By Efi Efthimiou
Hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Alexandria describe the situation in the dioceses under its jurisdiction on Orthodoxtimes.com in the bleakest terms.
As they characteristically explain, there is a complete lack of meaningful support for their work from the head of the Patriarchate, with part of the blame for the Russian intrusion even being attributed to this absence of any pastoral care.
They also commented on the methods the Moscow Patriarchate attempted to impose during its unlawful intrusion into Africa, highlighting the project’s failure and the current state of affairs.
“There is no assistance from the Patriarchate’s central administration”
“We are organized as Metropolises, but not as a Patriarchate of Alexandria. There is no leadership to guide us,” a source familiar with the situation in Africa told orthodoxtimes.com.
“There is no clear policy set by the administration of the Patriarchate (editor’s note: of Alexandria). We don’t know how to act on key issues—for example, in matters of philanthropy or education. There is no stable, unified approach for all the Metropolises under the Patriarchate,” the sources stressed.
“Each of us is doing what we can, what we believe is useful. But let’s be honest—this is occasional. It depends on whether we find funding, and on whether or not the conditions exist to take action, at least within our own dioceses,” a hierarch of the Patriarchate of Alexandria told orthodoxtimes.com.
“During the years of abundance, we—at the Patriarchate of Alexandria—should have taken steps to organize things, make the right decisions, and secure financial independence.
But we didn’t. And now, we lack both independence and direction. The Moscow Patriarchate has capitalized on these weaknesses and moved forward with its own agenda,” the sources of orthodoxtimes.com emphasized.
Moscow Patriarchate’s “fiasco” to establish an “Exarchate” in Africa
The same sources from the Patriarchate of Alexandria also spoke to Orthodoxtimes.com about the Russian presence in Africa and in regions under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Alexandria.
“It seems that Africa does not suit Russia — they haven’t achieved much,” a source familiar with the situation commented.
“Metropolitan Leonid of Klin, who was appointed as ‘Exarch’ by the Moscow Patriarchate, was dismissed by the Russians themselves. He was a personal friend of Yevgeny Prigozhin (editor’s note: head of the mercenary organization “Wagner Group”), and after Prigozhin’s death, Metropolitan Leonid began criticizing both Patriarch Kirill and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The Russians found a pretext through a supposed financial audit of a monastery intended to serve as the base of the ‘Exarchate’ and used it to remove him from his position,” the sources explained.
His successor was Bishop Konstantin of Zaraisk. Both he and Leonid had been deposed by the Patriarchate of Alexandria.
“Konstantin travels around Africa trying to sustain hope that churches will be built, but in practice, nothing happens. He ministers in only two parishes in South Africa — which were already under the Russian Church — and, notably, he has not ordained a single person yet. Leonid, before his removal, had managed to ordain only two or three deacons. On the one hand, they have no flock; on the other, the level was too low to perform ordinations,” said a hierarch of the Patriarchate of Alexandria.
Another source from the Patriarchate of Alexandria noted that the Russian efforts have — at least initially — found some response, as many priests in Africa live in poverty.
“They offer money and make promises. But the priests often receive less than half of what is promised; the rest is deferred as a future guarantee.” There is a presumption that the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin, the absorption of the Wagner Group by the Russian military, and the fact that the new “Exarch” lacks Leonid’s close ties with Wagner Group’s leadership, have led to financial constraints.
Prigozhin financed Leonid so generously that priests who agreed to join the Moscow Patriarchate were even issued ATM debit cards under the name ‘Leonid Gorbachov.’ That account may no longer exist, or they may no longer be able to sustain it. So far, they haven’t accomplished anything remarkable,” the source said.
Hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Alexandria emphasize that “Africa is not a suitable environment for the Russians. The way they have structured their worship — formal, highly organized, almost theatrical — makes them feel like fish out of water here. They cannot minister in a simple shack in Africa. And they’ve come to realize that forming and nurturing the local clergy requires tremendous patience — something they clearly lack.”
Another source vividly outlined why Russia’s attempt to establish a presence in Africa has ultimately failed.
“It is almost laughable for the Russians to claim that they launched their intrusion because dozens of ‘indignant’ African priests, upset over the recognition of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), supposedly begged them to intervene. Anyone familiar with Africa can only scoff at this excuse.”
A hierarch of the Patriarchate of Alexandria expressed astonishment at the Russian Orthodox Church’s narrative regarding its activities on the continent:
“They (editor’s note: the Russians) say they have 40 churches in Africa. Where are they? When were they built? And if they really have that many churches, why is Konstantin perform liturgy in a hotel?”
The same source continued: “After all these years, not a single church has been built by the Russians — and both we and they know why. Because the Russian Patriarchate considers it a ‘waste of money’. Let’s be clear: the real reason they came to Africa was revenge for the Ukrainian issue.
Metropolitan Anthony of Volokolamsk admitted it himself. They have no genuine concern for missionary work, no such sensitivities. It’s all for show. That’s all. It’s no surprise that several priests are now asking to return to us. The Russians are simply trying to maintain a presence at the lowest possible cost, for reasons of prestige.”
He also comments on the current state of Orthodoxy in Africa, offering a revealing perspective: “The Russian Orthodox Church came to Africa and appointed as priests individuals who had been deposed—people considered problematic. Priests who had been accused of serious misconduct and suspended by us (editor’s note: the Patriarchate of Alexandria) to prevent them from ministering were approached by the Russian Orthodox Church. Is it acceptable for a Church that presents itself as traditional and canonically strict to do such things? Is no one verifying the qualifications of those they recruit?”
He goes on to say: “The priests who agree to leave the Patriarchate of Alexandria are often problematic cases, already facing issues with their Greek Orthodox bishops. At that moment, they found an ‘opportunity’ through this Russian intrusion. And I ask: is there any chance that a Russian bishop would come here and minister in a hut, in the mud, as we do? Their approach is entirely different. Konstantin arrives and ministers with 25–30 priests, while the number of faithful is fewer.”
Another source highlighted the challenges Africans face in understanding and embracing the essence of Orthodoxy. He tells orthodoxtimes.com: “Many people here struggle to grasp what the Orthodox faith means, as most have been raised in a Protestant environment. Orthodoxy is unfamiliar to them.
But you must sit with them, listen patiently, persuade them first with logical, simple arguments, and then slowly introduce them to the Orthodox spirit. Still, it is our fault, too. Many of us bishops behave as if we were Metropolitans in Greece.
One becomes Hiearch in Africa, only to return later to Greece. Unfortunately, earlier generations of Metropolitans created an overly romanticized image of the Mission. And today, if anyone dares to speak honestly about reality — that many Africans wear the cassock because it provides a salary and a way to feed their families — they are immediately accused of not being true missionaries.”
