Category Archives: Council

More Criticism of ‘Pan-Orthodox’ Draft Documents

METROPOLITAN OF LIMASSOL: “WHAT UNITY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? THOSE WHO DEPARTED FROM THE CHURCH ARE HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS”

There are serious gaps in the theological and canonical discussions at the upcoming meeting of the Pan-Orthodox Synod, notes Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol.

In a letter, of which the Agency of Religious News Romfea.gr has published extracts, the eminent hierarch does not consider there to be any problem of restoring the unity of Christians, since this, in his opinion, was never disrupted. Rather, certain Christians chose a path different to the one we follow, that of the original Orthodox truth.

There are no churches or confessions. Rather, these have cut themselves off from the Church and must be considered heretics and schismatics, notes His Eminence, expressing confusion as to why such an important issue has been ignored.

The stance of His Eminence, who invokes the right of each hierarch to express his opinion regarding such an important event, is sure to cause discussion and debate within Orthodoxy.

“Since, in agreement with regulations sent to us regarding the organisation and operation of the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church, and in particular article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3, indicate that we are entitled first to express our views at our local Synod, I, having examined my conscience, humbly submit to the Holy and Sacred Synod of our holy Church my views and opinions regarding the following matters,” the Reverend Metroplitan Athanasios underlines in his letter.

In his letter, to which Romfea.gr gained exclusive access, His Eminence Athanasios speaks about the text of the 5th Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference held in Chambesy in October entitled “Decision – Relations of the Orthodox Church to the rest of the Christian world,” stating the following:

“I am in total agreement with the first three articles of the text. However, at article 4 onwards, I have made the following observations: “The Orthodox Church has always prayed ‘for the union of all’ – I believe this to mean the return to and union with Her of all those who broke away and distanced themselves from Her, of heretics and schismatics, once they have renounced their heresy and schism and flee from those things with repentance and are integrated and joined – united – with the Orthodox Church in accordance with the teachings of the sacred canons,” remarks His Eminence Athanasios.

His Eminence continues: “The Orthodox Church of Christ never lost the ‘unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit” and does not accept the theory of the restoration of the unity of those ‘who believe in Christ,’ because it believes that the unity of those who believe in Christ already exists in the unity of all of Her baptised children, between themselves and with Christ, in Her correct faith, where no heretics or schismatics are present, for which reason She prays for their return to Orthodoxy in repentance.”

His Eminence completes his letter, of which Romfea.gr has released excerpts, thusly: “I believe that what is stated in article 5 regarding ‘the lost unity of Christians’ is incorrect, because the Church as God’s people, united among themselves and with the Head of the Church which is Christ, never lost this unity and therefore is not in need of rediscovering or seeking it, because it always was, is, and will be just as the Church of Christ has never ceased nor will cease to exist.”

His Eminence Athanasios adds that, “what happened is that groups, peoples or individuals left the body of the Church and the Church prays, and is required to try through mission, that they all return in repentance to the Orthodox Church via the canonical route. In other words, there do not exist other Churches, only heresies and schisms, should we wish to be more precise in our definitions.”

“The expression ‘towards the restoration of Christian unity’ is incorrect because the unity of Christians – the members of the Church of Christ – has never been broken, as long as they remain united to the Church. Separation from the Church and flight from the Church have unfortunately happened numerous times due to heresies and schisms, but there was never a loss of the internal unity of the Church,” His Eminence continues in his letter.

Elsewhere, His Eminence Athanasios states: “I question why the text contains multiple references to ‘Churches’ and ‘Confessions’? What difference and which element allows us to call some Churches and others Confessions? Which is a Church and which a heresy and which a schismatic group or confession? We confess one Church and that all the others are schisms and heresies. I maintain that giving the title ‘Church’ to heretical or schismatic communities is entirely incorrect from a theological, dogmatic and canonical perspective because the Church of Christ is one, as also stated in Article 1, and we cannot refer to a heretical or schismatic community or group outside the Orthodox Church as ‘Church’.”

“At no point does this text state that the only way that leads to union with the Church is solely the repentant return of heretics and schismatics to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, which according to Article 1 is our Orthodox Church. The reference to the ‘understanding of the tradition of the ancient Church’ gives the impression that there is an ontological difference between the ancient Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the genuine continuation of the same until the present day, namely our Orthodox Church. We believe that there is absolutely no difference between the Church of the 21st century and the Church of the 1st century, because one of the attributes of the Church is the fact we also confess in the Symbol of Faith, namely that it is Apostolic,” stressed the Metropolitan of Limmasol.

The Bishop subsequently underlines that in Article 12, the impression is given that the Orthodox are looking to restore the right faith and unity, giving cause for an unacceptable view.

“Article 12 states that the common purpose of the theological dialogues is ‘the final restoration of unity in correct faith and love’. This gives the impression that we Orthodox are seeking our restoration to correct faith and the unity of love, as if we had lost the right faith and are seeking to discover it through the theological dialogues with the heterodox. I maintain that this theory is theologically unacceptable for us all,” underlines Metropolitan Athanasios.

Elsewhere, His Eminence expresses objections to the text, stressing that “the reference of the text to ‘the World Council of Churches’ gives me the opportunity to make a complaint against occasional syncretistic events which took place therein, but also against its title, since it regards the Orthodox Church as ‘one of the Churches’ or a branch of the one Church which seeks and strives for Her realisation at the World Council of Churches. For us, however, the Church of Christ is one and unique, as we confess in the Symbol of Faith, and not many.”

His Eminence further states: “The view that the preservation of the genuine Orthodox faith is guaranteed only through the synodical system as the only ‘competent and final authority on matters of faith’ is exaggerated and ignores the truth that many synods throughout Church history taught and espoused incorrect and heretical doctrines, and it was the faithful people which rejected them and preserved the Orthodox faith and championed the Orthodox Confession. Neither a synod without the faithful people, the fullness of the Church, nor the people without the synod of Bishops, is able to regard themselves as the Body of Christ and Church of Christ and to correctly express the experience and doctrine of the Church.”

Addressing the Archbishop of Cyprus and the members of the Holy Synod, the Metropolitan of Limassol stresses: “Use of hard or insulting language cannot be made in ecclesiastical encyclicals of this kind, nor do I think anyone desires the use of that form of expression. However, the truth must be expressed with precision and clarity, though naturally with pastoral discernment and genuine love towards all. We owe it also to our brothers who find themselves in heresy or schism to be entirely honest with them, and with love and pain to pray and do everything possible to bring about their return to the Church of Christ.”

“I humbly maintain that texts of such importance and prestige as those of the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church must be very carefully formulated with theological and canonical precision in order that these ambiguities or untested theological terms do not also give rise to incorrect expressions which could lead to misconceptions and distortions of the correct attitude of the Orthodox Church. Moreover, in order for a Synod to be valid and canonical, it must not depart in any way from the spirit and teaching of the Holy Synods which preceded it, the teaching of the Holy Fathers and Holy Scriptures, and it must be free from any ambiguity in the precise expression of the correct faith,” adds His Eminence Athanasios.

Elsewhere, invoking the Holy Fathers, His Eminence Athanasios stated: “Never did the holy Fathers nor ever in the holy canons or rulings of the sacred Ecumenical or Local Synods, are heretical or schismatic groups referred to as churches. If the heretics are indeed churches, where is the single One Church of Christ and the Apostles?”

The Metropolitan of Limassol also expressed his strong opposition, stressing that those who do not have the right to vote and participate in the Synod are merely ornamental.

“I humbly express my disagreement with the fact that the practice of all Sacred Synods until the present of allowing each bishop a vote is abolished. There was never before a system of ‘one Church, one vote,’ which renders the members of the Holy and Great Synod, with the exception of the primates, mere decorative items by refusing them the right to vote,” His Eminence Athanasios says in his letter.

In closing, the Hierarch of the Church of Cyprus states that: “I do not want to upset anyone with what I wrote, nor do I want to be seen to be teaching judgement of my brothers and fathers in Christ. I simply feel the need to express what my conscience requires me to.”

To read the Metropolitan’s entire letter, see the site of the Holy Metropolis of Limassol.

Translated by Fr. Kristian Akselberg

Romfea

Two More Questions and Answers from Recent Correspondence on the Orthodox Church

Why in your view has the January preparatory meeting for the so-called Council not talked in depth about and resolved the really important issues, like the Diaspora, Autocephaly, the Calendar and even the Diptychs or heresies like Ecumenism, Sophianism and Darwinism?

V. M., Paris

Since the draft documents from the preparatory meeting were published in Russian on Thursday (all thanks to the Russian Church for such openness), more and more people have contacted me. Discussions are now going to enter into parish life as people (and bishops as well!) discover what has been going on behind the scenes for over fifty years. As translations come out in other languages, we can expect stormy debate. That is good, perfectly natural, because the faithful love the Church and care about Her.

On this subject one Romanian monk in Romania wrote to me with an amusing question: ‘Is this a private Council or can any Orthodox take part?’ I thought that very apt in summing up the secrecy of the agenda, let alone the negotiations. As Fr Theodoe Zisis put it at the anti-Council meeting in Moldova: ‘Is this a Church Council or a Masonic lodge?’ It is very strange that not all bishops can take part, so that of the 354 bishops of the Russian Church, only 24 can take part and, overall, of the 750 or so Orthodox bishops worldwide, scarcely 200 will take part. (If my figures are wrong, will a reader please let me know and I will correct them).

A pious Ukrainian lady from the Ukraine wrote to me with the very relevant question: ‘What do we need a Council for? Everything of importance was long ago decided at the Seven Councils.’ You cannot help agreeing with her. The draft documents published by the preparatory meeting are largely pastoral and could have been written by any parish priest or any educated layperson. They did not need scores of bishops to meet on five different occasions. We do not need a Council to tell us that fasting is important! Where are the theological, moral and dogmatic issues? I cannot see them.

Christological heresies like Sophianism were analyzed and condemned by saints like St John of Shanghai and the future St Seraphim of Sofia, as well as Local Councils of both parts of the Russian Church in the 1930s. St Justin (Popovich) and the ROCOR Council of Bishops of 1983 have expressed the Orthodox thinking on the heresy of Ecumenism. And as for Darwinism, nobody accepts it, all reject it. It contradicts the whole of Scripture and the Fathers. All three are heresies and were (indirectly) dealt with by the Seven Councils under the name of Arianism.

I think that the question of the Diptychs will be resolved in time quite naturally. The present order of the Local Churches dates back to the fourth century. It is absurd that tiny ancient groups in the Middle East should take precedence over the Russian and Romanian churches, which are far bigger. A lot of this goes back to the fall of the Russian Church in 1917; before that it took de facto precedence, as it is coming to do now again and all the Local Churches, except for politicized Constantinople, now tend to look to the Russian Church as their natural leader. It is all a question of size – and that has changed since the fourth century. Of course if one of the ancient Patriarchates like Alexandria, numbering one million today, on a canonical territory numbering one billion (!), were to start consequent missionary work as the future St Nectarios had wanted to do over a century ago, it could become the largest Patriarchate and so take de facto precedence. (The present de jure precedence makes a laughing stock of its claimants).

Again the question of the calendar will also be resolved only by time. The few Orthodox who have fallen away from the Orthodox calendar under political pressure will eventually return. Everyone admits that it was a mistake. We must be patient and wait for the repentance of their leaders. That is why the issue has had to be removed at the insistence of Patriarch Kyrill, who clearly saw that the new calendarist leaders are not only not ready to repent, but are still actually justifying their error! (This is also why the document on relations with heterodox is written in such a bureaucratic language of compromise and not dogmatic clarity – we have had to be patient with the ecumenists, awaiting their repentance).

The problem of the Diaspora (and the questions of autocephaly and to some extent autonomy are connected with this) is also one that can only be resolved with time. The Local Church that, if God wills, sets up autonomous and then autocephalous new Local Churches in the Diaspora, and so gives it canonical order, will be the Church that does the most missionary work in the Diaspora. All the other Diaspora groups are destined to die out. That is a fact.

For example, in the 1930s the Rue Daru jurisdiction had some seventy parishes and communities (admittedly, many very small) in the Paris Region. Today it has about six small parishes in that Region. Why? Simply because most of their parishes have died out. They were for Russians only. The children and the grandchildren of those Russians became French and decided that ‘the Church is only for old people’. Logically. The same thing is now happening to the Greek Cypriot parishes in England. Issued largely from immigration from Cyprus in the 1950s, they too are now dying out, their descendants, some of whom I meet every month, understand nothing, are often unable even to make the sign of the cross.

I do not think that there will be any solution to the Diaspora problem until the vast majority in the Diaspora – therefore tens and hundreds of thousands – are local faithful or think of themselves as local faithful, whatever their origin – and need their own Autocephalous Local Church. (And by faithful, I mean faithful to the Tradition, not to some half-hearted, semi-Protestant, secularist compromise). Then remaining foreign-language parishes can be absorbed into it in separate deaneries or even dioceses, but underneath a central Local Church structure.

You may think that I am advocating the OCA solution. That is not the case, since the OCA solution was a failure. Why? Firstly, because it contained only a very small number of the total Diaspora in North America and secondly because it based itself on a modernist ideology, not on the Tradition. Its autocephaly was a political operation of the Cold War. You cannot build a new Local Church when the majority are not with you and when you base yourself on an incredibly old-fashioned 1960s type modernist fad, instead of on the eternal Tradition of the Holy Spirit.

In other words, I can see no hope for settling the issue of the Diaspora until such a time comes, a time when the majority follow the Tradition and need (not want) their own Local Church. Anything imposed from above will simply be divisive.

Why are modernists who are opposed to the Church so full specifically of fantasy and spite?

J.L, London

I think you are being a bit uncharitable! Most of them are simply naïve and still have to make their way in the Church from the fringes inwards. Eventually all the sincere people will integrate. The repentant Fr Theodore Zisis is a very good example. Be patient. The Church is a journey, a pilgrimage, people make their way at their own speed. You cannot rush spiritual development and depth.

However, you do have a point, that the most few aggressive modernists do suffer from both fantasy and spite. Why specifically these ills?

Fantasy comes from the fact that modernists are always intellectuals and not rooted in life. Were they parish priests, prison chaplains or responsible for running monasteries or, for that matter, families, they would not suffer from fantasy. (This is a very good reason for opposing the alien institution of non-diocesan or titular bishops: their grasp of reality is often very limited).

Spite comes from the fact that until the 1980s/1990s the modernists thought that their victory over the Church was imminent. We who followed the Tradition appeared to be an oppressed minority, the little flock, crushed by them into a dying ghetto. They were wrong, as I wrote at the time. And they were wrong because they failed to recognize that the Church belongs to Christ, not to them or to us who strive, however weakly, to follow the Tradition. It was a classic case of ‘man proposes, but God disposes’.

What makes them bitter, and therefore spiteful, is the fact that the Russian Church has not only survived atheist oppression, but is beginning to revive (which is why they attack the Russian Church with an immense and self-justifying hatred). And this is true of the smaller Local Churches, some of which are also beginning to revive in the wake of the Russian Church’s beginning revival. Their great project, a modernizing ‘Pan-Orthodox Council’ in imitation of the Second Vatican Council, which they have actively been plugging for over fifty years, is coming to naught.

They are bitter at that and lash out at anyone who attempts to follow the Tradition. They thought, ‘We have won’, dismissing popular piety (what the aristocratic Fr Alexander Schmemann patronizingly called ‘liturgical piety’) in their haughty way, as dying out. ‘So near and yet so far’, is their frustrated cry. In humility they should instead admit that they were wrong and simply repent. They are welcome to return to the fold, as Fr Theodore Zisis. We all make mistakes when we are young. We should make their repentance easy for them.

January Preparatory Talks for Inter-Orthodox Bishops’ Meeting End

Eleven of the fourteen leaders of the Local Orthodox Churches have now concluded their meeting outside Geneva in preparation for a major meeting, which may be Pan-Orthodox, that is, may include all of the fourteen leaders. This will now be held from 16 to 27 June 2016 at the Orthodox Academy in Khania in Crete.

Of the original ten items on the agenda for the future meeting, there has been agreement on only five. These, the draft texts of which are to be published shortly, are: The Mission of the Orthodox Church in the Contemporary World; Autonomy and the Way in which it is Proclaimed; The Importance of Fasting and its Observance Today; The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian World; The Orthodox Diaspora. There was no agreement on the draft text for the sixth item, ‘The Sacrament of Marriage and Impediments to it’, which was rejected by the Georgian and Antiochian Churches. As regards the other four items, on the proclamation of autocephaly, the diptychs, the calendar and ecumenism, these seem to have been abandoned for lack of agreement.

Having seen the Russian draft texts for the first four of the approved items of the agenda, we believe that where they are not controversial, they are at best expressions of the obvious, at worst spiritually flat and mostly expressed in the secular language of administrators and bureaucrats, and not in the theological language of the Holy Fathers and of the dogmas of the Seven Universal Councils. Where, however, they are controversial, especially the draft text on ‘The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian World’, they will cause disturbing division. This will lead even more in the Orthodox world which believes in the Church of the Seven Councils, which defined the Faith for all time and made any ‘Eighth Council’ completely unnecessary, to call for this June meeting to be cancelled before it causes open schism.

We fear that this January meeting has opened up a dangerous path. Surely, amid all today’s secular isms, including Darwinism, the foundation stone of Communism and Nazism and their ‘survival of the fittest’ genocides, the Orthodox people need to hear of the dogma of salvation in the Church (instead of ‘ecumenism’), of the teaching on the Fall of Adam and how sin has polluted human consciousness and the consequent need for repentance, of the need for strict fasting in a world suffering from obesity and chemically-polluted food, and of the Church’s teachings on the Last Times. Instead, we are hearing the trite, secular and humanistic language of diplomats and compromisers about ‘human dignity’, discrimination’ and ‘ecology’.

Let any future bishops’ meeting first confirm the decisions of the Local Council of 879 against the filioque heresy and the Local Council of 1351 against those who opposed the teachings on the Holy Spirit of St Gregory Palamas and the Local Council of 1948 (held in Moscow) against ecumenism. Quite rightly, no ‘Pan-Orthodox Council’ was held when the hierarchy of the Russian Church, and others, was enslaved by an atheist government. And in the same way, you cannot hold a free Council, when its chairman was installed by the government of a country which preaches ‘globalism’, that is, secularist control over the whole world, which is profoundly and actively hostile to the Church and Her Civilization, is responsible for evil genocides around the world, including among Orthodox in Syria and the Ukraine, and promotes worldwide perversion. How long before some decide to hold an ‘Alternative Council?’ Here is the risk.

Apostasy

HTTP://WWW.RUSFRONT.RU/10527-KONSTANTINOPOLSKIY-PATRIARH-TREBUET-NAKAZAT-PROTIVODEYSTVUYUSCHIH-SOBORU-I-PRIGLASIT-NA-NEGO-KATOLIKOV.HTML

Source: ИА “Информ-религия”

According to a report from a Russian website, translating from a Romanian website, on the first day of the preparatory meeting for the Inter-Orthodox Bishops’ Meeting (the so-called ‘Pan-Orthodox Council’) Patriarch Bartholomew called for all those opposed to the ‘decisions of the Council’ to be punished and for Roman Catholics to be allowed to attend. He also wanted the Council to last for two weeks and for it to be called ‘Ecumenical’, even if not all the heads of Local Churches attend. References are above.

If this is true, and not merely old calendarist misinformation and propaganda, it raises grave concerns. For example, how can the US-installed Turkish-Greek Patriarch punish St Kuksha of Odessa and other holy elders? If untrue, then surely this is yet another sign that the secrecy (‘ineffective methodology’ in the diplomatic code of Patriarch Kyrill) with which the preparations are being conducted proves our point, expressed on this site over many years, that such secrecy only breeds paranoia and that those responsible for that secrecy are also responsible for that paranoia and therefore for any future schism.

However, of far more concern are the words of Patriarch Bartholomew, reported to us by the same reader as above, uttered in the USA nearly 20 years ago. Talk of mere ‘memories’ of ‘a faith tradition’, ‘whatever they may be’, and the general relativism, syncretism, acceptance of modernism and ‘works in the world’ would indicate apostasy. Let the reader decide:

“If the diverse peoples of a culture look to the memories of their faith traditions, whatever they may be, they will be sustained, they will be fed the food of God’s spiritual knowledge. Nourished in this way, persons may properly apply the tools created by their culture in the service of God.

Orthodox Christian and modernist, Protestant and modernist, Jew and modernist, Catholic and modernist, however we worship, as long as we abide in our faith and unite it to our works in the world, we bring the living and always timely message of Divine Wisdom into the modern world’.

Reference:

https://www.patriarchate.org/-/remarks-as-prepared-for-delivery-address-of-his-all-holiness-ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew-at-emory-university-in-atlanta-georgia-at-the-presidenti?inheritRedirect=true&redirect=%2Fpatriarchal-documents%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_2lzbCNORLysD%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-1%26p_p_col_pos%3D1%26p_p_col_count%3D2%26_101_INSTANCE_2lzbCNORLysD_delta%3D15%26_101_INSTANCE_2lzbCNORLysD_keywords%3D%26_101_INSTANCE_2lzbCNORLysD_advancedSearch%3Dfalse%26_101_INSTANCE_2lzbCNORLysD_andOperator%3Dtrue%26p_r_p_564233524_resetCur%3Dfalse%26_101_INSTANCE_2lzbCNORLysD_cur%3D63

Apostasy Made Public

A great many both in the Churches of the Ukraine and Moldova are now publicly calling for a boycott of the Phanar’s ‘Council’. The refusal to hold the Inter-Orthodox bishops’ meeting on Mt Athos and the following words, insulting those who defend Orthodoxy, about adapting ‘our Tradition to the contemporary world’, about ‘an ecumenical event’ and quoting the uncanonically US-installed, 33 degree freemason Patriarch Athenagoras and the notorious Olivier Clement, who took communion from the Roman Catholics, signify that the meeting will now almost certainly be rejected as irrelevant, compromised and anti-Orthodox by the faithful of the Church. This may be the best thing that can have happened, as now there can be no more illusions. This may be the last nail in the coffin. Churches around the world will soon be displaying posters that they proudly reject the ‘Pan-Orthodox Council of 2016’. It can surely only be a question of time before the Orthodox Emperor comes and cleanses the Church of unfaithful bishops, as is prophesied.

Homily of Patriarch Bartholomew During the Divine Liturgy at the Church of St. Paul (Chambésy, 24 January 24, 2016)

https://www.patriarchate.org/-/homily-by-his-all-holiness-ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew-during-the-divine-liturgy-at-the-church-of-st-paul-chambesy-geneva-january-24-2016-?inheritRedirect=true&redirect=%2Fhome

After much Diplomatspeak, Patriarch Bartholomew stated:

We acknowledge that the only way to exit from confessional isolationistic temptations passes through dialogue in constant exchange with the “other,” whether our neighbour, Christian or not, or whether society in general, whether other religions or the entire creation, in order to invalidate the irreversible clash of civilisations which tempts the most worried of our coreligionists…..

Nevertheless, in order to give consistence to the life and ministry of our Church, we must promote open and honest dialogue, without any compromise with what we are and with the hope that is within us, but also without any compromise with the compassion and love that we owe to the world…

This was indeed the prophetic intuition of our predecessor, the late Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, who confided to Olivier Clément: “The Great Council that we are preparing will enable the people of our Church to live their faith in a better way. It will try not only to adapt our Tradition to the contemporary world, but will replenish it with the power of inspiration and renewal. Thus, it will be an ecumenical event. Renewal cannot be separated from sharing and from unity.”

An Inffective Methodology for a Pan-Orthodox Council

On 22 January at the Centre of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Chambesy started the meeting of the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches. A speech was addressed by His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kyrill to the participants, reports Patriarkhia.ru.

At the beginning of his speech, His Holiness the Patriarch noted that each meeting of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches has a special significance. “This is an opportunity to exchange views and discuss issues of concern to us, to take concerted decisions on Pan-Orthodox values. But first of all – it is an opportunity to once again feel our unity, especially when we jointly partake of the one Chalice, knowing that we all form one Body in Christ, “- said His Holiness, also expressing his gratitude to His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, who initiated and organized the meeting.

Later in the speech His Holiness addressed various aspects of the preparations for the Pan-Orthodox Council.

“Gathering together, we clearly understand that our Church is One and Catholic, that to preserve and strengthen Her unity is the primary concern, which is the basis of all of our service. The Holy and Great Council is intended to be visible, clear, convincing evidence of the unity of the Orthodox Church and we all understand that the Council will be able to become one only if it reflects the genuine shared vision of the Local Orthodox Churches. In order to achieve this unanimity we all have to work hard in the pre-conciliar period,” said the Primate of the Russian Church.

In this context, His Holiness noted with satisfaction that “concern about the lack common Orthodox recognition of Metropolitan Rostislav, the Primate of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, which has been repeatedly expressed both by the Moscow Patriarchate and other Church was heard, and His Beatitude today is present among us, as He has now received due recognition of all the Local Churches. ”

Speaking about the problems preventing full unanimity among the Local Orthodox Churches, Patriarch Kirill expressed regret over the breaking of communion between the Antiochian and Jerusalem Patriarchates. Its recovery, in the opinion of His Holiness, is an urgent task these days, when the whole world is following with concern developments in the Middle East, because “it is from the religious communities in this region that people first await an example of cohesion, readiness to overcome differences.”

During his speech, His Holiness elaborated on the Church situation in the Ukraine. “Now have been forcibly seized more than 30 churches of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, at least another 10 are under threat of attack from schismatics and nationalists, happening for alleged voluntary movements of believers to the so-called Kiev Patriarchate – said His Holiness. – In fact, these are real gangster raids: to hold meetings of persons not related to the community, and then with the help of the statutory authorities falsify documents seized by the militant nationalists, and the community together with the priest of the temple are thrown into the street! ”

The Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church expressed deep concern about the actions of some bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, who, visiting the Ukraine, have expressed their support for dissenters ostensibly on behalf of His Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople, and thereby sow temptations among Ukrainian believers and clergy.

It is inconceivable, said Patriarch Kyrill, that in Switzerland, Greece or another European country in the Orthodox church could come representatives of other faiths to “take a decision” that now this church is theirs. “In the Ukraine it is now a reality. Expelled from the churches of the community of the canonical Church wins all lawsuits, but the dissenters and their bandit militias ignore court decisions “, – said in pain His Holiness Patriarch.

As an example of blatant hatred of nationalists for the faithful of the canonical Church in the Ukraine, Patriarch Kirill noted the situation in the village of Ptichya in the Rivne region, stressing that the followers split “sow evil, deliberately provoke sectarian conflicts, splitting Ukrainian society.”

“Recently one of their supporters publicly stated that if Metropolitan Onuphry still belongs to the canonical Church, it is only because there was no suitable instruments of torture – a soldering iron, or iron. It is terrible to imagine what would have happened if these bandits got canonical legalization and joined in our midst! “- Said His Holiness.

His Holiness expressed his gratitude to the fraternal Local Churches – particularly Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Serbian, Bulgarian and Polish – for the prayers and support for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. “His Holiness Serbian Patriarch Irenaeus wrote to me quite right about the Ukrainian schismatics: These people belong to Orthodoxy only in name, and” their contempt for the rules of Christian morality, readiness to hate, lie and shed blood are living proof of that, “- said the Primate of the Russian Church. – For such people, there is only one way into the Church – through repentance. We were asked why we do not want to be with them, they require us to start a dialogue on a nearly equal footing. But how can there be harmony between Christ and Belial? ”

“The Orthodox people of the Ukraine continue to support the canonical Church – His Holiness Patriarch testified, describing the gathering of tens of thousands of worshippers in procession in Kiev to celebrate the memory of St. Vladimir. I believe in the future of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church: Its believers are united in their condemnation of the sschism, and violence and evil only strengthens them in the heroism of love and faith. ”

Later in his speech, Patriarch Kyrill noted that the process of preparing the Pan-Orthodox Council has recently noticeably intensified. His Holiness has focused on the reasons for failure of a number of previous Primates Meeting in the framework of the Special Committee and the Fifth Inter-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference and, in particular, noted the importance of taking into account the positions of all the Local Churches, carrying out their missions in different conditions. In this regard, some have mentioned so far that they have not heard suggestions that the last two years have been made on the topics of the agenda-Orthodox Cathedral near the local Churches, including Antioch, Russian, Georgian, Serbian, Bulgarian.

The Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church expressed his conviction of the need to revise the draft document “the calendar issue”, noting that the theme of “to more accurately determine the date of Easter” is absolutely irrelevant to the Orthodox Church and can only sow discord among many believers.

Of equal concern, in the words of His Holiness, is a draft document “Obstacles to marriage”, which contains a dry list of canonical obstacles and does not affect the position of the Church regarding the institution of the family in the modern world.

As one of the very important activities of the Russian Orthodox Church has called the theme “Autocephaly and Method of proclamation,” proposing to adopt at the Council already reached at the meetings of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission agreed in principle to the effect that the establishment of new Autocephalous Churches to be an act of general Orthodox scale requiring reaching a consensus of all the Local Orthodox Churches in each case.

It was also stressed the need for a preliminary study of the draft conciliar document on “The Orthodox Diaspora”.

The subject of detailed discussion in the speech of His Holiness and became the venue of the Council, previously rising in circulation of His Holiness Patriarch Irinej of Serbia.

“As we can see, many of the issues we still have to work together to solve, in order to allow the convening of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. I’m sure the real reason that many of the documents are still inconsistent – not because of conflicting opinions from different Churches, but in an ineffective methodology for the preparation of the Council, “- said His Holiness. In this regard, His Holiness shared his experience of the Inter-Council Presence of the Russian Orthodox Church in an open discussion format, which allows any interested member of the Church to express their position.

“I think that it is so open, should continue to undergo preparation for the Council, if we are really interested in its success”, – said the Primate of the Russian Church, stressing the importance of publishing draft conciliar documents and overcome the shortage of reliable information, which raises the suspicions of many believers.

“I am convinced that the long-awaited publication of draft conciliar documents and the ability to free them of discussion not only hinders the carrying out of the Council, but also show us and the world the truly Catholic character of our Church, helping to strengthen Pan-Orthodox unity”, said Patriarch Kyrill, urging all gathered together to pray to the Lord for help in a collaborative effort for the good of the Church, to overcome the difficulties encountered on the way to conducting a Pan-Orthodox Council.

The Project to Destroy the Russian Orthodox Church

The Project

If Antichrist is to come, first historical Russia and her independent Christian civilization and values must be destroyed, since they cannot be combined with the globalist project of those who want to destroy all sovereign nation-states and authentic faith (as opposed to mere thisworldly, rationalistic ‘religion’ with its tame, dependent State-manipulated institutions). For authentic faith means faithfulness to the other world and so opposition to this world – which Antichrist cannot tolerate. This was the meaning of the genocidal events of 1917 in the Christian Russian Empire, organized, financed and unanimously welcomed with glee by the warring, internationalist Western Powers, and the massacre and martyrdom of millions after it, which were either praised or else ignored by the West. Now all civilizations are dependent on a spiritual source, And the civilization of historical Russia, which is miraculously being resurrected by the New Martyrs and Confessors after the murderous Bolshevik obscenities, can only be destroyed if its spiritual source, the Russian Orthodox Church, can be destroyed, as the neocon ideologue Brzezinski has clearly stated. But how can Russia and the Russian Church be destroyed?

Certainly not with nuclear weapons because Russia can defend herself against them. Such destruction can therefore only be carried out by ‘soft power’, that is, by Western propaganda. The BBC ideology, with its systematic repetition of racist propaganda myths (e,g. Russians are ‘Asiatics’ (how charming for real ‘Asiatics’, like the 100 million massacred Native Americans), Ivan ‘the Terrible’, who, they say, killed about 3,000 and was far worse than Henry VIII (Defender of the Faith’?) or Elizabeth I who killed 150,000 between them, or Cromwell who killed well over a million, the myth that the architect of the so-called ‘St Basil’s Cathedral’ on Red Square was blinded by the Tsar after building it, the myth that Saint Petersburg was built on the bodies of over 100,000 ‘serfs’, non-existent Potiomkin villages etc), its denigration of the Romanovs, praise for the 1917 obscenity and the evil and stupid Khrushchov and Gorbachov and insistence that today’s Church is merely a tool of the Russian State (just as the Church of England is a tool of the British Establishment), is a good example, but not the only one, for all the Western media obey the same Satanic master. For the project means Westernizing enough ‘useful idiots’ of the Gorbachov-Yeltsin type, so that Western liberals and atheists can then take over in Moscow, forming a puppet government, exactly as happened in Saint Petersburg in February 1917 and in Kiev in February 2014. But how can the Church be undermined?

Remove the Patriarch

The history of Western terrorism around the world has always followed the same pattern. Its strategy is always to discredit and then remove the enemy leaders, whether political or spiritual, hoping that the masses will fall for the myth and lie of ‘democracy’, created by Western PR companies. This is exactly what they did in Kiev in 2014. In the case of the Russian Church, this means discrediting the Patriarch. Now His Holiness Patriarch Kyrill was elected after the repose of Patriarch Alexei II six years ago. The dream of Western liberals was that he would prove to be a liberal, since he is a highly-educated man with a profound knowledge and understanding of the Western world and great diplomatic skills. He greatly disappointed them. In 2012 Western embassies orchestrated an attack on the Russian State and Church, including subsidized street demonstrations with tens of thousands out of the 15 million population of Moscow. And so at the same time US-controlled media invented several stories (mainly financial) against the Patriarch personally and there took place the Western-orchestrated Pussy Riot protest, whose obscene name is so deeply symbolic of the Western sex and violence ideology.

The results were catastrophic for the West; there would be no coloured revolution in Russia, as in 1917. The street protests petered out as Hillary Clinton turned off US taxpayer subsidies to the mob; the Pussy Riot demonstrators, adored by the BBC and other Western media and the inveterate Russophobe Senator McCain, were proved to be blasphemous degenerates or mentally ill. As for His Holiness, he proved that he was much more than a diplomat as he turned for support to the masses of devout Orthodox who long ago saw through liberalism, modernism and ecumenism. Indeed, His Holiness spoke then of ‘traitors in cassocks’, when referring to lapsed individuals who had been ‘turned’ by Western spies. Just as the 2006 Sourozh schism, plugged by the BBC, The Times and The Daily Telegraph in the UK, turned out to be the end for the fifty years of aggressive renovationist modernism in the Moscow Patriarchate Diocese in the UK and so at last allied it with the traditional ROCOR, so also the 2012 attack on the Patriarch only consolidated the Church in Russia. Similarly, the 2014 attack on the Ukraine only consolidated Russian relations with China, which had once been sabotaged by Khrushchev.

The Failure

Now, as 2015 turns into 2016, the project has been relaunched. Having failed to steal the Crimea to set up NATO bases there, having failed to create full-scale civil war in the Ukraine and spread it to Russia, Western command and control has sent out the message that the Russian Patriarch must be removed ‘by 2017’. This at least is the message from the dismissed political commentator Fr Vsevolod Chaplin who, like the embittered marginal liberals Protodeacon Andrei Kurayev and Sergei Chapnin, has shown extraordinary disrespect for His Holiness and also for the ordinary clergy and people of the Church. The powers which are conspiring against the Church desire to usurp the all too solid and intelligent Patriarch, replacing him with a naïve, if possible English-speaking, liberal. At the same time, they wish to provoke the Churched masses with a ‘Pan-Orthodox Council’, which appears to have a US-imposed secularist agenda, and so create a schism in the Ukraine. However, the conspirators cannot succeed, whatever the views of a few, off-centre individuals who are in love with the liberal media; the Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ, not some secular Western organization, which can simply be beheaded.

First of all, the Patriarch of Moscow is elected for life (unlike, for instance, Pope Benedict of Rome) and the people can see through naïve and manipulated liberals. As for the bishops’ meeting (‘Council’) which may or may not take place this year in some still undisclosed location, it may come to nothing and, indeed, it will certainly come to nothing, if the people do not receive its decisions. The Orthodox Church is not the Vatican, where whatever a Western-installed Pope of Rome says can be applied. Saints like St Justin of Chelije and St Kuksha of Odessa have already said that any novelty at a ‘Council’ will be dismissed. As for schism in the Ukraine, it is not going to happen – the Church there is faithful to the multinational, Imperial Church, centred in Moscow. Neither the Russophobes in the West and their provincial nationalist puppets in Kiev, nor narrow secular-minded nationalists and liberals in Moscow, will succeed. The mainstream, the monasteries, the ordinary parish clergy and faithful, will conquer, for our Faith is founded on Christ, His Mother, the Saints and the New Martyrs and Confessors. Like Julian the Apostate and all the others, the Western tyrants will also one day confess: ‘Thou hast conquered, O Galilean’.