Ethnophyletism
​
“Ethnophyletism is discrimination,
the exclusion of the other.
Not pierogi, gyro, & dance troupes”

Simple ignorance, or intentionally pernicious propaganda?

Academia https://independent.academia.edu/EliasDamianakis

Here's my PDF 

​I'm exploring church history and the Moscow Patriarchate’s immediate and continued break with territorial jurisdiction according to Orthodox canon law, and not with Moscow’s doctrine and grace. The fact that Orthodox phronema was not adhered to in Moscow’s historical context doesn’t afford the “New World” the ability to continue this deluded ideology. We are at the point where the improper overlapping jurisdictions needs to be resolved, not to whom fault is attributed. 

To remedy the current “state of affairs,” we must first set apart the historical anomalies. The standard cannot be uncanonical uncontested ambiguities of prior sins. The standard must be proper in Orthodox praxis and phronema mutual understanding of our two millennia of ecclesiological history.

Current Russian church leadership condescendingly declare, “well no one ever complained” or egotistically pronounce “if not us, no one would have done it,” and other ecclesiological double entendres. The current objective of the present-day Patriarch of Moscow is a neo-Caesaropapist approach of authority. He absurdly exclaims, “wherever there are Russians, there too is the Russian Orthodox Church.” This is neither a mindset concerning jurisdictional anomaly resolution nor is it proper Orthodox ecclesiology. 

The epoch from the 16th to 19th century was the period of unbridled expansion, begun under the Duchy and exploited by the Czars. Muscovy gained considerable territory, established a strong army, navy, modernized the economy, and expanded the church and her bias throughout the new “Russian” Empire and beyond.

I take confidence lacing the realities together in one cohesive quilt of history. 

According to Canon Law: “the bishops of every nation may do those things only which concern his own parish and the country places which belong to it’ (Ap. 34). One can participate in the missionary work of a Local Church, only on her invitation.” 

And this expansionism is wholly a Moscow Patriarchate innovation.
This is a canon Moscow has clearly disregarded from her inception. 

A self-assured Bernard Le Caro, brandishes all sorts of linguistic gymnastics to insult Metropolitan Emmanuel of Gaul and cast aspersions on a certain “very public Archon” and the Order of St Andrew “a group of laymen who act as defenders of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.” Scandalously this orthochristian website indulges in its anonymity and attacks all jurisdictions not in line with “Putin’s Espionage Church.” It is alleged be financially supported by the Department of External Affairs and the Kremlin. To complicate matters further this post was a translation by bootlicker named Jesse Dominic, a rabid ROCOR troll and anti-Ecumenical Patriarchate blogger who has the verbal skills of a dim bulb. Take this sites content with a grain of salt. The story was picked up by other tabloid sites like Pravoslavie and Romfea who salaciously included pictures of Archbishop Elpidophoros venerating the relics in San Franscico…
 
According to Bernard’s prologue which is replete of mendacities and slanders:

The following article was written, as the title indicates, in response to recent remarks from Metropolitan Emmanuel of Gaul of the Patriarchate of Constantinople about St. John (Maximovitch), great among the saints. While the Metropolitan refers to the Holy Hierarch as a schismatic, he at least acknowledges his sanctity. On the other hand, in the past few weeks, a very public member of the Archons (the Order of St. Andrew the Apostle)— a group of laymen who act as defenders of the Patriarchate of Constantinople—who uses memes rather than reasoned dialogue to attack anyone who does not wholly follow the Constantinople party line on Ukraine or any other issue, has taken to blaspheming Christ through His saints, attacking the person of St. John and denying his sainthood with language and a spirit inappropriate for any Orthodox Christian. Thus, the present article is doubly relevant.

Bernard takes the Quinque viæ approach to make his case. Five so-called logical arguments to prove Maximovtch was not schismatic. Let’s see how he does.