Talk:Orthodox Church of France

From OrthodoxWiki
Revision as of 08:22, August 8, 2007 by Inistea (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Romanian documents about ECOF

Le Patriarcat Roumain Le département des relations ecclésiastiques extérieures Roumanie

423/3.III.1993

A son Excellence l’évêque Germain de St Denis Paris France

VOTRE EXCELLENCE

Nous portons à votre connaissance que le saint Synode de l’Eglise Roumaine, dans sa session de travail du 23 janvier 1993, a de nouveau examiné la situation de Votre Excellence et de l’Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France,

Comme Vous savez, en 1972, ce diocèse Français, à la demande instante de ses représentants, a été reçu par le patriarcat Roumain sous sa juridiction, afin de lui offrir, par économie ecclésiastique, la communion canonique de même que la possibilité de s’intégrer dans l’ensemble de l’Orthodoxie et de progresser spirituellement.

Peu de temps après avoir été reçu sous notre juridiction et après le sacre épiscopal de Votre excellence, au sein du diocèse et dans Votre activité commencèrent à se manifester. diverses erreurs d’ordre dogmatique, liturgique et de discipline canonique, ainsi que des enseignements et des pratiques contraires à l’orthodoxie universelle, qui ne firent que se multiplier avec le temps continuant à présent encore et étant maintes fois portées à notre connaissance.

Au long de toutes ces années, le Saint synode, dans l’Esprit de la charité chrétienne et de la tolérance à l’égard de votre excellence et du clergé et des fidèles de l’Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France, a fait de considérables efforts pour vous aider à faire remédier les erreurs et à redresser la vie religieuse de ce diocèse, afin que vous puissiez entrer dans la communion de l’orthodoxie universelle.

Par conséquent vous avez été maintes fois invité par le patriarcat Roumain de participer, accompagné par vos collaborateurs, à des discussions dans le cadre de diverses commissions synodales. Chaque fois ont été dressés des protocoles et vous avez signé des engagements et des déclarations (1974,1976, 1978,1979, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990), stipulant que vous allez vous intégrer dans l’orthodoxie universelle. Vous les avez cependant chaque fois ignorés et transgressés sciemment, faisant preuve de désobéissance et d ‘insoumission.

Etant donné que vous n’avez pas respecté les susdits protocoles, les déclarations et vos propres engagements de vous intégrer effectivement et sincèrement avec le diocèse dans l’orthodoxie universelle ;

Compte tenu de l’attitude permanente de désobéissance et de la transgression délibérée de vos propres engagements quant à l’observation et de la doctrine et de la pratique de la vie religieuse orthodoxe,

Le saint synode de l’Eglise Orthodoxe Roumaine a décidé de retirer définitivement la juridiction canonique de l’Eglise orthodoxe roumaine à Votre excellence et à l’Evêché Orthodoxe catholique de France. Par conséquent, l’exercice de toute fonction épiscopale vous est désormais défendu. Toute correspondance reçue de Votre part à ce sujet ne sera plus prise en considération.

Il a été également décidé que les prêtres ou les communautés du respectif diocèse qui souhaiteraient maintenir les liens canoniques avec L’Orthodoxie universelle puissent s’adresser à cet effet aux juridictions canoniques orthodoxes locales.

Les susdites décisions seront communiquées aussi au conseil diocésain de l’Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France, aux prêtres appartenant à ce diocèse, au Comité Inter-épiscopal orthodoxe de Paris et aux Eglises Orthodoxes sœurs. Avec le regret que le patriarcat roumain ait été contraint de prendre de telles mesures disciplinaires, nous prions le Seigneur de vous accorder son aide et sa lumière et de vous protéger dans la grâce miséricordieuse ;

Président du saint Synode + Théoctiste Patriarche de l’Eglise orthodoxe Roumaine

Secrétaire du Saint synode, + Evêque Nifon Ploiesteanul Vicaire patriarcal

PATRIARHIA ROMANA CANCELARIA SFANTULUI SINOD SECTORUL PENTRU RELATII EXTERNE BISERICESTI

AVIS D’EXPERTISE CANONIQUE

No 9 /3 Janvier 2001

Après une suite d’erreurs de l’ex-évêque Germain de Saint Denis, le Saint Synode de l’Eglise orthodoxe Roumaine a été obligé de prendre la. décision disciplinaire de lui interdire l’exercice de toutes fonctions épiscopales. Cette décision no. 423 / 1993, ci-après annexée, a été communiquée aux intéressés par une lettre du 3 mars 1993, ci-incluse.

Pour expliciter cette décision du Saint Synode nous précisons que “retirer définitivement la juridiction canonique” et ‘l’exercice de route fonction épiscopale vous est désormais défendu” signifient du point de vue canonique que l’ex-évêque Germain est exclu de l’épiscopat (c’est à dire la déposition), et est réduit â l’état laïc et ainsi n’a plus le droit de célébrer la Sainte Liturgie, ni aucun office religieux, ni de effectuer des ordinations et dispenser les Saints Sacrements, ni de conduire une communauté cultuelle orthodoxe. Par suite il n’est reçu par aucune autre juridiction Orthodoxe.

Contrairement à la décision du Saint Synode de l’Eglise orthodoxe Roumaine, l’ex-évêque Germain, aggrave sa situation ecclésiale en poursuivant l’exercice des fonctions épiscopales, et ainsi tombe sous l’incidence des canons l’excluant de l’Eglise. Tout acte de culte et d’autorité excercé par un évêque après sa déposition sont nuls de fait et de droit (28eme règle apostolique et no. 4 du concile d’Antioche 74ème règle apostolique 9 et 17 du IV concile oecuménique et no. 15 du concile d’ Antioche). Les ordinations pourront être soumises par économie à l’examen de l’autorité canonique.

En continuant ses errements et passant au delà de toutes règles canoniques l’ex-évêque Germain, M. Gilles BERTRAND-HARDY, en se mariant est tombé définitivement de son état épiscopal et conformément aux Saints Canons la sanction appliquée par le Saint Synode pourrait être l’anathème, (no. 6 du VI concile oecuménique, no. I Néocésarée et no 12 et 48 du VI concile oecuménique).

En conclusion, par application des Saints Canons cités qui sont valabLes dans toutes les Eglises orthodoxes, l’ex-évêque Germain, M. Gilles BERTRAND-HARDY non seulement aperdu sa qualité d'évêque mais de plus encourt l’exclusion de l’Eglise orthodoxe,

Le secrétariat du Saint Synode de l’Eglise orthodoxe Roumaine

Evêque Ambrosie Sinaitul Vicaire administratif P. Constantin Parvu Vicaire Patriarcal

I hope you wont,like fr Lev, considers Romanian Orthodox Church like a liar, dictatorial church having made no canonical trial to B Germain before deposing him. And all canonical dioceses in France: liar too ??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glikerie (talkcontribs) .


The 1993 letter does not depose Bishop Germain, and indeed addresses him as a bishop. It simply forbids all episcopal functions, and it ends the Romanian relationship with the Church of France. The 2001 letter says that they are deposing him, but that is eight years AFTER they kicked him and the Church of France out. It is a blatantly uncanonical act for a Church to depose someone no longer in its jurisdiction. --Fr Lev 09:55, June 1, 2007 (PDT)

Glikerie

that is your interpretation, your point of view. That's not the one of the canonical Orthodoxy in most countries. I accept and respect your opinion, but find better and honnest to write 1/the facts, 2/the opinions, and not as you've done "Germain was not deposed" or things like that.

I have learned today that the priest I know of that was ordained after the break with Romania was indeed re-ordained, although he tells me that the ordaining archbishop did so with great discretion and respect for Mgr Germain. Romania and other Churches are free to disregard the ordinations of Bishop Germain after the break. Any Church is also free to accept them. If the day comes when another patriarchate receives the Church of France under its protection, then they will be free to accept those ordinations. One similar case in recent memory here in the USA is that of the South Bound Brook Ukrainians. They were isolated and their orders not recognized by most other Orthodox Churches. But when they were received into the Patriarchate of Constantinople, they became "canonical" and "recognized" without the benefit of new ordinations. --Fr Lev 12:47, June 1, 2007 (PDT)

ordinations

Of course, each orthodox hierarch is discret and respectful of Germain, and pray for him. No priest or deacon ordained after 1993 has never been accepted without re-ordination, that's a fact. Those ordained before 1993 have been accepted without re-ordination but sometime with a time of penitence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glikerie (talkcontribs) .

Misinformation

I only realized today that somehow had gone into this article and replaced correct information with misinformation. The Church of Romania did not depose Bishop Germain. I saw the paperwork from Romania. It simply withdrew it's blessing from the French Church. There was no trial and no deposition. --Fr Lev 12:18, February 20, 2006 (CST)

I'd like to see some documentation regarding the exact disposition. It was widely reported in the Orthodox world that it was a deposition, related not only to Germain contracting a marriage after being consecrated a bishop, but also the the involvement of some in L'ECOF with Freemasonry. We do know his marriage had something to do with the issues of canonicity and relationship with the Church, as well did the freemasonry. If this article is NPOV, it at least needs to recognize those facts and/or criticisms for those staying with Germain, as well as that UACORO comprises those remaining faithful to Orthodoxy (including no married bishop, no freemasonry, etc.), the remnant under Romania being Byzantine rite now, as well as those who have gone to the Russian Exarchate under Paris (I believe Fr. Francis DeMarais now being at "Daru"?) An update should also be included - as the talks of UACORO with Serbia are finished as well. As it stands, the article is rather POV towards those who remained with Germain. Ari 23:45, March 26, 2006 (CST)

Once again, Ari, you are posting things about which you are misinformed. (1) I saw the letter from Romania. It withdrew its blessing from the French Church, which also means it would have no further authority over the French Church. This happened in March, 1993. There was no question of a marriage at the time, and therefore had nothing to do with any questions at the time or in the several years following Romanis's break with ECOF. (2) It is absurd to say that it is POV to simply talk about ECOF in an article about ECOF without going into detail about those who have left. I wouldn't expect an article on the Patriarchate of Moscow to go into ROCOR, the Suzadal church, etc., nor an article on the Church of Greece to cover all of the Old Calendarist groups. (3) ECOF clergy are forbidden to be Freemasons. But if having clergy or laity who are Freemasons makes a Church un-Orthodox, then you will have unchurched the Patriarchate of Constantinople and a few other national Churches. (4) It isn't the purpose of this website to air gossip, true or otherwise, about the Churches or their hierarchs. What is good for ROCOR is good for ECOF. (5) Those who remained with Romania were given permission to continue to celebrate the Gallican on several feast days during the year (I believe the number is six). (6) I don't think a page on ECOF is a page for UACORO; I suggest you or someone who is interested start a page for UACORO. I am certainly hoping that their talks with Serbia prove fruitful. (7) I don't know anything about the status of Fr Francis, but he isn't mentioned on this page. (8) The article isn't POV about those who remained with Bishop Germain; it simply describes information on the Orthodox Church of France. That would be like saying an artcile on the Church of Russia was POV if it din't give equal coverage to all those who have left it over the years. It is difficult for me to not suspect that your post springs from some kind of personal animus. You have made it a pooint to follow-up postings I have made with responses that have been inaccurate and personal. That isn't appropriate for OrthodoxWiki. --Fr Lev 20:43, April 1, 2006 (CST)

No, 'Fr.Lev' - it isn't an issue of personal animus, but of seeing constant misinformed or malicious attacks on Western Rite Orthodoxy (Antioch and ROCOR), while presenting a rather sanitized and politicized view of L'ECOF. The reason I've had to make follow up postings is because of constant attempts on your part to remove factual non-pov statements with rather inaccurate and misleading statements that can *only* be meant as harmful towards AWRV and the ROCOR WRITE. The letter withdrawing the blessing from the French Church is *not* the same as the deposition, as I have been given by my informants. The issue of UACORO *is* pertinent to L'ECOF, in that they are as much 'heirs' of the original as those following the married bishop (and yes, the issue of the marriage is germane, as is the issue of freemasonry). I'd like to see documentation as to L'ECOF forbidding freemasonry to its members, as one of its clergy at present is publicly promoting freemasonry on the internet. I would say the ROCOR issue, of course, *is* pertinent to an article of the Russian Orthodox Church (noting, ROCOR never 'left' as the Old Calendarists did, they simply followed the directives of St. Tikhon, as they are doing now, God willing.) ROCOR doesn't have the issue with its rapprochement with Moscow that L'ECOF has with the whole Church; the married episcopate, for example. - Ari 18:19, April 10, 2006 (CDT)

First, let me say that placing my name in title in scare quotes is inappropriate as well as uncharitable. I believe that Fr John our moderator has addressed this kind of behavior before. What attack have I made on “Western Rite Orthodoxy (Antioch and ROCOR)? This is slander. I have made no such attacks, and I have no problem with their use of these liturgies. I have pointed out erroneous claims you have made on matters that are easily confirmed, as I had to do a few minutes ago when you repeated your erroneous claims about the 1552 on another page. I refer to the actual texts, rather than simply asserting (erroneous) claims. I have seen the documents that came from Romania in Rome of 1993, and they did not include a deposition. The issue of UACORO is not any more significant for an article on the Church of France than ROCOR would be for an article on the Church of Moscow. You offer no reason to suppose otherwise. The same applies for the Old Calendarist churches. Bishop Germain is not married. He did contract a marriage sometime after the break with Romania, but it was subsequently legally annulled and he stepped down from this throne for a time of penance, after which he was restored to his throne by the Church. It was a sad misadventure, but it is false to refer to him as a ‘married bishop.’ The statement about Freemasonry is contained in a public document by Bishop Germain some years ago; it was an ‘open letter’ addressed to detractors of the French Church. I don’t have it at hand; it is contained in the history of the French Church written by Maxime Kovalevsky. What priest is promoting it on the Internet. Please give his name and the URL of the website. I will be happy to follow this up. At the same time, I would repeat that if you wish to unchurch ECOF because of a priest advocating or belonging to Freemasonry, you will have to (to be consistent) unchurch Constantinople and a few other Churches. --Fr Lev 21:25, April 10, 2006 (CDT)

ECOF Fr, are you a member of ECOF ? I don't want to polemicate with you. But concerning divorce, Germain never produced the judgement, nor the new civil state of his "ex" wife. It would be prooves,no ? That's not the problem. Germain always refused to go in Bucaresti for the trial. From 1991 to 1993... The only romanian priest I know to have spent a time in France in ECOF, after 1993, had been himself deposed (not for this) and had left ECOF . I don't want to hurt you in your faith or opinions. For you ECOF is canonical, and so on. I just believe, regarding the situation in France,that is clear: every canonical diocese is represented by his Bishop in the AEOF, it is not fair to let people believe ECOF is an orthodox Church, canonical and autonom. It is hiding the truth not to tell that ECOF is outside the Orthodox comunion. Isn't it true ? With which Orthodox Church ECOF is in communion ? Can a church exist with only one bishop, outside all form of synod, and canonical links with the Orthodox Church in all countries ? Orthodox canonical law permits this? Why won't you then stand me to write ECOF is now a diocese of western rite, without links and communion with the Orthodox Church in France ? Is that polemical ?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glikerie (talkcontribs) .

(sigh) It seems pointless to repeat myself on the areas we have covered already. I was ordained by Bishop Germain (before the break with Romania). As to your claim about whether a Church can exist with only one bishop. The answer is Yes, of course it can. Indeed, a Church can exist for a time without any bishop. A recent example is the Orthodox Church of Japan at the repose of its sole bishop at the time, Metropolitan Theodosius. During his years as a sole bishop, Japan was still an autonomous Church. During the many months there was no bishop (before the Church of Russia consecrated three new bishops, I think), Japan was still an autonomous Church. No one is hiding the status of the Church of France. The article spoke of the break with Romania and stated flatly that the Church of France was now canonically isolated. That is an accurate description. You seem intent on making the description sound much worse -- that is polemical. You should study Orthodox history and theology a bit more, as the way you speak of the canons and recognition is not accurate. Being "canonical" isn't about being "recognized." There have been Orthodox Churches through history that have existed is varying degrees of isolation from the historical autocephalous Churches. The situation if France, as in America, is a dizzying variety of "jurisdictions" -- a situation that is itself wholly "uncanonical." --Fr Lev 17:27, May 31, 2007 (PDT)

Theology and ecclesiology

Considering my theological level, I am diplomed from St Serge (France) and Sibiu (Romania). Perhaps, canon law in these institutes are not the same than in ECOF's or USA ?

Of course no bishop can be canonical without communion with a Holy Synod of Bishops, himself linked by communion with all the other Synods, forming the One, Apostolic and Catholic Church. That's why celebrants does memories during the Liturgy: his own Bishop, and his Bishop commemorates his Archbishop or Patriarche, himself commemoring the other arch hierarchs, there is one Orthodox Church, body of Christ, settled all over the earth. japan church existed without bishop, because in communion with the holy synod of his mother Church (Russia ?): nothing was broken.

Explain to me how even a priest can continue to be canonical after marrying a woman, divorced ! (he himself celebrated the marriage with one of his deacons)...and a monk! Nonsense! Do you seriously believe we must wait for a formal Court decision, with a trial (like in the civil world) and a sanction to see the sin produce its effects ? Wich effect for an ordained and tonsured monk ? The withsdrawal of the Grace of Holy Spirit, placed by the Bishops in ordination. That's why only metanoia, epitimia and confession can restaure purity of the soul and full presence of Grace.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glikerie (talkcontribs) .

Church of France and Freemasonry

The Open Letter was published in June 1979 by S.O.P. The French text of the passage on Freemasonry reads: 'Il existe aussi des mouvements spiritualistes de toutes sortes. C'est le cas, par exemple, de la franc-maçonnerie qui comporte d'ailleurs diverses tendances, généralement déistes et relativistes du point de vue des dogmes. Il est mieux de se considérer exclusivement comme membre de l'Église, ordre divino-humain auquel nous appartenons par le baptême et la foi en Jésus-Christ, Dieu incarné. Les clercs de notre Église sont tenus de s'abstenir d'appartenir à de telles organisations, puisqu'ils sont consacrés au service de l'Église. Des laïcs, cependant, qui viennent de ces milieux, leur appartiennent encore. Certains les quittent en trouvant ou en retrouvant l'Église - c'est le cas du plus grand nombre d'entre eux. Certains y restent. La situation est difficile pour eux. Il leur faut confesser Dieu incarné, Christ ressuscité, la Divine Trinité, en milieu relativiste ! Nous leur faisons confiance, et nous pensons qu'ils font de leur mieux pour témoigner de l'Évangile, de la foi orthodoxe (certains ont été expulsés de ces milieux à cause de la vigueur de leurs convictions chrétiennes...).' The pertinent sentence in English reads: 'The clergy of our Church are to abstain from belonging to such organizations, since they are devoted to the service of the Church.' --Fr Lev 21:43, April 10, 2006 (CDT)

New changes

Bishop Germain was never tried by the Church of Romania. The Synod simply sent a letter, of which I received a copy back in 1993. And the marriage was legally annulled because the bishop's monastic vows were taken to be a legal impediment to the marriage.--Fr Lev 07:43, May 31, 2007 (PDT)


Whoever "Gilkerie" is, you seem to have a polemical agenda. You also are getting facts wrong. The reception of the first UACORO clergy occurred on 27 January 2006. --Fr Lev 07:52, May 31, 2007 (PDT)

UACORO

While mention of the departure of people from the Orthodox Church of France to form UACORO is appropriate, the various links about UACORO do not belong in this article. You could always create a page for UACORO.--Fr Lev 08:55, May 31, 2007 (PDT)

FR LEV I realize you probably are a member of ECOF, conscienciously suppressing all facts that are not a good advertising for this group well known in France. I known what I say, as a member of the Romanian Patriarchate. I stop to try to write something here in the so-called "Orthodox Wiki" and inform the AEOF (Assembly of Canonical Bishops in France) has the Romanian Church of the special "orientation" of this website, not to be recommanded to faithful for his objectif points of view and canonical informations. Bless, G.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glikerie (talkcontribs) .

OrthodoxWiki is an encyclopedia, and strives for balance. The article on the Church of France attempts to give an encyclopedia-like treatment of its topic. It is not the place for polemics. I understand that the situation in France is complex, but you have been trying to make it a polemical piece to express your personal point of view and what you understand to be the position of your particular jurisdiction. You are also attempting to pass off gossip as objective "information." You allege that Bishop Germain continues to live with the woman with whom he contracted an invalid marriage; that is gossip. You assert that the marriage was never annulled; that is gossip. You have been inaccurate, and resisted correction, even on a simple fact such as the date when Fr Jean-Pierre Pahud and the other priest were received into the Church of Serbia. You are also speaking falsely, when you write that I am trying to suppress unpleasant facts. I am not trying to suppress the invalid marriage; it was a mistake for which Bishop Germain did penance. BTW, "Assemblée des Évêques Orthodoxes de France" does not contain the word "Canonical" which you slipped into your translation of AEOF above. You also ignore the fact that in all the years that the Orthodox Church of France and Bishop Germain were under the Church of Romania, Bishop Germain was not admitted to the predecessor of AEOF, the "Inter-Episcopal Committee." In other words, membership in or recognition by a non-canonical, voluntary association of bishops of various jurisdictions is not an Orthodox criterion of canonical status. --Fr Lev 09:57, May 31, 2007 (PDT)

Protection

To prevent an edit-war, this article has been protected from editing by non-admins until such time as an encyclopedic consensus can be reached by the editors involved. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 10:51, May 31, 2007 (PDT)

I've looked this over -- it seems to me that all that is really necessary for our purposes is to add a clearer statement at the end of the article about the ECOF not being in communion with any of the recognized Orthodox Churches. This was already clear to me, but I think Gilkerie was not wrong to want this point to be made more clear in order to avoid any confusion. The other points seem to me to be minor, and one can get an idea of the issues involved by reviewing the discussion page (which I recommend keeping intact). One hopes for healing in every schism, especially with an awareness of fallen human nature and the play of politics, and various forms of shortsightedness on every side.
I've unprotected the article, but I kindly request that if anyone has changes they still think are neccessary, explicit proposals are made first on the talk page. Thank you, — FrJohn (talk) 06:17, June 7, 2007 (PDT)

The Abusive use of the name "Church of France" by the ex- french diocese of Romanian Patriarchate

Here is the official document, in which the Romanian Church write the ECOF is not a Church, but a simple diocese. This was accepted by Germain and ECOF was then named "Eveché Catholique Orthodoxe de France" until 1993.

PROTOCOLE RéSUMANT LES POURPARLERS

DE S.B. LE PATRIARCHE JUSTINIEN

AVEC S.E. L'éVêQUE GERMAIN DE SAINT-DENIS

(21 février 1974)


LE PATRIARCAT ROUMAIN Bucarest, le 21 Février 1974

CHANCELLERIE DU SAINT-SYNODE (au Palais du Patriarcat)

N° 132 - CABINET


PROTOCOLE


résumant les pourparlers de Sa Béatitude le Patriarche Justinian de l'Eglise Orthodoxe Roumaine, assisté par Son Eminence l'Evêque Antonie Ploiesteanul, Vicaire Patriarcal, avec Son Eminence l'Evêque Germain de Saint-Denis de Paris, assisté par l'archiprêtre Ph. Laroche et le Dr. Ponsoye


Les pourparlers entre les susnommés ont eu lieu à la demande de Son Eminence l'Evêque Germain de Saint Denis et de ses compagnons[1] qui sont revêtus de qualités officielles dans le diocèse dirigé par Son Eminence Germain de Saint Denis, l'Archiprêtre Philippe Laroche étant chargé des relations extérieures, et le Dr. E. Ponsoye, étant président laïc de l'Association cultuelle, diocèse organisé canoniquement sous forme d'Evêché Catholique Orthodoxe de France.


I -Les principes de base de la réception dans la juridiction


Le Patriarcat Roumain a entendu accorder, à leur demande instante, une aide paternelle aux chrétiens orthodoxes de France groupés comme tels autour du prêtre Gilles Hardy, élu évêque, après avoir constaté l'orthodoxie de leur foi confessée par écrit et synthétisée dans les paroles : "Nous confessons ce que l'Eglise Orthodoxe Universelle confesse, et rejetons ce que l'Eglise Orthodoxe Universelle rejette".


Le Patriarcat Roumain a procédé à la réception de cet Evêché dans sa juridiction après avoir examiné et approuvé les Statuts de cet Evêché enregistrés officiellement à la Chancellerie du Saint-Synode, constatant en même temps qu'ils ont été approuvés et adoptés par l'Assemblée Générale Extraordinaire de l'Evêché Catholique Orthodoxe de France.


Le Patriarcat Roumain a procédé à la réception du prêtre Gilles Hardy dans le monachisme, cérémonie ayant eu lieu à Bucarest, le 29 Avril 1972. A cette occasion, on lui a donné le nom de GERMAIN. On a procédé ensuite à son sacre comme évêque, le 11 juin 1972, à Paris. Le Patriarcat Roumain a entendu faire tout cela dans l'esprit des relations traditionnelles d'amitié entre la Roumanie et la France et seulement après que l'Evêché Catholique Orthodoxe de France ait présenté l'accord écrit du Gouvernement Français concernant cette réception dans la juridiction roumaine.


Le Patriarcat Roumain a entendu accorder à cet Evêché une certaine autonomie. A ce sujet, on donne les précisions suivantes :


Comme expression de cette autonomie et par économie, on a accordé d'abord la permission qu'en cet Evêché on puisse officier alternativement les liturgies orthodoxes de rite byzantin et la liturgie dite de Saint Germain - ancienne liturgie des Gaules, dont la structure est identique à celle des liturgies de rite byzantin.


- Toujours comme expression de l'autonomie, on a permis l'autogestion de l'Evêché, le Patriarcat Roumain entendant ne pas exercer de contrôle sur les revenus et les dépenses de cet Evêché, ni d'assumer d'une façon quelconque d'obligations financières ou matérielles de quelque nature que ce soit, à l'égard de cet Evêché.


L'Evéché Catholique Orthodoxe de France devra tenir compte de ce qui suit Il reçoit le Saint Chrême du Patriarcat Roumain.


- Il ne pourra élire et consacrer des évêques sans l'approbation du Saint-Synode de l'Eglise Orthodoxe Roumaine.


- Il ne pourra recevoir sous sa juridiction des paroisses en dehors de la France sans l'approbation du Saint-Synode de l'Eglise Orthodoxe Roumaine.


- Il pourra faire partie de la Conférence Interépiscopale Orthodoxe en France avec l'approbation du Saint-Synode de l'Eglise Orthodoxe Roumaine, dans les conditions établies par celui-ci, d'accord avec la Conférence mentionnée.


- Il pourra participer à certaines actions œcuméniques, localement ou dans le cadre des organisations œcuméniques internationales, mais toujours avec l'approbation du Patriarcat Roumain et dans les conditions qu'on établira chaque fois.


- Les relations avec des Eglises Orthodoxes Autocéphales, ou autonomes, nationales, de même qu'avec d'autres Eglises et dénominations chrétiennes ne dépasseront pas les limites des relations permises canoniquement aux Evêchés dépendants d'un Saint Synode. Ce sont des relations de courtoisie, sur le plan local.


Sur d'autres plans, de même qu'au sujet de l'engagement de dialogues théologiques et œcuméniques, l'Evêché Catholique Orthodoxe de France devra avoir toujours l'accord ou le mandat du Saint-Synode du Patriarcat Roumain.


- L'Evêché Catholique Orthodoxe de France devra cultiver de bonnes relations, en esprit fraternel et d'égalité, avec tous les orthodoxes de France membres d'Eparchies canoniques, de même qu'avec les autres cultes, en évitant le prosélytisme.


- Pour le reste - sauf les précisions qui viennent d'être données - l'Evêché Catholique Orthodoxe de France est autonome exactement de la façon dont canoniquement est autonome n'importe quel Evêché du Patriarcat Roumain et non pas d'une autre manière.


Il va donc de soi que le Patriarcat Roumain considère "L'Eglise Catholique Orthodoxe de France" comme un Evêché orthodoxe français dépendant canoniquement du Saint Synode de l'Eglise Orthodoxe Roumaine avec tout ce qu'implique traditionnellement et canoniquement le Statut d'Evêché.


Au sujet du titre ou du nom utilisé jusqu'à présent "d'Eglise Catholique Orthodoxe de France", nous constatons qu'il provoque des confusions et des difficultés dans les rapports des Eglises Orthodoxes. C'est pourquoi on établit que désormais on utilisera officiellement le titre "d'Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France", sous l'en-tête "Le Patriarcat Roumain", d'autant plus que dans les Statuts on emploie le titre d'évêché (diocèse), ou bien encore sous l'en-tête "l'Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France, sous la juridiction du Patriarcat Roumain".


D'ailleurs, le Patriarcat Roumain a entendu dès le début que dans le stade actuel il s'agisse d'un évêché sous la juridiction de l'Eglise Orthodoxe Roumaine et non pas encore d'une Eglise dans l'acception propre du terme, ni d'un évêché de l'Eglise Catholique Orthodoxe de France, puisqu'une Eglise présuppose l'existence de plusieurs évêchés. C'est uniquement de cette façon que l'Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France existe dans les conditions actuelles, comme un Evêché canonique dans le cadre de l'Orthodoxie.


II - Qu'est-il arrivé depuis la réception sous la juridiction jusqu'à aujourd'hui ?

Nous constatons un développement positif de cet Evêché et une pratique fervente de la Foi orthodoxe. Mais, depuis la réception dans la juridiction de l'Eglise de Roumanie jusqu'à ce jour, les dirigeants de cet Evêché ont entrepris certaines actions et ont eu recours à certaines pratiques cultuelles discutables en face des engagements assumés à la réception dans la juridiction. Ainsi :


1- On constate une contradiction entre les Statuts juridiques et les Statuts canoniques, en ce qui concerne le titre du Chef de l'Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France. Dans le Bulletin de l'Eglise Catholique Orthodoxe de France, n° 1/1972, on dit qu'il s'agit d'un diocèse de l'Eglise Catholique Orthodoxe de France, en le considérant comme "Eglise-sœur" de ce Patriarcat, ce qui s'oppose au principe de juridiction et à sa propre position canonique établie par le Saint-Synode de l'Eglise Orthodoxe Roumaine.


2 - On constate que jusqu'à maintenant l'Evêque n'a pas réussi à être reçu dans la Conférence Interépiscopale Orthodoxe des Evêques de France. On constate aussi que la majorité des membres de la Conférence ont interdit la communion eucharistique aux clercs de l'Evêché orthodoxe catholique de France.


3 - On constate que l'Evêché orthodoxe catholique de France a entrepris certaines démarches officielles relatives aux intérêts du Patriarcat Roumain, sans le consulter au préalable.


4 - Ce qui vient d'être dit, se retrouve dans une lettre adressée au Ministre de l'Intérieur de la République Française, car dans cette lettre il y a des points avec lesquels le Patriarcat Roumain n'est pas d'accord, par exemple, les relations proposées entre l'Evêque de l'Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France et l'Evêque roumain Dr. Teofil Ionescu et ses successeurs.


5 - L'Evêque a reçu sous sa juridiction quelques paroisses de l'Italie du Nord et du Sud appartenant à une autre juridiction canonique, en y créant un vicariat et projetant un autre. Nous savons qu'un des prêtres italiens qu'il a reçu sous sa juridiction, ne jouit pas d'une renommée honorable en Italie, chargé d'antécédents pénaux pour des raisons morales. Bien que le Patriarcat Roumain lui ait attiré par écrit l'attention de ne pas recevoir sous sa juridiction la paroisse de Montaner - Italie, pourtant Son Eminence n'a pas respecté les dispositions données par le Patriarcat.


6- On constate qu'on pratique encore le culte de quelques saints catholiques-romains d'après le Schisme ; on constate aussi qu'on pratique encore quoique rarement la synaxe diaconale ; on constate aussi que même si la confession se fait individuellement, on pratique aussi, en cas de force majeure, l'absolution générale suivie par la communion.


La conséquence de cette manière d'agir a procuré à l'Eglise Orthodoxe Roumaine des difficultés avec les Eglises Orthodoxes et avec les autres Confessions chrétiennes de l'Occident.


Quoique ces déviations s'opposent à l'esprit des engagements assumés et aux canons, toutefois le Patriarcat Roumain considère que les dirigeants de l'Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France n'ont pas nourri d'intentions expresses dans ce sens et n'ont pas poursuivi les implications négatives des attitudes adoptées.


Mais le Patriarcat Roumain considère que cette situation ne peut plus continuer puisqu'elle menace l'existence canonique de l'Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France et risque de mettre l'Eglise Orthodoxe Roumaine dans des situations indésirables avec les autres Eglises Orthodoxes et avec d'autres Eglises chrétiennes.


En conséquence, le Patriarcat Roumain, en raison de sa qualité d'autorité canonique supérieure, demande de façon expresse à l'Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France, dirigé par l'Evêque Germain de Saint Denis, ce qui suit :


- Qu'il prenne connaissance et se déclare d'accord avec toutes les précisions mentionnées dans ce Protocole ;


- Qu'il renonce immédiatement et en fait, en signant ce Protocole, au vicariat créé en Italie et aux paroisses qu'il a reçues sous sa juridiction sans l'approbation du Patriarcat Roumain. Qu'il fasse, à ce sujet, envoyer des lettres à ceux qui sont en cause et qu'il donne des déclarations à la presse locale italienne.


- Qu'il n'entreprenne plus de telles initiatives, en dehors de la France, sans l'approbation du Patriarcat Roumain.


- Qu'il modifie les Statuts juridiques, où le Chef de l'Evêché est appelé Evéque Primat.


- Qu'il ne modifie pas dans l'avenir les Statuts de l'Evêché sans l'approbation du Patriarcat Roumain.


- Qu'il tâche d'établir des liens avec les autres orthodoxes des autres juridictions en France.


L'Evêque dirigeant de l'Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France est membre du Saint-Synode de l'Eglise Orthodoxe Roumaine, mais conformément à la décision du Saint-Synode, il n'est pas obligé de participer à toutes les séances du Saint-Synode, mais seulement lorsqu'il est invité et surtout lorsqu'on discute des problèmes de son Evêché.


III -Les engagements des dirigeants de l’Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France


A la suite des discussions qui ont mené à la clarification de tous les problèmes mentionnés dans les chapitres I et II du présent Protocole ;


Ayant pris connaissance des précisions données par Sa Béatitude le Patriarche Justinian sur la façon dont le Patriarcat Roumain entend exercer son autorité canonique sur l'Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France, sur les droits et les obligations canoniques qui reviennent à cet Evêché, ainsi que sur la manière dont il faut entendre l'autonomie dont on a parlé dans la Grammata d'installation ;


Les dirigeants de l'Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France présents à la discussion, à savoir : Son Eminence l'Evéque Germain de Saint Denis, l'archiprêtre Philippe Laroche et Monsieur le Dr Emmanuel Ponsoye, déclarent être d'accord avec tout ce qui a été mentionné dans le présent Protocole et s'engagent à agir désormais selon les normes précisées ici et de toute manière en conformité avec tout ce que les canons orthodoxes sur les Evêchés leur confèrent comme droits ou leur imposent comme obligations.


Ils se déclarent d'accord, de renoncer immédiatement aux juridictions établies en Italie et n'entreprendront désormais plus rien sans l'approbation du Patriarcat Roumain.


Conclusion


Le présent Protocole dressé en exemplaires originaux, en langue roumaine et française, et signé par tous ceux qui ont été présents aux discussions, demeure à usage interne et secret, le Patriarcat Roumain se réservant le droit de le faire publier si l'Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France ne respecte pas les engagements assumés après avoir eu des consultations sur les problèmes en litige avec les dirigeants de l'Evêché. L'inobservation des engagements entraînera aussi des mesures de reconsidération de la confiance accordée à l'Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France.


Nous espérons que les relations de charité entre l'Evêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France et le Patriarcat Orthodoxe Roumain croîtront normalement et par la grâce de Dieu.


Avons signé le présent Protocole :


X JUSTINIAN

Patriarche de Roumanie



GERMAIN DE SAINT DENIS Evêque de l'Évêché Orthodoxe Catholique de France


ANTONIE PLOIESTEANUL Evêque Vicaire Patriarcal


Dr. EMMANUEL PONSOYE Archiprêtre PHILIPPE LAROCHE

Président laïc de l'Association cultuelle

Ignoring History, Logic, etc.

The 1974 Protocol sought to undue the clear terms under which the Church of France was accepted by Romania in the Statute given to the Church of France at Bucharest and signed on 28 April 1972, which declares that the Church of France to an "Eglise autonome" -- an autonomous Church. It is an autonomous church composed of a single diocese with a single bishop, and has been since it was recognized as such during its relationship with ROCOR. It is not the only autonomous Church with a single hierarch -- there is also the Church of Sinai. Since Romania withdrew its blessing of the Church of France, I can't see how it has any say in the matter of how the Church is named, nor can I see why a Romanian should invest so much energy casting uncharitable assertions across the Atlantic. It has been 14 years since Romania broke its relationship with the Church of France; it's time to let go. In any event, the use of the name "Orthodox Church of France" predates the relationship with Romania. The Church of Russia originally gave it the name of "The Western Orthodox Church." It began using "Orthodox Church of France around 1946. As I mentioned, St John wished them to add the adjective "Catholic" in the late 1950's. The Statute given in 1972 retained the name "The Orthodox Catholic Church of France." In each case it was called a "Church" by its superior canonical authority. The real problem has been two-fold. First, the uncanonical situation in France. Only the Orthodox Church of France is a Church of France -- the others are Churches in France. Second, and here it more clearly mirrors the situation in America, there is the claim of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to have authority over France (and America). Just as Constantinople forced its bishops in America to withdraw their names from the Ligonier agreement, Patriach Demetrios in 1975 directed that the Church of France -- even when it was under the jurisdiction of Romania -- to be excluded from the inter-episcopal committee, referring to Romania's act of receiving the French Church as an "illegal intervention" in the "jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch." Back to the main point -- history shows there is nothing "abusive" about the use of the term "The Orthodox Church of France." --Fr Lev 11:35, June 9, 2007 (PDT)

OrthodoxWiki usage of "Church"

My understanding is that it is not the practice of OrthodoxWiki to make the kind of judgments in its articles on the use of "Church" that Gilkerie is attempting. I am thinking of, for example, the article on the Church in Ukraine. Our article lists three different bodies as an Orthodox Church of/in Ukraine, in a situation where every one of the three considers the other two to be illegitimate. I respectfully suggest that the kind of polemics that Gilkerie wishes to engage in more properly belong in an Internet chat group such as the one where he has been railing against the Church of France for awhile. --Fr Lev 11:46, June 9, 2007 (PDT)

Precisions for fr Lev

Fr, I've only produced a document. This document was accepted by Mgr Germain and his counsel, whatever the context was. You are right. Probably the name Church was allowed to ECOF by Romania. But it was forbidden then with this document. Do I judge ? Romania did. Canonical Orthodoxy in France did. I'am not telling it is right, or wrong, good or bad. IT IS, simply. Why do I take time to write this point here ? Just because, as you wrote again above, you are always writing that ECOF IS THE CHURCH OF FRANCE! It's Ecof's and you're opinion. But the Orthodox Church (canonical, which you seem not to consider to be) DOES NOT CONSIDER ECOF AS A CHURCH, OR AS BEING CANONICAL. That's why I wish to clarify facts and opinions:

1/ Orthodox Church does not consider ECOF as being part of it

2/ ECOF considers itself as being a canonical Church.

Is it so unfair and polemical ? It is just truth.

Glikerie


And you ignored the fact that Romania has indeed, contrary to what you said, accepted the Orthodox Church of France as an autonomous Church, and that every superior canonical authority it has had has referred to it as a Church. I don't dispute what Romania's official position is today, but you are just being silly to claim that it is "abusive" for the Orthodox Church of France (which is its name). You persist in trying to export French disputes and polemics into this Anglophone website. Your notion of "canonical" makes no sense to me. The situation in France, including the Church of Romania, is thoroughly uncanonical. If there is anything at all that is clear from the canons of the Church, it is the principle of one city, one bishop. In America, despite the fact that we live with the same uncanonical situation as France does, most Orthodox here at least acknowledge that the Church's life here is not lived according to the canons and at least hope for a proper resolution, i.e., the establishment of or recognition of an autocephalous American Church. One can only the same thing for France. Not everyone in the Church of Romania agrees with you about the status of Bishop Germain and the Orthodox Church of France; I hope we both live long enough to see that made public. In the meantime, as I wrote earlier, OrthodoxWiki usage supports calling a Church what it calls itself, and therefore the Orthodox Church of France will remain "The Orthodox Church of France" on OrthodoxWiki no matter how much you dislike it. For my own part, when there are irregularities in the life of any Church, I would like to see things normalized. The last decade or so has seen many Church divisions healed in America -- Russian, Serbian, and even Romanian. Those achievements have been realized by people who looked at the other as brothers, rather than as opponents. The recent reconciliation between Moscow and ROCOR was not the result of those individuals who said about the other "side" what you say about the Church of France. Lobe covers a multitude of sins. --Fr Lev 08:04, June 11, 2007 (PDT)

ANSWER

Who defended ECOF in 1993 ? Ask what Mgr Adrian, Mgr Seraphim and Mgr Joseph or Mgr Daniel think...it is quite easy. Or Mgr Marc, who was a member of ECOF. I understand you are hurted by the vision of an uncanonical ECOF and "bishop" Germain, if you are a cleric of ECOF in USA.

I am realy sorry, that was not my purpose.

I do not consider ECOF as oponent, and in France reconciliation occurs when for example priests and parishes of ECOF enter into communion with the Orthodox Church in France.

I persist to affirm that there is a difference in writing "ECOF is THE Church of France" and writing "ECOF considers itself as the Church of France".


And in France, there is a reality: dioceses of the Churches settled in France (members of the AEOF, Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of France, not yet a synod) building slowly but in concertation and respect the Church of France. dioceses in communion between them, and with all national and autocephalous Churches.

But you are right, others entities who named themselves churches pretend to be national, autocephalous, canonical and so on: ECOF (Catholic Orthodox Church of France), Eglise Celtique, Eglise Orthodoxe des Gaules, Eglise Orthodoxe Française...etc.... But NONE OF THEM IS IN COMMUNION WITH THE ORTHODOX CHURCH (including OCA, Greek Archdiocese of USA...): isn't it true ? Glikerie

The article says precisely that the Church of France is not in communion with the Orthodox Churches in communion with the ancient patriarchates. That such a clear statement does not satisfy you indicates a clear personal animus that is out of place in a venue that seeks to be an encyclopedia. I see no reason to continue to be in conversation with you. Best wishes. --Fr Lev 11:37, June 11, 2007 (PDT)

I didn't see the new change indicating that ECOF was not recognised by the Orthodox Church. Excuse me, I am confused. Thanks to fr John. Fr Lev, I won't come back to that subject, precision added satisfy me. Glikerie.

Glad this issue was resolved. I think clarity is helpful - we don't want to cause confusion. I've tried to phrase it here (and in the St. Denys article, in such a way that makes clear the irregular canonical status of the EOF and the Institute as dispassionately as possible. I'd like these articles to be free of the heightened emotion or personal invective Fr. Lev perceives, while at the same time reflects the clarity that Gilcherie desires. — FrJohn (talk)

MAXIME KOVALEVSKY

Independently of the canonical problem, something is missing, I think, in the presentation of the ECOF and Western Rite, the role played by Bishop Jean 's brother, Maxime, who create adaptations in French of the slavonic tones (the first ever made, again in use in many parishes in France) and of the Gregorian tones (a polyphonic adaptation). His work is always used, even outside ECOF, in Romanian Deanry in France for instance. He also made a synthesis of the original melodies of psaltic, slavonic, gregorian ecclesiastical music. He made books with analysis of the place of the liturgical chant in Orthodoxy(based in part on the works of father Marcel Jousse.)Glikerie

About UACORO

UACORO had asked from our synod to recieved them in full comunion but it was refused. I spoke once about this situation fith Phd Nenad Milosevic, my professor of Liturgics, who participed in negotiations. I also do not know for any priest who is recieved in Church of Serbia. I am onley formiliar with case of Jean Claude Larche, French philosopher who is now member of one of our parishes. I beilive Larche is now anagnostos.--Ddpbf 12:44, June 14, 2007 (PDT)

Fr Jean-Pierre Pahud and Fr Pierre-François Méan de Lausanne were received into the Serbian Church on 27 January 2006. (reference: http://www.orthodoxie.com/2006/02/rception_de_deu.html). Both serve at the Serbian parish of St Mary and St Gregory Palamas in Lausanne, Switzerland (http://www.orthodoxie.ch/directory/fr/lausanne_st_maire.htm). --Fr Lev 20:57, June 14, 2007 (PDT)

Yes, and Father Symeon was accepted as a deacon, and father deacon Marc Geny was ordained priest for the serbian parish of Asnieres by Bishop Luka. Glikerie.

Non-canonical Orthodox groups/bodies

I think we must create a new category, "Non-canonical orthodox groups/bodies in France" inside "Orthodoxy in France", and put there this article and also "Orthodox Church of the Gauls". If not, there are a confusion about the Orthodoxy in France. Orthodoxy in France, as jurisdictions, means the canonical dioceses (part of the "orthodox communion"). For the others groups/bodies/churches we must create sub-categories, as: "Non-canonical orthodox groups/bodies in France" and "Non-chalcedonian Orthodox jurisdictions". - Inistea 04:57, August 7, 2007 (PDT)

Perhaps such categories could be included in the category Jurisdictions? —magda (talk) 05:17, August 7, 2007 (PDT)
Well, Magda, can you propose the name of such category (I agree that is better to place it in "Jurisdictions") ? - Inistea 04:09, August 8, 2007 (PDT)
I don't have any specific ideas, other than I think the name should be concise and not necessarily restricted to France. With the creation of the new category, it would be a good idea to have a clear definition in the category page of what articles should be included. —magda (talk) 07:11, August 8, 2007 (PDT)
So, personally I think to a category like "Non-canonical Orthodox churches/groups/bodies", in "Jurisdictions", including, as the name said, all the orthodox groups they call themself "orthodox churches" but witch are not part of the "orthodox communion". If not, I think we are confusing our readers. Ask also Fr John and the others admins about that. - Inistea 08:21, August 8, 2007 (PDT)

The Orthodox Church of France is not in the same category as the Church of the Gauls or other such bodies. The Church of France has spent most of its history under an autocephalous Church and is likely to be under another one. --Fr Lev 06:00, August 7, 2007 (PDT)

You may consider that the Orthodox Church of France (ECOF) is not in the same category as the Church of Gauls. That depends of the category we are talking about. If this sub-category is "Non-canonical orthodox churches/groups/bodies in France" inside "Juridisction", in this case TODAY both communities are in the same category (i.e. canonical situation), even if the history of this two groups is different. - Inistea 09:36, August 7, 2007 (PDT)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox