​In the digital information age, it is not uncommon for long-settled matters to resurface in a new wave of misinformation and unfounded attacks. Recently, a coordinated social media assault has emerged targeting myself, Metropolitan Emmanuel of Chalcedon, and, by extension, the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It appears that some parties, with ulterior motives, are determined to rehash issues that have long been resolved, creating a misleading narrative aimed at discrediting the venerable institution we represent. However, we, the Orthodox Christian community, stand strong and united, resilient in the face of these attacks.

​It is crucial to grasp the broader context in which these attacks occur. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the spiritual center of the Orthodox Christian world, often finds itself at the intersection of various political, religious, and social currents. Its leadership, including Metropolitan Emmanuel, is tasked with navigating these complex waters while upholding the values and traditions of our faith. This duty can sometimes place us in the crosshairs of those who, for various reasons, seek to undermine our efforts and sow discord within the community. Moscow circles usually urge them on, as is evidently the current case.

​The current wave of attacks is not based on new evidence or revelations but rather on rehashing previously addressed and settled matters: “Was St John Maximovitvh Schismatic.” These allegations are neither fresh nor substantiated, yet they are presented as if they hold new weight. This tactic is not only misleading but also deeply harmful to the fabric of our religious community, as it seeks to erode trust in its leaders through misinformation. My response to Bernard Le Caro, author of the initial attack, explains the situation in point-by-point detail.

​Throughout our service, both Metropolitan Emmanuel and I have consistently upheld the principles of integrity, transparency, and accountability. Our decisions and actions have always been guided by a commitment to the well-being of the faithful and the preservation of the Church's unity and sanctity based on ecclesiastical facts and not sentimentality. We have never shied away from scrutiny and have always welcomed dialogue and constructive criticism aimed at fostering understanding and growth within the Church. This unwavering commitment to transparency and integrity should instill trust, confidence, and clear discernment in our Church’s leadership.

​In today's digital age, it is crucial for individuals to exercise critical thinking and fact-checking when confronted with sensationalist claims online. Misinformation can spread rapidly, particularly when propaganda is provided by seemingly authentic sources like monasteries or hierarchies. However, when the “Orthodox” source is Russian, and without proper verification, false narratives can take root. It is imperative for the faithful and the general public to seek information from reliable sources and to question the motives behind the sudden resurgence of these old and settled issues. There really is no dispute, except among those attempting to validate their stance through virtue signaling by claiming to "defend" a particular saint.

​The seemingly coordinated nature of the recent social media attacks raises questions about the underlying motives. Why now? What do the attackers hope to achieve by reviving these unfounded allegations? While we cannot definitively answer these questions, it is clear that these efforts are aimed at undermining the credibility of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at a time when its leadership is actively engaged in crucial dialogues and initiatives for the betterment of the Orthodox Christian world.

​The Orthodox community must remain united and resilient in the face of these attacks. Our strength lies in our shared faith and our commitment to the values that define our Church, not in the perverted ecclesiastic desires of any particular autocephalous church. We must not allow divisive Soviet/Marxist tactics to erode Orthodox unity or distract us from our mission. Instead, we should respond with reaffirmed dedication to our faith and to each other, supporting our leaders as they navigate these challenging times.

I am confident that Metropolitan Emmanuel would agree with me believing truth ultimately prevails. We stand by our records and unwavering commitment to the Great Church Church of Christ and its followers. We are heartened by the support and trust of those who recognize the baseless nature of these attacks and continue to stand with us in faith and solidarity.

​As we confront this latest wave of unfounded attacks, let us do so with grace, patience, and a steadfast commitment to the truth. Under the guidance of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and its dedicated leaders, the Ecumenical Patriarchate will continue to serve as a beacon of faith, unity, and integrity for the Orthodox Christian world. We ask for your prayers and support as we work together to overcome these challenges and uphold the sanctity and mission of our Church.

In closing, let us remember Saint Paul's words: "Let all that you do be done in love" (1 Corinthians 16:14). It is through love, understanding, and unwavering faith that we will emerge stronger and more united than ever before.

The entanglement of Marxism and the Russian Orthodox Church reflects a tragic distortion shaped by Russia's complex history and politics. Rooted in a twisted sense of authority and exploitation, this bond harkens back to the fertile soil of czarist culture, where authoritarianism thrives. Now, it has completed a full circle, with the mindset it once nourished now the Kremlin’s church under the simulacrum patriarchate of Cyril Gundyaev.
​
Throughout Russian history, the Russian Orthodox Church has wielded significant influence, strategically positioning itself as a tool for whatever ruling Muscovite Dynasty was in charge. Whether the Princes of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir or Vladimir Putin. This strategic positioning, marked by a series of calculated moves and abuses of ecclesial power, is a stark reminder of its pivotal role in shaping the political and religious landscape, and it is this intrigue we’ll delve into.
​

​The journey of the Russian church began with a contentious transfer of the See of Kyiv to Moscow between 1299 and 1325, a move that not only consolidated ecclesial power in the emerging Russian capital but also sparked controversy. In a bold assertion of authority without proper ecclesial consent, it adopted the self-proclaimed and unauthorized title 'Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia' in 1448. This trend demonstrates a blatant disregard for canonical law and a lustful pursuit to not only claim primacy but also to be the sole throne of Orthodoxy, free from the Ottoman authority perceived as its adversary.

​In a further bid to assert its desired dominance, in 1589, the church forcibly annexed the patriarchal title. It was placed fifth in the diptychs, solidifying its perverted autonomy, which it continues to wield unilaterally. The abusive establishment of a self-appointed autocephaly followed this audacious move. It was based on its new Patriarchal title and declaring independence from all external ecclesiastical authority, including canons and proper Orthodox ecclesiology. This reflection on the church's autonomy and power plays is crucial in understanding the contemporary manifestation of the Russo-centric trend under the guise of 'diversity. '

​This Russkiy Mir agenda encompassed the Russification and alteration of every facet of Orthodoxy's traditional heritage. Firstly, on its perceived territory, followed by infiltration on Mt Athos, Jerusalem…   This included questioning dogmatics, such as labeling Palamas and others as heretics, introducing architectural innovations like St. Basil's Cathedral, adopting neo-classical iconography, replacing Byzantine music and hymnography with Tchaikovsky's compositions, and abusing vestments and liturgical practices (such as allowing mitered priests). The theological and ecclesiastical abuses of the Russkiy Mir are too numerous to detail here fully.

​This Russo-centric trend, often referred to as the panHeresy of Russkiy Mir, masquerades under the guise of "diversity," appealing to those who prioritize sentimentality and compliance, while dissenters are labeled nonconformists. Through this influence, the Russians have even introduced their version of Uniatism, known colloquially as the "Western Rite," which is only embraced by Russophile satellite churches in ROCOR and some within the Antiochian Church. Though Cyril has conducted many sacraments in the Western fashion, this practice represents another instance of Russian manipulation and canonical abuses deserving further examination.

​Non-conformity is the greatest pan-heresy for the Moscow Church. Maximus, the Greek of Vatopedi’s ordeal, reflects a track record and well-documented pogrom of Hellenism condemning dissenting voices. This is part of a broader strategy within the Russian Orthodox Church, which is still heavily utilized and employed by Cyril and Putin.

​During the early years of Soviet rule following the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Soviet government, heavily influenced by Marxist ideology, actively promoted atheism and sought to suppress religion, including the Russian Orthodox Church, despite the closure of churches, persecution of clergy, and restrictions on religious practices, an era known as the "Red Terror,"  the Russian Church innovated, creating a novel 'restoration synod' that elected a self-proclaimed Patriarch: Tikhon.  After Tikhon’s death (1925), the government forbade patriarchal elections. In 1927, Metropolitan Sergius formally expressed the church’s 'loyalty' to the Soviet government and refrained from criticizing the state. Not limited to Russia, the Russian Church’s culpability in the tragic events of the Ukrainian Holodomor, the Russian Orthodox Church finds itself deeply infiltrated and characterized by cooperation and surveillance.

This marked a significant shift in the church's stance as it systematically absorbed the KGB in its ranks, and this antiquated and incestuous church/state Russkiy Mir mentality has flourished. During World War II, the Soviet government under Joseph Stalin sought to further co-opt the Russian Orthodox Church as a means of bolstering national unity and morale in the face of the Nazi invasion. The government allowed the church a degree of freedom in exchange for supporting the war effort. This period marked a temporary relaxation of the state's hostility toward religion.
​
Following Stalin's death in 1953, tensions gradually relaxed between the church and the state, as the Soviet government retained firm control over all religious affairs and infiltrated every aspect of this new tool of the state. Suspicion permeated society, uncertain about who might act as informants for the government, spanning from monastics and clergy to the hierarchy, amidst tales of confessional abuses and mysterious dissident disappearances. 

​The reach of this infiltration extended well beyond Russia. In the 1960s, the Metropolia in America faced internal divisions, with factions split between those aligned with Russian interests and those supporting American values. As a result, it broke away from the Moscow Patriarchate, arrogantly perhaps forming the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), disregarding the other various jurisdictions. This move displayed defiance and nonconformity, fueled by the understanding that the Moscow Patriarchate lacked the Russian military backing to enforce obedience in the American Metropolia. In a calculated diplomatic move perceived to curb the Ecumenical Patriarch's influence, the Moscow Patriarchate capitulated and unilaterally granted autocephaly to the former Metropolia, now called OCA. Moscow betrayed Orthodox canons once again in a very protestant paradigm. 

​With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, there was a resurgence of religious activity in Russia, including within the Russian Orthodox Church. However, the legacy of Soviet-era repression still lingers, and the relationship between the church and the state remains complex. Despite appearing to have religious autonomy, the church has long been influenced by state interests. It serves as a key propaganda tool for Putin domestically, with the government's perceived repentance manifested in the rebuilding of churches destroyed by the Communists. While experiencing a revival in cultural influence, it also encounters challenges from sectors of society that rightly maintain skepticism about its relationship with the state.

​This complex interplay continues to unfold today, with the Moscow Patriarchate under Patriarch Cyril. Here is a short list of clergy recently defrocked by Patriarch Cyril for nonconformity:

• Father Sergiy Romanov - Excommunicated in 2023 for his nonconformist stance, he “chastised President Vladimir Putin as a ‘traitor to the Motherland’ who was serving a Satanic ‘world government,’ and denounced Patriarch Cyril, and other top clerics as ‘heretics’ who must be ‘thrown out.’”
• Father Ioann Koval was defrocked in 2023 for substituting the word "victory" with "peace" in a prayer. The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople later overturned his defrocking.
• Hieromonk Ioann Kurmoyarov - Sentenced to 7 years in prison in 2023 for criticizing Russia's actions in Ukraine and sharing "fake news" about the Russian army. He posted several videos on his YouTube channel outlining his religious opposition to Russia’s war in Ukraine.
• Archimandrite Cyril Hovorun—Defrocked in 2024, their true motive was his outspoken opposition to the war in Ukraine.

​Understanding the historical context of how Marxist ideas infiltrated the Russian Orthodox Christian paradigm and continue to influence the Moscow-based church is crucial. This involves interpreting Russian theology and practices through the lens of Marxist analysis, which focuses on class struggle, materialism, and the critique of capitalism. 

​Here are some ways in which Marxist ideas have infiltrated Russian Orthodoxy:

1. Class Struggle and Liberation Theology: It's essential to recognize that class struggle is not just an abstract concept but endorsed by the Russian hierarchy; theologians and activists within Russian Orthodoxy draw on Marxist concepts of class struggle to develop liberation theology and a false sense of “defending” Orthodoxy from the decadent West and ultimately the Ecumenical Patriarch. Victimhood positions the Russians and the Russian Church as victims in convoluted arguments against the West, CIA, and, inherently, the Ecumenical Patriarchate. 
   This approach emphasizes the liberation of the oppressed and marginalized, viewing the Russian Church as a liberator and advocate for the oppressed Russians, genuine Russian Orthodoxy, and Russian Traditions. It promotes manufactured injustices and prejudicial inequalities, always advocating for ethnic and national standards in line with Marxist principles, even unto fratricide.
2. Critique of Capitalism and the West as ecclesial constructs: Russian Marxist Orthodoxy analysis critiques capitalism, euphemistically naming the West as a system perpetuating exploitation, inequality, and ethnic supremacy and then connecting Hellenic Orthodoxy to Western governments via the CIA or Islam via Turkey. 
   ​Russian Orthodox thinkers have applied this critique to contemporary ecclesiastic systems, arguing that the West undermines Orthodoxy and human dignity, promotes greed, and leads to ecclesial injustice. They advocate for alternative ecclesial models based on Russian solidarity as social justice and Russkiy Mir proprietorship principles rather than the norms of the Ecumenical Councils, which have governed Orthodoxy for millennia.
3. Social Justice and Activism: Marxist ideas about social justice and solidarity have infected Russian Orthodox activism on various issues, including LGBT, autocephaly rights, environmental protection, and human rights. Activist groups within the Russian Church draw on Marxist principles to advocate for systemic change in status and challenge ecclesial structures of power and privilege. The Putin regime has drafted many hierarchs, clergy, and monastic centers as social media hubs promoting the caustic ideologies promulgated by the FSB propaganda disguised as authentic Orthodox “symophonia.”
4. Dialectical Materialism and Theology: Dialectical materialism, a key concept in Marxist philosophy, translated into Russian Orthodoxy, emphasizes the interconnectedness of social, economic, and historical forces encapsulated by the Russian Mir Church concept. Some theologians, and even the patriarch, have preached parallels between dialectical materialism and theological concepts such as the dynamic relationship between God and nation, Cyril and Putin. They seek to integrate Marxist insights into theological discourse, viewing Marxism as a tool for exploiting Russian Orthodoxy and practice's historical and ecclesial revisionism.
5. Critique of Religious Institutions: Marxist Russian Orthodoxy critique extends to Orthodoxy's religious institutions, which, according to Moscow, serve the West's interests and perpetuate ecclesial inequality. This perverted Russian Orthodox mindset has applied this critique to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Orthodox institutional structures of the church found in the canons, challenging canonical hierarchies of the Protos, and privileges within Orthodoxy and further advocating for greater Russo-centric dominance: aka “Russkiy Mir.” Denouncing all inter-Christian dialogue as antithetical to Orthodox Phronema.

​Orthodox Christianity outright rejects Russkiy Mir's Marxist ideology, viewing it as incompatible with our Orthodox faith. At the same time, the Moscow Patriarchate embraces Marxist Orthodoxy as a means of promulgating manufactured injustices in light of its nationalistic convictions. This tension between the two traditions underscores the complexity of modern Orthodoxy.

​If you're a Russian sycophant, my authoritative and convincing paper probably didn't change your perspective. However, you cannot deny being presented with the undeniable facts concerning Russkiy Mir and Patriarch Cyril's persistent abuses against Orthodoxy and human dignity. Conversely, if my arguments have swayed you, you now hold the essential insights necessary to confront the misinformation perpetuated as Orthodox ecclesiology.

​I was taken aback by the enthusiastic glee of certain Orthodox malcontents over an article that inundated my social media feeds and flooded my email. A small but vocal group of convert Russian sycophants and disgruntled cradle Christians who are pseudo-conservative “Karens” reveled in what they perceived as a rebuke of the Ecumenical Patriarch. They saw it as a vindication of Patriarch Cyril's questionable actions, including fratricide. Michael Warren Davis, the author, attempts to spin a fanciful narrative, yet his attempt is severely lacking in credibility. His lengthy 2500-word piece is brimming with accusations drawn from superficial virtue signaling by “reporting” overutilized low-hanging fruit authored in Russian echo chambers. 

​Unmasking this impostor and exposing his fallacies is a task that requires no great effort. However, addressing the many falsehoods he presents would necessitate a series of comprehensive analyses. In this initial dissection, I will concentrate solely on his accuracy regarding the Ecumenical Patriarch, refraining from delving into the individuals he attempts to implicate in this verbose journalism. His insinuation-laden expose culminates in a hateful diatribe devoid of legitimacy, seemingly driven more by the author's grievances than any substantive argument about CIA conspiracies. This indicates the author's lack of meticulous research and factual accuracy.

​
From the start, the misattribution of a photograph depicting the Patriarch of Alexandria as the Ecumenical Patriarch sets a laughable, disconcerting tone. This initial oversight undermines the article's credibility and signals a disturbing lack of attention to detail. It's essential to dismantle Michael's claimed authority and expose it instead as a facade of ignorance catering to a fringe Russkiy Mir Orthodox mentality. This is particularly puzzling, considering the audience of the media outlet "American Conservative."

He commences with the assertion, "Everyone knows that the Moscow Patriarchate is in bed with the Kremlin. Few realize that the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is deeply indebted to the United States government." Firstly, a clarification: the correct title is the Ecumenical Patriarch, not the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. We will delve into the nuances shortly, as it appears Mike is more focused on rhetoric than factual accuracy.
​
What does he imply by stating, "Constantinople is deeply beholden to the United States government”? This nuanced insinuation forms the cornerstone of his argument. Constantinople was founded in 38 AD, nearly two thousand years ago. Having survived the Roman Diocletian persecution, iconoclasts, the fourth crusade, 400 years of Ottoman oppression, and a century of Turkish interference and, now, is beholden to the US? Go figure.

Is he suggesting a binary choice? Are we expected to align ourselves with Putin and the remnants of Stalin's Soviet church? Does his Pollyannaish stance suggest that religion should remain detached from geopolitical realities? It seems he dwells in theological what-aboutism, offering only insults and lacking a clear point beyond propaganda.
​
Without context and little insight, Mr Davis slides into an outright attack on the venerable Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras Spyrou. He claims that "Constantinople is deeply beholden to the United States government." I would argue that Constantinople is deeply committed to the standards of American life, liberty, and freedom as granted by the First Amendment. I thought the American Conservative perspective maintained several principles: an enduring moral order, adherence to custom and convention, respect for continuity, and the importance of prudence in decision-making. The American Conservative editorial board has moved on from these principles and now promotes Russo-centric ideals. Go figure.

Michael Davis neglected to mention Athenagoras at the outbreak of World War I. He went to enlist for service but was denied due to his age. Michael began his tirade against Athenagoras with a perceptible slight: a quote about his solidarity with conservative American values, which, to this reader, makes for a sound position of the then Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese.
​
Michael's statement, "Greece was under Nazi occupation. understandably, a Greek bishop in America would support the American war effort," implies a focus on Greece's self-interest rather than American ideals. Such a mindset appears warped, particularly for a publication like The American Conservative. Archbishop Athenagoras assumed his position during the depression, having been intimately acquainted with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, World War I, Russian duplicity, genocides, expulsions, and numerous catastrophes in Asia Minor. However, according to the author's perspective, none of these factors would have contributed to Athenagoras' strong affinity for American exceptionalism nor warranted mention.

A glaring oversight is the selective quoting of Patriarch Athenagoras without contextualizing the historical backdrop of Stalin's manipulation of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1943. Acknowledging this crucial aspect diminishes the article's analytical depth and misrepresents historical realities.
​
The minutes of Stalin’s meeting with Orthodox bishops on September 4, 1943, and the sudden wartime rapprochement between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet regime were important facts that Mr. Davis did not mention.  

In Michael Davis’s barrage of Russian trope attacks, the assertion is, "Bartholomew is not the 'pope' of Orthodoxy—although he would like to be." Michael has no theological and ecclesiological understanding and appears tainted and shallow at best. His viewpoint seems saturated with a distorted Protestant ideology, newly influenced by Russkiy Mir's inclinations. There's a glaring absence of accuracy and historical foundation, replaced instead by racially motivated bias cloaked beneath a conservative epithet.

His bias and ignorance are evident in the author's depiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch's jurisdiction as restricted, which echoes a worn-out Russian trope perpetuated by useful idiots. He states, "The Ecumenical Patriarch is the spiritual leader of Orthodoxy. However, he only has direct jurisdiction over a few thousand Orthodox Christians in Turkey." Yet, an elementary comprehension unveils the intricate dynamics of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's influence, extending far beyond the confines suggested by the author's Russian overlords.
​
Let's dissect some of his hyperbole with facts. This isn't meant to be a theological rebuttal or a scholarly endeavor to rectify misinformation. Instead, it's a modest effort to explore the distinctive three-fold attributes of the Holy and Sacred Throne of Constantinople. It aims to counter the erroneous Muscovite propaganda, concealed personal vendettas, or prevalent naive ignorance perpetuated by individuals like Michael Davis and other unwitting instruments of the Kremlin. Here are the facts, Michael.

​As Archbishop of Constantinople, he is “one among equals.”  The Archbishop of Constantinople is the local bishop of the Archdiocese of Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul). He holds no more authority than any other Orthodox bishop in this capacity. On this ranking, he is considered “one among equals.” 

The direct Archdiocese of Constantinople oversees, in addition to several ancient and holy shrines such as the Life-Giving Spring, 37 communities, four high schools, 12 primary education schools, and ten homeless shelters. It also supports the Balouki Hospital, a mental hospital, an orphanage, a summer shelter for working girls, a children's home, and a nursing home. The Balouki Hospital serves all citizens of Istanbul. Within this city alone, it serves approximately 5,000 faithful (2,500 indigenous Greeks and 2,500 nationals/immigrants of various descent: Bulgarian, Serbian, Ukrainian…)

As Patriarch of Constantinople, he is “first among equals,” the regional Patriarch, and one of the original pentarchy of the ancient church, which also included Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. He is the Patriarch of the regional church of Constantinople. In this capacity, he is “first among equals.”

The Patriarchate of Constantinople oversees dozens of vibrant Metropolises, including Chalcedon, Derkon, Imbros and Tenedos, Pringiponisson (Princes Islands), Pissidia, Proussa, Andrianopoulis, Smyrna…, and Antalya which alone has over 120,000 faithful (Plus several thousand visiting faithful “tourists” or ex-pats)

More than a few monastic stavropegiacal communities:

•       Holy Mount Athos, (20 Monasteries…Hermitages, Sketes, and Cells)
•       Annunciation Convent, Ormylia, Thessaloniki
•       Monastery of St John Patmos (monastery, convent, dependencies)
•       Blatadon, Thessaloniki,
•       St John, Essex, England
•       Irene Chrysovalantou, Astoria, Queens (8 Dependencies)

Patriarchal Institutions Representations:

•       Patriarchal Foundation of Patristic Studies in Thessaloniki
•       The Orthodox Center Switzerland
•       Patriarchal Institute of Missionaries in East Athens, Greece
•       Patriarch Athenagoras Institute Berkley, California
•       Institute Post Graduate Studies Chambesy, Geneva
•       Athoniadas School, Mt Athos
•       Permanent Seat on the World Council of Churches

Besides overseeing the Metropolitans in Constantinople, Asia Minor, and Thrace, under the direct supervision of the Patriarch, is the Archdiocese of Crete (which alone has 650,000 adherents). An additional quarter of a million adherents on the Dodecanese: Metropolises of Rhodes, Kos and Nisyros, Leros, Kalymnos and Istipalaias, Karpathos and Kasos, and Symi.

The autonomous churches of Finland, Estonia, and additional Eparchies include the millions of adherents in the Archdiocese of America, Great Britain, and Australia. The Metropolitanate of Buenos Aires (South America), Mexico (Central America), the fastest-growing Orthodox Metropolis in the world, Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea, France, Germany, Belgium, Toronto, Italy, and so on…

In addition to the millions mentioned, there are the "New Lands" of Greece, comprising around forty Metropolitans with millions of followers. While delving into the intricacies of the "New Lands" is beyond the scope of this article, studying this aspect could provide valuable insights into the Ukrainian situation, dating back to the 17th century, long before any perceived allegiance to the US emerged. This history might be too much for Michael Davis to comprehend.

As Ecumenical Patriarch, he is “one without equal.” The Patriarch of Constantinople holds the unique universal title “Ecumenical” and is endowed by the Ecumenical Councils with exclusive privileges. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, the First Throne among the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, has rights and responsibilities that include the commencement and the coordination of actions of inter-Orthodox importance, mediating disputes among local churches and bishops, and according to historical and theological reasons, granting autocephaly… in these capacities, he is truly “one without equal.”

This historical ecclesiastic truth might offend Michael Warren Davis’s sensibilities, but he manages to go on for several pages. Mudding the waters with a feeble attempt to discredit the Greek Archdiocese, quoting laughably Rod Dreher, “Grek Popes,” then rants about Hunter Biden, Vouliagmeni, Homosexual Baptism, Dominion Voting Systems, Fr Alex Karloutsos, President Biden, Clergy salaries, renovationists, Huffington,  same-sex marriage, the Church of Greece, corruption, abortion, and on and on… What a pitiful attempt to pander to the Russian sycophants he so desperately seeks approval from, hoping to ingratiate himself with the "in" crowd.

The author's tropes might suit a sensationalist supermarket tabloid, and his commentary could resonate with certain Orthodox factions. However, this piece symbolizes the decline of the once-reputable American Conservative, which appears to be failing to uphold its core principles of conservatism. Go figure.
​
In conclusion, the disparities exposed in The American Conservative's "CIA's Man in Constantinople" underscore the imperative of thorough fact-checking and accountable journalism. Readers deserve more than misleading narratives and careless reporting, especially from a formally esteemed publication like The American Conservative. To the few who found this misguided article insightful, a fitting Greek phrase comes to mind to wrap up this response neatly with a bow: "Skasila Mou."

Honorable Senator Vance,
​
I hope this letter finds you well. I carefully followed your speech outlining your reasons for opposing the Ukraine aid bill. While I share your concerns about Congress' spending, I implore you to base your decisions on factual information and genuine conviction rather than a misguided sense of sentimentality, particularly concerning the Russian Orthodox Church and religious freedom in Ukraine. It has come to my attention that there are some misconceptions and conflations regarding the situation in Ukraine, and I believe it is crucial to shed light on these issues.

​​Firstly, it is imperative to understand the concept of sovereign territory as it pertains to the Orthodox Church and not solely sovereign nations, i.e., Ukraine and Russian territory. This understanding is deeply rooted in Orthodox canon law, spanning over seventeen centuries, and transcends modern constitutional interpretations. While acknowledging the significance of our cherished First Amendment rights, it is essential to recognize the unique ecclesial territories within the Orthodox tradition and the false flag efforts of Putin's regime, which includes Patriarch Kirill and his hierarchs.

​Religious freedom is upheld in Ukraine, accommodating various faiths, including Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Orthodox believers. Acknowledging that ecclesiology and religious freedom can coexist harmoniously is crucial. Therefore, I urge your support in allowing the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to organize itself within its own canonical framework and geographic sovereignty. Ironically, you claim to champion religious freedom while simultaneously insisting on meddling in the internal spiritual affairs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the legitimate church’s support of their Ukrainian government.

​To illustrate this point further, consider a hypothetical scenario in which a foreign entity establishes a religious institution within the territory of another nation, akin to Putin establishing a Catholic Church in Italy. Such an endeavor would rightfully be viewed as an intrusion and subject to denouncement by the host nation and the local church. Would objections then be raised about religious freedom, or would the focus rightly shift to sovereignty and national integrity?

​Moreover, we must address the activities of Russian factions within the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. These groups have been manipulated and exploited by external Russian forces, a situation that dates back to Stalin's era. The infiltration of these groups by espionage elements is a matter of grave concern and historical facts. It is important to note that these groups do not represent the true essence of the Orthodox Church and are being used as pawns in Putin’s geopolitical agendas.

​The "church" you are defending under the guise of religious freedom standards is complicit in egregious crimes, including the refusal to bury members of its congregation who have bravely fought against Russian aggression. Furthermore, the mandatory use of the Russian language over the vernacular Ukrainian within these churches and the presence of numerous infiltrated spies among their hierarchy and clergy are undeniable facts that cannot be ignored. These deep scars harken decades of Russian aggression against Ukraine, including the horrific Soviet Holodomor of 1932/33. It is inconceivable that you are unaware of these historical atrocities.

​Additionally, it is crucial to acknowledge that this Russian espionage church extends its reach even into US territory. While this aspect warrants further discussion in future conversations, it underscores the severity of the situation. The entity you are defending is not a legitimate religious institution but rather a tool of the very enemy apparatus that the Ukrainians are fighting against.
​
These undeniable truths demand reevaluating the stance taken under the pretext of religious freedom. It is imperative to confront and condemn the actions of this malign entity rather than perpetuate its harmful influence under the guise of tolerance and liberty.

It is worth noting that sanctions imposed by various entities, including PACE, several European nations including the UK, and others, underscore the complicity of the Russian Orthodox Church in supporting Putin's regime, particularly “Patriarch” Kirill of Moscow, who preaches war and promises sins to be forgiven for war against the west. Yes, he openly preaches fratricide from the pulpit. This is not a matter of religious persecution but rather a response to actions that undermine the sovereignty and integrity of nations and churches.

I welcome the opportunity to engage in further discussion or clarify any aspect of this matter. Your understanding and support in addressing these complex issues are greatly appreciated.
​
Sincerely,
Elias Damianakis

​Orthodoxy stands at a critical juncture, demanding a remedy for the pervasive pestilence of Russkiy Mir and a profound reconsideration of the Russian Orthodox Church's standing within the broader Orthodox community. The alarming promotion of a patriarch advocating, even to vulnerable believers and children, that murder – specifically fratricide – is an acceptable means of dispute resolution presents a glaring deviation from the teachings of Christ and the foundational principles upheld by His Great Church.

​Navigating an impartial assessment devoid of tribal biases poses a formidable challenge for many. Although consensus may remain elusive, the critical imperative is to anchor our decisions in accurate facts, ensuring an informed choice rather than succumbing to the pull of any specific faction. This places us in the challenging but indispensable position of making choices grounded in knowledge and discernment. While the Russian Church plays in an ecclesiastically isolated sandbox, they and their minions like ROCOR persistently launch numerous "incorrect, groundless, and openly slanderous" accusations against the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the person of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.

Let's engage in an earnest and illuminating examination of the behaviors of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Kirill. Delving into these religious leaders' genuine actions and conduct, it's crucial to approach this discussion with sensitivity and objectivity, recognizing the opposing perspectives in our exploration.

​Without reservation, I assert that what is commonly referred to as the patriarch of Moscow is, in my view, a mere semblance of an Orthodox patriarch. However, to ensure that your judgment is based on factual information rather than personal bias, I present a series of actual comparative actions and quotes that contradict the prevalent narrative propagated on-line by small yet vocal Russian hierarchy, priests, monastics, and the sycophantic theological journals and websites that disseminate their views across various social media outlets.

​As disseminated by Russian sources, the simulacrum Moscow Patriarchate's propaganda asserts that the Ecumenical Patriarch's supposed ambition for global Greek hegemony and control lacks any foundation. The reality starkly contrasts the misguided declarations by Kirill and his Russkiy Mir sycophants.

Inescapably evident is the manifestation of a self-proclaimed de facto Orthodox Crusader Pope in Kirill -Vladimir Mikhailovich Gundyayev. His overtly malevolent rhetoric, unapologetic breaches of canonical norms through ecclesiastical invasions, overt support for fratricidal wars in defiance of fundamental human and biblical values, and persistent provocation of internal conflicts within Christ's Great Church, all while brandishing the specter of "schism," form an indisputable pattern. The indomitable truth, elusive to Moscow loyalists, stands unwavering: Kirill is unequivocally unworthy.

​

​With Lent on the horizon, it's time to reflect, renew, and make positive changes. I'm saddened by the Orthodox Church's current state. Some leaders speak out against the Muscovite church’s abuses, while others remain silent or even perpetuate Cyril’s malevolent phronema. 

Patriarch Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch, has denounced the Patriarchate of Moscow for its attempts to “justify an unjustifiable, unholy, unprovoked, diabolical war against an independent country.” He has reminded us that “the Russian Church must share the blame for the crimes committed in Ukraine.” Despite the few rational voices within my church, silence implies approval, and I do not endorse it.

​The simulation of a Patriarch, the local bishop of Moscow, Cyril, encourages our children to murder fellow Orthodox believers, promising them martyrdom and direct entry into paradise. You may argue that he addresses only his flock, but that's a misguided perspective. There is one Church, one Chalice, and one Voice. We are the Body, not a collection of separate organs —Russian, Serbian, Albanian, Greek… What Father Andrew preaches in my neck of the woods should align with what Father Hilarion preaches in Siberia. Does it?

Autocephaly does not signify unchecked autonomy. For centuries, the status-quo Russian mindset has significantly shaped the church's agenda, tarnished the body, and contributed to the de-Hellenization of Orthodoxy. Beyond attempting to "knock the Greek out of us," they go even further, surpassing the baseless racial stereotypes laughably linked to Baklava and Gyro. Strangely, they extrapolate and assign ethno-phyletism to those whom they wrongly believe perceive them as inferior—a manifestation of a “woke Napoleon complex.”

Hellenism refers to the cultural, philosophical, and artistic traditions that emerged in ancient Greece and Rome. The ideals of Hellenism encompassed a broad range of principles and values that profoundly impacted the development of Western civilization. Orthodoxy gestated within the realm of Hellenism, undergoing a mystical metamorphosis that subsequently turned the cosmos into a sacred space, shaping the earth into the field of salvation.

​Orthodoxy, particularly Eastern Roman Christianity, has been influenced by Hellenistic ideals in various ways, given the historical and cultural context of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire and the convergence of Greek philosophical thought with Christian theology. 

​​Here are some critical aspects of Hellenistic ideals transfigured by Orthodoxy:

​Orthodoxy is "Hellenic," not ethnically Greek, as some charlatans would mislead you to believe. Russians began imposing Russkiy Mir: a standardization according to Russian norms, not Orthodox norms. Before these intentional innovations, stepping into any Orthodox church worldwide would reveal nearly identical worship services, spaces, and phronema, differing only in the vernacular. 

​For example, instead of Tchaikovsky or Rachmaninoff’s Divine Liturgies… Orthodoxy echoed those musical compositions of St. Romanos the Melodist (circa 490–556), St. John of Damascus (676–749), St. Kassia (circa 810–867), and St. Gerasimos Mikragiannanitis (1905-1991). All revered composers whose hymn compositions still resonate within all the expressions of the Eastern Orthodox Church. 

​Even mentioning the Russian choral tradition, which has seeped into many traditions, is foreign to our genuine Orthodox expression; it triggers an inflated and demeaning response from even the most meager individuals. These misguided Russian innovations in art, architecture, music, spiritual phronema, and even Ecumenical Canons and ecclesiology threaten to fragment our unified Orthodox Tradition.

​The Orthodox Deplorables, Instigators of Schism

Throughout the annals of Church history, ecclesiastic unity persisted even in the face of acknowledged errors, ecclesiological disparities, and doctrinal heresy. Unity is a paramount virtue of Orthodoxy, a straightforward concept that Moscow appears to struggle with.

Orthodoxy, the timeless beacon of wisdom, in Russian hands will be reduced to a flickering candle in the hands of those who seem to mistake obscurity for enlightenment.

PDF Available at Academia.com 
​

Historical Orthodox Unity

The ecclesiastical landscape has been marked by phenomena such as Nestorianism (386–451), iconoclasm (717–787), filioque (begun in the 6th century and was not the cause of original West/East schism), uncanonical Russian unilateral expansionism into Asia and North America (1300-1945), Bulgarian phyletism (1872), and the heresy of Sergianism (1927). Today, the Sergian heresy continues and is presented as Russkiy Mir. Throughout these debates and conflicts, the Ecumenical Patriarchate ensured Orthodox unity persevered, with the constant and notable exception being Moscow’s provocations.

Beginning in the 19th century and further complicating our understanding of proper Orthodox ecclesiology is the development of “national” churches (Greece in 1833, Serbia in 1875, Romania in 1885, and Poland in 1924) by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, these ostensibly "novel" territorial ecclesiastical entities did not transgress the ecclesiological tenet prescribing a singular bishop or church within a given geographical territory, in accordance with prevailing ecumenical council norms.

In the face of the Ottoman Empire's decline, often called the "sick man of Europe" – a reminder that this encompassed all Orthodox churches except Russia – the Ecumenical Patriarchate displayed self-sacrifice, playing a pivotal role in preserving the unity of the Great Church of Christ during an exceptionally challenging period in human history. This starkly contrasts Moscow's approach, resembling a leviathan that inclines towards invasion, conquest, and absorption of all it can. When unable to achieve its goals through force or military attack, it resorts to accusations of heresy and creates schisms, opening the way for ecclesiastical invasion.

It is crucial to emphasize that the condemnation of heretical doctrines is a prerogative reserved for an Ecumenical Council rather than individual patriarchs, local bishops, priests, or monastics/laypersons. While these individuals may articulate dissent, apprehension, or objection to perceived transgressions, the imperative remains to avoid instigating schisms and seek resolution through proper ecclesiastical channels; the emphasis is “proper ecclesial channels.” 

Moscow Patriarch’s opposition to the principle of unity

Let me expound upon the many various blasphemous strategies employed by the Muscovite church throughout its historical trajectory, including tactics such as coercive measures for patriarchal dignity (abduction of Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah, blackmail in 1589), imprisonment for nonconformity (St Maximos Vatopedianos 1515-1556), unilaterally self-declaring autocephaly in (1917, Tikhon / 1943, Stalin), utilizing bribery for international influence (Jerusalem, Antioch, Albania…), the illicit uncanonical conferral of autocephaly in 1971, and engaging in petulant schisms with threats of a disruptive nature in Estonia and Ukraine.

The Ukrainian invasion is not unusual for the Russian Orthodox Church, which historically consistently exhibits unwavering support for the Kremlin's military campaigns and usually instigates conflict against any Orthodox nation for its self-interest (Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine, Africa, etc). Rather than displaying any hesitation, the ROC's backing of conflicts has not only endured but has intensified as the wars unfolded. One cannot help but marvel at the local Moscow bishop's chutzpa and steadfast commitment to sever ties with Orthodoxy for self-serving non-dogmatic issues consistently. This demonstrates a notable pattern of petulant divergence from unity in the broader Orthodox community and norms (canons).

The origins of the contemporary Russian propagandistic narrative can be traced back to the incestuous relationship between the Moscow church and state. This intertwining is exemplified by the zealous political and ecclesial Russian aspirations to attain Constantinople's prestige and prerogatives. The pursuit of geographic and ecclesial advantages has led to the prolonged intricacies surrounding the protracted Turko-Russian Wars (1568–1570, 1735-1739, 1806-1829, 1877–1878, and 1914 with the Russian invasion of Turkish Armenia). Indeed, each war was characterized by the deliberate flouting of canonical norms, notably evident in the case of Bulgaria. 

This Russo-centric narrative gained traction and increased with the inception of the Russian Church outside of Russia, culminating in unparalleled levels of misinformation and distorted disinformation. With the endorsement of Stalin, the propaganda campaign for Russian Orthodox hegemony worldwide escalated significantly, further fueling the false narratives of supremacy. This trend persisted throughout the 20th century, creating a landscape where distinguishing between canonical practices and those antithetical to the Orthodox ethos remains increasingly challenging for many.

The intricate historical path has added complexity, making distinguishing authentic Orthodox principles from the shroud of manipulated Russian information challenging. This conflation within the Russian Mir is a potent tool in shaping public opinion, fostering a distorted comprehension of the multifaceted and nuanced concerns within the ecclesiastical realm. 

​Today’s social media Russkiy Mir Pundits

I am inclined to redirect attention to the contemporary landscape, precisely the phenomenon of social media propagandists and the purported "useful idiots" affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate. This group has tended to amalgamate disparate and weighty issues into a propagandistic narrative, utilizing sentimental contemporary views of morals and ethics. This approach effectively constructs a feast of red meat tropes, custom-tailored for consumption by individuals predisposed to phyletic inclinations, all while overlooking the foundational ethos of Orthodoxy. This encompasses the Russian Orthodox substratum, characterized by virtue-signaling proselytes, purportedly adhering to genuine Orthodoxy.

Let's delve into the specific group called the "orthodox deplorables." The conventional straw-man lamenters, in rhetorical terms, go beyond just figures like the lead Karens such as George Malakalopoulos and Nick Skatamatakis. It also includes diverse individuals, like cybernetic convert right-leaning pundits and pseudo-zealot theologians such as Peter Heers, George Maximov, Jay Dyer, Jesse Dominic, Jim Jatras, and John Whiteford.

​Behold the trio of discontented Greeks – George Michalopoulos, Jim Jatras, and Nick Stamatakis. Like intertwined olives in a tightly packed jar hoping to be noticed, they move in lockstep, their camaraderie as seamless as a well-rehearsed Zorba dance, sharing a bond tighter than a stubborn jar of honey in the Greek sun. They're not just three peas in a pod; they're like gyro slices flavor-fully marinating each other in the juices of shared opinions and mutual admiration. It's a friendship seasoned with a pinch of sarcasm and a drop of Ouzo, leaving the rest of us to marvel at the magnificence of their Hellenic unity. Opa! They revel in the delightful echo chamber of their solidarity, a symphony of self-stimulation that provides an unparalleled rush of validation. Their modus operandi? A merry-go-round of quoting and promoting each other's journalistic endeavors, a delightful dance of feeble attempts that could make even the most stoic critic crack a smile. It's a small world they've crafted. Cheers to this trio for turning self-stimulation into an art form!

​George Michalopoulos dubiously asserts himself as a self-proclaimed solitary champion of Orthodoxy. Jorge decided to part ways with the ethnic Greek church, transforming into the lonesome gladiator tilting at windmills alongside his spouse, Gail, the eternal convert. “Bartholomew split the Russian Church”

The transformation of Jim Jatras, once a political insider, is now seemingly on a perpetual quest for validation. His verbal escapades include gems like "Constantinople centralized power, throwing the Church into discord, especially the Russian Church." Ah, the profound musings of a modern-day philosopher! It's almost as if he's attempting to rewrite history with the flair of a Shakespearean drama, casting Constantinople as the grand villain in the Church's soap opera of discord. Bravo, Jim, for turning the intricacies of ecclesiastical politics into a tale worthy of a Greek tragedy, complete with plot twists and the quest for eternal validation. 

Meanwhile, Nick, a seemingly clueless figure in ecclesiastical matters, struts around as a Protestant Christian defending Orthodoxy from its hierarchy... However, his primary dedication purports to stand up for Hellenism. His ethos is “do nothing but tear down.” Stamatakis’ feigned interest in the Church serves as an anemic endeavor at character assassination, which he hasn’t entirely perfected yet, but he muddles on preaching to the disappointed. 

In a move befitting tabloid journalism, their escapades unfold like a soap opera in the realm of disgruntled Greek dynamics. The following individuals, all hail from the Russian Orthodox Church in and Outside Russia (ROCOR) bearers of enlightenment from Russia, appear to foster animosity, discord, and division. Here are purported pearls of wisdom that reveal the caliber of their intellects and the nature of their hearts. These fine specimens are like a philosophical puzzle, inviting us to ponder the age-old question: just how much poison can one stomach before it becomes downright deleterious? They perform a delicate dance, a waltz with toxicity, where the line between critique and calamity blurs. It's almost as if they've taken a sip from the cup of controversy and decided to chug the entire brew.

I leave you with the riddle: at what point does one say to the spirit of the Antichrist, 
"That's enough poison for me, thank you!"

“The Patriarch of Constantinople is introducing division by preaching heresy.”
"canons are self-actualizing magical spells."​
"no longer do we recognize Christ in this local church it’s no longer confessing the faith."
"non-participation of all bishops was phyletistic opportunism."
"The Council of Crete is neither great, nor holy, nor Pan-Orthodox."
"support of the Russian State for embattled Orthodox peoples,"
​
"Heers is a priest without a bishop. This lack of canonical oversight suggests he is without antimins as well.  Perhaps this is the reason why Heers has turned to the digital Orthodox world to serve as his de facto parish."
​​

In his ignoble quest for influence, he’s mastered the art of expulsion, treating it as a sacrament. Anyone not adhering to his rigid interpretation of Orthodoxy is promptly shown the door as if the pearly gates were under their jurisdiction. Jay is a repository of countless ignorant commentaries. Instead of delving into the vast sea of his dubious insights, let's turn to the words of another who has dared to encapsulate the essence of this individual: “Dyer is nothing more than a conspiracy theorist and huckster, dabbling in a wide net of subjects to gain access to as many honeypots as possible.”

“Patriarch of Alexandria Theodoros serves with schismatic hierarchs in Constantinople.”
“it can be reasonably suggested that Constantinople has lowered its initial expectations.”
“Constantinople expects Churches to serve with schismatics.”
"soon after I converted I found the Old Calendarist groups who proclaim that they have preserved the truth even more fully than had the historic Orthodox Churches — they appealed to my desire for truth."
"this clique to “rubber stamp” the changes to Orthodox ecclesiology"
​
​

To these pseudo-Orthodox internet trailblazers, everyone is conveniently sorted into neat, demeaning groups with labels. They’ll feel justified by what they read. You're either an "Ecumenist" or a member of the elusive "new world order." If that's not enough, they've expanded their vocabulary to include less-than-flattering terms like "queer" and the mysterious "Fordhamite." In what appears to be derogatory attempts to demean the Ecumenical Patriarchate, they’ve even labeled me “Istanbul Elias,” a snub ROCOR’s shiny star, Fr. John has chosen to attribute to me, and yet I wear it with pride. 

My team has developed a website, Istanbulelias.com, to showcase the insults directed at me which is expanding to showcase how they verbally abuse others in the blogoshere. Illustrating the Russian church’s limited scope of attack and inability of small-minded sycophants  sharing Russian style christian love online. 

In Conclusion

These individuals never seem to engage with the substance of an argument; instead, they opt for a repertoire of insults directed at the messenger. The Russian circus continues, with the clowns choosing insults over genuine discourse. Indeed, the landscape of the Orthodox internet is evolving, thanks to this new wave of virtuous vigilantes the discourse ain’t pretty. As they wield their labels and moral doctrines with zeal, one can't help but marvel at the audacity of their blameless Russian crusade. 

The self-percieved gatekeepers of the virtuous Orthodox internet! Press them a tad, and you're swiftly escorted to the exit like an uninvited guest at a righteous banquet. It's a delicate dance, navigating the hallowed halls of their digital sanctum, where questioning their moral fortress is akin to heresy. In this virtuous haven, dissent is not tolerated; it's promptly labeled as an unholy intrusion. 

The irony is palpable. While they champion the virtues of a fascistic Orthodoxy, their intolerance for questioning mirrors the very authoritarianism they claim to despise. Their moral high ground is perched atop a digital soapbox, and any probing questions threaten to crumble the foundation. So, to those valiant gatekeepers, as you wield your virtual expulsion hammer with psuedo-righteousness, may you find solace in the Orthodox Church endowed by the Ecumenical Councils. 

Above all, unity in the Orthodox faith.  ​

The Kariye Djami -From Byzantine Sanctuary to Controversial Mosque
​
The Kariye Djami, originally known as the Chora Monastery or the Monastery of Christ (Μονή του Χριστού της Χώρα), stands as a captivating symbol of Istanbul's rich history. Nestled in the Roman Capital, Constantinople, present-day Istanbul, Türkiye, this ancient structure resides near the Charisios Gate (Edirnekapı) and south of the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus (Tekfur Sarayı). The term "chora" (χώρα), suggesting "land" or "in the country," resonates with the rural nature of its location, originally beyond the city walls constructed by Constantine. The site likely remained sparsely populated even during the Ottoman era, contributing to the mystery surrounding Chora's early history.

​According to one tradition, the relics of St. Babylas are believed to have been located at Chora in the early 4th century. "Chora" takes on a mystical interpretation, signifying a "dwelling place." Inscriptions on the adornments within the monastery depict Christ as "the land of the living" and the Virgin as "the container of the uncontainable," cleverly playing on the word "chora."

The Kariye Djami's rich history unfolds in a series of transformative epochs:

4th-century Foundation upon Older Ruins: The monastery traces its roots back to the 4th century, established upon ancient ruins, marking the beginning of its historical journey.

11th Century: Maria Doukaina's Architectural Renovation: Maria Doukaina, mother-in-law of Roman (Byzantine) emperor Alexius I Comnenus, reconstructed the Chora Church in the architectural style of an inscribed cross or quincunx during the 11th century, aligning with contemporary trends.

14th Century: Archon Theodore Metochites' Artistic Legacy: Archon Theodore Metochites significantly enhanced the church's aesthetic appeal between 1315 and 1321, contributing exquisite mosaics and frescoes, showcasing the finest example of the Palaeologian Renaissance in mosaic art. His dual role as a classical scholar and statesman adds a unique layer to Chora's history.

15th Century: Conversion into Kariye Camii: In the aftermath of the Fall of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire in 1453, Hadım Ali Pasha, Grand Vizier of Sultan Bayezid II, ordered the conversion of the famed Chora Monastery into Kariye Camii, emphasizing the term kariye's Greek origins.

1945–2020: Museum, Art Restoration, and Controversies: Designated as a museum in 1945, the Kariye Djami underwent restoration efforts sponsored by American scholars in 1948. Since 1511, serving as a mosque, the building ceased functioning as such, opening its doors to the public as Kariye Museum in 1958. Controversies surrounding its status emerged, leading to a lawsuit in 2005. On November 11, 2019, Türkiye's highest administrative court issued an order to reverse the Kariye Djami to a mosque. This decision was subsequently implemented through a presidential decree, officially changing its status to a mosque. The decree was promulgated and recorded in the Official Gazette on August 21, 2020. This administrative and legal process marked a significant milestone in the recent history of the Kariye Djami, transitioning it from a museum back into a mosque and not its original church... 

​During the late 19th century, the Chora, renowned for its intricate mosaics, gained popularity among Western tourists and acquired the moniker "Mosaic Mosque." In 1945, it underwent a transformative shift when it was converted into a museum under the jurisdiction of the Ayasofya Museum. The Byzantine Institute of America, followed by the Dumbarton Oaks Field Committee in 1947, initiated extensive conservation efforts, including cleaning mosaics and frescoes and overall building restoration. This “museum” decision sparked debate within Türkiye, with proponents viewing it as a progressive step toward global engagement. At the same time, critics, mainly conservatives and nationalists, considered it a concession to the West and a dilution of Muslim identity. 

These sentiments never evaporated, and in 2020, amidst challenging political and economic troubles, the Chora underwent an official conversion back into a mosque despite currently being closed with a proposed reopening in May 2024; rumors attach date selected to coincide with historical commemorations.

The recent reconversion has sparked debates and criticism, with accusations of political maneuvering. The sudden pearl-clutching from individuals with ulterior motives isn’t as astonishing as it might first appear. These people throughout history use these bouts of “human rights” virtue-signaling skills to showcase their own personal agendas. These are the same individuals who will feign shock over the conversion of a museum into a mosque and will excoriate Ataturk who converted the mosque into a museum.

​The fact that Recep Tayyip Erdogan doesn’t need this former tiny church/museum as a mosque is evident by his major mosque-building projects in Istanbul and around Türkiye. For example, the largest mosque in the world, Grand Camlica Mosque, just 20.0 km away from Kariye, where 63 thousand people can perform prayers at the same time, or in the Shadow of Orthodoxy’s Holy Trinity Cathedral, the new Taxsim mosque, which can hold up to 3,000 worshippers at the same time and is only 4 km away from Kariye. 

​The tumult surrounding Hagia Sophia and Chora are orchestrated, serving as a poignant reminder of historical conquests and reflecting a provocative stance towards Western civilization and Christianity from a fundamental Islamist perspective. The orchestration is attributed to political expediency by Erdogan, capitalizing on the situation, and leveraged by critics, particularly detractors from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. 

​This reversion is far from unique; numerous churches in Istanbul have undergone a similar transformation into mosques. Having visited most of them, here are the most notable churches currently repurposed as mosques:

• Hagia Eirene (Armory but not mosque)
• Sergius & Bacchus (Küçük Ayasofya Mosque)
• Myrelaion (Bodrum Mosque)
• Theotokos Kyriotissa (Kalenderhane Mosque)
• Holy Theodoros (Vefa Kilise Mosque)
• Pantocrator Monastery (Zeyrek Mosque)

​I find myself reflecting on whether those who feign zealotry for "Orthodoxy" will scrutinize Russian fratricide or condemn the Bulgarians for the disheartening thefts from the Eikosiphinisa Monastery. Similarly, will they blame the Greek government for the situation surrounding the Dafni Monastery Museum? Moreover, one cannot overlook Greece's apparent failure to secure Mount Athos. The Greek government's lapses in safeguarding Mount Athos raise significant concerns, especially regarding the enduring illegal occupation of Esphigmenou Monastery by individuals masquerading as monks and squatting at the monastery for decades.

​In contemplating Orthodoxy’s intricate past, we uncover the complex interplay of culture, religion, and politics that have shaped Orthodoxy's historical and religious narratives.

​In the grand tapestry of Orthodox Christianity, the Muscovite church's insatiable expansionism strives to assert authority over the entire ecclesiastical and political realm. Since the 15th century, this far-fetched narrative has utilized deceit to undermine canonical ecclesiology. As in modern Ukraine, the Moscow Patriarch seeks to delegitimize the local Church, thereby making their desired territory available for ecclesiastic invasion. The Moscow Patriarchate's trajectory toward apostasy has reached its culmination, prompting Orthodox observers, theologians, and historians to grapple with deciphering and clarifying for the layman an understanding of the Moscow Patriarchate’s problematic evil conduct.
​

​A conspicuous derivative of Moscow's ecclesial abuse is their audacious claim to be "the rightful heir to Orthodox leadership." Embedded in this assertion is a language replete with falsehoods and deceit. An heir, by definition, is "legally entitled to the rank of another on that person's death." Yet, when did the thrones of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem meet their demise? Quite the opposite unfolded – they flourished as part of the Great Nation, the Great Church of Christ.
​
The Muscovite church consistently avoids adherence to canonical law and abuses its spiritual authority. She heavily depended on the political power wielded by ruling entities such as the czarist, Stalinist, and current Putin regimes. This alliance with political forces transforms the Church into a tool for oppressing the population rather than serving as a source of spiritual guidance. 
​

​The Church, aligned with the Kremlin, aims to expand its influence by seeking to conquer and control territories deemed as barbarian, displaying an insatiable appetite for expansion and disregarding canonical law. Moscow's approach involves labeling certain regions as "barbarian," providing a perceived legitimacy for Russian ecclesiastical conquest. This strategy has historical precedence, evidenced by Moscow's past uncanonical "missionizing" efforts in Asia and North America.
​
Despite the oppressive constraints imposed by the Ottoman Empire on the Rum Millet, the Great Church of Christ has thrived under excruciatingly constricting conditions. From the 15th to the 19th centuries, the Churches of the Great Nation, namely Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Cyprus, experienced remarkable growth and spiritual development under the umbrella of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In doing so, they embodied and secured the sacred essence of the Great Church of Christ and safeguarded the Traditions of the church fathers, in contrast to the Russian alterations and innovations to the Church's inheritance. 

​The consistently abusive Russian Church, ego-driven by opportunism, boldly asserted its autonomy, departing from canonical law at every self-serving opportunity, as in the unilateral alteration of its title to the Metropolitan of Moscow and all of Russia. This action signaled the beginning of the Russian Church's self-isolation, accompanied by an irrationally detrimental Russkiy Mir mentality. Russia's ecclesiastic abuses extended beyond heretics or enemies of the faith, encompassing anyone perceived as a threat to the Russkiy mir mentality.

​Case in point: Michael Trivolis was born around 1475 in Arta, then part of the Ottoman Empire; Michael hailed from a noble family with connections to the fallen Byzantine emperor in Constantinople. His father, Manuel, held the title of Archon Voivode. Michael became a monk, taking the name Maximos. He embarked on his educational journey on the island of Corfu under the tutelage of John Moschos and John Laskaris. Later, he joined Laskaris in Florence during the 1490s and continued his studies across Italian cities such as Bologna, Florence, Ferrara, Milan, Padua, and Venice, all infused with scholars who fled Constantinople.

​In 1515, Rus' Grand Prince Basil sought a monk from the Ecumenical Patriarchate to translate religious texts. His All Holiness Theoleptus I decided to send the energetic Maximos from Vatopedi Monastery on Mount Athos in 1518. After years of labor, in 1525, a Russian sobor accused Holy Maximos of nonconformism and heresy. Consequently, Maximos was exiled to the Volokolamsk Monastery, confined to a dungeon without the right to correspond. False allegations continued during a new sobor in 1531, resulting in a ban on receiving communion for the next two decades.

​Despite combined efforts from the Patriarchs of the Great Nation, including appeals from the Ecumenical Patriarch, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, attempts to negotiate Maximos' release with Russian authorities proved futile. Maximos ultimately fell asleep in 1556 at the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra in Sergiyev Posad. Saint Maximos the Greek’s memory is commemorated on January 21st in Orthodox churches worldwide. 

​Despite this and numerous other crimes against Orthodoxy, in 1589, Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II officially recognized Moscow's canonical status, favoring it by raising Job to the dignity of a patriarch.
​
The preferential treatment given to the local metropolitan of Moscow originated from a situation involving manipulation and coercion. Specifically, this involved the blackmail and imprisonment of the Ecumenical Patriarch, who was subjected to house arrest in Moscow until he consented to Russian demands. The Russian Church continues to employ, to this day, a strategy characterized by coercion and threats across diverse situations, maintaining a consistent approach to exerting influence and control.

Amidst the wars and tumult of 1685, ecclesiastic territories within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were temporarily transferred from the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the Moscow Patriarchate. The historical record attests to Moscow's failure to adhere to the terms of this transfer, reflecting a persistent pattern of the MP breaking agreements. Nevertheless, the legitimate Russian Patriarchate's existence was relatively brief. In 1721, Peter the Great dismantled the legal ecclesiastic institution, the "Moscow Patriarchate," and in its place, he established a Western-style bishop's college, modeled after the College of Cardinals, which eventually evolved into a Synod-based church administered by a lay director or Ober-Procurator.

​Under Peter's rule, a new ecclesiastic educational system addressed the often insufficient education of local priests and monks. However, the enlightened curriculum, heavily influenced by the West with an emphasis on Latin language and subjects, came at the cost of limited exposure to liturgical Greek heritage, Eastern Church Fathers, and Slavonic church languages. Despite formal education, training monks and priests for ministry to a Russian-speaking population could have been more comprehensive.
​
During this era, a distinctive form of Russo-centric ecclesiastic education emerged, representing a significant departure from the ancient Hellenic idealism traditionally associated with Eastern Rome. This marked a profound shift in 1600 years of Orthodoxy towards de-Hellenization, where the influence of classical Eastern Church traditions began to wane from the ancient Hellenic heritage to a Russkiy Mir mentality. What distinguished this period was the unprecedented phenomenon of Russian culture actively shaping the development of the church, a departure from the historical norm where the church typically played a pivotal role in informing and influencing the culture. This shift reflected a departure from the ancient roots of Eastern Orthodoxy and the emergence of a unique, ethnically grounded Orthodoxy, redefining the dynamics between the church and culture. This restructuring of the Orthodox ethos included a neo-classical influence evident in iconography, architecture, and music and even extended to ancient Orthodox centers through transmission from Mount Athos. The infiltration of this deleterious mindset by Russky Mir has had far-reaching consequences. Yet, in recent decades, efforts to expunge these principles from the authentic phronema have been evident worldwide, except within Russia.

​This St Petersburg Synod persisted until 1917. Significantly, a considerable number of bishops, lacking canonical lineage extending beyond Moscow's defined canonically legitimate borders, came together to convene the infamous All-Russian Local Council. They established an innovative, structured Patriarchal administration in an autonomous decision-making process. The former American Archbishop Tikhon assumed leadership, but the Council's work and decrees were stifled in Russia with the ascendency of the Bolsheviks. This marks a somber chapter in Orthodoxy as the Russian Church grapples with its ties to the Soviet state, characterized by unsuccessful post-revolution ecclesiastical reforms and relentless attempts by the Communist regime to suppress or control the Church.
​
The selfless acts of Christian martyrs, the challenges posed by a lack of unified Church authority, and the internal conflicts among Russian church movements —such as the Living Church, Church Abroad, Catacomb Church, ROCOR, and others— are intricate aspects of this historical narrative. The complication deepened with the usurpation of Church power by Metropolitan Sergius in 1927. Additionally, the Church's active engagement in the cult of Stalin further adds complexity, ultimately leading to the establishment, orchestrated by Stalin himself, of the present-day Russian "Patriarchate" in 1943. The first Simulacrum Patriarch installed by Stalin was Sergios, followed by Alexy I, Pimen, Alexy II, and Cyril.

​The Russian Church adopted a distinctive approach to inter-Orthodox interaction, characterized by unilateral declarations that labeled nonconformists as impostors and subjected them to anathema. Indeed, the non-dogmatic application of schism is acknowledged as a distinctive characteristic unique to the Russian Orthodox tradition. With a simple stroke of the pen, Moscow labeled all bishops who opposed them as non-canonical, a Russian stratagem. As a reminder, in recent years, the simulacrum patriarch of Moscow Cyril extended this illegitimate unilateral approach to declare entire global communities, including the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Patriarchate of Alexandria, the churches of Cyprus and Greece, and selected bishops as heretics. This craftily devious and lamentably illicit ecclesiastical maneuver not only falsely legitimized Cyril's unlawful expansion but also effectively consolidated the establishment of exarchates, thereby significantly amplifying Russia's geopolitical influence across the globe. Truly unworthy!
​

​The unjust exploitation of anathema is considered a deeply sinful act and is deemed incomprehensible by a Patriarchal Synod except in dogmatic matters. From my perspective, an official synodal act involving the denial of truth, ridicule, misinterpretation, or any effort to diminish fellow autocephalous churches warrants a formal denunciation. The act of leveraging the gravity and importance of the Church's anathemas to justify an ecclesiastic invasion and fratricide is inherently satanic in nature.
​
Ultimately, the ancient churches, bound by the obligations of the Ecumenical Councils, are obliged to assess the standing of the Russian Church and its influence on Traditional Orthodox ecclesiastic conduct. These overtly anti-Orthodox Russkiy Mir leanings mandate reevaluating Moscow's title "patriarch" and arriving at a decision, establishing a sacred Russian church by legitimate Orthodox standards rather than a fratricidal one established by Stalin.

​The connection is profound, marked by a symbiotic relationship that some perceive as parasitic while others consider commensalism. Regardless of the viewpoint, it is evident that the Russian people are firmly entwined in this intricate and incestuous Church-State relationship, with no discernible alternative reality, since the inception of the Muscovite church, which customarily pursues its desires without concern for consequences.

​In defiance of Orthodox Canons, Moscow's primary driving force appears to be rooted in ego, as evidenced by a series of actions, including self-initiation, unilateral declarations of self-rule or autocephaly, and the self-assertion of Patriarchal titles. These actions span various historical moments, including the unauthorized relocation of the canonical Throne from Kyiv to Vladimir to Moscow in 1325, the pivotal illegal event in 1448, when Jonah became Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Rus', and unilaterally changed his title to "Metropolitan of Moscow and all Russia" during his tenure eventually declared autocephaly a historical first self-appointed autocephaly, the acquisition of the Patriarchal title through questionable means in 1448, the self-authorized expansion beyond the territory integrity authorized in Golden Tomos, self-initiated establishment of a patriarchate in 1917, and the controversial reestablishment in 1943. These actions and numerous other "de facto" assumptions collectively clearly violate Orthodox Canons.

Throughout history, Russian ecclesiology has relied on extortion and the "de facto" method of ecclesiology. This “Russian de facto ecclesiology” implies that Russian Orthodox practices or the prevailing status quo often deviate from Orthodox phronema, irrespective of their adherence to or conformity with canonical norms.
​
The Russian Orthodox Church has firmly established itself within the Russian government in charge (Czar, Soviet, modern). To understand this connection, we must trace its origins to the Christianization of Kievan Rus' in 988. During that period, Moscow was a remote, insignificant backwater town on the western outskirts of the subordinate Vladimir-Suzdal principality. Its reputation was limited to serving as a gathering point for ruffians, lacking significance as a power hub with no culture or valuable assets.

​It wasn't until 1263 that a Rus nobleman, Daniel, inherited this territory, and it took until 1282 for him to be self-recognized as an independent prince of Moscow. Interestingly, despite Moscow's relatively peripheral status, Muscovite princes began styling themselves as "Byzantine Princes." Over time, they expanded through conquest and territorial acquisition; this self-granted title evolved into "the (Megas) Grand Prince Sovereign of Moscow and all Rus."

In 1308, Boleslaw-Yuri II of Galicia, King of Ruthenia, nominated Peter for the vacant position of Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Rus', a role that was subsequently appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Peter embarked on a journey to Constantinople, where Patriarch Athanasius consecrated him as the Metropolitan of Kyiv, outfitting him with the requisite hierarchal vestments, staff, and paperwork for Kyiv. After a year-long absence, Metropolitan Peter returned to Rus' in 1308, first arriving in Kyiv and later proceeding to Vladimir.
​
However, tensions escalated when the Grand Prince of Vladimir and Tver, Mikhail Yaroslavich, attempted to promote his preferred candidate for this prestigious position. Peter's appointment ignited prolonged animosity between Mikhail and Peter, leading to a situation where Peter sought protection from the Prince of Moscow in 1325. This began the Church-state relationship that evolved into the Russian Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Peter then unilaterally relocated his metropolitan throne from Kyiv to Vladimir. Subsequently, in 1325, following negotiations with the Grand Prince of Moscow, Ivan Kalita, Metropolitan Peter once again, without canonical approval, moved the metropolitan cathedra (chair) from Vladimir to Moscow as part of a mutually beneficial agreement inaugurating centuries of Russian abuse of canon law.

​The embryonic court of Muscovite Russia's cultural influences were deeply rooted in Kyiv and the (Roman) Byzantine cultural milieus, as it lacked a distinct cultural identity beyond warlike character, emerging from a confluence of illiterate Slavic tribes. In this context, supernatural beliefs and practices were, and still are, integral to daily life in Muscovite Russia.

In 1339, Ivan rebuilt the Kremlin in oak, becoming the royal court's residence, including church authorities and local self-appointed bishop. In 1366, Dmitri Donskoi replaced the oak palisade with a strong citadel of white limestone, which became the foundation of the current walls encompassing Moscow's royal court and bishopric. From 1370 to 1650, the Russian Church was crucial in developing the Russian state. Throughout this era, the Russian Church occupied a privileged status, even as some areas of Russia were under Mongol rule from the 13th to the 15th century. The Church played a pivotal role in aiding the nation in enduring the years of Tartar oppression and promoting economic and spirituality.
​
Around 1656, the Kremlin housed a Patriarchal residence and military barracks, and since then, this amalgamation has played a central role in Russian religious and political affairs. Today, the Kremlin's distinctive twelve golden domes and the adjoining Church of the Twelve Apostles remain prominent even though the Patriarch no longer resides within its walls. The Russian Church and military work in tandem to establish Russian outposts for commerce

​By 1721, Peter the Great abolished the corrupt and politically influential patriarchate and introduced a new synodal system governed by the Czar's representatives. It wasn't until 1917 that a Patriarchate was unilaterally reestablished, again adopting a "De Facto" approach. It was the first instance in history where Orthodox hierarchs in Moscow granted itself authority that did not exist, with a synod claiming a self-anointed Patriarchal title and resorting to extortion to maintain this pseudo-legitimacy. Whatever their intentions, this short-lived endeavor led to numerous anti-Moscow Russian sects sprouting up around the globe that further diverged from orthodox practices.

​As the heir to Peter's vision of Western acceptance, the 1770s marked the beginning of another challenge to Orthodoxy as the Russian Orthodox Church imbedded in a symbiotic relationship with corrupt state authorities. This trend became particularly pronounced with the ascent of Catherine "the Great" to the Russian throne, who willingly utilized the synodal apparatus. Having been influenced by Kyivan and Constantinople court traditions, Catherine continued to look to the West for recognition and support. Witnessing the transformative changes in the Western world, she sought to modernize Russian society. Her efforts commenced with architectural developments, embracing Neoclassical architecture.

​Subsequently, art transformed, starting with a vibrant introduction of religious art distinct from Orthodox Liturgical iconography. Even traditional iconography was influenced by this new paradigm, leading to its gradual displacement. This influence extended even to Mount Athos, where the adoption of the unique style was vigorously promoted, benefiting significantly from the financial support provided by Russia. All the while, it was contaminating our Orthodox inheritance.
​
The 18th century witnessed the emergence of "starchestvo" under the Ukrainian-born Paisius Velichkovsky and his followers at the Optina Monastery, Russia's last stronghold of Constantinopolitan Orthodox Athonite traditions. Though not immune to the neoclassic artistic influences, this signaled the commencement of a profound spiritual reawakening within the Russian Church following an extended phase of modernization, which would further the 19th-century fin-de-siècle political upheavals culminating in the Bolshevik revolution.

​To illustrate how Russian soft power worked in 1842, thanks to the patronage of Tsar Nicolas I of Russia. Let us see how Russkiy Mir infiltrated Mount Athos by expanding a simple monastic cell known as St. Anthony right outside the capitol center of Athos, Karyes. This expansion led to Patriarch Anthimus IV of Constantinople recognizing the St. Anthony Cell as a skete in 1849. The term "skete" was chosen in adherence to the customs and regulations of Mount Athos, which prohibited the establishment of new monasteries beyond those of the Byzantine era as the skete continued to grow, both in terms of the number of monastics and its physical presence, a central church was erected in honor of Saint Andrew in 1867. This Church was consecrated in 1900 by Patriarch Joachim III of Constantinople. This Church is the largest on Mount Athos and ranks among the largest in the Balkans. Soon thereafter, Moscow took control of the ancient Kyivan monastery of St Pantelimon and, by 1913, had over 2,000 monks installed on the Kyivan premises. Eventually erasing Ukrainian identity presence from Holy Athos. Monks were no longer allowed to use the Ukrainian language, replaced with Russian, the sole language of the Moscow Patriarchate, irrespective of the traditional Orthodox use of the vernacular.  

​In just a few decades, the commissioning of thousands of Neoclassic icons from various ateliers nearly eradicated millennia-old traditions. The systematic erasure of Hellenic Romiosini's heritage by Moscow continues today, reflecting Russia's expansive soft power reach from Estonia to Sinai, including Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Cyprus, and the entire Great Nation under Constantinople's Omophorion. Moscow's relentless pursuit of altering the Orthodox Ethos is a battle it fervently embraces.
​
The Orthodox mindset, known as phronema, was so profoundly infected and manipulated by this new Neoclassical Russian influence that it took a century for a significant shift. It was only when American restorers began their work on Agia Sophia and Chora, coinciding with the decline of the Ottoman Empire, the fall of the Czardom, the emergence of visionary Ecumenical Patriarchs, and the individual contributions of artists like Fotis Kontoglou, Stylianos Kartakes, Leonid Uspensky, and others who rediscovered authentic iconography on Mount Athos, and a revival of Byzantine prototypes embraced universally. This revival manifested in various facets of culture, including art, architecture, intellectual thought, musical composition, and notation… This cleansing continues in the Orthodox world today. I will explore this in another essay.

​It wasn't until 1943, during Stalin's reign, that the Russian Church was reestablished. After instilling a new canon, the practice of informing on one's neighbors within the Church, Stalin deliberately selected the former Nazi Germany embassy in Moscow as the Patriarch's residence. This move was a deliberate message to the Russian Orthodox Church, suggesting that, in Stalin's eyes, their authority was not substantially superior to that of the Nazis. To this day, the Patriarch continues to reside in the same building. However, Patriarch Cyril has invested a substantial amount, at least 40 million dollars, in constructing a lavish private residential compound, one of many.
​
The difference is the inherent Soviet Russian Church is substantially more potent than it has ever been in history. The "extortionist de facto" ecclesiology of the Russian Orthodox Church dominates the processes by which it rules Moscow. The list of corruption is long and unjust. Since Cyril has been in office since 2009, not including the many wristwatch or cigarette scandals Cyril is engaged in, he has utilized many uncanonical egregious conspiracies in leading the Russian Church. Here are recent examples:

​Today, criminal activities persist within the Russian Church. Bearing similarities to the mafia, in a striking parallel, the Russian Orthodox Church employs tactics reminiscent of Nazi and Soviet propaganda, wherein the magnitude of falsehoods makes them difficult to challenge or dispute the facts presented, given their endorsement and promotion by the "Holy Orthodox" Church. The simulacrum Patriarch Cyril's cathedra has directly emulated Goebbels' playbook, further exacerbating the situation.