Search Results for: The scandal of Ecumenism

The Orthodox Church of Today: What is Happening and Why, Part I

Click here for Part II of this article.

One Holy, Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic Church

When most people think of the Church (Gk: Εκκλησία, Ecclesia), they immediately think of the church building, the bishop and the clergy. While these elements may define other, heterodox churches, they fall exceedingly short of the full scope of the Orthodox Church.

“Ecclesia ” does not connote a physical structure, but all those who gather for corporate worship “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). The correct term for the physical structure built for this purpose, is not “the church” but “the temple” (ναός, naos). While beautiful temples are a blessing to have, they are not a pre-requisite for a functioning Church. Indeed, they did not come into existence until after Constantine I signed the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. Prior to that, Christians gathered for worship secretly in forests, private homes, catacombs, and anywhere else they could to avoid persecution. And yet, the New Testament writings are brimming with the word “Church.”

According to Saint Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia, the Orthodox Church is beginningless, uncreated and pre-eternal, first existing in the communion of the three, blessed Persons of the Holy Trinity. All the angelic powers (those that did not fall) also belong to the Church, as do all the saints of the Old and New Testaments. In addition to these, all those who lived and died in an Orthodox manner, together with all those currently living a sacramental and liturgical Orthodox life, while championing and believing in the Orthodox Faith, are also members of the Orthodox Church.1

Who are those Christians who live a sacramental and liturgical life while championing and believing in the Orthodox Faith? In the early Church, they were the ones who celebrated the Divine Liturgy on a daily basis; and then on a weekly basis, when their numbers grew too large to make daily corporate worship practical. They were the ones who sold everything they had and gave it to the Apostles to distribute equitably amongst all the Christians in the community of believers. They were the ones who put the Lord, Jesus Christ, first in their lives, adhering to all His teachings, and witnessing to the Faith, even with their lives, which many of them did. This defines who belongs to the true Orthodox Church on earth.

The true Church on earth strives with all Her might to cross the finish line and join the Heavenly Church, like Saint Paul who said, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” (2 Timothy 4:7). This Church is “hot” for God (Revelations 3:16) and does not care if they are called “extremists,” “fundamentalists” or “fanatics.” This Church teaches their children to become martyrs for Christ, like St. Sophia who urged her daughters to endure their torments for the sake of the Heavenly Bridegroom. All three maidens were beheaded, joyfully bending their necks beneath the sword, while their mother was forced to watch their sufferings, until she died by their graves of a broken heart. This Church endures these things because of Her unshakeable faith and ardent love for Jesus. These people forgive and love their enemies, make sacrifices for others, pray constantly and never miss a Liturgy except for grave reasons. Missing Church because of “other” commitments is not negotiable for these Christians because the Divine Liturgy, which brings Heaven to earth and unites them to their Lord and Savior, is their first commitment.

Today, many go to the temple but only for Christmas, Pascha, a memorial service, or if it is “convenient.” Others may go more often and may even pay a membership, but do not live out Christ’s commandments; or they may not participate in the salvific sacraments even if they attend Liturgy regularly, because they may be unrepentant or they may be avoiding Holy Communion for fear of germs, or they may even think they have no sins. Others may not be standing up for their Orthodox Faith when the opportunity comes; they may be too afraid, or even embarrassed. Still others may be living an unrepentant dual life, committing abominable sins when they are not attending services, like reading coffee cups, or fornicating, or committing violence in the home. Today, there are many who are in the Church but are not of the Church.

It should come as no surprise that this condition, to be in but not of, began when the persecutions against the Church stopped. While the sword was the test of true Church membership, the Church was authentic, purified by the Blood of Christ, but also by Her own blood that She shed for Him. When the persecutions ended, many joined the Church because it became easier, safer, more convenient or more popular to be a Christian, thereby increasing the number of insincere or lukewarm people in the Church but not of the Church. Such has been the condition of the Church for a very long time now, but that will turn around again as we approach the end times when persecutions increase, from without and from within. Many dread those times because they fear difficulties, torment, martyrdom or death, but only through suffering can the Church, the Bride of Christ, prepare herself for God.

Do you support freedom of worship for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church enduring martyrdom as you read this? Then please read, sign, and share our petition supporting Metropolitan Onuphry and his Church. Their burden today, ours tomorrow.

Saint Paul defines the Church as “the mystical Body of the Godman, Christ “(Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:24). “Christ, [therefore, and not a pope, not a patriarch, nor a bishop] is the Head of the Church, His body, and is Himself its Savior” (Ephesians 5:23). Because all have sinned, Christ…loved the Church and gave Himself up for Her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water by the word, so that He might present the Church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that She might be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5: 25-27).

As Christ is one, so His Mystical Body – His Bride – is one. Therefore, the Church can only be one, the one that He built and passed on to His Apostles. This one, true Church can only be the Orthodox Church, as She alone has continued Christ’s truth (dogmas) and life (ethos) according to His true saying, “I am the way, the truth and the life,” (John 14:6). This Way, this Truth and this Life, have been handed down to us by Christ, through His Holy Apostles, and their successors, in an unbreakable chain known as the Apostolic Succession. … Christ, Himself, gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4: 11-13). In his letter to R. Gardiner, Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky) wrote, The Church is One, and She is the only place where one can receive the complete and unabridged plenteousness of the gifts of the Holy Spirit…There is no Christianity outside of the Church for us. If Christ founded the Church, and the Church is His Body, then separation from his Body means death” (On Life in the Church).

The Church Gave us the Bible and Holy Tradition

Christ’s teachings have also been handed down to us through the Holy Scriptures (the Word of God) and Holy Tradition. According to St. Nektarios, Holy Tradition can be thought of as the unwritten book of the New Testament2, which is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church as lived by Christ Himself, by His Apostles, by His saints (many of them bishops), and by the Ecumenical Councils, having correctly interpreted His teachings by the Holy Spirit of Truth.1

Some Christians say they don’t need the Church. “All we need is the Bible, Sola Scriptura.” These souls ignore how the Church (those who gather for corporate worship “in spirit and in truth”) preceded the Bible, and under the guidance of the unerring Holy Spirit wrote, guarded and rightly interpreted the Bible. It is impossible for the Holy Spirit of Truth to inspire differing or conflicting interpretations of the Bible, which is why outside the Orthodox Church, all manner of strange ideas and false heresies have arisen. Different sects holding opposite doctrines appeal to the Bible equally because they ignore Holy Tradition and rely entirely on their own private interpretations, despite God’s clear warning which is recorded in the Bible: No prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were prompted by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20). No one can interpret Scripture by himself, because we are one body, told to “be of one mind” (Phil. 1:27). “Be one in thought, one in heart, one in soul, one in mind” (Phil. 2:2). Thus, “I believe in the Bible,” must be balanced with, “I believe in One, Holy, Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church,” which is the Orthodox Church.3

The Orthodox Church, therefore, is not a man-made religion. It is through this Church, His Church, that God, both revealed and explained Himself, so that we may truly understand and know Him without any doubts. This is not blind faith. This Faith has stood the test of time and was proven by the miraculous signs and wonders of our Lord, Jesus Christ, even as far as His Incarnation and Resurrection from the dead. Our God knows the weaknesses of our human condition and has given us all the evidence we need to believe – if we bother to look for it.

The Orthodox Church is the fulfillment of the Old Testament’s prophesied Blood Covenant that extends Heaven to earth in the life of the Godman, Christ, which we experience in the Church’s Divine Liturgy. In other words, the Kingdom of God is manifested in the life of the Church.1 To find the Orthodox Church, is to find the pearl of great price (Matthew 13 45-46) and the narrow gate (Matthew 7: 13-14) – narrow because the Church teaches only one (absolute) Truth and only one Way (to find it). The wide gate that leads to destruction has room for many ways, many so called convenient “truths.” These relative truths represent the many ideologies or “paths up the mountain,” but only one Path reaches to the top of the mountain. The other paths swerve and go elsewhere. Because there is only one Truth, one Trinity, one God, one Head, and one Body, there can only be one Path, one Bride, one Church, which makes the one and only Way, narrow.  If one deviates from this Path, this Church, one does not get to the Kingdom of Heaven at the top, despite what some “orthodox” bishops may have recently said.

Proper Selection of Clergy and Bishops

The members of the Orthodox Church are meant to relate to one another as the three Persons of the Holy Trinity Each relate to the Other – in all humility and love. This is why during the first several centuries of Christian history, the Church elected Her bishops. The Didache, an early Christian document, states “you must elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are a credit to the Lord, men who are gentle, generous, faithful, and well tried.” St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (200-258 AD), also advocated for the election of bishops by the Christian community. In the fifth century, Rusticus, Bishop of Narbonne, ordained his archdeacon Hermes and sent him as bishop to the people of Beziers. The people sent Bishop Hermes right back to Rusticus because he had neglected to consult with and receive approval from them.3

“Christ did not establish His Church to be ruled by…dictators, but by good shepherds – the shepherds who imitate their Lord and God, the original Good Shepherd – shepherds who know their sheep, love them, and give their life for them – shepherds who do not carry a crown but a towel and are footwashers.” 3

The laity, too, are ordained through the sacrament of Chrismation to participate in the work of the Church. Therefore, the clergy must operate interdependently with the laity and not independently of the laity, since they are both part of the same Mystical Body, the Church. Prior to 1923, the Patriarch of Constantinople was elected by a mixed council of eight lay people and four metropolitans. Patriarch Alexei of Moscow was elected by 66 bishops, 66 priests, and 66 lay people representing the 66 dioceses of the Russian Church. This process reflects the true Tradition of the Church, where the laity help select their own clergy who are to serve them. This is not democracy, but syndiakonia (συνδιακονία), or interdependence, working together as members of the Body of Christ in symphony, love and doxology to the Lord.3

Although education is desirable and a blessing, in our Orthodox history, there was never a requirement for a priest candidate to first earn a Degree in Theology. Fr. Dimitios Gagastathis’ biography reminds us that at the conclusion of the Balkan Wars, the minimum educational requirement for the priesthood was to complete a “6th grade education.” Even today, in Greece, and likely in other countries as well, there exist priests with only a high school diploma, or less.  Many older Orthodox Christians may recall how their village priest was often nominated from the local community. Educational barriers to enter the priesthood were not established by Christ or the Apostles. St. Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia had a Grade 2 education when he went to Mount Athos, but subsequently became a priest and a Saint, blessed with many gifts of the Holy Spirit. Even St. Paisios of Mount Athos said that the only requirements for the priesthood are faith and reverence (πίστη και ευλάβεια). This is important for the subsequent scrutiny of those who wish to join the ranks of the clergy.

There are, of course, highly educated bishops as well, such as the Three Holy Hierarchs – St. Basil, St. Chrysostom and St. Gregory the Theologian – but they also had faith and reverence. Arius, who was highly educated, was an irreverent heretic who was anathematized. Education is beneficial but should never be the sole criterion to fulfil Christ’s commandment to St. Peter, “…tend my sheep” (John 21:17). If there is faith and reverence for the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit completes any “education” that may be lacking. Many bishops of the Orthodox Church were also monastics for many years before becoming bishops and saints. They were often selected against their personal will but according to God’s will. This is because they were holy and humble men of God with no personal ambition, other than to serve Christ and His Church. Some examples include St. Basil the Great, St. Philaret of Moscow and St. Nektarios of Aegina. Men such as these, and all of the saints, had exemplary faith and reverence.

Even if the laity select their priest or bishop, when the ordination is performed, it still requires their unanimous consent. During the service, the congregation ratifies the ordination by shouting AXIOS! which means WORTHY! If any clergy or lay person expresses dissent, the ordination or consecration must not take place until an investigation is made. The Church is a communion of self-governing churches, held together not by a single bishop wielding absolute power, but by a communion of all its members, clergy and laity; a communion with one another and in the Holy Trinity, united in one Body, the Body of Christ through the Holy Eucharist. The Holy Spirit abides not just in the bishops, but in the entire body of the Church.3

Imposed Clergy and Bishops

Today, however, these Apostolic Traditions are rarely practised. The Orthodox priest candidate of today, attends an Orthodox Theological Academy, is ordained and is then “assigned” to a parish. Rarely, as was done in the past, is a priest chosen by the parish for the parish. How many of today’s parishioners have met or spoken to their candidate priest or bishop, or seen their biography, or been invited to interview them or to participate in the selection process? Today, more and more, especially in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the priest or bishop is selected by the hierarchy for the hierarchy, is parachuted into his new parish or jurisdiction, and the laity deals with it.

Furthermore, when was a bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church last selected by the laity from the monastic community? In fact, many hierarchs in North America today hold a polemic stance against popular (especially male) monasteries, whose ordained monks can serve Liturgies and Sacraments without having to rely on the regional bishop to provide a priest. Canadian monasteries have had “stand-offs” with their archbishop over liturgical innovations imposed due to Covid. Orthodox faithful in Canada have been publicly shamed by their archbishop for frequenting some monasteries and using those monks as their spiritual father confessors. Other bishops in the US have openly and vehemently urged their parishioners to shun their local monastery, a hostility that threatens to push some monasteries into bankruptcy. Why anyone would not want to support the prayers of their local monastic community defies reason.  Except of course, if the Abbot or Abbess inconveniently disagrees with the erring local bishop on matters of Faith or if there is a monetary or competitive issue.

Even married clergy have troubles. If, for any reason, a decent priest displeases his bishop, or if a good bishop disagrees with his archbishop, he runs the risk of being arbitrarily deposed or reassigned to another part of the country (together with his family), regardless of how many of his parishioners oppose the move. Traditionally, a priest or bishop remained with his parish or episcopate until grave illness or death prevented him from serving. Untimely removals have created bereavement in entire parishes, impeding the spiritual growth of the parish by disrupting spiritual father-child relationships and bonds that have taken years to develop.  Such premature removals are too frequently a punishment for some slight, or an abusive execution of power and control that bishops were never meant to have or wield. Understandably, we see fewer and fewer men seeking the priesthood, and these same bishops wonder why. Christ forbids bishops from using their position to abuse the clergy, to compete in the ecclesial arena, or to demand obedience or respect. Christ and His Apostles never behaved that way.

Hierarchy and Humility

When Christ’s Disciples vied amongst themselves for honor, He said, “the first will be last and last will be first” (Matthew 19:30) and “by this shall all men know that you are My Disciples, that you love one another as I have loved you” (John 13:34-35); and “…the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25-28). He berated the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and their love of honor, of loving greetings in the marketplace and of the best seats (Matthew 23:6-12); but to His Disciples He said, do not be called ‘Rabbi’ [which simply means Teacher]; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren [brothers].”

 Christ did well to teach humility to his Disciples; for the Word of God, the Creator, who is the Head of His Mystical Body, the Church, and Who was ordained High Priest by the Father, did not come to us as the CEO of Paradise. He was born in a stable, the humblest of the poorest, fled as a refugee, was raised in a town of ill repute, worked as a carpenter, walked everywhere, teaching and healing the sick and the lame, having no home, no place to rest His head (Matthew 8:20). He took no payment. He prayed and fasted, hungered and thirsted. Towards the end of His earthly ministry, the Master of the Universe washed His Disciples’ feet, teaching us and our clergy, to do the same to one another, not pseudo-symbolically, but fundamentally, in humble service. Next, the Lord of all submitted to betrayal, injustice, humiliation, brutal torture and death. Naked, He spilled His blood on a Roman cross, giving us His broken Body and Blood for our salvation, so that we can become permanent members of His Church.

If we look at the Church as an organized structure, Christ put Himself at the very bottom so that He could elevate His Church to the very top granting Her theosis. If our present-day bishops want a Christ-like status, they need to significantly lower themselves relative to their flock of logical sheep in service to them. As Christ said, “the Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” (John 10:11). Unlike the CEO in the corporate example, Christ, the Good Shepherd, elevated His sheep, to the very top of the hierarchical ladder, while putting Himself, the Head of the Church, at the very bottom because of His unfathomable condescension, His ultimate self-sacrifice and His incomprehensible Love. It was not by His power and glory that He saved us, but by His extreme humility. He placed Himself at the bottom so that by imitating Him, the Lord of all, we may rise to the top; and if His faithful sheep follow Him into the depths of humility in Spirit and in Truth, what then is the true role of the Church’s bishops, if not an even deeper humility, in service to the sheep?

Illumined and emboldened on the day of Pentecost, the Apostles then spread the Gospel, their Teacher’s message, performing miracles in their Teacher’s name, not their own message in their own name (see Kolymbari below), and not for money, power or prestige, but to witness to the Truth, even unto martyrdom – and millions of Christians subsequently did the same. Christ had taught that the world would hate them because it hated Him first (John 15:18). It did and it still does. He said that He was not of this world, and so they forsook the world. They did not seek status, only service, because their own Master, the Creator and Lord of all, came to serve, and to do so in all obedience to His Father in Heaven, and in all humility for His Bride, the Church.

The first bishops were saints who took care of their flock while living in poverty, many dying as martyrs in the line of duty. When the flock grew too large to be overseen by one person, the bishop, ordained by “the laying on of hands” (Num 27:15-23; Deut 34:9, 2 Timothy 1:5 ) other bishops, presbyters or deacons. The Apostles, themselves, ordained deacons, one of whom was Saint Stephen, the first martyr. Why deacons? They were needed for the very lack-luster job of overseeing the serving of tables at the agape meals; to make sure that everyone got their fair share so that no one felt slighted. The purpose of all these jobs was to serve the laity, the Church, the Body of Christ, to feed them physically and spiritually, to heal and comfort them, to serve and die for them. The Apostles would gather the donated funds of the believers for equitable distribution to all, according to the needs of each. St Paul worked as a tentmaker to support himself while undertaking his missionary journeys, so as not to financially burden the Churches he established. Once he collected funds on his missionary journeys to support the Church in Jerusalem, which had great need.

Nowadays, there are bishops who gather funds from the faithful but not for charitable work. They demand stipends from their Orthodox parishes even when the parish has a large mortgage and pays the salary of the priest. They have created the prestigious lay position of “Archon” as an incentive for large donations from those who wish to show off their wealth and generosity; and if the Philoptochos does a fundraiser, they expect a generous cut because their cash flow is low, having horded all their surplus income in fixed assets or having sent large sums to the Constantinopolitan patriarchate for reasons of their own. What a stark contrast to St. Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea, who sold everything he owned and gave the money to the poor. He even used his own funds to establish the ‘new city’ of Basilieas to care for the elderly, the sick and the poor. This is true Christianity, and it is by no means impossible or extinct, for I have personally met bishops and other clergy who live in poverty, having donated all their inheritance to the service of God, as St. Basil did, but I shall not name them for they are still alive. I cannot recall a single act of Christian charity from the bishop of our Greek jurisdiction in North America. I have only witnessed demands and income-generating business schemes. I hope things are different in your neck of the woods, but they probably aren’t.

Most of us have observed how the episcopate (position of bishop) has even become a fashionable career. The mitre (crown) and other trappings, which appeared in the 16th century, are garment copies of Byzantine emperors. Such crowns, and their associated bells and velvets have literally and figuratively “gone to the heads” of some modern-day hierarchs, who assume greater authority than conferred to them and abuse their position. Along with the mitres, they have adopted various titles of episcopal grandeur, such as ‘your grace’, ‘your eminence’, ‘your all-holiness’ and so on, when there is no higher ordination than that of “bishop.” While we refer to God as “Lord,” (Κύριε, Kyrie) we address a bishop as “lord, lord” (κύριε, κύριε) twice, followed by his first name. Other Christian denominations see these things and question how they relate to the first few centuries of the Orthodox Church.

In sharp contrast to our present-day hierarchs, the Apostles referred to themselves in their epistles as “bondservants” and “apostles of Jesus Christ through/by the will/commandment of God.” The Apostles, who ordained the first bishops, made it clear that their apostleship was not something they chose to honor themselves with, but something chosen for them by God; and their obedience to God’s will made them bondservants, which means slaves, because they considered themselves bought by the Lord’s blood. This terminology is diametrically opposed to today’s cornucopia of terminology denoting hierarchs and other clergy. The assortment of ecclesial titles used today is much loftier than the appellation “teacher, which Christ said was too lofty, even for His Disciples, because He, the Lord of all, called Himself, “the Teacher,and them, brothers to one another.

Synodical Organization

Christ taught His Disciples by His example from the bottom of the hierarchical ladder, and they in turn, served the Church sacrificing themselves for Her, as Christ had also done. Guided by the Holy Spirit, they organized the Church as she grew, by carefully selecting, teaching and ordaining their helpers and successors. This gave rise to an Apostolic Succession of bishops, meaning overseers or caretakers. Bishops then, fell into the same four categories we have today: bishop (επίσκοπος), metropolitan (μητροπολίτης), archbishop (aρχιεπίσκοπος) and patriarch (πατριάρχης). These are all administrative roles depending on the geographical area they supervise and its size.  Initially there were five Patriarchs (in Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria), called the Pentarchy (five heads). The Pentarchy did not rule the Church and were never meant to impose their authority upon any of their fellow bishops. Nor did they interfere in the region (see) of another patriarch, as Patriarch Bartholomew has repeatedly done.

When issues or problems arose in the early Church, they were never solved by a papal top-down approach. First, the Apostles and later, their successors (bishops), would all meet in conciliar humility to find solutions together, with prayer and brotherly love, equitably and collectively so that the Holy Spirit could do His work. This was called an Ecumenical (universal) Council or Synod, where all types of bishops, having the same ordination and the same ecclesial authority, cast a vote of equal weight. This was the case in all seven past ecumenical councils. Unfortunately, in recent times, this has become another usurped area.

Imposter Bishops

When Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople called an “ecumenical” synod in 2016 in Kolymbari, Crete, it was hoped that he would follow the same Holy Tradition as past synods. For several decades, Orthodox Autocephalous Churches had been preparing the ground for a much needed Great (Ecumenical) Pan-Orthodox Synod. The list of topics had been painstakingly agreed upon over many years. However, when Bartholomew called for a Great and Holy Synod in 2016 all past visions to resolve multiple contemporary issues vanished, simply because the agenda was “hijacked” and altered by the See of Phanar (Constantinople, aka Bartholomew) and because the organizers insisted on restricting attendance, presumably to ensure sufficient votes to pass their agenda.  Traditionally, all Orthodox bishops have a seat at the Synodic table in the spirit of the original Day of Pentecost, where all Apostles gathered.  However, when most Russian Orthodox bishops were told they could not attend, (presumably so the vote count would not be skewed in an “undesirable” direction) this resulted in the absence of half the global Orthodox population of bishops.

There were other important reasons for the boycott as well, including violations of the Patristic interpretation of the word “Church,” which is described in detail at the start of this article. The Kolymbari synod was set on declaring sects as “Churches” and reducing the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to the same level as all other heresies.  By these means, Patriarch Bartholomew attempted to uncanonically undo key elements of Holy Tradition – Patristic teachings of the Holy Fathers and the work of the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 AD that struck the Nicene Creed of Faith, which was inspired by the Holy Spirit. This was only one of many highly controversial agenda topics that also drove other Autocephalous Orthodox Churches to boycott the proceedings. We explained earlier that it is impossible for the Holy Spirit of Truth to inspire conflicting interpretations of the Bible; but according to Patriarch Bartholomew, the Holy Spirit “corrected” Himself at Kolymbari by admitting, centuries later, that the Orthodox Church is not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church because all other churches are just as salvific and as valid as She. If Patriarch Bartholomew believes this, then when he recites the Nicene Creed of Faith during Orthodox services and says, “I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” who is he lying to? These things are not of the Holy Spirit but of the “other” spirit. “…do not believe every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John:4). An uncanonical and un-ecumenical slanted synod is no synod, and its decisions have no validity. The other bishops who were present, and signed the decisions of this pseudo-synod, are also wrong and must recant their signatures if they ever hope to be trusted or taken seriously by the Orthodox people again. So far, that has not yet transpired.

It is for this reason that many Orthodox faithful, who want an authentic Orthodoxy, left their Greek, Romanian and other “Orthodox” Churches (those that voted in favor of the Kolymbari resolutions) for parishes in other Orthodox jurisdictions that did not attend or sign.  Others have tragically left the Orthodox Church altogether because of unprecedented scandals too numerous to mention. This is most unfortunate because Christ said, “If anyone causes one of these…who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals. Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!” (Matthew 18:6-8).

One may ask, why must such things come? If the Orthodox Church is the one, true, Church of Christ, how is it possible for any of Her bishops with their Apostolic succession, to arbitrarily change, defy and oppose Her Doctrines and Holy Traditions? Why does a just God put up with these types of scandalous bishops in His Church? To be continued….

Demetrios Georgiou

Click here for Part II of this article.

  1. Hieromonk Savvas of the Holy Mountain. Healing the Soul – Saint Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia as a Model for our Lives.  Translated and edited from the Greek original by the Sisterhood of the Saint John Chrysostomos Greek Orthodox Monastery, Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, 2021 (Ecclesiology, pp 61-63)
  2. Saint Nektarios Kefalas. Holy Catechism – volume 14. Virgin Mary of Australia and Oceana, 2022, pp 11.
  3. Anthony M. Coniaris. Living a Balanced Life in an Unbalanced World. Light & Life Publishing Company, Minneapolis MN (Chapter 6, pp 70-73; Chapter 11 pp 106-108)

The Persecution of Roman Catholic Bishop Strickland is a Warning to the Orthodox

Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas is one of the most popular Roman bishops on the Internet. His Twitter following alone is over 128K. On his Twitter timeline, he has been hard on Pope Francis, increasingly so as of late. Strickland even questioned the Pope’s fidelity to the Christian Faith in a May 12 Tweet, “I believe Pope Francis is the Pope but it is time for me to say that I reject his program of undermining the Deposit of Faith. Follow Jesus.” In orthodox (traditional) Roman Catholic circles, he is often referred to as “America’s Bishop”. Bishop Strickland recently had the temerity to travel to Los Angeles and lead a protest rally against the Dodgers for honoring the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, an anti-Catholic drag group, at the team’s annual “Pride Night” game.

For Pope Francis, that seems to have been the last straw. The Vatican has now opened an investigation into Bishop Strickland starting with a multi-day “apostolic visitation”.

The “visitation” was conducted by Bishop Dennis Sullivan of Camden, New Jersey, and former Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, Arizona. Kicanas is a well-known liberal, with ties to pro-homosexual groups, a past linked to clerical sex abuse, and a soft spot for abortion. As head of Catholic Relief Services, Kicanas was caught funding major pro-abortion groups, such as Population Services International, a marketer of abortion drugs in the developing world.

What does Kicanas being one of the men sent to investigate Bishop Joseph Strickland mean to you? For many traditionally-minded people, that fact alone eliminates any question as to where the Papacy stands on the moral issues of our day.

One traditionalist Catholic posted this online, “This move by the Vatican means not one moral activist bishop is safe. The good bishops will be deposed or silenced, and the evil bishops will rule unopposed.”

The fruits of centralization of power are, yet again, quite bitter for the Roman Catholic faithful. What will happen to Bishop Joseph Strickland? Whatever the Pope decides. Who can do anything about it? No one. What will his supporters do if the Pope throws him in the dustbin, or so loads him with sanctions as to make him ineffective? They can leave the RC (Orthodoxy is a good choice) or they can talk themselves into continuing as Roman Catholics through various coping mechanisms. After all, if you can bemoan Pope Francis’ various innovations against the Deposit of the Faith, yet still believe that your salvation depends on being in communion with him, then your brain is already elastic enough to stretch around pretty much anything.

As currently structured, what is happening to Bishop Joseph Strickland is not possible within the Orthodox Church. Bishop Strickland is not being investigated by his local synod of Roman Catholic Bishops for credible accusations of an actual crime, heresy, or a misuse of his office. Rather, his investigation was ordered by a remote, unaccountable, supreme pontiff who can officially be judged by no one.

Nothing like the Papacy exists within Orthodoxy. There is no “universal bishop”, though there are efforts underway to create one. Despite those efforts, however, the Orthodox Church is still organized into local synods which govern themselves. The Patriarch of Romania cannot investigate and discipline a Serbian Bishop. The Patriarch of Serbia cannot investigate and depose a Russian bishop. The same demarcation occurs between “jurisdictions” in the West. The Orthodox Church in America synod (which is self-governing) cannot investigate and depose a bishop in the Antiochian Archdiocese, for example.

There are some quirks to this system of decentralized authority. In some Orthodox jurisdictions in the West, the local bishops don’t really function as a true synod. Under such conditions, a foreign synod or hierarch could take unilateral action against an Orthodox bishop or priest subject to their jurisdiction. This has happened before, most recently in the Greek Archdiocese. These cases can sometimes be quite unjust, leaving local Orthodox Christians scratching their heads and venting their frustrations at being controlled by a remote, “old world” hierarchy. Such situations, however, are the exception within Orthodoxy and not the norm.

God is perfect. The Church is God’s Kingdom. But it is run by all-too fallible men who are themselves patients in a hospital for sinners. Among the hierarchy and clergy, as long as this world endures, there will be scandals, mistakes, pernicious outside influences, and even outright infidelity to the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints. However, the decentralized structure of the Orthodox Church works to keep such issues contained. Conciliarity, among bishops and independent Churches, restrains innovation and usually keeps bad hierarchs in one place from expanding their evil elsewhere.

One of the best examples of how Orthodoxy’s decentralization prevents innovation was written by Rabbi David Fox Sandmel in the context of evaluating Jewish – Orthodox relations. Many Jews object to Orthodox Holy Week hymns concerning the 1st Century Jews and their responsibility for the Crucifixion. Rabbi Sandmel feels the same, and has a vested interest in those hymns changing. However, he is honest about how difficult changing anything in the Orthodox Church can be. In the quote below, look at how he contrasts the difficulty of changing hymnography within the Orthodox Church with how easily similar hymns were changed in the Roman Catholic Church:

For Jews engaging with Orthodox Christians, it is important to remember that the first rule of interreligious dialogue is allowing “others” to define themselves. That means being especially attentive to the ways in Orthodox Christians differ from the Western churches with which Jews are most familiar. It requires understanding, inter alia, not only theological differences, but also the “ecosystem” of the Orthodox Church, autocephaly and how decisions are made, and the role of the patriarchs. While Pope John XXIII could order a change in the Good Friday liturgy, that is simply not how it works in Orthodoxy. Expecting Orthodox Christians to behave like Roman Catholics would not be a constructive strategy.

Thank you Rabbi, well stated. The Orthodox Church has a fundamentally different mindset than the Roman Church, and that has kept our Orthodox Faith pure over the last two millennia. No one can shove changes down our throats, though more than one Robber Council / Patriarch / Emperor has tried. No one has the power, the way Francis does, to conduct a “reign of terror” against faithful bishops on a global scale.

Good for us that Our Lord left us a Church so suited to preserving the Faith. However, before we Orthodox pat ourselves on the back too much, we need to remember something very important. There are powerful subversives within the Orthodox Church trying to transform her along modernist, globalist lines. They are well-funded and often occupy positions of authority within the Church.

Their primary tactic has been to subvert the Church quietly from within. The subversives use their connection to funding and power to publish heretical research (which is often presented as just “asking questions” or “seeking dialogue”), secure teaching positions for themselves and their followers (particularly in the training of future priests), present themselves as “official Orthodox voices” for media consumption, and align themselves with various governments around the world. We covered many of the most noted subversives in this article, and detailed some of their major funding sources here. As with Transgenderism in society at-large, this assault on Orthodoxy is a top-down revolution, though one largely (up until recently) conducted within the form.

Such a “long march through the institutions” has been very effective for Progressives in many areas (academia, government, major corporations, foundations, non-profits, etc.) Orthodoxy, however, has proven much more difficult to co-opt from within. That darned decentralized nature makes it tough to spread heresy quickly. Further, Orthodoxy is currently being overrun with converts who are fleeing the wreckage “Progressive” Christianity has made of other Christian bodies. They have seen what happens when a “church” embraces the LGBTQ+ agenda, female ordination, feminism, and Woke politics. Many of these refugees feel that the Orthodox Church is their last haven of True Faith on this Earth. They are in no mood to quietly abide her ruination.

So gains for the subversives are uneven, reversible, and hard won. Meanwhile, Pope Francis is building the ecumenist, progressive Church they dream of. The Catholic traditionalists are marginalized. The Latin Mass is on the road to being fully banned. Even a solidly orthodox, popular Catholic bishop such as Strickland is not safe from the wrath of the Progressive Vicar of Christ. Orthodox “Progressives” see what centralized power can do to make all their dreams come true, and they want in.

The centralized power they have in mind is, of course, the Patriarchate of Constantinople. A longstanding US National Security asset, Patriarch Bartholomew is the “Wokest” of all the major Orthodox hierarchs. He has almost no native Orthodox population in Turkey to govern directly as a bishop. Most of his flock is actually in the so-called Greek “diaspora” outside of Greece and Turkey. Even giving Patriarch Bartholomew every benefit of the doubt, he presides over a Patriarchate whose numbers are easily dwarfed by the Russian Church. Though he is a darling of the US ruling elites, rich Greeks, and nostalgic Hellenists, most Orthodox Christians globally pay him very little attention.

How can you turn this Patriarch, who is oppressed in his Muslim home country and ignored by much of the Orthodox world, into an Orthodox “Pope” with the power to make the Progressive agenda a reality? One way is to simply keep asserting power, particularly in ways that benefit the Global Elite. By its interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon in the 1920’s, Constantinople claims jurisdiction over all areas outside the canonically defined territories of other Orthodox Churches. This claim includes the entire Western hemisphere, Oceania, the United Kingdom, Western Europe, Northeast Asia, and Southeast Asia. Until now, few non-Greeks have taken those grandiose claims seriously.

Food for thought – what if secular governments in those areas, for mutual benefit, decide to partner with Constantinople the way Ukraine and some others already have? Just because traditionalist Orthodox Christians do not want to be ruled from Constantinople, does not mean our governments don’t have other ideas. After all, growing Orthodox Churches espousing “traditional morality” can be a headache for globalist-minded regimes, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople has proven to be a most reliable partner in opposing such regressive, outdated notions.

As most are doubtlessly aware, Patriarch Bartholomew asserted the right to create a new “Orthodox Church” on the territory of Ukraine. Even though the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was self-governing, and recognized by the entire Orthodox world as legitimate, Patriarch Bartholomew (in concert with the US and former Ukrainian President Poroshenko) saw fit to legitimize a motley crew of schismatics and imposters as the “official” Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Thus he set the stage for the ongoing persecution of the actual canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, with the goal of eliminating it entirely.

The heretics in Ukraine may eventually succeed in destroying the UOC. It is amazing how state-sanctioned violence can transform a society, especially when nominally Orthodox Christians are willing to be enthusiastic participants. Regardless of the eventual outcome, however, many Saints and Martyrs will be revealed during this persecution. A reminder to Orthodox Christians in the US, the persecution happening in Ukraine is funded by the same government you somehow expect to protect your religious liberty at home.

Further, many supporters of Patriarch Bartholomew in the West are Progressives. Whether religious or secular, Progressives naturally incline towards allying with authority to crush their ideological opposition. Just as they backed government COVID policies that closed churches, these same people would welcome government investigations into Orthodox parishes to root out what they see as white supremacy, racism, homophobia, transphobia, Christian nationalism, female oppression, etc. “Orthodox” Progressives are already openly discussing collaboration with law enforcement against those whom they view as enemies within the Church. As a sensible precaution, you might want to brush up on what is left of your right to remain silent.

The close cooperation between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and Western governments is a matter that should concern all of us. The Patriarchate is represented in the United States in the person of Archbishop Elpidophoros. The Archbishop was recently honored to be a guest speaker at the National Intelligence University. How common do you think it is for a Successor to the Apostles to give a talk to current and future spies? How does one earn such a privilege? What potential dangers does this close alliance between Church and State hold for the rest of us?

According to Patriarch Bartholomew, he alone has the right to grant or rescind autocephaly (self-governing status). He also has the right to hear appeals from clergy anywhere in the world, and to rule on those appeals. What he says goes, as recently evidenced by Patriarch Bartholomew restoring five deposed Orthodox priests in Lithuania. The restored priests were never under the Patriarch’s jurisdiction. But not to worry, as the move was in concert with the Lithuanian government and was just a slap against the evil Russian Orthodox Church. It’s not like this case furthers a bad precedent or anything.

His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew seems to recognize no limits on his power. His supporters are constantly putting him forward as the man who can solve all Orthodoxy’s problems, even those of a long-standing nature. As presented by them, none of this is new or novel, just the “Holy Great Church of Christ” exercising its long recognized prerogatives. Sort of like the Papacy in the 11th Century, one would suppose.

In the United States, Archbishop Elpidophoros, head of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America, is a huge fan of ecclesiastical power. In fact, it was Archbishop Elpidophoros who first applied the term “first without equals” to the Patriarch of Constantinople in a response to the Russian Church (excerpts below):

In the long history of the Church, the presiding hierarch of the universal Church was the bishop of Rome. After Eucharistic communion with Rome was broken, canonically the presiding hierarch of the Orthodox Church is the archbishop of Constantinople. In the case of the archbishop of Constantinople, we observe the unique concomitance of all three levels of primacy, namely the local (as Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome), the regional (as Patriarch), and the universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch). This threefold primacy translates into specific privileges, such as the right of appeal and the right to grant or remove autocephaly (examples of the latter are the Archdioceses-Patriarchates of Ochrid, Pec and Turnavo, etc.), a privilege that the Ecumenical Patriarch exercised even in cases of some modern Patriarchates, not yet validated by decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, the first of which is that of Moscow.

 

If we are going to talk about the source of a primacy, then the source of such primacy is the very person of the Archbishop of Constantinople, who precisely as bishop is one “among equals,” but as Archbishop of Constantinople, and thus as Ecumenical Patriarch is the first without equals (primus sine paribus).

Since writing that, Archbishop Elpidophoros has continuously trampled on traditional Orthodox moral teaching while relentlessly pushing for greater power for Constantinople. As a recent example of doing both, Archbishop Elpidophoros celebrated the name day of Patriarch Bartholomew at an Episcopalian parish in Manhattan. Named for the Apostle St. Bartholomew, the parish is explicitly pro-LGTBQ. All the participants in the Great Vespers on June 10, 2023 had to pass under the “Progressive Pride Flag” that hangs over the church. The church’s website also features pictures of the Holy Cross blasphemously adorned with the rainbow flag and the letters “LGBTQ” replacing the sign, “Jesus of Nazareth The King of the Jews.”

LGBTQ Flag adorning St. Bart’s during the Orthodox Great Vespers offered by Archbishop Elpidophoros

The choice of venue, and the overt signaling of support for LGBTQ, were not new for Elpidophoros. He has done that before. What was new was this quote delivered during his sermon, “The Ecumenical Patriarch is a spiritual father for all people, whether they realize it or not.” According to Archbishop Elpidophoros, the Patriarch of Constantinople has no equals, has seemingly limitless power, and is the spiritual father of the entire world – Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike. The parallels with the Papacy are more than a little striking.

Despite the best efforts of the pro-Constantinople subversives, and the assistance of Western national security and governing apparatuses, the “assert power” strategy is having only limited success. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has stubbornly refused to go gently into that good night. The “official” Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) can seize parishes, but they mostly remain padlocked afterwards for lack of attendance. Aside from a few Orthodox Churches (Greece, Alexandria, Crete), the vast majority of the Orthodox world continues to vocally support Metropolitan Onuphry and his UOC.

In the US, many Orthodox jurisdictions are reporting massive growth. Not the Greek Archdiocese, however. Among inquirers, a general sense has emerged that the GOA should be avoided. Such a perception is only going to grow with each cringe-worthy action undertaken by Archbishop Elpidophoros. Neither are the other Western jurisdictions, nor the vast majority of autocephalous Churches around the world, seemingly all that interested in submitting to the supposed universal jurisdiction of “New Rome”.

So what are cranky, impatient Progressives to do? Well, one option is schism. You can’t take over the entire Church, so maybe you can carve out your own kingdom to rule? The way to schism seems open as there is already a split between Constantinople and the largest Orthodox Church in the world, Russia, over Ukraine. This is a golden opportunity that has not gone unnoticed. The Roman Catholic sharks are already circling, hoping to take advantage of the situation:

The historic marginalization of Russian Orthodoxy removes the principal obstacle to greater Catholic-Orthodox rapprochement. Because Moscow is the populous center of Orthodoxy, it is fair to view Catholic-Orthodox relations as a whole through that relationship. Yet that perspective gives a false reading.

 

The ecumenical upshot was that if reconciliation with Orthodoxy had to go through Moscow, then reconciliation would not proceed. And due to the sheer size of Russian Orthodoxy, the other Orthodox patriarchs were reluctant to move significantly on their own.

 

There is a great ecumenical prize that might be within reach — a joint date for the celebration of Easter, the high point of the liturgical year.

 

In recent years, favorable noises have been made about that possibility from both Vatican and Orthodox officials. Notably, Bartholomew himself indicated the possibility in November, perhaps in time for the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea in 2025.

 

That possibility had been thought near-impossible because of a lack of unity among the Orthodox. But now it is quite possible to imagine Constantinople and other patriarchates moving ahead without Russia. Indeed, some Orthodox Christians in Ukraine moved their celebration of Christmas this year from Jan. 7 to Dec. 25 — precisely to indicate a break with Moscow.

 

The Moscow patriarchate revealed in 2022 what it has been for a long time — an instrument of Russian state power masquerading as historic heir to Rome and Constantinople. Bartholomew has called them out.

 

Francis, after much delay, seems to have reluctantly accepted that view. That leaves both of them newly free to pursue unity together without the anchor of Moscow dragging behind them. The very dark cloud of the war against Ukraine may have an ecumenical silver lining.

A full-blown break with Russia could free Constantinople to do all the things Progressives dream of (reunite with Rome, bless same-sex marriages, ordain women, possibly suppress annoying jurisdictions that are “too Russian”, unite with other religious bodies, change the date of Pascha, etc.) Best of all, the break with Russia could be camouflaged as a reaction to Russia’s war in Ukraine. After all, you aren’t severing communion with an historical Orthodox Church. Rather you are valiantly breaking with a dastardly “instrument of Russian state power masquerading as historic heir to Rome and Constantinople.”

Clearly the Roman Catholics see potential here. But are there really Orthodox Christians who support a full-blown schism as a route to getting their preferred “reforms”? Most definitely there are, and they are not shy about saying so.

Carrie Frederick Frost is a professor of theology and religion, who is also the Chair of St. Phoebe Center for the Deaconess, and the author of Church of Our Granddaughters. In her article for Public Orthodoxy Let’s Make History: Ordain Deaconesses in the Orthodox Church Today, she actually called for a schism, if necessary, to get what she wants:

Sometimes I hear the idea that ordaining deaconesses “would cause schism,” or “the time is not right.” We need to face the fact that the Orthodox Church is already in schism over women and their roles in the church. We are bleeding away younger generations (and some older ones, too) because it is both incomprehensible and entirely unacceptable (to both men and women) to stay in a church community that, despite the Orthodox Church’s own convictions and history, only honors the gifts of men in ordained ministry. Furthermore, fear of schism or division ought not be a yardstick for considering change in the Church. If the Orthodox Church changes its practices regarding women out of fidelity to its understanding of the truth, any possibility of division should not be a concern. Finally, if we wait for when the time is “right,” when everything in the Orthodox world is calm and ordered, we will never do anything.

Schism within Orthodoxy is a very, very serious thing. For Frost, the consequences are worth it if the result is a Church that can put women at the altar in vestments. Frost is not just some fringe radical. She is within the mainstream of Orthodox academia in the West. The Order of St. Andrew, big fundraisers for the Patriarch of Constantinople, are sponsoring a series of panels for Frost’s organization to push the idea of deaconesses. Frost will be featured prominently.

Does anyone think that the “official” academic and “Greek” Orthodox worlds are unaware that she openly called for schism? Of course they are aware. They approve of it. She is only one example. Many others among the Archons, academics, Greek Orthodox priests, church administrators, and others have expressed the same sentiments. For them, the Russian Church (potentially other Orthodox Churches as well, if necessary) must be jettisoned so that Orthodoxy can “move forward” and “embrace modernity”.

Of course, while Frost and her St. Phoebe center claim that female ordination will stop at the diaconate, other “Orthodox” academics connected to the Ecumenical Patriarch, such as Aristotle Papanikolaou, Co-Director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University, are open about their desire to see women fully ordained to the priesthood.

Who knows? After decades of laying a good foundation, you might actually get the Orthodox world to buy off on deaconesses. Women priests, however? That will never fly within global Orthodoxy. To go that far, you have to isolate a part of the Orthodox Church and impose such things there. If that isolated part is working in union with Rome, all the better. An added bonus would be partnership with political authority allowing the “modern Orthodox Church” to suppress the “traditionalist” Orthodox bodies as being traitorous agents of “Russian soft power”. You can ask the Ukrainian Orthodox Church how that works.

So what should we do about all this? I have absolutely no idea. At this point, we need to be aware that many people who come in the Name of the Lord are wolves in sheep’s clothing. The uncertainty of it all should call us to more sincere repentance and prayer. We should also be asking pointed questions of our leaders, while we continue to shine a light on those trying to subvert the Faith. Ultimately, if the Church is to overcome all this, our bishops will require the same kind of courage shown by Metropolitan Onuphry in Ukraine. May he be our example in how to stand steadfastly for the Faith – with a smile on our lips and Christ in our hearts.

Nicholas – member of the Western Rite Vicariate, a part of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese in America

Fr Peter Heers – Why Him, Why Now, Is the American Deep State Involved?

Fr. Peter Heers is an Orthodox priest, blogger, podcaster, author, publisher, and conference speaker.  In modern America, he attracts controversy like few Orthodox clergy. Fr Peter was vehemently against COVID vax mandates, against the vaxes themselves for their connection to abortion, against the lockdowns, church closures, changes to liturgical practices, against transgenderism, against gay rights, against the US-backed persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and strongly in favor of traditional Orthodox morality. Fr Peter has often been attacked over his teachings, both by those inside and outside of the Church. But lately there is another reason that has made Fr Peter controversial. There seems to be some question about his canonical status. Namely, is he under a canonical bishop? An Orthodox blogger named Craig Truglia provided some context on this matter last year. Below is an excerpt, here is the full article

The priest petitions to the Metropolitan and First Hierarch of ROCOR, who unambiguously receives the priest after being sent documentation permitting the priest to be received. The First Hierarch of ROCOR then assigns him to a local bishop.


For more than half a year there is no issue with this arrangement. Suddenly, for reasons not publicly enunciated, members of ROCOR’s synod and the First Hierarch then reconsider the latter’s decision to receive the Greek priest. They continue to consider him a priest of good standing. However, they now recognize him not as a priest who has already transferred from the Moscow Patriarchate, but rather as one in the process of transferring. Then, months later, after reviewing the matter members of ROCOR’s synod allege the transfer never went through and the Greek priest is still under the Greek Metropolitan. The Greek Metropolitan, who canonically released the Greek priest, refuses to recognize this, citing his letter of canonical release. As for the Greek priest, having been released long ago by the Greek Metropolitan and then accepted into ROCOR from the Moscow Patriarchate, this reneging on his reception makes his status uncertain. In effect, there are multiple episcopal authorities alleging that the Greek priest belongs to a different jurisdiction — a set of circumstances out of his control.


The above situation can be summarized as follows: a Greek priest is released to enter the Moscow Patriarchate to serve in America. The MP’s plans change so he moves to ROCOR. Decision makers in ROCOR ex post facto “invalidate” his reception, presuming that he belongs to a Greek Metropolitan. This is despite the fact that the Metropolitan had given the priest a canonical release to the Russian Church. Due to the preceding facts not yet being made public, many scrupulous laymen fear that somehow the priest is a free-agent, thereby invalid sacramentally. However, if documented evidence demonstrates his reception, in reality the priest is properly under his canonical bishop.

It is not my intent to argue over the canonical status of Fr Peter Heers. Rather, let us focus on that phrase from the above excerpt, “For more than half a year there is no issue with this arrangement.”  (That was last year. More time has elapsed since then.) Fr Peter is not new on the American Orthodox scene. He has been a well-known figure for quite some time. Now though, all of a sudden, Fr Peter has become the first priest in history whose canonical status has been specifically addressed by the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America via a “special communiqué”

According to the communiqué, in November 2022 the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (known as ROCOR and which does not participate in the Assembly) wrote a letter to the Assembly (which it doesn’t participate in) indicating, “that the Very Reverend Archpriest Peter Heers is not a clergyman of the Eastern American Diocese or of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, nor is there any pending consideration of his reception.”

For some reason the Assembly got this letter, was very disturbed about its implications, but then waited until 4/20/2023 to issue an unprecedented and very urgent communiqué letting everyone know about the letter from ROCOR and that:

The Assembly can further confirm that Archpriest Peter Heers is not a clergyman of, or on loan to, any other canonical Orthodox jurisdiction in the United States. To the extent that this individual purports to act as an Orthodox priest in the United States, including celebrating the Divine Liturgy and the other services of the Church and teaching the faithful and those who inquire into Orthodoxy, he does so in a manner outside of the Holy Canons.

This raises some serious questions, especially because the Assembly is not an actual Orthodox Synod:

…the Assembly is both consultative and programmatic. It is consultative insofar as, while it has no administrative authority, it is a forum for the exchange of ideas and creation of templates, best practices, and models for each Bishop to implement as he sees fit in his own diocese. At the same time, the Assembly is to be programmatic in its goal to coordinate and ultimately unite the common ministries and pastoral practices of the various jurisdictions.

 

The Assembly meets annually and functions by a consensus of all its members. 

 

Should this proposal be accepted, it is hoped that the Assembly of Bishops will be succeeded by a governing Synod of a united Church in the United States.

No administrative authority, and operates by consensus on the basis of an annual meeting. Yet, somehow, this body with no actual authority, in between meetings, was able to get the agreement of over 50 separate bishops, in different jurisdictions, to put out a communiqué casting aspersions on the canonical status, and thus the teaching authority, of a very politically incorrect (faithfully Orthodox) priest? 

How did this happen? Which Orthodox bishops thought, even with Orthodox persecution in Ukraine, persecution of Palestinian Christians in Jerusalem, the ongoing sanctions / occupation of Syria harming Orthodox Christians, plus our own mounting troubles in America, that the most important thing to do right now was put out a communiqué about Fr Peter Heers? 

Seriously?

Who started this? Were all the bishops asked for their opinions? All 50+ of them? Maybe just a majority? Were any of the bishops even asked for their opinions? The communiqué is unsigned. There is no information available as to how such a communiqué was issued and by whom. It simply appeared, and enemies of Fr Peter then spread it far and wide.

The situation makes one wonder, did this whole thing originate from Archbishop Elpidophoros and his staff at the Greek Archdiocese? One must wonder that, because Archbishop Elpidophoros is the Chairman of the Assembly.

If you have been paying attention, you might have noticed that the United States is less a nation than it is a funding source for various public / private “complexes”: Military-Industrial-Intelligence Complex, Pharmaceutical-Hospital-Public Health Industrial Complex, Prison-Law Enforcement Complex, Educational-Teachers’ Union Complex, Environmental Complex, etc. If all the pigs at the public trough had an official Christian chaplain to provide cover for their nefariousness, he would be the Patriarch of Constantinople, currently named Bartholomew, with Archbishop Elpidophoros mostly standing in for him in the US.

Since at least WWII, the Patriarch of Constantinople has been an exemplary asset of the US Security State (the mother who birthed all the baby complexes mentioned above). The ties between intelligence and the Patriarchate are so tight, that the US has openly decided Patriarchal succession and policies.

In 1948, the 62-year-old Archbishop Athenagoras of America was elected the new Ecumenical Patriarch. The CIA described this event the following way: “Soviet attempts to use the Greek Orthodox Church as a medium for persuasion and propaganda have undoubtedly received a setback with the election of Athenagoras.”

 

Athenagoras was received by President Truman who offered the presidential airplane for the Patriarch-elect to fly to Istanbul.

If you think anything has changed, please note that Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople suddenly went from recognizing Metropolitan Onuphry as the head of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, to considering him a foreign nobody in his own nation simply because Joe Biden and the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo at the time, came calling. As explained on The American Conservative website in an article entitled Zelensky vs. the Ukrainian Orthodox Church:

The State Department and politicians of both parties carried out work to promote the new church. Two months before the creation of the OCU in 2018, Filaret and Epifaniy met in the United States with Joe Biden, who declared his gratitude for their work. State Department Ambassador for Religious Freedom Samuel Brownback, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and special representative for Ukraine Ambassador Kurt Volker declared their support for this project.

 

Immediately after its creation, the OCU received its first official congratulations from the State Department and the U.S. Embassy. At the same time, Ambassador Brownback and the U.S. ambassador to Greece, Geoffrey Pyatt—who was also ambassador to Ukraine from 2013 to 2016—visited church leaders and Mount Athos to urge them to recognize the OCU. Both Ambassador Volker and Secretary Pompeo met with Epifaniy many times. All facts indicate that the promotion of the OCU was part of U.S. policy in Ukraine.

So now Metropolitan Onuphry and his UOC, whom Fr Peter Heers and 80% or better of the Orthodox world support, are suffering for Christ. A fact that the Patriarchate of Constantinople in general, and Archbishop Elpdophoros in America specifically, go to great lengths to cover up, deny, and excuse.

The American Deep State, the author of our horrible Ukrainian policy, clearly appreciate Archbishop Elpidophoros’ dedicated service, and seem to consider him one of their own. The Archbishop is even privileged to speak at the National Intelligence University:

NIU is a unique and technologically advanced university that focuses on the profession of intelligence and is the only institution of higher education in the nation that allows its students to study and complete research in the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (TS/SCI) arena.

A sincere question to all those who deny the ties of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the various “Greek” Archdioceses around the world, to the US Security state – can you explain what we are seeing here?

Persecution of the UOC is reaching a fever pitch, such that even the UN has taken notice. The war is clearly not going in Ukraine’s favor, and even the mainstream press has had to acknowledge that. Against that backdrop, an effective advocate for the canonical Church, such as Fr Peter Heers, is suddenly declared an uncanonical wandering priest with no teaching or sacramental authority? By the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops, of all things, which has no real authority, and has never commented on the canonical status of a priest before. And, which oddly enough, is headed by a bona fide asset of the Deep State?

One can’t help but wonder about such coincidences.

The American Deep State has spun many a narrative that is beginning to unravel, and not just concerning Ukraine. Among these is the fitness of President Joe Biden to be in office. The DNC already announced that there will be no Democratic Primary debates. The DNC has put its thumb on the scales of democracy before. The RNC has as well. We all know that Ron Paul was unacceptable to the ruling class, as was Bernie Sanders. Neither was allowed to seriously contest for their respective party’s nomination. But back then, both national committees feared being this brazen about stealing a nomination. Now it is all done in the clear light of day. 

Donald Trump took the Deep State by surprise with his winning populism. The Governing Elite will take no chances of another populist victory in 2024. There is simply too much money and power at stake. Joe Biden has to win. 

There will be no debates in the Democratic Primary. Media, social and mainstream, will be kept on a tight leash. Especially with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. threatening the sitting president with pesky, traditional Democratic ideals such as pro-middle class polices, peace, and freedom. Deep State power must continue unimpeded, and that requires enforcement of fidelity to the Vax, to endless global war, and to Woke, including all its dogmas: transgenderism, worship of power, corporate supremacy, gay rights, “Democracy” (correct outcomes only), Greenism, CRT, abortion / anti-natalism, open borders, ecumenism (many paths to God), and censorship of incorrect opinions. In all this, Archbishop Elpidophoros is the Global Elite’s guy. Fr Peter Heers is not.

One could really fill a whole book with the awfulness that are the services Archbishop Elpidophoros has rendered to the American Deep State. His Eminence embraced Joe Biden as a candidate and practically endorsed him for president when praying at the Democratic National Convention. Archbishop Elpidophoros actually declared that Orthodox Christians could not refuse the mRNA jabs, despite their link to aborted fetal cells. 

Patriarch Bartholomew and Archbishop Elpidophoros gave Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla the Athenagoras Human Rights Award in 2021. This was done after even the dullest knives in the drawer had realized the mRNA “clot shots” did not stop transmission of COVID, did very little at all for younger people who were mostly unaffected by the virus, were responsible for horrific side effects, and had no long-term safety data. Never mind all those pesky details, or concerns about medical freedom and human dignity. Archbishop Elpidophoros was one of the most COVIDian of all bishops, and defends those misbegotten policies, including masking toddlers in Church, to this day. Big Pharma, Big Capital, and Big Government were happy with hysteria-driven power and profits, so Elpidophoros and Bartholomew were fully on-board then, and still are now. 

Elpidophoros marched with BLM, a communist organization. Archbishop Elpidophoros and employees of the Greek Archdiocese regularly espouse CRT. Archbishop Elpidophoros has openly discussed communing non-Orthodox spouses, a radical change in the life of the Orthodox Church. During the Pandemic, he was a champion of using multiple spoons for the Eucharist.  As part of his commitment to ecumenism, Archbishop Elpidophoros celebrated Divine Liturgy in an Episcopal Church, St. Bart’s, that was decorated at the time by a giant “Gay Pride Flag”. 

Archbishop Elpidophoros is pro-choice on abortion. He actually said this out loud at the March for Life in 2022.

He’s doubled down on that stance since in subsequent interviews.  His abortion comments earned a justified rebuke from other Orthodox Bishops. Curiously, the organizer of said rebuke, Metropolitan Joseph of Antioch, was not long afterwards embroiled in a “scandal” and resigned

One tends to wonder about such happy coincidences

Archbishop Elpidophoros is also a huge friend of President Joe Biden, the most pro-abortion, pro-war, pro-sexual exploitation of children, and generally anti-human president we have ever had. According to the Archbishop, President Biden is a true friend of “Hellenism”. In an interview on the 20-year anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, Archbishop Elpidophoros had this to say about President Joe Biden:

In July 2020, after the reconversion of Hagia Sophia to a mosque, he was quick to call me on the phone to reconfirm his unequivocal support to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, while this past March, he honored us by speaking through video at the celebration of the bicentennial of Greek Independence Day. I know that in President Biden, our Church and Hellenism has a friend in the Oval Office.

The love is mutual, by the way, as Joe Biden never misses an opportunity to praise the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the loyalty of the Greeks:

“The one thing about the Greek community I’ve learned over these years — and it’s been 50 years, I hate to admit it, it’s that long — but is loyalty, loyalty, loyalty. And I tell ya, I think my sister and I, my family and I, have returned it. But you’ve been incredibly, incredibly loyal,” Biden said.

The Greek Archdiocese is the base of support for the Fordhamites who are academics committed to changing the Orthodox Church’s teachings on a host of issues. The Patriarch of Constantinople commissioned the ghastly Social Ethos document that practically made the “Great Reset” of the World Economic Forum part of Orthodox moral teaching. 

The rich and powerful Archbishop, whose cringe-worthy behavior regularly repels potential Orthodox converts, is not the subject of a communiqué from the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops. That would be weird. He’s the chairman after all. Why would the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops take him to task just because he does and believes so many really, really, blatantly anti-Orthodox things?

Instead, the honor of being the subject of a special communiqué falls to a simple priest. One who just happens to oppose the “official narratives” at a time, unfortunately for Fr Peter, when control of the narrative is all the Deep State has. Reality has already left them behind. The powers-that-be are running a senile old man for president as he stumbles through an expensive, hopeless war in Ukraine. The US Elite are backing a Ukrainian government of ultra-nationalists who are abusing Christians – women, children, monks, priests – while closing media and silencing opposition. All in the name of “Democracy”, of course. As we send billions to Ukraine, the US is falling apart at the seams. Americans are robbed blind by inflation, drowning in debt, and increasingly angry. All the while, our beloved leadership class is busy ruining the same military with Wokism that they plan to use in fighting a war against China.

Never fear though, despite wallowing in a pit of failure, the Ruling Elite will continue to find time to lecture average Americans on the joys of deviant sex, childlessness, and outright child sexual abuse. The Woke are targeting our children, and more people know that now than ever. Which makes it seem quite strange when Archbishop Elpidophoros, and many in his Archdiocese, dismiss all this blatant grooming as mere “culture war” politics. 

So Tucker Carlson got fired from Fox News, as his commentary hurt the official narrative of everything is fine – just vote for Joe Biden in 2024. More media heads than his rolled as well, and we can expect more to roll in the future. We can also expect even more private / public partnerships to censor and control the media. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. brought to our attention a partnership between the Pentagon and financial behemoth Vanguard:

It is the desperate hope of the Deep State that the “narrative” can be kept alive through November 2024, and a senile octogenarian can be re-elected to keep the power and money flowing for the “in-crowd”. 

Archbishop Elpidophoros helps that goal. Not only domestically, but also through his endorsement of the Zelenskyy Regime and his condemnation of those evil Russians. Many of the “Greek” academics and clergy around him are just as corrupt in service to the Ruling Elite as he is. However, corruption within the Church is not limited to just the “Greeks”. The Orthodox Church in America also has its share of issues.

Given the situation with Fr Peter Heers suddenly being “unreceived”, one might question whether issues with corruption extend to ROCOR as well? (If there is more to this story from the ROCOR side, now is the time to tell it.)

Unfortunately for him, Fr Peter is both popular and extremely dedicated to Christian Orthodoxy, which the anti-Christ fools running the “West” desperately want to control and even transform into a prettier Episcopal Church. That is why the canonical status of a regular priest like Fr Peter is suddenly such a hot topic. It’s not really about his canonical status, or lack thereof. If Fr Peter were Woke, or at least pro-Zelenskyy and pro-Joe Biden, then neither the banishment from ROCOR nor the unexpected communiqué would have ever happened.

Woke, pro-Deep State clergy never suffer for their politics, their heresies, their actions, or their crimes against Orthodoxy. 

Cosmas – an Orthodox Christian

The Resignation of Metropolitan Joseph of the Antiochian Archdiocese

Metropolitan Joseph of the Antiochian Archdiocese of North and South America has been publicly accused of having an ongoing affair with a married woman or two. He is further accused of co-owning homes with her / them. Perhaps there is more alleged financial malfeasance? Who knows, the accusations are flying fast and furious. They will no doubt continue, despite Metropolitan Joseph’s resignation, as he is proving a most useful distraction from other scandals in the Church.

As our friends at Monomakhos have pointed out (and they are closer to this situation than we are), Metropolitan Joseph continues to deny all the allegations. Some might take His Eminence’s resignation as a sort of backhanded “confession”. It might very well be. But we wouldn’t be so hasty to reach that conclusion.

Now before we go on, let us be clear that the Metropolitan may very well be guilty of everything alleged, and 10 times more we don’t even currently suspect. Anyone with any Orthodox spiritual maturity could hardly be surprised to find sinners in a hospital for sick souls. Elevation of a man to the episcopate does not guarantee that he will be a good man. It provides him Grace to perform a needed office. The miter won’t keep him from falling into sin. If you don’t know that, then you need to learn it before one scandal or another destroys your faith.

For those of you who have trouble dealing with Church scandals, we highly recommend watching this reflection from Father Josiah Trenham.

Regardless of the truth of the allegations against Metropolitan Joseph, it does seem quite clear that we are facing widespread problems within our Episcopate. Such is the contention of many priests such as Father Kosmas. In his article For the Orthodox Faithful who are Confused About COVID Vaccines, he made a point about the lack of spiritual discernment and development among Orthodox bishops:

Today, the majority of bishops are administrators, as they have not reached at least a state of illumination. Therefore, they are not able to properly discern right from wrong in many theological and moral issues. As such, these administrators should humbly follow the grace-filled bishops and elders who have reached a high level of spirituality. Unfortunately, so many do not (due to their pride), and this would explain why so many bishops have easily accepted Ecumenism, Covidism, mass vaccination and very soon, vaccine passports.

If there are such widespread problems in our episcopate, then one could hardly be surprised if Metropolitan Joseph were simply one more fox in the henhouse.

Some are even arguing, irrespective of the truth of the charges, that his resignation is a good thing as he deserves to go in any case. On social media, commentators have been quick to point out that Metropolitan Joseph cancelled Pascha, limited attendance at Divine Liturgy, and promoted masks the same as most other bishops in the US did.

Fair enough. But, on the other hand, Metropolitan Joseph was not nearly the worst of the COVIDian clerics, and he did allow his parishes in many areas (particularly the Western Rite) to operate almost normally (including mask optional) for most of the “Pandemic”. Lately, Metropolitan Joseph has been a stalwart of Orthodoxy in the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops. His Eminence organized other hierarchs in condemning the horrible, pro-abortion language used by Archbishop Elpidophoros at the 2022 March for Life. He seems to have been instrumental in organizing the successful resistance to the Greek Archdiocese planning to elevate the odious Alexander Belya to the Episcopate. Metropolitan Joseph has also been strong in his support of Ukrainian Metropolitan Onuphry, and called for peace in Ukraine rather than supporting NATO’s goal of fighting to the last Ukrainian.

Many priests have had very good things to say about the Metropolitan’s leadership. While not perfect, he does seem to have accomplished more than a few good things for the Lord. Is he guilty of these crimes? Perhaps. Perhaps not. In several writings to his flock, Metropolitan Joseph felt the need to decry “conspiracy theories” during the Pandemic. His stance on that topic is quite ironic, since it could very well be a “conspiracy theory” that cost him his office and his reputation.

Metropolitan Joseph could just be part of a plague of less than stellar to outright “bad” bishops that Orthodoxy is currently contending with. Or he could have been an innocent casualty of the American National Security State’s drive to remake the Orthodox Church. His recent actions cast a bad light on the Greek Archdiocese, which might have be the only “crime” he is actually guilty of.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople is a US intelligence asset, and has been at least as far back as Patriarch Athenagoras (OSS referred to below was the forerunner to the CIA):

Patriarch Athenagoras kissing President Truman

In an OSS report prepared sometime in early 1945, Archbishop Athenagoras, Albanian Bishop Fan Noli and the Serbian Bishop Dionisije Milivojevich are listed among its key contacts with whom it is possible to “talk intimately and as frequently as needed.”

 

Against this background it becomes clear why, when the Cold War began, the CIA strived to replace Patriarch Maximos V, enthroned in early 1946, with Athenagoras. The Agency described Maximos as too weak to be an effective leader of the Orthodox world. American and Turkish mass media wrote about the 48-year-old Patriarch’s emotional disorder, Soviet diplomats’ attempts to persuade him to cooperate and a possible involvement of Patriarch Maximos in the embezzlement of a big donation which took place during the patriarchate of his predecessor Benjamin I.

 

In 1948, the 62-year-old Archbishop Athenagoras of America was elected the new Ecumenical Patriarch. The CIA described this event the following way: “Soviet attempts to use the Greek Orthodox Church as a medium for persuasion and propaganda have undoubtedly received a setback with the election of Athenagoras.”

 

Athenagoras was received by President Truman who offered the presidential airplane for the Patriarch-elect to fly to Istanbul.

 

Within the first years of his patriarchate, Athenagoras is described in the Department of State archives as a partner in the war against communism willing and eager to collaborate with the American government. Consul General LeVerne Baldwin wrote, “He [Athenagoras] stressed his Americanism, belief in the Good Neighbor policy, in democratic methods, and in the courage and frankness of America, which he had endeavored to carry out in his policies as Patriarch.”

 

And the Patriarch proved these words with his deeds. Consul General Frederick Merrill noted that Athenagoras intended to diminish the Soviet influence over the Patriarchate of Alexandria by overthrowing Patriarch Chrystopher.

 

Being deeply concerned with the issues of Orthodoxy in the Middle East, His All-Holiness discussed them with Consul General Merrill in spring 1951. In a memorandum of April 4, 1951, Athenagoras was said to be much more optimistic about his various plans to draw the Orthodox Churches in the Near Eastern area closer to the Phanar in Istanbul, and America. Besides, he was eager to have Mount Athos placed under the “cultural benediction” of the Byzantine Institute in Washington to attract financial support to the Monastery and to throw open its archives, library, etc. to the Byzantine Institute and other American scholars.

 

The cooperation with the CIA also went on. Thus, as mentioned in a 1951 report, Patriarch Athenagoras was assuring the Americans that the Patriarch of Antioch will not “stray from the fold.”

 

In conclusion, it should be said that Patriarch Athenagoras was without any doubt an outstanding figure in the history of the Orthodox Church. His merits to the faithful mustn’t be underestimated. As many of those living in the past century, the Patriarch viewed the Cold War as a war between Good and Evil. “And the United States was, in the eyes of Patriarch Athenagoras the obvious agent of all that was good, against the existential threat of Soviet Communism,” writes Namee.

Perhaps this all was forgivable during the Cold War when the Soviet Union really was evil. But the Soviet Union is gone, and the Neoliberal, globalist policies espoused by the American ruling class are not nearly so noble as “anti-Communism”. Yet, the servile cooperation of Constantinople continues, particularly as regards Russia and her Church.

The founding of the schismatic Orthodox Church of Ukraine by the Patriarch of Constantinople was done to further the US policy of bolstering Ukrainian nationalism to prepare for the very war now being fought. All across Eastern Europe, the US is continuing to use the Patriarchate of Constantinople to set up new Orthodox jurisdictions to isolate the Russian Church and to bolster anti-Russian nationalism. The new target is Lithuania:

Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople received a group of Lithuanian politicians at the Phanar in Istanbul yesterday.

 

The visit comes as defrocked clerics and government officials are working to force the Church in Lithuania out of the Moscow Patriarchate and into the jurisdiction of Pat. Bartholomew.

 

The visiting group included Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Mantas Adomėnas, Lithuanian ambassador in Ankara Ričardas Degutis, and adviser to the Prime Minister Galina Vascenkaite, reports Romfea.

 

“They had the opportunity to discuss the ministry of the Mother Church, as well as other matters of mutual interest,” the Greek outlet relates.

 

Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė told Pat. Bartholomew in May that the government is prepared to help transfer the Church.

Nothing says “freedom of religion” like a Prime Minister offering to use force to transfer a Church from one jurisdiction to another. Americans should be proud.

The US would love for the Patriarchate of Constantinople to control all Orthodox Churches outside of Russia. That would simplify the situation immensely for the foreign policy kingpins. A good start would be in Ukraine and the areas surrounding Russia, which is the drive we see now ongoing. Of course, true success would mean pushing Orthodox unity in the United States as well, under the Greek Archdiocese naturally.

The US governing elite is dedicated to endless war (keeps profits high and them employed), promotion of “democracy” (Neoliberalism), LGBTQ+ rights, abortion, surrogate motherhood, population reduction, open borders (just not on Martha’s Vineyard), medical tyranny, and Climate Change communism. Who else is dedicated to that list of goals? Why, the Patriarch of Constantinople plus the associated officials and academics that represent it in the United States.

Did Metropolitan Joseph’s criticism of Archbishop Elpidophoros put him cross-wise of the goal of furthering the power of Constantinople to promote the “American agenda”? Is that what got him taken down? Well it certainly did change the subject. Prior to this story breaking, even many rich Greeks, who frequently care little for the authentic Orthodox Faith, were publicly complaining that Archbishop Elpidophoros is too much of an embarrassment to continue in office.

Now, the Metropolitan Joseph story has quieted all that down.

So back to the previously mentioned corruption issue within our Orthodox Church. How does the true Church of Jesus Christ, a veritable factory for manufacturing saints, the Church of the Martyrs, a Church living and breathing the Gospel – end up with so many talentless and corrupt leaders? Because it benefits people with power who want to use the Church for their own ends while making sure the True Gospel is never an inconvenience to their plans.

Suppose Metropolitan Joseph is guilty of everything? This was going on for a long time, but only now comes to light? How did no one notice or report this earlier? Spooks love corruption. A corrupt politician or cleric is a controllable asset. He will do what he is told, or you will expose him and ruin his life. He is also a disposable asset. If his exposure furthers your goals, you can simply turn over the evidence and distract people from  so many other things. The mob loves watching prominent men fall.

If he is guilty, and has been for a decade or more, why did it only surface now? If he were corrupt for longer (as some allege affairs for decades), how did he get elevated to his office when he couldn’t pass a routine background check? Who kept a lid on this story and why?

Suppose Metropolitan Joseph is innocent? It appears that corruption is a problem in the episcopate ranks, if not a full-blow crisis. That makes all Orthodox Bishops immediately suspect.  Woe to the clean fish in a dirty tank! Given the overall situation, “proving” innocence could have appeared such a burden that Metropolitan Joseph, as others before him have done, may have simply chosen not to fight.

We are being told evidence exists damning Metropolitan Joseph. Some of this “evidence” is being printed on ungodly Websites. The “evidence” might be real. Then again, the National Security State can raid the homes of former presidents, overthrow the governments of foreign nations, is possibly behind the changes to the Catholic Church since Vatican II, has led America into a series of disastrous wars against US interests, and that is just a very, very partial list of ways our rulers have flexed their muscles. The US spreads billions of dollars around in a corrupt and fallen world. For the right price, most people are for sale and most anything can be manufactured. Those that can’t be bought, can usually be intimidated.

While certainly not all powerful (see massive list of failures at home and abroad), does anyone really want to argue that “finding” enough “evidence” to get rid of one troublesome cleric would be beyond the capabilities of this gang of criminals?

So what do we know for sure about Metropolitan Joseph’s situation? Nothing. What are we ever likely to know for sure? Nothing. God will judge. But we do know that the US National Security State is up to its neck in Orthodox Church politics around the world, so why not here in the good old USA?

Pray, seek the Kingdom of God, witness for the Faith, but be aware that not everything is as it seems. “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” (Matthew 10:16)

Nikita is cradle Orthodox Christian, a native born American of Russian descent, and currently lectures in history for an American University. 

As TEC Goes, So Goes GOA

In response to a recent article at Monomachos, a woman named Lina writes, “So, what I don’t get, as an ex-Episcopalian who has watched her cradle church go down the drain over the last several years after espousing the homosexual agenda, is that the GOA (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese) is dead set to follow the same path.” I don’t get it either. That perplexed sentiment resonates with this sad ex-Episcopalian. My own frame of reference with the Episcopal Church started with baptism as an infant in 1954. I was confirmed in 1967, when national membership peaked at 3.6 million members, and then observed the decline over the years that ensued.

Here are some of the more noteworthy of the last half century’s hits (i.e., assaults) on TEC, perhaps best spelled out as Today’s Episcopal Clique. The moral relativism that made it possible was expressed in the widely-read book Situation Ethics (1966) written by ex-priest Joseph Fletcher. There was the suicidal apostasy in 1969 of the prolific author Bp. James Pike. The infiltration of the homosexual indoctrination at General Theological Seminary was made possible by Prof. Norman Pittenger in the same godforsaken decade. These were just some of the men who planted the seeds of Satan into Episcopal Church soil at the apogee of its growth and influence.

Three of the “Philadelphia Eleven”

The contra-canonical ordination of the Philadelphia Eleven women in 1974 portended more radical actions to come. The newfangled Book of Common Prayer in 1979, the newer Hymnal of 1980 became the basis for a smorgasbord view of sacramental rites. Then came the shocking consecration of suffragan bishop Barbara Harris (an unqualified divorcèe) in 1989 and the earth-shaking consecration of diocesan bishop Vicky Imogen Robinson (a gay man) in 2003.

Bp. Vicky Imogene Robinson

The contra-canonical ordination of the Philadelphia Eleven women in 1974 portended more radical actions to come. The newfangled Book of Common Prayer in 1979, the newer Hymnal of 1980 became the basis for a smorgasbord view of sacramental rites. Then came the shocking consecration of suffragan bishop Barbara Harris (an unqualified divorcèe) in 1989 and the earth-shaking consecration of diocesan bishop Vicky Imogen Robinson (a gay man) in 2003.

Membership in the Episcopal Church has fallen by more than half since its peak in 1967 to a meager 1.6 million today. Of the two million lost over that era, 314,000 were lost in the “twenty teens” (2010 – 2019). Chalk up half of that loss to the general vacating of church pews nationwide. Chalk up the other half to TEC’s revisionist abandonment of Scripture and Tradition while maintaining the outward trappings of religiosity. “Having the appearance of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (II Tim. 3:5). This may be termed the “revolution within the form”. Distrust by the laity of the ever-innovating leadership doomed them. It is my sad observation that the “new and improved” Episcopal Church has squandered its rich Anglican patrimony over the period of my lifetime.

Now, to Lina’s assertion about the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. Having watched the TEC “go down the drain”, the GOA is “dead set to follow the same path.” She is puzzled by that. Why are the GOA leadership headed in the same direction? That is the $64,000 question. I doubt whether the GOA has done any serious research into the demographic decline of TEC. Even if they have, they will probably scoff at the precipitous drop in TEC’s numbers. If they look for reasons, they may cite the general decline in church attendance across the nation. They may blame the phenomenon on the ignorance of the unsophisticated masses. But, I wouldn’t be surprised if the decline of the TEC hasn’t even registered on the GOA radar. If they had recognized that association with the TEC is a losing bet, why would Elpidophoros have made nice with that heretic Dean Wolfe at St. Bart’s in Manhattan? The celebration of the Divine Liturgy at that parish and the return visit to “talk story” with Bp. Wolfe are indications that Elpi. feels a need to get cozy with the heterodox. Or maybe he was just impressed with the Byzantine architecture and the smell of success at a parish with a reputation for the “queering of Manhattan”.

Pride Month at St. Bart’s Episcopal Church, Manhattan

Here are some rounded figures from the OrthodoxReality.org study entitled “The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA) from 2010 to 2020: Changes in Parishes, Membership, and Worship Attendance”. Across the archdiocese, membership has declined from 482,000 to 376, 000 – a loss of 22%. More telling is the reduced number of regular participants over that decade, from 107,000 to 86,000. Again, a decline of about 22% from 2010 to 2020. One can surmise that the decline in GOA has only accelerated during the pandemic by the leadership’s demand for strict adherence to government health mandates. These have gotten parishioners used to the idea of staying home and watching church in their pajamas from the comfort of their living room couches.

Run from decline

Maybe Abp. Elpidophoros doesn’t worry about the drop in the number of derrières in pews as long as the archdiocese can keep the cash rolling in. And as long as Pat. Bartholomew’s quota is redirected to Istanbul. My experience on a GOA parish council the last two years of the pandemic confirmed the suspicion that our metropolis was mostly concerned that parish assessments would still get paid despite the crisis. Our assessments for this year roughly equal the total amount of our stewardship contributions from last year. Without another source of income from real estate, our parish budget would not end up in the black.

Speaking of money, what happened to the $100,000,000 that got poured into St. Nicholas’ black hole at the World Trade Center? It’s been more than twenty years since 9/11, but construction on the little church isn’t even finished yet. Oy vey.

Abp. Elpidophoros is a gracious and approachable hierarch, so during a small gathering here two years ago, I felt free to challenge him on some of the salient issues. Whether it was the contention of Constantinople’s supremacy among Orthodox hierarchs or the intervention in Ukraine’s ecclesial organization, his retorts indicated to me that he will not change his mind. Outright endorsement of the queer sexual revolution may still be out of reach for them, but certainly Bartholomew and Elpidophoros seem to be dead set to continue their promotion of other so-called progressive concerns such as ecumenism, environmentalism, and Covidism. Just like the proud Episcopalians, they will not …and that auxiliary verb must be read with emphasis… i.e. they willfully will not revise their trendy agenda despite how disastrous it will likely turn out for them. They will not cease and desist their grasping at global ecclesiastical power to promote it, so help them God.

Patriarch Bartholomew & Archbishop Elpidophoros

Maybe Elpidophoros and Bartholomew just cannot change their minds. And, maybe the rest of us are simply fools to pray that they will be able to change. If that is true, it doesn’t make me happy to say that the continued decline in GOA’s membership is likely to be unavoidable.

Originally published at Handwritings on the Wall

4 Predictions for the Orthodox

Living in unprecedented times, history will be made. Now is the time for the faithful to arise and be the Church.

Prediction #1 – The Church Will Refocus on the Health of Body and Soul

Among the many things we learn, from the Holy Mother of God, is the sacredness of the body. Singing her praise, we declare she provided the “most pure body.” But what does this mean? What does it mean for us as modern believers?

If our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, then we must take proper measures to maintain its good use in this life. You only get one. If you trash it, you cannot blame God when sickness comes or your time is cut short. God’s salvation was clearly there, but you chose to cooperate with evil.

Both healing and repentance have been part and parcel of Orthodoxy since Jesus walked the shores of Galilee and healed the sick. If you listen, you will hear a recurring theme of healing for the body that is fully interwoven into our liturgy, the prayers, and other practices of the Church.  We are clearly taught to expect miracles. If we do not have miracles in our parishes today, perhaps we are missing something?

St. Luke the SurgeonMany saints were “wonderworkers” or healers. Many utilized herbal medicines to cure. There was a wisdom we seem to have lost that brought health and healing through prayer, diet, fasting, physical anointing, and through natural medicines—things in God’s creation—to make us well. Even more modern saints, including those with medical training, have continued to believe in the power of prayer, Holy Water and anointing with oil.  St. Luke the Surgeon, Archbishop of Simferopol, is a 20th Century saint famous for saying, “Drink Holy Water, the more often, the better. It is the best and most effective medicine. I’m not saying this as a priest, I’m saying it as a doctor, from my medical experience.”

Despite the extravagant promises it makes, modern medicine is now showing its dark underbelly—vaccines, mandates, genetic modifications, scorched earth chemotherapy, a disregard for diet, the pursuit of profit. We have allowed modern medicine to replace the ancient traditions, and this is extracting a terrible toll especially when it comes to “modern” chronic diseases; cancer, stroke, heart attack.

It would behoove us to return to the old ways in which we treated man holistically (mind, body, and spirit). In the ancient Hebrew practice, as well as among early Christians, salvation for the body—healing, health—went along with salvation for the soul (3 john 2). It seemed reasonable to the ancients, if you could become relatively free from the passions, you could also be reasonably free from sickness.  There is much wisdom in this, because so many uncontrolled passions lead to physical harms (gluttony, substance abuse, rage) as well as spiritual harms. Disciplined life within the Church leads to dispassion which brings us closer to God and restores us in both body and spirit.

I predict the return of healing through prayer. I also predict a return to ancient healing through natural means. God has deposited wisdom in His Church to avoid the unique health hazards of our modern epoch. Now is the time to recover our humanity by putting distance between our holy bodies and modern medicine which more and more treats us, even children, as little more than profitable experiments.

Prediction #2 – Restoration of the Father

Things seem to be going badly in our society. One cause stands out above all else – the lack of true Fathers. Without them, we meander along inviting God’s wrath upon us. The hearts of the fathers must be focused on their children above all else. An ancient prophet put it like this:

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. (Malachi 4:5,6 KJV).[1]

Everything about the Orthodox Faith is multi-generational. As the world has squeezed God’s people into its model of fathers (and mothers) working outside the home, among the faithful this has become a big problem because it impedes generational transfer of the faith.

God’s design is for the family to raise children for the Church, and not the other way around. But we’ve been doing it backwards.  Too often, the father in the home leaves the spiritual obligations up to the parish priest and/or his wife thinking that if he brings home the bacon, he has done his job.

If the closing of parishes is a “sign of the times”, what is God trying to work out in His Church in this regard? Probably two things: on the one hand we must never take for granted what has been bequeathed through the Church, and, on the other hand, the Church is not a building, but people. People who have differing functions in the Body. The home is a church within the Church where each husband/dad is the priest.

What does a family do when their church is shut down? How about, having the father of the home lead the whole family in prayers? How is this not better than a flat-screen-priest miles away? After all, the father is the man who conceived these children, puts food on the table, and carries the largest responsibility for the spiritual welfare of his family? Why not have him lead family worship? This is how the Church will carry on if/when there is full military style shut down. In the ancient Hebrew tradition, rituals were held in the home as well as the synagogue; and originally the Church was built around this template. If we want a vital priesthood in the future, fathers in the home must take spiritual responsibility rather than shirking it.

Every heart has a father-void, a space filled initially by the primary father, then accessory fathers, then eventually Father-God. On the psychological and social levels, nothing is more impactful on any person than his relationship with his father growing up. This alone will define largely how a person views the universe, his place in it, and will be the lens through which he views Father-God. If the primary father is either not present or totally disengaged, other father-figures in the parish need to step in and fill the void for young men.

If we want to appease God’s wrath at this point in time, it would be best to heed the prophet and start turning the hearts of fathers back to their children, away from their careers and other distractions of this world. Fathers must reconnect with their children in a godly manner. As our society plunges into waves of crime and other dysfunction, we ignore this warning at our peril.

Prediction #3 – The Return of the Church as a Covenant Community

As soon as the ancient Romans figured out that the Church was not a subset of the Jews—with which the Empire had many dubious alliances—the persecution ensued. In persecution, only those with political alliances (“we have no king but Caesar”) are safe. Historically, the Church has avoided these political entanglements like the plague; because they mean treason against Christ.

If we go back and study this infant Church, we will once again figure out how to live. Pliney (the younger) noticed this about those “Christians.”

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day [Sunday] before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath [Latin: sacramentum], not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food [agape meal]. (Pliny to Trajan, brackets added).[2]

This is a voice from the past, a snapshot of how our spiritual progenitors lived toward God and each other. These are the voices of our brothers and sisters in the infant Church. What scared the hell out of Pliney was not just their devotion to the King not-Caesar, but their commitment one to another. What he saw in those first Christians was a commitment to each other that would forge an unbeatable force. In alarm, he was seeking permission from his superior officer to persecute and eliminate the threat at hand. His accusation is one of the greatest compliments paid to the fledgling Church.

Bottom line: their covenant with God produced a covenant with each other to live upright looking out for the welfare of each other.  In modern terms, “they had each other’s back!”

Not only were the Christians making oaths to Christ, but they made oaths to each other. As Pliney was trained and versed in Roman law, he knew all too well what it means when members of a sect make iron clad commitments to each other; they can never be defeated.

Prediction #4 – Jurisdictions will shuffle

Everything that can be shaken will be shaken (Hebrews 12:27 para). Obviously, many Orthodox jurisdictions are being shaken. And as things are shaking out, what is being revealed is who can be trusted and who cannot be trusted. Only the unshakable, trustworthy things will remain. As the early Christians knew (prediction 3) at the foundation of every functioning relationship is the most prized virtue: TRUST.[3]

While Jesus said to love my neighbor, He never said I had to trust my neighbor. Even if I love my bishop, that does not guarantee I can trust him. When trust is broken, it’s very difficult to put back together again. Our Lord did say, I must trust Him, and prove myself worthy of His trust in me, so that I would never deny Him or knowingly injure the innocent.

Facing persecution as we are, the sheep are moving to higher ground, to safer pasture, and under the leadership of those who can be trusted. Some jurisdictions will gather more sheep during this process. Others may practically disappear.

John Lee – an Orthodox Christian

[1] While the KJV is not as authoritative as the LXX, it does provide a good Jewish commentary or expansion on things not related to Christ.

[2] www.earlychistianwritings.com

[3] BTW: In the OSB (with notes), surnames for trust—testament/covenant—are mention over 1700 time; 500+ in the old KJV.

Orthodox Christian COVID Heroes

To say the office of bishop is important in the Orthodox Church might be something of an understatement:

…The Bishop is the visible head of the Church, of the Body of Christ. He is the one who will speak the word of truth and be the criterion of truth. The sacred Canons, therefore, regard the Bishop as the eye of the Church. The Bishop is obliged to lead and teach his flock, including the monks, on the basis of the ecclesiastical tradition, so that they may walk in the way of salvation. (Source: Orthodox Monasticism as the Way of Life of Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs by Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos).

One QA response on the OCA website referred to the office of bishop this way, “The bishop is the highest office since the bishop is the one responsible to guide the life of the church, to guard the faith and to preserve the unity of the churchly body in truth and love.”

There is no Orthodox Church absent the office of bishop. Yet, the past almost two years have led to an unprecedented conflict and mistrust between many of our Orthodox faithful and their bishops. We have covered that in gruesome detail on this site – acquiescence to government mandates (including mandatory jabs), outright promotion of the experimental jabs, “absentee” fatherhood, changes to the practice of Orthodoxy, and extreme acts of ecumenism are just some examples of episcopal actions that alienated large numbers of faithful Orthodox Christians. There has been a stunning incongruity between the necessity of the office and the exercise of that office by many who hold it. That has resulted in some leaving the church, others have begun speculating on life in the catacombs (possibly without even the Holy Eucharist), still others are switching jurisdictions, while more than a few fight on for Christ in their own quiet ways.

The situation has gotten so bad that we almost take it for granted when Orthodox bishops do things that only a short time ago would have been shocking. The Church of Greece has mandated ineffective, harmful, and demonic jabs for all Greeks over 60. Greece announced on Nov. 18 that churchgoers must provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test, proof of vaccination or proof of a previous infection to attend worship. Not too long ago, we would have expected the Synod of Greece to have pushed back forcefully on such government tyranny. Now? We are not even surprised when bishops simply go along. For example, Zakynthos Metropolitan Dionysios suspended 14 priests who refused to be “jabbed.” He permanently removed one of the 14 priests and gave the rest a deadline to get jabbed. Being jabbed with an experimental mRNA “vaccine” is now a requirement to be a priest, according to His Eminence.

The news out of Greece joins the previous announcement from His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros and his synod as a betrayal of the Orthodox faithful. GOARCH priests have been instructed to refuse support to parishioners who are seeking religious exemptions for the COVID jabs. In their hour of great need, parishioners in the Greek Archdiocese are being told to look for help elsewhere.

Fortunately for us in the United States, clergy support is not usually needed for a religious exemption (see religious exemption explanation here and click here to address HR questions on exemptions). Even better, courts are now striking down the mandates from OSHA affecting employees of larger companies and from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) targeted at health care workers. Thank God for courageous judges!

Such relief from the relentless drive to vaccinate every human is especially important as we continue to discover how harmful the jabs really are – both physically and spiritually. In mid-November 2021 came a report in the medical journal Circulation that two doses of the mRNA jab more than doubles your chances of Acute Coronary Syndrome – an umbrella term covering heart attacks and a range of other conditions involving abruptly reduced blood flow to your heart. Think COVID was hard on the health system? What about when 1 out of every 4 of the double-jabbed end up hospitalized with heart conditions? Such adverse effects may explain why research has found that the higher the vaccination rate in an area, the higher the excess mortality.  Spiritually, we are being warned that taking the jab embroils us in the demonic and threatens to alter our very nature as humans.

Despite all the evidence and warnings, we are still suffering a lack of Orthodox episcopal leadership. One Orthodox priest, who serves under a bishop with whom he profoundly disagrees on the jabs and COVID restrictions, sent us the following:

Respected Bishop, you are called to defend your flock! When will you, who vowed “to lay down my life for the Orthodox faith/truth and my flock,” speak out!  Even if Ab Elpidoforos and Patriarch Bartholomew don’t like it, being as they and the Pope are together in LOCKSTEP with the Global Elites? Where is your leadership? Can you see we are being scandalized because you still seem too timid to go against the current of sin? Are you a hypocrite who says to some with families, “Don’t be so concerned about monies” when you have no wife or children but show signs of being not much more than a scared rabbit?

 

Which bishop can any God-seeking looking into Orthodoxy trust when you certainly don’t want to risk your comforts? We need LEADERS with at least some level of a pure & courageous heart like Cardinal Vigano. We need somebody to have the courage for us that a “heretic” bishop [Vigano] has. He is, in this respect, far more like the Church Fathers than you are. We need a HERO! Won’t one of you miter wearers, be one?

Before we get too despondent as Orthodox Christians, we should pause a moment and understand that we have real episcopal heroes (and possible future saints) fighting for us right now. God has assured us, “The prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” (Jam 5:16) Even better for us, thanks be to God, we have more than just one.

Orthodox COVID Heroes

Metropolitan Makarios of Kenya His Eminence has built over 150 churches in Kenya. He lives in a small room in an orphanage. Despite his age, he maintains a full schedule of tending to his ever growing flock. His Eminence has strongly advised against taking the COVID jabs. His Eminence believes the jabs are not necessary and are immoral due to their connection to abortion. We highly recommend this video interview of His Eminence. His Eminence has also rejected the jab mandates, “No government or Church can force vaccinations!” Everyone, Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike, should listen to His Eminence and think deeply, prayerfully upon his words. While you are at it, you might also prayerfully consider why Africa, where less than 5% of the population has received even one COVID jab, is actually doing much better than any other continent.

Metropolitan of Kythera & Antikythera Seraphim – Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira was arrested on March 21st, 2020 in Greece. His crime? He was accused of opening the doors of the temple to everyone wanting to attend, and of having the bell rung before the service. His Eminence has continued to decry constraints put on the Orthodox Church. In a March 2021 sermon at the Church of the Mother of God in Myrtidiotissa, Metropolitan Seraphim noted that “just as we do not close hospitals and sanatoriums, we must not close churches. Indeed, who has calculated the spiritual damage that believers endure when they live outside the Divine Eucharist? Who can rate this?”

Metropolitan Seraphim has been quoted as saying the COVID epidemic has intensified due to the closure of churches. His Eminence has also publicly stated, “I, as your Bishop, tell you that I will not vaccinate.”

Bishop George of Canberra Auxiliary Bishop Australia-New Zealand Diocese Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia – In an epistle, His Grace had this to say:

“There are some Orthodox hierarchs who condone taking the vaccines, even though they contain fetal cells, or are derived from fetal cells, thereby being a direct product of abortion. In good conscience, as an Orthodox Christian, I cannot agree with this view and cannot condone it. However, considering that there are some Orthodox hierarchs who do allow these vaccines, and considering the great fear campaign that is being waged by the governments and the media, I can understand if people do decide to get vaccinated. People also need to know that many of those who are getting vaccinated are dying or experiencing severe side effects. We must be aware of what we are doing. Whatever our personal choice is in this matter, we must still live as Orthodox Christians, loving and encouraging one another, being an example of Christian love and piety both to those in our Church communities and to others. Let us re-focus our priorities and focus more on our own spiritual life, not just on preserving our physical life in this sinful world, so when the time comes that God summons us to the next life, we may be able to give a good account of our life here on earth, time in which we should be repenting and preparing ourselves spiritually for eternity. We should remember that whether we get sick from the virus or not is up to God, and when and how we die is up to God, not determined by a virus. Let us ask God to give us repentance, the “vaccine” for eternity, as Metropolitan Onouphry of Kiev has expressed it, so that we will be able to live and die as good Orthodox Christians.

Bishop Siluan the Bishop of the Metropolitante of Australia and New Zealand of the The Serbian Orthodox Church – In an Archpastoral Reflection, His Grace had this to say concerning the jabs and jab mandates:

Orthodox Christians, for example, have a moral issue accepting vaccines that have been developed from cell lines that were obtained from tissues harvested from aborted fetuses. The issue of ethical concerns for such vaccines was raised last year by some of the major Christian jurisdictions in Australia, such as the Roman Catholic, the Anglican and Greek Orthodox Archdioceses.

 

Therefore, the moral concerns of Christians should be taken into consideration, as they are not simply subjective views, but derive from the fundamental positions and core beliefs of the Church.

 

That is why our faithful may appeal to this, our Archpastoral letter, and other statements of the Orthodox Church as to why they are unable to receive these particular vaccines.

 

I would also like to mention as a great concern the alarming prospects of the introduction of Vaccine Passports. I believe that this will lead to a two-tiered society, it will divide people, families, and friends and will provide a basis for acts of discrimination and ostracization…

 

In relation to this, media reports have also mentioned that “Churches will be required to use Vaccination Certificate Systems for Vaccinated-ONLY Worship”?!?

 

This is totally foreign to the Spirit of the Church, to the ecclesiology, the Holy Gospel and Tradition of the Church. We could never accept or adopt such a practice! It would entail discrimination against those who are members of the same Body, The Body of Christ, His Holy Church. How can we go against the Gospel? Against Christ who exclaims: “Come to Me, all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Mathew 11:28).

 

We cannot accept the polarisation of the faithful, it goes against the very nature of the Church and we will not be implementing this system in our churches.

 

The Church embraces all who seek Christ, those vaccinated and unvaccinated. It will seek to heal a wounded and heavy-laden society, not inflict new wounds and burdens.

Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou – In December 2020, Met. Neophytos explained that he would not accept the state’s order to close churches in Greece, as the Law of God is above the law of man. The government attempted to fine His Eminence and 10 others in connection with the Liturgy and Blessing of the Waters served at the Church of St. Marina in the village of Evrychou on January 6 after police showed up and found attendees unmasked and more than 75 people in the church, in violation of the state’s restrictions in force at that time. Leading up to Pascha in 2021, His Eminence said this about the jabs and masks:

They’re using this illness, which does exist and we’re all living it, it is the result of all our sins, all people and all nations. They’re scaring people with masks, double & triple masking maybe tomorrow, also with vaccines that haven’t been properly researched.

 

Many scientists are talking about Genetically modified vaccines, what does this mean? Children will be injected, girls injected will become sterile and babies being born will have many different abnormalities, physical disabilities, respiratory disorders, Down syndrome, anemia and many more.

 

Do you realize what the Fear of God is? We only need the Fear of God and whatever other fears we have about how and when we’ll leave Earth, it’s up to God. God tells us during our funeral service.

Please note that His Eminence was speaking at a time before the jabs were approved for children.

Metropolitan of Kalavrita and Egialia Ieronymos – In a sermon at Vespers at the church of the Entry of the Virgin, His Eminence Metropolitan Ieronymos was interrupted by applause twice as he decried the testing requirements to enter church. His Eminence appeared determined not to accept further state restrictions on how the faithful would enter the temple, even if he needed to go to prison.

Those who rule us must now realize that this is the Greece of Saints… The Greeks gave their blood to glorify the name of the Triune God. We can no longer live this suffering, this mockery, this lie. Let those who govern our Homeland understand that Greece is Orthodoxy and the Greeks are always united with Jesus Christ (…) We live in difficult times. Our faith is persecuted, we did not want to believe it but we see that the family is dissolved, Christ is persecuted, our children are led to loss and sin. And instead of saying that in the church they will find the “precious treasure”, they come and tell us that in order to enter we have to do a rapid test! But we, the priests, the monks and the despots, also turned our backs on God. We do not believe him, we became traitors to our Church.

These words are especially important because His Eminence originally complied with much of the government’s program of anti-COVID mitigation measures. His Eminence clearly demonstrates that it is possible for the governing authorities to push too far.

Abbot Tryphon – While we may be short on hero hierarchs in North America, we still have heroes. Abbot Tryphon is one of the most followed Orthodox clerics in America. Abbot Tryphon has equated taking the COVID jabs with abandoning his faith in God. This was probably the last straw that cost him his popular presence on Ancient Faith Radio. Fortunately for all of us, the Abbot has moved on to another platform.

There are more heroes behind-the-scenes in North America. We have learned that there is at least one bishop in the United States that has been quietly assisting Orthodox Christians in getting religious exemptions. Plus, a priest wrote in recently indicating that he personally knows of priests and bishops who have serious moral objections to the jabs. This continues the reports we have had from OCA clergy and from the Burning Bush Brotherhood that many clergy do not support making Pfizer more billions at the expense of our souls and bodies.

Why Listen to Those Hierarchs?

You might be under the jurisdiction of a bishop that totally disagrees with what the men above are saying. That might lead you to question – why listen to these men and not to your own pro-jab hierarch? Within Orthodoxy, all bishops are equal in respect to their office. All are successors to the apostles. But while the office may be equal, the men holding the office are not. Some are more spiritual. Some are more discerning. Some are better speakers. Others are better writers. And some are really more akin to church bureaucrats than to saints.

Father Kosmas wrote in his article For the Orthodox Faithful who are Confused About COVID Vaccines:

Today, the majority of bishops are administrators, as they have not reached at least a state of illumination. Therefore, they are not able to properly discern right from wrong in many theological and moral issues. As such, these administrators should humbly follow the grace-filled bishops and elders who have reached a high level of spirituality. Unfortunately, so many do not (due to their pride), and this would explain why so many bishops have easily accepted Ecumenism, Covidism, mass vaccination and very soon, vaccine passports.

Bishops with less grace and discernment are supposed to listen to those who are more illumined. This is obviously not happening, as you can tell by the fact that this article was even necessary. If the world’s Orthodox synods were either full of men like those above, or at least listening to such men when making decisions, then we, the truly faithful Orthodox, would follow them to the Gates of Hell.

Irrespective of the failings of any hierarchs, the Holy Spirit is speaking to us loud and clear. Both through these heroes of the faith, and through other Holy Fathers – both alive and reposed. Our Lord said we would know a tree by the fruit it bears. The fruits of Covidism and the jabs are physical injury, death, bitterness, division, hatred of the unvaxxed, loss of natural rights, and oppression of God’s Holy Church.

With the rise of “Omicron” it should be clear to everyone that there is no intention on the part of the demonic forces of letting up their relentless march towards an anti-Christian New World Order. Going forward, there will always be a new “variant,” a new “crisis” to justify ever tightening control over society. The demands will only escalate as they have in places such as Austria and Australia (with military-enforced internment camps).

There may still be bishops and priests who, though they see the truth, think they can wait this out. Rest assured, you can’t. Those who want to transform our society and even our very bodies will not stop. Unless we stop them. This is a spiritual battle, and we need our spiritual leaders.

May these men inspire all bishops and priests to take their rightful place at the head of millions of warriors for Christ.

Nicholas – member of the Western Rite Vicariate, a part of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese in America


We have relied greatly on Orthodox Talks in the preparation of this article.

Modern-Day Janissaries

Click here to skip to the Greek language version of this article.


In the summer of 2012, my family and I took a Mediterranean cruise to Constantinople. There, we found ourselves on a tour of the Topkapi Palace where the Sultans used to live. In response to a question about the Janissaries, our Turkish tour guide proudly informed us that the Sultans would “adopt” approximately 200 Greek boys each year (multiply that by 400 years of Ottoman occupation, roughly 80,000 young boys altogether, although other sources indicate a much higher number) to “save” them. These boys were “educated” and “trained” at the Topkapi palace and taught to view the Sultan, not as their military commander, but as their “father”.

We, who were of Greek descent, already knew that these boys were not adopted, but abducted from their Greek families, forcibly Islamized, brainwashed and trained militarily to become the famous “Janissaries,” the elite Turkish army. The Sultans used the Janissaries to fight against their enemies, which included the boys’ own Greek relatives. Fearless and fierce, both in combat and in loyalty to their Sultan, the Janissaries were sacrificed in battle by the Ottomans to spare the shedding of Turkish blood. According to our Turkish tour guide, however, these boys were not used to fight against their own Greek brothers but were sent back to Greece to “help” govern their people.

Fast forward to September 20, 2021, and the appearance of an article on Helleniscope by Nick Stamatakis. The introduction to the article is eye catching:

The Greek-American community lives the ultimate schizophrenia: It seeks to support Greece and Cyprus, while the Church, the most powerful of our organizations, is controlled by the enemies of Hellenism.

I would add to this “and the enemies of Orthodoxy.” Who are these enemies of Hellenism and Orthodoxy? It seems that her enemies of the present are the same as those of the past. According to Stamatakis, Archbishop Elpidophoros is one of these enemies, which is why many don’t call him Elpdophoros (hope-bearer) but “Elpidoktonos” (hope killer).

According to Helleniscope, there first appeared a report in 2018 from a credible source, that Elpidophoros and Patriarch Bartholomew (both born in Turkey, both served in the Turkish armed forces) were also both agents of MIT – the Turkish Intelligence Service. “At the minimum, this meant that they were “compromised”, meaning that the Turks knew anything they needed to know to blackmail them…” Well, this background might explain a few things.

Prior to his enthronement as Archbishop of the US, Elpidophoros wrote an essay titled “Primus Sine Paribus” (“First Without Equals”) This was published on the Ecumenical Patriarchate website, to support Bartholomew, the Patriarch of Constantinople, as “the Pope of the East” – an ideology that copies heretical Western doctrine, which led to the Great Schism of 1054. Just a few months prior to arriving in America he also wrote a geopolitical essay on “Religion and Geopolitics in Ukraine.” This was to gain the approval of the US State Department, which has geopolitically controlled the Constantinople Patriarchate since President Truman (1945).

The day after his enthronement as Archbishop, Elpidophoros promoted Father Alexander Karloutsos to Vicar General of GOARCH. Prior to this, Karloutsos was involved in all the scandals of GOARCH and is the reason for the federal investigations still going on today. Since then, Elpidophoros’ actions and innovations regularly sparked protests from the Orthodox Faithful against his secularism, his globalist Ecumenism and his abandonment of Holy Orthodox Tradition and practices. When the pandemic arrived, he aligned with Black Lives Matter, a movement fostering communism in the name of anti-racism. He supported anti-Christian pro-abortion politicians such as Cuomo and Giannaris. He abandoned basic human and Christian values like personal freedom of choice over one’s health in the name of “science.”

Mr. Elpidoktonos indiscriminately supported everything from endless lockdowns to Church closures; from testing the faithful with multiple spoons to liturgizing under the LGBTQ+ flag; from vaccine mandates to denying the faithful “religious exemption letters,” because evidently, coercion and vaccines made from aborted fetal cells do not bother this Greek Orthodox hierarch.

This extensive damage, even though it turned the lives of the Orthodox Faithful upside down, still did not incense the average person of Greek descent nearly as much as his recent attendance and behaviour at the inauguration of the Turkish House in New York City on September 20, 2021. Sadly, only about 15% of Greeks are members of the Church, and even fewer attend regularly. But ALL Greeks, regardless of which country they reside in, are very much united in support of their ancestral homeland.

So, when Elpidoktonos went out of his way to attend the inauguration, to “bow” to Turkish President Erdogan (to kiss his hand?), and offer his subordination as to a spiritual father – everyone noticed. How can a Greek Orthodox hierarch pay homage to the Turks whose hands are stained with Cypriot blood, who keep violating Greek territorial waters and air space, who keep the Halki Seminary closed, and who turned Hagia Sophia back into a mosque?

At a time when even President Biden refused to meet Erdogan, Elpidoktonos sought him out like a puppy running to its master. Small wonder the Prime Ministers of Greece and Cyprus, Mr. Mitsotakis and Mr. Anastasiades, canceled their planned meetings with Elpidophoros later that week. While many Greeks and Cypriots have spent decades and much money trying to support Greece and Cyprus, Elpidoktonos undermines all these efforts with a gross display of public Turkophilia.

Suddenly, things are starting to make sense. The Patriarchate may stubbornly insist on remaining in Turkish Constantinople in the name of tradition, but is it more for protection? Who can charge you for treason against Greece when you live in Turkey? And why would Bartholomew make such a generous donation to Turkish Erdogan to “manage the pandemic”, but not to his own Orthodox people in Greece, who had the same problem? Each year, Archbishop Sotirios extracts huge sums of money from every Greek Orthodox Church and organization in his Canadian jurisdiction. He sends these millions of dollars to the Phanar – maintaining a four decade reputation as one of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s most generous donors. On the surface this “just” appears as shameful groveling. Elpidoktonos groveled for his promotions using heretical, geopolitical essays. Not having the same talent for literary theological perversion did not prevent Sotirios from using extorted church money to grovel for his promotions. Why such a steady stream of money each and every year? What gave it all away was the way Elpidoktonos salivated all over Erdogan and his cronies for their attention and approval.

My question is – are these hierarchs of ours simply modern-day Janissaries? Were they trained by their Turkish “father” and then sent back to the Greek Orthodox people to “help” govern them? Are they advancing Turkish interests by also hearing, and relaying to Turkish intelligence, the confidences and confessions of prominent Hellenes and others? And when they send money to the Phanar, to supposedly support our “poor, persecuted Patriarchate,” where does it end up? Is it “just” maintaining Bartholomew’s position at the Phanar or is it doing more than that? Turkey may no longer be taking our children, but that does not mean they cannot be on the receiving end of our church donations. Is this blackmail? Treason? Both? Or is there something even worse going on? What exactly is Bartholomew funding?

Conspiracy theory? There is a saying that where there is smoke, there is fire. Therefore, when someone sees smoke, they do not ask if there is a fire. They ask WHERE is the fire? How thick does the smoke have to get before we wake up and start looking for the fire so we can put it out before it consumes us?

Right now, I can’t breathe because there’s so much smoke. Even if one could stomach multiple spoons, or tolerate Ecumenism, how could any red-blooded Greek not see these corrupted and heretical hierarchs as modern-day Janissaries who treacherously betray our motherland and the Faith of our forefathers to our enemies?

I can already hear these traitors’ rebuttals accusing me of being a Church schismatic. Unfortunately, many schisms have already been actualized by our internal enemies (who pretend to be our friends) even if these schisms have not yet been finalized by formally signed, mutual anathemas. In the past, our Holy Church fathers did not shrink from boldly anathematizing the enemies of Christ and His Holy Orthodox Church. They knew how dangerous they were. Now that many of our own hierarchs have turned out to be, not just heretics, but also position-hijacking treasonous traitors of Faith and Country, who will kick them out? What an irony it would be if it’s the unbelieving secular politicians who do just that. In the meantime, there will be no more dollars from me for any church overseen by Sotirios or Elpidoktonos. I just can’t handle the smoke.

Mihalis Papaconstantinou

Note: Archbishop Elpidophoros has issued an unconvincing apology for his behavior. The Archbishop has created such a scandal, that Helleniscope is actively speculating that Elpidophoros is done and who his replacement will be.


Το καλοκαίρι του 2012, βρέθηκα στην Κωνσταντινούπολη, σε μια περιοδεία στο παλάτι Τοπ Καπί όπου ζούσαν οι Σουλτάνοι. Σε απάντηση σε ερώτηση για τους Γενίτσαρους, ο Τούρκος ξεναγός μας ενημέρωσε με υπερηφάνεια ότι οι Σουλτάνοι «υιοθετούσαν» περίπου 200 Ελληνόπουλα κάθε χρόνο (πολλαπλασιάστε αυτό κατά 400 χρόνια Οθωμανικής κατοχής, περίπου 80.000 νεαρά αγόρια συνολικά, αν και άλλες πηγές αναφέρουν μεγαλύτερο αριθμό) για να τους “σώσουν”. Αυτά τα αγόρια «σπούδασαν» και «εκπαιδεύτηκαν» στο παλάτι Τοπ Καπί και διδάχτηκαν να θεορούν τον Σουλτάνο, όχι ως στρατιωτικό διοικητή τους, αλλά ως «πατέρα» τους!

Εμείς, που ήμασταν Ελληνικής καταγωγής, γνωρίζαμε ήδη ότι αυτά τα αγόρια δεν υιοθετήθηκαν, αλλά απήχθησαν από τις Ελληνικές οικογένειές τους, εξισλαμίστηκαν βίαια, πλύθηκαν εγκεφαλικά και εκπαιδεύτηκαν στρατιωτικά για να γίνουν οι περίφημοι «Γενίτσαροι», ο ελίτ Τουρκικός στρατός. Οι Σουλτάνοι χρησιμοποίησαν τους Γενίτσαρους για να πολεμήσουν εναντίον των εχθρών τους, στους οποίους περιλαμβάνονταν και οι Έλληνες συγγενείς των αγοριών. Ατρόμητοι και άγριοι, τόσο στη μάχη όσο και στην πίστη στο Σουλτάνο τους, οι Γενίτσαροι θυσιάζονταν στις μάχες των Οθωμανών για να τους γλιτώσουν από την αιματοχυσία. Σύμφωνα με τον Τούρκο ξεναγό μας, ωστόσο, αυτά τα αγόρια δεν χρησιμοποιήθηκαν να πολεμούν εναντίον των Ελλήνων αδελφών τους, αλλά στάλθηκαν πίσω στην Ελλάδα για να «βοηθήσουν» την κυβέρνησή τους.

Προχωρήστε τώρα στις 20 Σεπτεμβρίου 2021 και στην εμφάνιση ενός άρθρου στο Helleniscope του Νικολάου Σταματάκη. Η εισαγωγή στο άρθρο είναι εντυπωσιακή

 Η ελληνοαμερικανική κοινότητα ζει την απόλυτη σχιζοφρένεια: Επιδιώκει να υποστηρίξει την Ελλάδα και την Κύπρο, ενώ η Εκκλησία, η πιο ισχυρή από τις οργανώσεις μας, ελέγχεται από τους εχθρούς του ελληνισμού.

Ας προσθέσουμε σ’αυτό «και τους εχθρούς της Ορθοδοξίας». Ποιοι είναι αυτοί οι εχθροί του Ελληνισμού και της Ορθοδοξίας; Φαίνεται ότι οι εχθροί της στο παρόν είναι ίδιοι με εκείνους του παρελθόντος. Σύμφωνα με τον Σταματάκη, ο Αρχιεπίσκοπος Ελπιδοφόρος είναι ένας απ’αυτούς τους εχθρούς, γι ‘αυτό και πολλοί δεν τον αποκαλούν Ελπδοφόρο αλλά «Ελπιδοκτόνο».

Σύμφωνα με το Helleniscope, το 2018 ο κύριος Ελπιδοφόρος εμφανίστηκε για πρώτη φορά σε έκθεση σε αξιόπιστη πηγή, ότι ο Ελπιδοφόρος και ο Πατριάρχης Βαρθολομαίος (οι οποίοι γεννήθηκαν και οι δύο στην Τουρκία και υπηρέτησαν και ορκίστηκαν στον Τουρκικό στρατό) ήταν και οι δύο πράκτορες του MIT – της Τουρκικής Υπηρεσίας Πληροφοριών. «Τουλάχιστον, αυτό σήμαινε ότι ήταν «συμβιβασμένοι», πράγμα που σημαίνει ότι οι Τούρκοι γνώριζαν οτιδήποτε έπρεπε να γνωρίζουν για να τους εκβιάσουν …» Λοιπόν, αυτό το υπόβαθρο μπορεί να μας εξηγήσει μερικά πράγματα.

Πριν από την ενθρόνισή του ως Αρχιεπίσκοπος των ΗΠΑ, ο Ελπιδοφόρος έγραψε ένα δοκίμιο με τίτλο Primus Sine Paribus” («Πρώτος Άνευ Ίσους») Αυτό δημοσιεύτηκε στον ισότοπο του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου, για να υποστηρίξει τον Βαρθολομαίο, τον Πατριάρχη Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, ως «τον Πάπα της Ανατολής» – μια ιδεολογία που αντιγράφει το αιρετικό Δυτικό δόγμα, που οδήγησε στο Μεγάλο Σχίσμα του 1054.  Λίγους μήνες πριν από την άφιξή του στην Αμερική έγραψε επίσης ένα γεωπολιτικό δοκίμιο με θέμα «Θρησκεία και γεωπολιτική στην Ουκρανία». Αυτό έλαβε την έγκριση του Αμερικανικού Υπουργείου Εξωτερικών, το οποίο γεωπολιτικά ελέγχει το Πατριαρχείο Κωνσταντινουπόλεως από τον καιρό της Προεδρίας του Τρούμαν (1945).

Την επομένη της ενθρόνισής του ως Αρχιεπίσκοπο, ο Ελπιδοφόρος προήγαγε τον Πατέρα Αλέξανδρο Καρλούτσο σε Γενικό Εφημέριο της Ελληνορθόδοξης Αρχιεπισκοπής Αμερικής (GOARCH). Πριν από αυτό, ο Καρλούτσος συμμετείχε σε όλα τα σκάνδαλα του GOARCH και είναι ο λόγος για τις ομοσπονδιακές έρευνες που συνεχίζονται μέχρι σήμερα. Έκτοτε, οι ενέργειες και οι καινοτομίες του Ελπιδοφόρου πυροδότησαν τακτικά διαμαρτυρίες από τους Ορθοδόξους Πιστούς κατά της κοσμικότητάς του, του παγκοσμιοποιημένου Οικουμενισμού του και της εγκατάλειψης του της Αγίας Ορθόδοξης Παράδοσης και πρακτικών. Όταν έφτασε η πανδημία, ευθυγραμμίστηκε με το Black Lives Matter, ένα κίνημα που προωθεί τον κομμουνισμό στο όνομα του αντιρατσισμού. Υποστήριξε αντιχριστιανικούς πολιτικούς υπέρ των εκτρώσεων, όπως ο Cuomo και ο Giannaris. Εγκατέλειψε τις βασικές ανθρώπινες και χριστιανικές αξίες όπως η προσωπική ελευθερία επιλογής έναντι της υγείας κάποιου στο όνομα της «επιστήμης».

Ο κ. Ελπιδοκτόνος υποστήριξε αδιακρίτως τα πάντα, από ατελείωτους αποκλεισμούς έως κλεισίματα των Εκκλησιών, από τη δοκιμή των πιστών με πολλαπλά κουταλάκια μέχρι τη λιτανεία κάτω υπό τη σημαία του LGBTQ, από τις εντολές εμβολίου έως την άρνηση των πιστών «επιστολών θρησκευτικής απαλλαγής», επειδή προφανώς, ο εξαναγκασμός και τα εμβόλια που γίνονται από τα αποβληθέντα εμβρυϊκά κύτταρα δεν ενοχλούν αυτόν τον Ελληνορθόδοξο ιεράρχη.

Αυτή η εκτεταμένη ζημιά, παρόλο που ανέτρεψε τις ζωές των Ορθοδόξων Πιστών, δεν ενέπνευσε τον μέσο ελληνικό πληθυσμό όσο η πρόσφατη παρουσία και συμπεριφορά του στα εγκαίνια του Τουρκικού Σπιτιού στη Νέα Υόρκη στις 20 Σεπτεμβρίου 2021. Δυστυχώς, μόνο περίπου το 15% των Ελλήνων είναι μέλη της Εκκλησίας και ακόμη λιγότεροι παρευρίσκονται τακτικά. Αλλά ΟΛΟΙ οι Έλληνες, ανεξάρτητα από τη χώρα στην οποία κατοικούν, είναι πολύ ενωμένοι για την υποστήριξη της πατρίδας τους.

Έτσι, όταν ο Ελπιδοκτόνος βγήκε από το δρόμο του για να παρευρεθεί στα εγκαίνια, να «υποκλιθεί» στον Τούρκο πρόεδρο Ερντογάν (να του φιλήσει το χέρι;) και να προσφέρει την υπακοή του ως πνευματικού πατέρα – ΟΛΟΙ το παρατήρησαν. Πώς μπορεί ένας Ελληνορθόδοξος ιεράρχης να αποτίσει φόρο τιμής στους Τούρκους των οποίων τα χέρια είναι βαμμένα με Κυπριακό αίμα; που παραβιάζουν συνεχώς τα Ελληνικά χωρικά ύδατα και τον εναέριο χώρο; που κρατούν κλειστή την Σχολή της Χάλκης και που μετέτρεψαν την Αγία Σοφία ξανά σε τζαμί παραβιάζοντας την απόφαση της UNESCO;

Σε μια εποχή που ακόμη και ο πρόεδρος Μπάιντεν αρνήθηκε να συναντήσει τον Ερντογάν, ο Ελπιδοκτόνος τον αναζήτησε σαν κουτάβι που έτρεχε στον κύριό του. Δεν είναι καθόλου περίεργο που ο Πρωθυπουργός Ελλάδας και ο Πρόεδρος Κύπρου, κύριοι Μητσοτάκης και Αναστασιάδης, ακύρωσαν τις προγραμματισμένες συναντήσεις τους με τον Ελπιδοφόρο αργότερα την ίδια εβδομάδα. Ενώ πολλοί Έλληνες και Κύπριοι έχουν ξοδέψει δεκαετίες και πολλά χρήματα προσπαθώντας να υποστηρίξουν την Ελλάδα και την Κύπρο, ο Ελπιδόκτωνος υπονομεύει όλες αυτές τις προσπάθειες με μια σιχαμερή προβολή δημόσιας Τουρκοφιλίας.

Ξαφνικά, τα πράγματα αρχίζουν να βγάζουν νόημα. Το Πατριαρχείο που επιμένει πεισματικά να παραμείνει στην Τουρκική Κωνσταντινούπολη στο όνομα της παράδοσης, μήπως είναι περισσότερο για προστασία; Ποιος μπορεί να χρεωθεί για προδοσία κατά της Ελλάδας όταν μένει στην Τουρκία; Και γιατί ο Βαρθολομαίος να κάνει μια τόσο γενναιόδωρη δωρεά στον Τούρκο Ερντογάν για να «διαχειριστεί την πανδημία», αλλά όχι στους δικούς του Ορθοδόξους στην Ελλάδα, που είχαν το ίδιο πρόβλημα; Κάθε χρόνο, ο Αρχιεπίσκοπος Σωτήριος αντλεί δια της βίας τεράστια χρηματικά ποσά από κάθε Ελληνορθόδοξη Εκκλησία και οργάνωση της Καναδικής δικαιοδοσίας του για να στέλνει εκατομμύρια δολάρια στο Φανάρι – διατηρώντας τη φήμη τεσσάρων δεκαετιών ως έναν από τους πιο «γενναιόδωρους» δωρητές του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου. Επιφανειακά αυτό “απλώς” μοιάζει με ντροπιαστικό τρίξιμο. Ο Ελπιδοκτόνος ασχολήθηκε με τις προαγωγές του χρησιμοποιώντας αιρετικά, γεωπολιτικά δοκίμια. Το να μην έχει το ίδιο ταλέντο στη λογοτεχνική θεολογική διαστροφή δεν εμπόδισε τον Σωτήριο να χρησιμοποιήσει εκβιασμένα χρήματα των Ελληνοκαναδών εκκλησιών για να γλιστρήσει για τις προαγωγές του. Γιατί μια τέτοια σταθερή ροή χρημάτων κάθε χρόνο; Αυτό που τα εξήγησε όλα ήταν ο τρόπος που ο Ελπιδοκτόνος σάλιασε πάνω από τον Ερντογάν και τους κολλητούς του για την προσοχή τους και την έγκρισή τους.

Μήπως αυτοί οι ιεράρχες μας είναι οι σύγχρονοι Γενίτσαροι; Εκπαιδεύτηκαν από τον Τούρκο «πατέρα» τους και στη συνέχεια στάλθηκαν πίσω στον Ελληνορθόδοξο λαό για να «βοηθήσουν» την κυβέρνηση της Τουρκίας; Μήπως προωθούν τα Τουρκικά συμφέροντα ακούγοντας και μεταδίδοντας στην Τουρκική μυστική υπηρεσία, τις εμπιστοσύνες και τις εξομολογήσεις επιφανών Ελλήνων και άλλων; Και όταν στέλνουν χρήματα στο Φανάρι, για να υποστηρίξουν δήθεν το «φτωχό, διωκόμενο Πατριαρχείο» μας, αυτά πού καταλήγουν; Διατηρούν “απλώς” τη θέση του Βαρθολομαίου στο Φανάρι ή κάνουν κάτι περισσότερο από αυτό; Η Τουρκία μπορεί να μην αρπάζει πλέον τα παιδιά μας, αλλά αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι δεν μπορεί να λαμβάνει τις δωρεές της Εκκλησίας μας. Πρόκειται για εκβιασμό; Προδοσία; Και τα δυο; Η μήπως συμβαίνει κάτι ακόμα χειρότερο; Τι ακριβώς χρηματοδοτεί ο Βαρθολομαίος στην Τουρκία;

Θεωρία συνωμοσίας; Υπάρχει μια παροιμία ότι όπου υπάρχει καπνός, υπάρχει και φωτιά. Επομένως, όταν κάποιος βλέπει καπνό, δεν ρωτά αν βρίσκεται φωτιά. Ρωτά ΠΟΥ βρίσκεται η φωτιά! Πόσο πυκνός πρέπει να γίνει ο καπνός για να ξυπνήσουμε και να βρούμε τη φωτιά και να την σβήσουμε πριν μας καταναλώσει;

Αυτή τη στιγμή, υπάρχει τόσο πολύς καπνός που δεν μπορώ να αναπνεύσω. Ακόμα κι αν κανείς θα μπορούσε να χωνέψει τις πολλαπλές λαβίδες, ή να ανεχτεί τον Οικουμενισμό, πώς θα μπορούσε κάνεις ερυθρόαιμος Έλληνας να μην θεώρει αυτούς τους ορκισμένους Τούρκους και αιρετικούς ιεράρχες ως σύγχρονους Γενίτσαρους που προδίδουν την Πίστη και την Πατρίδα των προγόνων μας στους εχθρούς μας;

Ακούω ήδη τις αντιρρήσεις αυτών των προδοτών που με κατηγορούν σχισματικό της Εκκλησίας. Δυστυχώς, πολλά σχίσματα έχουν ήδη πραγματοποιηθεί από τους εσωτερικούς μας εχθρούς (που προσποιούνται ότι είναι φίλοι μας) ακόμα κι αν αυτά τα σχίσματα δεν έχουν ακόμη οριστικοποιηθεί με επίσημα υπογεγραμμένα αμοιβαία αναθέματα. Στο παρελθόν, οι πατέρες της Αγίας Εκκλησίας μας δεν απέφευγαν να αναθεματίσουν τολμηρά τους εχθρούς του Χριστού και της Αγίας Ορθόδοξης Εκκλησίας Του. Ήξεραν πόσο επικίνδυνοι ήταν αυτοί οι εχθροί. Τώρα που πολλοί από τους δικούς μας ιεράρχες αποδείχτηκαν, όχι μόνο αιρετικοί, αλλά και προδότες Πίστεως και Πατρίδας που αναξίως άρπαξαν κύριες θέσεις της Ελληνορθόδοξης Εκκλησίας, ποιοι θα τους διώξουν; Τι ειρωνεία θα ήταν αν οι άπιστοι κοσμικοί πολιτικοί ήταν το τέλος τους. Εν τω μεταξύ, εγώ δεν πρόκειται να δώσω ούτε δολάριο σε οποιαδήποτε εκκλησία του Σωτήριου ή του Ελπιδοκτόνου. Απλώς δεν αντέχω την κάπνα.

Μιχάλης Παπακωνσταντίνου

Σημείωση: Ο Αρχιεπίσκοπος Ελπιδοφόρος ζήτησε μια χλιαρή συγγνώμη για τη συμπεριφορά του. Ο Αρχιεπίσκοπος δημιούργησε ένα τέτοιο σκάνδαλο, ώστε το Helleniscope εικάζει ενεργά ότι ο Ελπιδοφόρος τελείωσε αλλά ποιος θα τον αντικαταστήσει;

 

 

Isolated Priests and the Opportunities for the Burning Bush Brotherhood

The epistles from the Burning Bush Brotherhood were controversial. You can read them here and here. This is a link to the Brotherhood’s official Website. The Brotherhood’s statements gathered a lot of support. Many Orthodox Christians are desperate for clergy, any clergy, to speak out about the issues within American Orthodoxy. With controversies raging from ecumenism to an all too-enthusiastic embrace of Covid mitigations / vaccines – many Orthodox Christians are hurting. As His Eminence Metropolitan Ambrosios (of Greece) said, Wherever there is Orthodoxy there are wounds.”

But not every one was happy to read the epistles from the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is publishing anonymously. This upset Orthodox Christians who feel that priests should be going on record with their opinions. Hiding behind anonymity struck them as a form of cowardice, especially since members of the laity are putting their careers on the line to make many of the same points. Others criticized the flowery writing style of the epistles. Still others criticized the wordiness. The first epistle is quite long, and the word “succinct” does not come to mind when reading it. Another point was the idea of a “movement” within Orthodoxy seemed strange, particularly for clergy.

Of course, no controversy in American Orthodoxy would be compete without the dreaded “P” word – Protestantism. Priests speaking out about their bishops’ actions will always be labeled by some as Protestantism. The bishop could be celebrating a divine liturgy in an Episcopal Church with a giant rainbow flag on the front, during Pride month – but some Orthodox are of the mindset that you are the problem for pointing out the issues with that. Repent and be obedient, you heretical Protestant! Don’t you know that you must be obedient to the bishop, no matter what? Obviously, anonymous clergy taking their bishops to task for poor leadership must be inherently wrong.

There are more than a few historical and theological problems with claiming that Orthodox bishops are to be always obeyed, whether they are are adhering to Holy Tradition or not. Please see St. Mark of Ephesus, additional saints, and modern hierarchs such as His Eminence Metropolitan Ambrosios, the former Metropolitan of the Metropolis of Kalavryta and Aigialeia in northern Greece or Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou.

Priestly Isolation

Regardless of whether you liked the epistles or hated them, one key issue was completely lost in the discussion. Being a traditionalist-minded Orthodox priest in the United States, particularly one who questions the “Covid narrative”, is extremely isolating. You can literally feel like you are the last priest (or deacon or monk) with objections to what you see.

This is a typical cry from the heart of one such traditionalist Orthodox priest that we received during the height of the “pandemic:”

I am going to leave a comment here, but I am NOT going to leave my name. Why, you may ask? Because I am an Orthodox priest. You may call me a coward if you want to. That’s OK with me. I am writing anonymously because I cannot trust my fellow priests OR lay people OR the hierarchs. On a few occasions I have made comments about injustices done to priests by their bishops and was then threatened by my bishop. The priest was guilty of simply speaking the truth. Guilty of speaking the truth about what the Scriptures teach, guilty for asking questions of the bishops about their compromises with sin, their turning a blind-eye to the scandalous behaviors of wealthy, politically connected laypeople who support abortion and gay marriage and family members who live in open homosexual relationships. There are many hundreds of priests who are afraid to speak the truth because if they do their hierarch will suspend them, or remove them from their parish. In other words, deprive them of their livelihood! There are many good and pious priests who are trying to care for their people and protect them from the secularist agenda of the present political administration. Instead of being supported by their bishops they are censured, ridiculed and labeled as bigots, racists, narrow-minded, malcontents, trouble-makers and rabble-rousers.

Imagine you love God and His Church. Imagine that you feel that things have gone dangerously off-the-rails. The Church has bowed down to secular authority in ways you could never have dreamed of. The leadership of the Church is making compromises with sin under the guise of neighborly ecumenism. But you are afraid to talk about all that with your people, lest someone rat you out to the bishop for unapproved attitudes. You are afraid to confide in your fellow clergy, because unless you are bosom buddies, they could also denounce you to authority for your crimethink.

On the other hand, if you are a priest who supports ecumenism, progressive politics (abortion, LGBTQ, BLM, CRT, unchecked immigration, etc.) and the official Covid narrative (NPIs work, we can stop the virus if we all work together, we must follow the law as the government just wants to help, get vaccinated you sinners, questioning Big Pharma is a conspiracy theory, communion has historically changed so changing it now is no big deal, Fauci is a genius, etc.), then you can write blogs, post on social media, march with BLM, or just generally do or say anything you wish.

We saw that fact fully on display with the Fr Mark Hodges suspension for attending the “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington. Fr Mark is a political and social conservative who had been active on social media and as an author. His overall activism seems to have figured into his suspension. During the controversy, Orthodox bloggers uncovered multiple cases of very progressive priests who post inappropriately on social media but are left in peace by the bishops. Archpriest Gregory Hallam provided a scathing response to the Burning Bush Brotherhood under his own name and even provided a link to his parish in the UK. The good priest’s response could have been written by the BBC. It was the epitome of endorsing the “official line” on all things. Which is why he has no fear of writing under his own name.

There are some traditionalist priests, with objections to the “official” line on Covid and progressive politics, that are in secure situations affording them the opportunity to speak out as they see fit. They are lucky, few, and far between. At least in the jurisdictions I am most familiar with. For most, it is keep silent or run the risk that persecution won’t come from the government, it will come from your fellow Orthodox Christians.

In terms of freedom of speech, some clerical animals are more equal than others. 

Even in the best of times, being a priest in America often leads to loneliness, frustration, and isolation. Add in the current fear factor, and things get especially difficult. During the past year, an Orthodox Church census (Pdf) found that 45% of the OCA clergy and 36% of GOA in the survey considered leaving pastoral ministry. 33% of the OCA and 24% of the GOA clergy at some point even doubted if God had called them to ministry at all. Having been close friends with multiple Orthodox priests, I do not doubt that these figures hold true across-the-board.

Clearly our priests need fellowship and support – particularly from other priests. But that can be tricky, because trust is an issue as we already noted. Traditionalists can find themselves feeling isolated, and the hierarchy can be guilty of reinforcing that isolation for their own ends.

In an article titled The Broken Covenant, an anonymous group of OCA clergy (see a trend?) described how dissenters from the Covid narrative were psychologically manipulated:

As the priests, one by one, objected they were told that they were the only priest having the problem.  Some priests who objected were told they might need a psych exam.  After all, if someone doesn’t care if people die and are continuing in practices leading to death and are therefore guilty of murder, the priest must be crazy!  Lock him up for his own good!

In unity there is strength, which is why authoritarian power structures always try to convince dissenters that they are alone. You have a problem, everyone else is fine. Just shut up and get back in line before someone notices that you are mentally disturbed. After all, we wouldn’t want anything bad to happen that priesthood of yours, now would we?

What the Burning Bush Brotherhood Can Contribute

The Burning Bush Brotherhood is not a perfect approach. There are some definite flaws. But I think it should be seen as an overall positive development. Frankly, I am surprised it took us being 18 months into our current crisis before such a movement arose. In any case, here is how I think the brotherhood can make a real difference:

  • Help traditionalist clergy feel less alone, less crazy, and more emboldened to stand firm for the Faith. Everyone needs encouragement, even clergy. They are human, after all, and they have been given a very large burden to carry.
  • Provide a forum for traditionalist clergy to network and “find” each other. Perhaps the brotherhood will expand and bring more like-minded men into the fold. When they go public, hopefully it will be in an organized fashion and with such numbers that attention will have to be paid.
  • Remind us of the need for our own repentance. All of us have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. Sometimes in our zeal to contend for the Faith, we all get too carried away and real harm is done. Humility is called for, and nothing teaches us to be humble more than confronting our own sins.
  • Call attention to very real issues in the Church, even if done in a way that is too “wordy” or too “flowery.” This intrudes on the “echo” chamber that many progressive laity and clergy (of all ranks) tend to live in. A common progressive strategy is to “manufacture” consent by stifling any and all opposition. The Brotherhood makes that harder. It also complicates the ongoing attempt by some in power to bring forth a “revolution within the form.”
  • It reminds us laity to be less judgmental. The priests are carrying real burdens. Especially the good ones. It is easy for us to criticize them for insufficient martyrdom from the comfort of our own couches. If we want to encourage them to greater boldness, then we must support their efforts.

My prayer is that if the brotherhood is not up to realizing the above goals, then may God bring forth a group of men who are.

Nicholas – member of the Western Rite Vicariate, a part of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese in America

Mark of Ephesus and the Uprising of the Orthodox Laity

Saint Mark of Ephesus (c. 1392-1444) lived in times similar to ours.  The Orthodox hierarchs were under pressure to modify their Orthodox beliefs at the Council of Florence (1438-1439) in order to secure a short-term advantage.  The Orthodox laity, aghast at the betrayal of Sacred Tradition, rose up in protest and blocked the false ecumenism.  The recent activities of Archbishop Elpidophoros and Patriarch Bartholomew bear an unsettling resemblance to the false ecumenism of the Council of Florence and have provoked criticism and opposition among the Orthodox laity.

Expedient Ecumenism

In the early 1400s, Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, had fallen on hard times.  It had been attacked by Western Christians in the Fourth Crusade in 1204, who pillaged and raped the venerable Christian city.  Then it suffered five decades (1204-1261) of Latin rule, during which the laity refused to attend churches served by Roman Catholic priests.  When the Byzantines retook Constantinople, it was greatly enfeebled–a shadow of its former self. In contrast, the fortunes of the Roman Catholic West were on the rise with the affluence of the Italian Renaissance and the intellectual vigor of Aristotelian Scholasticism.

Even with the embittered relations between Catholics and Orthodox, there was a greater threat in the east.  The Muslim armies were slowly conquering their way across Asia Minor towards Constantinople.  The Byzantines were in desperate need of military assistance from the Catholic West. However, there was a catch—they needed to patch up their differences with the Catholic Church.

An Orthodox delegation comprised of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Byzantine Emperor, and other Orthodox hierarchs sailed to the reunion council at Florence (1438-1439).  When the two sides met, it became apparent that they had drifted apart in matters of doctrine, worship practice, and theological method.  The delegates clashed on the legitimacy of the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, the Catholics’ use of azymes (unleavened bread) and their practice of serving Communion in one kind to the laity (bread, but not the wine), the teaching on Purgatory, and the mandatory celibacy for Catholic priests.  The differences were aggravated by differences in theological method.  Where the Orthodox continued to rely on patristic sources, the Catholics relied heavily on the syllogistic style of argumentation favored in Thomist Scholasticism.  Overarching all these issues was Rome’s claim to papal supremacy.

Being under considerable pressure, the majority of the Orthodox delegation made outright and implicit concessions to the Catholics and affixed their signature to the decree of union (Geanakoplos p. 334).  The one holdout was Mark of Ephesus.

Mark of Ephesus and the Uprising of the Laity

When the delegation returned to Constantinople, they were met by a populace that was outraged that their hierarchs had yielded to the Roman Catholics.  The people of Constantinople from the beginning sided with Mark of Ephesus.  The pro-unionists found themselves in the minority.  The laity shunned the churches where pro-union priests celebrated the Liturgy.  Those who went to pro-union churches even out of curiosity found themselves ostracized.  Mark of Ephesus led the anti-unionist forces until his death in 1444.  In the face of ferocious lay opposition, the majority of hierarchs quickly repudiated their signing of the reunion documents.  The remaining pro-union bishops fled to Rome.

In time, the Council of Florence would be rejected by wider Orthodoxy: by the Synod of Moscow in 1441, the Synod of Jerusalem in 1443, in the Apology of the Clergy of Constantinople in 1443, and the Synod of Constantinople in 1484 (Angelakopoulos, Cherniavsky).  In addition, Florence was condemned through the special acts of the Churches of Moldavia and Moldavlachia, and Serbia and Iberia (Angelakopoulos).  Thus, the repudiation of Florence by the Orthodox laity in Constantinople was later ratified by the Orthodox hierarchy in various church councils.  In this way, the whole of the Orthodox Church repudiated the false union of Florence.  The stature of Mark of Ephesus is such that his Encyclical is listed among the major doctrinal statements of the Orthodox Church (Ware p. 203).

False Ecumenism Today

Western Christianity today is in crisis.  The Episcopal Church, like many mainline Protestant denominations, has succumbed to theological liberalism and has abandoned traditional Christian morality and come to accept the LGBTQ sexual agenda.   A similar unraveling has been taking place in Roman Catholicism.  Confidence in the Roman Catholic clergy has been shaken by reports of rampant sex scandals among priests, bishops, and even cardinals.  The Novus Ordo Mass has supplanted the Latin Mass, opening the way for many liturgical innovations.  More recently, in 2019, the Vatican allowed the inclusion of an Andean female deity, the Pachamama, in its worship (Flynn).  In the face of the growing disarray in their churches and denominations, many Protestants, Evangelicals, and Roman Catholics have sought safe harbor in Orthodoxy.  They have been drawn by its ancient Liturgy, its unchanging Tradition, and the bravery of its martyrs who died willingly for the true Faith.

In order to make sense of Archbishop Elpidophoros’ recent ecumenical activities, it is proposed that we examine American Orthodoxy, not just theologically, but also sociologically.  Despite the small but growing stream of converts, Orthodoxy in America is still predominantly ethnic in character.  Many of the ethnic parishes struggle with nominalism.  This is the problem of people being Orthodox in name only—rarely going to church, but insisting on having an Orthodox wedding or an Orthodox funeral.  Many of the descendants of the first-generation immigrants have assimilated into mainstream American society and along the way have abandoned Orthodoxy for the mainline Protestant denominations or Roman Catholicism.  This puts pressure on the hierarchs and priests to keep the numbers up.  Oftentimes, someone who grew up Orthodox wants to marry someone who is not Orthodox and who has no desire to become Orthodox.  Rather than have the person leave Orthodoxy, the priest will allow for mixed marriages, despite the fact that this is contrary to Orthodoxy (see Farley’s article below).

As mixed marriages become widespread, the perception grows that Orthodoxy is just one denomination among many.  This leads to awkwardness and tension when people learn of Orthodoxy’s claim to be the one true Church. A similar awkwardness arises when the priest is obligated to enforce the Orthodox Church’s position on closed Communion—that only those who are Orthodox may partake of the Eucharist.  This puts pressure on the priest and his bishop to downplay Orthodoxy’s rigorous, exclusivist stance.  Ecumenical engagement by the hierarchs in which historic doctrinal differences with the non-Orthodox are minimized or even eliminated can alleviate this awkwardness. Theological relativism makes it easier for the nominal Orthodox and their non-Orthodox spouses and children to participate in parish activities without having to commit to Orthodox doctrines and spiritual disciplines.  What is to be noted is that, while theological rigor falls by the wayside, the traditional markers of ethnicity are retained, e.g., ethnic festivals, the language of the ethnic homeland, the name ‘ethnic’ Orthodox Church.  These practical concerns can tempt Orthodox clergy to sell their spiritual birthright for the short-term benefits of ecumenism with the heterodox.

Another possibility to consider is that closer ties with the two major American denominations can give Constantinople a geopolitical advantage in its rivalry against the Patriarchate of Moscow. While Archbishop Elpidophoros heads the largest Orthodox jurisdiction in the U.S., the fact remains that Orthodoxy is a tiny fish in a huge lake. Closer ties with the Episcopal Church and the Roman Catholic Church would enhance the Orthodox Church’s political influence.  Elpidophoros’ superior, Patriarch Bartholomew, like Byzantine Emperor John VIII who initiated the failed Council of Florence, finds himself surrounded and beleaguered by hostile forces.  The Patriarchate of Constantinople, after years of decline, finds itself confined to a few blocks in the predominantly Muslim city of Istanbul, Turkey.  It was only last year (2020) that the Turkish state converted Hagia Sophia into a mosque over Patriarch Bartholomew’s feeble protests.  In 2019, in an impetuous exercise of quasi-papal power, Bartholomew unilaterally issued a tomos granting autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine leading to ruptured relations with Moscow. Currying the favor and good will of the United States can give Constantinople an added advantage against Moscow. Conversely, Constantinople’s rivalry with the Patriarchate of Moscow over Ukraine provides an opportunity to be exploited by the United States as part of its Great Game against Russia.

Lessons for Today

The Council of Florence fiasco yields lessons that apply to today’s situation.  Geanakoplos notes that the failure of the Council of Florence can be attributed to the fact that union between Catholicism and Orthodoxy was viewed as a means to political ends while religious sincerity was overlooked (p. 325).  Also overlooked was the formative impact of the Latin occupation of Constantinople following the Fourth Crusade.  The Orthodox laity remembered vividly life under papal rule and so their fear and hostility to Roman Catholicism was very real and existential (Geanakoplos, pp. 332-333).  It seems that Patriarch Bartholomew and Archbishop Elpidophoros have forgotten the lessons of Florence.  They are fixated on the short-term benefits from rapprochement with the West.  They fail to take into account the experience of the recent converts to Orthodoxy, who converted out of religious sincerity, not with the expectation of material gain.  The converts know from first-hand experience the problems of Western Christianity and its deviant teachings.  It is no surprise then that they are deeply distressed by the false ecumenism being espoused by the hierarchs.  It is hoped that today’s Orthodox laity will take a stand for Holy Orthodoxy as did Saint Mark of Ephesus and the laity of Constantinople.

The Danger of Complicit Silence

In the 1400s, the threat to Orthodoxy came from the outside.  Today the threat is coming from within, from our hierarchs who are promoting false ecumenism by means of stealth and creeping change.  This stealth strategy has proven to be effective in mainline Protestantism and also in Roman Catholicism.  It worked because most people are reluctant to stand up vocally to their church leadership.  In addition, there is the fear of losing friends or employment.

Another danger is complacency.  This is the attitude of smug satisfaction with the present situation or a reluctance to face up to the fact that there is a crisis.  In present circumstances, quiet passivity will be taken as endorsement.  It will then be interpreted by the hierarchs as license to take more flagrant steps away from Holy Tradition.  We are in a situation similar to an apartment complex where there is a burning odor in the air.  People ought to be pulling on the fire alarm or at least knocking on their neighbors’ doors, asking if they smell something funny.  The time has come for the laity to raise the alarm—to call out “Fire!”  Express to your priest your concerns about this false ecumenism and ask if he plans to voice this concern with others.  Contact your Orthodox friends and let them know your concerns.  Let us work together and mobilize to block this false ecumenism, just as the Orthodox laity did in the time of Mark of Ephesus.  If enough Orthodox laity take a stand for Holy Tradition, we can help restore stability to our Holy Mother Church.

by Robert Arakaki, M.A., Church History; Ph.D. Political Science, Asian-American convert to Orthodoxy. Originally published at Handwritings on the Wall.

Resources

Angelos Angelakopoulos.  “How Orthodoxy Overcame the False-Synod of Ferrara-Florence.”  In SotiriosNaus. Lecture delivered in Sofia, Bulgaria, 9-10 June 2017.

Michael Cherniavsky.  “The Reception of the Council of Florence in Moscow.” Church History, vol. 24 no. 4 (1955), pp. 347-359.

J.D. Flynn.  “Analysis: Why ‘Pachamama’ took a dip.”  (CNA) Catholic News Agency, 26 October 2019.

Lawrence Farley.  “Mixed Marriages.”  In No Other Foundation blog, 4 May 2020.

Deno J. Geanakoplos.  “The Council of Florence (1438-1439) and the Problem of Union between the Greek and Latin Churches.”  Church History, vol. 24 no. 4 (1955), pp. 324-346.

Mark of Ephesus.  “The Encyclical Letter of Saint Mark of Ephesus.”

OrthodoxChristian.  “Patriarch Bartholomew Tells Athonites Reunion With Catholics is Inevitable, Reports UOJ.”  In OrthodoxChristian.com 27 November 2019.

Steven Runciman.  The Fall of Constantinople 1453, pp. 16-18.

Timothy Ware.  The Orthodox Church, pp. 70-71.

Lawrence B. Wheeler.  “Really, Your Eminence?” Handwritings on the Wall (weborthodox.com), 26 June 2021.