ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE

Exarchate of Parishes of Russian
Tradition in Western Europe

REPORT BY ARCHBISHOP GABRIEL OF COMANA at the Ordinary General Assembly of the Archdiocese, 30 April - 1 May 2007

Xристос Воскресe!
Christ est ressuscité!
Christ is risen!

Your Grace, Reverend Fathers and Mothers, dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Introduction

‘How good it is for brethren to dwell together in unity (Ps. 132:1). Once more the Lord allows us to meet together in the joy of Easter. For some this is a reunion; for others it is a discovery, for they are here for the first time. Welcome!

Although we are reunited as we are every three years, this time it is not, however, in the usual place. I will give you several reasons for this. We decided, a little at the last minute, to organise this meeting at the St Sergius Institute and not at the cathedral in rue Daru, because we have become too numerous. This is good, this is a sign of growth, a sign of life, but it poses practical problems. At the cathedral there is not enough room to organise everything that goes with such a meeting. That is why we decided to change the venue for our assembly and to resume the tradition from the time of Metropolitan Evlogii and Metropolitan Vladimir, when the diocesan assemblies took place here, at St Sergius’ – so there we are!

In conformity with our statutes I must give you a report of activities, summing up the life and situation of the Archdiocese over the three years that have passed since the last Ordinary General Assembly – that is, between 2004 and 2007. There is no shortage of events. Many things have taken place in these three years. There have been events which have brought us great joy and spiritual strength, such as the canonisation of our new saints. There have been notable events all of whose significance and implications we have not yet seen, but which are written, I have no doubt, in the book of divine Providence. There have also been more unfortunate episodes, which have provoked tension and great suffering. Let us hope that the Lord will help us to overcome these trials…After the last General Assembly in 2004, a new team was put in place in the diocesan administration. They will present you with an account of their activities, but I now take the opportunity to thank the members of the Diocesan Administration for their work, which is often thankless, and requires of them a great deal of time and self-denial. I think that they, as much as I, would like to show what work has been done, and the situation just as it is, not making an issue of what has not been done or what was not able to take place.

Statistical analysis 2004-7

For the period from May 2004 to April 2007, the statistical analysis is as follows. Today the Archdiocese has ninety parishes and communities, served by eighty-eight priests and twenty-two deacons. Between 2006 and 2007 we set up several new parishes and eucharistic communities: at Stuttgart, where the Town Council has put a former Catholic church at our disposal (this is a German-speaking parish); at Strasbourg, a French-speaking community; and at Overkalix in Sweden, and at Stavanger in Norway – here the communities which were served from time to time from Stockholm and Oslo respectively, have been made into parishes, and now have a permanent resident priest and regular services.

We also have some new churches, which I have consecrated – in May 2006 at Nantes, and in November 2006 at Anvers. It is always a great joy when we can have a new place of worship of our own, when we open a church which, by the arrangement of its space, suits our tradition. It is also a responsibility, since we must keep it as a sacred place, and make it live by our prayer and our involvement.

As far as clergy are concerned, eight deacons and eleven priests have been ordained. I cannot give you all their names, as they are too many. Nine priests and a deacon have been received into the Archdiocese, in addition to the eleven priests and seven deacons in Great Britain who joined the Exarchate. At the same time, five priests and three deacons have left. We must also mourn a number of deaths: four priests and four deacons. These are the much missed Archimandrite Matthias, who was for twenty-five years rector of the parish in Stockholm, Father Martin Erlings (Breda), Father Jacques Legrand (Institute of St Sergius), Father Henri Achard, Protodeacons Paul Laviolette, Georges Karlson and Georges Krijovoblotsky, as well as Deacon Igor Vasilieff. I suggest that we sing ‘Eternal Memory’ for them, including also in our prayer Matushka Elisabeth Rehbinder, who also died during this time, and who often took part in our diocesan assemblies in the past, representing the parish of Asnières.
[Eternal Memory].

Returning to essentials

We are met together because we are members of the Church of Christ. Our assembly is a privileged moment to respond to the essential questions which touch our personal lives as well as our church life. Basically, in order to reflect on everything that we experience, we must try to come back to what is essential: if we are here, in so far as we are members of the Church, that is, in its true meaning, it is because we have been drawn here, drawn aside, by the Lord Himself, so that we might live the experience of the life in Christ and witness to it. Yes, each of us needs to fulfil his or her baptism, which is, according to the words of the Apostle, a new birth. Christians are born a second time: the life that they find in Christ is a new life which is founded on love, and the very same constitution as that which is the Church. Remember what we say at every Liturgy: ‘I believe in one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church.’ I believe, that is, I live in one Church.

The Church is one

The Church is one. Above all that means, as in the words of Father Alexander Schmemann, that she is the new life in which all believers are united. It is this new birth and the gift of the Spirit that each of us receives in holy Baptism and renews through the divine Eucharist, and by participation in the sacraments. The Church is one because she transcends all human boundaries, all the boundaries of this world – boundaries of race, of social class, and also of nationality. It is precisely this that we live. It is striking to see the diversity of our communities: this year, the Easter message for example, was distributed in seven or eight languages: Russian, French, German, Dutch, Danish, English, Italian, Swedish. This diversity is our wealth. In spite of - or rather thanks to – it, we live in our flesh the universality of Christ’s message addressed to all people, through our witness, imperfect though it is.

The Church is organised on territorial principles: all Christians, in whatever circumstances they are, whatever their origin, are united around their bishop, successor of the Apostles, and pastor, guardian of the expression of the faith. I call you all to look deeply into this mystery which is the Church. I know the history of our Archdiocese bears witness: our diocese is the result of a tragedy of national proportions – the Russian revolution, which dispersed throughout the entire world hundreds of thousands of emigrants. The Orthodox faith constituted for many of them, at the same time, the foundation on which they could rely to find the strength to continue to live, a refuge in times of distress, the cement of their lost community. We know well that divisions appeared very early on in the history of this emigration. Today, some among you place first among the problems of Orthodox unity, those resulting from the Russian emigration. I call on you solemnly to consider the mystery of the Church: this, in our actual circumstances, cannot be limited in Western Europe to the unity of all Russians.

It is essential that we enrol ourselves in a larger ecclesiological perspective, precisely because the question of unity is posed to us, and for a long time, from various quarters: the unity of the Churches that come from the Russian emigration, but also the unity of the Orthodox Churches on the territory of Western Europe, and even more importantly, the canonical organisation of all the new territorial entities that have appeared in the twentieth century outside those that are traditionally and historically Orthodox. And, in alongside that, a new aspect arises to the question of the unity of all Christians.

Relations with the Moscow Patriarchate: letter of 1 April 2003 from the Patriarch of Moscow

You know that my election was preceded by the letter of the Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and All Russia, dated 1 April 2003. I indicated in my investiture address, that I would go ahead with a major consultation on the question of what attitude to take to the proposition put forward by the Moscow Patriarchate. This consultation I conducted in my own way: I visited practically all the parishes of our Archdiocese and I listened to what people said to me. For this purpose, concerning the discussions and meetings always possible, and desirable, between our Archdiocese and the other Russian jurisdictions, I wished to recall something written in Le Messager Orthodoxe, in 1974, by Father Alexis Kniazeff of blessed memory: ‘I cannot but wish for such a meeting, but I see it not as a personal and particular act of mine, but as a communal act of all our Church. This means that it should not be in any way, as far as it concerns our Archdiocese, the act of a few isolated clergy or laity, but that it must have an official character, to be the work of the whole ecclesial body together, done with the blessing and the participation of our diocesan bishops.’

I cannot but regret that this wise advice has not been followed by everyone during these last years. The more so since Father Alexis showed the line that should be followed, the line that was and which still is that of our Archdiocese. I quote again: ‘That means also that this meeting should not be thought of as being able to bring about only reunification between the Orthodox Churches of Russian origin in the emigration, but also the establishment  and strengthening of brotherly union and love throughout the universal Church, throughout the whole Orthodox world.’ And he added, ‘Nothing but these conditions will achieve a great ecclesial joy.’, in other words, he acted to bring together not only the Orthodox who were Russian or of Russian origin, but all Orthodox.

I would like again to make my own the words of my predecessor, Archbishop George of Evdociade, of blessed memory: ‘The resolution of jurisdictional problems must be sought not so much in agreements and negotiations as in prayer, asking with humility that the Lord will cast a new light on our reciprocal relations – a light full of the grace of love and of truth.’ In this vision, every call or every action aiming to divide the members of the Church in general, and our Archdiocese and our parishes in particular, along lines that are ethnic, linguistic, cultural or otherwise, are against the fundamental principles of the life and structure of the Church. I want to say this to you very firmly. And I must add that, in certain parishes – fortunately not many – the situation is on the verge of causing anxiety because of the negative activity of small groups of people, who very often do not live according to ecclesial norms, of people who never come to Communion, who never go to Confession, but want to run everything, including the priest. This situation cannot go on. If it does not change it will be necessary to apply the means of healing recognised by the Church,

Certainly, the consultation which I conducted did not take the form of a conflictory, public debate, as some clearly wished, because, in the Church, disagreements solve themselves by going deeper into what is essential: that is meditation on the Church, on the tradition of the Church, on the Russian tradition from which we have come, to which we have called our clergy and our faithful, in the pastoral assemblies and diocesan conferences that we have organised during the last three years.

The Archdiocese and the principle of the territorial Church

It follows, I am convinced, that our Archdiocese must preserve its unity and its internal structure. It would be completely false to include it in some other ecclesial entity in Western Europe, whether Russian or Greek. Sooner or later, there will come the moment when the Orthodox of the ‘diaspora’ will desire to live all together in strict conformity with the canons and the spirit of the Church, and where there are now in practice multiple jurisdictions there will be only the one Orthodox Church. This idea has germinated a long time ago, and continues to develop, of various movements and organisations which have moved it on, sometimes sounding different or even discordant notes – ‘For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you’ says the Apostle (I Cor. 11:19) – but in the same direction, that of the unity of all the Orthodox. And this idea has nothing in common with subordination to a jurisdiction of one nationality or another. I believe I can say that the canonical foundations of our Exarchate are sufficiently stable for present circumstances. Our diocese has existed as such for eighty-six years. In spite of our limited means, as much on the human level as on the material level, it has passed successfully through all trials up to the present, and they were many in the past as they are today. If there are differences in viewpoint among us, they are human and superficial. They can always be ironed out, with a bit of good will and  a lot of love, so that we shall be able, in the words of the Apostle Paul, ‘to have a conversation worthy of the Gospel of Christ…and stand fast in the one Spirit’ (Phil. 1:17), for the diversity of opinions should not spill over into division.

“Territorial church” does not mean the abolition or negation of the tradition from which we come: the territorial Church gathers together on an identical territory communities sharing the same faith, but able to celebrate or live according to different calendars or different liturgical languages. The question of the choice of this language obviously remains the responsibility of each community that must remain attentive to all the components of the liturgical gathering that regularly participates in the celebrations: let those who wish to celebrate in Slavonic do so, provided that they understand its meaning; let those who wish to celebrate in the vernacular not impose it as a language that excludes those who remain raised in the Slavonic tradition: let a balance worthy of brethren who love each other in Christ be sougth and found. A territorial Church, then, that is respectful of its tradition of Russian origins, but fully integrated into our reality, her and now, is the one whose particular aspect we are called to make known in the Orthodox world.

Today, you know, problems persist with the Patriarchate of Moscow, despite our efforts, undertaken throughout 2004 and at the beginning of 2005, to engage in a responsible dialogue with its leaders about everything that unites us – and that is, by far, the most important, fortunately – and about what separates us, namely, the correct understanding of the past, and the vision of the future. Our understanding of the past and our vision of the future, we have spelled out especially in two declarations of the Council of the Archbishpric, in December 2004 and January 2005: you msut have noticed them at the time, and those who are nto acquainted with them or who have forgotten them, can find the texts in a collection that has just been published with the title “Moving towards the building of the local Church” and is now available. Every person, with even a little good faith, will see, upon reading these documents, that we have not strayed in the slightest from the ecclesial vision that we received from our ancestors and their successors who founded this diocese.

Evolution of relations with the Patriarchate of Moscow and Russia
I must add that, to my great regret, my letters to Patriarch Alexis II have remained unanswered, as has the proposal of the Archbishopric’s Council to send a delegation to Moscow to present our point of view, and more recently the suggestion that came from the Patriarchate’s Department for external relations to open informal contacts only awakened an evasive and short-lived interest. Nevertheless, the situation is not set in stone: even if things are moving forward very slowly, there are signs of hope. For instance, some days ago, I received a letter from the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for external relations, that puts forward ways for possible solutions to certain specific cases and, in a more general way, hints at a request to restart discussions. So I shall renew contact and we shall see. I am confident. The more so, as contacts at Patriarchal level have begun again between Constantinople and Moscow,  which is a source of hope. Our future is in God’s hands.

But I often think of what Vladyko Sergius used to tell us, in 2001, during the last diocesan assembly that the Lord allowed him to preside over. Mgr. Sergius use to say: “Our Exarchate is present at the conflict between the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow, which is taking on worrying forms and has already lasted several years. [...] Our position has become very critical; [...] we sometimes feel as though we are a gaming-stake and a currency for exchange. [...] I pray the Lord to grant the Exarchate not to disappear, to keep to the greatest extent possible its terriotrial integrity and to fulfil its historic task. If parishes move away from us, God grant that they may not be very many.” It is with this same mind that I seek to act. Difficulties and obstacles have not been lacking during this last year, however. Everyone will be thinking of the regrettable Biarritz and Nice lawsuits, that are very different from each other, however. I shall not talk about them now, I’ll leave that to Michel Sollogoub, the secretary of our Archbishopric’s Council, to give the details in his account of the work of our Diocesan Adminsitration. It is his responsibility, on behalf of the diocese, to keep up to date with the evolution of these cases.

Events in the Diocese of Sourozh in 2006
More recently, there have been the events that have happened in the Diocese of Sourozh and their unexpected impications for the Archdiocese. Mgr. Basil will soon doubtless remind us of the origins of the whole of this story. I just want to stress that I did not go out of my way to look for Mgr. Basil and his parishes. Mgr. Basil thought for a long time before taking his decision and coming to talk to me about it. The situation of Mgr. Basil had become more and more difficult, unbearable (and yet, for three years, he had patiently endured many blows): his election as diocesan bishop had not been confirmed and all the declaration of the leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate had given him to understand that it never would be, which meant that the statutes of the Diocese of Sourozh, never approved by Moscow either, were not being respected; worse still, the norms of spiritua, liturgical and administrative life, inherited from Metropolitan Anthony were being disputed, as indeed was the authority of the bishop administering the Diocese, all that through the doings of a little group of parishioners of the London cathedral openly supported by the representatives of the Department of external affairs of the Patriarchate of Moscow.

So, in April last year, Mgr. Basil wrote to Patriarch Alexis II to ask him to allow him to go to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Instead of that, he was relieved of his functions and put into retirement. Faced with these sanctions, Mgr. Basil appealed to his Holiness Bartholomew I, in conformity with the prerogative accorded to the Ecumenical Patriarch by canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. I have been told that this prerogative has been explained in detail in an article by Professor Kartashev, of the St. Sergius’ Institute, whend Metropolitan Evlogii also appealed to Constantinople, when he was faced with the unjust sanctions imposed on him by Moscow in 1930. So, the case of Mgr. Basil is neither new, nor uncanonical. It falls under the heading of an ancient and well-known practice. The question is to discover whether Mgr. Basil was in the right to make use of this right of appeal. The answer of Patriarch Bartholomew and his Holy Synod was “yes,” and they steered Mgr. Basil towards our Exarchate.

In fact, everything so fell out that Mgr. Basil and the parishes that followed him were steered, within the framework of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, towards our Exarachate rather than the Greek Archdiocese of Great Britain.

We have common origins, since in its beginning in 1921, the Parish of the Dormition in London was part of the eccleisal entity of Metropolitan Evlogii and that it was only with the war that it found itself cut of from the diocese, thence to follow its own route, dominated for the next 50 years by the striking person of Mgr. Anthony (Bloom). Another common point, an identical bond, in the Diocese of Metropolitan Anthony, as in our Archbishopric, with the inheritance of the Council of Moscow of 1917-1918, an attachment to the ecclesiological principles rediscovered in the Russian emigration, by the theologians of the Paris School, with whom Metropolitan Anthony was linked. Finally, we have a common tradition, in our lifestyle in the Church, celebration of the liturgy, conception of pastoral care and witness, a tradition marked by the priority of the spirit over the letter.

It is in that spirit that the parishes and communities of Great Britain have been gathered together into a Vicariate for Great Britain and Ireland entrusted to Mgr. Basil. It is in that spirit that projected statutes have been prepared with my blessing to lay down the way that this Vicariate will function within the life of the Archbishpric. These statutes will soon put forward for your approval. We have to go forward with the organisation of the life of these parishes within the framework of the Archbishopric, which will not necessarily be easy.... For, though many things bring us close to each other, certain obstacles remain – even if there is no the Channel tunnel -, beginning with language.

Today, thank God, the first difficulties encountered by Mgr. Basil are over. As we hoped, and as we requested, the two Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow, have sought together a solution to what Metropolitan Kyril of  Smolensk called, in a  recent press interview, a “canonical misunderstanding.” So let it remain, thank God. A definitive settlement has been found, on the canonical level. The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church has taken its decision. Mgr. Basil has received his canonical release He is in the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch, in the bosom of our Archbishopric, and, as Metropolitan Kyril recognised in the same interview,there is no obstacle to eucharistic communion between Mgr. Basil and the Patriarchate of Moscow.

Re-establishment of communion with the Russian Church Outside Russia
That brings us to another topic that I wanted to touch upon today: the re-establishment of communion between the Russian Church Outside Russia and the Patriarchate of Moscow. As you know, these two ecclesial bodies are about to re-establish eucharistic communion between them in a few days’ time, and, in so doing, will begin canonical relations, according to models whose exact shape remains to be clarified – it is not altogether clear, it seems. But that is not the heart of the matter. What matters is, firstly, that we can be glad at this event, which concerns not only Russian Orthodoxy, as it is so often described, but the whole of the Orthodox world, for what concerns one part of the body of the Church of Christ concerns the whole of the Church. In fact, the return to eucharistic unity between the Patriarchate of Moscow and the Church Outside Russia should also allow the latter to re-establish the inidspensible canonical link with universal Orthodoxy, our own ecclesial body included, allowing us thus to receive communion henceforth from the same Chalice, and so, I repeat, we cannot but rejoice at that.

Other forms of co-operation will then perhaps become possible, we shall see in due course. I have, as you know, set up contacts with the leaders of the Russian Church Outside Russia, writing to Metropolitan Laur, receiving his close colleagues and more recently still, Archbishop Mark of Berlin. I think that there exists a certain trust between us, even though we are conscious o everything that separates us, because of the weight of the past and of a vision of ecclesiology that is resolutely differention. Secondly, as far as we are concerned directly, our situation is different from that of those “Outside Russia.” We must say emphatically, that it is clear that communion with the Moscow Patriarchate has not been interrupted, certainly not since 1945, in any case. Even after the death of Mgr. Evlogii and the wise and courageous decision of Mgr Vladimir to remain under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch, communion was maintained. There have been many cases of eucharistic concelbration between our priests and our bishops, in the 1950s, 1970s and beyond, both at local level and during big Orthodox Congresses of Western Europe, for example.

This communion is fully guaranteed by our canonical status within the framework of the Church of Constantinople, the Mother Church of the Church of Russia, as Mgr. George of Evdociade liked to recall. So, as you see, our situation is very different from that of the Church Outside Russia. And, lastly, when people say that my late lamented predecessor, Archbishop Sergius, re-established communion with the Patriarchate of Moscow, in 1995, that is incorrect, if only because on the day of the episcopal consecration of Vladyko Sergius, in June 1993, Bishop Simon from the Moscow Patriarchate in Brussels was one of the co-consecrating bishops, proof indeed that complete communion already existed. It would be more correct to say that Mgr. Sergius re-established relations at the officila level between the Archbishopric and the Patriarchate of Moscow, relations which had ceased to exist for a long time, for reasons which it is not necessary to explain in detail here, as everyone understands them.Today, these relations are going througha difficult episode, as I have already outlined, but they have not broken down, our communion remains full and complete, and, as far as we are concerned, our respect and love for the Russian Church and its great liturgical and spiritual tradition as well as our admiration at the terrible ordeal of martyrdom that it underwnet during the twentieth century remain intact, which does not mean that I must shut my eyes to the problems that are well known to the Church of Russia (or to any other Church for that matter.) But I do not judge it, as we too are far from being perfect and we have our own problems.

Evolution of the “Orthodox landscape” in France
In a general way, we have to reckon with the fact that the collapse of the atheistic, persecuting Communist  régimes, freedom regained for the Churches and peoples of Eastern Europe, globalisation and movement of individuals and information beyond their borders are so many major factors in recent history which impact on the life of our communities and of our Archbishopric, in particular, and on Orthodoxy in the “diaspora,” in general. We are witnessing a sort of reconstruction of the Orthodox landscape in Western Europe, and elsewhere, on the basis of new watersheds, whose outlines remain hazy. If certain antagonisms seem henceforth to be toned down, as with the case of the schism of the Russian Church Outside Russia,others could be appearing.

Saint Paul says that break-ups are necessary for a time and that the Lord know why: to put us to the test, to train us, to make us more mature and more humble. But, at the same time, we have to move towards unity, and to move towards unity is already a form of unity, for the building up of the Church in the same place or in the same territory, is not, I am convinced, an “administrative” problem of organisation, or an “understanding between Mother Churches,” but a problem of the very existence of the Church, of the one Church. So, in France, we are not keeping to “our own clique,” as everything happens in agreement and co-operation with all the Orthodox of this country, thanks to voluntary collaboration between participating bishops of other dioceses, in the framework of the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of France (AOBF), whose rule of conduct and modus operandi were set up by the preconciliar pan-Orthodox commission of Chambésy, in 1993. We are also working, outside the framework of the AOBF, with different movements that go beyond the frameworks of diocese or jurisdictions, such as the ACER-MJO, or indeed the Festival of Orthodox  Youth of France. It is through this grass-roots involvement on the ground, in this common work, that we are promoting Church unity, rather than through summit meetings, negotiations, programmes of organisation, or projected rules and regulations...

The Church is holy

If the Church be one, it is also holy. With this in mind, I would especially like to recall, first of all, the canonisation of the new saints, which took place on the day after our last General Assembly, in May 2004, then the solemn transference of the relics of Saint Alexis of Ugine into the new church of the monastery of Bussy (in October 2004), where they can be permanently venerated. That was also the place to which we organised our first diocesan pilgrimage, in May 2006. The next, in November this year, organised thanks to the ACER-MO, will be linked to the memory of Saint Maria (Skobtsova), as we shall go to Ravensbrück to put up there, in the name of the diocese, a commemorative plaque in her honour. We have organised two pastoral reunions, the first on the themes of “the local church” and on the “meaning of the Russian tradition” (November 2004), the second on the “Sacrament of repentance and confession” (May 2006). The texts of the first of these talks are now available in the collection of which I have just spoken.

The Church is catholic

This brings me to speak also about another characteristic of our Church: it is catholic, “sobornaya,” or again “all-embracing.” Everyone, whether clergyman or layperson, must be able to feel that he belongs. Our diocesan General Assemblies, like our Pastoral Assemblies always happen behind closed doors, so many of our faithful have the impression of being excluded from the life of the diocese. At the same time these meetings are, unfortunately, too centred on purely administrative, material questions; much time is taken up by voting, and all that at the expense of our true raison d’être – life in Christ and witnessing to Christ. That is why I have given my blessing to the organisation of diocesan Conferences, open to all, and which ought to be an opportunity for praying together, reflecting together and sharing everything that unites us. It is a new departure, but I am minded to see this kind of meeting continue and develop. We have already held three conferences, on the following themes: “The New Saints” (June 2004), “How to Build the local Church” (February 2005), “The 60th Anniversary of the death of Metropolitan Evlogii” (September 2006).

I am also concerned to strengthen the links between the Archbishopric and its representatives, the clergy and laity at the local level. Forgive me, but, from Paris, I cannot do everything. The Diocesan Administration cannot respond either to all requests. That means then working in a permanent dialogue, with complete trust and discipline. The Archbishopric is geographically very big, extending today over ten countries. More responsibility must then be granted at the regional level. So that is why we have had several meetings of deaneries: for Paris and the surrounding region (in February 2005 and December 2006), for Scandinavia (in October 2005), for Belgium (in December 2005). I also presided over several meetings of the Vicariate in Great Britain, in the latter half of 2006.

Now, if the Archbishopric has a responsibility for you, then there is also a responsibility and a minimum of due care and attention on your part with regard to the Archbishopric, for him who has personal responsibility for it and for those who assist him. Here I am going to repeat, unfortunately, what my predecessors have already said. But, seemingly, it is from time to time necessary to repeat it. Too often, the circulars which are sent to you by the Diocesan Administration are not acted upon, and the requisite deadlines for replying to mailings are not observed. For example, when we sent a questionnaire on the state of the parishes, only one third replied before the deadline. Another example: we have endlessly to start up the parishes afresh every year, so that the collections and fund-raising for the benefit of the diocese can be carried out, so that the statutory documents can be sent out (reports of Parish Assemblies, copies of parish registers, etc.). We are losing too much time and energy over these kinds of problems.  If the Diocesan Administration asks you such and such, or sets you a time limit, it is because it has its reasons, dictated by its working agenda. So, dear fathers, brothers and sisters, please follow these instructions.

As I said just now, our “link to the universal Church,” according to the expression of Father Alexander Schmemann, is made through the medium of the one who heads the diptychs: the Ecumenical Patriarch. I often have to go on official visits to the Patriarchate. I made five visits to Constantinople to outline to His Holiness Bartholomew the life of our Archbishopric and to have conversations with him: in May 2004, in July 2005, in May 2006, in September 2006 and, most recently, in March 2007. I also had a working meeting with the Patriarch during his brief visit to Paris, last February. On each occasion, I must say, I was welcomed by His Holiness, the members of the Holy Synod and the other bishops present, with great joy and kindness, as a brother. On each occasion, I was invited by His Holiness to participate in the concelebration of the Liturgy with him. I also felt the interest and concern of the Patriarch for our ecclesial body: it is a great comfort. Still on the level of official contacts, I also visited the Orthodox Church of Finland in August 2004 and the Orthodox Church of Poland twice, in 2004 and in 2006. We received in Paris Metropolitan Sawa of Warsaw and all Poland, in September 2004, and Archbishop Leo of Karelia and all Finland, in February 2005. Lastly I went to Bratislava, in October 2006, for a meeting organised by the European institutions on religions and Europe. So much for my external contacts.

The Church is apostolic

The Church is lastly apostolic, that is missionary. It is a central dimension of Christian witness that we sometimes tend to neglect, above all doubtless because we do not really consider ourselves able to bear this witness, partly because we too often think of ourselves as “foreigners,” culturally or confessionally foreign in any case, foreign to the countries we live in, “strangers” to the world in general. It is a huge theme and – we are all convinced of this, I think – absolutely fundamental, and we shall return to it again and again, I hope. But straightaway, I would like to mention a service which is new in our diocese, namely the pastoral reception and catechesis of new immigrants which I have initiated, as I promised after my election. I have entrusted a pastoral team, gathered around Father Vladimir Yagello and Father Vladislav Trembovelsky, with the organization in Paris of catechetical classes, where basic questions about faith and the Church can be studied in Russian, but also elements of French, because it is also a question of a social service, and of providing some kind of material or legal assistance... And it is working... At the beginning, in 2005, there was one group, today there are three groups.

And I would like to thank here in particular all those men and women who have chosen to get involved in this work. We have to care for all those who are knocking at our door and bring them into the Church of Christ, guiding their steps with patience, prudence and love. It is a challenge for us, everywhere. In Paris, the initiatives in this field were very scattered, not always systematic: that is why the diocese has taken up these matters. I know that outside Paris, or abroad, a lot is happening in such and such a parish, with such and such a priest. And I hope that we shall hear about them, sooner or later. We must continue! This theme of pastoral reception of our brother, of every brother, be he a lately arrived immigrant from Eastern Europe, or whether it be a case of someone of Western or other origin who has recently become Orthodox, this theme prompts me to remind you all here of what you know already: that the Church is not an elitist organization, and that the parish, your parish, is not a private club. Since apostolic times, the preaching of the Gospel has been addressed to men and women of all races, all peoples and all cultures, “Go, teach all nations...” says Christ. What does that mean for us, for each one of us, here, today?

The one thing necessary

In fact, now, we have to refocus on the essential, on the “one thing necessary.” It is a question of our vocation as witnesses of the Gospel, in a completely new context, that of a secularised society, dechristianised and dehumanised, but which however, now more than ever needs to hear the message of the God-Man, the Word of God incarnate for our salvation and participation in the divine life. That we can only do through conversion, a permanent conversion, which means for each one of us to reconvert to Orthodoxy, which is the very mystery of God’s Revelation, Incarnation, and of the death and Resurrection of Christ, of the expectation of his second and glorious Coming. For Orthodoxy – we know well – is not a system, philosophy or ideology, but life in Christ, shown in the eucharistic mystery of God’s communion with mankind, with every human person, created “in His image and likeness,” and with the whole of Creation – and for the whole of Creation, since the liturgy is celebrated “for the life of the world” and our whole life is called to become liturgy.

We have to confront a certain number of ongoing pastoral problems: lack of priests, the transmission of faith to our children and grandchildren, pastoral care of the young, different generations existing in the same parish and tensions, conflicts even, that can break out as a result, reception of newcomers, adult catechesis, mission, problems of the elderly, social questions, in general. We must also reflect on the identity we want for our communities. “Christianity, when it becomes tribal, loses all its beauty and falls into idolatry,” writes Metropolitan Georges Khodr of Mount Lebanon in one of his beautiful books. Exactly, what are our parishes at present? And what do we want them to be? Communities turned in on themselves, introvert de facto or in the name of a certain “Orthodox national culture,” of a fairly uncertain shape, without any contact with surrounding society? Or do we want living communities, where God will be experienced as inner communion, prayer, openness, responsibility? The time has come to put the finishing touches to our vision of the future of the Archbishopric and of our Church here. The question of the succession, like the question of transmission, appears central, seen from this perspective. There are the upcoming generations, as I’ve seen, for example, at the recent Festival of Orthodox French Youth, which I participated in last September: we must not discourage them or reject them. We have lost too many, through such attitudes, in the past: I am thinking, for example of the departure of one of our best theologians for America, in the 1950’s. Don’t let us make the same mistake.

The Church, as I said, has a universal vocation, and we must be attentive to the transmission of faith in the current conditions of our ecclesial life. We have incessantly to ponder the questions linked to this transmission: how do our children really discover Christ? How does their awareness of the church grow, as they grow up in the different circumstances in which we live? If we don’t manage to transmit the good news to our children, how could we do it for others who are far from the Church and the Gospel? In a general way, we have to reflect on the specificity of our work as Church in the society as it is today in the countries where we live.

Conclusion

There is the series of questions that, I think, ought to be explored during the periods of discussion that we have scheduled, today and tomorrow, between the different reports and accounts of our activities. In this dialogue, which I hope will take place in a really “conciliar” fashion, “ соборне,”  in a respectful and constructive spirit, and that God will help us discover and create the language, attitudes and forms we need to live as Church, to witness to our Orthodox faith where God has called us to live, and so “become the soul or the world,” as one of the beautiful texts of the early centuries of Christianity, the Epistle of Diognetus (second century) invites us to do. If we do that, we shall see that our differences of origin or tradition will no longer be felt as barriers, but rather on the contrary, we shall discover their complementary elements and their relevance with regard to the common task to which we are called and in which we are already taking part – the building up and development of the Church of Christ. For, in Christ, there is “neither Jew nor Greek,” but all of us, whoever we are and whatever our origins, whatever our gifts, whatever the language in which we pray, are called to “glorify and hymn the magnificent and glorious name of God, with one mouth and with one heart,” all to receive communion from the one chalice, to live in Christ, and in Him alone. Amen.

Christ is Risen!
Xристос Воскресе!
† Gabriel, Archbishop of Comana
Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch
Paris, 30 April 2007

Translated by Valerie Chamberlain