Posted on 12/12/2018 1:55:37 PM PST by NRx
The Archdiocese of the Russian Churches in Western Europe, officially the Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of the Russian Tradition in Western Europe, intends to ask to be accepted into the Russian Orthodox Church.
The Archdiocese had been a part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople for decades, though it was suddenly abolished without warning by the Holy Synod of the Constantinople on November 27. The Patriarchate then officially announced that it had revoked the 1999 tomos that gave the care of the Archdiocese to its own Archbishop-Exarch and that the Russian parishes were to be integrated into the dioceses of the Patriarchate of Constantinople already present in their countries. The Archdiocese then announced that it would hold a clergy meeting on December 15 that would set a date for a General Assembly that would formulate a response to Constantinople.
And today, a Russian translation of a letter sent from the Archdiocesan hierarch Archbishop John (Renneteau) of Chariopoulis to His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, received by the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department of External Church Relations (DECR), has been published on Credo Press, revealing that the Archdiocese intends to petition for canonical recognition by the Russian Orthodox Church.
This has been confirmed to OrthoChristian by an employee of the DECR.
The letter reads:
"Your Holiness!
After my meeting with Metropolitan Hilarion on November 30, 2018, I am allowing myself, as Archbishop, to begin a correspondence with you regarding the Archdiocese of the Russian Churches in Western Europe's new situation. My main pastoral concern is to preserve the unity, integrity, and specificity of this Archdiocese, which played an important role in preserving the theological, liturgical, and ecclesiological spiritual tradition of the Russian Church in Western Europe in a difficult historical period.
We are planning to ask you for canonical recognition of the aforementioned Archdiocese, which would ensure the continuity of the inheritance and mission that is turning 100 (in 2024), and which will also allow many to enter the path of reconciliation after so many years of mutual distrust. To this end, we would like you to consider it possible to confirm to us the assurance of the legal and ecclesiastical continuity of our structure, regulated by its statutes, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of July 1, 1901 and the Act of December 9, 1905, and also the decree of May 6, 1906, in accordance with the laws of the French Republic on relations between the state and churches.
Moreover, our statutes directly refer to the resolutions of the Moscow Council of 1917-1918. It is this inheritance that we would like to preserve, because it allowed for the preservation of an open Church life including the participation of the laity in the life of the community.
Asking this, Your Holiness, we do not want to enter into any competition with your dioceses in Western Europe, but into cooperation with respect for our own historical path.
It could be fruitful and allow us to join the Synod or Metropolia of the Russian Church in Western Europe, allowing for the better integration of all our parishes of various languages in various countries, while maintaining the integrity of this Archdiocese in the universal mission of the Orthodox Church.
Requesting this, Your Holiness, I understand that we will have to deepen this return together, addressing the fundamental principles of our Archdiocese, which is within the Mother Church from which it is transferring.
Being confident in your positive and pastoral attitude towards our request, I wish you a good feast of the Entrance of the Most Holy Theotokos and we entreat your holy prayers for us all, and your blessing.
Archbishop John of Chariopoulis Paris, December 7, 2018"
Updated 12/13/2018, 12:35 AM to reflect that the reception and content of the letter was confirmed to OrthoChristian.
No kidding? Russia recently invaded, conquered and illegally annexed the mineral rich Crimean peninsula. All with the support of the Russian Orthodox Church, which in my opinion is more nationalist than it is orthodox.
Actually I think that’s more or less historically backwards. Crimea has been historically Russian since being conquered from the Turks. The population is more than 90% ethnically Russian and Crimea has no real history of attachment to Ukraine. It only became part of the Ukrainian FSSR when Nikita Khrushchev arbitrarily redrew the administrative map of the USSR in the 1950’s. (Khrushchev was Ukrainian.) It’s been a sore point both with Russia and the people who live there almost all of whom wanted to remain part of Russia.
A more serious issue is Russia’s invasion of Eastern Ukraine, where the population is mixed and there is a much stronger historical claim favoring Ukraine.
How would you feel about Russia invading Alaska and reclaiming it, because it was once theirs?
I could say the same for Mexico’s “claims” to most of the Southwestern United States.
So it is a nationalist problem, rather than a religous one, right?
Big difference. Russia sold Alaska to us. Nobody in Russia got a say when Crimea got handed to Ukraine.
Well there was a war, and we stole the land fair and square. In the case of Crimea, Russia is stealing what was theirs back. And unlike in the modern southwest of the US, almost everyone in Crimea self identifies as Russian.
Yes, In the case of Crimea, the issue is national identity and the right of a people to self determination. It’s worth noting that in the long list of people screaming bloody murder about Russia’s annexation of Crimea, there is no real clamor in Crimea. Even the notoriously anti-Russian western media generally acknowledges that 90%+ of the population want to be part of Russia.
Since when is stealing fair and square?
That's horse hockey! Why did Crimea put up a fight?
Crimea was mineral rich, Putin wanted it, and he knew he could beat it to a pulp.
Alaska is mineral rich and was once Russia, but Putin is too chicken to take on the U.S.
And once again, why did Crimea put up a fight against it's aggressor? Russia's sneak attack reminds me of the movie Red Dawn.
Well... if you want to give the SW US back to Mexico you can make that argument.
Crimea did not put up a fight. The Ukrainian government was highly ticked. But that is not the same thing. Not sure where you are getting your information from.
And 90% of the U.S. Mexican-American population is not 90% of the US southwest. 90% of the population of Crimea considers itself Russian.
I thought you were talking about Russia stealing Crimea “fair and square”.
While Ukrainian forces achieved some victories early in the conflict, a profusion of Russian-supplied advanced weapons helped the separatists gain the upper hand by the summer of 2014. These included T-64 and T-72 battle tanks, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles known as MANPADS, and the Strela-10 armored vehicle with surface-to-air-missiles and machine guns.
Additionally, the separatists likely used the Russian-supplied Buk, a long-range anti-aircraft missile system, to shoot down Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 in July 2014, killing nearly 300 people. The rebels’ increased use of anti-aircraft weapons deterred the Ukrainian military from using its air power and further hampered its forces, the report said.
Satellite images and other evidence indicate that the separatists did not capture the weapons from Ukrainian forces, such as with the T-72 tank.
This is about the invasion of Eastern Ukraine, not Crimea. I already stated that this is a much more serious situation and not defensible on the part of Russia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.