR isn’t currently irritated or miffed with the Patriarchate in Moscow. Indeed there are signs of that: the sudden decision by the Moscow Patriarchate to move its Council of Bishops from November 2021 to May 2022 (with the weak justification that the move was due to COVID), and Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) NOT meeting with any ROCOR cleric during his November visit to the USA — although that may simply have been due to timing considerations. We will know more after the Dec. 5-7 ROCOR Synod meeting.

    Nevertheless, speculation of ROCOR forcing a schism is premature. Even if that were to happen, ROCOR will certainly suffer more from it. Kirill will without a doubt move swiftly to contain such a schism, and I don’t think the Antiochians and Serbians will show any sympathy either. The Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophilus recently thanked Russia for its continuing support; I can see him excommunicating the ROCOR institutions in Jerusalem if they try to go into schism with Moscow again. (Don’t forget that when ROCOR was still discussing reconciliation with Moscow in 2006, both Jerusalem and Serbia made it clear that the continued relations of ROCOR with them will not continue without a reconciliation with Moscow.)

    In the event of a ROCOR schism, I am certain that many ROCOR priests and some bishops will simply jump over to the other jurisdictions under Moscow, or (in the USA) to OCA. The Russian Orthodox Church is far stronger and more organized now that it was 20 years ago, and ROCOR churches are populated by many Russians who would not have touched them without the 2007 reunion.

    It is more likely that rigorists, mainly non-ethnic Russians such as (perhaps) Bishop Irenei and Metropolitan Mark, and some others in Western Europe and the USA will jump into schism and perhaps go to the Old Calendarists while the majority of ROCOR remains in communion with Moscow, finally freed of the remnants of the hyper-rigorism that had begun to take over ROCOR in the 1960’s. Should that happen (and hopefully it won’t), it will be the supreme irony, because Met. Mark was at one point the most pro-Moscow hierarch in ROCOR, while Bishop Irenei as a young man was aligned with the anti-Moscow / pro-Constantinople faction in the Sourozh mini-schism in 2006.

    • From what I understand, there is a major division within ROCOR regarding attitudes to the MP. Clearly Metr Hilarion has a different position then Metr Mark of Berlin and Bp Irenei Steenberg. So we need to be careful not to allow the actions of those who support unity with Moscow to divert us from recognising that there are others who are undermining it.

      NB Bishop Irenei’s anti-Moscow text is online here:

      https://ireneifiles.wixsite.com/home/post/on-the-canonical-situation-of-russian-orthodoxy-in-britain-2006

      • Thanks for sharing this link.
        It has both a document by Bp. Irenei on his 2006 anti-MP stance, before the ROCOR reconciliation with the MP, and his notices from this year against AROCWE (MP).

      • As far as I can tell from a quick review, in his 2006 essay, Bp. Irenei was complaining about the MP exercising too much control over its Sourozh Diocese in the UK, in violation of what he sees as a canonical demand for local control of dioceses.

        However, why is then he seen as part of a pro-CP faction? Did he declare that he supported the CP somehow at that point?

        The CP seems to be exercising a lot of control over its analogous “Greek”-oriented parishes outside Constantinople, like how the CP removed various GOARCH heads and appointed Abp Elpidophoros over GOARCH, without the Abp. being GOARCH’s preferred candidate to head GOARCH.

        If you are going to demand Local Control in a strict sense, then why wouldn’t you be objecting to the concept of multiple Representative Parishes per se? For example, the Georgian Church has numerous parishes in Russia, despite Russia, not Georgia, being the locality for those churches?

        And why not object to the whole Traditional EO system of Patriarchy, where one bishop, the Patriarch, or more exactly his synod of bishops, has control over all localities outside of his immediate See? IOW, why not object to the fact that ROCOR has a Synod or Metropolitan Council that meets in one spot under one Bishop’s See (NY State? Belgrade?) and exercizing administration over a locality in another Independent State (the UK) if you are going to object to the MP’s synod meeting in one spot (Moscow? Sergiev Posad?) and having a See in one spot (Moscow), and exercizing administration over the UK?

        I don’t really have a strong opinion, but Orthodoxy seems to have a mix of models for what counts as sufficient territory. In Africa, the Alexandrian Patriarchate controls all Africa. Historically, Constantinople covered multiple foreign lands, including Russia. Georgia’s Church was limited to Georgia for many centuries, and Georgia was under the Georgian Church. Now today the OCA covers North America, and we have a Church of Poland.

        It seems that Bp. Irenei was indirectly objecting to the concept of a See covering multiple nations, but this model that he was objecting to was in fact something that was long part of Orthodoxy. The “Locality” in Orthodoxy has really in fact been ambigously and broadly defined and does not necessarily mean 1 Church per 1 State or Nation, as the cases of Rome’s Patriarchate and COnstantinople’s etc. show.

        • In 2006 Bp Irenei was supporting the pro-CP faction in the sense that he supported Bp Basil Osborne’s appeal to Constantinople to resolve the situation in the Diocese of Sourozh. Wasn’t that the point of his 2006 piece?

          If you’re asking me, personally I think that the whole idea of local Churches in Western Europe is a bit of a pipe dream. Nobody is anywhere near a local Church anywhere in Western Europe. In reality, we have different jurisdictions covering the same territory.

          Wherever I see people play the “local Church” card, it always seems to be a way to sugar-coat whatever it is that they really want in the here and now.

  12. Outside Observer says

    Some things I’d like to point out:

    There is a INCREDIBLE amount of confusion in this thread about the situation in Europe. Moscow has not two, but four jurisdictions in Western Europe:

    1) Patriarchate Exarchate in Western Europe, directly under the Moscow Patriarchate. This was formed in 2018 (with its center in Paris) out of the parishes and dioceses that had remained loyal to Moscow all throughout the 20th – early 21st centuries.

    2) Archdiocese of Orthodox Churches of Russian Tradition, also centered in Paris. This was under Constantinople from 1931 until late 2018, when Bartholomew stupidly tried to dissolve it. The majority of this Archdiocese (including the leader, Archbishop John) then went under Moscow. Patriarch Kirill accepted them into communion in 2019, and raised John to the rank of Metropolitan. Kirill also generously blessed the Archdiocese to elect and consecrate two new assistant bishops, something Bartholomew had refused to give them for some time.

    3) ROCOR’s two dioceses in Western and Central Europe — one for British Isles and the Francophone countries, and another for Germany. ROCOR, of course, has been under Moscow since 2007, albeit retaining a wide autonomy.

    4) Finally, still in development, is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Moscow Patriarchate (led by Met. Onufry of Kyiv) establishing its own parishes recently in Italy, where there are a lot of Ukrainians.

    Many of the comments in this thread evince a confusion between # 1 and # 2. The current kerfuffle in Europe is between # 2 and # 3. It is unclear to what extent # 1 is involved in this kerfuffle. Archpriest Andrew claims that Bishop Irenei of ROCOR refuses to concelebrate with # 1 because # 1 concelebrates with # 2 but there really isn’t much corroboration of that.

    Now, some things to point out:

    As late as July 12 (when there was already trouble in Western Europe), Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) concelebrated with Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) in the Synodal Cathedral in NYC. https://www.synod.com/synod/eng2021/20210713_ensynod.html That doesn’t sound like a schism being planned.

    In October (when the trouble in Western Europe was in full swing)), ROCOR Archbishop Peter of Chicago went to Ukraine and concelebrated with the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate: https://www.chicagodiocese.org/news_211008_2

    On November 3 there was concelebration between Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) and Metropolitan Joseph of the Antiochian Archdiocese, in the Synodal Cathedral in NYC. I don’t think that would have happened if ROCOR is already in a quiet quasi-schism with Moscow given the very close relations between Moscow and Antioch.

    Finally, as pointed out above, Met. Onufry’s involvement in the ROCOR conference in late November, plus Met. Mark of Berlin meeting with the Patriarch of Serbia Porfiry, who is very much aligned with Moscow.

    None of these would be possible if ROCOR were in some sort of silent schism with Moscow itself (as opposed to a local tiff with some local Russian dioceses).

    Now all these does not mean that ROCOR isn’t currently irritated or miffed with the Patriarchate in Moscow. Indeed there are signs of that: the sudden decision by the Moscow Patriarchate to move its Council of Bishops from November 2021 to May 2022 (with the weak justification that the move was due to COVID), and Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) NOT meeting with any ROCOR cleric during his November visit to the USA — although that may simply have been due to timing considerations. We will know more after the Dec. 5-7 ROCOR Synod meeting.

    Nevertheless, speculation of ROCOR forcing a schism is premature. Even if that were to happen, ROCOR will certainly suffer more from it. Kirill will without a doubt move swiftly to contain such a schism, and I don’t think the Antiochians and Serbians will show any sympathy either. The Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophilus recently thanked Russia for its continuing support; I can see him excommunicating the ROCOR institutions in Jerusalem if they try to go into schism with Moscow again. (Don’t forget that when ROCOR was still discussing reconciliation with Moscow in 2006, both Jerusalem and Serbia made it clear that the continued relations of ROCOR with them will not continue without a reconciliation with Moscow.)

    In the event of a ROCOR schism, I am certain that many ROCOR priests and some bishops will simply jump over to the other jurisdictions under Moscow, or (in the USA) to OCA. The Russian Orthodox Church is far stronger and more organized now that it was 20 years ago, and ROCOR churches are populated by many Russians who would not have touched them without the 2007 reunion.

    It is more likely that rigorists, mainly non-ethnic Russians such as (perhaps) Bishop Irenei and Metropolitan Mark, and some others in Western Europe and the USA will jump into schism and perhaps go to the Old Calendarists while the majority of ROCOR remains in communion with Moscow, finally freed of the remnants of the hyper-rigorism that had begun to take over ROCOR in the 1960’s. Should that happen (and hopefully it won’t), it will be the supreme irony, because Met. Mark was at one point the most pro-Moscow hierarch in ROCOR, while Bishop Irenei as a young man was aligned with the anti-Moscow / pro-Constantinople faction in the Sourozh mini-schism in 2006.

  13. Outside Observer says

    Some things I’d like to point out:

    There is a INCREDIBLE amount of confusion in this thread about the situation in Europe. Moscow has not two, but four jurisdictions in Western Europe:

    1) Patriarchate Exarchate in Western Europe, directly under the Moscow Patriarchate. This was formed in 2018 (with its center in Paris) out of the parishes and dioceses that had remained loyal to Moscow all throughout the 20th – early 21st centuries.

    2) Archdiocese of Orthodox Churches of Russian Tradition, also centered in Paris. This was under Constantinople from 1931 until late 2018, when Bartholomew stupidly tried to dissolve it. The majority of this Archdiocese (including the leader, Archbishop John) then went under Moscow. Patriarch Kirill accepted them into communion in 2019, and raised John to the rank of Metropolitan. Kirill also generously blessed the Archdiocese to elect and consecrate two new assistant bishops, something Bartholomew had refused to give them for some time.

    3) ROCOR’s two dioceses in Western and Central Europe — one for British Isles and the Francophone countries, and another for Germany. ROCOR, of course, has been under Moscow since 2007, albeit retaining a wide autonomy.

    4) Finally, still in development, is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Moscow Patriarchate (led by Met. Onufry of Kyiv) establishing its own parishes recently in Italy, where there are a lot of Ukrainians.

    Many of the comments in this thread evince a confusion between # 1 and # 2. The current kerfuffle in Europe is between # 2 and # 3. It is unclear to what extent # 1 is involved in this kerfuffle. Archpriest Andrew claims that Bishop Irenei of ROCOR refuses to concelebrate with # 1 because # 1 concelebrates with # 2 but there really isn’t much corroboration of that.

    Now, some things to point out:

    As late as July 12 (when there was already trouble in Western Europe), Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) concelebrated with Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) in the Synodal Cathedral in NYC. https://www.synod.com/synod/eng2021/20210713_ensynod.html That doesn’t sound like a schism being planned.

    In October (when the trouble in Western Europe was in full swing)), ROCOR Archbishop Peter of Chicago went to Ukraine and concelebrated with the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate: https://www.chicagodiocese.org/news_211008_2

    On November 3 there was concelebration between Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) and Metropolitan Joseph of the Antiochian Archdiocese, in the Synodal Cathedral in NYC. I don’t think that would have happened if ROCOR is already in a quiet quasi-schism with Moscow given the very close relations between Moscow and Antioch.

    Finally, as pointed out above, Met. Onufry’s involvement in the ROCOR conference in late November, plus Met. Mark of Berlin meeting with the Patriarch of Serbia Porfiry, who is very much aligned with Moscow.

    None of these would be possible if ROCOR were in some sort of silent schism with Moscow itself (as opposed to a local tiff with some local Russian dioceses).

    Now all these does not mean that ROCOR isn’t currently irritated or miffed with the Patriarchate in Moscow. Indeed there are signs of that: the sudden decision by the Moscow Patriarchate to move its Council of Bishops from November 2021 to May 2022 (with the weak justification that the move was due to COVID), and Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) NOT meeting with any ROCOR cleric during his November visit to the USA — although that may simply have been due to timing considerations. We will know more after the Dec. 5-7 ROCOR Synod meeting.

    Nevertheless, speculation of ROCOR forcing a schism is premature. Even if that were to happen, ROCOR will certainly suffer more from it. Kirill will without a doubt move swiftly to contain such a schism, and I don’t think the Antiochians and Serbians will show any sympathy either. The Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophilus recently thanked Russia for its continuing support; I can see him excommunicating the ROCOR institutions in Jerusalem if they try to go into schism with Moscow again. (Don’t forget that when ROCOR was still discussing reconciliation with Moscow in 2006, both Jerusalem and Serbia made it clear that the continued relations of ROCOR with them will not continue without a reconciliation with Moscow.)

    In the event of a ROCOR schism, I am certain that many ROCOR priests and some bishops will simply jump over to the other jurisdictions under Moscow, or (in the USA) to OCA. The Russian Orthodox Church is far stronger and more organized now that it was 20 years ago, and ROCOR churches are populated by many Russians who would not have touched them without the 2007 reunion.

    It is more likely that rigorists, mainly non-ethnic Russians such as (perhaps) Bishop Irenei and Metropolitan Mark, and some others in Western Europe and the USA will jump into schism and perhaps go to the Old Calendarists while the majority of ROCOR remains in communion with Moscow, finally freed of the remnants of the hyper-rigorism that had begun to take over ROCOR in the 1960’s. Should that happen (and hopefully it won’t), it will be the supreme irony, because Met. Mark was at one point the most pro-Moscow hierarch in ROCOR, while Bishop Irenei as a young man was aligned with the anti-Moscow / pro-Constantinople faction in the Sourozh mini-schism in 2006.

  14. Outside Observer says

    https://orthodox-europe.org/content/vevey-statue-st-barbara/

    Nov. 14 – concelebration between a ROCOR bishop (Alexander of Vevey, vicar bishop to Bp. Irenei) and an Abbot of a Moscow Patriarchate monastery in Switzerland.

    Obviously, there is not a blanket ban on concelebration between ROCOR and the MP.

  15. Outside Observer says

    There is a INCREDIBLE amount of confusion in this thread about the situation in Europe. Moscow has not two, but four jurisdictions in Western Europe:

    1) Patriarchate Exarchate in Western Europe, directly under the Moscow Patriarchate. This was formed in 2018 (with its center in Paris) out of the parishes and dioceses that had remained loyal to Moscow all throughout the 20th – early 21st centuries.

    2) Archdiocese of Orthodox Churches of Russian Tradition, also centered in Paris. This was under Constantinople from 1931 until late 2018, when Bartholomew stupidly tried to dissolve it. The majority of this Archdiocese (including the leader, Archbishop John) then went under Moscow. Patriarch Kirill accepted them into communion in 2019, and raised John to the rank of Metropolitan. Kirill also generously blessed the Archdiocese to elect and consecrate two new assistant bishops, something Bartholomew had refused to give them for some time.

    3) ROCOR’s two dioceses in Western and Central Europe — one for British Isles and the Francophone countries, and another for Germany. ROCOR, of course, has been under Moscow since 2007, albeit retaining a wide autonomy.

    4) Finally, still in development, is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Moscow Patriarchate (led by Met. Onufry of Kyiv) establishing its own parishes recently in Italy, where there are a lot of Ukrainians.

    Many of the comments in this thread evince a confusion between # 1 and # 2. The current kerfuffle in Europe is between # 2 and # 3. It is unclear to what extent # 1 is involved in this kerfuffle. Archpriest Andrew claims that Bishop Irenei of ROCOR refuses to concelebrate with # 1 because # 1 concelebrates with # 2 but there really isn’t much corroboration of that.

    Now, some things to point out:

    As late as July 12 (when there was already trouble in Western Europe), Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) concelebrated with Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) in the Synodal Cathedral in NYC. https://www.synod.com/synod/eng2021/20210713_ensynod.html That doesn’t sound like a schism being planned.

    In October (when the trouble in Western Europe was in full swing)), ROCOR Archbishop Peter of Chicago went to Ukraine and concelebrated with the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate: https://www.chicagodiocese.org/news_211008_2

    On November 3 there was concelebration between Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) and Metropolitan Joseph of the Antiochian Archdiocese, in the Synodal Cathedral in NYC. I don’t think that would have happened if ROCOR is already in a quiet quasi-schism with Moscow given the very close relations between Moscow and Antioch.

    Finally, as pointed out above, Met. Onufry’s involvement in the ROCOR conference in late November, plus Met. Mark of Berlin meeting with the Patriarch of Serbia Porfiry, who is very much aligned with Moscow.

    None of these would be possible if ROCOR were in some sort of silent schism with Moscow itself (as opposed to a local tiff with some local Russian dioceses).

    Now all these does not mean that ROCOR isn’t currently irritated or miffed with the Patriarchate in Moscow. Indeed there are signs of that: the sudden decision by the Moscow Patriarchate to move its Council of Bishops from November 2021 to May 2022 (with the weak justification that the move was due to COVID), and Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) NOT meeting with any ROCOR cleric during his November visit to the USA — although that may simply have been due to timing considerations. We will know more after the Dec. 5-7 ROCOR Synod meeting.

    Nevertheless, speculation of ROCOR forcing a schism is premature. Even if that were to happen, ROCOR will certainly suffer more from it. Kirill will without a doubt move swiftly to contain such a schism, and I don’t think the Antiochians and Serbians will show any sympathy either. The Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophilus recently thanked Russia for its continuing support; I can see him excommunicating the ROCOR institutions in Jerusalem if they try to go into schism with Moscow again. (Don’t forget that when ROCOR was still discussing reconciliation with Moscow in 2006, both Jerusalem and Serbia made it clear that the continued relations of ROCOR with them will not continue without a reconciliation with Moscow.)

    In the event of a ROCOR schism, I am certain that many ROCOR priests and some bishops will simply jump over to the other jurisdictions under Moscow, or (in the USA) to OCA. The Russian Orthodox Church is far stronger and more organized now that it was 20 years ago, and ROCOR churches are populated by many Russians who would not have touched them without the 2007 reunion.

    It is more likely that rigorists, mainly non-ethnic Russians such as (perhaps) Bishop Irenei and Metropolitan Mark, and some others in Western Europe and the USA will jump into schism and perhaps go to the Old Calendarists while the majority of ROCOR remains in communion with Moscow, finally freed of the remnants of the hyper-rigorism that had begun to take over ROCOR in the 1960’s. Should that happen (and hopefully it won’t), it will be the supreme irony, because Met. Mark was at one point the most pro-Moscow hierarch in ROCOR, while Bishop Irenei as a young man was aligned with the anti-Moscow / pro-Constantinople faction in the Sourozh mini-schism in 2006.

    • Fr. Andrew Phillips’s take on the brouhaha among the Russians in Europe is here: http://www.events.orthodoxengland.org.uk/reflections-on-an-international-scandal/

      It’s long, but one part attributes the trouble, at root, to the fact that:

      the person responsible […] appeared to be totally unaware of – or in denial of – the historical facts, that the reception of Greek Catholic priests in their orders had been the Tradition of the Russian Church long before the Revolution, as witnessed by the Great Synod of Moscow in 1666–67.

      In America we remember, or should, that this been the practice more recently too; both Father Toth and Bishop Chornock were originally Greek Catholic.

      • Apparently, Sts Ignatius Brianchaninov and Andrew of Ufa speak negatively of 1667.
        America doing non-Orthodox practices shouldn’t be shocking. We should be more concerned why vesting only exists in practice for the most part in the MP, and ignoring Saints is leading to our destruction – look at the west and SVS banning “I believe in One Baptism” because they dislike ‘offending’ the heretical heterodox in regards to the Kollyvades Fathers. There is no broken ‘chain’ of Holy Fathers – either we follow the Saints who agree and guide the Church from generation to generation, or we put ourselves into the fire we deserve as a badly fruited branch. Pretending the Saints didn’t already deal with these issues is protestant – ‘we’ll ‘go back to the early Fathers for what to do” as they ignore St Paisius Velichkovsky, St Nicodemos, the Kollyvades on baptizing heretical “Christians”. Ekonomia is an exception, not a norm – it has been changed into a norm.

        At a logical level, Catholics are so far removed from theology, ascesis and praxis that its ridiculous to vest.

        You can also find St Ignatius urged a true Council to be called which would:

        “The main subjects of the Council’s occupation should be as follows:

        1) Consideration of the decisions by which the Russian Church is now guided, which should be followed by the destruction of decisions that do not agree with the decision
        of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

        The last Russian Council, according to the rules and in the nature of the Orthodox Church, should be recognized by the Council that met in Moscow under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich; at this Council, Patriarch Nikon was deposed.”

        It is in Russian:
        https://pravbeseda.ru/library/index.php?page=book&id=464

        St Andrew of Ufa:
        “For two centuries the position of the Russian Church was not considered or verified by the Council. Since the last years of the 17th century, the West wind has brought a lot of dirty dust into the bowels of the Church and into the bowels of the state, to the detriment of faith, morality and nationality. Ignorance of the Orthodox faith, views on it and on the Church from ideas delivered by debauchery, Protestantism and atheism, were the reason that outsides, alien and hostile to the spirit of the Church, crept into and forcibly introduced into the Orthodox Church decrees that were contrary to the rules and teachings of the Orthodox Church. As a result, accusations are being handed out against the All-Russian Church, accusations are handed out so strong that the denials against them are too weak.”

        Apparently, 1667 overturned 1620 which was a council which mandated baptisms for converts. In 1667 they switched to chrismation.

        • We can’t talk vaguely of “Orthodoxy”, and then just list of our favourite positions, as if Orthodoxy were simply whatever we say it is. That is the way of Protestants, when they try to tell us they “the Bible teaches” whatever they say it does.

          Rather, it is a matter of actual Churches. And the Russian Orthodox Church is very clear here in approving the reception on Catholic clergy by vesting and concelebration.

          There’s no question that the Synod of 1667 has been received as the authentic position of the Russian Church, from the 17th–21st centuries.

          Certainly, there are elements of Greek tradition that express different views. But they do not have the authority to override the Synods of the MP, over 300 years of Russian tradition, and the witness of canonized Russian Orthodox saints.

          • Alexander, it tends to be the general accusation of Roman Catholics against the Orthodox: that the Orthodox are really just a bunch of high-church Protestants operating willy nilly and frequently breaking communion with each other.

            • Yes, there’s unfortunately an element of truth in this accusation, particularly regarding converts like Bp Irenei and his fans. A big part of the problem here is when we speak vaguely and abstractly of “Orthodoxy”, rather than of the real Church to which we belong. E.g. Metr Elpidophoros is not “Orthodox” in the abstract; he is a member of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. We need to stop talking about “Orthodoxy” in the way that Episcopalians talk about “Anglicanism” – each of us is a member of a Church, not an adherent of an “-ism”…

    • Dear Outside Observer,

      The titles of the jurisdictions involved can be confusing, so here I will try to clarify them and show which ones we meant.

      1A) The Russian Orthodox Diocese of Sourozh under Bp. Matthew (Andreev) of Bogorodskis a diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), covering Great Britain and Ireland. “Founded in October 1962, the diocese was headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) until his death in 2003. Since the adoption of its new statutes in 2010, the Diocese was placed under the direct and personal… authority of the Patriarch of Moscow… Since 28 December 2018, the Diocese of Sourozh is part of the Patriarchal Exarchate in Western Europe. (PEWE) … In [2017], Matthew (Andreev) of Bogorodsk was… appointed as ruling Bishop of the diocese of Sourozh.” ~ Wikipedia.

      1B) The Patriarchal Exarchate in Western Europe (PEWE) under Archbishop Anthony (Sevryuk) “is an exarchate created by the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) on 28 December 2018. The primate of the PEWE is Metropolitan Anthony (Sevryuk) who holds the title of ‘Metropolitan of Chersonesus and Western Europe’.

      The history of the Patriarchal Exarchate is that:

      On September 7, 1945, by the decision of the Holy Synod of the ROC, The Western European Exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate was established, headed by Metropolitan Eulogius (Georgievsky)… However, in France, almost the entire clergy and flock of Metropolitan Eulogy wished to remain under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. … The Council of bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on January 30 — 31, 1990… abolished the Western European Exarchate. Its dioceses {as with the Diocese of Sourozh} were directly subjected to the Moscow Patriarch.

      Then, “On 27 November 2018 the synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate decided to dissolve the Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe (AROCWE)”. This was a separate organization under the CP. “On 28 December 2018, in response to the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s actions in Ukraine,[17] the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church decided to create ‘a Patriarchal Exarchate in Western Europe with the center in Paris’ … The person chosen to be the primate primate of the PEWE as well as of the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Chersonesus was Bishop John (Roschchin) of Bogorodsk. … On 30 May 2019, the Holy Synod of the ROC decided to appoint archbishop Anthony (Sevryuk) of Vienna and Budapest as primate of the PEWE.” ~ Wikipedia

      I didn’t intend to say that ROCOR Western Europe broke ties with the PEWE-MP or with the Diocese of Sourozh. Rather, Fr. Andrew Philips said that Bp. Irenei (ROCOR UK) told him in the presence of others that he (Bp. Irenei) was planning to bring ROCOR out of relations with the MP. If Bp. Irenei indeed said this, it would go along with what you mentioned about Bp. Irenei having been part of an “anti-Moscow” faction in the UK years ago.

      2A) The Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe (AROCWE MP) under Abp./Metropolitan John {Jean Renneteau}, AKA Archdiocese of Parishes of the Russian Tradition in Western Europe “is a Paris-headquartered diocese consisting of parishes in Russian orthodox tradition, located in Western Europe.”
      The Archdiocese page says:
      “Canonically attached to the Patriarchate of Moscow, the Archdiocese is headed by His Eminence the Metropolitan John {Jean Renneteau} of Doubna… The head office is located 12 rue Daru, Paris 8th, near the Saint Alexander Nevsky Cathedral. Attached to it are: the Orthodox Theological Institute of Saint Serge…”
      Website: http://archeveche.eu/en/
      https://www.facebook.com/groups/exarchateuk/

      In 1931, AROCWE went under the CP as an Exarchate, and then in 1965, the CP abolished its status as an Exarchate. Then in 1999-2018, the CP gave AROCWE the status of an Exarchate. The AROCWE left the CP in 2019 to join the MP. I have been mistakenly calling the AROCWE as the MP’s “Western European Exarchate”, since I knew that the CP had held it in the status of an Exarchate.

      Wikipedia notes about the AROCWE:

      In 1965, it declared itself “an independent and self-sufficient Archdiocese of the Orthodox Church of France and Western Europe”. From 1971 to 1999, it was affiliated to the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of France. From 1999 to 2018, it was the Exarchate of the Orthodox Russian churches in Western Europe under the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

      Is the AROCWE a member of the PEWE (MP)?

      What I meant to say in my Comments in Monomakhos was that ROCOR-Western Europe stopped concelebration with the AROCWE (MP) under Met. Jean of Dubna, not with the “Patriarchal Exarchate” PEWE MP parishes like the Diocese of Sourozh. The only specific justification by ROCOR for this break that I’ve seen is what Fr. Andrew Philips related, ie. ROCOR UK’s objection to AROCWE’s acceptance of a convert from the Eastern Catholic Church via vesting instead of by baptism or by chrismation.

      2B) The Vicariate of the Greek Metropolis of France (CP) for the former AROCWE, under the CP. What is the official name for the Vicariate of former AROCWE parishes that stayed under the CP?

      Wikipedia notes:
      “On 7 February 2019, Metropolitan Emmanuel of France wrote a letter to the priests of the AROCWE. In his letter, Emmanuel declared he was ready to give within his Metropolis of France the statute of vicariate to the members of the AROCWE”.
      “Metropolitan Emmanuel sent out a circular inviting clergy and laypeople who “confirmed their commitment to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and/or refused to join the Moscow Patriarchate” to a meeting on October 5 at St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Paris to consider the establishment of a Vicariate of Russian tradition.”

      Peace.

      • What you and Outside Observer just described is a mess. And it confirms that there are a host of complicated jurisdictional politics and posturing happening. I pray that all Orthodox leaders involved come together and pray for a solution.

        • Outside Observer says

          To be fair to the Moscow Patriarchate, its desire is the eventual unification of its own overlapping jurisdictions in Western Europe and North America into just one. It is ROCOR and the formerly-under-Constantinople Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe (henceforth AROCWE) that are not ready for this, due to the different “ethos” and style of governance in each.

          To oversimplify, AROCWE represents the historically more liberal wing of Russian Orthodoxy in the West, while ROCOR represents the most conservative. (The Moscow Patriarchate’s direct presence in Western Europe spans the whole spectrum from very liberal to very conservative..) AROCWE is the only branch of Russian Orthodoxy to implement the resolutions of the 1917 All-Russian Council of Moscow when it comes to its internal governance.

          Internally, AROCWE was in turn divided into more conservative and more modernist factions. This factionalism was resolved in 2018-2019 when the more modernist and anti-contemporary-Russian elements remained under Constantinople after Constantinople tried to dissolve AROCWE into deaneries under the different Greek dioceses in Western Europe. A few others went off to the Romanians, Serbians and Bulgarians. More than half of AROCWE went with Archbishop John to the MP, which made him a Metropolitan.

          Among the parishes that went to Moscow were the AROCWE’s Cathedral in Paris, the venerable Saint-Serge Institute, and most of its old “Russian” parishes in Paris. The AROCWE was already relatively small, and the “Russian” parishes in Paris as well as a few other cities had remained its heart. These largely preserved the Old Calendar and the traditional Russian liturgical ethos. The liturgies in its Paris Cathedral are magnificent, reminiscent of ROCOR: https://www.youtube.com/c/CathédraleSaintAlexandreNevskyàParis

          Ironically, if you want to see “traditional” Russian liturgy in Paris you are better off going to AROCWE. The Moscow Patriarchate’s own seminary in Paris is dominated by liberals who sometimes experiment with the liturgy.

          There was historically a lot of bad blood between ROCOR and AROCWE, and between these two and the MP’s own Western European dioceses, and this cannot be forgotten or buried overnight. I think Patriarch Kirill is wise to not force the issue of reunification between the three jurisdictions, and to let time heal all wounds.

          • Outside Observer,
            Good comments by you.

            One problem with advocating for the MP to intervene with its members to restore communion, AROCWE and ROCOR, is that it would naturally lead to ROCOR leaving the MP, as well as potentially breaking communion with any Church, like the OCA, that accepts priestly converts from the Eastern Catholic Churches via vesting.

            Since the centuries-long Russian Tradition usually uses the method of accepting Converts from the Eastern Catholic Church via vesting (Please correct me if I am mistaken on that), the Russian Church could realistically only solve the problem by telling the ROCOR that this practice is allowed, or at least not enough reason to break communion. It would be an interchurch mess if this was a basis for breaking communion, because ROCOR could also break relations with the OCA, etc. over this.

            The reason why this creates a problem is that Bp. Irenei, and perhaps even ROCOR itself, would not likely accept such a solution, since
            A) Fr Andrew claims Bp. Irenei told him in the presence of others that he plans to take ROCOR out of the MP. And in that case, rather than the MP’s intervention being a solution, it would end up being a pretext for ROCOR UK to leave the MP. And
            B) RISU the Ukrainian news source is claiming that ROCOR is boycotting the MP’s upcoming synod meeting.

            One option would be for ROCOR’s hierarchy to intervene, but they don’t seem to be doing that. For this to happen, it would help if ROCOR’s parishioners and clergy in Western Europe would object. A third option would be for Fr. Siemens to take it upon himself to get a separate, EO, ordination as BP Irenei would want for the sake of unity, but one would want to carefully analyze the EO teachings on the issue before doing that. Besides, Fr Siemens’ reordination might at most only temporarily solve the issue, because
            A) it wouldn’t address whatever the real issue is, and
            B) BP. Mark is claiming that AROCWE is violating canons “at every step,” so there would foreseeably be many other such stumbling blocks in the future.

  16. There is no problem with comments disappearing and needing to be re-posted, but as I understand it they undergo moderation, which may take a day, given the time available. So no sense getting impatient with not seeing all that good information appear instantaneously.

  17. Christine, you mention that Metropolitan Tikhon is playing “both sides”.

    By that same reasoning, isn’t the Patriarch of Antioch playing both sides? Isn’t the Patriarch of Jerusalem playing both sides? I could go down the list. If most of the heads of the Orthodox Churches are “playing both sides” then why shouldn’t Metropolitan Tikhon also?

    The only autocephalous church that has broken communion with Constantinople is the Church of Russia. Since the OCA was granted autocephaly from the Church of Russia, it has no current obligation or directive coming from Russia to follow it into schism. Metropolitan Tikhon is simply being true to his given charge as the primate of an autocephalous church.

    • Riddle me this, Steve. What if the EP created a mirror image of the OCA here in America? Instead of the Orthodox Church of America, they called it the Orthodox Church in America. They installed a morally bankrupt hierarchy, elevated a sham of a priest as their Metropolitan, took over OCA monasteries, buildings, churches, resources, and lands and gave them all to their new OCA. The legitimate OCA was essentially replaced by a fake EP mirror church. Lines were drawn. Even violence ensued. And the OCA looked for help and support from other Orthodox jurisdictions. Initially there was some outcry about the dissolving of the legitimate OCA, but that fizzled to a few vague press releases put on websites and a few publicized concelebrations. Time went on, and Orthodox jurisdictions began showing up events including the fake OCA, at public events and even services. They even started going so far as to create official missions and liaisions with the noncanonical, fake, illegitimate OCA.

      What we are seeing the EP do in Ukraine is exactly what I have just outlined. And guess what? In the timeline of history, there is a large red arrow pointing to this moment saying “You are here.” The lack of action on the part of Orthodox leadership to actively help the true Orthodox Church in Ukraine brings me to tears.

      You ask about the other hierarchs who are on the fence, and you are absolutely right. I should have called them out too. You ask why Metropolitan Tikhon shouldn’t play sides since the other hierarchs are playing sides. If those other Metropolitans aren’t standing for justice and truth, why should he? It’s like little boys on the schoolyard, afraid to do anything about the bully on the jungle gym. They’re all OK as long as they go along, play both sides of the fence, and pretend everything is going to work out if they just be a bystander and adopt a wait-and-see-who-wins approach.

      Yes it is hard. But of whom much has been given, much is required.

      • Gail Sheppard says

        Great comment, Christine.

        • George Michalopulos says

          It is indeed! Excellent points, I would add touche!

          That said, the EP won’t do what you said in America because that would undermine the GOA, which is “the jewel in the crown”.

          • More specifically, you would have to look at the CP’s relations with the ACROD and UOC-USA vis a vis the OCA. There has probably been more than one ACROD parish that has left the OCA to join the CP over the Calendar issue that was once divisive in the OCA, even though the CP actually uses the New Calendar. Plus, during the Cold War, why didn’t the ACROD parishes join the OCA when the ACROD parishes left the Byzantine Catholic Church? Wasn’t it Cold War pressures that played a role?

            One difference between Christine’s scenario and the US situation is that in Ukraine, the government seems to be siding with the OCU against the UOC (MP), which helps the OCU perform hostile takeovers. During the Cold War, I don’t know how much if any pressure the US government put on ACROD to avoid joining the MP or the OCA. I do know that there was Cold War pressure against the ACROD to try to stop them from becoming Orthodox.

          • The false mirror church in America fighting for church properties already happened in the 1920’s. It came from Russia. The Soviet Living Church was trying to take over the Metropolia, and Metropolitan Platon spent many years trying to fend off church property lawsuits coming from this fake church. In the end, the Soviets only won the St. Nicholas Cathedral in New York City. The future Metropolitan Leonty was sadly evicted from what would have been his cathedral, and that parish had to relocate to Manhattan’s Lower East Side.

            • Gail Sheppard says

              I believe the courts have ruled that because we are a hierarchal church, the archdioceses get the church property in a “divorce.” Not sure if that applies to the monasteries who often have a separate agreement with respect to who owns what.

      • Christine,

        Let’s suppose the OCA’s Holy Synod of Bishops decides to condemn Patriarch Bartholomew, Metropolitan Tikhon stops commemorating him, and the OCA goes into schism with the Greek Archdiocese. I don’t think the Greek Archdiocese would really care one bit, but they would probably wonder if the OCA was being threatened somehow by Russia with having their autocephaly rescinded. That would certainly be my reaction and question if this happened.

        At any rate, the only real power the OCA has for Orthodoxy unity is as servant, not as master. There’s that quote from Archbishop Dimitri of blessed memory:

        “The Orthodox Church in America is autocephalous not in order to be self-sufficient and isolated, but in order to be in living communion and close contact with all Orthodox Churches…
        The Orthodox Church in America received autocephaly not in order to be master of Orthodox unity in America but in order to be a servant of this unity.”

        I believe Archbishop Dimitri’s words are presently being fulfilled. The OCA is a servant of Orthodox unity, not only in America, but also world-wide. The OCA’s autocephaly uniquely allows for this. It is also important to note that Metropolitan Tikhon continues to have very good relations with Metropolitan Onuphrey of the Church in Ukraine. Just in the past year, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow has personally thanked Metropolitan Tikhon for his support of the suffering Church in Ukraine.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Very good points, Steve. You are quite right to quote the Venerable Dmitri of thrice-blessed memory. That is the true spirit behind the OCA’s autocephaly.

          Having said that, it shows that there are two wild cards in America that stand in the way of Bartholomew’s globalist schemes: first, the OCA and second, ROCOR.

          To put our cards on the table, ROCOR’s wild card is being played right now all over the world where the EP is trying to take over –even in Greece and Cyprus. Since the MP has broken communion with the EP, the latter’s patriarchate is a canonical nullity. Hence any priest, bishop, diocese or parish that wants to go to ROCOR can do so with a simple phone call. None of the tedious transfer agreements are necessary.

          This would be the case with OCA ordinands and parishes should Syosset accede to Bart creating an “autonomous” (read: ukrocephalic) church in North America.

          While I do not want to predict the future I can look at the recent past. With the passing of Fr Leonid Kishkovsky of recent memory, there was actually no mention whatsoever of the EP’s recent “apostolic journey and hospital visits” to the US. Trust me, had he still been in charge, he would have greeted Bart on the tarmac and carried his luggage for him.

          That said, I have sensed a growing confidence in the OCA episcopate of late. Personally, we should all hope that they continue their vocation as the autocephalous church that they are.

          • “With the passing of Fr Leonid Kishkovsky of recent memory, there was actually no mention whatsoever of the EP’s recent “apostolic journey and hospital visits” to the US. Trust me, had he still been in charge, he would have greeted Bart on the tarmac and carried his luggage for him.”

            George,
            I am guessing that you are right (even if exaggerating about the luggage), but it’s also hard to predict how people would react in changing circumstances. I had a high opinion of Pat. Bartholomew before he announced his “first without equals” policy and intervened in Ukraine. The CP’s various interventions scooping up Eastern European Churches was something that did not make much of an impression on me.

            The First Without Equals Theology and the OCU’s “installment” into Orthodoxy are two events that the OCA simply cannot accept, for theological, ecclesiastical, and practical reasons.

            The first blunt practical reason is that the OCA, as an autocephalous Church so much dedicated to its independence cannot accept the CP being its head: In 1946, the OCA’s 7th Sobor (All American Assembly, the Highest Body in the OCA) voted to both restore relations with the MP and to be autocephalous. The MP on the other hand would not accept the OCA’s desire for autocephaly, and this was a key reason why the MP continued to consider the OCA excommunicated until 1970, when the MP actually accepted the OCA’s autocephaly. I would have a hard time seeing the OCA giving up its autocephaly for the CP as its new head.

            Were leading figures of the OCA’s past, from Fr. Hopko to Fr. Schmemann still alive, I would have a hard time imagining that they would endorse the CP’s new course of First Without Equals and intervention in Ukraine, even if they made an announcement of the CP’s latest US visit. P. Bartholomew can’t be the same figure in the eyes of the Churches of Russian Tradition (eg. AROCWE, ROCOR, MP, OCA, UOC-MP) that he once was.

            And the second practical reason is that the OCA can’t afford go off the reservation in its relations to the MP with regard to the OCU, because if the MP were to cut or suspend ties with the OCA like the MP did with the CP, then the OCA would go into a weird Limbo again like in the years 1945-1970, because the CP only recognizes the OCA to the extent that the MP recognizes the OCA. This is because the CP, as well as a few other Churches do not recognize the OCA’s autocephalous.

            • Hal, in support of your last point, the Greek Archdiocese actually broke communion with the pre-OCA Metropolia in 1967.

              Archbishop Iakovos had been very friendly and helpful to the Metropolia up until that point by allowing it to join SCOBA, but then he was directed by Constantinople to sever ties.

              However, this only happened in deference to the Russian Church who had complained to Constantinople that the Greek Archdiocese was “interfering” in their Russian territory and communing with “schismatics” by letting the Metropolia join SCOBA.

              The Russian Church was still in schism with the Metropolia, and this was the real reason why the Greek Archdiocese was directed to break communion with it.

              It wasn’t until the Metropolia received autocephaly that it was safe for Archbishop Iakovos to restore relations once again, but this time with the newly autocephalous OCA.

      • Christine,

        Just a minor note of correction. Forgive me, because I definitely do get your point.

        The OCA is the Orthodox Church in America. This is the correct ‘official’ name.

        https://www.oca.org/

        • Thank you, Brian. I was having a Boston Tea Party moment, tossing everything overboard, and in my rush forgot to check on that! Much appreciated.

  18. I think the problem is slightly more complicated. Yes the EP plays a role in it, but that is an ‘outside problem’, here the main issue at stake is an ‘inner problem’ which comes purely from the multiple overlapping Russian jurisdiction.

    Due to the years of Godless rule in Russia, the Russian Church had to split as decreed by St. Tikhon (and rightfully so), it has done no end of good by spreading the words or our Lord throughout the entire World and created true Saints as St John of Shanghai and San Francisco. The problem now it has been 30 years since the Godless communists are gone, how to regroup the overlapping jurisdictions? In 2018, the very last remnant re-joined the Russian Church (MP Archdiocese of Western Europe, Originally from Metr. Evlogy of Paris). However this means there are 3 separate Russian jurisdictions in Europe (ROCOR, the MP and the MP Archdiocese) all with the their own separate Bishops; the same in North America (ROCOR, MP, OCA) – the decades of going our separate ways and the fact that some were originally and more ethnically Russian while others Carpathian or Ukrainian, etc… means there are some differences in between traditions and ways of doing things, but are still within the canons (in the Rocor’s case there was heavy influence of Greek Old calendarists in the 1960s). Rocor were fine with the Archdiocese when they were under the EP as it was a different Patriarchate and could differentiate themselves from them through this, now they are within the MP they don’t like it as it’s somewhat of a competition (of the ‘Russian emigration church’). I suspect back in 2018 Rocor must have been against their reception in the MP but it wasn’t their choice to make and ever since have been waiting for any reason to break ties with them, this happened last year when they received a Uniat Priest through vesting/confession/concelebration. There has never been any collaboration in between them and sometimes you hear hateful and nasty words towards one another, if you dig down deep enough for the reason, it is all simply because they are competing with each other ! competing financially, for people, for the nicest Church, nicest choirs and because some believe only they represent the true Russian Emigration Church, which is pride (as clearly displayed by Metr. Mark by dismissing others as outside the church or being far away somewhere, ‘only we are the true church’!).  There are 2 or even 3 Russian Bishops in the same cities and this simply cannot continue! The MP and P. Kyrill are the only ones so far that have tried to regroup at least some under one jurisdiction (doing it 1 step at a time), from what I understand a few years ago they had proposed to ROCOR a swap for their parishes in North America for the Rocor European ones, the Rocor Synod refused and told them to never ask again. Now Rocor breaking communion extremely quickly and for something so small and ambiguous as accepting priests by vesting/confession/concelebration (which is canonically correct!) and then attempting to defrock clergy that left them because of this, this is madness! We are indeed at a crossroad, but we need to make a choice and this needs to come from each of us, the people of God! Do we continue in our own separate ways with our continued (in)fighting (what would we do if we didn’t fight, right!?) which the EP wants us to do (they want to divide us!), or do we humble ourselves and accept to be part of ONE Russian church under the Patriarch of Moscow, understanding that some within us will be different because of our seperate past and (quite often tearful) history, traditions and ethnic origins as it was done in a different way to what we know! I have to say I’m disappointed with the Rocor (at least their European Hierarchs), I think of rocor so highly, but here they are clearly wrong and the synod (so far silent) should stop the mess and look to patch things up as opposed to worsening the situation.  

    • Philippe,
      One Commentor here said that Abp. Irenei was part of an anti-MP / pro-CP faction in the U.K. Diocese of Sourozh (MP) years ago. I don’t know any details on this, but this could help explain part of where Bp. Irenei would be coming from.

      If Abp. Irenei was pro-CP then, why would he be so decisively hostile to AROCWE’s more flexible/ekonomic practices that are characteristic of the CP and that AROCWE would have been approving when AROCWE was under the CP just a few years ago? Already back in 2017 GOARCH was accepting converts without rebaptising them, whereas ROCOR’s policy has long been rebaptism. This does not make sense in light of Abp. Irenei being part of a supposed pro-CP faction years ago and only now in 2021 making conversion rituals a litmus test for concelebration. Is Abp. Irenei going to advocate breaking relations with all other Churches (OCA, MP, etc.) that use the same practices for accepting converts as the AROCWE does? If he really was anti-MP decades ago, his anti-MP stance and Fr. Andrew’s story of Bp. Irenei’s plan to bring ROCOR out of the MP would serve as a better explanation of his actions than his official reason of objecting to conversion via vesting.

      • I think there are two different issues here:

        On the one hand there is Bp Irenei’s hostility to Moscow. On the other hand there is Bp Irenei’s previous alignment with the EP.

        I suggest that Bp Irenei’s primary position here is one of opposition to the Moscow, and that his alignment with Constantinople was a means to promote his anti-Moscow agenda.

        This ecclesiastical position, it seems to me, is itself rooted in secular American geopolitical attitudes from the pre-Obama period. (NB Bp Irenei’s family connections to NATO, in this regard, and the American supremacist attitudes of which Europeans have repeatedly complained.)

        One thing that strikes me particularly strongly is his 2006 anti-MP piece. Here, Irenei opposed the MP for “Russification” and wanting to install a Russian Bishop (in an MP diocese!). Yet his own solution to the problems of the Russian Diocese in the British Isles was to install an American Bishop. Moreover, as an American who was neither Russian nor British, he felt empowered to pontificate to everyone how the Russian Diocese in Great Britain should be run. Clearly for Irenei, whilst it was illegitimate foreign intervention for the MP to run its own Diocese in a Russian manner, there was nothing illegitimately foreign about Sourozh being headed and directed by Americans. This double-standard is, I think, a telling instance of Irenei’s own view of the world.

        (Cf. also Irenei’s attempts to Americanize ROCOR in the UK: insisting on the use of American service books – even for Slavonic – on the use of American English, and on conformity to the liturgical practices of San Francisco, to replace local practices.)

        If I’m right, then Irenei’s recent actions make very good sense. He is concerned with ROCOR’s freedom from Moscow, with establishing it as a primarily American Church. He doesn’t object to connections with MP where he is influencing them (e.g. by sitting on committees and reading papers). But he objects to MP in any way determining ROCOR.

        His aim then is to oppose any integration of ROCOR to MP – whether at the ecclesiastical or theological level – and he has been actively looking for opportunities to separate ROCOR from MP.

        Beyond this, Bp Irenei plays to an American base. Despite having been a pro-Constantinople modernist in the past, Bp Irenei’s base is now the “traditionalist convert” wing of ROCOR. Hence his willingness to go so hard on the issue of “laxness regarding heterodox sacraments”.

        And of course Irenei is evidently very ambitious for himself. But there is no chance of Irenei, as a non-Russian, non-emigre convert from Lutheranism, rising to the position of First Hierarch in a Church under the sway of Moscow.

        • Alexander,
          You are giving new, significant information here.
          You made a good point that pro or anti MP is distinct from pro or anti CP. In what way was he formerly specifically pro Constantinople?

          I only am inclined to disagree with the last paragraph. Theoretically, despite being an American Lutheran Convert, he could rise to a first hierarch of ROCOR (the church “under the sway of the MP”) due to potential developments in ROCOR. ROCOR for instance apparently is now using English in Jordanville.

        • Really good points here Alexander. Thanks for sharing.

        • A collision of two clerical personalities and my inability to help mend the breach between them led to an intervention by newly minted Bp. Irenei in the summer of 2018. He and I spent and hour together, one on one. I found him to have a charismatic presence that exudes authority. His attitude toward this layman was pastoral and instructive. But, taking the side of the priest, he came down hard and fast on the deacon, banishing him, and setting cumbersome conditions for his return to the parish. The deacon is to this day wandering around the desert alienated from the Church. We remain friends and communicate often, but I am powerless to undo the damage done and bring him back to the fold.

          Bp. Irenei may have doctorates from Oxford, but perhaps he needs to go to the School of Hard Knocks in order for him to obtain a humble Orthodox spirit. Oddly, I agree with the young bishop’s rigorous stance vis a vis receiving non-Orthodox clergy and laymen into the Church. I myself was happily convinced and (re)baptized when I was initiated into the Faith. Notwithstanding, the greater the rigor applied, the greater the need to apply it with pastoral charity, keeping lines of communication open for reconciliation. The Devil rejoices when he is able to scatter the flock and drive the sheep to the wolves. For that reason, everything that the senior clergy do, they must do as Christ himself would do for the sake of Church unity in the bond of love.

  19. Outside Observer says

    Many priests have been received into both the Moscow Patriarchate and OCA by “vesting” in recent years.

    Fr. Gabriel Bunge OSB – received into the MP, 2010: https://www.orthodoxtoronto.ca/fr_bunge.html
    Fr. Constantin Simon SJ – received into the MP, 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ksr6Sb_2A

    Fr. Jan Cizmar – received into the OCA, 2021: https://domoca.org/vesting-takes-place-for-new-cleveland-cathedral-priest/ (Fr. Cizmar was also chrismated though.)

    Two of OCA’s bishops are former Catholic priests, both were received by vesting:

    Archbishop Nathaniel (Popp), vested (?) in 1968: https://roea.orthodoxws.com/biography1 (it is not explicitly stated that he was vested, but there is no mention that he was ever re-ordained either.)
    Bishop Daniel (Brum) of Sta. Rosa, vested in 1997: https://www.dowoca.org/his-grace-daniel-bishop-of-santa-rosa/

    • Thanks for sharing. BP. Irenei was fine with being in communion with them when he was in the US. Is he going to ban intercommunion with the OCA now too?????????

      • It’s exactly this that suggests to me that there’s something else going on that we’ve not been made aware of.

      • Met. Anthony (Sevruk), head of the Patriarchal PEWE (MP), has made a comment today on the AROCWE – ROCOR situation. He seems to be trying to smooth over relations and hoping that they will work things out:

        “The ROC commented on the criticism of the Paris Archdiocese by the hierarch of the ROCOR”
        https://raskolam.net/en/46254-u-rpc-prokomentuvali-kritiku-parizkoi-arhiepiskopii-ierarhom-rpcz

        This article is in more detail in Russian:
        https://ria.ru/20211202/arkhiepiskopiya-1761743724.html

        • Metr. Anthony may seem to be trying to smooth over the relation, the fact remains Bishop Irenei and Metr. Mark HAVE broken communion with the MP Archdiocese, how can he say otherwise when there are letters and even videos evidence of them saying so! Their priests and lay people are banned from concelebrating/communing or having anything to do with them, this is a break in communion, FACT! I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it’s all about competition, Bishop Irenei firmly believes he should be the only Russian jurisdiction Bishop in Britain ! forgive me for my words, I have seen it before in other young bishops, the power simply goes to their heads. The issue of vesting (which he knows as canonically correct) is purely an excuse and hiding behind the fact that he doesn’t accept competition on what he regards as his territory. For me that is the only reason behind all of this, power, dominance and territory, unless there is a dark secret as some suggested, but this would surely have been mentioned by now would that be the case. The problem is he never expected some his clergy to so firmly disagree with him and leave as whistle blowers, he underestimated the consequences. The synod has been so far silent, Metr. Mark acted unilaterally backing up his younger Bishop so that Rocor does not lose face and he himself has not even shown any evidence of the MP Archdiocese ‘breaking the canons at every step’. I’m still very concerned by his comment on the OCA (‘stepped away from the church away somewhere’), he doesn’t think of us any highly than the MP archdiocese, in other words would Metr. Mark be in the USA he would likely break communion with the OCA the same way! Bishop Irenei was never a diocesan Bishop in the USA, only a vicar, so was restricted in what he could do whilst here.

          2 important dates coming up, the Rocor Synod and the Moscow synod. I’m sure both will discuss the matter and possibly will take further actions! I do think the Rocor synod will be divided though, either they back up the current situation (and I hope prove evidence of the reasons for it, which we are so far missing, I believe because are non-existant) or else clear the mess and try to patch things up with all parties concerned and bring their bishop in line.

          May I ask, why hasn’t this been picked up by orthochristian website, this surely merits a news article? It’s not every day that a jurisdiction break communion with another, especially within the same patriarchate!

          • George Michalopulos says

            Philippe, thank you for this succinct analysis.

          • I saw this is now finally published on orthochristian website, I remove my comment, thank you!

          • Philippe,
            You were rote that BP Mark said the OCA (‘stepped away from the church away somewhere’). When I read the RISU Ukrainian article, I expected that statement too.
            Then when I heard his actual video speech, I saw he meant that the OCA left from the Russian Church, and not specifically from Orthodoxy per se.

            I also I should clarify that he is complaining about the AROCWE MP Archdiocese based in Rue Daru Paris, not the Patriarchal PEWE. I don’t know if the AROCWE is under the PEWE, but rather a brother, so to speak, under the MP.

          • Orthodox Heart says

            “Bishop Irenei and Metr. Mark HAVE broken communion with the MP Archdiocese, how can he say otherwise when there are letters and even videos evidence of them saying so!”

            There is a big distinction between 1) ceasing or banning concelebration, and 2) breaking communion (which involves the laity).

            Even the Moscow Patriarchate first ceased concelebration with the EP and commemoration of Bartholomew, before breaking communion, over the Ukrainian schismatics. Those are two different steps.

            What ROCOR’s bishops in Europe have done is to ban concelebration, but they have no authority to break communion with another part of their own Patriarchate.

            • Orthodox Heart,
              Unfortunately, Bp Irenei’s Directive said that ROCOR UK laity should not commune in AROCWE UK churches. I don’t recall him banning AROCWE UK laity from communing in ROCOR UK churches.

    • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

      The problem with Orthodox jurisdictions “receiving” Roman Catholic or Byzantine Catholic priests by vesting alone is the explicit recognition of their “Holy Orders”–as if their bishops (who preside over heretical institutions) have the capability of “ordaining” anyone to anything. Is the Church one or fragmented into various “denominations”? That question is key to a traditional, coherent Orthodox ecclesiology. The practice of “vesting,” however rare or whoever invokes it as good Orthodox practice, appears to be a logical extension of the widespread practice of “acknowledging” the “baptism” of Roman Catholics, Uniates, and Protestants as “valid” and equivalent to baptism in the Holy Orthodox Church. If anyone may experience and benefit from one of the holy mysteries (“sacraments” in Western parlance) outside the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church–i.e., Holy Orthodoxy–why not any of or all others? What then makes Orthodoxy uniquely true, faithful to Christ, and worthwhile? Obviously the premise is false.

      • Fr. Alexander,

        I have heard of the practice of reception by vesting but have always believed that it crossed the line, whatever that may be. I can understand receiving a layman who experienced a heterodox “baptism” with threefold immersion by chrismation, by economia, on the authority of a bishop. However, receiving Roman Catholics by confession if they experienced the outward form of baptism and chrismation and the further reception of “ordained” RCC clergy by vesting, etc., seem to me to be mistakes, however long a pedigree they might have.

        I’m not fond of any reception other than by baptism, frankly, but there is substantial witness that this and that father allowed the reception of entire categories of heretics by chrismation. Perhaps that was always a mistake too. Church Fathers sometimes erred. It is only in those opinions they held with near unanimity and from antiquity that constitute the catholic faith.

        In this age, I don’t think you can go wrong with “baptize everyone”, even converting RCC clergy. It is indisputable that they have never received an effective baptism outside the Church, or any other mystery for that matter, and so there is no question of “rebaptism”. This also draws a bright line around the Church making it crystal clear that there is no “church” outside Orthodoxy.

        That being said, it is really for a synod to declare such a policy and it would be best of the ROCOR synod decreed their policy on this issue. Russian policy vis a vis Uniates has been very fuzzy on this issue, probably for political reasons. It’s probably time to end all that now.

        • Gail Sheppard says

          I agree completely, Misha.

          • Thank you, Gail.

            The situation we have today is that there has been a minimizing of the significance of abandoning the Church for heterodoxy, whether Uniatism, Roman rite RCC, or Protestantism, and an unholy enshrining of the false proposition that we are all somehow the Church. Bypassing baptism simply has that incontrovertible effect and the variance in “theories” behind the efficacy of mysteries purportedly served outside the Church is conclusive testimony to the nature of the whole thing as a scandal and travesty.

            It should be Orthodoxy 101 that no mysteries served outside the Church have any effect vis a vis grace. One cannot die and be reborn with Christ into the Holy Church outside the Holy Church. The very notion is completely ridiculous. So the only acceptable explanation for the reception by chrismation or confession is that the empty rites of heretics are filled by the grace of the Holy Spirit at the time and under the form of the actual reception.

            In the case in question, the reception of Uniate clergy, you have baptism bypassed, chrismation bypassed, confession bypassed and ordination bypassed – four mysteries bypassed to receive someone who is not even a layman in the Church into the Church in orders. That this is not self evidently a travesty speaks ill of our present spiritual state. The more zealous Athonites will baptize even those laymen received by chrismation.

            Why bypass baptism in the first place? I have never, ever heard a satisfactory answer to this question and, frankly, I do not believe there is one other than the unsatisfactory excuse of political considerations. Christ told us to go and baptize all nations in the name of the Trinity – not to chrismate or confess all nations. The external symbolism of the mystery of baptism as death and rebirth is lost by all alternative means of reception.

            And that is really the crux of the matter. The one and only way to solidly preserve the identity of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is by drawing a bright red line between her and heterodoxy. Baptism accomplishes this. There is no such thing as “rebaptism” when one receives an Orthodox baptism for the first time. Nothing less is baptism because nothing less than Orthodoxy is in any sense the Church and only the Church can receive converts.

            Truthfully, the rest of it is lies, bs and an economia exercised here and there in a very different spiritual age. If we cited every exception ever made as precedent for a perpetual rule there would be no discipline in the Church at all. The way to combat this is to require the proponents of reception by alternative means to demonstrate a catholic consensus of the Church Fathers for the specific method and circumstance proposed.

            There is a difference between what is appropriate and what is effective. On the witness of Church Fathers and the lives of recent saints received in this manner, I do not claim that reception by other means is not effective. It may be. Only God knows for sure. What I can say is that we should be more careful in this age of apostasy.

            • Antiochene Son says

              I would be surprised if Uniat clergy are received without confession. Videos I have seen of priests being received by vesting have included a public interrogation by the bishop and the renunciation of errors. If they are received without any sacraments I would be concerned about that. But how modern must a practice be to be “modernist”? If St. Alexis was received this way it can’t be graceless.

              The Council of Carthage (can. 57) forbids the re-baptism of heretics, and Pope St. Gregory the Great directs Trinitarian-baptized heretics (Arians specifically) to be received by chrismation, and Monophysites by confession alone, saying their baptism is efficacious in itself. And according to St. Jerome, even St. Cyprian’s akrivia was dropped by his supporters after the West did not receive it.

              So, I don’t know the answer, but I don’t think these “economic” ways of reception are baseless by any means. It might not be the best way to do it today, that’s for the bishops to decide, but it’s within the patristic deposit. Even orthodox (small-o) Protestants are closer to the Apostolic faith than the Arians, who were not to be re-baptized under St. Gregory.

              • One does not skip a generation of Holy Fathers – our Saints – who dealt with issues closer to our generations. You can look at St Paisius Velechesky, the Kollyvades Fathers and St Nicodemos who said ‘baptize them’ – they have lost the form.

                Catholics sprinkle, pour, protestants do whatever they want if anything at all.

                It is reminiscent of protestanism to pretend that the Orthodox Church ‘lost’ something in a gap of a period of years, as if the above Saints did not exist, and did not deal with these hard questions.

                The book online, which was banned by SVS:
                http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/A1.htm

                The true problem is a continual abuse of ekonomia, as if exceptions prove norms – the norm is the norm for a reason, one does not build ecclesiology on exceptions.

                • Gail Sheppard says

                  Agree 100%. The exceptions should not become the norm but some bishops don’t see it that way.

                  Note: Converts who are received this way are just as Orthodox as anyone else. It is their bishops who bear the responsibility for “fast-tracking” them into the Church, depriving them of the prayers of exorcism. They need these prayers to release them from their pasts. When they bring these errors into the Church it affects the entire body.

                  • But following the decision of the 1667 Synod and the witness of the Saints isn’t following an exception …

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      I can’t speak to that. There are obviously exceptions that require economia.

                      The Canons of the Church clearly define Orthodox Baptism as unique and singular, belonging to our Church solely. And, indeed, St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, the great canonical commentator, dismisses as invalid the baptisms of Roman Catholics, whom he calls “heretics,” and of all other heterodox. In a Church where Holy Tradition, of which the Holy Canons are an integral part, has equal status with Scripture, as two equal sources of authority, one cannot dismiss the Canons as human conveniences without dismantling the entire structure of the Church. Nor can we dismiss the strict Canons which reject non-Orthodox baptisms as empty and without Grace without violating basic Orthodox theological principles.

                      The rebaptism of heterodox Christians by traditionalist Orthodox is inspired not by narrow-mindedness and bigotry, but by a consistent theology, concern for the souls of those estranged from the Church, and the courage to stand up to the intolerant bigotry of religious relativism as it is pushed upon us by Orthodox blinded to the uprightness of their traditionalist brothers, whom they have come to despise on account of a deluded “love” for the non-Orthodox and the worldly praise that these would-be friends bestow on them for the betrayal of the Faith of Christ. http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/maximos_reply.aspx

                • Utrecht, you write: “One does not skip a generation of Holy Fathers – our Saints – who dealt with issues closer to our generations.”

                  I agree with you. But this but this refutes your own argument.

                  St Tikhon of Moscow and St Alexis Toth are closer to our generation than the Kollyvades. Therefore, we should follow their practice of receiving Catholic clergy by vesting and concelebration, rather than following the more remote position of the Kollyvades (which conflicts with centuries of Russian Orthodox tradition).

              • George Michalopulos says

                Interesting points you bring up here AS about the ancient Church and its reception of heretics.

            • Outside Observer says

              I see, Misha.

              So you consider St. Elizabeth Feodorovna, St. Alexandra Feodorovna, Seraphim Rose (of ROCOR!), St. Alexis Toth and the many Greek Catholic priests received in his wake by the Russian Church, the multitudes of Greek Catholics received into Orthodoxy in Byelorussia in 1839, and so many others … to be fake Orthodox, because they were received by either chrismation or vesting (in the case of the priests)? Perhaps you also see St. John of Shanghai to be a modernist because he dared receive Seraphim Rose (and some others) by chrismation?

              • OO,

                . . . “There is a difference between what is appropriate and what is effective. On the witness of Church Fathers and the lives of recent saints received in this manner, I do not claim that reception by other means is not effective. It may be. Only God knows for sure. What I can say is that we should be more careful in this age of apostasy.”

        • https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lIZV4v2SFK4

          I think the first example in the video is the best explanation of why baptism in the Orthodox church is essential.

        • I believe Bishop Jerome of ROCOR was receiving RC clergy without ordination into his Western Rite diocese. He was subsequently retired. However, there is that precedent, if you will, in ROCOR.

        • In Poland in the 1920s and 1930s entire Greek Catholic congregations with their priests sought out the omophors of Orthodox bishops, among other reasons because the Uniate hierarchy was trying to change the words of the liturgy where the priest prays for “vsich vas pravoslavnych christian”, “all you Orthodox Christians”. They were seeking to preserve the faith they had maintained through hundreds of years of Uniatism. And you are seriously arguing they all should have been rebaptized?

          • No, that they should have been baptized for the first time since their Uniate bath was to no effect.

            Had I the authority to do so, I would have ceased commemoration of Pat Kirill in the ROCOR after his Joint Statement with the Pope. And I would have convened a synod to sever communion unless and until the patriarch explicitly disavowed the Joint Statement and explicitly stated the the Orthodox Church and it alone is the one Church of Christ, in writing, signed by him and his synod.

            Slavonic Uniatism is no less a heresy than Greek Uniatism.

            • https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HXJ65qfUdGY

              Many Priests and Deacons I know no longer commemorate Pat. Kyril and only begin with our First Hierarch Vladyka Hilarion.

              • George Michalopulos says

                If true, this is most troubling.

                I have a great deal of respect for ROCOR and the Old Calendar, but it’s vital that they don’t go down the dead-end of the Greek Old-Calenderists. They may have been right at first (back in the 1920s) but since then, they’ve devolved into several splinter groups.

                That fact alone makes me question their validity. (Again, not disagreeing with their initial intention but not liking the outcome.)

                If someone can elucidate further on this, I’d appreciate it.

                • George, are you not troubled by Pat. Kyril agreeing to sign such a heretical document with the Pope?

                  Pat. Kyril clearly continues to be on the ecumenical path and only backed out of the false council once Ukraine was brought to the table, which I believe only happened because he finally read the room and realized the faithful would not go along with what he intended.

                  This blog has focused so much on Pat. Bartholomew, who is openly showing his ecumenism and heresy, should we not be just as concerned about Pat. Kyril who is very much on the same path? Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing!

                  As far as your concern for ROCOR and the validity of the clergy who choose not to commemorate Pat. Kyril, this is not just an issue in America, as many churches in Russia refuse to as well.

                  I think it’s safe to say that the true believers in Christ of all jurisdictions will end up in catacomb churches in the near future unless we agree to the compromises that many will be making.

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    Anon, you bring up several good points.

                    As far as Kirill meeting/agreeing with the Pope is concerned, I see it as you do, an unfortunate episode. Having said that, as the leader of a viable (real) Church, he cannot be excused from theological compromises but he can be given some slack regarding international diplomacy.

                    Bartholomew on the other hand, doesn’t have this excuse. His entire patriarchate is essentially a sinecure as are the majority of his bishops. Worse than that, his headlong rush into theological compromise/unia with the RCC is apparent to all. In other words, we’re talking about intent here. The intentions of both men are night and day.

                    Hence, because Kirill’s heart is (mostly) in the right place –theologically speaking–I will cut him some slack. Even if the only reason he pulled back is because “he read the room”. I would prefer he be more stalwart based on his own convictions but I’ll take a bishop who at least takes his people’s considerations into account. The same cannot be said for Bartholomew, unfortunately. He’s a globalist through-and-through and he’ll take any excuse he can to keep on going down that primrose path.

                    • I find your constant defending of Pat. Kyril pretty laughable, especially since you refused to post the link I sent in response to Christine’s question. Too much truth that you do not wish to be shared and skew other’s view of the dear Patriarch?

                    • I have a portrait of Pat. Kirill hanging over another of Met. Antoni (Khrapovitsky) in my den. I like Patriarch Kirill. However, he is tone deaf. As is his number two Met. Ilarion of Volokolamsk. I’m not known for being delicate and sugar coating things, so translate what I’m about to say into a kinder gentler form for intellectual consumption if you will: They are not used to being Orthodox. Not really. They came of age in the Soviet Church and it was quite shallow and political and they are lost in the wilderness when it comes to the jots and tittles of theology and ecclesiology. I don’t even think they intend any harm actually. I believe it is a mixture of ignorance and the ecclesio-political diplomacy necessary to the roles they play. They don’t understand not to scratch the furniture or pee on the Christmas tree, so to speak.

                      They are a work in progress.

                      And, not being delicate, my observations would be somewhat offensive if offered in person. I assume ROCOR is on this but there are limits to how presumptuous our semi-autonomous province can be with the “Mother Church”, notwithstanding the fact that we kept the flame alive during the Soviet Darkness. Pat. Kirill issued a video mea culpa of sorts on the feast day of St. Mark of Ephesus.

                      They are very conscious about being taken seriously on the world stage and thus tend to bend diplomatically too far without actually being aware of the ecclesiological implications of the particular words they choose.

                    • Misha: “I’m not known for being
                      delicate and sugar coating things…”

                      Though you use bold colours, you paint a subtle picture;
                      which repays much re-reading to be fully appreciated…

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      I must agree with you here Brendan. Misha, are you listening? Some of us enjoy re-reading your posts.

                    • George and Brendan,

                      Thank you, I’m flattered. George has created a field here that often offers insightful commentary and elicits incisive comment from any number of commenters/correspondents. It’s a treasure of the Orthosphere.

                  • Steven J. M. says

                    The YouTube channel Gregory Decapolite, which I’m sure many here would know of, has provided a glimpse into some of what Patr Kyrill has said and done over the years. Link provided below.

                    Some notes: maybe Elder Gabriel wasn’t sure of the exact details, and then again, maybe he was. Maybe Patr Kyrill didn’t bow for a ‘blessing’ from the guy before Frank, and then again, maybe he did. The meeting and joint statement with Frank was terrible, and can’t be excused. Other things Patr Kyrill has said, which are clearly humanistic, should be ringing alarm bells.

                    For what it’s worth: I don’t trust Patr Kyrill or the MP and never have. The fact that Kyrill is ex-KGB, and works closely with ex-KGB Putin, who said by Klaus Schwab to be a friend of Klaus Schwab, tells me that the fall of the Soviet Union and the apparent regeneration (of sorts) in Russia, isn’t what it seems to be, but is rather an attempt to look traditional or conservative, for whatever end that might serve, not unlike the controlled opposition of Fox news or Hungary’s Victor Orban, who’s said many right things over the years, but is now willing to chop off your head if you don’t get vaccinated.

                    In Patr Kyrill’s defence, it’s common for people to say about his KGB past that people can change, but this doesn’t move me, for when ex-KGB meets with ex-KGB Putin, meets with Schwab, meets with the prevalence of fake tradition and conservatism in the world today, meets with some VERY questionable things Patr Kyrill has said and done, I can only see that being sceptical is fair.

                    https://youtu.be/HXJ65qfUdGY

                    • Antiochene Son says

                      “KGB” is a CIA boogeyman. Until our own thoroughly wicked FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies are brought to heel (preferably dissolved utterly), I am not going to seek the speck in another’s eye.

                    • I understand those who believe that Pat. Kyril is trying to do the best for the church, however do not have any personal experience with the MP. I attended an MP parish for quite sometime so I speak from personal experience when I say – BIG MISTAKE! I tried overlooking Pat. Kyril’s past and immense wealth, hoping and praying he somehow repented and has changed, trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. My many friends who are from Russia and countries that were formally apart of the USSR explained the truth to me about Putin and the Patriarch and Gregory Decapolite’s YouTube channel also has enlightened me on many issues over the years.

                      I’d rather be in the catacombs and really don’t care what anybody would think of canonical status then to step one foot into another MP church. The church to them is a means of revenue and status. I won’t get into detail here but I seriously could write a book about it, as my experiences in the MP were so outrageous!

                      The KGB taught their agents to be masters of deceit and I believe that those who are their supporters should pray to the Holy Spirit for enlightenment on this matter.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Still, in the grand scheme of things, I’ll take a Kirill over a Bart any day of the week.

                    • Steven J. M. says

                      Antiochene Son, the FBI and CIA sure take some beating in the skulduggery stakes.

                      George, like you, I certainly don’t supported Patriarch Bartholomew. That said, I remember (I think it was) St John Chrysostom who said (something like) the schismatic was worse than the heterodox because they were more deceptive, presumably for leading astray those who would otherwise know and keep the truth. If that can be applied to a comparison between Patriarchs Kyril and Bartholomew, or between pretend tradition v more obvious liberalism – assuming of course that Kyril really is a concern – then I believe that that would make Kyril a bigger problem than Bartholomew, as hard as that statement is for me to make.

                      To that end – and in full awareness that this could be neither here nor there – I was talking once to the nun who comes to my parish. She was telling me of a prophecy of how it’ll be the MP who ends up enthroning the antichrist, and how some saint once said something to the effect that, “you will not go into their churches.” She added to this how she and her fellow nuns once watched a video of chanting in the Russian military cathedral, and how, despite appearances, it wasn’t Orthodox in spirit, but rather something that was ghoulish. We unfortunately never got to finish that conversation, and I wanted to ask about how the liberals fitted into things, as well as how much this prophecy related to now and/or to the future.

                      I’ve since tried to find more information about this prophecy, but haven’t come up with anything.

                      I should go back and finish that conversation.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Steven, that’s fascinating. Please find out more about this if you can.

                      Also, find out more about this nun; for example, is she pious or is she liberal (like Sister You-know-who)? That would say a lot about why she finds soldiers chanting in the military cathedral “ghoulish”. Speaking for myself, I found it no more ghoulish than the West Point chorus singing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” or the “National Anthem”. But that’s me. I was also impressed with the stunningly beautiful chapel at the Naval Academy in Annapolis –until a homosexual couple were united in “matrimony” there some seven or so years ago.

                      Do you see where I’m coming from? An American who has seen his country go from the Apollo program to men pretending to be women so they can beat women up in the Octagon.

                      Having said that, a lot of your concerns are based on variables not necessarily in evidence. For example, Kirill’s supposed “pretend traditionalism” as opposed to Bartholomew’s very real liberalism/papalism. Sometimes, one has to go with what one sees and not what another (for his own purposes) insinuates.

                      As for schism and what Chrysostom said about it: you got that right. However we’re not talking schism here. If schism happens, those allied with Moscow will be in a “continuing tradition” whereas the heretical sect will go along its merry way. Don’t forget, we EOs are the “continuing tradition” of first millennium Orthodoxy. The RCs says that we “broke off” from Rome. Good question, did we?

                      I personally don’t think so. And seeing the theological innovations that have accrued to Catholicism over the last 1000 years –as well as the cheesy innovations of the last century–I can’t bring myself to believe that we are in the wrong. (And believe me, I’ve tried to find a way for us to patch things up with Rome –I’m no Romophobe.)

                    • Steven, I have heard the same prophecy and was also told by a very holy man that indeed, Pat. Kyril is who we should be much more concerned about than Bartholomew.

                      I agree with you, Pat. Bartholomew is openly being heretical and there’s no question about his intent. Pat. Kyril on the other hand is playing victim in my opinion in order to deceive the masses and that is much more dangerous!

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      Holy by whose standards? There are some who think publicity hounds are “holy.”

                      If one has an issue with all things “Russian”, they’re going to have a problem with Patriarch Kirill.

                    • Steven J. M. says

                      George, apologies, I should have been clearer. The reason I brought up St John Chrysostom/schismatics/heterodox wasn’t to draw a direct comparison, but to use it as an analogy for how those who might look to be more Orthodox, but aren’t, are a bigger problem than those who more obviously aren’t Orthodox. In that regard, and irrespective of the numbers deceived, the current Ukrainian schismatics would be worse than Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism would be worse than Joel Olsteen, and Patriarch Kyril would be worse than Bartholomew – if Kyril really is that much of a concern.

                      Regarding the above reservations about questioning Kyril, combined with the questions I have been asking of him, I think: 1. You’re right about Bartholomew giving us more evidence of betrayal, and yet that in itself doesn’t mean he’s worse, given the Chrysostom analogy used above. Moreover, given the highly deceptive nature of the deepest evil, we shouldn’t expect it to come with neon signs, but to be more circumspect – even traditional in appearance? – than the evils less likely to deceive the elect; 2. The questions about Kyril, although smaller in number and more subtle than Bartholomew’s, are still fair and so mean that I personally will continue to watch him and the MP with interest; 3. Room for doubting the suspiciousness of Kyril does exist – so as not to jump the gun and all that – whereas there can be no doubt about the suspiciousness of Bartholomew.

                      Regarding the nun and the prophecy she told me about, it’s true that I don’t know all that much about her, but from what I’ve been able to gather, she does seem pious, traditional, non-ecumenical, etc., especially given the conversation we had started with a critique of Bartholomew and ecumenism. In any case, I will indeed look for a chance to speak with her more about these things, and come back to let know, if it seems worth it.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Steven, but who is leading the schismatics in Ukraine? It’s Bartholomew. Only he uses an imaginary papal-like infallibility to “normalize” the schismatics.

                      And let’s not forget, the only reason he’s doing this (besides sticking it to Russia) is because these now “normalized” schismatics are going to be his front group for unia in Ukraine.

                    • Gail, how does my dislike of Pat. Kyril make you label me as someone who “has an issue with all things Russian”? Those are your words, not mine!

                      I have been in the Russian church for more than 30 years, wholeheartedly enjoy our services in Slavonic (in fact, it’s easier for me to sing in Slavonic than English) and the majority of my friends are Russian. So I am in no way anti-Russian, I am against corruption of the truth and those trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the faithful. There’s a big difference.

                      I just don’t understand how so much truth about our Patriarch can be presented, yet I must be the one who is wrong in your eyes. Let’s just agree to disagree!

                      I fully agree with Steven’s posts and he has articulated exactly what I and many that I know believe.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      Are you the “holy” person? Because that’s who I was speaking to.

                      Seriously, how would I “label” an anonymous person anything?

                    • Steven J. M. says

                      George, no doubt it’s Bartholomew who’s behind the awful problem of the Ukrainian schismatics, and so with that, using the measure of how the worst are those who most deceive the elect, I would put things like this:

                      Assuming there’s really something to worry about with Kyril, he, who isn’t in schism and who comes across in many ways as being a defender of tradition, would be worse than the clearly questionable and schism creating Bartholomew, while the Ukrainian schismatics would be worse than RCism, with RCism then being worse than Joel Olsteen.

                    • I don’t know how much it’s worth jumping into an argument here, but currently Pat. Kyril isn’t declaring him supreme Patriarch of the entire Orthodox world without Equals as Patriarch of Moscow the Third Rome or something, and then intervened to declare a Schismatic group the only “canonical” Church for an entire country. You can understandably complain about corruption in different EO Churches, but this kind of supremacist “First Without Equals” ideology was what destroyed RC – EO relations 1000 years ago. I don’t know if the CP is going to abandon these false pretensions in my lifetime. It would require a major shake up of the CP’s hierarchy, and I don’t know where that would come from. Greece and Turkey at this point are part of the NATO and EU-sphere of influence, and I don’t see them counteracting that agenda in Ukraine any time soon. I heard on Helleniscope that Greece is mandating vaccines for everyone over 60, so they seem firmly part of that sphere. I don’t know if Greeks are even going to succeed to stop that mandate. I hope they do.

                      Peace.

                    • Steven,

                      Whatever one thinks of Pat. Kyril (and I personally have no opinion on this other than to agree with you in general about the joint statement from Cuba), there can be little doubt that Orthodoxy is undergoing a remarkable resurgence among many in Russia. How much of a role Kyril himself has or has not played in this I leave to God.

                      I know from my own experience with COVID restrictions in my diocese/jurisdiction that sometimes the best thing a hierarch can do (whether he is good or bad in my own personal view) is simply to cease being an obstacle to peoples’ desire for God.

                      All opinions aside, I think your intuition is at least correct in the sense that we would do well to stop looking for heroes or “saviors of Orthodoxy.” Some may be found in our midst, so I wouldn’t want to be overly dismissive of that possibility, but the Church belongs to Christ, and He is her Savior. In other words, we ought not put our trust in princes or sons of men. The Church only recognizes heroes, Saints, Defenders of Orthodoxy… when their earthly race is finished and the fruit of their lives is fully manifest.

                    • Steven J. M. says

                      Hal, Pat. Bartholomew’s claim to be the first without equals is hugely troubling, and yet I think it would be more so if he at least seemed a lot more traditional in general, and was also very popular among traditional Orthodox. So, while Pat. Kyril – thankfully – hasn’t made any similar claims to Bartholomew, there are still questions about him, which, when combined with some points I’ve made so far, along with Kyril’s status (for some) as a kind of traditional hero, as well as possible happenings in the future, whether under Kyril or after him, have got some people in Orthodoxy wondering.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      Bartholomew is a globalist. He sold us to the highest bidders. Kirill, on the other hand, has shown considerable restraint. He is also a strong bulwark for traditional values.

                      These are the cards we’ve been dealt.

                      People can “wonder” all they want but it doesn’t change anything.

                    • Steven J. M. says

                      Brian, some very interesting points you’ve made here, and which helped clarify some points I was making, without even knowing I was making them. Not wanting to jump too readily into declaring heroes and defenders is key.

                      And Russia’s recent Orthodox resurgence is, of course, a big point, which helps to stop me from jumping too quickly or too far into questioning what’s happening in Russia.

                    • Steven J. M. says

                      Bartholomew sure is a globalist – a big one even. But as I’ve said before, so too is *Putin (and by extension those working with him), despite appearances, which are all too easy to manipulate for the purpose of deception, something not at all uncommon in the halls of power or in war, especially not in today’s world.

                      That said, not questioning these appearances is certainly an option for people.

                      Anyway, I’d just be repeating myself from hereon, and so it’d probably be best to spare you.

                      *for anyone interested, they can look up Klaus Schwab’s The Forum of Young Global Leaders, and then Putin’s involvement with it

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      Well, now, almost a decade later than what you’re probably referring to (Feb.11, 2021), he makes his position very clear and it is NOT what you’re hinting at.

                      What does Putin have to do with anything? He is not a hierarch like Bartholomew. As a world leader, he is certainly the most committed to traditional values.

                    • Steven J. M. says

                      Yes, Putin and Pat. Kyril do promote traditional values, there’s no disputing that. The question for me is, are they what they seem to be or are they using traditionalism as a veil as they work towards something more sinister? My reasons for being suspicious were raised at the start of this discussion, namely, Kyril is ex-KGB; he works closely with Putin; Putin is ex-KGB; Putin can be tied to arch globalist Schwab; Kyril has said and done ecumenical and globalist things.

                      Additionally, I’m not sure if a good explanation has ever been offered for why the banksters behind communist Russia ever really left after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It seems – to me anyway – that people kind of just expect that the collapse automatically broke the VERY firm and HIGHLY prized grip the banksters had on Russia. But is this really true?

                      So, with all of the above, I believe it’s fair to ask some questions of Kyril and Putin, despite their promotion of traditional values.

                      In that regard, traditional values are good in and of themselves – thanks to God – and quite apart from anyone who promotes them. As such, it’s possible to criticise someone who promotes traditional values, without criticising the values themselves, and all the more should the promoter of the values be doing so in a deceptive way. To put it otherwise would end up in saying that although the devil is setting a trap, he’s at least doing so with a traditional values mask. But I would disagree with this take and would rather say that the devil is the devil, and traditional values are good.

                      In relating all this to Putin and Kyril, I believe that if they need to be questioned about anything, then they should be. In this way – and as Brian more or less said earlier – the only person who ultimately gets respect alongside traditional values is the one who promotes them honestly.

                      In the face of all the concerns I’ve raised above, are Kyril and Putin honest promoters of traditional values? For my part, I believe there’s genuine room for doubt, and I’d go one step further and say that, IF my suspicions are founded, then that would make BOTH Kyril and Putin worse than their counterparts – Bartholomew and Biden – for being globalists at heart, yet traditionalists on the surface. This conclusion is based on how more is expected of those who are closest to the truth, in which case being a globalist with a traditional mask, as opposed to a globalist who’s clearly a globalist, would be one of the biggest no, no’s of all.

                      On the other hand, if there’s nothing all that deceptive about Kyril and Putin – and they’re not globalists in disguise – then great!

                      This is what I’ve been trying to say.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Steven, by your own metrics, what are we to make of the fact that the late EP Athenagoras was a CIA operative? Or that the current EP as well as Elpi are former Turkish intelligence agents?

                    • Steven J. M. says

                      George, I would firstly say that I never knew that about these guys – how interesting and troubling – and secondly that if we have one former intelligence hierarch with a traditional mask and another appearing more so as he really is – a globalist – then the one with the traditional mask would be more deceptive than the other, particularly for those in the Church who would otherwise know the truth and keep it.

                      And just to be clear, the reason I’m labelling the KGB as globalist is because it was (and still is?) a tool for the banksters – like the CIA and others – and the banksters are the original globalists, perhaps second only to the devil.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Steven, great points. However, the KGB no longer exists: it’s the FSB now. And given that the Russian Federation is literally surrounded on all sides by over 700 US/NATO military instillations, Russia has exactly one foreign naval base. In Syria. That’s it. The doesn’t sound like a springboard for turning the Mediterranean in to a Russian lake.

                      I hardly think that the RF and FSB are in service of the globalists. Russia’s experiment with internationalism ended 30 years ago and anyway, it left a bad taste in the average Russian’s mouth. Both individually and collectively, the Russian people and state are more concerned with preserving their sovereignty than any harebrained ideas about foreign inteventionism. That’s a delusional idea put out by our Establishment to justify the Military Industrial Complex.

                      As for the supposedly nefarious use of Orthodoxy as “soft power”, what of it? Two points: first of all, Orthodox “soft power” as practiced in the West is a joke. Bart’s boys are all in favor of the secularist agenda of the West. Secondly, did not Constantine the Great use the “soft power” of the Church to consolidate his empire? While I realize that this offends Protestant purists I have two objections to their virtue-signaling: first, Byzantium lasted 1,100 years and second, that the Protestant project has ended in abject failure. I hardly think that you can call 30,000 different sects a “success”.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      You keep saying you’ve made your point but continue down the same path. The KGB has not been operative since 1991.

                      The globalists aren’t Russian. Klaus Schwab founded the World Economic Forum in 1971 and is the one behind the Great Reset. Both Trump and Putin are backing away from their agenda.

                      The CIA are not “banksters.” They are a U.S. intelligence agency that, like the FBI, are filled with bad actors.

                      This is all very interesting, but it’s a distraction. Let’s wrap it up.

                    • Steven J. M. says

                      George and Gail, by referring to the KGB as possibly still existing, I didn’t mean in name, but in spirit, now of course as the FSB, as George said, or whatever else, just the same as how the CIA is no longer called the OSS, but very much continues its legacy.

                      But, in line with Gail’s desire to wrap things up, I won’t keep at it. I’ve read your arguments for why Kyril and Russia in general aren’t a concern, and believe it or not, I hope you’re right!

              • And when you’ve asked those many priests and deacons why, what have they answered, Anonymous?

                • Here are some of the reasons, in addition to his agreement with the Pope: https://rocorhistory.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-patriarch-kyrill-was-called-tobacco.html

                  • Dear Anonymous, thank you for the link. Please forgive me, as I am just trying to make sense of all this information.

                    I am by no means a ROCOR apologist, knowing the limitations of placing one’s trust in princes, in the sons of men, in whom there is no salvation. This is a lesson we all are forced to learn, no matter our jurisdiction.

                    Christ is the head of the Church, not Pat. Kyrill or Met. Tikhon or Pat. Bartholomew or Bishop Irenei or Metropolitan Jonah. All our little pain points and tensions with these leaders are nothing in the grand scheme of Salvation. They are like the genealogy of Christ. Flawed, imperfect people, through whom Christ was (and can be) known.

                    Please pray for me a sinner.

                    • As Gail just replied (and I just saw), Bart’s a globalist, you don’t need to be a clairvoyant to see that. Kirill, appears to be a traditionalist.

                      This side of paradise, you gotta play the hand you’re dealt with. In other words, it’s the best deal we’re gonna get.

                    • George, I find it funny that you are tying to stick to your narrative and refuse to post my last two comments. So, this is for you – the thoughts of the day for today’s scripture reading.

                      [Editor Note: This blog is not a bulletin board. It’s not a means to cozy up to certain people in an effort to gain support for yourself. We don’t allow anything that is contentious. We especially don’t allow members to quote scripture and insert their own ideas in the text, which may confuse those reading it. If you quote scripture, leave it intact, and then offer your opinions.)

                • It sounds like it could just be because ROCOR is autonomous, not because the clergy reject being under the MP.

              • “Many Priests and Deacons I know no longer commemorate Pat. Kyril and only begin with our First Hierarch Vladyka Hilarion.”

                I suspect it isn’t limited to ROCOR, but is happening within the Russian Church proper. Everyday the “vaccines” become more exposed as deadly, and become more required, more built into vaccine/health passports that people can’t function without, more Mark of the Beast like, around the world.

                https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/russians-are-not-okay-with-getting

                “Recently a conference of Orthodox laypeople was held in St. Petersburg, where it was decided that the ‘epidemic of fear, lies and betrayal’ in Russia must be resisted at all costs. They even threatened a schism if Church higher-ups continue to be completely lame (and in truth, they have been really, horribly lame).”

                Russian Orthodox conference referenced is here:

                http://katyusha.org/view?id=17782

                People don’t care if they have to fight against Trump/Putin/thePope/theMajorityof[insert Christian group] when it is coming down to this, and don’t mind making common cause even with the Communists, whoever, as long as they’re at least against mandatory “vaccination.”

              • This is all a bit redundant, since commemorating hierarchs other than one’s own diocesan Bishop is entirely unnecessary in the Liturgy.

                Non-commemoration is only a real issue (canonically speaking) if the diocesan Bishop is not commemorated.

            • Misha “I would have convened a synod to sever communion unless and until the patriarch explicitly disavowed the Joint Statement”

              Here is the full text of the Joint Statement that was made 9 years ago:

              https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/33401/full-text-of-joint-declaration-signed-by-pope-francis-and-patriarch-kirill

              • Gail Sheppard says

                It was my understanding that “severing communion” is not all that uncommon and at some point is often remedied.

                • Orthodox Heart says

                  At least one UOC-MP bishop, Metropolitan Longin of Banchensk Monastery in western Ukraine, does not commemorate Patriarch Kirill. He does commemorate Metropolitan Onufry of Kyiv, and the UOC-MP Synod promoted Longin to Metropolitan even after he had stopped commemorating Kirill.

                  So the fact of non-commemoration of the Patriarch of Moscow does not mean he has severed communion with the Moscow Patriarchate.

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    I was under the impression that all canonical Ukrainian bishops only commemorate His Beatitude Onuphriy, since the UOC is an autonomous church.

                    As for the clergy, I thought that they only commemorate Onuphriy and the bishop of their diocese.

                    Am I incorrect on this? If so, please set me straight.

                    • I believe you are correct, George. The clergy of the Antiochians in the US, for example, do not commemorate the Patriarch of Antioch. They go only as ‘high’ as Metropolitan Joseph in their commemorations while Metropolitan Joseph himself commemorates the Patriarch. This is, to my knowledge, pretty standard practice for autonomous local churches.

                    • Orthodox Heart says

                      The UOC-MP certainly commemorate Patriarch Kirill. I listen regularly to live broadcasts from the three UOC-MP Lavras (Pochaev, Kyiv Caves, Svyatogorsk) and occasionally from Cathedrals in Zakarpattia and Odessa. Kirill is always commemorated in the UOC-MP Divine Liturgies I have listened to.

                      The practice of not commemorating the Patriarch, only one’s bishop, is a Greek practice (done also by Antiochians and the Balkan Churches) but the Russian practice adhered to by most in UOC-MP is to commemorate the Patriarch. Those who don’t, are usually people like Met. Longin and some in western Ukraine.

                  • Vladyka Longin is a colorful individual and his mention brings back memories from that period. You may recall that in 2016 not only did we have the Joint Statement but also the robber council of Crete. I recall being online with Fr. Peter Heers and him asking me about a curious video from the Ukraine which appeared to be a parish council type setting with the then bishop, now metropolitan, Longin. Fr. Peter wanted to know what the excitement in the video was about. This strange word “yeres'” kept popping up.

                    Of course, it was Met. Longin explaining to his flock on the basis of the Joint Statement, a copy of which he held in his hand, why he could no longer commemorate his dear brother Kirill due to the heresy (ересь) manifest in the document.

                    In the West, we are accustomed to clergy speaking informally and using the word “church” loosely to describe confessions other than the Orthodox local churches. Not everyone is so desensitized (especially on the front lines of Uniatism in the Ukraine), however, and when it comes to seemingly official declarations, let alone conciliar edicts, the notion that one might use the word “churches” to encompass more than the Orthodox Church is indicative of heterodoxy.

                    “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”

                    I don’t have access to the exact words of the liturgy as served by UOC/MP but I assume it corresponds to that of ours:

                    “Deacon: For our Great Lord and father, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill; and for our lord the Very Most Reverend Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad; and our lord the Most Reverend Archbishop Peter, . . .”

                    Non-commemoration puts the person on notice that the celebrant has found a serious theological fault with them and can no longer in good conscience pray for them before the Lord. It is a measure short of severance of communion but indicating its distinct possibility in the future.

              • Orthodox Heart says

                One thing I have not seen anyone explain:

                What heresy, exactly, did Patriarch Kirill commit when he met Pope Francis and issues the joint statement? Is merely meeting the Pope a heresy already?

                All Orthodox Patriarchs have met Francis at one or another time. Only one has met him in a quasi-liturgical way (Bartholomew), two others met him in Church but without joint prayer (Patriarchs Ilya and Daniel) it is Kirill who has met him in the most informal way (in an airport room).

                No joint prayer took place between the two. Simply stating “we give thanks to God” in a written document is not by any stretch of the imagination joint prayer. Simply saying “We share the same spiritual Tradition of the first millennium of Christianity” does not mean that Orthodoxy and Catholicism believe the same teachings; it is only an acknowledgment of the historical fact that both acknowledge the same Fathers, saints and Councils of the first millennium. (How both either side interprets that same Tradition is another matter.)

                Kirill has not given way on any dogmas and has been firm in defending the Orthodox stance against papism. Under Kirill, the Russian Council of Bishops rejected the Synod of Crete documents on doctrinal grounds. These acts are more important.

      • Dear Archpriest Alexander!
        You are raising a good topic that it is really worth having a long analytic paper on explaining the justifications in the Russian Tradition for why we (MP and OCA) don’t give a separate EO baptism for new converts, why we (ROC) accepted St Alexis Toth via Vesting, etc. I read analyses on this topic myself, being a convert to the OCA with a Lutheran Baptism. In fact, this topic has come up for many centuries in the Church, even before the Schism, and particularly in the 3rd century in the time of St Pope Stephen. One argument that persuaded me of the Russian Tradition’s position was that in the discussions with Pope St Stephen, who advocated accepting heterodox Trinitarian converts without rebaptism was that accepting the converts without rebaptism was the oldest Tradition on the topic. That is, after someone is Baptised in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they do not need the sacrament performed a second time when they enter the Church.

        You asked: “If anyone may experience and benefit from one of the holy mysteries (“sacraments” in Western parlance) outside the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church–i.e., Holy Orthodoxy–why not any of or all others?”
        There are multiple answers that I have seen for this. Baptism – the sacrament associated with the coming on of the Holy Spirit, is distinct from Communion, the sacrament in which we are literally united as One Church. One theory I have been given repeatedly is that we do not have intercommunion with non-EOs because we are not One Communion – One Church. Some EOs do allow for the option of intercommunion in exceptional cases (eg. an Emergency), but this is not a generally agreed on position. Prof. Osipov, a currently well known theologian in the ROC, takes the position that one should not take non-EO communion regardless of the situation.

        For purposes of this thread, I focused on the fact that the ROCOR UK’s new position doesn’t make sense chronologically. I wasn’t specifically arguing that ROCOR is right or wrong to rebaptise converts, but rather that it doesn’t make sense for ROCOR UK to suddenly use vesting converts from the Uniates as a pretext to ban intercommunion with AROCWE.

        • “Some EOs do allow for the option of intercommunion in exceptional cases (eg. an Emergency), but this is not a generally agreed on position.”

          Then they blaspheme the Mysteries of God and pretend Christ is divided in multiple ‘churches.’ How terrifying to do such a thing. What a blaspheme against all the Holy Martyrs who died for the faith, what a blaspheme against the Creed and Christ Himself.

          Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit and the guidance of the Ecumenical Councils – of what PURPOSE is there to anathematize heretics if one thinks they have Mysteries? After Ecumenical Council decisions, do you say the non-Chalcedonians were ‘mistakenly’ anathematized? How about Arius and Nestorius?

          This is disgusting. No wonder the world is in such a state.

          Holding this position at all means one is in deep delusion – God help them.

          The Unity and Uniqueness of the Church
          Just as the Person of Christ the God-man is one and unique, so is the Church founded by Him, in Him, and upon Him. The unity of the Church follows necessarily from the unity of the Person of the Lord Christ, the God-man. Being an organically integral and theanthropic organism unique in all the worlds, the Church, according to all the laws of Heaven and earth, is indivisible. Any division would signify her death.

          The Christ-bearing apostles are divinely inspired as they announce the unity and the uniqueness of the Church, based upon the unity and uniqueness of her Founder—the God-man, the Lord Christ, and His theanthropic personality: “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (I Cor. 3:11)

          Like the holy apostles, the holy fathers and the teachers of the Church confess the unity and uniqueness of the Orthodox Church with the divine wisdom of the cherubim and the zeal of the seraphim. Understandable, therefore, is the fiery zeal which animated the holy fathers of the Church in all cases of division and falling away and the stern attitude toward heresies and schisms. In that regard, the holy ecumenical and holy local councils are preeminently important. According to their spirit and attitude, wise in those things pertaining to Christ, the Church is not only one but also unique. Just as the Lord Christ cannot have several bodies, so He cannot have several Churches. According to her theanthropic nature, the Church is one and unique, just as Christ the God-man is one and unique.
          -St Justin Popovich

          Read the New Martyr St Hilarion – this is important if you hold such a view.
          http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/sthilarion_church.aspx

      • Father,
        For me, what I’m most curious about here isn’t so much the actual issue itself (the proper reception of those coming into The Church). That doesn’t seem to be a new debate and I trust numerous people (such as yourself Father) on both sides of the debate.

        What I find most curious though, is why Bishop Irenei is just NOW making a huge issue about this. For a really long time now, Clergy have disagreed on the issue, without breaking Communion. Why the drastic move at this point in time? There has to be something else going on behind the curtain here.

        • Why the drastic move at this point in time? There has to be something else going on behind the curtain here.

          Exactly my thoughts. Something is amiss from someone’s story.

          The article Hal posted about the defrocked priest from the MP being received by the Archdiocese (defrocked for sodomy, by the way) and subsequently promoted to archimandrite certainly makes one think.

          • Gail Sheppard says

            I haven’t followed the situation that closely. I don’t know whether or not this is true so if you could provide a link or something proving it, I would appreciate it, Basil.

          • Basil,
            I believe now that the defrocked priest is not one of the reasons Bp. Irenei broke communion with the AROCWE, so I regret bringing it up. BP. Irenei was specific that he was only breaking communion with AROCWE UK, and making the issue to be Fr Siemens’ vesting. Hypothetically, Fr. Siemens could have next chosen to satisfy BP. Irenei’s demand without AROCWE addressing whatever BP. Irenei’s real motives are. Further, the offending hieromonk in the VSE ERESI story is in Karlsruhe, Germany, not in AROCWE UK.

            Hypothetically, AROCWE could be hiding a den of perversion, but one hieromonk in south Getmany is hardly enough evidence for such a conclusion.

            • Gail Sheppard says

              This is why I get so concerned. – Thank you for acknowledging it.

            • The point is that there’s more going on that the ROCOR bishops are aware of. If they decide to make a full statement on the affair, I think more situations like this may be brought up.

              I hope not, but harboring such a person in your diocese doesn’t really bode well, unless poor Metropolitan Jean got deceived.

              • No, that’s not right.

                You can’t turn the claim that “there might be things we don’t know about” into “there are unnamed problems in the Archdiocese which the ROCOR hierarchy know about but are not stating.”

                Also, everyone is condemning this German cleric on the basis of an article from “Vse Eres”, which is hardly a reliable standalone source.

                We would need the facts from a reputable source, explaining what the issues were, and on what basis he was received into the Archdiocese.

              • I think we can’t conclude that the ban on concelebration involves cases like the German hieromonk, because the ban is only applied to ROCOR UK, even though Bp. Irenei is the hierarch for all Western European ROCOR, since we don’t know of other cases like the German hieromonk’s. For one to conclude that there must be more going on, we would have to conclude that the first unspoken problems were in the UK and didn’t involve Fr. Siemens’ reception. But that would not make sense either, because all Fr. Siemens would have to do would be to get reordained, and then the conflict would theoretically end. And Bp. Irenei repeatedly focused on the canonicity of Fr. Siemen’s reception in his repeated directives. So it must be a pretext, as we’ve analyzed already, but it also must not have to do with the German case, because it would be easier and cleaner cut even in terms of Tradition and in terms of readers’ sympathies, to cut ties over the defrocked hieromonk than Fr. Siemens.

                In other words, it seems that it doesn’t have to do with things like the German case, because Bp. Irenei didn’t cut ties over the German case, and since the German case would have an easier basis for such measures, and since the German case is the only known such one.

                Instead, we are simply left with Bp. Irenei using an anti-Traditional pretext for cutting ties, and one that doesn’t make sense chronologically.

      • The 1756 Council of Constantinople declared that all non-Orthodox should be received by baptism. This included Protestants and Roman Catholics. It is only in more recent times that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has come to accept the “Russian” method of receiving non-Orthodox Christians.

        During the time of Empress Catherine the Great, the Russian Church received some two million Uniates, laying aside all impediments and rites for their return to the Orthodox Church. They were received by the Russian Church with love as already practicing Orthodox. This and many other instances became the established “Russian” method.

        https://www.rocorstudies.org/2017/12/30/on-the-question-of-the-order-of-reception-of-persons-into-the-orthodox-church-coming-to-her-from-other-christian-churches/

        • The author fundamentally ignores the only salient point, mischaracterizing the ancient witness and speaking of “valid baptisms” among the heterodox. That point is that one cannot be joined to the Church in grace by those outside the Church. This ought to be obvious, elementary and something upon which it is universally agreed within the Church. For example, the notion that a Roman Catholic can somehow create an Orthodox Christian from a pagan when that Roman Catholic is himself a heretic and outside the Church is patently absurd.

          No mysteries served outside the Church are grace filled and thus none are valid.

          What is happening, honestly, in reception by other means is that on the authority of a bishop the normal means of being received by the Church are set aside for political considerations – this on his authority to bind and loose. The pious fiction is that rites empty of grace are later filled by other mysteries. But that is really just a poetic, polite and diplomatic way of saying that baptism is waived, strictly speaking, in economia. This is because, in reality, any mysteries purportedly served by the heterodox are completely irrelevant except as a mental crutch to justify the waiving of baptism.

          I suspect that this has always been a bad idea. I do not suggest that there is anything less Orthodox about those received in this manner inasmuch as God may use the occasion of any mystery served within the Church as He sees fit. But there is no principled reason on this basis not to waive baptism, chrismation, confession and ordination and simply receive pagans as clergy in their orders by vesting, all grace being supplied by their first communion. If they survive it, they’re in.

          One must preserve one’s sense of humor in this age of apostasy.

          • It’s clear that the Russian Church is more than willing to play fast and loose with the canons … when it suits them, and especially, as you mention, for political purposes.

  20. Well, the witness of saints such as St Tikhon of Moscow and St Alexis Toth testify to the reality of the reception of Catholic clergy by vesting and concelebration, without (re)ordination.

    If a theological theory doesn’t fit the testimony of the saints, then so much the worse for that theory. The witness of the saints must take precedence over our theories.

    In fact it’s not true that reception by vesting and concelebration entails a recognition of heterodox sacraments as equal in validity to Orthodox sacraments, as you suggest.

    Consider, for example, the position stated by Archpriest Andrew Phillips on this matter:

    “If the heterodox is accepted through chrismation by the second rite, this does not mean that the baptism received by him in heterodoxy is recognized as valid, but only that, without repeating the forms of baptism out of condescension, the Church presents to him who has been accepted the grace of baptism together with chrismation and under its form. Similarly, if, for example, a Latin or Armenian priest is accepted by the third rite, through repentance, in his present rank, it means that under the form of repentance he is granted all the necessary sacraments at once: baptism, chrismation, and consecration.”

    The people who are really attacking the uniqueness of Orthodoxy today are not those who follow the witness of saints such as St Tikhon of Moscow, but those who would reduce Orthodoxy to just another exotic sect in a religious marketplace of exotic sects.

    • Alexander, this would probably take a whole new article on the reasons and theories in the Russian Tradition as to avoidance of rebaptising heterodox converts. I read a Russian theological article a few years ago that went into great detail. It noted that although this is the established practice (conversion without rebaptism), there are several theories from Orthodox theologians as to why we don’t rebaptise. One theory is that the original Baptism is valid. Another is that the original Baptism is not valid, but it’s either treated as valid due to ekonomia, or the Church’s seal (eg. Chrismation) makes the original baptism valid. It is worth noting that according to both the Bible and Orthodox Tradition, the “Water Baptism” sacrament is not the same act as the “Spirit Baptism” with the Holy Spirit, even though they are associated with each other. In at least two accounts in Acts, for instance, believers receive the Holy Spirit before their water baptism in one case, and after it in the other case. Further, in EO Tradition there is also the case of saints who had baptism by fire. I could go into more detail, but it would be better to quote the Russian theological articles instead of me giving my own explanations and theories at this point.

      • First, there is no question of rebaptism. Only Orthodox baptism is valid baptism – period. Baths outside the Church effect nothing.

        Second, while the saints over time did this and that according to their lights and the perceived estimation of the Roman heresy and its dangers, we live in an era where atheism is the de facto assumption of even many who pretend religion and doctrine is seen as mere bylaws to be changed with the wave of a magic wand.

        Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of thrice blessed memory, offered this take on the three rites of reception in his era

        Abp. Chrysostomos of Etna, an Old Calendarist of some considerable scholarly reputation offered this take

        A lot has changed, as Abp. Chrystomos explains. During Met. Antoni’s day, everyone involved in such conversions were both theists and convinced that the Orthodox Church was the one and only Church of Christ. Matters are dramatically more nebulous now. Rome and the Phanar and other ecumenists are blurring the distinctions between the Roman confession and the Orthodox Church – in this case with particular reference to Greek Catholics or “Uniates”, in an effort to promote an unholy, truth-free union with Rome.

        Uniates are in communion with heretics and as such stand in the shoes of heretics as well regardless of their self-understanding or the circumstances of their separation. Intercommunion with Rome is the sin of heresy – period. They may appear Orthodox in every other way. That is of no matter. The grace is not some magic conjured by the outward forms. Western Rite Orthodox would be graceless were that the case. The only question is adherence to Apostolic Doctrine including the shunning of those who preach a Gospel at variance to that of the Church.

        As it stands, the only difference between the positions of the Phanar and the MP is the fact that the MP insists that the person being received in orders actually underwent some type of heterodox “ordination”.

        That is a very thin line.

        • Sure you’re entitled to endorse the opinions of Greek Old Calendarists like Chrysostomos of Etna. But then you are just rejecting the position of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is clearly incompatible with Greek Old Calendarist theology here.

          • Someone else posted to part of this but here is the contents page on an article from the Holy Mountain laying out in particular detail the entire history of the subject historically from the “baptize everyone” position.

            It is not exactly a commercial for reception by economia.

            As for the “position of the Russian Orthodox Church”, this is the church that was routinely communing Roman Catholics in the Russicum at the same time as it purported to grant a tome of autocephaly to the Metropolia/OCA which was not even the largest Orthodox jurisdiction on the territory in question. I take the position of ROCOR seriously. I take the position of the ROC with the grain of salt it deserves. The ROC is a work in progress. One should expect nothing less after three generations of slavery to atheistic materialism.

            • Misha ” The ROC is a work in progress. One should expect nothing less after three generations of slavery to atheistic materialism.”

              Pro-revolutionary Russian (and Greek) Church also would not pass Old Calendarist standards. One example with Anglicans:

              http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/emhardt_historical1920.html

            • Again, you’re entitled to your opinion. But you’ve placed yourself outside the debate – as it is a debate within the Russian Church, amongst those who seek to uphold Russian tradition.

              Nobody doubts that Russian tradition does not agree with Greek traditionalism here, and repeating the talking-points of the Greek traditionalists doesn’t further the discussion. It is simply to argue that we should reject Russian tradition and subordinate ourselves spiritually to the Greeks.

              • Alexander,

                There is no “Russian tradition”. There is no “Greek tradition”. There is only Sacred Tradition which is the life of the Holy Spirit experienced in the Church. Just because one Russian, or one Greek, synod said this on such and such date does not make it Sacred Tradition. What Greek bishops did at a certain juncture and what Russian bishops did at another juncture are traceable back to one, single Apostolic teaching. The languages may be different. Minor customs such as zapifka may vary. But there is only one Orthodoxy.

          • “Sure you’re entitled to endorse the opinions of Greek Old Calendarists like Chrysostomos of Etna. But then you are just rejecting the position of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is clearly incompatible with Greek Old Calendarist theology here.”

            The church that St Alexis Toth converted from no longer exists, it died at Vatican II, and Russian theology should probably change to reflect that. However, this is all but a “tempest in a teapot” distraction from the “vaccines” and the health/vaccine/QR-code passports and the concentration camps?

            https://seed307.bitchute.com/BNmuGAMfNYrS/kGPj30A2966P.mp4

            • Agreed. Too many of our fellow Orthodox don’t seem to pay attention to or care about the nuances of what goes on in the RCC. They just see “Catholic after 1054” and after that it’s all the same.

              The wholesale destruction of the RCC that happened at Vatican II is impossible to understate, and we need to treat the pseudo-religious humanist organization that V2 spawned as a fundamentally different entity to what came before.

              Prior to 1970 receiving Catholic clergy by vesting may have been practiced, and there may be an argument for continuing to treat SSPX and perhaps even FSSP/ICKSP priests the same as pre-Vatican II, but beyond that I don’t think the post-conciliar RCC has given us any other choice but to receive them as apostates becoming Christian for the first time.

              • Gail Sheppard says

                This would be true of the Protestants, as well.

                • Nah, Protestants have always been off the hook. Even the highest of High Church Anglicans have no credibility.

                • Oh, absolutely. It’s precisely because the RCC went from being a body of Apostolic Christians to being essentially Protestant that I say this. At least before V2 they could back their claim to the legacy of the Church of the Apostles up by tracing most of their theology and practices to pre-schism western Church Tradition, but they gave all that up when they demolished that tradition wholesale.

                  The Protestants were outside the Church to begin with, founding a brand new religion in the 1500s. They didn’t even have to leave.

              • Too many of our fellow Orthodox don’t seem to pay attention to or care about the nuances of what goes on in the RCC. They just see “Catholic after 1054” and after that it’s all the same.

                Wholly agree with this. I’m a RC convert to Orthodoxy and have noticed many Orthodox think just the way you put it. When I explain the current state of modern RCism they’re shocked. I guess many of them have not been to a modern Mass before.

  21. Balkan Dan says

    I have two reasons for supporting the actions of the MP in receiving this priest as they have:

    1.) few Local Churches have as much intimate knowledge and experience with receiving “Greek Catholics” (Uniates) as does the Russian Orthodox Church. They’ve been doing so for four hundred years. That counts for something.

    2.) conversion is very personal. I haven’t been able to find much about this particular clergyman’s background, but I think those that try to judge/second-guess the sincerity and authenticity of this man’s conversion from afar are doing him, his spiritual fathers and mentors, and the Russian Orthodox Church an injustice. Who knows that this man hadn’t been agonizing over this question in his soul for many years?

    I have been the sad witness to the tragic story of a devout young Uniate couple that relocated to the United States. They were not nominally Uniate, not simply observant either, but truly devout; and on relocating there, found in the American Roman Catholic Church something they could barely recognize.

    Finding no Uniate parish in their area, they sought out a local Orthodox parish, a parish predominantly made up of American converts. This couple, who had survived not just the frightening life within an underground church during the Soviet Union, also had survived the struggles of poverty, lawlessness, and personal loss in the period after the Soviet collapse. Yet, their faith remained intact and grew stronger.

    These Americans, who had been reading books for a few years, and attending services for a few years, with a priest from an odd “charismatic’ background with just a couple years’ correspondence courses in Orthodox liturgics under his belt, commenced to incessantly grill this young couple about the “purity” of their Orthodox faith. Because you see, in the region where they’re from, Uniatism is the worship and practice of the Orthodox Christian life while acknowledging the authority of the Pope.

    Most of the parishioners received them warmly, for they were a sweet and charming couple after all. But the priest and some others treated them coolly and with diffidence for quite some time, doubting their “true” conversion.

    Nevertheless, in time they thrived and became very charitable and reliable members of the parish. It even became quite common for them to be asked to be godparents to a number of children born to the parish; because, as one member put it, they were “real Orthodox”. They were childless themselves, and found themselves quite happy because of this unexpected honor.

    Do you find any reason to doubt this couple’s conversion? And do you, like me, sense these Americans were a little underqualified to judge the “purity” of this couple’s Orthodoxy, especially after what they’d overcome through their faith, and in the face of the Americans’ obvious ignorance of the Unia?

    I certainly accept that I am in no position to question the Russian Church’s evaluation of this Uniate priest’s true conversion to Holy Orthodoxy.

  22. This thread has been absolutely fascinating. I have learned so much from each comment. Thanks to Monomakhos for hosting such a great, ongoing debate!

  23. Simply stated, the reception of Christian converts into the Orthodox Church by chrismation alone is a tacit acknowledgement of the validity of their prior baptism in a heterodox community. Likewise, receiving Christian clergymen into the Orthodox Church by vesting alone is a tacit acknowledgement of the validity of their prior ordination in a heterodox community. Does the Church really want to go there?

    Doubtless God, who fills the whole world with his presence, is capable in his providence of bestowing his grace outside of the Orthodox framework. However, it is beyond the capacity of the Church to declare that any heterodox baptisms or ordinations are ipso facto valid and effectual. The thinking behind both actions of reception is muddled and wrongheaded. Heterodox converts should be granted the grace of baptism and all that it entails, and heterodox clergymen should be granted the grace of Orthodox ordination. As much as these actions may seem to be such of supererogation, the stance of the Church as the only sure repository of grace demands it, in my view. I don’t mean to boast, but I felt it my duty to renounce my former Anglican ordination and submit myself to baptism when I converted to Orthodoxy. I was happy to do so and I’m still glad that I did.

    • Gail Sheppard says

      I was baptized in an Episcopal Church. The Metropolitan of the Archdiocese felt everyone should be chrismated when I was ready to convert. I waited 3 1/2 years for an opportunity to be baptized in a different jurisdiction.

    • Lawrence,
      Nota Bene: I read a detailed Russian language Orthodox theological analysis a few years ago. While it established that conversion without rebaptism is the established Russian Tradition, it noted that there are several theories explaining why. One theory is that the original heterodox Trinitarian baptism was valid. A second theory is that the heterodox baptism was incomplete and insufficient, but completed by introduction into the EO Church by Chrismation. A third theory is that rebaptism is avoided by Ekonomia.

      There is much richness in being able to access so many Russian theological articles in Russian. Some of the information is not treated in as much detail in English. For example, just recently I learned that the Russian Tradition typically considers the Deuterocanon “noncanonical.” There is not much arguing for that POV from an EO perspective in English, but a serious quantity of such materials exist in Russian.

  24. Bishops and priests who settle for the mere chrismation of converts must realize what they are doing. First, they must not in any way deny the grace of baptism to those who have no memory or certification of their previous baptism. For those converts who are not sure of their own personal history, even in the Episcopal/Anglican tradition there is a prayer of conditional baptism (see TEC 1979 BCP pg. 313).

    Those who have been baptized previously in a heterodox ecclesial communion have a baptism which is limited by the scope of that communion’s embrace of the Orthodox Faith. That scope is often sorely lacking and even when close to Orthodoxy is never fully sufficient. At the risk of an act of supererogation, why deny the full measure of the grace of initiation to the convert?

    Likewise, the ordinand who may have exercised his ministry as a priest/presbyter of his former communion, if accepted as an Orthodox priest, is accepted with the tacit acknowledgement of the validity of his former communion’s ordinations. The same is true for the deacon. How can that be possible when the Orthodox Church denies the validity and full force of any other ecclesial communion’s ordinations?

    Let’s be consistent in our thinking, shall we? Either accept the sacraments of other communions and deny the exclusivity of Orthodox sacraments, or deny the validity of heterodox ordinances and invite all who approach the Church to the fullness of the grace offered to them. Choose one of the other, but not both, and help us all to avoid confusion. Most importantly, use the surest of actions and arguments to overcome the potential doubt in anyone’s mind as to what is “meet and right so to do”. Converts and ordinands received into the Church under these more rigorous demands can then move on in confidence in faith and ministry.

    • Lawrence,

      It is nice to write to you because I liked your article on OrthoChristian. I am glad when people in the Greek Church try to point out the problem with the CP practically declaring himself the vertically authority head without equals.

      You write,
      “Let’s be consistent in our thinking, shall we? Either accept the sacraments of other communions and deny the exclusivity of Orthodox sacraments, or deny the validity of heterodox ordinances and invite all who approach the Church to the fullness of the grace offered to them.”
      You are presenting an either/or proposal, where we either doctrinally and unanimously as a Church accept heterodox sacraments as valid or deny their validity.

      However, one of the features of Eastern Orthodoxy that repeatedly comes up is the lack of dogmatism and openness in Orthodoxy compared to the Western Tradition.

      One area where I am facing this at the moment is the status of the Deuterocanon. I am currently listening to lectures on OT, because growing up Protestant, I never read read them. In the Protestant Church, it’s very clear that the Deuterocanon is noncanonical Apocrypha. In the RC Church, due to Trent, it’s dogmatic that there are 7 and only 7 canonical books of the Deuterocanon.

      In the Eastern Church Fathers, we find that they accept the Deuterocanon piecemeal, but typically not as a whole. Eg. Laodicea’s Council accepts Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, but John Damascene only accepts the Protocanon plus the LXX Additions to Daniel as Canonical.

      EOs all subscribe to the Council of Trullo Canon #2, but what Trullo teaches on this question is not clear. Canon #2 accepts Gregory the Theologian’s letter that forbids considering anything outside the Protocanon to be “reputed” as canonical. But Canon #2 also affirms lists that affirm the Deuterocanon piecemeal.

      Currently, the Greek Tradition, following the EO Council of Dositheus, and EO materials online in English, seem to consider the Deuterocanon as canon, but the Russian Tradition labels it “noncanonical.”

      I can give plenty of other examples where the EO Church simply does not have a unanimous doctrinal position on issues where the RC and Protestant Churches.

      Peace.

      • Antiochene Son says

        As far as the “Deuterocanon” (aka Old Testament) is concerned, I would say that which is read liturgically is the most important and most dogmatic: the so-called “additions” to Daniel (read every day at Matins), Baruch (read at Vespers on Christmas), Sirach and Wisdom (read at Vespers on numerous occasions), Judith (read for St. Olga), Prayer of Manasseh (read at Great Compline). We would not read uncanonical texts as scripture—even if we accept their content, such as the Protoevangelium of James—, so these must be scripture.

        In addition, Tobit, the Maccabees, and others are among the Old Testament saints commemorated by name on the Sunday before Christmas.

        • Antiochene Son,
          Your solution that liturgical reading show canonicity is reasonable, as per Augustine’s concept of “As we pray, so we believe.” Unfortunately, it doesn’t solve the issue for a few reasons. One reason is that some of the Deuterocanonical books like Tobit are not read liturgically. Commemorating an OT saint does not mean that the texts about him or ascribed to him (eg. Jeremiah and the Deuterocanonical “Epistle of Jeremiah,” Solomon and the Syriac “Odes of Solomon”) are necessarily canonical.

          Regards.

          • Antiochene Son says

            Indeed, we also do not read parts of the so-called “Protocanon” liturgically either. Ruth, II Kings (II Samuel), II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Hosea, Amos, Obadiah, Nahum, Haggai, the Maccabees, Tobit, and Psalm 151 are entirely unused. (Not to mention the Book of Revelation.)

            And of those that we do read, only Genesis, Exodus, Proverbs, Wisdom, and Jonah have significant portions of the book selected for use. The rest are maybe a few chapters at most. It’s not that we deny the inspired character of these unused books and parts of books; rather they are simply not as important.

            But the Church receives the Septuagint as a whole because those were the Jewish scriptures that the Greek-speaking world knew, and it has been revealed through the Saints that the Septuagint is a divinely inspired translation. No dogmatic definition of the Canon has ever been declared in a way that has been received by the whole Church, but that is not really necessary, either. There’s nothing in the “questionable” books that conflicts with the Church’s teachings.

            • I think that we are getting into a sticky era, like when you say that “the Church receives the Septuagint as a whole”. By receive, I think you mean that the Chirch collectively receives it as canonical. But this is really debatable at best.

              First, one must consider what you mean by the LXX as a whole. I take it that you mean the Greek translation of the OT. But the limits and definition of the Greek language OT are themselves in question here, eg. Do we consider Tobit, Judith, 4 Esdras, and 4 Macc. all as belonging to the LXX?

              The term LXX/Septuagint technically only refers to the first 5 books of the Bible as translated into Greek by 70 Jewish scholars.

              It has come more broadly to mean the Greek translation of the OT, and thus more than just the Torah. But if it is the Greek version of the OT, then where do its borders end? We can’t just say that it ends with what was found in Bible codexes, because some of those codexes had books we have come to consider noncanonical, like Josephus’ writings, and because the collection of Greek language OT themed religious literature like the Apocalypse of Shedrach is quite long.

              4 Esdras was translated by Jerome into Latin, the Russian EOs include it in Synodal MP Bible printed books, currently marked there in Tables of Contents as noncanonical, and it’s lost in Greek, so it’s not in Greek Bibles. A 1968 Commission of the Synod of the ROC listed it next to the rest of the Deuterocanon as one of the “Holy Books”, but not in the category of the God inspired books, although not explicitly listed as “uninspired.” Further, the chapter that seems to describe all life on earth dying, including Christ, seems to me either unclear or doctrinally incorrect from a Christian POV.

              The opposite is true for 4 Macc. It’s in Codex Sinaiticus and Greek Bibles (currently in a separate Appendix section nowadays, however), but not in Russian Bibles.

              If we go by the Eastern Church fathers up through the medieval period, they did not, as individuals, generally consider the whole Deuterocanon to be part of the canon, but rather only several books, like what I said about the Council of Laodicea.

  25. I post the following purely in jest:

    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

    Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance