Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Orthodox Church of France

1,321 bytes added, 16:31, June 11, 2007
Precisions for fr Lev
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.
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. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 08:04, June 11, 2007 (PDT)
Who defended ECOF in 1993 ?
Ask what Mgr Adrian, Mgr Seraphim and Mgr Joseph or Mgr Daniel is quite easy.
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 ?

Navigation menu