Navigating a Complex Legacy: The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Russian Church Within Orthodoxy, a narrative - voiced solely by Russian hierarchical circles - persists that seeks to equate the Ecumenical Patriarchate's privileges, those endowed by the ecumenical councils, with actions similar in intent to Roman Catholicism's Papal throne (infallibility) as many Russkiy mir bishops retorted a few years back: “If we wanted a pope, we'd go to the real one.” Nevertheless, in this narrative lies a profound truth that transcends theological discourse: the recognition that no institution, no matter how revered or esteemed, is immune to the human frailty of fallibility. Recognizing these imperfections, we embark on a journey to explore the seldom-discussed moments when the venerable Ecumenical Patriarchate, a paragon of wisdom and righteousness, succumbed to worldly fallible judgment. Through the annals of history, we unveil these compelling episodes with a measured dose of introspection, discernment, and a commitment to the pursuit of truth. In the historical interactions between the Mother Church, the Patriarchate of Constantinople-New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the local Russian Church, there have certainly been moments seasoned with the occasional blunder, often prejudiced by the ominous specter of threats and violence. Here are some examples: Succumbing to Moscow's Manipulative Tactics: One glaring example is the concession made by the Ecumenical Patriarchate while under duress in Moscow. In this unique scenario, the Church granted the title of Patriarch to the local Bishop of Moscow. This lapse, which occurred, was induced by Russian pressure, kidnapping, and blackmail. This episode exposed Moscow's proclivity for exploiting vulnerable epochs of the Pentarchy. It is crucial to clarify that the Ecumenical Patriarchate's actions were a response to Moscow's demands and threats of violence, not an act of subservience to the laughable "Third Rome" model, as is often rumored. Uncanonical Expansionist and Aggressors with Czarist Military:
A Testament to Moscow's Repressive Actions:
He bore the weight of unjust imprisonments for twenty-six agonizing years, including fourteen years in iron bonds, pushing him to the brink of death. Amid his prolonged suffering, Saint Maximos faced another grievous injustice: he was denied the solace of receiving Holy Communion for resisting Russian hegemony, which aims to silence the voice of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and reinforce the heretical fantasy of Moscow's "Russian Worldview," which includes, control over the Orthodox Church. Saint Maximos, the Greek's life and struggles serve as a poignant reminder of the challenges to those who resist Moscow. Moscow Patriarchate's Alignment with War Efforts: The historical record reveals a troubling pattern of the Moscow Patriarchate aligning itself with various war efforts. Delving into historical instances where the "Church of Russia" endorses nationalistic fervor during wartime conflicts, this alignment with nationalist sentiments is a recurring theme throughout Russian history: spanning the Czarist era, the Soviet period, and contemporary times. The "Church of Russia" consistently finds itself immersed in the fervor of nationalist sentiments. For instance, the Russian Church's divisive propaganda extended beyond Russia, notably in Bulgaria, culminating in the significant Ethnophyletism Council of Constantinople in September 1872. Following this failure in Russian church diplomacy, the Kremlin's Church threw its support behind the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, using sermons to rally for war efforts. Critics argue that such involvement in promoting patriotic zeal during wartime contradicts the fundamental principles of Orthodox Christianity, which stress peace, compassion, and reconciliation. This pattern of alignment with nationalist fervor underscores the need for ethical scrutiny in assessing the actions of the Moscow Patriarchate across different historical contexts. Rogue Churches and Lies: The proliferation of falsehoods disseminated by rogue churches like ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) is a cause for concern. The role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate has consistently been one of benevolence, aimed at maintaining dialogue and order within the Orthodox Church. This commitment to stability and unity persists despite historical distortions and misinformation from rebellious Russian factions. The nurturing embrace of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the duplicitous nature of the Russian Hierarchy, whether within the Moscow Patriarchate founded during Stalin's era or among the countless separated factions, has always been a source of strife for Orthodoxy. This contention stems from Moscow's seemingly inexhaustible reservoir of divisive actions. Stalinist Influence: In 1943, it allowed the Stalinist-founded Church to assert itself as the legitimate Moscow Patriarchate and Russian Orthodox Church and permitted it to operate with impunity throughout the turbulent 20th century. The 21st century vividly illustrates Moscow's capacity for sowing chaos within the Universal Orthodox Church. This occurred amid a conspicuous silence from the Pentarchy. The stance taken by the Ecumenical Patriarchate during this period was driven by a commitment to preserving Orthodox unity and stability rather than an endorsement of Moscow's actions. This position persisted for decades until proper church order began to be restored, notably with the elevation of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Since then, His All-Holiness has become the primary target of repulsive accusations and direct hostility from Moscow. This underscores the extent to which Russia has become a focal point in the ongoing ecclesiastical disputes. Appeasement to Moscow Sycophants: The frequent practice of appeasement towards Moscow's demands, exemplified by establishing Assemblies of Bishops to oversee the Church's organization in so-called "barbarian territories," brings into focus not the ambiguity of the canons but Moscow's underlying intentions; this is further underscored by Russo-centric churches withdrawing from these global assemblies, often over non-dogmatic issues. With unwavering resolve, I denounce the uncanonical and illicit actions of the Church of Russia. Incredibly, despite their transgressions, they audaciously proclaim that Eucharistic intercommunion with sister Churches like Constantinople, Alexandria, Cyprus, Greece, and any dissenting body is now deemed impossible for Hierarchy, Clergy, and Laity alike until these ancient and once-glorious Churches repent —a demand that stands in stark contradiction to Orthodox tradition.
Such actions cast a long shadow over the integrity of the Russian Church. They underscored the pressing need to thoroughly examine Moscow's motives and tactics in its uncanonical ecclesiastical pursuits. These pursuits represent an alarming departure from established Orthodox norms and principles. What is particularly striking is Russia's penchant for going beyond even the most questionable practices, resorting to falsehoods and ecclesial distortions. In this process, they frequently deflect blame onto the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its spiritual leader, His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. In conclusion, my support for the Ecumenical Patriarchate remains unwavering, and my criticisms are firmly directed at the simulacrum Moscow Patriarchate, an institution more than often engaged in questionable ecclesiastical practices, divisive tactics, and propaganda. I raise my voice to condemn the actions of the Russian Church throughout history, which unabashedly continues with enthusiasm today. I offer my heartfelt prayers for the continued holy efforts of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as they tirelessly strive for unity and unwavering faith in the sacred traditions of Orthodoxy. May their sacrificial dedication to preserving the true faith serve as a beacon of hope and reconciliation for all Orthodox believers.
1 Comment
Ioannis Prodromos
1/6/2024 12:30:27 pm
In my honest opinion The Ecumenical Patriarch, other Greek Patriarchs and Archbishops of Greece as well Cyprus must by all means distance themselves from Moscow.....its a shame that the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem still supports kirill!!!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Most Popular Posts
Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
Αγιογράφος
Ηλίας Δαμιανάκης Άρχων Μαΐστωρ της Μεγάλης του Χριστού Εκκλησίας AuthorBy the Grace of God Archon Elias Damianakis has ministered in the study of Holy Iconography since 1980. In his biography you can read about Elias' life and on his portfolio page you can see where he has rendered some of his hand painted iconography or visit the photo galleries to see some of his work. There is a complete list of featured articles, awards and testimonials which you can visit, as well as a list of notable achievements here below. Please contact Elias for more information or suggestions for this website, thank you and God Bless. |