Recently, His Eminence Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos, issued a rather confused message regarding the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate:
http://orthochristian.com/109353.html
To the mind of many (myself included), it was historically illiterate and did not comport with Orthodox ecclesiology as we know it. In the spirit of charity, I suggested that perhaps we should wait for a proper English translation before before we castigated him too harshly. Unfortunately, the translation did not clear up anything but made things worse.
To be sure, His Eminence is one of the good guys in Orthodoxy. He was a stalwart at the Cretan Robber Council, jumping the breach and defending the Faith against the forces of ecumenism. As such, it is with a heavy heart that I find myself vociferously (but lovingly) opposing him in this regard.
Below, you will find a vlog in which I present my thoughts merely as a preamble. I will instead read verbatim an excellent rebuttal by Anna Stickles (her actual essay is below). Her words are the best, most cogent response to the new propaganda emanating from Istanbul.
Thank you for your forebearance.
http://orthochristian.com/120444.html
Not just the calendar issue, George. The heresy of Ecumenism. The early heresies were Christological. Ecumenism is about the very nature of the church. His Eminence has made it clear in the past that outside of Orthodoxy, there is no church. The Patriarch would seem to hold more with the branch theory.
Thanks for putting out yet another contradiction.
George,
I, too, was astounded at the blatant narcissism displayed in Met. Hierotheos’s comments.
I know that the C’ple Patriarchate and Met. Hierotheos are aware of the likes of St Athanasius (merely a deacon) and St Mark of Ephesus (the only Orthodox/Eastern bishop to refuse to sign the decrees at the Council of Florence in the 1430s) who did not exercise top-down authority but who most certainly spoke the voice of the Church.
God often uses the small and weak to baffle the high and mighty. 1 Chronicles 22: 5, where God’s plan is to build a house for the Lord under the young/inexperienced Solomon: “For David said, ‘Solomon my son is young and inexperienced, and the house that is to be built for the LORD must be exceedingly magnificent, of fame and glory throughout all lands. I will therefore make preparation for it.’ So David provided materials in great quantity before his death.”
Anna Stickles’s response is a gem. “…a council received authority as ecumenical only after there was the agreement of the Church as a whole.” This fact was a glaring, in-your-face inconsistency with the Cretan faux-council of 2016 from the start. Remember how the promoters of the Cretan faux-council were calling it a “Great and Holy Council” before it even met?! That was completely ludicrous, yet it reflects a top-down, Roman Catholic understanding of the church.
A council doesn’t become “Great and Holy” until years or even decades/centuries later, once the agreement of the Church as a whole has acknowledged said council with approval. As if there were promoters of the 7th Ecumenical Council calling it “Great and Holy” in the months preceding it, as the bishops were preparing to travel to it on their horses and wagons….
There currently exists what seems to be an insurmountable “Latin captivity” of the C’ple Patriarchate and of all those entrenched with it. They operate according to Roman Catholic thought and frame of reference of how the Church operates; that is clear. They accept premises of Roman ecclesiology that simply are not accepted from an Orthodox frame of reference/ecclesiology. In America, we see this tragedy first and foremost in the overwhelming dysfunction of the GOA’s top-down, “nothing to see here,” “all is well when everyone can see the fires burning out of control,” approach. Metropolitan Gerasimos of San Francisco and Metropolitan Evagelos of New Jersey are among the most blatant examples of the GOA’s Roman Catholic and defend-the-C’ple Patriarchate-no-matter-what approach. Back in the 1430s, if they were there, it seems to me that Metropolitan Gerasimos and Metropolitan Evagelos would have told St Mark of Ephesus to just sign with everyone else already….
Ms Stickles is generous in her final paragraph where she states that Met. Hierotheos may be employing a sort of reverse psychology to placate the C’ple Patriarch, in order to keep him off the backs of the Church of Greece, lest the former inflict his wrath upon the latter. I’ve read that this is Fr Peter Heers’s interpretation of Met. Hierotheos’s bizarre Roman-Catholic-style epistle as well.
Perhaps Fr Peter and Ms Stickles are correct in their interpretation of why Met. Hierotheos wrote what he did, though I am not a fan of the purported say-what-you-need-to-say-in-order-to-keep-the-abuser-at-bay approach. I’m more a fan of the “confront the abuser, honor our own self-value and don’t let the abuser cross unacceptable boundaries, and tell him to get the help he needs or tell him to get lost” approach.
Fr John Whiteford wrote a few months ago that the C’ple Patriarchate’s actions are unbelievable if taken in the light that the C’ple Patriarchate intends to stay Orthodox, however his actions make sense only when taken in the context that the C’ple Patriarchate plans to acknowledge that he and his jurisdiction have fully embraced and are formally becoming Roman Catholic.
From my digestion of the past 9 months or so of this drama, all the factors continue to point in the direction of a C’ple Patriarchate-Rome union (without Rome becoming Orthodox, that is). I pray that this is not the case, yet I also pray that all faithful Orthodox Christians see not what they want to see but see the reality of what is happening.
Let not our desire to see what we want to see make us unable to see the facts.
Wow! As for myself I view Vlachos’ essay as a written hostage video.
Very lucidly put and Sadly seems facts are as you say. A dark moment but maybe for the Church now a liberating one to shake of dead rotting wood.
I must diasagree with you about the designation of great and holy. I was just reading in Greek the canons of Pentheki, which were drafted contemporaneous with the council. The designation is understood as great and holy not centuries later, but at the time of the convocation. This does not mean I subscribe to this newer ecclesiology, but for historical record the desgnation for the council is not decades off. Blessed Lent to you.
Very wisely said Former GOA!
God bless you.
By the way, Fr Peter Heers (which you name above) did very wisely to free himself from Anthimos of Thessaloniki.
I don’t see any reason to drag Rome into this phanariot plot. It’s just a convenient simile but as Jad Ganem points up on his Synaxis blog, all the literature that informs the shoddy ecclesiology HAH Bartholomew and his claque are spewing comes from the Fener itself.
They’ve been digging their own hole with their own shovels for centuries.
Fr. Peter Heers has built his own reputation through a close association with Metropolitan Hierotheos.
He has widely promoted his own book “The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II” as endorsed by Metropolitan Hierotheos. So, it’s very apparent that Fr. Peter considers Metropolitan Hierotheos as a champion of Orthodox Ecclesiology and an important academic mentor.
So I don’t buy this “hostage of the EP” concoction. That’s just seems like a convenient way to be dismissive and ignore what Metropolitan Hierotheos is saying. It’s fine to disagree with him, but to say that he’s “hostage of the EP” is basically slander. If Metropolitan Hierotheos actually was “hostage of the EP”, then he would be silenced and not writing his opinions.
Joseph, I don’t think anyone said he was a “hostage to the EP.” George used the term “hostage video,” which brings to mind propaganda broadcasts of POWs where they don’t mean what they’re saying. No one is dismissing or ignoring Metropolitan Hierotheos. We just don’t understand why he said what he did. At Crete, he was subject to severe pressure and abusive treatment (his words) for rejecting and condemning the tenets of Papism so it’s a bit surprising to read “. . . that all other Patriarchates bear the title only through economia and the good pleasure of Constantinople. They are in some sense not full and complete autocephalous Churches, because they exist at the discretion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and have never been ratified by any Ecumenical Council.” Anna Stickles postulated, “No doubt Constantinople could wreak a lot of havoc in the Greek Church and maybe this is what Met. Hierotheos is trying to say. He is afraid that if his Church does not cooperate, the CP could even decide to revoke its Tomos.” This could be the reason.
Metropolitan Hierotheos’ main criticism of the Crete Council was it’s overly diplomatic language and format. We should ask ourselves, why would the EP resort to diplomacy? Diplomacy is used when dealing with someone who is being difficult. Who was being difficult? Metropolitan Hierotheos points out that Russia, represented by Metropolitan Hilarion Alfayev, was continually making attempts to usurp and undermine the pre-conciliar proceedings he observed back in 2009. He noted that those proceedings, especially on the topic of autocephaly, ended in “frost and ice.”
https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2018/12/the-debate-over-declaration-of.html
So basically, Metropolitan Hierotheos is later criticizing the Crete Council for being overly diplomatic with Russia to the point where diplomacy had crept into the language and format of the council itself, thus rendering the council effectively useless in his opinion. The council was robbed by diplomacy with Russia, and he blames the EP for allowing it to happen.
Gail, perhaps I should also point out the OCA’s own autocephaly exists through economia and the good pleasure of Moscow and is in some sense not full and complete because it has never been ratified by any Ecumenical Council. I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with that either. Is anybody on this blog scared that Moscow could wreak havoc in the OCA and revoke the tomos if the OCA does not cooperate? Do people post on this blog to just placate Moscow? No, that’s silly, and I think slanderous of people’s intentions here.
First of all, Joseph, Metropolitan Hierotheos is a public figure, thrusting himself to the forefront of this issue by his comments. The term “slander” does not apply. You may be offended by how people characterize the situation but that does not, ipso facto, make it “slanderous.”
You are mistaken when you say Metropolitan Hierotheos’ main criticism with Crete was it’s “overly diplomatic language and format.” His criticism with regard to language was specifically directed toward the text entitled “Relations of the Orthodox Church With the Rest of the Christian World” because it was dominated by the branch theory and baptismal theology. In other words, it was too inclusive, changing the meaning of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to include various Christian denominations.
If you believe Metropolitan Hierotheos, you are also mistaken about the OCA. According to him, autocephaly cannot “exist through economia and the good pleasure of Moscow” because “all other Patriarchates [i.e. Moscow] bear the title [Patriarchate] only through economia and the good pleasure of Constantinople!” No one is worried about Moscow “wreaking havoc” with the OCA. We do, however, worry about the CP coming here with his magical EP wand like in Ukraine.
What Metropolitan Hierotheos is REALLY saying is that an Ecumenical Council is the only entity that can ratify the things that cause consternation on the part of some, as did the situation with Ukraine. For too long the Church has allowed the CP to take on a role he should never have had. Metropolitan Hierotheos used the inflammatory language of the CP to make his point because it is so off the wall. No one person in the Orthodox Church can do anything for his own “good pleasure.” Again, all decisions must be predicated with, “It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us,” not “it seems good to me.”
Gail, I MUST underline your words, they are worth gold.
” What Metropolitan Hierotheos is REALLY saying is that an Ecumenical Council is the only entity that can ratify the things that cause consternation on the part of some, as did the situation with Ukraine. For too long the Church has allowed the CP to take on a role he should never have had. Metropolitan Hierotheos used the inflammatory language of the CP to make his point because it is so off the wall. No one person in the Orthodox Church can do anything for his own “good pleasure.” Again, all decisions must be predicated with, “It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us,” not “it seems good to me.” ”
The problem is, we have not done our “homework” reading, e.g.:
The Church historian B.K.Stephanidis in his “Ekklisiastiki Istoria” pp. 279-304, shows that the Church during the first 3 centuries had independent Bishops in various towns cities. Purely due to geographical and political reasons (and not dogmatical or theological) the bishop of the capital became a de facto “coordinator”, but they were all equal brotherly bishops. Prof.Stephanidis uses a direct language and writes that some of these coordinators did their best to subjugate/subdue the other Bishops.
So, if lord Hierotheos wants to be a perfect Bishop of Christ, he should go back to the initial pure brotherly relationship of all bishops.
But, of course that may cost him his throne…
Bear in mind, we still sing in Church, ( I think the words of St.John Damascene),
“Rejoice, O holy Zion, mother of the churches, the abode of God; for thou didst first receive forgiveness of sins by His Resurrection”.
Jerusalem was the FIRST church of all, and her Bishop was Jacob the COUSIN of the Lord.” Constantinople was the political capital, that was ALL.
And that was THEN, BUT NOT ANY MORE.
How can we juggle the letter of the Canons, ignoring their spirit, and end up with a new Pope of the East?
If we properly apply Canon 28 (4th Ec.Council), as explained by St.Nikodimos in the Rudder, then the functionality of Constantinople is now gone, the DE-FACTO two (!) “ecumenical” Patriarchs are probably a Bishop in Moscow and another Bishop in Wasington D.C. And in 50 or 100 years, who knows, there may be one in Peking (Bejing) or Bombay.
Joseph,
Fr. Peter Heers behaves and talks as a devout priest not interested in his own reputation, otherwise he would now still be in Greece running after the Bartholomew and Anthimos of Thessaloniki. He has proven he interested in the Orthodox Faith, full stop.
Hierotheos has ALWAYS been a kind of:
polite-equal-distances-diplomatic-cum-low-profile.
Sort of “yes,but”.
If there were a big schism today he would be friends with either side!
The ultimate criterion are the wise words of Saint John Chrysostom:
The bishop who has done everything to become a Bishop, will then do everything to keep his throne!
This is indeed a kind of virtual “hostage”.
The young deacon Bartholomew was sent (and financed) by Truman-friend Patriarch Athenagoras 1963-1968, for postgraduate studies at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome.
The Institute was founded by the notorious Ignatius of Loyola!
Bartholomew studied Canon Law there. Obviously, what he could learn inside the Orthodox walls was not good enough and he was sent there. Why?
Bartholomew is thus an expert in handling Canons of the “Mother” Church.
Hierotheos knows all that and prefers to play it “safe”.
At the end of the day Joseph, which is more important,
hierarchical ranks or the Faith?
Attention George:
Very interesting post:
Viewed via Google Chrome:
https://www.romfea.gr/epikairotita-xronika/28162-se-adiejodo-o-arxiepiskopos-ieronumos-gia-to-oukraniko
Right-click, Translate
Automatic translation:
The following is the title and sub-headings
(Greece) Archbishop Ieronymos in the impasse for the Ukrainian Lavra Monastery
—————————————————————————————————
Protopresbyter Theodoros Zissis is
Professor of the Theological School of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Hierotheos of Nafpaktos runs to help
1. Isolated Patriarch Bartholomew. Risk of ennephalitism
2. The Greek-speaking local chapters do not agree with the Ukrainian Government
3. Illegal Declaration by the Archbishop of Albania. He disagrees with me with the schismatics, but he will remain the provoked schism.
4. How did the theological Metropolitan of Nafpaktos perform?
Ioannis,
My understanding is that Metropolitan Hierotheos refused to sign a document at Crete, even under possible duress. That tells me he’s not a “yes” man just trying to preserve his own episcopacy.
Furthermore, it appears to me that Metropolitan Hierotheos’ views on ecclesiology have not changed suddenly. He is still consistently expressing the same viewpoint as before. What has changed is that now some people want to dismiss his viewpoints, as if he’s suddenly become a puppet of the EP trying to protect his own episcopacy. That’s just nonsense and a form of denigration.
Fr. Peter Heers should come forward and either defend or critique Metropolitan Hierotheos’ viewpoints. After all, he has prominently advertised Metropolitan Hierotheos’ endorsement on the cover of his book.
Joseph,
– pls read my msg again. I did not say he is a “yes man”,
I said “yes,but”. There is a subtle difference.
– The words of St.Chrysostom “THAT bishop will do everything to keep his throne” has been proven to be absolutely valid in practise, just as the GoldenMouth has said. There is no point defending Hierotheos and THUS neutralizing Chrysostom.
– Furthermore, (pls read my msg again.) I did not say Hierotheos’s views…changed suddenly. I wrote,
QUOTE
Hierotheos has ALWAYS been a kind of:
polite-equal-distances-diplomatic-cum-low-profile.
UNQUOTE
I had trusted you would have noticed the CAPITAL letters “ALWAYS”.
– Fr. P.Heers, constantly defends his own views openly in all his public presentations. I’m sure you will find many in YouTube. He is also very wise to borrow other good views from other people like Hierotheos. You see, Joseph, our God-inspired Fathers of the Church tell us:
“Every forrest has good and bad flowers. you should take the good flowers, not the bad owns, from a particular forrest”. So, there is no need for Fr.Peter to totally defend or critique a certain forrest or a certain man.
Joseph;
Your first paragraph means nothing. Metropolitan Sergius wasn’t a “yes” man to the Soviets initially. Then, in 1927, he changed and issued his famous declaration. I could be wrong, but I doubt that Metropolitan Hierotheos is facing the same intense persecution that Metropolitan Sergius faced. In my opinion, Metropolitan Sergius was an unfortunate old man, trying to make the best of a bad situation. I condemn his action, but not the man himself. That is for God to do.
With respect I ask, who are you to say what Fr. Peter Heers SHOULD do? That is just like Nikos and Mr. Klancko arguing about what a priest should or shouldn’t wear. That really should concern only the priest, his bishop, and perhaps his spiritual father. Worrying about a priests hair, beard, collar, or robes should not concern the laity.
Solitary Priest, thank you, yes I only mean it as a suggestion.
If people are portraying Metr. Hierotheos as disingenuous as a means to dismiss his viewpoints, then I believe this is ad hominem. I have no idea if Fr. Peter Heers is actually doing this. Some have reported on this blog that he is. If he is, I think that’s wrong.
Joseph, my post above may have been a bit knee-jerk. Anyways, it may be that the Metropolitan and Fr. Peter have a good relationship. Just because the Metropolitan endorsed Fr. Peter’s books should not mean that Fr. Peter can’t disagree with His Eminence. You know, even Saints like John of San Francisco, made mistakes. St. John ordained some men who screwed up totally. Does that mean St. John isn’t a saint? Absolutely not. I’ve already mentioned the Ukrainian Archbishop Daniel. I love the man personally. If I saw him, I would get his blessing. I still remember him at Proscomedia. But I wouldn’t serve with him at the present time.
I agree with you fr re Sergius. No one who did not face what he faced in 1920s AFRER death of Tikhon, can comment and AFRER all in late 1930s there were some friendly letters to Hitler from ROCOR and in war from Athos monasteries. One can equally condem but same in sense situation, although I think less excuse for ones to Hitler.
As for clerical appearance etc. FR WOULD THAT BE SO!!, I would love nothing better, but i reserve right to mention what is the 2000 almost tradition of Church let alone words of Fr Alexander Elchaninov. As for Mitre, that is separate as i was not having a go at mitres per se but wishing for a NON -PROTESTANT simplicity and return to pre 1453 bishop attire, that aesthetics wise much better and in Terms of humility but again as with bishop Anthony Bloom or Veniamin of Irkutsk ( Veniamin a much suffered Russian bishop of mid 20c) one did not even notice because their spiritual presence was all. Best wishes Fr.
Ionanis, I had the pleasure of meeting Fr Peter Heers a little over a year ago. I can honestly say that he is his own man. Unlike many bishops, he does not “chase after honors in the marketplace”. When it comes to the ekklesia, this means that he is Christ’s man.
Having followed heretical teaching before being rescued by being received into the Church let me be clear: Hersey is not just a difference of opinion. Heresy is lies that can and do separate people from their own souls, put their salvation at risk and in some cases induce people to take their own lives. Once propagated, they never go away and we must always guard our own hearts against them taking root there.
I would also say that any heresy about the nature of the Church, like ecumenism, is a Christological heresy as well seeing that the Church is His bride and body.
Here is a conundrum though, people entrapped by heresy can still sincerely love God and Jesus Christ. The question is how to reach them and bring them home. It is the knowing perpetrators of heresy who must be brought to account. I hope and pray that their arrogance will bring them down and those that actually seek the truth will be led to it, with damage to be sure, but that can be healed.
George,
Have you read this wonderful summary of the Ukrainian church fiasco, published in (of all places) the Yale Journal? It’s fanstastic and provides an excellent summary of the happenings over the past few years, as well as an outline of the political motivations (of both Poroshenko and Patr. Bartholmew) that continue to drive the disastrous entity now called the “OCU.” Here’s the link:
http://yalejournal.org/article_post/the-gospel-according-to-poroshenko-politics-religion-and-the-new-church-of-ukraine/#_edn1
The final two paragraphs highlight why the Orthodox mind always confounds CNN or FoxNews or any other modern news outlet that cannot understand or process anything other than modern political sensibilities:
“Politicians typically overlook this aspect of the Church’s strategy for dealing with the secular world because they fail to appreciate that the Orthodox Church sees itself, first and foremost, as a supernatural actor, a tangible manifestation of the work of the Holy Spirit. The modern view, that man is a political animal (ζῷον πoλιτικόν) whose actions ought to be evaluated through the prism of relations between the individual and the state, strikes most Orthodox social theorists as extremely narrow. In any political discourse, they say, some part of the universal and ultimate truth always gets lost. Orthodoxy, therefore, has no set preference for one form of politics over another, because that which is needful, right, and proper, simply lies beyond the ken of politics.
“From an Orthodox religious perspective, therefore, fleeting political passions matter very little. The Orthodox liturgy, after all, begins with the admonition of Psalm 146:3, “Put not your trust in princes, in sons of men in whom there is no salvation.” Of far greater importance is the struggle for the soul of mankind, which is the Church’s raison d’etre. As Orthodox Christians see it, therefore, the Church can always rely on one insurmountable advantage in any conflict with political actors—its timeframe for success is eternity. One should, therefore, expect it to bide its time in its dealings with its opponents, confident in the promise that was once made to it, that even “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).”
No I didn’t! Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
An excellent, superb article!! Dare i commend it to the esteemed Mr Joseph. ( Lipper) ? Says it all,clearly and simply. Puts to shame many theologians.
It is indeed a wonderful article. Puts to shame our rambling on the matter!! Well mine anyway.
Clear, not fanatical and logical.
The criminal or Dupe if you are kinder, is not the politician, our Mr P. who is doing what politicians do, BUT,BART. ANATHEMA.
Hey, shouldn’t the point about the Metropolitan of Kiev never getting the blessing from the EP to stop commemorating the Patriarch of Constantinople as the First Hierarch count for something?
We’re shown this 1686 “transfer” document that only gave the right to ordain the Metropolitan of Kiev, but it was not an actual transfer of territory. So the Metropolitan of Kiev was given a blessing from Constantinople to be ordained by the Patriarch of Moscow, but with explicit instruction that Kiev still continue to commemorate Constantinople (and not Moscow.)
What this says to me is that the moment when the Metropolitan of Kiev stopped commemorating Constantinople, he was being disobedient. That’s just plain and simple. It was a sin.
It does seems strange that nobody cared or paid much attention to this fact for over 300 years. I think Constantinople wasn’t really interested in making a big deal about it. Still, it was a sin, and 300 years later doesn’t suddenly make it right.
Look, for all the perceived faults of Filaret Denisenko, he was still rightfully ordained as Metropolitan of Kiev by the Patriarch of Moscow (with the historical blessing of Constantinople from 1686.) He then righted the historical wrong that existed for over 300 years by reconciling with the Patriarch of Constantinople and commemorating him as First Hierarch. The territory of Constantinople was rightfully restored. The historical sin was rectified. That’s what relevant.
Steve: “The territory of Constantinople was rightfully restored. The historical sin was rectified. That’s what relevant.”
The problem is Steve, that only a small fraction of churches got “restored”, (mostly in the Western Ukraine) and the faithful have to pray in private homes, barns or outdoor.
Similarly as was in 1920s when EP allied with Bolsheviks.
Friend they all have hypocrisy but 300 yrs is a long time, but above all of that I want to put you right about Denisenko. He is a man, monk who was married during communist times and with children. Yes not only one and I for one not making any judgement on communist years. But he had it fixed that when Patriarch Pimen (1971-1990,died he would be next Patriarch. However by 1990 communism had fallen and his friends in KGB could not help him as Alexei was elected. They had actually been consecrated bishops together in 1962 at Heights of Krushchev church persecution.
He then in short, broke solemn oaths and declared himself Patrarch and founded break away nationalistic church allying with the self consecrated from 1920s time who outside Orthodoxy. This man who as communist time exarch of Ukraine was virulently anti Ukrainian even mocking language, suddenly become more Ukrainian than Taras Balba!!
He also was corrupt and abusive to his clergy and good reason to be implicated in murder by poison.
He was defrocked by the Moscow Patrarch in 1992 AND THIS WAS RECOGNISED BY ALL ORTHODOXY INCLUDING THE THEN NEWLY MADE PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, BARTHOLOMAIOS. Need I go on to say his behaviour since has been devoid of any christisn sentiment or action. Even now he has broken his promise to bartholomaios and continued to act as Patriarch.
“A Metropolitan who serves on the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Synod told The Pappas Post on the condition of anonymity that Bartholomew had grown “increasingly frustrated” with the various “controversies” that had plagued the Church in America.”
https://www.pappaspost.com/ecumenical-patriarch-openly-speaks-of-changes-in-american-australian-british-churches/
Archbishop Stylianos (head of the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia) passed away maybe 3 weeks ago. While he was known to have had some quite untraditional ideas, he was a strong personality nevertheless and ruled the Church with an ‘iron fist’. His parting is said to have opened the way for Patriarch Bartholomew to do with the Greek Church in Australia what he did with it in America: split it up into a number of smaller diocese. This is said to have already begun to take its toll on bishops here, who have different ideas about its worth.
This information came to me from a Neos Kosmos online publication, which was printed just days after the Archbishop’s death. The link is provided below
https://neoskosmos.com/en/…/whats-next-for-the-greek-orthodox-church-of-australia/
or maybe this link
What’s next for the Greek Orthodox Church of Australia? | Neos Kosmos
this one will work for sure:
https://neoskosmos.com/en/133755/whats-next-for-the-greek-orthodox-church-of-australia/