The Patriarchate of Constantinople has called a meeting of all 120 of its bishops for the beginning of September, after its Patriarch Bartholomew has consulted with Patriarch Kyrill of Moscow at the end of August. All of its bishops, including those elderly, ill, retired and titular (about half of them), are being summoned. It is clear that this is an important meeting, being called with the full backing of the US Secretary of State and his ambassador in Turkey.
After the disaster of the inter-Orthodox meeting which it organized in Crete two years ago, boycotted by representatives of 80% of the Orthodox world and rejected by many who did attend it, it is time for the Phanar to reconsider its policy of ecclesiastical imperialism and to start to listen. It is, however, doubtful that it will have the humility to accept its position in the real world as a tiny ethnic grouping, which has discredited itself with the USA that finances it, the Vatican that supports it and, above all, with Orthodox who are faithful to the Tradition. It would be better if the Archbishop of Athens simply assumed the title of Patriarch of Constantinople, so that the reality that this Patriarchate is in fact just an anachronistic, small Local Church takes hold. Then it will stop meddling in the affairs of other Local Churches.
There are those who fear that such realism is quite beyond the grasp of the present Phanariot episcopate, who are blinded by theory and fantasy, by what their forbears represented a millennium ago. Some repeat the dark rumour that the meeting in September will result in the Phanar setting up an uncanonical jurisdiction in the US-run Ukraine. This would lead to Constantinople’s excommunication from the Orthodox Church, which has condemned any such moves. Others believe that the meeting will simply appoint a new Archbishop for the corrupt and bankrupt Greek Archdiocese in the USA and Canada, which has become very turbulent because of its general apostasy from Orthodoxy and so protestantization by the dominant local culture in North America.
Whatever the case, Orthodox must pray that the episcopate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople will this time at last listen to the Holy Spirit. This is surely make or break time for it and its faltering octogenarian Patriarch.
Now that the farce of the ‘Great and Holy Pan-Orthodox Council’ of 666 (16/06/16) with its US Democratic Party agenda and masonic logo is all but over, even before it has begun, what lessons can be learned? They are the lessons that the Orthodox saints and faithful have been repeating for the 55 years since this Washington-inspired tragi-comedy began:
1. Eastern Papism is dead because it was never alive and anti-Sobornost (that is, Phanariot anti-catholicity, ignoring the faithful in favour of top-down clericalist arrogance, working and plotting behind closed doors in accordance with US State Department orders) does not work in the Church of God, however well it may work among man-made heterodox institutions, like the Vatican or Protestantism.
2. The phyletist, CIA-run Patriarchate of Constantinople has now for ever discredited itself and so the leadership of the Orthodox Church must pass to Her natural leader, the Russian Orthodox Church, 75% of the whole Church and the only Church with a political leader of world importance who, although not an Emperor, can, unlike Joe Biden, in accordance with Tradition, call a real Council.
So where do we go from here? First of all, we need to hold a Council that discusses all the issues that actually concern Orthodox. We would suggest two great areas for discussion:
1. Inside the Church, strengthen the unity and catholicity of the fourteen Local Churches, freeing them from outside political interference, for example, forbidding the appointment of Patriarchs and bishops by US ministers and ambassadors and dismissing as uncanonical those who have been, ensuring that we all follow the Orthodox Tradition together, and encourage the gradual return (gradual for pastoral reasons) by all to the Orthodox liturgical and penitential traditions and the Church calendar.
2. Outside the Church, finish with ecumenism, the greatest waste of time and effort in the history of the Church because it has had no effect on the unrepentant heterodox. Thus, at last we can be free to call the whole world outside the Church to repentance, making missionary efforts to provide the infrastructure to preach the Church’s uncompromised message to the rest of the world. Thus, we can set up the necessary Russian-led, united ecclesial structures in the Diaspora as the firm foundations for future new Local Churches, in order to counter the globalist ‘New World Order’ processes leading to Antichrist.
The news that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church will not be taking part in what was supposed to be a ‘Pan-Orthodox’ meeting in Crete this month, because it disagrees with the draft documents proposed (like most Orthodox everywhere), and that the Patriarchate of Antioch will probably not take part, was followed by an announcement of the Synod of the Russian Church on 3 June.
This was a call for an extraordinary ‘pre-Conciliar’ conference to take place before the 10 June in order to iron out the mass of methodological problems and problems of syncretism in the documents – if not the Russian Church will not take part. (Metr Agafangel of Odessa has already refused personally to take part in the Russian delegation because he disagrees so profoundly with the documents proposed).
However, yesterday, on 6 June, the Patriarchate of Constantinople completely rejected this proposal, thus ensuring that the Russian Church will not take part. It is clear that Constantinople’s arrogant, top-down attempt to impose on the Orthodox world and people its syncretistic and anti-Orthodox views, dictated to it by the US State Department, has failed.
On 28 May the well-known Russian Orthodox layman and prominent businessman, Konstantin Malofeev, speaking on the Tsargrad TV Channel, confirmed what we had all along suspected. This is that the venue for the Crete meeting is full of CIA and FBI agents, who have been called in ‘to ensure the security of the Orthodox bishops against terrorism’’. In fact, they are bugging the venue and in fact will control all its proceedings.
In other words, if a meeting is to take place, it must first of all take place with a list of real problems of the Church – e.g. the divisive and politically-enforced introduction among a few Orthodox of the Catholic calendar for the fixed feasts, the invasion of Russian canonical territory in Finland, Estonia and elsewhere by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and ending the jurisdictional divisions in the Diaspora caused by the Patriarchate of Constantinople after 1917.
Secondly, such a meeting must take place with Patriarchs freely chosen by the Synods of the Local Churches (and not in a back room in the US State Department) and it must take place in a free country, in the absence of spies. For nine years now we have been suggesting the now fully restored New Jerusalem Monastery outside Moscow. Perhaps there a meeting could be held which would become a real Pan-Orthodox Council rather than a farcical and expensive junket.
The Inter-Orthodox Council which the Patriarchate of Constantinople has so long wanted and which has been pencilled in for 2016 has always been in doubt. Firstly, there has been the question of the agenda. What is there to talk about, when all the dogmatic issues were long ago resolved? The agenda of mainly rather secular issues proposed, seemingly a throwback to the 1960s, has never really been shared with, let alone had the support or enthusiasm of, the faithful and appears to have been externally imposed by the forces which control that Patriarchate. Secondly, there have been several jurisdictional disputes potentially preventing such a Council taking place.
For example, there has been the question of the recognition of the much-disputed autocephaly of the small group known as the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), which was founded during the first Cold War and which is on shared territory with other Orthodox, the question of a group set up by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Estonia creating two Churches on the same territory, the question of continued politically-motivated dissidence in Russian Church life in the Diaspora with defections to Constantinople, as well as the dispute between the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem regarding jurisdiction in Qatar. Now there are new issues, which also seem to be linked to political adventurism.
In recent days the US-controlled Patriarchate of Constantinople has set up an alternative ‘Synod’ in the Czech Lands and Slovakia, in effect creating a division, similar to those after the establishment of Constantinople jurisdictions in the Diaspora after 1917 and more recently in Estonia. The decision to establish the new Synod was made after a meeting of two Constantinople bishops in Vienna on 6 February. In the church in Brno in Moravia on 22 February the 89-year old Archbishop Symeon, together with the retired Bishop Tikhon, consecrated a third bishop outside the Synod of the Local Church, effectively establishing a new Synod.
Almost at the same time the US-appointed Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople received a delegation of Ukrainians from Canada. He promised to help various schismatic groups in the Ukraine, which like Estonia is also on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church, unite under his authority. This is on condition that the US-appointed President Poroshenko in Kiev asks his Patriarchate to do so. The Patriarch promised ‘flexibility’, suggesting canonical vagueness. There is a clear political influence here, as the powers that be in the Western world continue to try to divide the Orthodox Church through its weakest point, the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
This has been controlled by the US since 1948, when it deposed the legitimate Patriarch Maximos, who was exiled to Switzerland, and appointed its own controversial Greek-American candidate. These latest measures have been seen as a new part of the US-inspired war of sanctions in revenge for Russian support for the Ukrainians fighting against the US-installed junta in Kiev which appeared after the overthrow of the democratic government there. This is surely a tactical error on the part of the US. It means that the Orthodox world will be able to ignore the now isolated Patriarchate of Constantinople. Like the EU, it has become just another unfree pawn in the new Cold War which the US has begun, from North Africa to the Middle East and from Central Asia to the Caucasus and Eastern Europe.
If Constantinople were politically isolated, the rest of the Orthodox Church would be able to hold a Council (just as it did in 1948 in Moscow), putting aside the modernist human rights-style agenda for the 2016 Council, dictated to the Church by external secular forces. These are the same forces as those that dictated the agenda of Vatican II, protestantizing and secularizing the Roman Catholic world fifty years ago. A future Council of free Local Orthodox Churches, perhaps to be held at the restored New Jerusalem Monastery outside Moscow, could have a relevant agenda to discuss. This could for example be:
1. A statement on the need for the canonical freedom of the Church from the interference of all political authorities and thus a return by all to the Orthodox calendar and typicon. 2. A call to repentance to Orthodox who have lapsed into nationalism, modernism, sectarianism and other forms of Western secularism. 3. The reassertion of the Christian values which stand at the roots of the Western world, but which after a millennial process of degeneration it has finally wholly rejected in the last 25 years. 4. A call to the rest of the Non-Orthodox world to return to traditional values from secularism and consumerist materialism for the sake of the survival of humanity. 5. A statement on the concerted need to preach the Gospel in its Orthodox context throughout the Non-Orthodox world.
This seems to be the moment of decision for nominal Orthodox. Do they believe in the Gospel commandment of Christ that we are to baptize all peoples in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, or are they mere petty nationalists? Are they on the side of the Church, or are they prepared to support the West in its Antichristic project, which involves emptying the Middle East of all its native Christians and trying to destroy the canonical Orthodox Church in the Ukraine? Are they loyal to the multinational Orthodox Christian ideal of Holy Rus/Romaiosini, or are they loyal to provincial nationalism and the powers of this world? Are they loyal to Christ and His Church, or to the Godless Western grasp for global hegemony? Answers need to be given.
An Orthodox Contribution to a BBC Secularist Debate on the Church in Russia, broadcast on Monday 17 February 2014