Anyone In Communion With The "Church of France"?

[Serge]

Seraphim,

While communion with other Orthodox is important, I'm uncomfortable with this being held as an absolute standard (at least in the short term) for some obvious reasons...

IMO it is indispensible as is holding orthodox beliefs and having a claim to apostolic succession. AFAIK Eastern Orthodoxy rightly doesn't isolate any of these, separating them from the others as though they could exist independently of the Church.

a) the possibility that simple lack of communication can cause a cessation of active commemoration of another Church's hierarchs (as has happened in the past)

True in ancient and early medieval times, like when the Maronites were cut off from everybody and inadvertently became Monothelite, but that argument doesn't fly in an age when there are transatlantic flights and phone calls - the case when the Romanians inexplicably cut the Church of France loose.

b) the possibility that fall outs between hierarchs is not necessarily indicative of anything other than sinfulness on the part of leaders - schism is a grievous sin, but there are just too many cases (particularly in our day) where it's not at all crystal clear who is in the right in a given circumstance, since often both parties have at least passable reasons for why they are "where they are" (OCA and ROCOR being a very good, yet tragic example of this). Indeed, the delicate situation between Russia and Constantinople is another (and it's a situation which has blown up before as well.)

I see the point but this state of affairs makes Eastern Orthodoxy look more like an aggregation of churches with orthodox beliefs and 'valid' orders than a Church.

c) most Orthodox already recognize point (b), and it's manifested in the abnormal situation where you have some Churches in communion with a different list of Churches than another Church (thus, Jerusalem is on good terms with ROCOR, and also with Moscow, yet obviously Moscow and ROCOR are not on good terms with each other). The idea that it is simply the thread of Jerusalem that makes ROCOR "valid" is silly.

But if membership in the Orthodox communion doesn't matter, Seraphim, then how is that ecclesiology different to that of the garage-church vagante metropolitan who's out of communion with Orthodoxy but claims to be of the same faith?

Of course, that these situations are temporary is key. However, it seems a little too legalistic (and divorced from content) to simply say group x is "not Orthodox" (or must somehow be guilty of a grievous schism, thus also placed outside of the Church) because it's relationship with other Churches is recently "put on hold" (particularly when it's quite clear it's due to reasons that are in many cases beyond their control.)

AFAIK in EOxy the Church of France right now is a question mark. They may be orthodox but outside of the communion of the Church one only can commend them to the mercy of God.

I'm not proposing that I have some hard set rule/alternative...just that history (and modern circumstances) makes "neo-papalism" (legitimacy just somehow magically coming from allegiance with a patriarchal see) a very poor fit.

Is belief there is only one Church 'papalism'? AFAIK in EOxy one patriarch doesn't make or break Orthodoxy - communion does.

Perhaps that's why I think time, is ultimatly the real test with these things (and is also why most Orthodox authors I've read, are loath to take seriously the idea that the west's estrangement from the Orthodox Church was somehow magically affected overnight.)

It was about cultural differences and two empires, Carolingian and Byzantine, that no longer exist.

As for the particular case of the Church of France, I pray that it is something healed quickly, since (as you seem to recognize) they do appear to have been/be on good footing (and even received the endorsement of a modern Saint.)

It was in ROCOR when it received St John Maximovich's endorsement.

[Seraphim Reeves]

Quote:
While communion with other Orthodox is important, I'm uncomfortable with this being held as an absolute standard (at least in the short term) for some obvious reasons...

IMO it is indispensible as is holding orthodox beliefs and having a claim to apostolic succession. AFAIK Eastern Orthodoxy rightly doesn't isolate any of these, separating them from the others as though they could exist independently of the Church.

Well, here is my understanding of these things.

Strictly speaking, "the Church", or at least our thinking about it, doesn't begin at the universal/pan-Orthodox level, but at the local level - a Bishop, his clergy, and a flock under his care.

Communion with others (still thinking at the level of the individual, local Church) is the result of communion with God - and in our communion with God as individuals, we find communion with others.

This is manifested in the "local" Church most clearly when she gathers to celebrate the Divine Liturgy - as St.Paul teaches, by partaking of the one Christ one finds union with God, and by default with others also in Christ.

Now, while this of itself is absolutely true, if left on it's own it could lead to anarchy - there is a rule, a standard, to measure one's own spiritual experience up against (since there are any number of disagreeing people in this world, who claim to be on the correct path towards God), and those of local Churches as well. According to St.Vincent, it is the common witness of the Churches of God (which in reality, spiritually, are one, since they all have the same Eucharist, the same Christ), in time and space, which constitute that rule. This is catholicity/oecumenicity, and the fundamentals of Orthodox dogma, are articulated in the Oecumenical Synods, and those local synods whose rulings have, with time, come to be accepted throughout the Orthodox world.

Obviously, there is an obligation of charity and truth, to be in communion with other Orthodox Christians. However, this matter is complicated by human sinfulness. Examples of this, include simple ignorance (geographical isolation, political situations beyond the control of local Churches, etc.), heresy, violation of canonical order and sectarianism.

While I agree with you that this visible communion of local Churches is vital, it's obvious from both history that it can be interupted for reasons so convoluted and complicated that it's not always clear at the time where blame is to be placed...precisely why, I doubt the problems in our age plaguing Orthodoxy are going to be resolved with anything short of another Oecumenical Synod. Only then will things be clarified, and it will become possible to say which parties are beyond the pale of Orthodoxy or not (and expect others to agree on this!).

However, this visible unity/commemoration between Churches, while important, is at the end of the list I put forward above, for a reason - for it is only evidence of authenticity; not the cause of it. Being "under" such and such patriarchal care, etc., does not automatically render one Orthodox. It's entirely possible, as an individual or even as an entire community, to cross over into heterodoxy while still "officially" being Orthodox. This has happened in the past, and according to some, is what is going on in large segments of the Orthodox world right now.

Orthodox ecclessiology is, on a basic/fundamental level, hesychastic - for the Holy Gospel is such (the "good news" of Christ being the "good news of the kingdom of God", which according to Christ is found in the hearts of those being saved.)

Vagantes are identifiable as such, because their origins are not in accord with canonical principles (they began as clear schisms, or worse, they were never even part of the Orthodox world...having gained "valid" consecration from other non-Orthodox groups, like the Old Catholics, disgraced former Orthodox/Roman Catholic Bishops, etc.) However, I will qualify this by saying that even this is not always clear cut - for example, according to some, the Old Calendarists (even the so called "moderates" in communion with ROCOR) violated canonical principles in separating from their mother Churches; where as they'd cite canons which say that there is a moral obligation to separate from heretical heirarchs... thus, there is an obvious disagreement about whether or not "heirarch x" is heretical or not.

IT is for the above reasons, that I'm not comfortable with the standard you're providing - at least not as an absolute rule (it reminds me too much of the SCOBA = Orthodox America crowd.) There are exceptions, particularly in exceptional times like our own (where a number of issues/circumstances have caused divisions in the Orthodox world.)

True in ancient and early medieval times, like when the Maronites were cut off from everybody and inadvertently became Monothelite, but that argument doesn't fly in an age when there are transatlantic flights and phone calls - the case when the Romanians inexplicably cut the Church of France loose.

Well it can hold water now for different reasons - precisely because people may communicate "too much", and personal politics and other outrages are allowed to create divisions.

Keep in mind, my concern is not so much the Church of France in particular - I do not know enough about their circumstances. I'd also like to know what the nature of their falling out with ROCOR was, and why the Romanians have dealt with them as they have.

I see the point but this state of affairs makes Eastern Orthodoxy look more like an aggregation of churches with orthodox beliefs and 'valid' orders than a Church.

Well, strictly speaking, that is what the Orthodox Church is - a visible unity of separate "local" Churches (which in fact is what the Church essentially is; St.Paul addresses Corinth, Ephesus, etc. as being "Churches", not as being parts of a larger whole) with a common faith and bound together by their communion with God. The idea of ecclessiology beginning on a universal scale is more in keeping with Roman Catholicism, and is a later development (and one which was fraught with problems; perhaps it can be in large part blamed for why there was a fall out between Rome and the rest of the Orthodox world.)

Synods, and the commemorations binding those Synods together, are a part of canonical order - their players and particulars are subject to change with time. They're evidence of authenticity, rather than it's source.

But if membership in the Orthodox communion doesn't matter, Seraphim, then how is that ecclesiology different to that of the garage-church vagante metropolitan who's out of communion with Orthodoxy but claims to be of the same faith?

You're saying more here than I would - I would never say visible unity with other Churches "doesn't matter." It does - there's an obligation to truth and charity to maintain such visible unity. However, for the reasons I've given previous in this post, such a unity is evidence and part of the calling in being Orthodox and on the "way" towards God - it is not what of itself makes one Orthodox (since outward participation in the Church at any level doesn't guarantee one's personal commitment to the truth.) It is also not a standard without exceptions - where as there are no exceptions to those things more close to the center/heart of Orthodoxy (like the dogmas of the Church - no amount of "officialdom" will make a heretic genuinely Orthodox.)

It's more in keeping with old RC ecclessiology and apologetics to understand the Church first as a global reality, of which diocese' are merely departments - it is precisely this view of the Church which has been a staple of RC apologists for criticizing Orthodoxy in the best of times (attacking Orthodoxy for being a "grouping of local Churches", unlike the RCC which really only as one Bishop, the Pope, and his many vassals throughout the world.)

AFAIK in EOxy the Church of France right now is a question mark. They may be orthodox but outside of the communion of the Church one only can commend them to the mercy of God.

Perhaps; I do not know as much as I'd like about their situation (and it seems hard to find this information on the 'net...if you or anyone else finds anything, I'd appreciate seeing it posted here.) However, I do think it's a possibility for a synod to become isolated for reasons beyond it's control (or for which it is not blameworthy); if such happens, I see nothing that justifies the claim they suddenly become "non-Orthodox".

I don't claim any formal education on these matters, only what I've managed to absorb. If you or anyone see's anything wanting in what I've said, I'd heartily appreciate correction.

Seraphim

[Serge]

Seraphim,

It's more in keeping with old RC ecclessiology and apologetics to understand the Church first as a global reality

I agree that seeing the Church as a global reality first is Catholic. But is that mutually exclusive to the Eastern Orthodox view of the Church from the ground up (bishop and his people celebrating the Eucharist)? Also, in the beginning in Jerusalem wasn't the Church a global reality, before it spread through the known world of that time and developed into independent local Churches, separate rites, etc.?

And how did you take Cardinal Walter Kasper's claim a year ago that 'there is no such thing as the Orthodox Church'? I remember the EOs online weren't very happy with it.

[Seraphim Reeves]

I agree that seeing the Church as a global reality first is Catholic. But is that mutually exclusive to the Eastern Orthodox view of the Church from the ground up (bishop and his people celebrating the Eucharist)? Also, in the beginning in Jerusalem wasn't the Church a global reality, before it spread through the known world of that time and developed into independent local Churches, separate rites, etc.?

I struggeled with this question up until very recently - until I realized it was a false battle (based on some incorrect assumptions.)

The Church as a "global" reality (as a collection of Churches) is a consequence of there being a "Church of New York" or a "Church in Toronto." Ecclessiology can never begin on a "global" scale, for such a starting point cannot help but warp one's perspective on what the Church fundamentally is.

The two are not mutually exclusive; however one follows from the other (and not vice versa.) A seemingly small, but extremely important distinction (imho.)

And how did you take Cardinal Walter Kasper's claim a year ago that 'there is no such thing as the Orthodox Church'? I remember the EOs online weren't very happy with it.

Well, if they took his comment to mean that there really isn't an Orthodox Church as Orthodoxy understands herself, I guess it would be cause to be annoyed. If he was trying to belittle Orthodoxy, perhaps that could be vexing.

Honestly, I'm not sure what value the comments would be, even if intended to be biting, since the understanding of "church" he has, is invariably at odds with fundamental Orthodox ecclessiology. By his affirmation of papal ecclessiology, by default he has decided that the Church as a "universal insititution" is what is essential to her being "church". In such a set up, the Papacy might even make sense.

However that is not how the Apostolic Church developed throughout the world, let alone how it began (most certainly not the latter.) Thus for me, his comments were something of a non-event; it was like telling a lady she's not much of a man.

Seraphim

[mwoerl]

Bishop John (Evgraf Kovalevsky)
Born 1905 in Saint Petersburg
Died 1972 in Paris

He lived as an emigre in Paris from 1920. Studied at the Sorbonne and the Saint Sergius Institute. He co-founded the Brotherhood of Saint Photius and the first French language Orthodox parish, Saint Genevieve, to which other parishes were added. In nineteen thirty seven he was involved in the establishment of the "Catholic Orthodox Church in France," under the leadership of the priest Charles Winnaert (+nineteen thiry seven), which had relations with Metropolitan Elevthery of the MP. He was ordained to the priesthood by Metropolitan Elevthery in nineteen thirty seven and took over direction of the communities. In nineteen fifty-three, Fr Evgraf and most of his parishes broke with the MP, and his parishes remained independent until 190 because no other jurisdiction would receive them. Through the intercession of Saint John Maximovitch, the group was received by the ROCOR in nineteen sixty. (if anyone is wondering, some of my number keys do not work and it is a real pain....) Fr Evgraf was consecrated to the episcopate in nineteen sixty four by Saint John and Bishop Teofil (Ionescu, +1975, head of ROCOR's new calendar Romanian diocese) in San Francisco, and given the title "Bishop of Saint Denis," in charge of the French language parishes. (The group was western rite-i have a photo of the consecration-Saint John laying hands on Bishop John who is dressed in western rite miter and vestments-very -uh- different photo!) In nineteen sixty-six, tensions arose between the group and the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR (I heard that then Abp (later Met.) Vitaly was dispatched to France to tell Bishop John and his group that they were -uh- OUT! it seems whoever told me the story said that abp vitaly apparently sort of relished this task, as he had been vehemently against it to begin with...)which led Bishop John to seek acceptance by the RomanianPatirarchate, and the negotiations continued until his death in nineteen seventy-two. The various jurisdictional affiliations of this group led to many internal splits and differences.
They were eventually accepted by the Romanian Patriarchate-i know i heard why the Romanians dumped them later, but cannot remember-some big scandal or some charge of heresy or .......while they were with the Romanians, they had a real slick glossy magazine that i saw once..if they still exist, apparently they are on their own...also, some vagante type western rite people in the us now claim they are part of or blessed by ther Orthodox Church of France........
michael woerl
michael woerl

[Seraphim Reeves]

If you have any computurized documents pertaining to this, or scans of the photos you've mentioned, I'd really appreciate receiving copies.

My e-mail is seraphim_of_sarov@hotmail.com I trust you know how to create e-mail attachments.

Seraphim