Christian Schism
(Whilst everyone sleeping in Greece, content
with an Atheist, apostate Prime Minister and majority in the government, the
Russians are enraged by Bartholomew and now attacking his dubious standing to
be ecumenical Patriarch, representing only the very small and aged local
Greek community in Istanbul.
The Russian Patriarch is not alone here at all.
The Serbian Irinej is in agreement with Hilarion against
Bartholomew. Other Orthodox countries unlike Greece really care about
these things.
Geopolitically, Tsipras is facing imminent
collapse of Prespes, Kotzias has resigned and his anti-Russian expulsions
of diplomats have gotten him nowhere. But Bartholomew being a tool of the
US State Department in their Ukrainian debacle with Nuland, etc. is a
tremendous disappointment and blunder in my personal opinion. I agree
totally with the view of Irinej on this matter. His letter to
Batholomew explains the ethnophylite heresy in detail and how it is used to
destroy Orthodox Christianity. Diran)
https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/kiev-metropolitanate-1686.jpg
The Istanbul Patriarch Plays at
Pope and Falls Under Anathema
Kiev Pechersk Lavra.
This is what Nicetas,
Archbishop of Nicomedia, wrote in the 12th century about the Great Schism
(1054) between Catholicism and Orthodoxy:
My
dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the
five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honourable
seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own
deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office…
How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting
us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty
throne of his glory, wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his
mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us
and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary
pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this
be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See
would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of
slaves.
Difference between
then and now?
A millennium ago, the
Vicar of Christ presided over a flock that was about as demographically
predominant within Christendom as the Russian Orthodox Church is within Eastern
Orthodox world today. As quasi-monarch of the European core, who could command
European kings to crawl to him on their knees in penance, the Pope could afford
to forget the “pares” part of “primus inter pares.” In contrast, Bartholomew I
– His Most Divine All-Holiness the Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and
Ecumenical Patriarch, not to mention reserve officer in the Turkish Army – is
ensconced in an infidel country and presides over a local flock of a few
hundred ageing Greeks.
Now to be sure, even
one man is a majority when God is on his side. Even so, when he is in such a
precarious position, it pays to be extra careful to make sure that’s indeed the
case.
This is something that
Bartholomew I has patently ignored with his disastrous decision to enter
communion with Ukrainian schismatics.
Its basis is a revocation of
the Synodal letter of 1686, which granted the Patriarch of Moscow the right to
ordain the Metropolitan of Kiev. Constantinople’s stated ultimate intention is
to grant autocephaly (self-governance) to the Church of Ukraine; since the
officially recognized Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Patriarchate of Moscow has
neither asked for it nor will take it, this means it could only apply to
schismatic Ukrainian churches, such as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church –
Patriarchate of Kiev and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. At that
point, Ukrainian nationalists will proceed to seize Ukrainian Orthodox Church –
Patriarchate of Moscow churches.
This revocation is
illegal and outrageous on account of a whole host of factors.
Historically, the
Ecumenical Patriarchate has consistently insisted on one church in the lands of
Rus’ (amusingly, the earliest example of ecclesiastical separatism came in the
late 12th century from a region in modern day Russia, when Andrey Bogolyubsky
attempted to take the Metropolitanate of Vladimir out of the jurisdiction of Kiev – an attempt
that was rebuffed by Constantinople). After the Mongol invasions of 1237-40,
the Metropolitanate of Kiev and All-Russia – a title it held until the 16th
century – would gradually migrate over to Vladimir and Moscow – first in the
1250s, in response to the Uniate tendencies of Daniil Galitsky in Volhynia-Rus;
and permanently so in 1299. Constantinople did recognize a Metropolitanate in
part of the modern-day western Ukraine in 1301, but clarified that “Microrussia” (της Γαλίτζες της Μικράς
Ρωσίας) was a daughter church of All-Russia. The Kiev Metropolitanate was
canceled and reintroduced several times on account of nakedly political factors
– namely, Polish and Lithuanian demands on Constantinople to avoid ordaining
Orthodox hierarchies on those territories that looked to Moscow, on pain of the
region’s forceful Latinization.
In the event, this
eventually proved unavoidable. The latest Metropolitanate of Kiev, created in
1458, would eventually accept papal authority and transition into Uniatism in
1596 at the Union of Brest. While this church had been under the tutelage of
Constantinople, that did not translate into a splintering of the Russian
church; in 1516, the Patriarch Theoleptus I of Constantinople would continue to
call the Metropolitan of Moscow Varlaam the “Metropolitan of Kiev and All
Russia.” Meanwhile, the confirmation of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1589 implied
its control over all the canonical territory of the Russian church. In 1620,
Constantinople re-established Orthodox dioceses under the Metropolitan of Kiev
for the Orthodox population of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The
Metropolitan held the title of “exarch”, a title that signified
Constantinople’s acceptance that it was not acting within its canonical
territory and that its representative was a temporary placeholder, meant to
provide Orthodox services to the faithful while the Poles remained in control
of Kiev and were not about to accept a Moscow-appointed Metropolitan. Although
the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus had full canonical rights over Kiev (the
city being part of Rus) it did enter into negotiations with Constantinople to
avoid any ill will once Kiev reverted to Moscow’s control for good in 1686.
This was granted by the Patriarch Dionysius, who wrote that the Metropolitan of
Kiev would henceforth owe “submission” to the Patriarch of Moscow and made no
reference to or hint of the (as now claimed) temporary nature of that decision.
KP: Kiev
Metropolitanate in 1686.
In any case, even if
Constantinople had the right to reverse its decision – which it doesn’t – then
it would only apply to the seven eparchies under its jurisdiction before 1686
(Kiev, Chernigov, Lutsk, Lvov, Przemyśl, Polotsk, and Mogilev), which
constitute west and central Ukraine, and parts of Poland and Belorussia, today.
It would not apply to Kharkov, which was already within the Russian Empire; or
to Novorossiya, which would only be incorporated into the Russian Empire in the
18th century and to which Constantinople has no more rights to than Primorye.
That this is
outrageous and unprecedented is backed up by the fact that none of the other
Patriarchates appear to be going along with Bartholomew I’s adventurism. This
apparently includes all the other ancient Patriarchates (Antioch, Alexandria,
and Jerusalem), as well as Serbia and Georgia. This is not so much because they really like
Russia, or even oppose Ukrainian autocephaly as such – that is hardly plausible
in the case of Georgia – but because of Bartholomew I’s chutzpah in basically
proclaiming himself to have the powers of a Pope, ignoring the wishes of
canonical Churches, reassigning canonical territories, and cancelling ancient
treaties at will. What makes Bartholomew I’s actions all the more astounding is
that in the past he has also vetoed Moscow’s attempts to give autocephaly to
the Orthodox churches in America, China, and Japan. This has had directly
negative effects on the spread of the Orthodox faith – China in particular
doesn’t tolerate religious institutions headed from abroad, and some Russian
Orthodox missionaries have been intimidated from preaching due to the threat of
excommunication by Constantinople.
Granting autocephaly
to the Ukrainian Church is just one more example of anti-Orthodox sabotage,
seeing as its supporters read like a who’s who of anti-Orthodox bigots.
First, this includes
Ukrainian politicians, including Petro Poroshenko, who has toldthe Washington Post, “Shortly, we will have an
independent Ukrainian church as part of an independent Ukraine. This will
create a spiritual independence from Russia.” They conflate the nation with the
Church, and as such propound ethnophyletism, which was declared a heresy in
Constantinople itself in 1872.
Second, as Arkady
Maler points out, while Russian liberals love to condemn
Russians propounding Orthodoxy – screeching “Caesaropapism,” “imperialism,”
“pan-Slavism,” “political Orthodoxy,” etc. – as soon as there appears an
anti-Russian project such as Ukrainian autocephaly, they change their tune and
wax lyrical about the “theology of the Maidan,” “Kiev’s special mission,” “an
independent nation needs an independent church,” “Putin is the anti-Christ,”
etc. Meanwhile, they have recently discovered a new appreciation for the
“universal Patriarch” of the “New Rome”, taking a short break from their prior
rants about “Greek pride,” “Byzantine arrogance,” “Eastern barbarity,” etc. But
this is just a short respite from their customary anti-Orthodoxy.
We pray
for the day when we can meet our future partner in church, or bring our partner
to church.
We pray
for the day when our lifelong, monogamous commitment to our partner can be
blessed and sanctified in and by the Church.
We pray
for the day when we can explore as Church, without condemnation, how we
Orthodox Christians can best live our life in Christ in the pursuit of
holiness, chastity, and perfect love of God and neighbour.
We pray
for the day when our priests no longer travel around the world to condemn us
and mock us and use us as a punching bag.
We pray
for the day when the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ ceases
to be our loneliest closet.
In another
recent powerful take, they advised Kavanaugh to apologize to
every woman he has hurt – even if he can’t remember it.
Consider
going to every woman who claims that you have assaulted or otherwise harmed her
in the past—or against whom you even suspect that you might have
transgressed—and say, “I’m sorry. I may not remember the incident, but clearly
I hurt you. Please forgive me. In every contact I have with others, and
especially with women, I will try to do better in the future.”
Apparently, lying is
now a Christian virtue. Even Lindsey Graham is more basedthan this.
Finally, former US
diplomat James Jatras notes that all the usual Atlanticists support
Ukrainian ethnophyletism for nakedly geopolitical reasons.
The
Western proponents are as crassly honest about the political aspects as the
Ukrainian politicians. The German ambassador in Kiev, not known to have any particular theological acuity,
opined in July, that autocephaly would strengthen Ukrainian statehood. The
hyper-establishment Atlantic Council, which hosted Denysenko on a recent visit
to Washington, notes: “With the Russian Orthodox Church as the last
source of Putin’s soft power now gone, Ukraine’s movement out of Russia’s orbit
is irreversible.”
This is the same logic
– encapsulated in the drive to create West-friendly Orthodox structures – that
governed Polish and Lithuanian relations towards Orthodoxy in the current
Ukraine during the late medieval and early modern era.
Likewise
the US State Department, after a short period of appropriately declaring that “any decision on autocephaly is an
internal church matter,” last week reversed its position and issued a
formal statement: “The United States respects the ability of
Ukraine’s Orthodox religious leaders and followers to pursue autocephaly
according to their beliefs. We respect the Ecumenical Patriarch as a voice of
religious tolerance and interfaith dialogue.”
While
avoiding a direct call for autocephaly, the statement gives the unmistakable
impression of such endorsement, which is exactly how it was reported in the
media, for example, “US backs Ukrainian Church bid for
autocephaly.” The State Department’s praise for the Ecumenical Patriarchate
reinforces that clearly intended impression.
Quite apart from its
active efforts to spread the poz all around the world, US State Department is
responsible for more Christian martyrs in the 21st century than any other
entity apart from Islamic State. Thanks to its destruction of Iraq and
opposition to Syria’s legitimate government, it has contributed greatly to the
greatly accelerated extinction of Orthodox Christianity in the Middle East. In
Christian terms, it would not be an exaggeration to call it a servant of Satan.
So this makes the
question of why Bartholomew I has come out against most of the rest of the
Orthodox world, including its largest and richest Patriarchate, in favor of
heretics and blasphemers such as Ukrainian ethnophyletists, God-hating Russian
liberals, “Orthodox” gay marriage activists, and virulently anti-Christian
foreign Powers all the more puzzling.
James Jatras has a
plausible, if depressingly banal, explanation: Money.
There
may be more to the State Department’s position than meets the eye, however.
According to an unconfirmed report originating
with the members of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (an
autonomous New York-based jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate), in July of
this year State Department officials (possibly including Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo personally) warned the Greek Orthodox archdiocese (also based in New York but part of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate) that the US government is aware of the theft of a
large amount of money, about $10 million, from the budget for the construction
of the Orthodox Church of St. Nicholas in New York (This is explained further below).
The
warning also reportedly noted that federal prosecutors have documentary
evidence confirming the withdrawal of these funds abroad on the orders of
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. It was suggested that Secretary Pompeo would
“close his eyes” to this theft in exchange for movement by the
Patriarchate of Constantinople in favor of Ukrainian autocephaly, which helped
set Patriarch Bartholomew on his current course.
The Orthodox Church of
St. Nicholas was the only non-World Trade Center building to be destroyed in
the 9/11 attacks (along with a priceless collection of icons and relics donated
to it by Nicholas II). After lengthy legal battles, the Port Authority agreed
to its reconstruction in 2011; by the end of 2017, almost $37 million had been
donated. But in December 2017, all that money vanished, and construction came
to a halt; the results of an audit ordered by the archdiocese was inconclusive. This opens up some possibilities:
If the
State Department wanted to find the right button to push to spur Ecumenical
Patriarch Bartholomew to move on the question of autocephaly, the Greek
archdiocese in the US is it. Let’s keep in mind that in his home country,
Turkey, Patriarch Bartholomew has virtually no local flock – only a few hundred mostly elderly
Greeks left huddled in Istanbul’s Fener district. Whatever funds the
Patriarchate derives from other sources (the Greek government, the Vatican, the
World Council of Churches), the financial lifeline is Greeks (including this
writer) in what is still quaintly called the “Diaspora” in places like America,
Australia, and New Zealand. And of these, the biggest cash cow is the
Greek-Americans… It’s an open question how much the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s
shaking down the Greeks in the US to pay for extravagant boondoggles like the
2016 “Council” contributed to the financial mess at the New York archdiocese,
which in turn may have opened them up to pressure from the State Department to
get moving on Ukraine.
It would be an
exceedingly sad and ignominious end to see the lingering remnant of a glorious
empire do give in to blackmail and foreign pressure. We can only hope that God
will not punish them as severely as for the Council of Florence.
In the meantime, the
Russian Orthodox Church has decided on a strong response, having already
suspended Eucharistic communion with Constantinople. It is fully within its
rights to do so. By supporting schism, Constantinople has entered dialogue with
anathema, and as such has fallen under anathema itself. Now is the perfect time
for Russia to reemerge as the Third Rome and take leadership of Orthodox
Christendom.
