Connect with us

RussiaFeed

News

Economy

China, Russia and Gold in the De-Dollarizing World

An asset backed currency, used by Russia and China, may be the biggest challenge to Emperor Dollar.

Published

on

55 Views

Trending and gaining traction throughout the economic world is the increasingly relevant search for safe, stable and secure alternatives to the US Dollar. Some due to geopolitical reasons and pressures, others from recognizing the significantly deepening debt associated with the US Dollar and government. Many have started questioning and doubting aspects of its sustainability and inviolability over the ballooning short and long term. Recently underscored by expected “trade negotiations” with the US’s largest debt holders (Japan & China) which are now to include exploring sovereign debt restructuring, usually an indicator of financial indigestion.

Others are looking to innovative crypto ideas in the hope that extra-governmental blockchain backed mechanisms of peer-to-peer “agreed value” might be the path to securing wealth. In short, all of these approaches are looking for the security which gold together with similar recognized hard assets like silver have provided and assured since the dawn of our varied successive civilizations.

China, Russia, Turkey, Iran and quite a few others see themselves sanctioned, shackled and hindered by the overwhelming market dominance of the American currency and the quickly changing policies linked to it by successive US administrations most especially of late. Some refer to this as the  “weaponization” of the US Dollar as this millennia’s new normal, the gatekeeper of trade permission.

The tariffs introduced by the US government as a form of behavior modification for other nations are understandably unappreciated and are increasingly resisted. It is likely that worsening currency as well as trade tiff’s are in the cards across the board.

The Chinese yuan is gaining internationally among users. Russia, Turkey, and Iran are making payments in their national currencies. Iran recently announced a switch from the dollar to the euro as its reporting currency. Russia and China already have a currency swap agreement that avoids settlements in the greenback. Even Saudi Arabia will have to make a choice probably sooner than later, to stay with the petrodollar fix, or go with its biggest customer – China and therefore the yuan.

China is Russia’s largest trading partner with 15% of Russia’s international trade for 2017. This year it has grown to 17.2%. In 2014 just 2% of payments for Russia’s exports to China were paid in rubles, and 9% of China’s exports to Russia were paid in yuan. In 2017, this has increased to 9% and 15% respectively and continues to grow.

There is persistent speculation and growing talk in the financial markets that Russia and China may be discussing expanding the role gold, silver and possibly other hard assets might have in realigning the value of both the yuan and the ruble independently of the US Dollar. So far it remains in the realm of rumors, then again that too is a start. Whether this remains rumor, or emerges as something more, it is a topic well worth examining if only from a risk management point of view.

There are a number of countries, which no doubt are paying close attention to what may develop. Some to join and some to try and spoil the party. However this plays out, such shifts will not be smooth or pleasant as the effects are global and will resonate throughout all financial systems, especially within the United States.

It is no secret that the central banks in China, Russia, Turkey, India and some other nations have been steadily increasing their physical gold holdings, as well as repatriating their bullion from the United States, for example Germany, and Turkey just recently this past April.

There are persistent and growing unconfirmed rumors here in Moscow that both Russia and China have formulated or are outlining plans to launch some form of a gold-participatory currency system to replace the greenback as the world’s dominant currency. Whether it will be a Ruble or a Yuan, or something entirely different is still unclear, but something interesting is no doubt afoot within this fog of speculation. Already mechanisms have been developed as potential alternatives to SWIFT, both the the Eurasian/Asia regions, and unsurprisingly as a recent development in the Euro Zone as well.

That being said I have no idea how such a system might actually look, it’s organizational profile, how it would be regulated, standardized and traded, or whether it would be a basket of hard assets (gold, silver, energy) securing it, or only gold. The key attractor for the financial world which has traditionally parked its funds in US Dollar government bonds, is if an alternative currency system is governmentally supported, asset backed and interest bearing, then the appeal of that added value and security should make such an alternative realistically appealing. It may be the single key factor which will allow any chances for real competitive use against the Dollar, Yen, Renmimbi or Euro, all of which are like the Dollar – fiat.

Backing currencies today exclusively with gold is highly unlikely; however, there is realistic potential for a new form of currency possibly connected with a state regulated blockchain crypto-currency concept, or the partial exchange within such a currency system for gold as its referenced anchor. These do have possibilities and can occur without unduly testing credulity or imagination.

The trend towards de-dollarization is happening, of that there is little doubt. Equally true is the fact that today this is just an irritant to the US government and the Federal Reserve. If implemented, it will in time erode capabilities the US can bring to bear economically, militarily and politically to all corners of the world through global financing of its dollar debt. That would be much more than just an irritation for the US. After all, according to BIS 80% of all international trade is contracted in US Dollars, it will take some time to shorten such a massive lead.

No major country currently backs its currency with gold, but many have in the past, including the US. The US effectively abandoned the gold standard nationally in 1933, silver in 1968, and completely severed any linkage between the US dollar and gold internationally in 1971. The US since then has remained a fiat money system, meaning the dollar’s value is not linked to any independently redeemable asset other than trust in the stewardship of the US government, and faith in the Treasury Dep’t and Federal Reserve to do the right thing.

Looking back, the inflection point for the US to begin dollar de-linkage from gold and similar assets was to help combat the Great Depression. Faced with mounting unemployment and spiraling deflation in the early 1930s, the U.S. government found it could do little to stimulate the economy. To deter people from cashing in deposits and depleting the gold supply, the US and other governments had to keep interest rates high, but that made it too expensive for people and businesses to borrow. Therefore, in 1933, FDR cut the dollar’s ties with gold nationally, allowing the government to print (“QE”) dollars into the economy, thereby lowering interest rates.

The U.S. continued to allow only foreign governments to exchange dollars for gold until 1971, when President Nixon abruptly ended the practice. It is worth noting that that before delinking from gold, the dollar had a fixed value reference of $35 to an ounce of gold, which limited and severely constrained financial and political policies. The value of gold was not permitted to be set by an open free market. Only after the dollar delinked from gold was the metal allowed to be openly traded as a commodity, at that time notably via the London Fix, and New York COMEX.

It is unlikely that a fully gold-backed currency mechanism will emerge onto the world financial markets as it was before 1933, especially in this interconnected economic and digital information age. However, a basket of hard assets as a reference point or linkage anchor to currencies does have traction, and may very well be what is now being discussed between China and Russia. This especially as the market can and will establish relative values indexed to the assets comprising such a basket, and not be limited to a single fixed price. This also suggests that some control may shift away from the central banks and instead become market sensitized and responsive. This can be a frightening concept, as it is a distinct departure from today’s Fed practices, requiring significant political, procedural and audit realignments.

Russia and China have been in working discussions to introduce gold-backed futures and similar mechanisms to circumvent the U.S dollar. It could be that over the next few decades we may witness the demise of fiat currencies such as the US Dollar, Yen, Euro and the debt excesses the printing of non-asset backed money has encouraged.

Currently, with geopolitical pressures, sanctions and trade tariffs increasing against Russia and China, these two countries have come to be seen as the standard bearers or ‘white knights’ for de-dollarizing global free trade. Whether they want this role foisted on them or not. This view is growing within a number of countries who have been limited and constrained from development by the dominant default role of the US Dollar, and by extension the US Government in its follow-on ability to dictate policies and pressure their sovereign national affairs in the interests of the USA.

The creation and introduction of a gold-inclusive indexed currency mechanism appears to be a likely event, perhaps sooner than we think. Russia has openly said that its national interests can be best served by reducing its exposure to the vulnerabilities and volatilities of global geopolitics by reducing the role of the greenback in its economic affairs.

Moscow and Beijing have been actively reducing their dependence on the dollar in mutual and regional trade. In October 2017, China launched a PVP payment system for transactions in yuan and Russian rubles. This means that payments for Russian oil deliveries to China, which have reached 60 million metric tons per year and continue to increase, are now working without the US Dollar as intermediary. This also has the added benefit to allow confidentiality of transactions. This is not possible if the US Dollar is used as the medium for trade as currently all such transaction details have to be cleared, therefore known in New York.

China’s launch of its own oil futures on the Shanghai International Energy Exchange plays a de-dollarization role and supports the gold-asset function as well. Today, shifting the China oil trade out of dollars into yuan takes between $600 billion and $800 billion worth of transactions out of the dollar each year.

One of the several factors supporting the creation of a Russia/China gold related currency system is that just the other day the global debt has reached $237 trillion.

The IMF warned this past week that the debt burden of the global economy is deeper today than it was before the financial crisis of 2008. The latest numbers for global debt is $237 trillion, up from the $140 trillion before the 2008 financial crisis. It is also worth noting that according to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), there is also approximately $750 trillion in additional debt outstanding in derivatives, much of which is formally still “on the books” but practically can be considered swept under the financial rug, at least for now.

The US Treasury Department on May 1st said the government borrowed a record $488 billion in the January-March quarter. This exceeds the old record of $483 billion set in the first quarter of 2010, when all stops were pulled to prop up the financial system. The US Treasury continues to face the growing need to finance government operations when annual deficits are heading to new record levels, and a federal budget now normal at over a trillion.

Global debt has increased by roughly $21 trillion in 2017 alone. That is roughly the equivalent of this year’s US national debt. This has led to a forward-looking undercurrent of anxiety in the world’s markets, and a growing desire by some countries to do something to pre-empt being terminally caught up in these increasingly uncertain, predominantly dollar denominated risks.

The latest sanctions against Russian oligarchs and their companies, as well as trade tariffs against China are also having unintended consequences. Rusal is a major aluminum producer. They provide an estimated 6% of the world’s supply. Companies are now scampering every which way to secure new supply sources because the Russian supply might be cut off by US sanctions. The sanctions caused both the Russian stock market and the Russian Ruble to fall sharply and sent aluminum prices soaring. This simply underscores the need to create alternatives to the US Dollar sooner rather than later.

Unintended consequences certainly do not stop with sanctions against Russian companies. The dollarized trade and tariff war between China and the U.S. is also enjoying its moments in the sun. After the US imposed tariffs on China that hit aluminum products, robotics, aircraft parts, vaccines, dishwashing machines and many other items, the Chinese retaliated in turn with tariffs that hit soybeans, cars, and chemical products among others.

China’s response negatively affected agriculture products notably from the very same agricultural states that backed Trump. Aircraft parts and engines were a top U.S. export to China, totaling some $16.3 billion. Soybeans are a top agriculture product with $12.4 billion exported to China every year. Today we are expecting to see a further $200 billion in tariffs imposed on China, with an additional $267 billion package of tariffs “waiting in the wings” if the $200 billion doesn’t win China’s hearts and minds.

As this evolves, we should be seeing inflation in the US and elsewhere rather higher than the Fed’s “2% sweet spot”, in fact it may unpleasantly surprise us all.

Keeping in mind when loans are made in dollars, the debtor is then essentially a hostage, having to agree to the issuing central banks’ policies. The central bank determines the price of those dollars through politically guided monetary policy, and its (fiat) value thanks to currency printing. If such loans were issued in gold or asset-backed instruments, such counterparty pressures would lessen, or no longer be a feature.

China for many years has made it clear that gold purchased in China is to remain in China. Russia, Turkey and recently India are of the same conviction. This allows for each of these nations to be the secure custodian and guarantor of their gold assets, reducing the risk of politically motivated seizure as can happen with currencies and debt instruments.

Decisions have been acted on already by several countries repatriating their gold from the US. This is a telling sign that US control and influence is starting to shift, along with th essential element of trust that had allowed the US to play a custodial role over foreign reserves for so long.

Russia, Turkey, Iran and China are countries that are increasingly seen as threats by the West, in one form or another, and are rocking the currency boat. Various measures have been taken against them to make international trade and negotiations onerous at best. Whether through fear mongering, sanctions or trade tariffs, countries are feeling the force and weight of the US and its allies’ powers. As a result, they are increasingly considering re-enlisting gold and perhaps a basket of similar assets to shield themselves protect their financial reserves, and their ability to function as economically viable independent sovereign nations.

The process has begun, where it may take us over the coming years is the big question and one that will redefine international trade and geopolitics for decades to come. Today, after the US unilaterally exited the Iran nuclear agreement and is reimposing sanctions. North Korea and a host of other nations understandably might wonder if any agreement with the US is workable, and European allies and neighbors of the US are no doubt wondering if marching alongside America is truly in their best national interests.Trust is being frittered away quickly, and trust is what has mostly kept the US Dollar afloat in this guns & butter world. While today this possibility is still in the realm of market hearsay, rumors, and fake news – but in this increasingly curious age what isn’t?

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

BREAKING: Explosion in Crimea, Russia kills many, injuring dozens, terrorism suspected

According to preliminary information, the incident was caused by a gas explosion at a college facility in Kerch, Crimea.

The Duran

Published

on

“We are clarifying the information at the moment. Preliminary figures are 50 injured and 10 dead. Eight ambulance crews are working at the site and air medical services are involved,” the press-service for the Crimean Ministry of Health stated.

Medics announced that at least 50 people were injured in the explosion in Kerch and 25 have already been taken to local hospital with moderate wounds, according to Sputnik.

Local news outlets reported that earlier in the day, students at the college heard a blast and windows of the building were shattered.

Putin Orders that Assistance Be Provided to Victims of Blast in Kerch – Kremlin Spokesman

“The president has instructed the Ministry of Health and the rescue services to take emergency measures to assist victims of this explosion, if necessary, to ensure the urgent transportation of seriously wounded patients to leading medical institutions of Russia, whether in Moscow or other cities,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitriy Peskov said.

The president also expressed his condolences to all those affected by the tragic incident.

Manhunt Underway in Kerch as FSB Specialists Investigate Site of Explosion – National Anti-Terrorist Committee

The site of the blast that rocked a city college in Kerch is being examined by FSB bomb disposal experts and law enforcement agencies are searching for clues that might lead to the arrest of the perpetrators, the National Anti Terrorism Committee said in a statement.

“Acting on orders from the head of the NAC’s local headquarters, FSB, Interior Ministry, Russian Guards and Emergency Ministry units have arrived at the site. The territory around the college has been cordoned off and the people inside the building evacuated… Mine-disposal experts are working at the site and law enforcement specialists are investigating,” the statement said.

Terrorist Act Considered as Possible Cause of Blast in Kerch – Kremlin Spokesman

“The tragic news that comes from Kerch. Explosion. The president was informed … The data on those killed and the number of injured is constantly updated,” Peskov told reporters.

“[The version of a terrorist attack] is being considered,” he said.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Russian Orthodox Church officially breaks ties with Constantinople

Biggest separation in almost 1,000 years as world’s largest Orthodox Church cuts communion with Constantinople over legitimizing schismatics.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The schism between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate became official today, October 15, 2018, as the Russian Holy Synod reviewed the recent granting of communion to two schismatic groups in Ukraine, pursuant to Constantinople’s intent to grant autocephaly (full self-rule, or independence) to the agglomeration of these groups.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

RT reported that the Synod ruled that any further clerical relations with Constantinople are impossible, given the current conditions. Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev told journalists today about the breach in relations:

“A decision about the full break of relations with the Constantinople Patriarchate has been taken at a Synod meeting” that is currently been held in the Belarusian capital of Minsk, Hilarion said, as cited by TASS.

The move comes days after the Synod of the Constantinople Patriarchate decided to eventually grant the so-called autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, thus making the clerical organization, which earlier enjoyed a broad autonomy within the Moscow Patriarchate, fully independent.

The Moscow Patriarchate also said that it would not abide by any decisions taken by Constantinople and related to the status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. “All these decisions are unlawful and canonically void,” Hilarion said, adding that “the Russian Orthodox Church does not recognize these decisions and will not follow them.”

At the same time, the Russian Church expressed its hope that “a common sense will prevail” and Constantinople will change its decision. However, it still accused the Ecumenical Patriarch of initiating the “schism.”

The marks the most significant split in the Orthodox Church since the Great Schism of 1054, in which Rome excommunicated Constantinople, a breach between the Roman Catholics and Orthodox which has persisted ever since then, becoming hardened and embittered after the Roman Catholic armies sacked Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204.

Many other local Orthodox Churches expressed support for the Moscow Patriarchate’s position prior to today’s announcement, but the break in relations between these two churches does not have any known affect on local churches who hold communion with both Moscow and the Ecumenical Patriarchate at this time.

The website Orthochristian.com ran the entire statement of the Holy Synod regarding this situation. We offer a brief summary of statements here, taken from that source and patriarcha.ru, adding emphasis.

With deepest pain, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church received the message of the Patriarchate of Constantinople published on October 11, 2018 about the decisions adopted by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople: on the confirmation of the intention to “grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church”; on the opening of the “stavropegion” of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Kiev; on the “restoration in the hierarchal or priestly rank” of the leaders of the Ukrainian schism and their followers and the “return of their faithful to Church communion”; and on the “cancellation of the action” of the conciliar charter of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1686 concerning the transfer of the Kiev Metropolia to the Moscow Patriarchate

The Synod of the Church of Constantinople made these decisions unilaterally, ignoring the calls of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the entirety of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as the fraternal Local Orthodox Churches, and their primates and bishops for pan-Orthodox discussion of the issue.

Entering into communion with those who have departed into schism, let alone those who have been excommunicated from the Church, is tantamount to departing into schism and is severely condemned by the canons of the holy Church: “If any one of the bishops, presbyters, or deacons, or any of the clergy shall be found communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be excommunicated, as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church” (Canon 2 of the Council of Antioch; Canon 10, 11 of the Holy Apostles).

The decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the “restoration” of the canonical status and the reception into communion of the former Metropolitan Philaret Denisenko, excommunicated from the Church, ignores a number of successive decisions of the Bishops’ Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church, the legitimacy of which are beyond doubt.

By the decision of the Bishops’ Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Kharkov of May 27, 1992, Metropolitan Philaret (Denisenko) was removed from the Kiev Cathedra and was banned from the clergy for not fulfilling the oath made by him before the cross and the Gospel at the previous Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church.

By its ruling of June 11,1992, the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, confirmed the decision of the Kharkov Council and expelled Philaret Denisenko from his rank, depriving him of every degree of the priesthood on the following charges: “Cruel and arrogant attitude to the subordinate clergy, dictatorialness, and intimidation (Tit. 1:7-8; Canon 27 of the Holy Apostles); introducing temptation among the faithful by his behavior and personal life (Matthew 18:7; Canon 3 of the First Ecumenical Council, Canon 5 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council); oath-breaking (Canon 25 of the Holy Apostles); public slander and blasphemy against the Bishops’ Council (Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council); the celebration of clerical functions, including ordinations, in a state of suspension (Canon 28 of the Holy Apostles); the perpetration of a schism in the Church (Canon 15 of the First-Second Council).” All ordinations performed by Philaret in a suspended state since May 27, 1992, and the punishments imposed by him, were declared invalid.

Despite repeated calls for repentance, after the deprivation of his hierarchal rank Philaret Denisenko continued his schismatic activity, including within the bounds of other Local Churches. By the ruling of the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1997, he was given over to anathema.

The aforesaid decisions were recognized by all the Local Orthodox Churches, including the Church of Constantinople.

… Now, after more than two decades, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has changed its position for political reasons.

… St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, in his Pedalion, which is an authoritative source of ecclesiastical-canonical law of the Church of Constantinople, interprets Canon 9 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, rejecting the false opinion on the right of Constantinople to consider appeals from other Churches: “The Primate of Constantinople does not have the right to act in the dioceses and provinces of other Patriarchs, and this rule did not give him the right to take appeals on any matter in the Ecumenical Church… “ Listing a whole range of arguments in favor of this interpretation, referring to the practice of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, St. Nikodemos concludes: “At present … the Primate of Constantinople is the first, the only, and the last judge over the metropolitans subordinate to him—but not over those who are subject to the rest of the Patriarchs. For, as we said, the last and universal judge of all the Patriarchs is the Ecumenical Council and no one else.” It follows from the above that the Synod of the Church of Constantinople does not have canonical rights to withdraw judicial decisions rendered by the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Patriarch Bartholomew lifts anathemas on schismatics in Ukraine (VIDEO)

Most of the Orthodox world is in strong opposition to this move by Patriarch Bartholomew, whose motivations seem not to be of Christ.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The biggest news in the Eastern Orthodox world in recent times occurred on Thursday, October 11, 2018. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, lifted the anathemas against two schismatic Ukrainian Churches and their leaders, paving the way to the creation of a fully independent Ukrainian national Orthodox Church.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

This announcement was given in English and is shown here in video with the textual transcript following:

“Presided by His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the Holy and Sacred Synod convened for its regular session from October 9 to 11, 2018 in order to examine and discuss items on its agenda. The Holy Synod discussed in particular and at length, the ecclesiastical mater of Ukraine in the presence of His Excellency Archbishop Daniel of Pamphilon and His Grace Bishp Ilarion of Edmonon, Patriarchal Exarchs to Ukraine, and following extensive deliberations decreed (emphasis added):

First, to renew the decision already made, that the Ecumenical Patriarchate proceed to the granting of autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine;

Second, to re-establish at this moment the stavropegion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Kiev—one of its many starvorpegion in Ukraine that existed there always;

Third, to accept and review the petitions of appeal of Philaret Denisenko and Makary Maletich and their followers who found themselves in schism not for dogmatic reasons, in accordance with the canonical prerogatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to receive such petitions by hierarchs and other clergy of all the autocephalous Churches. Thus, the above mentioned have been canonically reinstated to their hierarchical or priestly rank, and their faithful have been restored to communion with the Church;

Fourth, to revoke the legal binding of the Synodal letter of the year 1686, issued for the circumstances of that time, which granted the right through economia to the Patriarch of Moscow to ordain the Metropolitan of Kiev elected by the clergy-laity assembly of his eparchy, who would commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch as the first hierarch at any celebration, proclaiming and affirming his canonical dependence to the Mother Church of Constantinople;

Fifth, to appeal to all sides involved that they avoid appropriation of churches, monasteries, and other properties as well as every other act of violence and retaliation so that he peace and love of Christ may prevail.”

There are a few things that must be said about what this declaration is not before we get to the matter of what the points of actually are. The point of reference is the strict letter of the text above itself.

  • This is not a granting of autocephaly (full independent self-rule status) like the fourteen universally canonical Orthodox jurisdictions in the world. However, it is a huge step towards this status.
  • As far as Constantinople is concerned, Filaret Denisenko, the leader and “Patriarch” of the “Kyiv Patriarchate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church” and Makary, the “Metropolitan” of the “Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church”, and all their faithful are now restored to communion. The statement says that this applies to “The Church” which may be trying to state that these two men (and all the faithful that they lead), are now in communion with the entirety of canonical Orthodoxy, but more likely, this may be a carefully worded statement to say they now are in communion with Constantinople alone.
  • There is an official call for the cessation of the violence directed against the Moscow Patriarchate parishes and communities, who are the only canonically recognized Orthodox Church in Ukraine, and who are also the largest by far in that country. The Kyiv Patriarchate and Uniate (Roman oriented) Greek Catholics in Ukraine have gone on record for seizing MP church properties, often by force, with neo-Nazi sympathizers and other radical Ukrainian nationalists. So this official call to cease the violence is now a matter of public record.

However, the reaction has been far less civil than the clergy wished for.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko: “Expressing his view of the Moscow Patriarchate, Poroshenko added, “This is a great victory of the God-loving Ukrainian people over the Moscow demons, the victory of Good over Evil, the victory of Light over Darkness.”’

Perhaps this is the reason Metropolitan Onuphry of Ukraine (exarch under the Moscow Patriarchate) has been labeled an enemy of Ukraine and is now receiving death threats. Very civil.

Poroshenko’s statement is all the more bizarre, considering that it has been Ukrainian ultra-nationalists that have been violently attacking Moscow – related parishes in Ukraine. This has been corroborated by news sources eager to pin the blame on Russia, such as the U.K. Guardian.

The Union of Orthodox Journalists, based in Kiev and supportive of the Moscow Patriarchate, has been under intense cyber attack since October 11th, when the EP’s announcement was issued.

Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) Chancellor, Metropolitan Anthony of Boryspil and Brovary: “What happened at the Synod in Istanbul yesterday shocked the entire Orthodox world. It seems the Patriarchate of Constantinople is consciously embarking on a path of schism in world Orthodoxy. Patriarch Bartholomew ignored the calls of the Local Churches to convene a meeting of the primates to work out a common and conciliar solution to the Ukrainian Church issue and unilaterally made very serious but erroneous decisions. I hope the Orthodox world will give this action an objective evaluation… Having received the schismatics into communion, Patriarch Bartholomew did not make them canonical, but has himself embarked on the path of schism. The schismatics remain schismatics. They did not receive any autocephaly or tomos. It seems they have lost even that independence, although non-canonical, that they had and which they always emphasized.”

Metropolitan Rostislav of the Czech Lands and Slovakia:“The Orthodox world recognizes the only canonical primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church—His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine. This fact was repeatedly mentioned and confirmed by the primate of the Great Church of Christ His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew on behalf of all present at the Synaxis of the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches that was held in Chambésy (Switzerland) from January 21 to 27, 2016. Therefore, any attempt to legalize the Ukrainian schismatics by the state authorities should be strongly condemned by all the primates of the Local Orthodox Churches.

Patriarch Irinej of Serbia wrote two letters to the Ecumenical Patriarch, advocating that the provision of a new autocephaly is possible only with the consent of all local Orthodox Churches. According to Sedmitza.ru (Translation by Pravoslavie.ru),

“In these letters, it was very clearly stated that the granting of autocephaly cannot be the prerogative the Patriarchate of Constantinople alone, that new autocephalies must be created only with the consent of all the Local Orthodox Churches, as the Holy Synod of Antioch also said in its recent statement.”

Pat. Irinej also warned the Patriarchate of Constantinople against making such major decisions unilaterally, because “it will not bring harmony and peace to the Ukrainian land, but, on the contrary, will cause new divisions and new schisms.”

The Holy Synod of Antioch, the oldest Orthodox Church, and actually the very first place where the disciples of Christ were even called “Christians” weighed in on the issue as well and they had several things to say:

“The fathers examined the general Orthodox situation. They stressed that the Church of Antioch expresses her deep worries about the attempts to change the boundaries of the Orthodox Churches through a new reading of history. She considers that resorting to a unilateral reading of history does not serve Orthodox unity. It rather contributes to the fueling of the dissensions and quarrels within the one Church. Thus, the Church of Antioch refuses the principle of establishing parallel jurisdictions within the canonical boundaries of the Patriarchates and the autocephalous Churches as a way to solve conflicts, or as a de facto situation in the Orthodox world.

To summarize, this move by Constantinople is not being warmly received by many, many people. Most of the local Churches are on record giving their reaction to this process. In brief, here is the list most of the Local Churches and a one or two word summary of their reactions.

Patriarchate of Georgia: Unilateral action is wrong; Constantinople and Moscow must cooperate and find a solution together.

Patriarchate of Jerusalem: recognizes Ukraine as a canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church alone, as do all other local Churches

Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa: The Church does not bow to politicians. Moscow-led church is the only canonical Church in Ukraine.

Archbishop of Cyprus: Decries the Ukrainian situation but offered to mediate a discussion between Moscow and Constantinople

Bulgarian Patriarchate: Interference of the State in Church affairs leads to serious and negative consequences for both.

Polish Orthodox Church: Metropolitan Sawa called for a council of Orthodox ruling hierarchs to discuss this situation.

Estonian Orthodox Church: Condemns Constantinople’s actions in Ukraine.

Greek Archdiocese of America: Supports Constantinople’s actions in Ukraine.

The Orthodox Church of Greece (Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus quoted): “Schismatics, as we know, are not the Church, and communion with them is forbidden by the Divine and holy canons and the Apostolic and Ecumenical Councils. Why then this persistence of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in recognizing schismatics as an autocephalous Church? To provoke schisms and divisions in the one universal and Apostolic Church of Christ?”

Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR): Ceased commemoration of Constantinople, ceased concelebration with Constantinople.

This issue has also rocked the secular geopolitical world.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending