Anyone In Communion With The "Church of France"?

[Justin Kissel]

Father Seraphim Rose had a great interest in some of the saints of pre-schism France (Gaul), and I must admit that I became interested in some of them myself last night. After doing a bit of reading, I came to understand that the "Church of France" is in a more confused state than I had thought it was. Their ecclesiology seems half-decently solid (they have a number of pages on their site devoted to this, such as this page), and I think it is of great importance for us in the west to pay attention to the other western countries in their struggles for Orthodoxy (if for no other reason, so that we can better understand ourselves and how we should go about things). I guess what I'm curious about then, is if anyone knows how the various Orthodox bodies view the "Church of France"? How did they view it while Saint John (of Shanghai and San Francisco) was a bishop there? Why did the Romanians change their stance so quickly? Is a conversation about France's canonicity of necessity tied in with a conversation about the validity of the OCA, since they were both supported by the MP while it was still under the tyranny of the Soviets? (if so, I won't want to talk about it right now, lol ).

Justin

PS. I never realised how many French saints there are! Even if you only count saints recognized and on the calendar at the POMOG site, there are still dozens and dozens! There seem to have been about 2 dozen within the 4th-6th century peiod alone: that must have been a very Orthodox place!

[尼古拉前执事]

If I recall correctly they used to be in communion with ROCOR but no longer are. I do not know of them being in communion with anyone anym ore however.

[Justin Kissel]

Thanks nicholas They seem to have a very confusing 20th century history, being intertwined at one time or another with ROCOR, the MP, the Romanians, and being attacked by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco apparently thought they had a solid foundation upon which to build, yet things keep crumbling for them. Is sad, considering their extremely rich history, which Saint John himself understood so well, and which has been expounded upon since by Saint John's followers (e.g., Seraphim Rose).

[尼古拉前执事]

AlaskanOrthodox, one our MIA posters is a member of a church in Alaska that recently came to be under the ROCOR. That church at one time was part of the Church of France. Perhaps he would know some more about them frm discussion with his fellow parishioners?

[Serge]

AFAIK the Orthodox Church of France is by default outside of Orthodoxy, not in communion with anyone, but have no idea why. Did the Romanian Church cut them loose (if so why?) or did they leave the Romanian Church? I have some of their literature from 15 years ago and it definitely isn't liberal and definitely is Eastern - doesn't read like vagante stuff.

[Justin Kissel]

I'm going from memory here, but I believe that one Romanian bishop was originally involved when Saint John (of San Francisco) was there in France. There seems to have been some problem with ROCOR after St. John died, and the French cut ties, I believe. After these difficulties, it's my understanding that the Romanian Church again made an effort to help the French get back up onto their feet. Then (again, I'm going from memory) Constantinople apparently started getting vocal about some strange claim that France fell within the "barbarian lands" over which it had jurisdiction (I say it's strange since France has such a vibrant Orthodox history, they weren't "barbarian lands" when the canon talking about barbarian lands was written). I guess they put some pressure on the Romanians and the Romanians essentially withdrew their support.

I had began studying the issue a bit, and had even started a page on my site where I planned to put up information about French saints, but unfortunately my move has left me in a position where I can do little to no research. Ahh well, will get back on track eventually.

God Bless!

Justin

[Seraphim Reeves]

AFAIK the Orthodox Church of France is by default outside of Orthodoxy, not in communion with anyone, but have no idea why. Did the Romanian Church cut them loose (if so why?) or did they leave the Romanian Church? I have some of their literature from 15 years ago and it definitely isn't liberal and definitely is Eastern - doesn't read like vagante stuff.

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...

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

b) the possibility that fall outs between heirarchs 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.)

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.

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.)

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. 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.)

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.)

Seraphim