Foreword: Memories

In 1981 we were a young Orthodox couple living in a small town in Cambridgeshire, struggling financially with a baby daughter and expecting a second. We were so naïve that we actually thought that all Orthodox bishops were Christians. That’s how naïve we were. But let us go back long before that, to a day in 1917, when my future grandparents with a baby daughter and expecting a second were travelling down the Colne Valley Railway and then for several miles on foot. They were going from south-west Suffolk to north-east Essex, in search of work amid the crisis of the Great War. At the same time as these minor family matters, events a hundred million times greater and more tragic were happening internationally.

Introduction: The Past

In three fateful months at the end of 1916 and the beginning of 1917 the British elite through its ambassador Buchanan and his spies in Saint Petersburg orchestrated the overthrow of the Orthodox Tsar by atheist Russian aristocrats, generals, bankers, lawyers and journalists. Since then the Church, that is, the whole Confederation of the Orthodox Church, has descended into chaos, struggling under persecution from ‘East and West’, that is, from Communists and freemasons. Moreover, since the fall of Communism in 1991, this strife has not ceased and we are still dealing with the consequences of that twentieth-century struggle.

Indeed, instead of overcoming the old Cold War divisions, the divisions between the extremes of once Communist, now nationalist Moscow, and once masonic, now globalist Constantinople, have continued. These have paralysed the Church, thwarting all solutions to the clear canonical irregularities which we all suffer from, especially in the Diaspora. This situation has left all who are between the Russian and Greek extremes thwarted.

Perhaps, one day, there will be a Patriarch Tikhon II of Moscow and of All Russia (by then of All Russia, but no longer of All the Russias). Perhaps one day there will be a Patriarch Maximos VI of Constantinople (by then residing in Thessaloniki and not in Istanbul). Each could take up the unfinished tasks that were so tragically interrupted, one by British-orchestrated Russian aristocrats in 1917, the other (so very soon afterwards because without a Tsar they could do such things) by the masonically-orchestrated Patriarch Meletios (Metaxakis) in 1921 and later by the CIA-installed Patriarch Athenagoras (Spyrou) in 1948.

However, even before any such possible future, a new generation of Patriarchs has by the hand of God appeared and are forming a new Centre, outside the paralysing extremes of Russians and Greeks. Those extremes have caused the Church to stagnate in the distant past. In today’s global world, when Orthodox live all over the planet and use the internet, it is time to overcome these absurd anachronisms. There are over 50 Orthodox bishops in the USA and over 25 in Western Europe, but no Local Churches, and yet there are tiny Autocephalous Churches in Eastern Europe with only a handful of bishops.

What if the heads of the ten Non-Greek and Non-Russian Local Churches, Patriarch Daniel of Bucharest, Patriarch Daniel of Sofia, Patriarch Porphyry of Belgrade, Archbishop Anastasius of Albania, supported by the Patriarchs of Georgia, Antioch and Jerusalem and the Metropolitans of the Polish, Czechoslovak and Macedonian Churches, a majority of the whole Church, were to call an Inter-Orthodox Conference, perhaps at the National Cathedral in Bucharest? What could the agenda be for such an Inter-Orthodox Conference, which could, if blessed by the Holy Spirit, become a Church Council?

An Agenda of Autocephaly and Autonomy

Even if Russians and Greeks did not have new leadership and/or continued to block canonical resolutions to their problems, Constantinople, Moscow and Alexandria could be called on by the Non-Greeks and Non-Russians at such an Inter-Orthodox Conference to make peace as Christians. They could come to compromises and put forward concrete proposals. For example:

Constantinople could be called on to give up all of Moscow’s territory in the former USSR, including in the Ukraine and Estonia. But Moscow in turn could be called on to cancel and apologise for its uncanonical ‘defrockings’ and ‘suspensions’ of clergy who were obliged to join Constantinople and all those clergy could return to Moscow, if they wished. However, concessions to Moscow would depend on concessions it made to others (see below). As for the canonical dispute between Moscow and Alexandria regarding the territory of Africa, we suggest a compromise solution, which is explained below.

In return for this concession by Constantinople, it would receive several benefits. Firstly, the Church of Greece could be called on to reintegrate the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople, provided that the centre of this Patriarchate were transferred to Thessaloniki, near Mt Athos, which is already in the Constantinople jurisdiction (and not to the political capital of Athens).

This would end the political pressures on Constantinople of the Neo-Ottoman Sultanate, the Vatican and the CIA, after a disastrous period of such political pressures and centuries of bribes and corruption. The Greek Orthodox would at last have their own canonical Patriarch for Greece and for all Greek speakers in the Diaspora. To those who object to this, there is no reason why a title has to be geographically accurate. For example, for generations, the Patriarchate of Antioch (now a town in Turkiye) has been in Damascus. There would then be thirteen, universally recognised Local Churches. Other benefits could follow – see below.

Together, the first act of these thirteen Churches could be to confirm the autocephaly (full independence) of the (North) Macedonian Orthodox Church, but allowing the Greek Churches to call it by another name among themselves, if they preferred, for example, The Autocephalous Church of Ochrid. Canonical autocephaly was already granted it by the Serbian Orthodox Church, on whose canonical territory Macedonia is situated. This would make fourteen, universally recognised Local Churches.

Together, the first act of these fourteen Churches could be to confirm the creation of a united Autonomous Moldovan Orthodox Church, established jointly by the Russian and Romanian Churches. This would come under the jurisdiction of the Romanian Orthodox Church, with guarantees for all Russians and Russian customs on the autonomous (and politically independent) territory and for guaranteed pastoral care for the Moldovan Diaspora under the Romanian Orthodox Church. The Russian Church would also cancel all its political ‘defrockings’ of clergy, who were formerly under the Russian Church and who have joined the Romanian Church.

Together, in return, the second act of the fourteen Churches could be to confirm the two other Autonomous Orthodox Churches, the Japanese and Chinese, established by and under the pastoral care of Moscow. For the Patriarchate of Constantinople (now centred in Thessaloniki), there would be compensation in the form of Russian concessions to Constantinople on the territory of the former USSR, Northern America, Latin America, Western Europe and Oceania (see below).

From Fourteen to Eighteen and to Twenty-Four Local Churches

Together, the fourteen Local Churches could confirm the autocephaly of four new Local Churches, established by Moscow and Constantinople and confirmed by the other Local Churches. This would see the Church of Moscow becoming less populous, reducing it to a membership of about 100 million, half of the present total of the whole Orthodox Church. These four new Local Churches would be on the territory of the former Russian Empire/Soviet Union: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church; the Belarusian Orthodox Church; the Central Asian Orthodox Church (centred in Kazakhstan, but covering all five former Soviet ‘stans’); and the Baltic Orthodox Church, for all Orthodox in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland.

Together, these eighteen Local Churches could confirm the autocephaly of another six new Local Churches, to be established by all the Local Churches which have Diasporas. These would be multinational Churches, with several dioceses for each nationality, separate but together, models of unity in diversity. These new Churches would at last neutralise the vain, century-long battle for influence between Moscow and Constantinople in the Diasporas through the mediation of all the Local Churches concerned. These new Local Churches could be:

The Western European Orthodox Church, for all Orthodox residing in the at present twenty nations of Western Europe: Portugal, Spain, Andorra, Italy, San Marino, Malta, France, Monaco, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Ireland, United Kingdom, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden. Although a clear majority of Orthodox living here are Romanian, all would be represented freely and fairly in this new Church.

The Austro-Hungarian Orthodox Church, centred in Uzhhorod and with dioceses on the territory of Carpatho-Rus, but with two more dioceses, one centred in Budapest and the other in Vienna. Carpatho-Rus was formerly under Austro-Hungarian control, but later called Subcarpathian Rus under Czechoslovakia and then miscalled ‘Transcarpathia’ by Ukrainian chauvinists. These Orthodox were formerly persecuted by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, then came under the canonical protection of Serbian Church before coming under the Russian Church. However, these people are neither Ukrainian, nor Russian, but Rusyn. Taking over Orthodox leadership of the territories of Hungary and Austria, Rusyns would guarantee that Orthodox of other nationalities, such as Serbs, Greeks and Russians, would be represented freely and fairly in the Church administration.

The Northern American Orthodox Church, replacing the OCA, whose autocephaly on a shared territory was never accepted by the vast majority, and including all Orthodox residing in largely English-speaking Northern America, that is, in the USA, Canada, Greenland and associated islands. This move could be agreeable to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, since Greeks make up the largest ethnic group in Northern America. Although a clear majority of Orthodox living here are Greek, all would be represented freely and fairly in this new Church. As the first Orthodox here were Alaskans, it would be fitting if an Alaskan could be found and appointed Metropolitan.

The Latin American Orthodox Church, for all Orthodox residing in the Latin-speaking countries of South and Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean. The Patriarchate of Antioch, which has many faithful here, could play an important role in appointing a Metropolitan.

The Oceanian Orthodox Church, covering all Orthodox residing in the Continent of Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific Ocean. Although a clear majority of Orthodox living here are Greek, all would be represented freely and fairly in this new Church, but perhaps a suitable Greek Metropolitan could be found to lead this Church.

The African Orthodox Church, to be established by the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Moscow, though possibly leaving Egypt within the jurisdiction of Alexandria. All political ‘defrockings’ made by Alexandria are to be cancelled. This compromise between the two Patriarchates would free African Orthodox from both Greek and Russian national, almost colonial, politics and give them autocephaly and appoint an African Metropolitan.

Conclusion: The Affirmation of the Church

Although administrative and not at all dogmatic in nature, the above propositions, if made and if accepted by Moscow and Constantinople in humility, which is the only way to overcome national pride, would establish twenty-four Local Orthodox Churches. This would reconfirm the nature of the Church of the Seven Universal Councils – that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. This means that:

The Unity of the Church would be affirmed by an Inter-Orthodox Conference/Council, bringing full communion and agreement between all the Local Churches. Perhaps this could lead to an agreement to fix a Yearly Paschal Conference of the Heads of the twenty-four Local Churches. Such a Conference could be held under the rotating chairmanship of different Local Churches.

The Holiness of the Church would be affirmed by the common canonisation of saints of many nationalities at such an Inter-Orthodox Conference/Council. These saints might include Romanian, Russian, Serbian and Greek New Martyrs, for example, or the common celebration of still little-known local saints, models of piety for our times, such as St Olga of Alaska, introducing them into the mainstream.

The Catholicity of the Church would be affirmed by the Conciliarity of such a Conference/Council, which works against divisive nationalism, which is the enemy of our Catholicity. Perhaps this could lead to an agreement to fix a Five-Yearly Conference of five bishops from each Local Church, of 120 bishops in all. Such a Conference could be held under the rotating chairmanship of different Local Churches.

The Apostolicity of the Church would be affirmed by the missionary nature of the establishment of ten new Local Churches in territories where there have not been any Local Churches before. These are the vast Continents of Africa, Northern America, Latin America, Oceania and the half-continent of Western Europe, with their teeming billions. This would leave the existing Local Churches to establish in due course new missions and then Local Churches in the rest of Asia outside China and Japan, though there too much missionary work has still to be done, for example, in South and South-East Asia.

May God’s Will be done!