Category Archives: The Phanar

Four Ecclesiologies

There used to be three ecclesiologies (teachings as to what the Church is), but last month we saw the birth of a fourth. What are these ecclesiologies?

  1. Orthodox Ecclesiology (‘Christianity’)

This is the ecclesiology of the Holy Trinity, Unity in Diversity. It is the ecclesiology of the Family of Churches, which together form the Body of Christ, of which obviously Christ is the Head. In practical, that is, incarnational terms, this results in the existence of a family of Churches, like those described by the Apostle Paul in his letters to the Corinthians, the Ephesians, the Thessalonians, the Philippians, the Romans etc. Their differences and problems are regulated by Councils. Indeed, this conciliarity, in theology and history called Catholicity, is one of the four basic signs of the Church, together with Oneness, Holiness and Apostolicity. Therefore, a ‘Church’ which does not have this Catholicity is not the Church, certainly not the fullness of the Church, as it is deficient in one of the Church’s four essential qualities.

  1. Papal Ecclesiology (‘Papocaesarism’)

Papal or Roman Catholic ecclesiology asserts that the Church is centralist and imperialist. There is only one Pope, Who as the Vicar of Christ is the Head of the Church. This is the ecclesiology of centralism, which cannot survive without the Pope, Who is Infallible, as He is the source of the Holy Spirit on earth. This is the ecclesiology of the Crusader, the Inquisitor and the Conquistador.

  1. Protestant Ecclesiology (‘Caesaropapism’)

As a reaction to centralist Papism, this says that you can make your own church, everyone is a pope, everyone is the head of their own church: ‘Make it up as you go along: we are all popes now’. If you disagree, you go off and start your own church. Inevitably, and from the very start, this leads to small, weak and divided groups being taken over by States, kings, princes, presidents and politicians, a process known as erastianism, whereby the State controls the Church. Inevitably, and from the very start, this has led to State Churches, phenomena like the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Church of Norway. These are all State-controlled organizations, which inevitably end up adapting their doctrines to the demands of the secular State.

  1. Phanariot Ecclesiology (‘Eastern Papism’)

This power-grabbing ecclesiology, which has been a century in the making in the Diaspora has just now been born in all its fullness in the Ukraine. It is in effect not Orthodox ecclesiology, but a mixture of Roman Catholic and Protestant ecclesiologies, Papocaesarism and Caesaropapism. On the one hand, it is centralizing Papism: all must be gathered together under the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is the ‘Eastern Pope’ (not ‘Western Pope’). On the other hand, it gives what it calls ‘autocephaly’, in reality only a diminished autocephaly or minor measure of independence, to any Church within any nationalist organization or ‘State’ – even though that ‘State’ may be new, temporary, artificial and tyrannical or even already have an authentic Orthodox Church on its territory.

In other words, this new imperialist/nationalist ecclesiology is a combination of the worst of both the Papal and the Protestant worlds. It is a pastiche of authentic Trinitarian Orthodox ecclesiology. On the one hand, it is centralizing, able to exploit its new ‘churches’ as subservient cash cows. On the other hand, it provides a measure of independence to pseudo-autocephalous entities, but no protection for them from the local dictatorship, even in dogmatic questions. For the local ‘State’ can demand and force changes in doctrines in accordance with its own demands, which subordinate Christ to its nationalism. Thus, Phanariot ecclesiology does not affirm Local Churches, it only affirms, Protestant-style, the right of ‘States’ to have their own ‘Churches’. In other words, it merely uses Protestant-style nationalism to increase its own power base. Therefore, this is a double heresy.

 

 

The Ukraine: The Tragi-Farce Continues

After the collapse of the USSR, the main enemy of the USA will be the Russian Orthodox Church.

Words attributed to the US political geostrategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, confirmed by Samuel Huntingdon (Chapter 6 of ‘The Clash of Civilizations’)

The Ukrainian State under the US-imposed puppet Poroshenko has set up its own State-Church for its xenophobes. Now these violent hooligans, unemployed and unemployable because of their criminal records, are arriving in busloads, supported by the police and local authorities, and try to occupy the churches of the faithful, beating up those who oppose them.

Over fifty churches have been occupied and so deserted by the faithful in this way over the last five years. Priests are being summoned to the secret police and ask why they do not go over to the State-Church. Their homes are searched and ransacked. But all this is done under the protection of the US-financed Patriarchate of Constantinople. So that is all right. It is all ‘canonical’. And, amazingly, there are still those who attend churches under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, once more become the enemy and persecutor of the Church.

The holy Elder Iona of Odessa prophesied all this eight years ago. He told people then to go to church because there would come a time when they would not be able to. However, he said that this period would last only six months, as all would end in ignominy. Quite simply, the people would boycott the churches taken over by the thieves. If so, then there would be no support, financial or spiritual, for the uncanonical Istanbul ’Church’ in the Ukraine.

Now it has been revealed that of the twelve members of the Synod in Constantinople, five refused to sign the agreement (‘Tomos’) to found this new phyletist Istanbul Church on the territory of the multinational Russian Orthodox Church in the Ukraine. They have duly been sacked from the Synod.

Thus, the ‘unifying’ Council of Kiev last December has not only divided the Ukraine into Christians (those with Metr Onufry of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church) and Non-Christians (those with the State-Church of Poroshenko and his ex-Communist oligarchs who have become Ukrainian chauvinists). More than this, Patriarch Bartholomew has divided his own Church. And beyond that he has divided the whole of the Orthodox Church, ensuring unless he repents that his name will go down in history with other unprayed-for apostates, like Arius and Nestorius. A tragedy.

So far, seven Local Churches, some 85% of the whole Orthodox Church (the Russian Church, the Serbian (although threatened by US support for Montenegrin and Macedonian chauvinism), the Bulgarian, the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Polish and the Czechoslovak), have sided with Orthodoxy.

The American game, dictated long ago by the dead Russophobe Brzezinski, quoted above, is to force the seven other Local Churches, the Romanian, the Georgian and the Greek-controlled Churches to side with Constantinople. In fact, these Churches are divided into Russian-supporting Orthodox and a motley group of Istanbul-supporting apostates – ecumenists, liberals, semi-Uniats, Greek phyletists, LGBT-supporters etc.

The next stage in the present American program is to foment Ukrainian-style separatism in Belarus, thus removing that territory too from the Russian Church. Then they want the nationalistic Patriarch of Romania, who was chosen and imposed by the US ambassador in Bucharest, will grab Moldova from the Russian Church, though the price of US support will be Romanian support for Constantinople. US meddling is also trying to get the Georgian Church, under its ailing Patriarch, to support its puppets in Constantinople.

The US also counts on the ethnic support of the poor, Greek-controlled colonial Churches (Greece, Alexandria, Cyprus, Albania, Jerusalem), on the principle that ‘blood is thicker than water’. But this support of petty nationalism will all cost US-taxpayer dollars. And the bankrupt US is in condition to do this. Nor are the Ukraine-supporting but Brexit-divided UK Establishment and bankrupt France, now ridden by nine weeks of popular and violent riots against its Rothschild President.

What will the outcome be? If this planned US assault on the Church of God and its planned Protestantization (= secularization), like the successful assault on Roman Catholicism in the early 1960, is successful, then we are talking about the end of the world. In that case, we are indeed witnessing the last years of human history. Do we despair? No, because there is a far more likely and also very optimistic outcome. This is that the lame duck of Constantinople will disappear with all its decadence, Uniatism and new calendarism into the dustbin of anachronistic history.

Then the Church of Greece, supported by the Orthodox remnants of Constantinople, will take over the Greek Diaspora, enabling long overdue inter-Orthodox co-operation in the Diaspora. Then the apostates in the other Local Churches will disappear into the sink-holes of secularism, like the two apostate bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Alexander Drabinko and Symeon of Vinnitsa.

Then the whole Church will be cleansed, purified of money-minded careerist apostates and crypto-Papist/Protestant ecumenists. They can leave with their dollar salaries from the US secret services. Good riddance. The Church will be healthier without them. Then the 220 million-strong Church, only one in thirty-five of the world population, can begin in earnest its real mission to the 7.5 billion of the Non-Orthodox world, a mission which has only just begun.

On Cleaning Up the Mess After the Phanar

After the falling away of the see of Constantinople from the Orthodox Church and today’s Tomos, we are starting to see how the fashionable tendencies it has long represented are also being rejected. These are freemasonry, modernism, renovationism and dreamy, pseudo-theological intellectualism (philosophy). Thus, this ideology of semi-Orthodox intellectuals, both clerical and lay, is at last being rejected, also in Moscow and Saint Petersburg where they mainly live. This is because such tendencies are now clearly associated with the uncanonical ecclesiastical invasion of the Ukraine by the US-run Phanariots.

Thus, Orthodoxy is at last being cleansed from generations of Protestant-style, modernist philosophers, especially Russians, from Solovyov to Bulgakov, from Berdyayev to Afanasyev, from Schmemann to Yannaras, from Clement to Zizioulas. For it is their ideologies which have led directly to Ukrainian autocephalism. They are what leads directly to the break-up of the Orthodox Church, as Brzezinski and his heirs in today’s US State Department, like Hitler before them, so much desire in their ‘divide and rule’ policy. For the heresy against the Church preached by the modernists is not a theory, it leads to the destruction of the Church.

Nationalist ‘Churches’ in the EU and the USA, in Belarus and Moldova, and anywhere else, is what the modernists and their US sponsors want. This is what Poroshenko and the Phanariots have created in the Ukraine. But the faithful there do not attend their conventicles. Why? Because they give no faith, no spiritual food, they are dead. This nationalism is associated with crude Russophobia. This is cultivated by the phyletists only because they reject the obvious numerical predominance, multinational nature, piety and faithfulness to the Tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church. They want power for themselves.

Lacking humility, they cannot accept the reality of Church life. Russophobia is only their self-justification for this. Of course, we are not talking here about the promotion of some sort of Soviet imperialism or Russian nationalism, which we, like all Russian Orthodox, also naturally wholly reject. We are talking about the rejection of Orthodoxy itself, which has been kept so faithfully precisely by the Russian Church above all. This is why the eight undecided Local Churches (outside the Russian, Serbian Bulgarian, Antiochian, Polish and Czechoslovak Churches) will sooner or later have to choose who they are with: Christ or Belial?

Will the other Local Churches (essentially Greek, apart from the US-influenced Romanian and Georgian Churches) side with the Phanariot modernists or will they remain faithful? In other words, will they recognize the Poroshenko-Phanariot pocket ‘Church’, under US pressure, or will they recognize the faithful and canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Confessor Metropolitan Onufry? If they choose the to do the latter, then the US will form Macedonian and Montenegrin ‘Orthodox Churches’ and many more. ‘Divide and rule’ is after all the Protestant disease which the Americans understand and spread so well.

Just like the former see of Rome, the see of Constantinople is now ceasing to be an Orthodox Church. The process of apostasy is the same: Hildebrand and Bartholomew. Gathering to itself a motley group of freemasons, LGBT activists, schismatics, phyletists, dissidents, ecumenists, modernists and Russophobes, it wars with the spiritual enemies of Orthodoxy, whose last bastion is the Russian Orthodox Church. Their greatest fear is the resurrection of the Imperial, that is, multinational, Church of Rus, of New Jerusalem, of the Orthodox world, of the Orthosphere, of Orthodox Civilization. Their hearts are elsewhere.

Orthodox Civilization stands for everything that is not petty and provincial, that is not Ukrainian-style nationalist ‘Churches’, without spiritual life and monasticism, which wave flags and chant to their Caesars like the Jews of old: ‘Glory to the Ukraine’, ‘Glory to the EU’ and ‘Glory to the USA’, instead of ‘Glory to God’. The support of US/EU globalism and liberalism for petty nationalism is only because nationalism is defenceless before their Eurosodom and Gomerika. What is the way ahead? The clearest course of action is to summon a Church Council, like that in Moscow in 1948, held to condemn ecumenism.

Such a Council might not initially gather all the Local Churches, some of which are still fence-sitting ‘for fear of the Jews’. However, its decisions, like those of other Local Councils in the past, the Palamite Councils, for example, could easily come to be accepted in due course by the whole Church. The agenda would have to include:

  1. The condemnation of the absurd US-recommended, State-run ‘Unifying Council’ (sic), held in Kiev on 15 December 2018, and of its decisions.
  2. The condemnation of the century of ecclesiological heresies, canonical crimes and modernist liturgical aberrations of the Phanar (all of which were present at its Crete meeting in 2016).
  3. In the light of Constantinople’s apostasy, the long-overdue review of the archaic Church Diptychs.
  4. In the light of Constantinople’s apostasy, the discussion of the future close co-operation of the six Local Churches (the Churches of Russia, Greece, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Georgia) directly concerned by the Diaspora.
  5. The condemnation of worldly phyletism and Protestant autocephalism (Schmemannism) and the formulation of the ecclesiological principles for the granting of Autonomy within a Local Church and, above all, for the granting of Autocephaly by all the Local Churches together, thus cleansing the Church of secular nationalism.

 

 

 

Why is it Happening? On the West, Russia, the Phanar and the Ukraine

Since the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the Western Empire, centred in Washington, has been possessed by its ‘New World Order’ hubris. There are actually people there who are so deluded that they believe that history has already ended, with the triumph of ‘the West against the Rest’! Such atheist and Non-Christian ‘neocons’ have clearly never read or understood the Bible. In reality, history will end very differently – with the Apocalypse, caused by Western technology with its idolatrous, Babel-like conviction that it is greater than God. Thus, since 1990, the Western Empire has been trying to subjugate not just parts of the world through invasion and colonization, a process that began 900 years before with the Papist invasion of England in 1066, but the whole world, to its total control.

This Trotskyite control obsession began by trying to take over the Muslim world, first in Iraq and Afghanistan and then in the CIA-mounted ‘Arab Spring’, which has led to widespread torture, humanitarian disasters and millions of deaths and refugees. These disasters spread from Iraq to Egypt, from Libya to Syria, from Tunisia to the Yemen, blood-soaked by British bombs, and led to the immigration crisis in Western Europe. The latter, to the consternation of the extraordinarily stupid globalists (e.g. locally, Cameron and the British Establishment), cut off from the real world of ‘the plebs’ in their elitist bubble, has backfired. Quite predictably, but unpredictably for their stupidity, it led to Brexit and other similar anti-globalist liberation movements all over the EU, and in the USA led to Trump.

The globalists’ attempted takeover of the Islamic world has thus failed in bankruptcy, both financial and moral. However, it has also resulted in reinforcing Iran, the centre of Shia Islamic resistance to the Western Empire and its military and economic terrorism, and alienating ordinary Europeans and Americans. Moreover, since the 1980s now heavily polluted China has undercut the Capitalist West to become the world’s workshop and the world’s Black Country, as once England’s heavily polluted Black Country was in the 19th century the world’s workshop. So it has become powerful. And, since 2000, the Russian Federation has slowly been restoring itself as the pre-1917 centre of Christian Civilization and so becoming powerful once more, growing in spiritual and so moral authority.

Thus, through its own greed, incompetence and control freakery, the now bankrupt Western world today faces three centres of resistance to itself. Today, it is fighting against reality and rivals on three fronts: against the uncorrupted Islamic world, the Chinese world and the Christian (Orthodox) world. Having lost its wars against the Islamic world, where it has reached stalemate and uncontrollable chaos, and too weak to take on China directly, despite its attempts to create dissidence among China’s Muslim Uyghur minority and in Tibet, to mount provocations by aggressively sailing its warships off the coast of China and to use the soft power of Hollywood and consumerism, it has decided to take on the revived Christianity of the Russian Federation as the softest of the three targets.

Thus, two Civilizations, the Christian (Orthodox, centred in Russia), and the Anti-Christian (Atheist, centred in the West) face each other. As usual, the Anti-Christian Empire, like the pagan Roman Empire of old which it imitates from its Capitol, White House and Senate, has adopted the policy of divide and rule and used the relentless lies of its propaganda machine of fake news. This has ranged from using the particularly stupid and amateur underpaid British Secret Services, with their Litvinenko and Skripals (sic!), trying to invade Russia from Georgia and murdering 2,000, and mounting a $5 billion coup d’etat in the Ukraine, barefacedly stating that the Russian Crimea, which by an internationally observed referendum massively and rejoicingly voted to return to Russia, has been annexed (sic!).

It has also used the new regime in Kiev to shoot down a civilian airliner and accused Russia of doing the dirty deed (sic!), stealing the gold reserves of the Ukraine and sending it arms, spies and mercenaries instead (sic!), accusing Russia of threatening to invade the Baltics, Poland and even Sweden and Norway (sic!). Generally, it has relied on the State-controlled Western media and the incredible ignorance of brainwashed Western peoples about reality to tell lies like Goebbels. ‘If you tell the lie often enough, they will believe it’. Of course this anti-Christian world has found enough ‘useful idiots’, whether stupid, ignorant, deluded, naive or simply evil, to believe their shameless lies. For the West the Christian world has to be destroyed from inside. Over the last century the West has done this in two ways.

Firstly, it overthrew the legitimate government in Russia through its local traitors (Milyukov, Rodzianko, Alekseev, several Romanovs et al in 1917, Gorbachov and Yeltsin in the 1980s and 1990s, and today any naïve Westernized dreamer and intellectual or any corrupt oligarch (= thief) (like Navalny and the host of others it keeps in luxury in London, New York and Tel Aviv). Secondly, it dispatched there genocidal maniacs it had long harboured in its bosom in order to dismantle the Christian Empire. However, a third technique has been to undermine the much weaker other Christian countries outside the Christian Empire, attacking the Empire through the soft underbelly by diluting their Orthodoxy, imposing their anti-Orthodox calendar and recruiting their traitors to its ecumenist syncretism.

The centre of the traitors, external to the former Empire, has always been in Istanbul. The centres of the traitors, internal to the former Empire, has always been on its various peripheries, in the Paris emigration and in Crestwood in New York, in the Polish western Ukraine, in the Baltic States and also in the much secularized cities of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, where one can find intellectual traitors like Hovorun, Drabinko, Kochetkov, Kurayev and Mitrofanov, to name but a few. Through its spies, the West has always sought out and found the weaknesses of such individuals and ruthlessly exploited them, especially through flattery and money. (‘Every man has his price’). We can this see today in the apostasy of Phanariot Istanbul and in the other small Local Churches, where today silence reigns in shameful cowardice.

Incredibly to anyone with a grasp of reality, the Phanariots actually believe in their Greek megalomania that they are at the centre (sic!) of the Christian world and should rule over it by Divine right. Flattering its delusions of grandeur and thirst for money, all the while mocking its fantasy behind its back, the Western evil Empire uses the Phanariots for its evil ends. Thus, today the Phanariots have staked everything in a very high risk game in the Ukraine, where their long history will end in ignominy and bloodshed. All Christians (Orthodox) must now choose. A century of compromise through weakness is over. We have to decide whose side we are on. With the faithful or with the traitors? With the Saints of the Russian Orthodox Church or against them? 2019 promises to be a year filled with events.

 

A Bulgarian Hierarch Speaks Out Regarding the Phanariot Crisis in the Ukraine

Metropolitan Daniil of Vididn to glasove.com: The assembly in Ukraine is uncanonical 

Source: glasove.com

“I will answer you in the words of one of the archbishops of the canonical Church, with which he responded to the invitation of Patriarch Bartholomew to attend this assembly: I am firmly convinced and confess that I remain faithful to the One Orthodox Church, and my presence at this council contradicts the first Psalm of David, which reads as follows, “Blessed is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the pestilent. But his will is rather in the law of the Lord, and in His law will he meditate day and night.” What could be the outcome of a council that is convened in violation of the canonical order and involving persons outside the Church? In my opinion, this Council will not heal the division among the faithful people in Ukraine, but will deepen it. In this whole mournful situation there is a comforting thing – the desire of Orthodox people in this country to preserve the unity of the Holy Orthodox Church, and that this finds a response and support across the entire Orthodox world.”

This is what Metropolitan Daniel of Vidin says in an interview for glasove.com on the occasion of the assembly on December 15 in Ukraine convened by the Patriarch of Constantinople. The date for its conducting was announced by President Petro Poroshenko, who informed that an autocephalous local Orthodox church in Ukraine would be established at the assembly. Poroshenko said the council would approve its statutes and choose a primate to obtain from the Ecumenical Patriarch tomos (testimony) of the autocephaly.

Why is the position of the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church concerning the schism crisis in Ukraine being protracted?

The Holy Synod is a collective, conciliar body of governing, and decisions are taken by a majority, in accordance with the Statutes of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Considering this question, the Holy Synod appointed a commission to examine more thoroughly all documents related to the Church crisis in Ukraine and only then to come up with an opinion. At the discussions during the synodal sessions, there were metropolitans, including myself, who wanted a position to be expressed, but as I already said, the Holy Synod is a collective body. At the same time, everyone bears a personal responsibility for his own voice, both before God and before God’s people. Why do we think we need to express a position? Because the Church is one and conciliar, as we confess in the Symbol of the Faith. In this sense, the dispute in Ukraine is not just a dispute between two local Orthodox churches. It affects the entire Orthodox Church.

What is your personal opinion on this question and why do you think it affects the entire Orthodox Church?

This affects the whole Orthodox Church because inter-Orthodox relations are affected. It violates the millennial Canon Law of the Church, one of the basic principles of which is the principle of the boundaries of Church jurisdiction. These limits are clearly defined and generally recognized. Each autocephalous Church has the right to self-governance within its boundaries and does not have the right to extend their jurisdiction in other local Churches. Here we will list only rule 2 of the Second Ecumenical Council, and rule 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council, which prohibits the individual local Orthodox Churches to extend their jurisdiction beyond the bounds of their area.

In your opinion, has Patriarch Bartholomew crossed the limits of his jurisdiction?

We definitely deem so. Since his Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew has been at the lead of the Constantinople Patriarchy, (i.e. from 1991 until now), he has always acknowledged that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate in an indisputable way, with a number of letters and documents endorsed with his signature. Now he suddenly states that the Kiev Metropolis was never given under the full jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.

It is pointed out that in the famous document of 1686, by which the Constantinople Church entitles the Moscow Patriarch to ordain the metropolitan of the Kiev Metropolis, there was a requirement that the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople be commemorated. And this also is considered as a sign of recognition of the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the Kiev Metropolis. It is another question how legitimate these claims are, but they are only declared today – three hundred years after the act in question was issued.

At the same time, the Church rules define periods of limitation for disputes over the right to jurisdiction over certain territories. For example, rule 133 of the Carthaginian Council sets a three-year statute of limitation. If a Bishop believes that another Bishop has entered a part of its territory, he has three years to file a claim. Rule 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and rule 25 of the Fifth-Sixth Ecumenical Council provide a limitation period of 30 years in which disputes over jurisdiction over certain parishes can be settled. And in our case, a few centuries have passed.

In terms of Canon Law, these disputes are inadmissible. Here’s an example: in 1917 The Patriarch of Constantinople, German V, writes the following to the bishop of the Georgian Church after its self-proclamation for autocephalous: “I do not know and cannot know a self-contained Georgian Church, since for more than one hundred years, the Orthodox Georgians have been under the rule of the Russian Church. Your separation and formation of an autocephalous Church is only possible with the consent of your church with the Russian one (…) We cannot interfere in your internal Church matters, but advise you fatherly, to listen to the voice of your pastor, and in this way to bring this issue into the river-bed of the salvific Church canons.”

The claim of the Patriarch of Constantinople that his rights are infringed, (as the Kiev Metropolitan does not commemorate his name during Divine Services), is untenable, but is used as a formal occasion for the document from 1686 to be repealed. But this situation has not been contested for 300 years.

For three centuries the Orthodox people in Ukraine have lived in complete unity and have been an integral part of the Russian Orthodox Church. Since then, Kiev Metropolitans have been members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Church, and have elected, and have had the right to be elected as Patriarchs.

During all these 300 years, the Ukrainian believers have recognized Moscow’s Patriarch as their spiritual primate. Can someone after some 300 years come from outside and say: I am your father? Who’s going to follow him and who’s going to believe him? How can one proclaim himself as the spiritual father of a people, when the people know, remember, and honor the fathers who have begotten and brought them up in the faith? The sacred canons are categorical in this regard.

But for the people outside, it is not clear why Ukraine, after being an independent country, does not have its own independent Church?

Let’s first see what the Orthodox people and their canonical hierarchs in Ukraine say, because that is essential. The hierarchal council, convened by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in reference to these events on November 13th of this year, in which 83 hierarchs participated, expressed an explicit position against the encroachment of the Constantinople Patriarchy into her canonical boundaries, as it stated that “the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is self-governed, endowed with all the rights of independence and autonomy that are today necessary for the fruitful service of God and of the people of Ukraine.”

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) has over 12,000 parishes, which is more than the two schismatic groups, (the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate (UOC KP) and the so-called Autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church), combined.

Therefore, in his letters to the Bulgarian Patriarch and to the primates of the other local Churches, Metropolitan Onuphry correctly expresses his perplexity as to why no one takes into consideration the appeal of thousands of members of the UOC to Patriarch Bartholomew asking autocephaly for these schismatic groups not to be granted.

Why is the voice of a group of people being taken into consideration selectively before the voice of the canonical Church and its flock? Indeed, all canonized saints of the twentieth century in Ukraine urge their spiritual children to preserve sacred the unity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church with the Russian one.

Let’s look at another side of the issue. Who are those who insist on autocephaly? The state authorities first of all. As Metropolitan Onuphry rightly notes, the authorities only hear the voices of those groups that burn Churches, profess nationalism, call for hatred, and cry “death to Moscow.” Why are their voices and demands for autocephaly the only ones to be heard?

It is obvious that these same state authorities are preparing to take matters into their own hands. Why is the opinion of the only recognized canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church not taken into account? What makes the opinion of groups whose leaders have been deprived from their spiritual dignity and excommunicated from the Church more trustworthy?

Could an analogy be made with the schism in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church 20 years ago?

Yes, to a great extent. As the schism in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was inspired and supported by the state authority, the same is happening in Ukraine. In our country, the schism was overcome, thanks to the Orthodox Council of 1998, convened at the initiative of the BOC in Sofia.

At that time, the Ecumenical Patriarch acted quite differently compared to today. Can we talk about a double standard?

Actually, at the 1998 council, the Ecumenical Patriarch posed the question of the resignation of Patriarch Maxim, but then our predecessors, (hierarchs with spiritual experience and valor), opposed him and said, “We have called you here to heal the schism, not to deepen it.” So the parallel between the schism in our country and the one in Ukraine is completely relevant.

At the moment, the UOC MP is in the same position as the BOC was then. In our country the schismatics also tried to rob the Church’s identity, to despoil shrines, to usurp property of which they were not entitled. And most grievously, destroying their moral appearance, and killing the people’s faith. Because we know how they ended, and what their deeds in the faith were. The same is happening in Ukraine.

In 1992, the former Metropolitan of Kiev, Philaret, was deprived of his dignity for his falling into schism and due to proven moral transgressions in personal aspects, and later excommunicated by the Church. So his removal was laid down legitimately, for good reasons due to a number of canonical violations. And in its decision from October 11th, in complete contradiction with the sacred Canons, the Patriarchate of Constantinople restored that man.

Finally, what should be the position of the BOC in your opinion?

Three metropolitans of the Holy Synod came out with a statement on the situation in Ukraine, in which, proceeding from the experience of the Pan-Orthodox council from 1998, which overcame the schism in our country, we proposed in this case to proceed in the same way and for the matter to be offered for a Pan-Orthodox discussion.

For a Pan-Orthodox council to be convened?

This can happen in different ways. First, resuming the dialogue between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church, in view of the ROC’s decision to end Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The resumption of dialogue between the two churches, with the participation of representatives of the rest of the local churches, is a way the wound in Ukraine can be healed. In the end, any decision concerning the Local Orthodox Churches cannot be accepted and permanent without their consent and support.

A “unification council”, convened by the Patriarch of Constantinople will be held on December 15th in Kiev. What do you think will be the result of it? 

I will answer you in the words of one of the archbishops of the canonical Church, with which he responded to the invitation of Patriarch Bartholomew to attend this assembly: “I am firmly convinced and confess that I remain faithful to the One Orthodox Church, and my presence at this council contradicts the first Psalm of David, which reads as follows, “Blessed is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the pestilent. But his will is rather in the law of the Lord, and in His law will he meditate day and night.”

What could be the outcome of a council that is convened in violation of the canonical order and involving persons outside the Church? In my opinion, this Council will not heal the division among the faithful people in Ukraine, but will deepen it. In this whole mournful situation there is a comforting thing – the desire of Orthodox people in this country to preserve the unity of the Holy Orthodox Church, and that this finds a response and support across the entire Orthodox world.”

Is there a political pressure on the Synod of BOC to tilt the scales for one or another solution – from the Russian or American side? Or, from the side of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which expresses certain interests?

I can categorically say that during the discussions in the Holy Synod, the Metropolitans express their own views. So the debates and decisions are made on the basis of the conceptions and conscience of each of the hierarchs.

This is not a direct answer. Is there any political pressure, in your opinion? From the Russian side or from the Americans (through the Bulgarian government), which is in fact the instigator of the actions of the Ecumenical Patriarch?

I can only testify for myself. I can categorically state that nobody has put any pressure on me. In view of the progress of the situation, at this time, it is necessary for all Orthodox Christians to increase our prayers for the preservation of the unity of the Holy Orthodox Church in Ukraine, and in the whole world.

Interviewer: Yavor Dachkov

 

Buffoonery and Shame

The new ‘Metropolitan’ of the graceless State Church in the Ukraine, the US ‘divide and rule’ stooge ‘Epifanij’ Dumenko, ordained by a defrocked and anathematized married bandit ‘Patriarch’ from whom he accepts his orders, awaits his papers in Istanbul on 6 January. He has already promised to force the faithful to adopt the papist calendar and then unite with the Uniats, like the Phanar and the Vatican. All this has cost the US taxpayer, who loves freedom and democracy, a bribe of $25 million to set up this farce. But the new Poroshenko nationalist ‘Church’ duly exists with several hundred adherents and at least two church buildings which imitate the rites of the Orthodox Church.

In the city of Vinnitsa in central Ukraine, civil servants paid by the Poroshenko regime, have been told that they must, by Sunday rota, attend the only church under Dumenko there, as it has been deserted by the faithful. Other faithful are being ‘interviewed’ by the dreaded CIA-trained Kiev Secret Police, the SBU, to find out why they refuse to attend. Poroshenko, the founder of a nationalist Church by bloodshed, is indeed worthy of the bloodthirsty tyrant Henry VIII. Thirty years ago, under the Ukrainian Communist Party, if you went to church, you lost your job. Today, under the Ukrainian Fascist Party, if you do not go to the ‘right’ church, you will lose your job. How times change!

Just today the Ukrainian Parliament has ordered the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to change its name to ‘The Russian Orthodox Church in the Ukraine’. This means that all the over 12,000 churches must be re-registered – which will give the Kiev regime the chance to take them away from the faithful. Persecution is intensifying under US aegis. Perhaps the Ukrainian Parliament could also order the Patriarchate of Constantinople to change its name to ‘The Patriarchate of Istanbul’? And perhaps, in reply, in Moscow a Synod could change the name of the Patriarchate of Moscow, which is associated with the Soviet period, to ‘The Patriarchate of New Jerusalem and All Rus’?

However, there is a serious side to all this provincial buffoonery, which is worthy only of a Balkan farce. The clownish attempt by Istanbul to kidnap the faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church because it has virtually no flock of its own has an alternative. If it wanted faithful for its fictitious empire, why did it not set out to convert Turks – or any of the other 7.5 billion people in the world who are not Orthodox, rather than concentrate on the 216 million who are? Of course, in fairness, we must ask the same question of the 13 canonical Orthodox Churches (there are no longer 14). Why are they not also engaged in mission with the 7.5 billion? This is the real shame.

 

A Real Ukrainian Orthodox Bishop Speaks

Dear Loyal Subject of the Turkish Republic, Mr. Bartholomew!

An Answer to the Invitation to Constantinople’s Ukrainian Robber Council

In the letter below, His Eminence Metropolitan Luke of Zaporozhye and Melitopol responds to the invitations being sent out by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to take part in its so-called “unification council” that aims to create a new church in Ukraine.
 
Met. Luke has not hesitated to speak his mind throughout the recent and ongoing ecclesiastical crisis, and this letter is no exception. Whereas His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine chose to return his invitation unanswered to Constantinople, giving us an example of meekness and humility, Met. Luke offers us an example of fiery, righteous zeal—both examples that are good and necessary in the Church.
***
Dear loyal subject of the Turkish Republic, Mr. Bartholomew!
(better known as the “Ecumenical Patriarch”)
We have learned from the mass media that you are sending invitations for the “council of the unrighteous” (Ps. 1:1) through government officials.
 
In this regard, allow me to express to you and your envoys my heartfelt gratitude for the efforts you are making through the Ukrainian state apparatus and the juggling of the norms of canon law to destroy the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (the successors to the Church born in the Dnieper font), previously recognized by you as the sole canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine!
 
Thanks for what, you ask? For what you contribute by your actions to our Orthodox flock in entering the Kingdom of God, subjecting it to the discrimination and persecution that it is presently enduring. Unfortunately, you probably don’t know our people’s wise saying: “Love can’t be forced.” Your actions are those of a man blinded by the illusory glow of Caesar’s authority.
 
By your participation in political projects aimed at splitting the unity of the Church, you’ve already placed your status as the first honored hierarch in Orthodoxy in serious doubt.
 
You declare today that in your person you represent “the Mother Church” for the Ukrainian people. However, for some reason, you act as the ideological inspirer of a large-scale campaign aimed at inciting hatred towards the UOC, the seizure of its sacred sites, the persecution of its flock, and the undermining of the position of Orthodoxy in Ukraine in favor of the gathering momentum of the Uniate “crusade” on native Orthodox lands! What kind of mother helps torture her child?
 
Those awaiting the swift advent of the Tomosare not afraid to shout such slogans at their gatherings: “Death to the enemy”; and under the walls of our diocesan administration: “Moscow priests to the gallowslike the communists!” This is how your new pupils treat us and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as a whole, being in Eucharistic communion with the See entrusted to you.
 
Terrible things stand behind these slogans: the dominance of political expediency in any important question of Church life, the reign of total persecution against a Church that doesn’t correspond to the general ideological line of the ruling elite, the desecration of holy sites and objects, and the perversion of the canons by longtime opponents of Orthodoxy, who are now actively disguising themselves in the garments of supporters of the autocephalous project being pushed by you.
 
Are you yourself ready to believe in the “Ukrainian national God,” or is this just an attempt to take our people under your omophorion? Or, quite horribly, do the processes provoked by you have ordinary mercantile interests as their foundation?
 
In your attempts to subject all the Orthodox Churches to the throne of Constantinople (like the Catholic Church), you forget that it was not a priest but a ceasar who was in power in Byzantium—an empire that hasn’t existed for many centuries already. And one of the reasons it’s gone—and perhaps the main one—is that at that time, some of your predecessors, the Byzantine patriarchs, allowed the faith to become a bargaining chip in the games of big politics. It’s a great pity that you don’t take this into account—or have deliberately forgotten it.
 
After all, more than 500 years ago, it was precisely the betrayal of the Orthodox faith by Constantinople and its departure into the Unia with Rome, and not the geopolitical conditions of those times, that became the driving force behind Orthodoxy gaining independence from Byzantium in the lands of Rus’.
 
Thank you, Mr. Bartholomew, for aiding in our salvation. The only thing the clergy (whom your throne imagines to be its own for some absurd reason) and flock inquire of you is:
 
What prevented you from hearing us in the spring? What has so clouded your mind that you consider yourself the Patriarch of the entire world? Perhaps your next step will be the assertion that you created this world out of nothing?
 
With gratitude and hope in God’s admonition for each of us,
LUKE, METROPOLITAN OF ZAPOROZHYE AND MELITOPOL

The Long-Awaited European and Orthodox Spring?

Anti-globalist (and therefore anti-EU) riots are spreading in France. It may be that the young and inexperienced Rothschild banker Macron will have to abandon power, humiliated after the series of catastrophic mistakes he has made in his 18 months as President. His arrogance and lust for absolute power, giving himself a godlike status in the old, centralizing French tradition, have been extraordinary. He has never realized that nobody in France actually voted for him, they simply voted against the others. Now he is hated. Now there is talk of the French revolt spreading to Belgium, Holland and Germany, of a ‘European Spring’, as the European peasantry (‘plebs’ in the language of the British Establishment) revolt against the wealthy EU elite. Of course, this may all be exaggerated and the whole affair in France may yet fizzle out in a few days time. Or perhaps not. A European Spring is long overdue.

After all, the French revolt has been long expected. It was already preceded by the UK revolt two years ago, which led to Brexit. (One of the demands of the ‘peasants’ in France is Frexit). Instead of negotiating before the British EU referendum or after it, the EU authorities in Brussels simply denied that there was a problem and decided to punish the UK for leaving their clique. This denial is what they have been doing for decades and still continue to do, despite the revolt of the people of Europe (which they so contemptuously call ‘populism’): ‘The people are too stupid to know what is good for them’. In the 1960s and 1970s Europeans more or less went along with ‘The Common Market’, but the 1992 invention of the EU by the elite and then the forced introduction of the euro, all against popular sentiment, were all too much. It is clear that the EU will not survive. The question has never been if it will collapse, only when.

The anti-EU revolt has been hastened by the disastrous New World Order US invasion of Iraq, the US-backed Franco-British destruction of Libya and then the Western-sponsored terrorist war against Syria. This has upset the delicate balance in the Middle East and North Africa, exactly as experts predicted before the 2003 invasion, unleashing millions of wretched immigrants and also waves of Islamist terrorism (many of these fanatics were trained in CIA camps in Afghanistan, like Bin Laden himself). This new immigration came on top of the EU destruction of Eastern Europe and the millions of immigrants from those countries forced to flee their ancestral homes in order not to starve and die of preventable illnesses because they could not afford medical treatment (as had happened in the ex-Soviet Union in the 1990s, after the collapse of Soviet protection against the onslaught of globalist capitalism).

As if it has not caused enough problems already, Western meddling continues. The ‘successful’ coup d’etat that the EU mounted in the Ukraine nearly five years ago against its democratically-elected government has bought its bitter fruit there too. The latest attempt by the Kiev clique to set up its own State Church (on the Protestant model), bribing the discredited (and anti-Brexit, because elitist-supporting) Patriarchate of Constantinople, would be laughable if it were not so tragic. In a week’s time the Kiev junta will hold a Phanariot-organized ‘Council of Unity’. Some of those who will not be attending (90% of the Orthodox population, their 90 bishops and 10,000 priests) have already been arrested and had their homes searched by the dreaded CIA-trained Ukrainian Secret Police. In its blustering folly the ‘racially superior’ Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople has threatened to defrock them all!!

This is the action of a wounded animal that has been cornered and knows that it is about to die. We can expect this to happen more and more often as the old generation, with its US-hegemony and EU, NATO, IMF, World Bank, Poroshenko regime and Patriarchate of Constantinople vassals, die out. However, we look to the future and freedom. We look to an Orthodox Council that will reassert the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and so condemn and anathematize the opposing movements: Ecumenism (which, ironically, destroys the Oneness of the Church); Erastianist obedience to the State, whether Soviet or Western (which is against the Holiness of the Church); Phyletism, like the Roman Catholic or Phanariot (against the unity in diversity Catholicity of the Church); modernism (against the Apostolic Tradition of the Church). The past is dead or dying: let us go forward together!

 

Istanbul: The Young Turks Take Over

The three-day Synod in Istanbul, the last of the year, ended yesterday.

Firstly, after over three generations of indulging its illusions, it finally dissolved the rebellious Rue Daru group in Paris, reducing its 75 year-old French archbishop to a vicar-bishop. We had long expected this, but did not know when and in what despotic conditions without any consultation. Now in each community of that little group infighting will follow between opposing clans, those who are actually of the Russian Tradition and the anti-Orthodox Russophobes. This mirrors the present and coming battle in the OCA (Orthodox Church in America) group, which as such was founded by Paris intellectuals nearly fifty years ago at the height of the Cold War and is equally divided between Orthodox and Russophobes.

Secondly, the Synod sacked the 90-year old Archbishop Dimitrios in North America, as had been expected earlier this year. This sacking involves a large sum of ‘missing money’.

Thirdly, the Synod did not give the Tomos for Ukrainian autocephaly, just as they said they would not two years ago before their disastrous meeting in Crete, but as they had been paid $25 million for by the US taxpayer to do this year. This leaves President Poroshenko, who demanded this Tomos (he was the only one who wanted it, apart from his US paymasters) with a very red face, outwitted by Greeks who came bearing (apparent) gifts.

Why did all this happen now?

With an ageing (and, according to some, ill) Patriarch and many other elderly and ill bishops, such as the unstable John of Pergamos or the above-mentioned 90 year-old Archbishop Dimitrios or the arch-rebel Archbishop Stylianos in Australia, it seems as though the young generation of ‘Young Turks’ has taken over in Istanbul. These include the ultra-papist Metropolitan of Prussa, Elpidiphoros (Lambriniadis), the Metropolitan of Gaul, Emmanuel Adamakis (said to be the very ambitious successor in Istanbul), or the now notorious Archbishop Job (Getcha).

This new generation lacks pastoral experience and is bound to an extraordinary ideology of Eastern Papism, that comes from a fantasy that ended 565 years ago in 1453. They will eventually come down to earth with a very cruel bump. Meanwhile, the self-imposed spiritual suicide of the New or Second Rome does mean its end, except as a small and schismatic group of ‘new calendarists’. This in turn means that the Russian Orthodox Church is now free to establish canonical Orthodoxy worldwide. A great burden has been lost. Freedom has come. The eyes of the Orthodox world are now looking to the Russian Church to take on the mantle of authority and prove itself worthy by at last setting up the infrastructure in the Diaspora which we have so long been battling for without support. To those who have been given much, much is expected.

 

The Great Opportunity

Put not your trust in princes, nor in the sons of men.

With the dissolution of the Rue Daru Exarchate in Paris behind the back of its ruling archbishop, the daydreams of autonomy of the ecumenist Fraternite Orthodoxe have been dashed. Now the way is at last free for the Russian Orthodox Church to establish its Local Metropolia of Western Europe. Called for by ourselves in 1988 and, much more importantly, promised by Patriarch Alexey II in 2003, it is time to move forward. With the Patriarchate of Constantinople having officially removed itself from the equation through the phyletism of ‘the superior Greek race’ which has swallowed the Paris Jurisdiction, all eyes are now looking to the Russian Orthodox Church.

The two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church in Western Europe, one attached to Moscow, the other to New York, joined by any Churchly remnants of the Rue Daru group, together can build the long-awaited multinational Church of Western Europe, which ceased to exist in 1054. Surely 964 years of patience is enough! Unlike the Phanar and others, the Russian Orthodox Church is free from the meddling US State Department. Just as in the Ukraine, it is for our free Church to take responsibility for the future of the flock, putting the Truth of God over the enfeebling diplomacy and petty nationalism of men: it has long been apparent that nobody except the Russian Church will.