Le problème des Églises orthodoxes en Ukraine

Le problème des Églises orthodoxes en Ukraine

Francesco Foti

Source: https://www.centromachiavelli.com/2025/08/12/il-problema-delle-chiese-ortodosse-in-ucraina/#

Le conflit entre l'Ukraine et la Russie n'implique pas seulement des dynamiques politiques et militaires, mais aussi des questions religieuses et une dimension informationnelle complexe axée sur des thèmes tels que l'indépendance, l'intégrité territoriale, l'autodétermination, la sécurité et les actions qui ont précédé les opérations militaires de 2014 et 2022.

Le Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques garantit la liberté de religion et d'expression (articles 18 et 19). De même, l'OSCE/BIDDH invite à faire preuve d'une attention particulière lors de la restriction de la liberté religieuse pendant les conflits armés.

L'interdiction des liens avec le Patriarcat de Moscou

En septembre 2024, le président ukrainien Zelensky a annoncé l'interdiction de l'Église ukrainienne liée au Patriarcat de Moscou et dirigée par le métropolite Onufrij (Onofrio). Cette décision a été critiquée par la Mission d'observation des droits de l'homme des Nations unies en Ukraine, le Rapport sur la liberté religieuse internationale du Département d'État américain et Amnesty International. L'Église ukrainienne avait déclaré avoir rompu ses relations avec Moscou après le début du conflit et le métropolite Onufriy avait pris ses distances par rapport à l'invasion, exprimant son soutien à l'armée ukrainienne. Le débat public sur la question ecclésiastique en Ukraine a été fortement influencé par des positions favorables à l'actuelle direction politique, par des milieux extérieurs au contexte orthodoxe et par des voix critiques à l'égard du rôle historique de l'Église orthodoxe dans le pays, y compris certains médias tels que United Media 24.

La polarisation croissante de la société ukrainienne a été associée à une augmentation des tensions sociales qui, selon certaines analyses, pourraient avoir des implications sur le respect des droits fondamentaux, y compris la liberté de conscience, en particulier pour les citoyens ukrainiens de confession orthodoxe et les communautés religieuses liées à la tradition orthodoxe. Plusieurs rapports font état d'un possible déséquilibre dans les relations entre l'État et l'Église, traditionnellement marquées par une coopération harmonieuse et synodale, avec une influence accrue de l'État. Dans ce contexte, des activités des services de sécurité auraient suscité des inquiétudes quant au respect des garanties démocratiques, notamment au regard des aspirations de l'Ukraine à intégrer l'UE. Il convient également de noter que les services de sécurité sont directement subordonnés à l'autorité présidentielle, et certains observateurs ont soulevé des questions quant au degré d'indépendance et de transparence de leurs opérations, en particulier en ce qui concerne les perquisitions, les condamnations et la formulation des accusations à l'encontre de membres du clergé ou de fidèles affiliés à l'Église ukrainienne faisant l'objet de contre-mesures telles que le Myrotvoretz.

L'Église d'État ukrainienne

L'Église d'Ukraine, récemment créée et reconnue au niveau national, semble s'aligner, à plusieurs reprises, sur les positions du pouvoir exécutif. Parmi les manifestations de cette orientation figurent des déclarations de soutien à des manifestations dans d'autres pays, comme la Géorgie, ainsi que la participation à des initiatives concernant des édifices religieux appartenant auparavant à l'Église ukrainienne.

Tant en Ukraine qu'en Russie, des responsables politiques ont eu recours à des interprétations sélectives de l'histoire pour soutenir leurs récits nationaux respectifs et leurs outils de communication publique. Dans ce contexte, des observateurs critiques ont relevé que les institutions religieuses, dans leur ensemble, n'ont pas toujours pris clairement position contre l'utilisation instrumentale de la foi, de la religion et du nationalisme, éléments que les conciles de la tradition ont condamné à plusieurs reprises, en particulier l'ethno-philétisme. Certaines sources ont également exhorté le Patriarcat œcuménique de Constantinople, en la personne du patriarche Bartholomée Ier, à s'exprimer plus clairement sur des incidents attribués à l'Église ukrainienne reconnue par l'État, qui comprendraient des actions jugées problématiques à l'égard de bâtiments religieux, du clergé et des fidèles appartenant à l'Église ukrainienne. Ce n'est pas la première fois que des critiques sont formulées à l'égard de l'action de cette Église, comme le montrent les précédents liés à la non-enregistrement de l'« association religieuse des Églises orthodoxes roumaines en Ukraine », qui avait suscité des perplexités dans le monde ecclésiastique.

Certaines Églises sœurs, dont l'Église roumaine, ont invité le Patriarcat œcuménique de Constantinople à entamer un dialogue fondé sur la tradition ecclésiastique plutôt que sur des critères ethniques ou des dynamiques politico-nationales. Dans ce contexte, des réserves ont également été exprimées par les Églises serbe et bulgare concernant la décision du Patriarcat œcuménique d'accorder le tomos d'autocéphalie à l'Église orthodoxe d'Ukraine sans conciliation ni réconciliation préalable entre les juridictions présentes en Ukraine, ni dialogue avec le Patriarcat de Moscou. Dans cette perspective, un processus de dialogue entre Constantinople et Moscou serait souhaitable afin d'aborder de manière constructive la complexité de la situation ecclésiastique en Ukraine. Le fait que les préoccupations exprimées par le patriarcat de Moscou concernant les limites de ses juridictions canoniques n'aient pas été prises en considération est considéré par certains experts en questions ecclésiastiques comme un élément critique. Historiquement, l'Ukraine fait partie du Patriarcat de Moscou depuis 1686, à la suite du transfert de la métropole de Kiev du Patriarcat œcuménique de Constantinople. Une approche fondée sur la conciliation, la continuité canonique et la sensibilité pastorale envers les fidèles en Ukraine a également caractérisé la position adoptée par l'Église géorgienne.

Les récentes décisions de l'Église ukrainienne concernant la vénération officielle des saints et, dans le cas du prêtre Roman Hryshchuk, des attributs spirituels qui leur sont associés, ainsi que les initiatives de l'État concernant la propriété de la Laure des Mouvements de la Grotte, soulèvent des questions sur la perception et la continuité de la foi parmi les croyants. Ces développements proviennent d'une Église soutenue par l'État et seulement partiellement reconnue par les autres Églises orthodoxes, ainsi que par les autorités gouvernementales, y compris les services de sécurité. Bien que les deux Églises rivales présentes en Ukraine partagent les mêmes fondements théologiques, les dynamiques politiques qui leur sont liées contribuent à une fracture institutionnelle et sociale. La perspective d'une solution à cette situation semble résider dans l'autonomie des autorités ecclésiastiques et dans la convocation d'un pan-synode. Dans ce contexte, les récentes actions de l'Église d'Ukraine soulèvent la question d'une éventuelle intervention du patriarche œcuménique Bartholomée Ier (photo).

Certaines interprétations, répandues dans les milieux politiques et médiatiques, décrivent la Sainte Rus' comme une construction idéologique récente liée à la rhétorique du gouvernement russe. Cette vision, largement acceptée par le public occidental, tend à négliger les racines historiques et théologiques de ce concept, qui plongent dans des traditions telles que celles de Byzance et de la Troisième Rome. Bien que ces références aient parfois été réinterprétées dans une optique politique, elles conservent une valeur préfigurative, symbolique et analogique qui peut être considérée comme légitime au sein de la foi.

Une impulsion pour la paix ?

Le pape François avait invité les autorités ukrainiennes à agir avec prudence à l'égard des communautés religieuses, en évitant les généralisations, les actions discriminatoires et les mesures fondées sur des sources non vérifiées ou sur des rapports provenant de secteurs institutionnels critiqués pour leur politisation. Le pape a souligné l'importance de protéger la liberté religieuse et de conscience, conformément à l'article 9 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, qui stipule que les restrictions à l'égard des groupes religieux ne peuvent être mises en œuvre que pour des motifs concrets et proportionnés, et si elles sont nécessaires dans une société démocratique.

Dans le contexte de la guerre entre la Russie et l'Ukraine, on observe une divergence entre les spécialistes ecclésiastiques qui s'en tiennent à une lecture historique et théologique fondée, comme Kallistos Ware (photo), et d'autres interprètes, comme Timothy Snyder, qui adoptent des approches plus marquées par des perspectives idéologiques et politiques, contribuant ainsi à une représentation partielle de la réalité religieuse et culturelle de la région. Cette dynamique reflète un climat dans lequel les questions religieuses sont parfois insérées dans un contexte politique et culturel plus large. Des personnalités telles qu'Aleksej Arestovich ont exprimé leur inquiétude quant aux effets de certaines politiques de l'État à l'égard de l'Église d'Ukraine, soulignant le risque de polarisation. Dans ce contexte complexe, la protection de la liberté et l'inclusion religieuse sont des éléments fondamentaux pour le bien-être du tissu social, au-delà des orientations politiques et nationales.

Plus précisément, les services de sécurité opèrent sous la supervision directe de la présidence, avec une structure dirigeante souvent caractérisée par des nominations liées à des relations personnelles. Les enquêtes en cours sur des cas présumés de trahison – fréquemment liés aux organes présidentiels – attirent l'attention à la fois sur la fonction de ces appareils en tant qu'instruments de sécurité nationale et sur leur utilisation possible dans le cadre de la gestion du pouvoir politique. La question de la double nationalité du métropolite Onufrij, largement débattue, est comparable à celle d'autres personnalités publiques (dont Ilya Ponomarev, Artem Skoropadskyi, Kirill Vyshinsky et Maria Gaidar), qui ne font pas l'objet de mesures similaires, ce qui soulève des questions quant à l'uniformité de l'application des règles. La controverse semble porter en particulier sur le rôle du métropolite et son attitude à l'égard du transfert d'autorité à Épiphane Ier de l'Église d'Ukraine. Au niveau local, mais aussi au-delà, la tendance à identifier des personnalités religieuses de premier plan, des promoteurs du dialogue ou de simples fidèles comme des sujets critiques ou suspects, ainsi que les relations historiques complexes entre l'Église et le contexte socioculturel du pays, ne favorisent pas un climat de dialogue constructif ni la recherche de solutions communes, tant au niveau local qu'européen.

Au niveau international, malgré l'engagement déclaré en faveur de la protection des droits des minorités et contre toute forme de discrimination, la situation des communautés religieuses en Ukraine – soulignée également par des déclarations de personnalités institutionnelles américaines – n'a reçu qu'une attention limitée, tant au niveau médiatique que politique. En ce qui concerne l'UE, l'absence d'une position claire et d'un engagement cohérent en faveur du respect des convictions religieuses risque de ne pas être conforme aux principes énoncés dans le Plan d'action des Nations unies et à l'article 35 de la Constitution ukrainienne, qui protège la liberté de conscience. Dans le cadre du processus d'adhésion à l'UE, il serait souhaitable que l'État garantisse le respect des libertés religieuses, en laissant aux autorités religieuses le soin de gérer leurs affaires internes et les relations entre les patriarcats, dans le respect de l'autonomie spirituelle. Toute action en justice devrait être fondée sur des preuves documentées, sur une évaluation individuelle des cas et sur le respect du principe de la présomption d'innocence.

La perception négative de la Russie en Occident et dans certaines régions d'Ukraine ne devrait pas être généralisée sur la base du comportement d'individus isolés ou des opinions d'analystes étrangers sur des personnalités de la foi orthodoxe. Bien que les incidents de troubles à l'ordre public qui compromettent l'intérêt collectif doivent être traités par des moyens légaux, la décision du président Zelensky a été qualifiée par la responsable des services de renseignement américains, Tulsi Gabbard, de mesure critique pour la démocratie et les droits des fidèles. Une éventuelle absence de révision devrait entraîner une réponse des États-Unis, sous forme de sanctions ou d'autres initiatives, comme l'ont suggéré la sénatrice Anna Paulina Luna et d'autres personnalités politiques. En ce qui concerne la construction de l'identité nationale, il est important d'éviter les interprétations sélectives de l'histoire. La longue appartenance de l'Ukraine à l'Empire russe puis à l'Union soviétique est un fait historique qui, bien que pouvant faire l'objet d'une analyse critique, ne devrait pas être effacé ou réécrit par des approches révisionnistes. Cela vaut également pour la nécessité d'éviter les généralisations et les imprécisions, telles que celles du président Poutine.

À l'heure actuelle, l'Ukraine ne remplit pas encore pleinement les conditions requises pour adhérer à l'Union européenne, selon les paramètres fixés par la Commission européenne, l'article 10 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union et les critères de Copenhague. Toutefois, la question centrale concerne la gestion des différents courants idéologiques qui influencent la cohésion sociale, une dynamique observée également dans d'autres contextes historiques, comme dans le cas de l'Angleterre et de l'Écosse pendant la guerre civile anglaise, des guerres de religion en France ou de la répression contre l'Église sous le gouvernement de Vladimir Lénine.

Qui est Francesco Foti?

Analyste. Il écrit sur les relations OTAN/UE-Russie, l'influence russe et chinoise en Europe et la coopération bilatérale/multilatérale dans une perspective sécuritaire et géopolitique. Il applique ces thèmes à des études de cas telles que les Balkans occidentaux, le Caucase du Sud, la Méditerranée orientale et la mer Rouge.

The Empire Splits the Orthodox World – Possible Consequences

The Empire Splits the Orthodox World – Possible Consequences

Ex: http://www.unz.com

In previous articles about this topic I have tried to set the context and explain why most Orthodox Churches are still used as pawns in purely political machinations and how the most commentators who discuss these issues today are using words and concepts in a totally twisted, secular and non-Christian way (which is about as absurd as discussing medicine while using a vague, misunderstood and generally non-medical terminology). I have also written articles trying to explain how the concept of “Church” is completely misunderstood nowadays and how many Orthodox Churches today have lost their original patristic mindset. Finally, I have tried to show the ancient spiritual roots of modern russophobia and how the AngloZionist Empire might try to save the Ukronazi regime in Kiev by triggering a religious crisis in the Ukraine. It is my hope that these articles will provide a useful context to evaluate and discuss the current crisis between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Moscow Patriarchate.

My intention today is to look at the unfolding crisis from a more “modern” point of view and try to evaluate only what the political and social consequences of the latest developments might be in the short and mid term. I will begin by a short summary.

The current context: a summary

The Patriarchate of Constantinople has taken the official decision to:

1. Declare that the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right to unilaterally grant autocephaly (full independence) to any other Church with no consultations with any the other Orthodox Churches.
2. Cancel the decision by the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysios IV in 1686 transferring the Kiev Metropolia (religious jurisdiction overseen by a Metropolite) to the Moscow Patriarchate (a decision which no Patriarch of Constantinople contested for three centuries!)
3. Lift the anathema pronounced against the “Patriarch” Filaret Denisenko by the Moscow Patriarchate (in spite of the fact that the only authority which can lift an anathema is the one which pronounced it in the first place)
4. Recognize as legitimate the so-called “Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate” which it previously had declared as illegitimate and schismatic.
5. Grant actual grand full autocephaly to a future (and yet to be defined) “united Ukrainian Orthodox Church”

Most people naturally focus on this last element, but this might be a mistake, because while illegally granting autocephaly to a mix of nationalist pseudo-Churches is most definitely a bad decision, to act like some kind of “Orthodox Pope” and claim rights which only belong to the entire Church is truly a historical mistake. Not only that, but this mistake now forces every Orthodox Christian to either accept this as a fait accompli and submit to the megalomania of the wannabe Ortho-Pope of the Phanar, or to reject such unilateral and totally illegal action or to enter into open opposition. And this is not the first time such a situation has happened in the history of the Church. I will use an historical parallel to make this point.

The historical context:

The Church of Rome and the rest of the Christian world were already on a collision course for several centuries before the famous date of 1054 when Rome broke away from the Christian world. Whereas for centuries Rome had been the most steadfast bastion of resistance against innovations and heresies, the influence of the Franks in the Church of Rome eventually resulted (after numerous zig-zags on this topic) in a truly disastrous decision to add a single world (filioque - “and the son” in Latin) to the Symbol of Faith (the Credo in Latin). What made that decision even worse was the fact that the Pope of Rome also declared that he had the right to impose that addition upon all the other Christian Churches, with no conciliar discussion or approval. It is often said that the issue of the filioque is “obscure” and largely irrelevant, but that is just a reflection of the theological illiteracy of those making such statements as, in reality, the addition of the filioque completely overthrows the most crucial and important Trinitarian and Christological dogmas of Christianity. But what *is* true is that the attempt to unilaterally impose this heresy on the rest of the Christian world was at least as offensive and, really, as sacrilegious as the filioque itself because it undermined the very nature of the Church. Indeed, the Symbol of Faith defines the Church as “catholic” (Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν”) meaning not only “universal” but also “whole” or “all-inclusive”. In ecclesiological terms this “universality” is manifested in two crucial ways:

First, all Churches are equal, there is no Pope, no “historical see” granting any primacy just as all the Apostles of Christ and all Orthodox bishops are also equals; the Head of the Church is Christ Himself, and the Church is His Theadric Body filled with the Holy Spirit. Oh I know, to say that the Holy Spirit fills the Church is considered absolutely ridiculous in our 21^st century post-Christian world, but check out these words from the Book of Acts: “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” (Acts 15:28) which clearly show that the members of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem clearly believed and proclaimed that their decisions were guided by the Holy Spirit. Anyone still believing that will immediately see why the Church needs no “vicar of Christ” or any “earthly representative” to act in Christ’s name during His absence. In fact, Christ Himself clearly told us “lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matt 28:20). If a Church needs a “vicar” – then Christ and the Holy Spirit are clearly not present in that Church. QED.

Second, crucial decisions, decisions which affect the entire Church, are only taken by a Council of the entire Church, not unilaterally by any one man or any one Church. These are really the basics of what could be called “traditional Christian ecclesiology 101” and the blatant violation of this key ecclesiological dogma by the Papacy in 1054 was as much a cause for the historical schism between East and West (really, between Rome and the rest of Christian world) as was the innovation of the filioque itself.

I hasten to add that while the Popes were the first ones to claim for themselves an authority only given to the full Church, they were not the only ones (by the way, this is a very good working definition of the term “Papacy”: the attribution to one man of all the characteristics belonging solely to the entire Church). In the early 20^th century the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople, Albania, Alexandria, Antioch, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, and Romania got together and, under the direct influence of powerful Masonic lodges, decided to adopt the Gregorian Papal Calendar (named after the 16^th century Pope Gregory XIII). The year was 1923, when the entire Russian Orthodox Church was being literally crucified on the modern Golgotha of the Bolshevik regime, but that did not prevent these Churches from calling their meeting “pan Orthodox”. Neither did the fact that the Russian, Serbian, Georgian, Jerusalem Church and the Holy Mountain (aka “Mount Athos”) rejected this innovation stop them. As for the Papal Calendar itself, the innovators “piously” re-branded it as “improved Julian” and other such euphemism to conceal the real intention behind this.

Finally, even the fact that this decision also triggered a wave of divisions inside their own Churches was not cause for them to reconsider or, even less so, to repent. Professor C. Troitsky was absolutely correct when he wrote that “there is no doubt that future historians of the Orthodox Church will be forced to admit that the Congress of 1923 was the saddest event of Church life in the 20th century” (for more on this tragedy see here, here and here). Here again, one man, Ecumenical Patriarch Meletius IV (Metaxakis) tried to “play Pope” and his actions resulted in a massive upheaval which ripped through the entire Orthodox world.

More recently, the Patriarch of Constantinople tried, once again, to convene what he would want to be an Orthodox “Ecumenical Council” under his personal authority when in 2016 (yet another) “pan Orthodox” council was convened on the island of Crete which was attended by the Churches of Alexandria , Jerusalem , Serbia , Romania , Cyprus , Greece, Poland , Albania and of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. The Churches of Russia, Bulgaria, Georgia and the USA (OCA) refused to attend. Most observers agreed that the Moscow Patriarchate played a key role in undermining what was clearly to be a “robber” council which would have introduced major (and fully non-Orthodox) innovations. The Patriarch of Constantinople never forgave the Russians for torpedoing his planned “ecumenical” council.

Some might have noticed that a majority of local Churches did attend both the 1923 and the 2016 wannabe “pan Orthodox” councils. Such an observation might be very important in a Latin or Protestant context, but in the Orthodox context is is absolutely meaningless for the following reasons:

The theological context:

In the history of the Church there have been many “robber” councils (meaning illegitimate, false, councils) which were attended by a majority of bishops of the time, and even a majority of the Churches; in this article I mentioned the life of Saint Maximos the Confessor (which you can read in full here) as a perfect example of how one single person (not even a priest!) can defend true Christianity against what could appear at the time as the overwhelming number of bishops representing the entire Church. But, as always, these false bishops were eventually denounced and the Truth of Orthodoxy prevailed.

Likewise, at the False Union of Florence, when all the Greek delegates signed the union with the Latin heretics, and only one bishop refused to to do (Saint Mark of Ephesus), the Latin Pope declared in despair “and so we have accomplished nothing!”. He was absolutely correct – that union was rejected by the “Body” of the Church and the names of those apostates who signed it will remain in infamy forever. I could multiply the examples, but what is crucial here is to understand that majorities, large numbers or, even more so, the support of secular authorities are absolutely meaningless in Christian theology and in the history of the Church and that, with time, all the lapsed bishops who attended robber councils are always eventually denounced and the Orthodox truth always proclaimed once again. It is especially important to keep this in mind during times of persecution or of brutal interference by secular authorities because even when they *appear* to have won, their victory is always short-lived.

I would add that the Russian Orthodox Church is not just “one of the many” local Orthodox Churches. Not only is the Russian Orthodox Church by far the biggest Orthodox Church out there, but Moscow used to be the so-called “Third Rome”, something which gives the Moscow Patriarchate a lot of prestige and, therefore, influence. In secular terms of prestige and “street cred” the fact that the Russians did not participate in the 1923 and 2016 congresses is much bigger a blow to its organizers than if, say, the Romanians had boycotted it. This might not be important to God or for truly pious Christians, but I assure you that this is absolutely crucial for the wannabe “Eastern Pope” of the Phanar…

Who is really behind this latest attack on the Church?

So let’s begin by stating the obvious: for all his lofty titles (“His Most Divine All-Holiness the Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch“ no less!), the Patriarch of Constantinople (well, of the Phanar, really), is nothing but a puppet in the hands of the AngloZionist Empire. An ambitious and vain puppet for sure, but a puppet nonetheless. To imagine that the Uber-loser Poroshenko would convince him to pick a major fight with the Moscow Patriarchate is absolutely laughable and totally ridiculous. Some point out that the Patriarch of Constantinople is a Turkish civil servant. While technically true, this does not suggest that Erdogan is behind this move either: right now Erdogan badly needs Russia on so many levels that he gains nothing and risks losing a lot by alienating Moscow. No, the real initiator of this entire operation is the AngloZionist Empire and, of course, the Papacy (which has always tried to create an “Orthodoxerein Ukraine” from the “The Eastern Crusade” and “Northern Crusades” of Popes Innocent III and Gregory IX to the Nazi Ukraine of Bandera – see here for details).

Why would the Empire push for such a move? Here we can find a mix of petty and larger geostrategic reasons. First, the petty ones: they range from the usual impotent knee-jerk reflex to do something, anything, to hurt Russia to pleasing of the Ukronazi emigrés in the USA and Canada. The geostrategic ones range from trying to save the highly unpopular Ukronazi regime in Kiev to breaking up the Orthodox world thereby weakening Russian soft-power and influence. This type of “logic” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Orthodox world today. Here is why:

The typical level of religious education of Orthodox Christians is probably well represented by the famous Bell Curve: some are truly completely ignorant, most know a little, and a few know a lot. As long as things were reasonably peaceful, all these Orthodox Christians could go about their daily lives and not worry too much about the big picture. This is also true of many Orthodox Churches and bishops. Most folks like beautiful rites (singing, golden cupolas, beautiful architecture and historical places) mixed in with a little good old superstition (place a candle before a business meeting or playing the lottery) – such is human nature and, alas, most Orthodox Christians are no different, even if their calling is to be “not of this world”. But now this apparently peaceful picture has been severely disrupted by the actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople whose actions are in such blatant and severe violation of all the basic canons and traditions of the Church that they literally force each Orthodox Christian, especially bishops, to break their silence and take a position: am I with Moscow or with Constantinople?

Oh sure, initially many (most?) Orthodox Christians, including many bishops, will either try to look away or limit themselves to vapid expressions of “regret” mixed in with calls for “unity”. A good example of that kind of wishy washy lukewarm language can already be found here. But this kind of Pilate-like washing of hands (“ain’t my business” in modern parlance) is unsustainable, and here is why: in Orthodox ecclesiology you cannot build “broken Eucharistic triangles”. If A is not in communion with B, then C cannot be in communion with A and B at the same time. It’s really an “either or” binary choice. At least in theory (in reality, such “broken triangles” have existed, most recently between the former ROCA/ROCOR, the Serbian Church and the Moscow Patriarchate, but they are unsustainable, as events of the 2000-2007 years confirmed for the ROCA/ROCOR). Still, no doubt that some (many?) will try to remain in communion with both the Moscow Patriarchate and the Constantinople Patriarchate, but this will become harder and harder with every passing month. In some specific cases, such a decision will be truly dramatic, I think of the monasteries on the Holy Mountain in particular.

On a more cynical level, I would note that the Patriarch of Constantinople has now opened a real Pandora’s box which now every separatist movement in an Orthodox country will be able to use to demand its own “autocephaly” which will threaten the unity of most Orthodox Churches out there. If all it takes to become “autocephalous” is to trigger some kind of nationalist uprising, then just imagine how many “Churches” will demand the same autocephaly as the Ukronazis are today! The fact that ethno-phyetism is a condemned heresy will clearly stop none of them. After all, if it is good enough for the “Ecumenical” Patriarch, it sure is good enough for any and all pseudo-Orthodox nationalists!

What the AngloZionist Empire has done is to force each Orthodox Christian and each Orthodox Church to chose between siding with Moscow or Constantinople. This choice will have obvious spiritual consequences, which the Empire couldn’t give a damn about, but it will also profound political and social consequences which, I believe, the Empire entirely missed.

The Moscow Patriarchate vs the Patriarchate of Constantinople – a sociological and political analysis

Let me be clear here that I am not going to compare and contrast the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) and the Patriarchate of Constantinople (PC) from a spiritual, theological or even ecclesiological point of view here. Instead, I will compare and contrast them from a purely sociological and political point of view. The differences here are truly profound.

	Moscow Patriarchate	Patriarchate of Constantinople
Actual size	Very big	Small
Financial means	Very big	Small
Dependence on the support of the Empire and its various entities	Limited	Total
Relations with the Vatican	Limited, mostly due to very strongly anti-Papist sentiments in the people	Mutual support and de-facto alliance
Majority member’s outlook	Conservative	Modernist
Majority member’s level of support	Strong	Lukewarm
Majority member’s concern with Church rules/cannons/traditions	Medium and selective	Low
Internal dissent	Practically eliminated (ROCA)	Strong (Holy Mountain, Old Calendarists)

From the above table you can immediately see that the sole comparative ‘advantage’ of the PC is that is has the full support of the AngloZionist Empire and the Vatican. On all the other measures of power, the MP vastly “out-guns” the PC.

Now, inside the Ukronazi occupied Ukraine, that support of the Empire and the Vatican (via their Uniats) does indeed give a huge advantage to the PC and its Ukronazi pseudo-Orthodox “Churches”. And while Poroshenko has promised that no violence will be used against the MP parishes in the Ukraine, we all remember that he was the one who promised to stop the war against the Donbass, so why even pay attention to what he has to say.

US diplomats and analysts might be ignorant enough to believe Poroshenko’s promises, but if that is the case then they are failing to realize that Poroshensko has very little control over the hardcore Nazi mobs like the one we saw last Sunday in Kiev. The reality is very different: Poroshenko’s relationship to the hardcore Nazis in the Ukraine is roughly similar to the one the House of Saud has with the various al-Qaeda affiliates in Saudi Arabia: they try to both appease and control them, but they end up failing every time. The political agenda in the Ukraine is set by bona fide Nazis, just as it is set in the KSA by the various al-Qaeda types. Poroshenko and MBS are just impotent dwarfs trying to ride on the shoulders of much more powerful devils.

Sadly, and as always, the ones most at risk right now are the simple faithful who will resist any attempts by the Ukronazi death-squads to seize their churches and expel their priests. I don’t expect a civil war to ensue, not in the usual sense of the world, but I do expect a lot of atrocities similar to what took place during the 2014 Odessa massacre when the Ukronazis burned people alive (and shot those trying to escape). Once these massacres begin, it will be very, very hard for the Empire to whitewash them or blame it all on “Russian interference”. But most crucially, as the (admittedly controversial) Christian writer Tertullian noticed as far back as the 2^nd century “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church”. You can be sure that the massacre of innocent Christians in the Ukraine will result in a strengthening of the Orthodox awareness, not only inside the Ukraine, but also in the rest of the world, especially among those who are currently “on the fence” so to speak, between the kind of conservative Orthodoxy proclaimed by the MP and the kind of lukewarm wishy washy “decaf” pseudo-Orthodoxy embodied by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. After all, it is one thing to change the Church Calendar or give hugs and kisses to Popes and quite another to bless Nazi death-squads to persecute Orthodox Christians.

To summarize I would say that by his actions, the Patriarch of Constantinople is now forcing the entire Orthodox world to make a choice between two very different kind of “Orthodoxies”. As for the Empire, it is committing a major mistake by creating a situation which will further polarize strongly, an already volatile political situation in the Ukraine.

There is, at least potentially, one more possible consequence from these developments which is almost never discussed: its impact inside the Moscow Patriarchate.

Possible impact of these developments inside the Moscow Patriarchate

Without going into details, I will just say that the Moscow Patriarchate is a very diverse entity in which rather different “currents” coexist. In Russian politics I often speak of Atlantic Integrationists and Eurasian Sovereignists. There is something vaguely similar inside the MP, but I would use different terms. One camp is what I would call the “pro-Western Ecumenists” and the other camp the “anti-Western Conservatives”. Ever since Putin came to power the pro-Western Ecumenists have been losing their influence, mostly due to the fact that the majority of the regular rank and file members of the MP are firmly behind the anti-Western Conservative movement (bishops, priests, theologians). The rabid hatred and fear of everything Russian by the West combined with the total support for anything anti-Russian (including Takfiris and Nazis) has had it’s impact here too, and very few people in Russia want the civilizational model of Conchita Wurst, John McCain or Pope Francis to influence the future of Russia. The word “ecumenism” has, like the word “democracy”, become a four letter word in Russia with a meaning roughly similar to “sellout” or “prostitution”. What is interesting is that many bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate who, in the past, were torn between the conservative pressure from their own flock and their own “ecumenical” and “democratic” inclinations (best embodied by the Patriarch of Constantinople) have now made a choice for the conservative model (beginning by Patriarch Kirill himself who, in the past, used to be quite favorable to the so-called “ecumenical dialog of love” with the Latins).

Now that the MP and the PC have broken the ties which previously united them, they are both free to pursue their natural inclinations, so to speak. The PC can become some kind of “Eastern Rite Papacy” and bask in an unhindered love fest with the Empire and the Vatican while the MP will now have almost no incentive whatsoever to pay attention to future offers of rapprochement by the Empire or the Vatican (these two always work hand in hand). For Russia, this is a very good development.

Make no mistake, what the Empire did in the Ukraine constitutes yet another profoundly evil and tragic blow against the long-suffering people of the Ukraine. In its ugliness and tragic consequences, it is quite comparable to the occupation of these lands by the Papacy via its Polish and Lithuanian agents. But God has the ability to turn even the worst horror into something which, in the end, will strengthen His Church.

Russia in general, and the Moscow Patriarchate specifically, are very much in a transition phase on many levels and we cannot overestimate the impact which the West’s hostility on all fronts, including spiritual ones, will have on the future consciousness of the Russian and Orthodox people. The 1990s were years of total confusion and ignorance, not only for Russia by the way, but the first decade of the new millennium has turned out to be a most painful, but also most needed, eye-opener for those who had naively trusted the notion that the West’s enemy was only Communism, not Russia as a civilizational model.

In their infinite ignorance and stupidity, the leaders of the Empire have always acted only in the immediate short term and they never bothered to think about the mid to long term effects of their actions. This is as true for Russia as it is for Iraq or the Balkans. When things eventually, and inevitably, go very wrong, they will be sincerely baffled and wonder how and why it all went wrong. In the end, as always, they will blame the “other guy”.

There is no doubt in my mind that the latest maneuver of the AngloZionist Empire in the Ukraine will yield some kind of feel-good and short term “victory” (“peremoga” in Ukrainian) which will be followed by a humiliating defeat (“zrada” in Ukrainian) which will have profound consequences for many decades to come and which will deeply reshape the current Orthodox world. In theory, these kinds of operations are supposed to implement the ancient principle of “divide and rule”, but in the modern world what they really do is to further unite the Russian people against the Empire and, God willing, will unite the Orthodox people against pseudo-Orthodox bishops.

Conclusion:

In this analysis I have had to describe a lot of, shall we say, “less than inspiring” realities about the Orthodox Church and I don’t want to give the impression that the Church of Christ is as clueless and impotent as all those denominations, which, over the centuries have fallen away from the Church. Yes, our times are difficult and tragic, but the Church has not lost her “salt”. So what I want to do in lieu of a personal conclusion is to quote one of the most enlightened and distinguished theologians of our time, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, who in his book “The Mind of the Orthodox Church” (which I consider one of the best books available in English about the Orthodox Church and a “must read” for anybody interested in Orthodox ecclesiology) wrote the following words:

Saint Maximos the Confessor says that, while Christians are divided into categories according to age and race, nationalities, languages, places and ways of life, studies and characteristics, and are “distinct from one another and vastly different, all being born into the Church and reborn and recreated through it in the Spirit” nevertheless “it bestows equally on all the gift of one divine form and designation, to be Christ’s and to bear His Name. And Saint Basil the Great, referring to the unity of the Church says characteristically: “The Church of Christ is one, even tough He is called upon from different places”. These passages, and especially the life of the Church, do away with every nationalistic tendency. It is not, of course, nations and homelands that are abolished, but nationalism, which is a heresy and a great danger to the Church of Christ.

Metropolitan Hierotheos is absolutely correct. Nationalism, which itself is a pure product of West European secularism, is one of the most dangerous threats facing the Church today. During the 20^th century it has already cost the lives of millions of pious and faithful Christians (having said that, this in no way implies that the kind of suicidal multiculturalism advocated by the degenerate leaders of the AngloZionist Empire today is any better!). And this is hardly a “Ukrainian” problem (the Moscow Patriarchate is also deeply infected by the deadly virus of nationalism). Nationalism and ethno-phyletism are hardly worse than such heresies as Iconoclasm or Monophysitism/Monothelitism were in the past and those were eventually defeated. Like all heresies, nationalism will never prevail against the “Church of the living God” which is the “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and while many may lapse, others never will.

In the meantime, the next couple of months will be absolutely crucial. Right now it appears to me that the majority of the Orthodox Churches will first try to remain neutral but will have to eventually side with the Moscow Patriarchate and against the actions of Patriarch Bartholomew. Ironically, the situation inside the USA will most likely be particularly chaotic as the various Orthodox jurisdictions in the USA have divided loyalties and are often split along conservative vs modernizing lines. The other place to keep a close eye on will be the monasteries on the Holy Mountain were I expect a major crisis and confrontation to erupt.

With the crisis in the Ukraine the heresy of nationalism has reached a new level of infamy and there will most certainly be a very strong reaction to it. The Empire clearly has no idea what kind of dynamic it has now set in motion.

Vers un nouveau schisme d’Orient ?

par Georges FELTIN-TRACOL

Ex: http://www.europemaxima.com

La décision du 14 septembre dernier a déjà fait l’effet d’une bombe atomique dans le monde orthodoxe. Le patriarcat de Moscou rompait une partie de ses liens avec le patriarcat œcuménique de Constantinople, ce qui signifiait l’absence d’émissaires moscovites aux assemblées épiscopales, aux commissions et autres structures présidées par des représentants du Phanar, la résidence du patriarche Bartholomée I^er. En matière liturgique, les églises russes ne prient plus pour lui. Il s’agit d’une nouvelle rupture de communion dont le précédent remontait en 1999 à propos de la juridiction appropriée des orthodoxes d’Estonie. La rupture est devenue définitive le 15 octobre dernier. Moscou ne reconnaît plus l’autorité de Constantinople !

La cause de cette crise majeure, semblable au Grand Schisme d’Occident (1378 – 1417/1422), porte sur l’Ukraine. En dehors des minorités juives, musulmanes et païennes et malgré une augmentation sensible de l’athéisme d’une part et des sectes évangéliques protestantes financées par Washington, d’autre part, l’Ukraine reste une nation chrétienne profondément divisée. À l’Ouest vivent les catholiques de rite grec encore appelés de façon péjorative « uniates », soit des orthodoxes qui reconnaissent le magistère romain. Chez les orthodoxes, la situation est plus compliquée encore. L’Église orthodoxe ukrainienne du patriarcat de Moscou promeut l’union étroite entre la Russie poutinienne et l’Ukraine, berceau de la Rus’. Elle doit cependant composer avec deux autres factions pour l’instant non reconnues par les autres Églises orthodoxes : l’Église orthodoxe ukrainienne du patriarcat de Kyïv fondée en 1992 et une Église orthodoxe autocéphale ukrainienne apparue en 1920, surtout présente en Galicie. Il faut enfin compter avec les Églises orthodoxes ukrainiennes de la diaspora sous juridiction du patriarcat de Constantinople…

À l’initiative du président ukrainien Petro Porochenko, l’Église orthodoxe ukrainienne du patriarcat de Kyïv et l’Église orthodoxe autocéphale ukrainienne viennent de se rapprocher. Elles négocient leur éventuelle union et tentent en échange d’obtenir de Bartholomée I^er la reconnaissance canonique, à savoir l’autocéphalie.

En 2007, Vladimir Poutine réussissait la communion eucharistique et l’unité canonique entre l’Église russe hors frontières et le patriarcat de Moscou qui ne veut surtout pas de cette autocéphalie qui la priverait de la moitié de ses fidèles et n’hésite plus à contester ouvertement l’autorité du Phanar. En juin 2016, lors d’un concile panorthodoxe tenu en Crète sous la présidence de Bartholomée I^er, les patriarcats d’Antioche, de Moscou, de Géorgie et de Bulgarie, refusèrent de s’y rendre. Le principal motif en était la trop grande proximité de Constantinople avec l’hérésie moderne romano-germanique occidentale. Entre aussi en jeu le long contentieux sur l’héritage byzantin revendiqué par les deux parties. Par ailleurs, le patriarche Kirill de Moscou n’oublie pas que le patriarche de Constantinople fut le troisième dignitaire de l’Empire ottoman et qu’il doit être depuis les débuts de la République de nationalité turque, ce qui le place sous la tutelle indirecte d’Ankara. En outre, son entourage serait sensible aux sollicitations étatsuniennes.

Le patriarcat de Constantinople voit donc son autorité contestée. Ce n’est pas une nouveauté. Depuis les années 1960, l’un des vingt monastères qui forment la République monastique du Mont-Athos en Grèce, Esphigmenou, est en rébellion ouverte au nom de la tradition vieille-calendariste. Il ne serait pas étonnant que le patriarcat de Moscou se décide maintenant de soutenir en toute discrétion cette vieille opposition.

Georges Feltin-Tracol

• « Chronique hebdomadaire du Village planétaire », n° 95, diffusée sur Radio-Libertés, le 19 octobre 2018.

Cette entrée a été publiée dans Chronique hebdomadaire du Village planétaire sur Radio-Libertés, EN PREMIÈRE LIGNE. Sauvegarder le permalien.