Orthodox Reflections

Is the Patriarchate of Alexandria Orthodox? Most Orthodox Churches around the world are still in communion with Alexandria, so the answer should be an easy, “Yes”. But if that is the case, does Orthodoxy now ordain women to major orders? Because that is exactly what Alexandria has done, under the guise of “reviving” a long disused ministry. An “Orthodox” bishop, as authorized by his “Orthodox” Patriarch, has publicly and proudly “ordained” a female deacon.

The excerpt below is from an article by Carrie Frost, Chair of St. Phoebe Center for the Deaconess. Frost is both an eyewitness to the “ordination”, and one whose work was instrumental in bringing it about:

With the approval and support of the Alexandrian Synod and His Beatitude Patriarch Theodoros, His Eminence Metropolitan Serafim of Zimbabwe (Kykotis) laid hands on Deaconess Angelic in St. Nektarios Mission Parish at Waterfall. Just before the Divine Liturgy on May 2, Metropolitan Serafim tonsured Deaconess Angelic as a reader and a subdeaconess, immediately after which the ordination itself took place, as ordinations do, during the Liturgy at the altar. The ordination service was the rite used for deacons from the Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church published by the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America in 1983, based on the Isabel Florence Hapgood translation from 1906 of mostly Church-Slavonic sources. This English service book is widely used across Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States. Metropolitan Serafim chose to use this rite instead of an extant rite for the ordination of a deaconess from the ancient world (for example, Barberini Codex Gr. 336) because this is the rite used for deacons today; this was the natural choice. The only changes made were the masculine pronouns to feminine and an addition of a reference to St. Phoebe (the woman in St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans that the Church understands to be a prototype for the office of deaconess).

 

During the Divine Liturgy on May 2, Deaconess Angelic read petitions, read the Gospel, and distributed communion to the faithful—men, women, and children—all liturgical roles shared with the deacon. In fact, she participated in these liturgical actions alongside her own brother, who is the recently ordained Deacon Spiridon. Having spent time with Deaconess Angelic prior to the ordination, I found her to be humble and soft spoken, so I wondered how she would sound in the church. When it came time for her to read the diaconal petitions, her beautiful voice rang loud, clear, and true.

 

Deaconess Angelic wore the same vestments as a deacon, modified to fit her smaller frame. At the end of the Divine Liturgy, Metropolitan Serafim spoke to the importance of Deaconess Angelic’s ministry and stressed that she must be an upright example for all, living life in the light of Christ. He invited everyone to come forward and congratulate the new deaconess. The sense of contained excitement that had been growing during the ordination now burst forth; the women of St. Nektarios sang, danced, clapped, and ululated while everyone swarmed Deaconess Angelic with affection, pride, and affirmation. I will never forget the unalloyed and collective jubilation of that moment.

 

Because Deaconess Angelic is the first deaconess of our own time, Metropolitan Serafim elevated her to the rank of “Archdeaconess” on May 4 at the Temporal Parish of Panagia of Kykkos on the outskirts of Harare, using the relevant prayers in Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church. She was given the name “Phoebe” in honor of the first-century saint, and thus has the title of “Archdeaconess Angelic-Phoebe,” but it seems that she will be called “Deaconess Phoebe” or “Sister Phoebe.” After the prayers for her elevation, she assisted Metropolitan Serafim with baptism of the parish children, a traditional role of the ancient world deaconess. At this Temporal Parish Deaconess Angelic was treated with respect and admiration, and again many sought to have their photo taken with her.

 

The ordination of Deaconess Angelic took place with the explicit blessing of Patriarch Theodoros II and with the full support of the St. Nektarios Mission’s clergy and faithful, and with the faith and confidence of Metropolitan Serafim. Because Deaconess Angelic’s ordination first, it will likely prompt the clergy in Africa to consider standardizing the vetting and training of future deaconesses. There are already plans in place to ordain other women to the diaconate in Harare, to serve at St. Nektarios and at nearby missions.

 

Another important precedent is that Deaconess Angelic is thirty-three years old, married, and has two children. Deaconesses in the ancient world were generally (but not always) unmarried and older, and there are canons that state the deaconess ought to be older than forty or, in some cases, sixty. These and other canons relating to age of ordination have always been understood as guidelines; the canons also state that men should be at least thirty to be ordained as priests, though examples abound of younger priests. When asked about the issue of age, Metropolitan Serafim stressed the ordination is less about the letter of the law and more about the spirit; Deaconess Angelic already has a diaconal ministry and is deemed spiritually prepared and well-suited for ordination so the Church ought to ordain her now rather than waiting for her to turn forty. I rejoice in this detail because there are those who wish to see deaconesses in the Orthodox Church but believe they should only be older women and possibly only monastic women. Many of the women doing similar diaconal work elsewhere in the world are also younger and often have families. It makes good sense to ordain these women, rather than wait for an arbitrary age.

 

As noted, Deaconess Angelic was ordained with the same prayers on the books as for a deacon, and she already is serving liturgically in the same capacity as her male counterparts. Even as this is the case, there is no erasure of gender going on; it is very much expected that Deaconess Angelic will bring her feminine perspectives and gifts to this ministry, and it should be noted that Zimbabwean culture is highly gender-bound. Her dignity as a woman is being honored through ordination, not compromised.

 

In the case of Deaconess Angelic, she will have the same liturgical roles as a deacon, but her pastoral ministry, which is deeply tied to her liturgical role, will play out differently because she is a woman.

 

We talked about hearing Deaconess Angelic read the Gospel and watching her distribute the Eucharist. Neither of us had ever witnessed a woman read the Gospel in church or distribute communion. Annie said there was a sense of something that had been missing falling into exactly the right place. We agreed that we were, for the first time, witnessing the Church in its fullness.

In her article quoted above, Frost intentionally mixes up the terms “deacon” and “deaconess”. The St. Phoebe Center, which Frost chairs, states as its goal to revive the ministry of the “deaconess”, which has long been extinct. Historically, what did deaconesses in the Orthodox Church do? His Eminence Metropolitan Saba (Isper) of the Antiochian Archdiocese explained their ministry in his response to news of this “ordination”:

The existence of deaconesses in the early Church needs further clarification. Our historical information does not confirm that all churches witnessed the service of deaconesses, but rather some, especially large churches and in major cities. Moreover, the distinction between the service of deaconesses and the service of widows also needs further exploration. Our available information indicates that the service of deaconesses included several aspects, such as guarding and overseeing the women’s section in the church; according to the social custom in the past, women and men each stood in designated areas of the nave. Also, deaconesses assisted women in baptisms, such as anointing their bodies with oil. Furthermore, deaconesses may have been responsible for teaching women, but not all scholars agree on this. In the fourth service, based on the social tradition of the past, deaconesses accompanied women when they needed to meet with the bishop, as it was forbidden for a bishop to meet with a woman alone.

 

There came a time when this ministry fell into disuse in the Church. We do not know the exact reasons for its disappearance. Don’t we need studies to show the reasons why? Don’t we need to clarify its fields of service before adopting it in our churches? Is its acceptance consistent with Orthodox tradition and understanding of the ordained priesthood? Can it be limited to educational service and service of love in all its forms? What are the boundaries between this ministry and the ministry of the faithful (laity)? What are the motives behind giving it a liturgical role? Why is this role necessary?

Taking all the information above into account, we can clearly see how historically unique the “ordination” in Africa really was. Deaconesses did not serve at the altar in the Divine Liturgy.  Angelic is younger than allowed for in the relevant canons for a deaconess, and is also married when she should be single. But the truth is, Angelic was not actually “ordained” as a deaconess. The use of that term is a bait and switch. Angelic was ordained as a female Orthodox deacon. Which is why, after her “ordination”, she wore male vestments and performed the same liturgical duties as any male deacon.

This “ordination” is not a “revival” of an ancient ministry. Rather, this “ordination” is a full-blown modernist, ecclesiastical revolution conducted in plain sight. Every honest observer, whether for or against female ordination, acknowledges this fact.

If Alexandria is allowed to remain an Orthodox Church in good standing, then observers can plausibly argue that the Orthodox Church now ordains women to major orders of the priesthood. The post below is from Aristomenis Papadimitriou, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Director of Archives & Research who also lists “Scholarship & Teaching at Fordham University” in his X bio. He is a big supporter of what happened, and is very honest in recognizing its importance.

Critics of this “ordination” also recognize it for what it is. Metropolitan Theoleptos of Iconium (born Iakovos Fenerlis , Constantinople , April 17 , 1957 ), is a Greek bishop and Metropolitan of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who had this to say:

“The Ordination Of Deaconess Is A Disgrace!”

 

Orthodoxy faces so many problems today, it is attacked from everywhere, it is divided, and instead of trying to solve these problems, we are concerned with restoring an institution that was effectively abolished 19 centuries ago. All that is left for us now is to ordain, like the Anglicans, women priests and bishops and to have the president of the republic of each state as the head of the so-called Church, just as they have their king today.

His Eminence clearly sees where the road ahead could lead for any part of the Orthodox Church that accepts the ordination of women.

Now, a perfectly natural Orthodox reaction to all this is to state, “This is not a valid ordination! They can’t do that!” Which is true. Even a Patriarch can’t authorize the ordination of a woman to holy orders. It is impossible. Which is why the official statement on the matter from Alexandria reads like a word salad.  Orthodox Times is a normally reliable, pro-Patriarchate of Constantinople, pro-NATO narrative news outlet. It even received a $100,000 grant from the US State Department in 2018 “TO COUNTER ENTITIES SPREADING FAKE NEWS & MISGUIDING BELIEVERS IN ORTHODOX COMMUNITIES BY MONITORING MEDIA & EXPANDING REACH OF NEWS PORTAL ROMFEA.GR.” Refreshingly, even the most lapdog of Orthodox press outlets took issue with the Patriarchate of Alexandria’s explanation of what happened in Zimbabwe. In an article titled “Patriarchate of Alexandria’s shilly-shalling regarding the ordination of a deaconess”, the Greek writer cut right to the chase:

In a somewhat convoluted statement, the Patriarchate of Alexandria seeks to address the concerns raised by the decision of Metropolitan Seraphim of Zimbabwe to ordain Deaconess Angeliki, offering explanations that may not entirely clarify the situation.

 

However, in this announcement, the Patriarchate of Alexandria fails to reveal the essence of the issue. Is the ordination performed by the Metropolitan of Zimbabwe canonical?

Of course it’s not canonical. But the Patriarchate of Alexandria can’t acknowledge that, or it would have to walk it back. On the other hand, asserting the canonicity of a female deacon could upset Normie Orthodox, quite a few of whom persist in believing the Alexandrian Synod is going to swoop in and “fix” this situation. The only way forward for Alexandria is to “shilly-shally”. This is otherwise known as maintaining plausible deniability. If female deacons spread and become a “new norm”, especially among the Greeks, then Alexandria will trumpet its historic role in bringing this about. If this heretical movement goes sideways, Alexandria can say that Metropolitan Seraphim of Zimbabwe acted largely on his own.

Great strategy if one cares more about Machiavelli than Jesus Christ. An attitude one would not normally expect from Successors to the Apostles.

Obviously, this is all very wrong. Thankfully, the decentralized nature of the Orthodox Church means that no one outside of Alexandria can be forced to go along with female ordination. In sanctioning this uncanonical act, Alexandria has gone dangerously outside Orthodox consensus. Metropolitan Saba of the Antiochian Archdiocese made that clear in his response to the “ordination”:

Such an event requires Orthodox consensus, as any ecclesiastical action outside Orthodox consensus and unanimity poses a danger and leads to undesirable consequences. How much more so a matter as sensitive as this, especially at this time, would be considered a step towards the ordination of women to the priesthood.

 

Where will the Orthodox Church end up if each church continues to adopt what it deems appropriate without consulting and agreeing among all Orthodox churches? Where is the collective spirit that distinguishes Orthodoxy? What about the unity of the Faith? And what will unite Orthodox Churches if practices without unanimous agreement begin to appear here and there?

 

Do those who applaud the emergence of deaconesses think about the future of Orthodox unity? How do we know if we are allowing the Holy Spirit to work and create new talents? How do we know if we are limiting It within the framework of our limited thinking? Are we submitting It to our personal desires and visions?

More than a few commentators, while condemning the “ordination”, have come to the conclusion that the decentralized nature of the Church makes this no big deal. The Greeks may go this way, but no one else can be forced to, so let’s all just relax and watch the Greeks drift off into heresy.  This is the opinion put forward by blogger Brian Patrick Mitchell (PhD in Theology. Former soldier, journalist, and speechwriter. Novelist, political theorist, and cleric) in a post titled, “Africa’s New Deaconess: What’s the Bother?”:

I’m in ROCOR, and there’s just no chance of that happening here. As far as I can tell, the general sentiment among the clergy in ROCOR is: “Fine. Let the Greeks go full woke. It will show the world that they are no longer the Orthodox Church and move the faithful more in the right direction.” There is also now less chance of deaconesses happening in Russia, where the faithful are known to react very strongly against even reasonable innovations (like the new calendar) when made by the faithless for the wrong reasons.

Absent a figure like the Roman Catholic Pope, there might not be an authority able to “force” female deacons on the rest of the Church, but this event was clearly meant to serve as a powerful precedent. Here is more from Carrie Foster’s account of the “ordination”:

What effect will Deaconess Angelic’s ordination have on other parts of Africa or the Orthodox Church around the world? It remains to be seen, but a powerful precedent has been established with the courage of Metropolitan Serafim and the Alexandrian Patriarchate. Not only was a deaconess ordained, but the process happened in an impeccable manner. The ordination of Deaconess Angelic offers a sound precedent of good church order for other bishops in Africa to emulate, as well for other Orthodox synods around the world to consider.

 

A bishop in America recently told me that, “Someone needs to break the ice,” meaning that if one synod went ahead and bore the brunt of being the first group to take action on this issue then other synods could and would follow. The ice has been broken in Zimbabwe! It is my prayer that other synods will gather the courage and the will to ordain deaconesses in their own local churches. Metropolitan Serafim said, “The revival of the Apostolic Tradition of the institution of Deaconesses in the missionary ministry of our Church—no one can stop it because it has as its source the Holy Spirit itself who healed the sick and found the missing.”

The “ordination” was consciously staged to clear the way for more women to ascend to the diaconate. It was planned and carried out with the cooperation of at least one American bishop, for the express purpose of creating a precedent others would follow.

Not everyone believes that precedent will mean much within the wider Orthodox world:

Dr. Jeanne Constantinou, an Orthodox Christian and a retired professor of Biblical studies, doubts the deaconess’s ordination will inspire other churches. Changes are unusual and happen very slowly in the Orthodox Church, she said.

 

“What makes an Orthodox Christian Orthodox is that they follow tradition and they don’t change it … We don’t accept innovations in the Church, and so that’s why even though this happened, you cannot expect to see any kind of a ripple effect in the rest of the Orthodox world,” she said.

Dr. Constantinou and Brian Patrick Mitchell might be right. The “ordination” of a female deacon could end up being nothing more than a curious, historical footnote. Nonetheless, we would recommend extreme caution for the following three reasons.

Scroll Down to Continue

1. This action harms the witness of the Orthodox Church at a time of historic levels of conversions

Westerners, especially young men in America, are finding the Orthodox Church in numbers never seen before.

The converts flocking to Orthodoxy are seeking the Faith once delivered to the Apostles. They are seeking authentic Christianity. Having an historic Church, such as Alexandria, “go rogue” in this manner harms the witness of the Orthodox Church to a world that is desperately in need of Christ.

Many outside the Orthodox Church will use this “ordination” as a chance to attack the Church’s claims to being the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. This could discourage some potential converts from inquiring into Holy Orthodoxy. Worse, such attacks could cause Orthodox apologists to minimize the impact of this “ordination”, or even perhaps, out of desperation, to defend it since a Patriarch authorized it. The impact to Orthodox missions in the West could be substantial. While other Orthodox Churches may not recognize “Archdeaconess Angelic-Phoebe” (as she is now known), remaining in full communion with Alexandria could easily be portrayed as de facto acceptance of female ordination. Orthodox and potential Orthodox converts alike will pay a price for that. Our synods must come together and forcefully reject this abomination.

2. If it can happen in Africa….

Most Westerners don’t realize this, but Africa is not known as a hotbed of religious innovation. Dr. John G. Panagiotou indicated as much in an article where he expressed surprise that a female “ordination” could happen in Zimbabwe. As he pointed out, Africa tends to be “one of the most dogmatic, conservative, and traditionalist Christian places for any denomination.” Roman Catholics have frequently commented that were it not for Africa, the Catholic Church would be much more liberal than it already is. Africans don’t play around when it comes to Christianity.

In fact, some of the most upset comments concerning the “ordination” have come from African priests themselves. Fr. Michael Lillie, an Orthodox priest in the US, posted one such comment on X from a man he described as “a priest and friend in Africa”:

This “ordination” comes at a time when the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, still home to the vast majority of Orthodox believers in Ukraine, is under increasing attack. In just a few short years, the UOC went from being the de facto official church in Ukraine to the verge of being totally outlawed.

There is a very powerful globalist movement dedicated to transforming the Orthodox Church into a “modern” institution compatible with Western 21st Century “democratic” values. They have succeeded in persecuting a 1,000 year old Church to which the majority of citizens in an Orthodox country belongs. They have also succeeded in getting a woman “ordained” in one of the most religiously conservative areas of the entire world.

Do not underestimate these people, or the power of their great, big, heaping gobs of money. The St. Phoebe Center for the Deaconess has been heavily supported by the Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Center has been spreading its money around in Africa, which helps account for what happened in Zimbabwe. St. Phoebe has an “African Woman’s Grant”, of which the future “Archdeaconess Angelic-Phoebe”, was a recipient:

Angelic Molen applied for the St. Phoebe Center’s African Women’s Grant, committed to expanding her ministry. For years, she has worked to engage the Orthodox youth of Zimbabwe and build a foundation of pastoral care within her community.

 

With funding from the African Women’s Grant, Molen will pursue a university education in order to better serve her community in Harare, Zimbabwe. She has chosen to study Geography and Environmental Studies, placing the sanctity of Earth at the forefront of her work.

If Western money and influence can harm Orthodoxy in Africa and Ukraine, don’t get cocky thinking you are somehow safe.

3. Will Western law tolerate opposition to “gender equality” that is based on extremism and Russian influence?

If you ask the average person to name “Western values”, most will respond with answers such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to vote for political candidates, right to own property, etc. Those rights still exist, in a badly weakened form, but the list of “Western values” has been greatly expanded by Global Elites to include absolute gender equality, LGBTQ “rights”, Pandemic “management”, combatting climate change, and more. Many of those “values”, such as gender equality (Equal Opportunity for employment), are enforced by law.

The refusal of the Orthodox Church to ordain women is a rejection of modern “Western values”, and may eventually end up running afoul of secular law. That would violate the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom, you say? What if the “officially recognized” or “real” or “authentic” Orthodox Church in the US is on-board with female ordination? What if the only opposition to female ordination is convincingly framed as coming from anti-American, Russian-influenced “extremists”? Is the US governing regime – currently busy outlawing criticism of Israel, which censored factual information about COVID / vaccines, and seeks to jail the Republican Presidential nominee – likely to respect the right of foreign-linked “extremists” to free exercise of religion ?

Archbishop Elpidophoros of the Greek Archdiocese is already setting this up by declaring that not only can Orthodoxy “modernize”, but that it must modernize to survive. Other than on certain key principles that have been dogmatized (usually beliefs such as the Trinity, Real Presence, veneration of icons, etc. which have been affirmed by Church Councils), the Orthodox Church, according to Archbishop Elpidophoros, is ready, willing, and able to “evolve” as necessary to join the 21st Century. That includes becoming more welcoming and accepting of all people, even those who are defiantly living lives opposed to traditional Orthodox moral teaching. (Morals aren’t dogma, according to such thinking, they are outgrowths of culture and so can change.) The Orthodox Church is also naturally left-wing on issues such as human rights, a term that now includes gender equality. The quotes below are from an interview with the Archbishop:

Over the years the Church has changed and we must say that it has evolved. Obviously, what cannot be affected are the principles of the Faith. Everything else, however, can be upgraded. Undoubtedly, some people get upset even at the word “change”. I advocate that the exercise of our religious duties cannot be threatened, only adapted. In other words, you change the way the truth of the Gospel is expressed. Self-confidence and courage are needed by priests in order to speak the language and the communication codes of each era in each period. Otherwise, all we succeed in doing is marginalizing the Church and putting ourselves out of society. Consider that today 70% of marriages in the United States are to non-Orthodox and in many cases non-Christians. So if we adopt an exclusionary mentality, every year our flock will dwindle. The Church, however, has always embraced and will embrace all people. Everyone is accepted and welcome.

 

I preferred to develop issues related to social solidarity, human rights, justice, peace. In fact, we speak the same language as the left on these issues, since we coincide in terms of our humanitarian approach. I told him that the secret of the success of our archdiocese is the essential and not decorative participation of the people in decision-making and in all administrative and financial control bodies. These are useful because they do not follow the trope that the laity is just the believer who blindly follows the orders of the church leadership but has an active role and is respected in all governing bodies and that is the Church, clergy and people.

Archbishop Elpidophoros is not alone in preaching the Gospel of Modernity. He is supported by a whole phalanx of academics, journalists, government busybodies, rich philanthropists, and renovationist clergy. Below is an excerpt from a conference on “Cleavages in Global Orthodoxy” held in Rome. Emphasis added.

Among these are tensions between a pro-democratic, modernity-affirmative Orthodoxy and an autocratic, anti-modern Orthodoxy; between church hierarches and the laity; and between a nation-bound and a universal Orthodox church identity. These differences do not neatly overlap with each other, but cut across global Orthodoxy in different ways. Glossing over such existing complexities, theological differences are often mapped onto geopolitical conflicts, with the Ecumenical Patriarchate associated with the West and in particular the United States, and the Moscow Patriarchate tied to the imperial idea of a “Russian world”. This conference seeks to analyze and map the complex fault lines in contemporary global Orthodoxy.

“Pro-democratic, modernity-affirmative Orthodoxy” would support gender equality, don’t you think? Only “autocratic, anti-modern Orthodoxy” would oppose the ordination of women, right? How could such a vile, misogynistic movement be granted protection under the First Amendment? Unfortunately, our problem is not just with the government. Tens of millions of Americans belong to denominations that ordain women. Do you think they are likely to be sympathetic to our desire to preserve traditional Orthodoxy in this regard?

Doubtful, especially since the renovationist “Orthodox” are doing everything they can to tie opposition to female ordination to Russian influence and extremism. Below are just some examples in which opposition to “Archdeaconess Angelic-Phoebe” is written off as the fault of evil Russian propaganda and extremist Orthodox converts, often referred to online as “Ortho-bros”. Even when Greek cradle Orthodox voice their concerns, their opinions are either ignored or written off as “inauthentic” due to “extremist” / “fundamentalist” and/or Russian influence. The only “good” and “authentic” Orthodoxy is “modernized” Orthodoxy.

Sarah Riccardi-Swartz, by the way, has been known to threaten calling in the Feds to deal with “extremist” elements within the Orthodox Church. That is not at all a hollow threat. DHS officers are already visiting people’s homes over social media posts. The FBI was caught investigating traditional Catholics. Think long and hard about what you say in front of fellow “Orthodox” Christians you don’t know well – online and off.

Conclusion: The Approaching Schism

Metropolitan Saba asked what will happen if Orthodox Churches, such as Alexandria, continue to “do their own thing” outside of Orthodox consensus. The answer is obvious – we are facing a new, most likely permanent, schism. The modernizers are not afraid of that. Carrie Frost, for example, has called for a schism if it were necessary to get females ordained. The modernizers want exclusive control of the Orthodox “brand”. Getting rid of the rest of us via a schism gives them that. The US Government will surely align with them, recognizing them as the “official” Church. The rest of us will be members of an extremist, anti-American organization aligned with Russia. Thus will actual Orthodox Christians become “enemies of the Free World”.

This will not be a schism as we have now over the situations in Ukraine and Africa. Currently, official relations between Russia and some Greek patriarchs are broken, but the rest of the Orthodox world largely sits in the middle trying to get along with both sides. This schism will be over substantive issues of Faith and morals. It will be deeper, longer-lasting (if not permanent), and will force everyone to take a side for or against innovations that cannot be “papered over”. Orthodox renovationists will gleefully accept the future schism as an opportunity to sever as much of Western Orthodoxy as possible from Russia. That benefits their Globalist masters, but also opens the door to forcing even more “modernization” on an isolated, weakened group of jurisdictions.

While we are still able, we need to use every platform we have to tell everyone that there is only one Orthodox Church. That is the one faithful to Christ, and to Holy Tradition. Having a storied history does not guarantee the Orthodoxy of a particular local Church or jurisdiction. Even Rome fell away from the Church. The Orthodox Church is where the Orthodox Faith is kept. The Orthodox Faith is perfect the way it is – needing nothing from the contemporary world of “Western values”.

Take this time to spiritually and physically prepare for whatever happens next, as God alone knows what that will be.

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