NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
French seminary trains for Orthodox resurgence
EPINAY-SOUS-SENART, France -- Inside a plain stone building that was once a Catholic convent in the center of town, a dozen black-robed seminarians struggle over French theological phrases.
The nuns are long gone, their Catholic crucifixes replaced by Russian icons and incense that form the trappings of a bold experiment: the Russian Orthodox Church's first seminary outside the former Soviet Union.
Officially launched in November, the small Paris-area school nurses big ambitions: to train a new generation of Orthodox priests capable of serving Russia's growing Diaspora. Even more, the school hopes to foster exchanges between Europe's Christian East and West; and, more specifically, help nurture warming ties between Moscow and the Vatican.
"The Russian Orthodox Church needs good specialists who know foreign languages and the life of Christian churches in the West and how they face secularization," said the Rev. Alexander Siniakov, the seminary's affable young director, who is also the Russian church's point person for interchurch relations in France.
"Our seminary," he added, "is sort of a bridge between the Western Christian culture and the Eastern Orthodox one."
The pupils enrolled in the school's five-year program hail mostly from Russia and former Soviet republics. There are plans to diversify and grow the student body to 40 over the next few years, with the seminarians also earning master's degrees in theology from the Sorbonne in Paris.
"It's a nice possibility to study French and to know how Western people live in France and in other Western countries," said Andrew Serebrych Anekcandroviych, a 25-year-old seminarian from Ukraine, who sports a dark ponytail and spectacles.
Some graduates will return to parishes in their home countries. But others are being groomed to serve Russia's far-flung Diaspora that has ballooned since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The seminary is the brainchild of Patriarch Kirill, who was elected head of the Moscow Patriarchate last February.
"When the Iron Curtain fell, the Russians went everywhere," said the Rev. Stephen Headley, a Russian Orthodox priest and researcher on Russian Orthodoxy at the French National Center for Scientific Research.
Kirill's idea was to "follow our people and open Orthodox churches for them wherever they are," said Headley, who also teaches at the seminary. That meant training priests qualified to serve them.
Millions of Russians settled in western Europe, bringing their newly rediscovered faith with them. But their culture and practices often clashed with Russia's more established expatriate population, who fled the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.

You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
Many of the earlier ex-pats joined the New York-based Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, which formally reconciled with Moscow in 2007 after 90 years of mutual suspicion. But others switched allegiance to the rival Patriarchate of Constantinople, based in modern-day Istanbul, which is seen as the spiritual heart of much of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Tensions between Moscow and Istanbul peaked a few years ago in London, home to some 200,000 new Russian expatriates. Kirill's hardline predecessor, Patriarch Alexy II, forcibly retired the head of the Russian Orthodox Cathedral in London, after he indicated he wanted to join the Constantinople branch.
"They are Russian nationalists, basically," said Michael Bourdeaux, president of the Keston Institute in Oxford, England, and an expert on Russian Orthodoxy. The new emigres "want Russian services for Russian people. They don't want to make any compromises with local languages."
Relations between the ex-pat groups are also bumpy in France, where a large slice of the Russian community hails from the Soviet era and is affiliated with Constantinople.
But at the Epinay-Sous-Senart seminary, Siniakov appears to be trying to heal the rift. Instructors of a Constantinople-affiliated institute in Paris now teach at the seminary. And, Siniakov said, the seminary is open to students from all Orthodox churches.
"It offers the possibility for them to know more about our Russian Orthodox tradition," he said.
Anton Sidenko, a tall, lanky seminarian in his early 20s, said he was particularly interested in learning about the history of other Orthodox churches. Speaking shyly in French, he described an earlier stint in France where he studied engineering.
"There's a big respect for the church in Russia," Sidenko said. "Here, the view of the church is more based on tradition."
Divisions between Moscow and the Vatican are far more sizable and stretch back centuries. Even so, Moscow reached out to French Catholic bishops for help establishing the seminary, a gesture underscoring warming ties between the two churches, particularly under their current leaders, Kirill and Pope Benedict XVI.
The French bishops put the Russians in touch with elderly nuns in Epinay-Sous-Senart, who were moving out of their convent. The nuns now return to teach the seminarians French.
"We need, as Europeans, as Christians, to gather all the Christian churches of all European countries," said Catholic Bishop Michel Dubost, who leads the local Evry-Corbeil-Essonnes diocese. Dubost has visited the seminary and will host the students at his cathedral in the coming weeks.
"Clearly there are differences," he added. "But we need to know each other, to build something together."
The foundations are being reinforced on a larger scale. Kirill and Benedict, who have met several times in the past, hold similarly conservative views on matters like euthanasia, abortion and homosexuality. Both have urged Europeans to reclaim their Christian heritage at a time when secularity and immigration are transforming the region.
"I think there was a conscious decision on the part of the Vatican and the Moscow patriarchate to try to cooperate on the social level, which talks about the ... Christian roots of western Europe," said Headley, the Orthodox priest.
"There's a political side to this," Headley added of Kirill and Benedict. "They both have strong lobbies at the Council of Europe and the European Union ... when key issues come up, they can lobby together and have more influence."
Bourdeaux, the Oxford scholar, agreed.
"If the Catholic and Orthodox churches came closer together," he said, "they would form a huge beacon for conservatism in the world today."





This is a wonderful
This is a wonderful happening! But why not lift the schismatic "Anathema uttered by Rome in the 11th century? The phase "Filioque" is totally absurd as a reason to break with a Church that is just as old as the Church of Rome--and the two Churches were in union for a thousand years before that act of arrogance on the part of Rome--why can't we go back to the way things were in the 2nd until the 11th century? After all, Paul in the Acts of the Apostles faced up to Peter and jawboned him into ceasing to demand that Jewish converts be circumcised. Let us pray!
Morris Augustine
Your comments, Dr. Augustine,
Your comments, Dr. Augustine, are factually and historically incorrect, as well as being filled with the spirit of "If there is something wrong, it is always Rome's fault" that is so prevalent at NCR. Allow me to take just a moment to correct some of the historical and factual inaccuracies. First of all, the "anathema" was issued by BOTH parties. Cardinal Humbert, the legate representing the Holy Father and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, both excommunicated each other and their respective Churches. Thus the Eastern Church was labeled "anathema" by the Roman Church, and the Roman Church labeled "anathema" by the Eastern Church. So there was no guilty and innocent party, both were equally arrogant in their actions.
Second, "Filioque" was only the stated theological reason for the schism. There were many others, including the Iconoclast heresy, embraced in the 8th century by the East and rejected utterly by the West. In the East there was a movement toward Caesaropapism, the subordination of the Church to the religious claims of the prevalent political order (clearly demonstrated by the Russian Orthodox Church's embrace of, and preaching in support of, Communism in the old Soviet Union); this Caesaropapism was rejected in the West. There were disputes over whether the Pope or the Patriarch had authority over the churches in the Balkans. Celibacy for priests in the Western Church and not for the Eastern Church represented profound differences. Finally, there were serious questions related to the role of the papacy in the Church and the authority of the Pope over the entire Church. As you can see, the divides and disputes were deep and abiding, and the Great Schism of 1054 had been festering and developing for centuries.
Pope Paul VI of happy memory, and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras, issued a joint declaration, the Catholic-Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965, which expressed mutual regret for all the actions that led up to the Schism and that lifted the mutual excommunications of 1054.
Pope John Paul II the Great, of happy memory, went further than any pontiff before him in attempting to heal the wounds of caused by the Great Schism. He made overtures to the Patriarch of Constantinople who welcomed him with open arms and in June, 1995, both the Pope and the Patriarch issued a statement in which they expressed their mutual "desire to relegate the excommunications of the past to oblivion and to set out on the way to re-establishing full communion.." He even floated the idea that, in relation to the Eastern Church, the role of the Pope would not be as supreme as it is in the Western Church, but rather might be more like that of the Patriarch, "first among equals". The Holy Father returned relics of St. John Chrysostom to the Patriarch. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed in Greek with Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I WITHOUT the "Fliioque" clause, in keeping with Roman Catholic practice to include "Filioque" when reciting the Creed in Latin, but not when doing so in Greek.
He repeatedly approached the Patriarch of Moscow in an attempt to heal the wounds with that branch of the Eastern Church, only to be repeatedly rebuffed by the Patriarch. It was the dearest desire of Pope John Paul II to go to Russia for a pastoral visit following the fall of Communism. He was blocked in every attempt by the Patriarch of Moscow.
In short, there is much more to this situation than an "act of arrogance on the part of Rome", and more to this schism than the issue of the Holy Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. The division between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity reflect a genuine scandal and is very sad. The Popes of the last few decades have striven to effect reconciliation between the two Churches, but sadly it has eluded them, and continues to elude us. We must pray that this schism may end and that a reconciliation will be forthcoming.
In the meantime, it would help matters if we all took the time to become informed about the real reasons behind the Great Schism, and took steps in our own lives to effect that reconciliation.
A very good, compact
A very good, compact retelling of the issues, Clint.
Thanks!
You are somewhat correct but
You are somewhat correct but make a few mistakes. First, Moscow is not as Rome by a long shot. Second, the excommunications between Rome and Constantinople were mutual and about much more than one word in the Creed. Constantinople is increasing fragile due to most of their Churches located in hostile Muslim lands. I think John Paul II could have made some major progress with Constantinople, however Moscow basically blocked everything. Benedict XVI, the true pope of Christian unity, and the new patriarch of Moscow have the best chance in centuries to heal this rift. The patriarch even released a statement that Summorum Pontificum was a big step forward in relations between the two Churches, as the Russians had serious questions about the revised Roman Rite. If there is major progress with Moscow, Constantinople comes right along. We can only pray. But I think this is the area the Church should put most of its effort--those who have valid orders and sacraments and the same theology--unlike the protestants.
As a Protestant who is
As a Protestant who is seriously studying Orthodoxy I can tell you that there are many profound differences between the Catholics and Orthodox...that's what makes it so attractive to me. On the other hand, your argument does hold some validity because my Catholic wife will be making the conversion with me. On another note, it is very sad that Moscow is seemingly devolving all of this into a nationalistic type tiff. As children of God we need to get past the national borders issue and unite in Christ. It seems to me that this is at least part of the reason all of this got started in the first place. Christian first, Russian (or what have you) second.
Let Rome and Benedict take
Let Rome and Benedict take yet another step in mending these historical/hysterical rifts. Have him just simply declare that our celebration of Easter will occur on the same day in say two years to give schedulers time to adjust. If we cannot all agree on the same central feast of our religion, then the rest is just useless.
I disagree. There is nothing
I disagree. There is nothing wrong with two different dates for Easter. our Eastern Brothers in communion with Rome celebrate a different Easter than the Latin Rite Church. The Eastern Churches have their own lovely traditions etc and they should keep them just as we in the Latin Church have lovely traditions etc and we should keep ours.
The Orthodox generally loathe
The Orthodox generally loathe the Novus Ordo Protestant Catholic Mass. This is a new stumbling block to unity.
A convert to Christian
A convert to Christian Orthodoxy and American expat, I frequently attend services at the Russian Seminary in Epinay-sous-Senart. I am happy to learn that its foundation was sponsored by Patriarch Kirill personally. The rector, Father Alexander, is young, bright, very open to dialogue and conscientious of his vocation. The seminary could be considered as yet another bulwark against the neo-pagan drift in today's world. I feel very fortunate to have such a potentially enriching institution not too far away from where I live. I just hope they continue to flourish.
Post new comment