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!
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.
Today in the Ukraine, the CIA-trained, Kiev-regime secret police, the much-feared SBU, is summoning Ukrainian Orthodox bishops one by one to its headquarters for ‘a conversation’. The old KGB techniques and torture chambers may be used again, in case the bishops decide not to go over to the Phanariot schism. Ex-Patriarch Bartholomew will have blood on his hands, just like the US and the EU, which first created the bloody coup and bankrupt regime, which is propped up in Kiev by IMF (= US) money.
However, apart from in the Ukraine, the fact that the three million-strong Patriarchate of Constantinople under financial pressure (the $25 million dollars paid to it by the US administration) has broken away from the 164 million-strong Russian Orthodox Church has had little effect in the Russian Federation and Eastern Europe. But in the Diaspora there is a huge effect. Virtually every day we pastors are confronted with the catastrophic consequences: Where can I go to church and take communion now?
Russian, English and other Orthodox who used to rely on the many Greek Churches can no longer receive the sacraments there and are looking for alternatives. In England a whole ex-Russian, now Constantinople, convent/monastery has fallen away from the Church and is now out of communion with us. Conscious, non-phyletist and spiritually free Orthodox do not want to be in communion with the anathematized and defrocked former KGB Denisenko, in an affair of corruption.
Two priests and hundreds of people have already left Constantinople, but far more want to leave. They would leave, but they have nowhere near to go: they need new parishes, using the Orthodox calendar and also new buildings. And here we see all the consequences of historic incompetence, laziness and pastoral neglect of the flock. The decades of refusal by the Russian Church to meet the needs of the faithful in the past (‘they can go to the Greeks’) sound even more inadequate today.
There are those who need to stop persecuting pastors and support us. It is time to stop the attachment to a very few small if splendid church-buildings and pay attention to souls. It is all very well to say that the Russian Orthodox faithful are not to attend churches of the schismatic Patriarchate of Constantinople, but quite another to provide them with alternative churches and care. Here, just in the White Russian East of England, we need nine more priests, as we have been calling out for all this time, ignored.
Actions speak louder than words. The failures of the diplomats of the Church in Moscow, who preferred to celebrate in Phanariot churches instead of in ours, are clear. However, they can be made up for now by at last showing faithfulness and setting up the infrastructure of the network of churches which we neglected pastors in the Diaspora have been struggling unaided to set up for so many decades. Europe, the Americas, Oceania and so many worldwide await. Old sins do indeed cast long shadows….
Whose Money Stoked Religious Strife in Ukraine – and Who Tried to Steal It?
Was $25 million in American tax dollars allocated for a payoff to stir up religious turmoil and violence in Ukraine? Did Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko (unsuccessfully) attempt to divert most of it into his own pocket?
Last month the worldwide Orthodox Christian communion was plunged into crisis by the decision of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I in Constantinople to recognize as legitimate schismatic pseudo-bishops anathematized by the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is an autonomous part of the Russian Orthodox Church. In so doing not only has Patriarch Bartholomew besmirched the global witness of Orthodoxy’s two-millennia old Apostolic faith, he has set the stage for religious strife in Ukraine and fratricidal violence – which has already begun.
Starting in July, when few were paying attention, this analyst warned about the impending dispute and how it facilitated the anti-Christian moral agenda of certain marginal “Orthodox” voices like “Orthodoxy in Dialogue,” Fordham University’s “Orthodox Christian Studies Center,” and The Wheel. These “self-professed teachers presume to challenge the moral teachings of the faith” (in the words of Fr. John Parker) and “prowl around, wolves in sheep’s clothing, forming and shaping false ideas about the reality of our life in Christ.” Unsurprisingly such groups have embraced Constantinople’s neopapal self-aggrandizement and support for the Ukrainian schismatics.
No one – and certainly not this analyst – would accuse Patriarch Bartholomew, most Ukrainian politicians, or even the Ukrainian schismatics of sympathizing with advocacy of such anti-Orthodox values. And yet these advocates know they cannot advance their goals if the conciliar and traditional structure of Orthodoxy remains intact. Thus they welcome efforts by Constantinople to centralize power while throwing the Church into discord, especially the Russian Church, which is vilified in some Western circles precisely because it is a global beacon of traditional Christian moral witness.
This aspect points to another reason for Western governments to support Ukrainian autocephaly as a spiritual offensive against Russia and Orthodoxy. The post-Maidan leadership harp on the “European choice” the people of Ukraine supposedly made in 2014, but they soft-pedal the accompanying moral baggage the West demands, symbolized by “gay” marches organized over Christian objections in Orthodox cities like Athens, Belgrade, Bucharest, Kiev, Odessa, Podgorica, Sofia, and Tbilisi. Even under the Trump administration, the US is in lockstep with our European Union friends in pressuring countries liberated from communism to adopt such nihilistic “democratic, European values.”
Perhaps even more important to its initiators, the row over Ukraine aims to break what they see as the “soft power” of the Russian Federation, of which the Orthodox Church is the spiritual heart and soul. As explained by Valeria Z. Nollan, professor emerita of Russian Studies at Rhodes College:
‘The real goal of the quest for autocephaly [i.e., complete self-governing status independent of the Moscow Patriarchate] of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is a de facto coup: a political coup already took place in 2014, poisoning the relations between western Ukraine and Russia, and thus another type of coup – a religious one – similarly seeks to undermine the canonical relationship between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and Moscow.’
In furthering these twin objectives (morally, the degrading of Orthodox Christianity; politically, undermining the Russian state as Orthodoxy’s powerful traditional protector) it is increasingly clear that the United States government – and specifically the Department of State – has become a hands-on fomenter of conflict. After a short period of appropriately declaring that “any decision on autocephaly is an internal [Orthodox] church matter,” the Department within days reversed its position and issued a formal statement (in the name of Department spokesperson Heather Nauert, but clearly drafted by the European bureau) that skirted a direct call for autocephaly but gave the unmistakable impression of such backing. This is exactly how it was reported in the media, for example, “US backs Ukrainian Church bid for autocephaly.” Finally, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo weighed in personally with his own endorsement as did the US Reichskommissar for Ukraine, Kurt Volker.
There soon became reason to believe that the State Department’s involvement was not limited to exhortations. As reported by this analyst in October, according to an unconfirmed report originating with the members of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (an autonomous New York-based jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate), in July of this year State Department officials (possibly including Secretary Pompeo personally) warned the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (also based in New York but part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) that the US government was aware of the misappropriation of a large amount of money, about $10 million, from estimated $37 million raised from believers for the construction of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church and National Shrine in New York. The State Department warning also reportedly noted that federal prosecutors have documentary evidence confirming the withdrawal of these funds abroad on the orders of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. It was suggested that Secretary Pompeo would “close his eyes” to this theft in exchange for movement by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in favor of Ukrainian autocephaly, which helped set Patriarch Bartholomew on his current course.
[Further details on the St. Nicholas scandal are available here, but in summary: Only one place of worship of any faith was destroyed in the September 11, 2001, attack in New York and only one building not part of the World Trade Center complex was completely destroyed. That was St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, a small urban parish church established at the end of World War I and dedicated to St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, who is very popular with Greeks as the patron of sailors. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, and following a lengthy legal battle with the Port Authority, which opposed rebuilding the church, in 2011 the Greek Archdiocese launched an extensive campaign to raise funds for a brilliant innovative design by the renowned Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava based on traditional Byzantine forms. Wealthy donors and those of modest means alike enthusiastically contributed millions to the effort. Then – poof! In December 2017, suddenly all construction was halted for lack of funds and remains stalled to this day. Resumption would require having an estimated $2 million on hand. Despite the Archdiocese’s calling in a major accounting firm to conduct an audit, there’s been no clear answer to what happened to the money. Both the US Attorney and New York state authorities are investigating.]
This is where things get back to Ukraine. If the State Department wanted to find the right button to push to spur Patriarch Bartholomew to move on the question of autocephaly, the Greek Archdiocese in the US is it. Let’s keep in mind that in his home country, Turkey, Patriarch Bartholomew has virtually no local flock – only a few hundred mostly elderly Greeks left huddled in Istanbul’s Phanar district. (Sometimes the Patriarchate is referred to simply as “the Phanar,” much as “the Vatican” is shorthand for the Roman Catholic papacy.) Whatever funds the Patriarchate derives from other sources (the Greek government, the Roman Catholic Church, the World Council of Churches), the Phanar’s financial lifeline is the ethnic Greek community (including this analyst) in what is still quaintly called the “Diaspora” in places like America, Australia, and New Zealand. And of these, the biggest cash cow is the Greek-Americans.
That’s why, when Patriarch Bartholomew issued a call in 2016 for what was billed as an Orthodox “Eighth Ecumenical Council” (the first one since the year 787!), the funds largely came from America, to the tune of up to $8 million according to the same confidential source as will be noted below. Intended by some as a modernizing Orthodox “Vatican II,” the event was doomed to failure by a boycott organized by Moscow over what the latter saw as Patriarch Bartholomew’s adopting papal or even imperial prerogatives – now sadly coming to bear in Ukraine.
…and the Payoff
On top of the foregoing, it now appears that the State Department’s direct hand in this sordid business may not have consisted solely of wielding the “stick” of legal threat: there’s reason to believe there was a “carrot” too. It very recently came to the attention of this analyst, via an unsolicited, confidential source in the Greek Archdiocese in New York, that a payment of $25 million in US government money was made to Constantinople to encourage Patriarch Bartholomew to move forward on Ukraine.
The source for this confidential report was unaware of earlier media reports that the same figure – $25 million – was paid by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to the Phanar as an incentive for Patriarch Bartholomew to move forward on creating an independent Ukrainian church. Moreover, Poroshenko evidently tried to shortchange the payment:
‘Peter [Petro] Poroshenko — the president of Ukraine — was obligated to return $15 million US dollars to the Patriarch of Constantinople, which he had appropriated for himself.
‘As reported by Izvestia, this occurred after the story about Bartholomew’s bribe and a “vanishing” large sum designated for the creation of a Unified Local Orthodox Church in Ukraine surfaced in the mass media.
‘As reported, on the eve of Poroshenko’s visit in Istanbul, a few wealthy people of Ukraine “chipped in” in order to hasten the process of creating a Unified Local Orthodox Church. About $25 million was collected. They were supposed to go to the award ceremony for Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople for the issuing of a tomos of autocephaly. [A tomos is a small book containing a formal announcement.] However, in the words of people close to the backer, during the visit on April 9, Poroshenko handed over only $10 million.
‘As a result, having learned of the deal, Bartholomew cancelled the participation of the delegation of the Phanar – the residence of the Patriarch of Constantinople, in the celebration of the 1030th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia on July 27 in Kiev.
‘”Such a decision from Bartholomew’s side was nothing other than a strong ultimatum to Poroshenko to return the stolen money. Of course, in order to not lose his face in light of the stark revelations of the creation of the tomos of autocephaly for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Peter Alexeevich [Poroshenko] had to just return those $15 million for the needs of Constantinople,” a trusted source explained to reporters.
‘For preliminary information, only after receiving the remaining sum, did Bartholomew finally give his consent to sending a delegation of the Phanar to Kiev … ‘
Now, it’s possible that the two identical figures of $25 million refer to two different pots of money (a cool $50 million!) but that seems unlikely. It’s more probable the reports refer to the same sum as viewed from the sending side (the State Department, the Greek Archdiocese) and the delivery side (Poroshenko, Constantinople).
Lending credibility to the confidential information from New York and pointing to the probability that it refers to the same payment that Poroshenko reportedly sought to raid for himself are the following observations:
- When Poroshenko generously offered Patriarch Bartholomew $10 million, the latter was aware that the full amount was $25 million and demanded the $15 million Poroshenko had held back. How did the Patriarch know that, unless he was informed via New York of the full sum?
- If the earlier-reported $25 million was really collected from “a few wealthy people of Ukraine” who “chipped in,” given the cutthroat nature of disputes among Ukrainian oligarchs would Poroshenko (an oligarch in his own right) have risked trying to shortchange the payment? Why has not even one such Ukrainian donor been identified?
- Without going into all the details, the Phanar and the Greek Archdiocese have a long relationship with US administrations of both parties going back at least to the Truman administration, encompassing some decidedly unattractive episodes. In such a history, a mere bribe for a geopolitical shot against Moscow would hardly be a first instance or the worst.
As one of this analyst’s Greek-American connections puts it: “It’s easy to comprehend the Patriarchate bowing to the pressure of State Dept. blackmail… not overly savory, but understandable. However, it’s another thing altogether if Kiev truly “purchased” their autocephalous status from an all too willing Patriarchate … which would relegate the Patriarch to ‘salesman’ status and leave the faithful wondering what else might be offered to the highest bidder the next time it became convenient to hold a Patriarchal ‘fire sale’ at the Phanar?!”
To add insult to injury, you’d think Constantinople at least could pay back some of the $7-8 million wasted on the Crete 2016 debacle to restart the St. Nicholas project in New York. Evidently the Phanar has better things to spend it on, like the demonstrative environmentalism of “the Green Patriarch” and, together with Pope Francis, welcoming Muslim migrants to Europe through Greece. Of course maybe there’s no need to worry, as the Ukraine “sale” was consistent with Constantinople’s papal ambitions, an uncanonical claim to “universal” status, and misuse of incarnational language and adoption of a breathtakingly arrogant tone that would cause even the most ultramontane proponent of the Rome’s supremacy to blush.
Finally, it seems that, for the time being at least, Constantinople doesn’t intend to create an independent Ukrainian church but rather an autonomous church under its own authority. It’s unclear whether or not Poroshenko or the State Department, in such event, would believe they had gotten their money’s worth. Perhaps they would. After all, the issue here is less what is appropriate for Ukraine than what strikes at Russia and injures the worldwide Christian witness of the Orthodox Church. To that end, it doesn’t matter whether the new illegal body is Constantinopolitan or Kievan, just so long as it isn’t a “Moskal church” linked to Russia.
11 November 2018, the centenary of the end of the First World War, has passed. And still there has been no repentance for and no renunciation of the imperialism which caused that needless European bloodbath with its greed for land, resources and power, for Lebensraum, as the Germans call it. Instead, the centenary turned out to be a sentimental, if regretful, ‘celebration’ by hypocritical politicians of the slaughter of the youth of Europe and of its colonies, dragged into their anti-national imperialism. Repentance would have meant that there would at last have been justice in Europe for 100 years of Western aggression, exploitation and materialism (whether Capitalist or Communist). For this aggression continues in the current Western-armed and Western-financed bloodbaths in Syria, the Yemen, the Congo and the Ukraine: the same disease as 100 years ago continues.
1918 also marks the beginning of the end of the Patriarchate of Constantinople after it was contaminated by exactly the same imperialism and its lust for power, summed up by the word ‘Phanariotism’. This has culminated in the notorious meeting in Crete in 2016 and now in its latest US-sponsored adventure in the Ukraine. Phanariotism is essentially the loss of faith which reduces the Church of God to a mere religious institution with its corporate lust for power and money, swimming with the tide of the world. It is this that has characterized the recent life of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, ever since the restraining power of Tsar Nicholas II was removed 100 years ago (2 Thess 2, 7). However, in fairness, all the other Local Churches have been infected by the same disease of Phanariotism, not least the Patriarchate of Moscow. What are the three symptoms of this disease?
Called variously Sergianism, renovationism, erastianism or caesaropapism, modernism is simply the internal movement to conform the Church to the (secularist, Western) world, giving up the struggle to conform that world to the Church. Modernism stems from the loss of faith, which has seen the appearance of atheist bishops (the former Metropolitan of Kiev, Denisenko) and masonic patriarchs (the former Patriarchs of Constantinople Meletios and Athenagoras). It means introducing the heterodox calendar, shortening the services and the fasts, changing the dress of the clergy, putting seating and organs into churches etc.
It also means imposing such secularism by threat, as the Phanariots tried to do at their US-style meeting in Crete, (‘The Orthodox Second Vatican Council’) two years ago. Today, in the Ukraine, it means enforcing the heterodox calendar, making 25 December a State holiday, as Poroshenko’s US, Canadian and EU patrons demanded and as has been done. It means ‘divide and rule’, following the policy of the Nazis in the Ukraine 75 years ago, which was also the policy of the pagan Romans and is the policy of today’s neo-pagan Romans in Washington, as it sends its NATO legions to bully and enslave the still free world.
Phyletism is simply the Greek word for racism. It means putting one’s nation above Christ. Greek racism, centred in Constantinople, is the standard here, but other Local Churches have also adopted this poisonous heresy. Phyletism has no interest in baptising all nations into the Church, as Christ in St Matthew’s Gospel commands us (Matt 28, 19), for it considers that only one’s own race is worthy of salvation – indeed that perhaps it has, Jewish-style and therefore Protestant-style, already been saved.
Thus, phyletism is inherently anti-missionary, for why bother with missionary work if only one’s own race is worthy of salvation? And phyletism is also inherently ecumenistic, for it asserts that since one’s own Greek race has been saved by the Greek religion, then we may talk to other religions. Since the others are not Greeks, we may as well talk to them – after all they may give us a lot of money. Thus, the opposite of phyletism is missionary work, which is held back precisely by phyletism and ecumenism, as we saw in Crete.
Ecumenism is therefore the result of phyletism and the external extension of this swimming with the tide modernism, reducing the Church to a mere religion, like all the other manmade religions. We saw how the Phanariot gerontocrats tried to impose this heresy of ecumenism in Crete, deliberately confusing the Church with so-called ‘churches’. However, in this field of ecumenism, there have been and are traitors in all the Local Churches, who are also intent on destroying the chance of the faithful to obtain salvation.
Certain Russian Patriarchal bureaucrats have also long been involved in modernism, phyletism and ecumenism, making them too into Phanariots. They can be recognized because they promote the same policies of the Phanariots, the policies of Crete. If the Patriarchate of Moscow wants to separate itself from this pernicious disease, which we see is not only a Greek one, then it can purge itself, perhaps in the following three ways:
– Abandon any creeping modernism, make sure that all its parishes follow the Orthodox calendar and keep the Tradition.
– Rename itself ‘The Patriarchate of New Jerusalem and all Rus’, divorcing itself from any Soviet-style imperialistic tendencies and take up the multinational call and challenge of missionary work all around the world.
– Leave the WCC and all other such alien ‘dialogues’, such as those with the Vatican machine.
Only by separating itself from the disease of Phanariotism will the Russian Orthodox Church regain the trust of the whole practising Orthodox world, its own and all those in the other Twelve Local Churches. Only then will it sit down at table at a new Mysterious Supper, ready to greet the Returning Christ. Here then is the Opportunity of the Century.
Archbishop Job Getcha, the very young and inexperienced Canadian reject by the tiny Rue Daru group in Paris, has now been selected as the head of the new Phanariot ‘Church’ in the Ukraine. Well-known as an ecumenist, he is also notorious for his behaviour in Paris (the photographs have long been on the internet) and for his tyranny. However, he is the darling of the Canadian Secret Services, a northern branch of the CIA, and now has to create a Church under the rigid control of his US-appointed Patriarch in Istanbul and the US-appointed President, the Uniat billionaire Poroshenko/Waltzman.
With a flock of two (a schismatic defrocked former KGB agent and self-appointed married ‘patriarch’, together with a schismatic ‘metropolitan’) and a single church building handed over to him by the Kiev State regime, Archbishop Job Getcha has ordered all bishops in the Ukraine to obey him! An authority-less authoritarian, this young Canadian academic will now learn about reality. Instead of uniting the three small regional nationalist schismatic groups in the Ukraine (three because we count the pro-Fascist Uniats, also based in ex-Poland in the far west of the contemporary Ukraine) with the huge canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Istanbul has now simply founded a fourth schism.
Here is yet another result of the century-old interference of Istanbul in the canonical territories and affairs of other Local Churches, from Finland to Estonia, from Poland to Czechoslovakia, from Paris to New York, from Bulgaria to Greece, from Serbia to Russia…It would be funny if it were not tragic…
Usually, a new Local Church comes into being many years after its founding saints and by the popular consent of the local people of God. However, today one has been born in Istanbul by the signatures of the much-disputed but US-backed Uniat President of the genocidal regime in the Ukraine and a Turkish citizen who appears to be in the grip of insanity. All this is against the will of the clergy and the people. What the Turkish Sultan Erdogan, who two years ago survived a US attempt to assassinate him only thanks to Russian help, thinks, we do not know. The latest from Istanbul is that this tiny group of individuals is thinking of taking back the autocephaly of the other Local Churches (presumably not that of today), granted hundreds of years ago!
Where do we go from this insanity?
Perhaps the Patriarch of the Phanar will die and then the Phanar will repent for its madness. Perhaps, more likely, after a time of the Phanariot schism, a Council will be called, Patriarch Bartholomew and his anti-Church papist ideology anathematized, and the whole Church can continue under the leadership of the Russian part (75% of the whole) together with the closest co-operation of the other Twelve Local Churches, the title of ‘Constantinople’ passing to the Archbishop of Athens. If only there were a Tsar to call that Council….In the meantime the Church will continue…
By Vasilianna Merheb
On October 11, 2018, after the Istanbul Synodal decisions , inspired by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, we were witness to an unprecedented coup attempt against the sacred canons and statutes of the Holy Orthodox Church through sole claims.
Obviously, this is an attempt for an authoritarian jurisdictional dictatorship, where the Orthodox Church is placed in an emergency situation, because the true face of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew was finally and conclusively revealed (as well as his geo-religious ambitions).
After the announced anti-procedural synodal decisions, the Ecumenical Patriarchate fell into schism because the canons dictate anathema and excommunication for such serious crimes, which are sanctioned by three Apostolic rules, as well as decisions of several Ecumenical and Local Councils . Istanbul Patriarch Bartholomew, after these synodal decisions, voluntarily united with schismatics anathematized by the Church, namely the so-called Patriarch Filaret (Denisenko) and so-called Archbishop Makarius (Maletisch), who are private persons, that is, civilians excommunicated from the Church, who are not Her members. Accordingly, with its current action, the Istanbul (Ecumenical) Patriarchate itself automatically fell under anathema, that is, subjected itself to a deliberate self-excommunication from the Holy Orthodox Church.
With this spiritual act, the Ecumenical Patriarchate fell into schism, and these actions deprived it of participation in the Living Body of Christ. Every bishop is an Apostolic successor, and this action is tantamount to Juda’s betrayal. What is worse than that? Bartholomew (Archondonis) and the diocese he runs, all together, fell away from the Church because this is a renunciation of all the archpastoral vows he gave. It is only a matter of procedural time for this to be confirmed by an appropriate council of the other local Orthodox churches.
This act is an unseen defamation of the name and authority of the ancient Constantinopolitan office entrusted to Bartholomew, which, after the Istanbul synodal decisions, remained outside the graceful Salvific Ship. Unfortunately, this applies equally to the adjoining flock.
In fact, on October 11, 2018, a tragic historical event took place because it concerns the fall of a Patriarch who, through his deeds, instead of preaching Christ and His peace as a loving father and faithful fellow, he was self-dethroned, by leading an “ecclesiastical Maidan” in Ukraine.
Indeed, this day is sorrowful for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but in terms of ecclesiastical reality, it does not change anything, and none of the decisions has any canonical value. With such a self-destructive act, this formerly Local Church, led by Her former Patriarch, committed one of the most severe sins against the Church.
It is said that such an act (schism) cannot be washed away even with the blood of martyrdom (St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. John Chrysostom ). The attempt for a Church coup is perceived as purposeful encroachment for the tearing apart of the Body of Christ. It is the desecration of the holy Church canons in a criminal contravention of all accepted procedures, namely a bold invasion and direct intervention on the territory of another local Church and its associated jurisdiction. Istanbul Patriarch Bartholomew also presumed to dispose through the auspices of the secular power, attempting through unlawful and illegal speculations, and political blackmail, to make aggressive encroachment against his brethren, subjecting them to an open murderous fratricidal war.
To this date, the so-called Ecumenical Patriarchate is a markedly archaic structure, whose name is an anachronism, dating from ancient Byzantium, and which essentially does not correspond with the modern Church reality. This is about one Istanbul Patriarch, who is self-titled as a successor of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, whose flock is currently small and weak. Therefore, the current so-called Ecumenical Patriarchate has a rather symbolic status. The Turkish Bishop Bartholomew has the status “first amongst equals in honor” on account of the former glory of this office, but in fact he has no authority greater than all the other primates of the Local Churches.
It can be said that his deformed self-perception for supremacy in relation to this title leads to a spiritual distortion, where the limits of his authority are deprived of the necessary moderation, and this is recognized by the poisonous fruit of pride, which leads to detrimental consequences. Examples of such unhealthy manifestations include numerous ecumenical initiatives such as common prayer with the Roman pope. Such activities are inspired by his U.S. bureaucratic friends, pursuing their geopolitical ambitions and goals.
Numerous are the facts that prove his direct dependence on a global shadow establishment, to which the Church is needed as an instrument for imposing a geo-religious policy that is essentially anti-Christian. It is no secret that the so-called Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew, is named “Eastern Pope” and even “heresiarch.”
The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov officially identified Bartholomew as a person who enjoys open support of certain political circles in the United States, as evidenced by the endorsements of the U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine, Kurt Volker. It is often mentioned that Bartholomew (Arhondonis) enjoys the protections of the confessing ultra-liberal ideology of the former Obama administration, related also to the preparation of the Cretan robber council, “the Ukrainian Maidan”, and a number of staged world events.
The former Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, personally and publically stated that he supports the granting of autocephaly and “tomos”, requested by the Ukrainian Government. This coincides with the Obama administration’s actions regarding the coup in Ukraine.
The political claims and pretensions made by Bartholomew towards the Church, appears to be a complete absurdity, not only according to the Church canon, but also from the perspective of secular law (because Ukraine is considered a secular state which by its constitution has no right to intervene in Church affairs).
In this case, it is about a trans-Atlantic project directed outside the state of Ukraine, in which elections are coming soon. This imposes a sense of urgency within the regime because Poroshenko must be utilized while in power. There also seems to be a plan B. Recently on the political scene, there has appeared the scandalous politician, Yulia Tymoshenko, who officially announced her unconditional support of the church “tomos” (which in unseen ways points to a State priority). This also explains the forcing of the process, because in the U.S. there is a new administration, which does not adhere to the same values as the Obama administration.
In his desire to implement the strategy of his political supporters, Bartholomew (Arhondonis) seems like he is ready for any boldness and compromise. This explains his ambitious behavior over the years, where he perceives himself as a figure “above the Church” disregarding the equality of the primates of the other Local Churches. His leitmotif is “first without equals”, which was glaringly demonstrated during the preparation and implementation of his Cretan event whose documents forebode that the “council” was a preparatory scenario for universal schism in the Church.
That is why we should not be surprised that over the years, Bartholomew’s image was crafted as “political Patriarch” of a papal model. This led to the current situation involving the collaboration with politicians who came to power with the coup in Ukraine and with politicians from the American Government with interests hostile to the Church. This is a political manipulation, using social engineering, (with the involvement of schismatics, uniates, atheists, protestant sects, Roman Catholics, and monophysites), for the implementation of the sinister objectives for the destabilization of Orthodoxy.
The Church history knows no such outrage: to grant autocephaly not just to a Church structure, but to schismatics canonically excommunicated from the Church, who are reduced to the status of civilians. On its own, this is a total absurdity, as Bartholomew himself ruled on the case of Ukraine in 1995 and declared that the Kievan pretenders are schismatics . In fact, he participates in their canonical excommunication, (recognized by all local churches), and de facto he contradicts his own actions.
If his logic of giving autocephaly is to be followed, Mount Athos should join the Greek Archdiocese, as well as all the other geographic territories of the state of Greece, which now belong to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and are with the status of Stavropigi.
The Ukrainian question is an unprecedented violation of the principles of canon law, because only the one who has excommunicated can recover and assign those who were excommunicated. This would occur synodically by the ROC-MP, and a proper procedure with the accompanying spiritual actions. It would require repentance from the excommunicated individuals, and submission of a request for forgiveness, (which does not exist to this moment).
In this case, the initiative is by the Ukrainian Government and on behalf of President Poroshenko, who adopted the so-called “tomos” as if it has some magical properties that they rely on to guarantee them empowerment forever.
Given the criminal intrusion into the diocese of the territory of ROC-MP, in its defense, they should invoke the Church canons which were violated . It is their full right to initiate its own council and to sanction the unilateral, anti-conciliar and self-willed actions of Bartholomew. Thus, it was in 1054 at a local council, when the schism was declared between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, whose decisions were subsequently agreed on by the other local Churches. Such an approach is fully applicable because God is not in power, but in righteousness, and there is no need of numerousness to assert the truth.
The ROC-MP has the right and could initiate not only a local council, but also a Pan-Orthodox Council, to sanction all Bartholomew’s actions as null and void. Such a council could also consider the question of the second marriage of priests, which Bartholomew recently declared acceptable (which is anti-canonical ). Such a Pan-Orthodox format is suitable for consideration of urgent and pressing issues regarding the Church, such as the calendar style, and condemning ecumenism, (which has already been done at a Local Council of ROCOR 1983, as well as by saints). It is enough to announce and confirm the universal anathema against ecumenism.
Four Churches (Antiochian, Russian, Georgian and Bulgarian) have been offering a strong opposition to Bartholomew’s ecumenical and papal actions, as it pertains to the Cretan pseudo council. Surprisingly, two of them (Bulgarian and Georgian) did not respond convincingly to his actions in Ukraine. They are the only ones who have peremptorily left the World Council of Churches (UCC), and now they have shown an uncharacteristic lack of conciliar determination about the Ukrainian issue. Perhaps this has contributed to Bartholomew’s courage to be so bold, for in this, he has recognized a lack of visible resistance. Unfortunately, due to the deficit of a categorical reaction from the Georgian and Bulgarian Churches, temptations, seductions and alarming discontents have arisen among the people of God.
On the part of the Georgian Patriarchate, something appeared highly disturbing and atypical. They proclaimed that the issue of autocephaly should be resolved between Constantinople and Russia. Even in the secular law, the problem between two disputing parties is never resolved only between the parties themselves. Strangely, on the web site of the Georgian Patriarchate, an appeal was made to the clergy and laity, to maintain peace and not react with public dissent and protest. This is also an unsuitable approach for the Church, since the voice of the people of God is of paramount importance in making decisions.
As far as the reaction of the Bulgarian Holy Synod, it turned out that despite the synodical decision on the establishment of a commission on the issue , three hierarchs – Gabriel, Metropolitan of Lovech, John, Metropolitan of Varna and Veliki Preslav, and Daniel, Metropolitan of Vidin – came out with a statement , in which they offered an unequivocal signal fulfilling their archpastoral duty. They voted by their conscience, defending their brotherly Local Church (UOC-MP). They called for a Pan-Orthodox council to rule on the matter. Obviously, these Metropolitans felt compelled by a lack of consensus with the other archpastors, to give voice to their position, presenting an impeccable theological defense on the extraordinary crisis at hand.
It was a strange fact that two other archpastors – the Metropolitans Seraphim of Nevrokop and Gregory of Vratsa, provoked perplexity with their position, which is just a “dissenting opinion”. How should this be interpreted, given that it is stated in Sacred Scripture: “But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” (Matt. 5:37)?
The commission set up is completely unreasonable, and appears meaningless, given the dynamics of the processes and the reality of the situation. Are these hierarchs not aware of which the canonical Church in Ukraine is and which are schismatics? Are they not aware of the seriousness of the problem? Had they not been warned that the “tomos” or something similar, initiated by Bartholomew, was going to happen? Are they not aware that the Government in Ukraine has come to power with a coup and are waiting to get “a blessing” for legitimization by Istanbul, to begin to usurp “legally” all the holy places (monasteries and temples) with their adjacent sanctuaries? Have they been misinformed about the warnings that para-church formations of nationalist groups and fascist radicals, with the support of the army and official authority, have announced that they will take over the holy places by force? Is it not known that the clergy and the people of God are determined to remain faithful to the Lord and will defend their sanctuaries, even to death, following the example of the countless number of martyrs shining on the Russian land?
The question to arise is how this Bulgarian Orthodox Church (BOC) Commission should act in such an extreme regime because, under the circumstances, it may be too late and they will not to have the opportunity to defend their brothers, and thus become a “bloody Committee”, which permits martyr’s fraternal blood to be shed. The bishop is responsible for his actions (or inactions) to each one of God’s souls in the world.
Here arises the logical question: Could the Church, which is a model of Christian virtues and values, if it allows such perversions, still be a Church? The seriousness of the problem necessitates the most acute retention of any attempts for encroachment on the sanctified, by the millenary practice of the Church canons, which are immutable foundation of Her Heavenly-earth set-up.
In general terms, for the Orthodox world, since the Ferraro-Florence’s Union in 1439, when the Constantinople Patriarchy fell away from the Church, (into heresy), uniting with the Roman Catholics, there hasn’t been a more severe trial. Perhaps, due to the dynamics of the situation, some local Churches do not realize the seriousness of the choice they are facing, because the lack of reaction questions their own status.
The Church of Christ is situated on the verge of a new time of division and each of Her local representation should stand and determine a firm position: Does it recognize the schismatic and illegal actions of Bartholomew? Does it unite with them? Does it remain in Eucharistic communion with him? Because, as I mentioned above, he who unites with schismatic, becomes a schismatic himself.
Our home BOC is also facing tribulation, therefore respectfully, it should determine whether it stands on the side of Truth, in a gracious continuity granted by God from its very establishment, or would it agree with the robber schism and become schismatic itself. Undoubtedly, for our hierarchs, a watershed moment has come: to determine whether they will remain faithful to God, or surrender to baneful schism.
The situation also creates a trial for every layman who will have to determine for himself which shepherd he belongs to, and who he will follow. The lack of a unified position would have fatal and irreparable consequences. The results could spark internal ecclesiastical schism, as a result of which the smoldering schismatic structures that mimicries on the territory of Bulgaria, (e.g. the self-proclaimed Metropolitan of Triadica Photius and similar to him), could be presented as a local exarchate of Istanbul and appointed as metropolitans.
This matrix is fully applicable also in neighboring Greece, Romania, Macedonia and the other countries in the region, where every schismatic, and impostor (or a suddenly appearing figure) could proclaim himself as a rightly teaching hierarch. Lack of resistance would lead to a tremendous spiritual disaster and severe destabilization of the region on an unprecedented scale creating a premise for religious war and threatening the national security of the countries.
Orthodox Christians believe that our hierarchs will soon manifest more courage and boldness, as it was before, in order to preserve the status and canonical image of our Church.
The seriousness of the situation is not about any sentiments regarding Russia or certain sympathy to persons of the political and Church sphere. An objective reading of the actions of the ROC-MP during the recent years definitely cannot remain uncritical to its ecclesiastical diplomacy and inter-confessional management, headed by Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeev. Not to be ignored is the so-called Havana meeting between Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis which left the Orthodox world in perplexity, as well as the series of participations in various parts of the world in ecumenical common prayers and unfounded fraternal meetings and events with other believers.
However, as far as the case of the UOC-MP is concerned, the question is more than a matter of principle, because compromising the sacred canons of the Church is unacceptable and certainly cannot occur on the basis of personal bias. Each Church member, (from lay people to the episcopate), must conduct a ubiquitous examination of their free will, and make a choice.
Do we remain with God and His salvific truth in the blessed bosom of the Church, or will we fall away into the nets of the graceless false-church, waiting for the coming of the Antichrist? Let it not be so!
https://www.patriarchate.org/-/communiq-1– “Announcement (11/10/2018)”:
“Presided by His All-Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Holy and Sacred Synod convened for its regular session from October 9 to 11, 2018, in order to examine and discuss items on its agenda.
The Holy Synod discussed in particular and at length the ecclesiastical matter of Ukraine, in the presence of His Excellency Archbishop Daniel of Pamphilon and His Grace Bishop Hilarion of Edmonton, Patriarchal Exarchs to Ukraine, and following extensive deliberations decreed:
1) To renew the decision already made that the Ecumenical Patriarchate proceed to the granting of Autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine.
2) To reestablish, at this moment, the Stavropegion of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Kyiv, one of its many Stavropegia in Ukraine that existed there always.
3) To accept and review the petitions of appeal of Filaret Denisenko, Makariy Maletych and their followers, who found themselves in schism not for dogmatic reasons, in accordance with the canonical prerogatives of the Patriarch of Constantinople to receive such petitions by hierarchs and other clergy from all of the Autocephalous Churches. Thus, the above-mentioned have been canonically reinstated to their hierarchical or priestly rank, and their faithful have been restored to communion with the Church.
4) To revoke the legal binding of the Synodal Letter of the year 1686, issued for the circumstances of that time, which granted the right through oikonomia to the Patriarch of Moscow to ordain the Metropolitan of Kyiv, elected by the Clergy-Laity Assembly of his eparchy, who would commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch as the First hierarch at any celebration, proclaiming and affirming his canonical dependence to the Mother Church of Constantinople.
5) To appeal to all sides involved that they avoid appropriation of Churches, Monasteries and other properties, as well as every other act of violence and retaliation, so that the peace and love of Christ may prevail.
At the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the 11th of October, 2018
From the Chief Secretariat
of the Holy and Sacred Synod”
 Apostolic rule 10: “If any one shall pray, even in a private house, with an excommunicated person, let him also be excommunicated.”
Apostolic rule 32: “If any presbyter or deacon has been excommunicated by a bishop, he may not be received into communion again by any other than by him who excommunicated him, unless it happen that the bishop who excommunicated him be dead.”
Apostolic rule 35: “Let not a bishop dare to ordain beyond his own limits, in cities and places not subject to him. But if he be convicted of doing so, without the consent of those persons who have authority over such cities and places, let him be deposed, and those also whom he has ordained.”
First Ecumenical Council, Rule 5: “Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others.”
First Ecumenical Council, Rule 6: “…And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop.”
First Ecumenical Council, Rule 16: “Neither presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among the clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the ecclesiastical Canon, shall recklessly remove from their own church, ought by any means to be received by another church; but every constraint should be applied to restore them to their own parishes; and, if they will not go, they must be excommunicated. And if anyone shall dare surreptitiously to carry off and in his own Church ordain a man belonging to another, without the consent of his own proper bishop from whom although he was enrolled in the clergy list he has seceded, let the ordination be void.”
Third Ecumenical Council, Rule 8: “…none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if anyone has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood.
Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is hero determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.”
Fourth Ecumenical Council, rule 17: “Outlying or rural parishes shall in every province remain subject to the bishops who now have jurisdiction over them, particularly if the bishops have peaceably and continuously governed them for the space of thirty years. But if within thirty years there has been, or is, any dispute concerning them, it is lawful for those who hold themselves aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the province. And if any one be wronged by his Metropolitan, let the matter be decided by the exarch of the diocese or by the throne of Constantinople, as aforesaid. And if any city has been, or shall hereafter be newly erected by imperial authority, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes follow the political and municipal example.”
Sixth Ecumenical Council, Rule 25: “In addition to all the others we renew the Canon which prescribes that the rural or district parishes belonging to each church are to remain immutably assigned to the Bishops holding them, and especially in the case of those who managed to hold them for a period of thirty years without resorting to force. But if within thirty years there has been, or should be, any dispute about them, those who claim to have been wronged shall be permitted to bring the matter before the Synod of the province.”
Antiochian Council, rule 2: “…we decree that communion with those excluded from communion is not allowed, nor in another church is it to be allowed to admit those who have no admittance to another church. If anyone among the Bishops, or Presbyters, or Deacons, or anyone of the Canon, should appear to be communing with those who have been excluded from communion, he too is to be excluded from communion, on the ground of seemingly confusing the Canon of the Church.”
Antiochian Council, rule 6: “If anyone has been excluded from communion by his own Bishop, let him not be admitted by others until he has been accepted by his own Bishop. Or, a Synod having been held, if he has defended himself in answer to the charges and has convinced the Synod, and has succeeded in receiving a different verdict. The same rule applies to laymen and Presbyters and Deacons, and to all persons in the Canon.”
Antiochian Council, rule 13: “Let no Bishop dare to go over from one province into another and ordain any persons in church to promotion of the liturgy, even though he take others along with him, unless, having been asked to do so, he should arrive by letters of the Metropolitan and of the Bishops accompanying him, into whose district he should happen to be passing. But if, without anyone inviting him or calling him, he should depart irregularly to lay hands upon certain persons, and to meddle in the status quo of ecclesiastical affairs that do not concern him, all things whatsoever that he may do shall be null and void and invalid; and he himself shall incur a suitable sentence for his irregularity and his unreasonable proceeding, having been already deposed hence by the holy Council.”
Antiochian Council, rule 15: “If any Bishop accused of any crimes should be tried by all the Bishops in the province, and all of them have pronounced one decision against him in complete agreement with each other, let him no more be tried again by others, but let the concordant verdict of the bishops of the province stand on record.”
Antiochian Council, rule 22: “A Bishop shall not intrude upon another city that is not subject to his jurisdiction, nor upon a territory that does not belong to his dominion, for the purpose of ordaining anyone, or of appointing Presbyters or Deacons in regions that are subject to the jurisdiction of another Bishop, except, of course, with the consent and approval of the Bishop proper to the territory in question. If, however, anyone should dare to do such a thing, let the ordination be null and void, and let him be punished by the Synod.”
Sardinian Council, rule 3: “… no Bishop may cross from his own diocese or province into another province in which there happen to be Bishops, unless he be called or invited by some of the brethren therein…”
Sardinian Council, rule 15: “…if any Bishop from a different diocese wants to appoint another’s servant, without the consent of his Bishop, to any grade or rank, any such appointment shall be deemed invalid and ineffective. If any of us should permit themselves to do this, they ought to be both reminded and corrected by their brethren and fellow Bishops. “
Carthage Council, Rule 129 (133): “If anyone… brought some place to catholic unity and had it in his jurisdiction for three years, and nobody demanded it from him, then it shall not be claimed from him, if also there was a bishop during these three years who should have claimed it but kept silent.”
 Hieromartyr Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage: “Remember that the founders and leaders of schism, breaking the Church unity, oppose Christ, and not only crucify Him for the second time, but torn the Body of Christ – and it is such a grave sin that the blood of martyrdom cannot make reparation for it!” (translation from https://spzh.news/en/chelovek-i-cerkovy/28648-is-christ-divided-about-church-schisms-in-the-language-of-holy-fathers)
St. John Chrysostom: “The sin of schism cannot be washed out even by the blood of martyrdom.” (translation from https://mospat.ru/en/2018/09/18/news163919/)
 Letter from July 11, 1995 of the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew to Alexy II, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia: “In this connection, we would like to assure you that the inclusion of Ukrainian communities [from the diaspora, that is, outside Russia and Ukraine] in the canonical order of the Orthodox Church through taking them under the omophoros of the Ecumenical Patriarchate will ultimately prove to be beneficial, assuredly for the relations of the most holy Russian Church with the faithful in Ukraine as well. Because, on one hand, those admitted will be obliged to state officially that they will not seek autocephaly for the Ukrainian Church or her part through the well-known methods of ‘autocephalists’ who use all possible means, while on the other hand, because they will not be able to cooperate or enter into communion with others without damage to themselves since for them the canonical principle will be valid: ‘those who communicate with those placed outside communion will themselves become outside communion.”
 Apostolic rule 17: “He who has been twice married after baptism, or who has had a concubine, cannot become a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any other of the sacerdotal list.”
Apostolic rule 18: “He who married a widow, or a divorced woman, or an harlot, or a servant-maid, or an actress, cannot be a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any other of the sacerdotal list.”
Sixth Ecumenical Council, Rule 6: “Since it is declared in the apostolic canons that of those who are advanced to the clergy unmarried, only lectors and cantors are able to marry; we also, maintaining this, determine that henceforth it is in nowise lawful for any subdeacon, deacon or presbyter after his ordination to contract matrimony but if he shall have dared to do so, let him be deposed. And if any of those who enter the clergy, wishes to be joined to a wife in lawful marriage before he is ordained subdeacon, deacon, or presbyter, let it be done.”
 http://www.bg-patriarshia.bg/news.php?id=273448 – „Решение на Св. Синод от заседанието му на 04.10.2018 г.” (Decision of the Holy Synod from its meeting on Oct. 10, 2018)
 http://bg-patriarshia.bg/news.php?id=273759 – „ИЗЯВЛЕНИЕ на Ловчанския митрополит Гавриил, Варненския и Великопреславски митрополит Йоан и Видинския митрополит Даниил“ (Statement of Metropolitans Gabriel of Lovech, John of Varna and Veliki Preslav, and Daniel of Vidin on the situation in Ukraine, see in English here:https://mospat.ru/en/2018/10/12/news165075/)
It happened on the feast-day of St Andrew the Fool, the Slav who lived in Constantinople and saw the Protection of the Mother of God with his disciple Epiphanios, the future Orthodox Patriarch.
Exactly 30 years ago I can remember a conversation with the late Archbishop George (Wagner) of the Rue Daru Archdiocese of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in which I asked him for his view on the charge of ‘Eastern Papism’ against his Patriarchate. He simply denied it, stating that it did not correspond to reality. Now we can all see quite clearly just how wrong he was. The Ecumenical Heresiarchate of all schismatics, Russians, Galicians, Macedonians, Montenegrins and sundry others, has been born. The Patriarchate of Constantinople, which for six centuries has only just survived, has committed spiritual suicide. It has lost everything by falling out of communion with everyone, apart from with its own tiny satellites.
In the Orthodox Church of 218 million (it has never been 300 million), it is now 217 million against a few hundred thousand. Already there are no more of the Constantinople episcopal assemblies in the Diaspora. Now there are those in that Patriarchate who will ask for the canonical protection of the Russian Church, not wishing to remain schismatics. The situation of Mt Athos, where many do not commemorate the heretical ecumenist Patriarch of Constantinople anyway, is not yet clear. Following the call of the Athonite Patriarch of Antioch, we can now expect a real Orthodox Council – probably in Moscow. Here the small but faithful Twelve Local Churches can decide on the future, together with their leader, the Russian Orthodox Church.
The air has at last been cleared and now we can look forward to the future, with hope that the mass of accumulated problems and injustices may now be overcome in the Diaspora and worldwide.