Is Kirill a “Pan-Slavist”? No. Any More Ridiculous Questions?

The dream of the Globalists is to carve the Russian State into 7 “easy pieces.”  This was all that speech in Abu Dhabi was about.  Nothing more. 

In the political sphere, one of the signs of a losing a campaign is when the candidate starts flailing around.  He can do this physically (with his arms) or he can do this rhetorically, with ridiculous arguments.  

We have known for years that His Holiness has an abiding animosity towards the Russian Orthodox Church and its patriarch, Kirill.  He has also said ridiculous and/or bigoted things in the past about Slavs in general  and the Russian Church in particular.  I won’t rehash them here as they are not in the least bit edifying.

Recently, however, he has outdone himself and made it plain to see that he is lacking all the pastoral sensitivity needed to be an arch-pastor (to put it mildly).  As you can read from the Greek Reporter, Bartholomew has no sense of history, perspective, or even common, everyday knowledge of the world, especially Russian history.

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say his back is against the wall.  I would also venture to guess that his handlers in the State Department are perturbed that he hasn’t “delivered the goods” regarding his end of the bargain.  At any rate, to openly criticize a sister Church in front of people who are not Orthodox (or Christian) is extremely gauche.  Even the demoniacs who run the Episcopal Church are careful to not condemn their more orthodox brethren in Africa in a public setting. 

His Holiness said some ridiculous things in this story.  The most ridiculous, however, was that Patriarch Kirill is a “Pan-Slavist.”  

Now anybody who knows anything about Russia knows it spans eleven time zones.  And in every one of these times zones are scores of non-Russian –and therefore non-Slavic, races and ethnicities–each with its own language, culture, and customs.  Many are Orthodox and belong to the Moscow Patriarchate. 

And here’s the kicker: every Sunday they celebrate the Divine Liturgy in their own native languages!   If Kirill is a “Pan-Slavist,” he has failed miserably.  So for that matter, has every other Russian primate who preceded him. 

To say that this was the policy of the czarist government is, like so many other things the Phanariotes believe, simply ahistorical.  For example, when the eight monks from Valaam came to Alaska, they evangelized the natives even though the Russian governors expressly forbad them from doing so.   And without breaking their spirit in the process, I might add, allowing them to be who they are while gradually learning about Orthodoxy.

I honestly can’t tell you whether Bartholomew is aware of these facts.  It’s possible he’s not.  After all, he’s lived in a Neverland-like fantasy called the New Rome all his life. 

On the other hand, perhaps he is aware of the constrained geographic and evangelistic circumstances of his own Church.  Especially in comparison to the accomplishments of the Russian Orthodox Church.  If so, then he must be deeply ashamed of the paucity of Constantinople’s achievements in this regard.  How many native tribes has Constantinople converted in the last millennium?  Outside of  ecclesiastical Greek (with only an intermittent smattering of local vernaculars), how many liturgical services are celebrated in native languages?  I know for a fact he speaks flawless Turkish.  Why hasn’t he translated the services into that language?  Why hasn’t he (or his predecessors) engaged in a program of Anatolian evangelization where possible?  The Russians did, especially during the era in which “Pan-Slavism” was supposedly the order of the day.    

He is not totally ignorant of his own culpability, instead, he merely deflects it, blaming others for the consequences of his actions.  According to the Greek Reporter: “Bartholomew conceded that the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church granted in 2019 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate has worsened relations with the Russian Church. He also said that the invasion of Ukraine pushed the polarization ‘to a fever pitch’.” 

This is a subtle example of the classic non-apology of “I’m sorry you were offended by what I said (even though it’s true)”.

And here’s another kicker.  Unlike American Protestants who attempted to anglicize the Amerindian cultures, the MP didn’t slavicize the natives!  Instead, the Gospel was allowed to plant itself deeply into the psyches of the different indigenous communities.

My question with regard as to whether or not Bartholomew is aware of the absurdity of his argument is probably moot.  After all, he is not a stupid man.  Quite the opposite.  He is, however, a Globalist.  That’s why he’s drawn to international fora such as the one in Abu Dhabi as he has no organic diocese of his own. 

On the world stage his archdiocese (such as it is) has some utility.  In the eyes of the Globalists and the State Department; it was to be his springboard to international relevancy.  Patriarch Bartholomew had but one job, and one job only, and that was to take down the Patriarchate of Moscow.

The war against Russia was to be a two-pronged one:  one prong being physical, the other spiritual. 

Bartholomew was to soften up the ground by creating a faux church in Kiev to delegitimize the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.  Instead, Zelensky had to step in and ban the UOC in an attempt to loosen it’s grip; a move which appears to be backfiring.   

As for the other salient, the Kievan regime was to serve as the military spear to be used by the West in its demonic crusade against Holy Rus’.  Instead, Ukraine is being pummeled by the Russian Army; an anvil so to speak while the Russian expeditionary force is the hammer (which is forging a new, un-Western and more Orthodox Ukraine).  

In other words, both prongs have or are in the process of failing.  

And thus, Bartholomew is flailing about, making defamatory –and ridiculous–statements about Patriarch Kirill and showing to all the world his unseriousness on the world stage.  Even many in the leadership class of the Greek world acknowledge his intellectual bankruptcy.  Indeed, the bankruptcy of the entire “New Rome” nonsense that has been peddled about ever since his accession to the Constantinopolitan throne.   

He has become a pathetic spectacle of a man near the end of his archpastorate, desperately searching for a card that he hopes will salvage his legacy.  I suspect his final card will be to forge a unia with Rome.  Ukraine was to be that bridgehead which would allow him to cross over to the Tiber. 

And cross it, he probably will; it just won’t be like he imagined.  Not even close.


* Fair Use:  Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the copyright act 1976, states allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, and research. Fair Use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, one-time, for commentary, tips the balance in favour of fair use.


  1. Austin Martin says

    Even if Kirill or Putin or whoever were a “pan-Slavist”, so what? Better for the Slavs to be ruled by Slavs than by the EU and America. We destroy everything we touch. Why shouldn’t Ukrainians be ruled by Russians instead of New York bankers?

  2. The map of the proposed breakup of Russia is simply a map of the 7-8 “Federal Districts” created in 2000 (and tweaked slightly a couple of times since then) to administer the huge landmass on the highest level. When I lived in St. Petersburg and later in the Russian Far East in 2002-04, I had a map hanging on my wall with these regions highlighted. It wouldn’t surprise me too much to hear that someone has been plotting to break Russia up along these already-existing lines…but could you share a source for that claim? (Probably it’s already been shared on this blog at some point, but I don’t remember seeing it.) Thanks!

    • See: Brzezinski’s vision for the dissolution and re-mapping
      of the Russian Federation after World War III takes root

      Zbigniew Brzezinski’s vision to destroy an independent Russia is now being attempted courtesy of the U.S. war machine via NATO and allied countries.

      ‘ The end goal of the US and NATO is to divide (balkanize) and pacify (finlandize) the world’s biggest country, the Russian Federation, and to even establish a blanket of perpetual disorder (somalization) over its vast territory or, at a minimum, over a portion of Russia and the post-Soviet space, similarly to what is being done to the Middle East and North Africa. The future Russia or the many future Russias, a plurality of weakened and divided states, that Washington and its NATO allies see is/are demographically in decline, de-industrialized, poor, without any defensive capabilities, and hinterlands that will exploited for their resources. … ‘

    • George Michalopulos says

      Oh really? Then please explain the gay pride parades. And what about the banning of the Ukrainian Orthodox church? Sounds pretty “western” to me. (At least in our present degenerate state.)

      • Solidarity Priest says

        “All” of Ukraine is Orthodox? Did the Ukrainian Uniates and Protestants vanish into thin air? I don’t think even all of Greece is Orthodox, though the Uniate presence there is tiny. Also, where did “Jarkov” come from? Is Mike a Spanish speaker? Plus, it’s “Kharkiv” and “Kyiv” if you want to be a real Ukie. But why suddenly must we use the Ukrainian names in English? Do we say “Praha” for Prague? Do we say “Suomi” for Finland? Or “Magyarorszag” for Hungary?

        • Ha, I’m not a “real Ukie”, whatever that means, or a Spanish speaker. The stupidity of using the names that dictates your political bias is your thing, not mine, i.e “the Ukraine”, the “S.M.O” Yes, all of Ukraine is Orthodox, in some places is more, like central and northern Ukraine, is some places the percentage is lower. The oblast with the highest Orthodox population in terms of percentage is Volyn, in the West. The oblast with the lowest percentage of Christian adherence, not only Orthodox, is precisely Donetsk.

          • George Michalopulos says

            Interestingly enough, Mike, the Kiev regime is having a difficult time confiscating parishes and monasteries in the precise area you’re talking about: the western part of the Ukraine. I’d say that the whole “banning of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church” by St Zelensky is blowing up in that awful regime’s face.

            I’m sure their neocon overlords at Foggy Bottom are none too pleased.

          • Solidarity Priest says

            I AM Ukrainian. I speak Ukrainian along with Russian and to a lesser extent some other Slavic languages. As to politics, I’m a monarchist. But if you can’t get the name of Ukraine’s largest city right or the religious makeup of the country, I see no point in further dialogue.

  3. Sir, all of Ukraine is already un-Western and Orthodox, they just happened to be also not fans of Russian invading and destroying their country, you can continue to use the name of God to justify it, it doesnt change a thing. Ukrainians dont want that, this is now truth also among most of the Russian speaking population, whose soldiers and conscripts are the majority of those fighting the invader. Better for Russians to hurry up cause the territories for their new “Orthodox, un-Western Empire” are becoming smaller as time passes. Forget about Kiev, about Jarkov, the biggest Russian speaking city, nevermind about Odessa, forget about Kherson, forget even about controling all of Donbass. Despite Russian Army being “smashing” Ukrainians defenders, they need to keep recruiting the worst and most violent criminals from Russian prisons as mercenaries in order to imposse that moral, pious “Holy Rus” You keep fantasying about a Lepanto style victory that wont happen cause Russia and fans just dont have neither the physicall or moral strenght to achieve it, you seem to not understand that. You say “muah, winter is coming, they are going to freeze to death” Ukrainians are going to endure that, and you will rage “ahh are they stupid, they have to surrender, they’re tools, the Globalists, bla, bla, bla” Of course, for someone living in Kiev or Jarkov none of that matters. Anyway, the only thing sure is that you will have Ukrainian material for your blog for a long time.

    • Antiochene Son says

      Talk about crying out while striking!

      What Russians were invading Ukraine in 2014 when the CIA engineered a coup that resulted in attempts to ethnic cleanse Russian-Ukrainians from the Donbass?

      The West started all this, and the coup regime of Poroshenko and Zelensky have continued it. Russia wanted the Minsk Agreements to be enforced, and when Kiev broke its promise, they were obliged to act.

      • To be clear, Kiev alone didn’t break this promise as a sovereign state acting on its own. Nearly the entire Western world with the US in the firm lead twisting all arms incessantly broke this promise.

        This is why I find it so annoying and naive when people call this a ‘fraticidal war.’ It is true that it is defacto fraticidal in that brothers have been egged on to fight one another, but it is not true that either brother (of those that believe they are brothers) ever wanted this fight. In fact, a large majority of Ukrainians voted against being enemies of Russia (TWICE!).

        But the US State department only believes in democracy when they like the outcome of elections. Those leaders elected contrary to the wishes of the State Department quickly find themselves targeted for bribery, blackmail, smear, or regime change by any means necessary.

        • “In fact, a large majority of Ukrainians voted
          against being enemies of Russia (TWICE!). ”

          True. The elected Yanukovitch was violently deposed
          precisely because he wanted friendship with Russia.

          Later Zelensky (1) was overwhelmingly elected
          precisely because he wanted peace with Russia.

          • Gail Sheppard says

            I guess actors can be pretty convincing. Did you ever see the movie Servant of the People.? (It’s on Netflix.) I got chills watching it. This must have been what happened. They picked Zelensky because they knew he could pull it off.

            By the way, even with the subtitles it’s surprisingly entertaining and fun to watch.

            Sometimes, if you look at the end result, you can tell why it was done in the first place.

            The end result of Ukraine is that it’s been blown to bits. Did someone want that result? Was Zelensky hired to keep them in this war until the bitter end? Was Ukraine that bad? (Obviously, not talking about the people of Ukraine.)

            Talking about the machine that operated out of Ukraine.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Brian, excellent points. I remember back in 2019 when Zelensky rode a wave of popularity pledging peace with Russia and to not treat the people of the Donbass as bastard step-children.

          He won with 73% of the vote.

          But just like Obama, the anti Iraq war/notGWBushtheEvil candidate, the Deep State turned him into a (reluctant) warmonger, didn’t they? I guess it was all those pictures and videos of him with Rahm Emanuel in the bathhouse scene in Chicago.

          Anyway, Obama took Bush’s two wars and trebled them.

          • The thing to understand is that the people are like cattle or sheep, not intelligent analysts. They feel as they are led by the media they experience, like a sheepdog. It has to be denial of a fundamental need to overcome this programming, for the most part.

            So, originally the Ukrainians were on average moderates and wanted civil relations with Russia. Then Yanukovich was overthrown in a coup. His was the last free and fair election, not Zelensky’s. After Yanukovich, the media water was poisoned by the CIA and Foggy Bottom to yield whatever result they wanted. Z was an actor they could control after Poroshenko, the oligarch. They took over Z’s patronage from Kolomoysky, the oligarch who ran him. Z was never a free agent. He did what he was told to make the show appealing and switched because the desires of the people were irrelevant to his new role as the president/puppet.

            Z is just a soulless opportunist, always has been. Since the coup, public opinion has been shaped by state controlled media who have taught an increasing number of Ukrainians a false history and to hate Russia.

            No way to say how successful that’s been until the Ukraine has been liberated.

  4. Unfortunately, some Greeks who are not advocates of good relations with Russia always use “pan Slavism” as the stick to which beat Russians with, pointing to things like the Saint Stefano treaty where the Bulgarians got favorable treatment in Macedonia which was liberated from the Turks. These same Greeks uphold the Berlin Congress – where Russia was forced to make significant concessions at the behest of the ‘Great Powers’ – as the positive prototype of Greek-EU interrelations. Bartholomew is simply ripping out a page from that pro-western playbook, as one who is lacking in better ideas…

    Pan Slavism in the 20th century proved to be an overall failure. It didn’t prevent the Bulgarians from joining Germany in two world wars, it didn’t prevent the bloody disintegration of Yugoslavia both during WWII and the 1990s.

    About the only real success story in pan-Slavic relations is between the Serbs and the Russians. Oddly enough even during WWII there were Serbian-Russian alliances on both the Soviet and Axis aligned sides. It’s not for nothing that Balkan history is complicated…

    Russia’s attempt at finding common ground with the western Catholic Ukrainians died after WWI, when the Austro-Hungarians imprisoned pro-Russian Slavs under their control in the Talerhov concentration camp in 1915. Prior to that there was a very significant contingent of pro-Russian Ukrainian Catholics (hard to imagine, I know), so much so that the Russian army in WWI was greeted in Lvov as liberators.

    Then the Soviet Union created the artificial Ukrainian republic, where Stalin as commissar of the nationalities began favoring western Ukrainians in politics to quash the pro-Russian influence definitively (something he had to reverse for pragmatic reasons later, during the late 1930s and into the war).

    There was an era of Soviet encouraged secular pan-Slavism, done for the purposes of consolidating the Eastern Bloc, but that disintegrated with the USSR itself*. At that point the western powers went full in attacking any pro-Slavic sentiment in the population, equating it with Soviet occupation (something the Germans did 40 years prior), and we got NATO enlargement.

    * Interesting sidebar: there was ONE instance where Ukrainian Banderites and Russians ended up on one side of the front lines fighting together, and that was in Moldova during the civil war in Transnistria in the early 1990s, against the pro-Romanian side. That is quite an anomaly.

    In the context Bartholomew is accusing Patriarch Kirill, pan-Slavism here is akin to pan-Hellenism. Ask the Greeks whether Macedonia, Crete, and Attica are ‘separate nations’, and you’ll see what I mean (it’s another thing that Bartholomew is no doubt bitter that he’s still forced to share territory with the Church of Greece and Cyprus). In other words, it’s about preserving what you have, as opposed to allowing an artificially inspired process to decimate your identity even further. We’ve seen an example of this in Cyprus and even some other Greek regions like Crete, where there are ‘separatist minded’ Greeks who only refer to themselves as Greek SPEAKING.

    • GeorgeS.

      Your last paragraph about Pan-Hellenism is something I’ve long considered to be the Phanariot pot calling the kettle black.

      Not that I blame Greeks for feeling as they do about lands that once were theirs. I don’t. But Hellenism differs very little in content from what so many criticize as the ‘Russian world,’ the primary difference being a lack of the political and/or military power to achieve the desired ends..

      Like the ‘Russian world,’ Hellenism has political, cultural, and religious dimensions that are all intertwined and inseparable in the minds of those Hellenists I have seen and read.

      Does anyone believe, for example, that if it was somehow possible for Greeks or a power allied with Greece to take back their lands, their city of Constantine, their Hagia Sophia, their seminary, etc., by force of arms that they would raise all the “principled” objections now being raised? Or would it be seen as doing ‘God’s work’ and as justice manifested in history?

      Once again, I don’t blame them for feeling this way. I am simply pointing to the obvious parallels and the associated hypocrisy.

      • Personally I’m very sympathetic to the Greek pan-Hellenic cause because I see nothing wrong with it inherently. All Christian nations who were under the Ottomans ended up in a difficult predicament.

        At the same time, I’ve had my share of online spats with Archons that ended up saying in so many words that what is permitted to Jupiter is not permitted to the bull. When I point out how Bartholomew refuses to recognize the church in Skopje as the Macedonian Orthodox Church, that’s considered ‘different’ and somehow okay versus the Ukrainian Orthodox Church having ties to Moscow. Bartholomew is considered the great international Orthodox figure, the kind Biden wants to see in his office, whereas Patriarch Kirill might as well be from the Golden Dawn.

        Bartholemew knows how to play the nationalist card when it suits his agenda (that’s how he got the bishops from three Hellenic churches to rubber stamp project Ukraina), in this regard he is an incredibly two faced person. He tries to generate a sense of jealousy amidst the Greeks, that the Russians are trying to appropriate their own place in history, while ignoring the fact that the Ukrainian Banderites’ version of history claim that the ancient Greeks were in fact “Ukri”, proto-Ukrainians while the current Greek nation is something else. Nobody from the L100 wants to hear that, they dismiss it as fringe just as they dismissed Denisenko’s shenanigans. Then whenever it comes to bites them in the rear, it’s all about ‘we need time, Bart knows what he’s doing’.

        At the same time Erdogan bullies the hell out of these people and the neocons love it, because it sends the US based Greek lobby to DC promising to throw the Russians under the bus if they get a reprieve. Very sad. I’ll always continue to sympathize with the Greeks, but the euro Atlantic disease is as hard as communism to shake off.

  5. Antiochene Son says

    Funny how it’s fashionable for Western leaders to embrace all the members of their polities, but as soon as Russia does it, it’s aN eViL -iSm!!!!!!!

    > American president embraces all ethnicities
    > “such progress, oh wow, so wonderful”

    > Russian president embraces all ethnicities

    > American Christian leader talks to American president
    > “wow, such a christian nation, how wonderful to have principles”

    > Russian Patriarch talks to Russian president

    It’s all so tiresome.

  6. Thomas Spiro says

    So when Patriarch Bartholomew takes his co-thinkers into Unia, or some sort of Communion, with the Vatican , what happens to all the Orthodox of the ‘diaspora’ currently under the EP that do not want to be Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics? Are there any bishops who have indicated these orphans will have a home?

  7. “To admit into communion schismatics and a person anathematized in other Local Church with all the ‘bishops’ and ‘clergy’ consecrated by him, the encroachment on somebody else’s canonical regions, the attempt to abandon its own historical decisions and commitments – all this leads the Patriarchate of Constantinople beyond the canonical space and, to our great grief, makes it impossible for us to continue the Eucharistic community with its hierarch, clergy and laity. From now on until the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s rejection of its anti-canonical decisions, it is impossible for all the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church to concelebrate with the clergy of the Church of Constantinople and for the laity to participate in sacraments administered in its churches.”

    The rest of the statement of the Holy Synod of the ROC quoted above is also interesting.

    Neither Bartholomew nor the Church of Constantinople concern us any longer.

  8. This Ecumenical Patriarch Bart is disgusting. Why are people having a hard time saying it? Why are other bishops having a hard time calling him a heresiarch?
    Is it because they are beholden to their NATODOX masters? Is it because the State European (controlled) Orthodox churches mean state control of bishops? Are they all just simpletons and cowards?
    Bart brings Bulgaria into this for wanting in 1860s an ethnic Bulgarian to be EP accusing them of ethnophyletism! Meaning Greek domination and Pan-hellenism doesn’t count as phyletism.
    It’s amazing how the Greeks converted the Slavs but now wish the Slavs leave Orthodoxy and become Muslims or whatever. The Greeks never got the gospel message of St. John the Baptist, that he must become lesser for Christ to become greater. Can you imagine how hysterical the Greeks would be if the Han Chinese ever convert and become the dominant Orthodox in the world? They would labor day and night with the protestant-judeo Americans to creat schisms. When will the OCA or Antioch or JP or Romania stand up and call Bart a graceless heretic and for Hellenic Orthodoxy to be condemned as a phyletism ideology? How much more evidence needs to be amassed?

  9. Are you aware of

  10. George Costalas says

    Slav? Aren’t Slavs just as Orthodox as Greeks…didn’t Christ die for us all? Didn’t St. Paul say there is neither Jew or Greek, there is neither slave or free…wouldn’t that include that while nationalities might have importance culturally, they certainly are not to be considered as primary and one is certainly not better or higher than the other. Only one does division and it’s obvious whose side Bart and his Posse are on. Heretic. Help us St. Nicholas.

  11. “And in every one of these times zones are scores of non-Russian –and therefore non-Slavic, races and ethnicities–each with its own language, culture, and customs. Many are Orthodox and belong to the Moscow Patriarchate….. And here’s the kicker: every Sunday they celebrate the Divine Liturgy in their own native languages!”

    Great point George…. this is a little secret that — like the CIA’s planning of the JFK assassination and of LBJ’s advanced debauchery — they try to protect from coming out to the public.

    I’ve read that every Sunday, across the many worldwide dioceses of the Patriarchate of Moscow, the Divine Liturgy is celebrated in more than 120 different languages. It’s a far more multinational Church — yet at the same time a much more “local” Church — than the Constantinopolitan Church. And obviously it far surpasses the Constantinopolitan Church in size.

    The data are quite compelling that (for whatever reason… I obviously don’t know why) God has chosen the Russian Orthodox Church to be the standard-bearer of Orthodox Christianity worldwide. Not that it’s better than others — such a concept is irrelevant and nonsensical — but simply that it’s by a far majority the largest and the world’s Christian Orthodox leader. To ignore this reality is to live in delusion, in my opinion.

    • George Michalopulos says

      FTS, you comment about “the 120 languages” in use in the Russian Orthodox Church jogged a memory: over a hundred years ago, St Tikhon (then primate of the Russian-American Archdiocese) commissioned Mrs Isabel Hapgood to translate the liturgies of the Church into proper English and the Russian synod approved her translations for use in the U.S.

      I can’t say for sure how widespread it was in use or how quickly but it nevertheless showed the missionary mindset of the Russian Orthodox Church.

      • I have been told that the English-language services used in the Antiochian Archdiocese even today are based on Hapgood’s work.

      • It was the Russians who first blessed Western Rite too. No matter your opinion on that particular manifestation of Orthodoxy, one has to laud the Russian Church for approving the initiative.

        There’s a book that I read – I can’t remember the name – about two converts in 19th century England. One, Julian Joseph Overbeck, a former Roman Catholic priest who converted to Lutheranism and got married, then became Orthodox, was a liturgical scholar who wanted to pioneer Western Rite to bring Orthodoxy to Westerners. The Russian Church approved, but unfortunately wouldn’t ordain Overbeck as he had married after his RC ordination.

        The other, an Englishman who was received by the Greeks and ordained at the Phanar, gave up preaching to the English and became a fervent advocate of Hellenism. The Greek Church ignored him in his latter years, despite his fealty, and he was buried, if I remember correctly, by some vagante group.

        A tale of two tragedies.

      • Yes — for American Orthodox history nerds like me, the story of Isabel Hapgood is cool and fascinating.

        What’s even more fascinating is that the two people who were most responsible for advocating English-language worship in North American Orthodoxy in the early 1900s (Isabel Hapgood and Fr Ingram Nathaniel Irvine) despised each other…. well, at least Fr Ingram Nathaniel despised her. Not sure if she cared much one way or the other. Fr Nathaniel called her a “vixen” and things of the sort.

        One of the things I love about our faith is that Orthodox people are so amazingly emotionally intense and colorful… love it 🙂

        Excellent story by Matthew Namee on this drama…. see our Church has always had drama….

        And Matthew’s excellent podcast on Isabel Hapgood:

  12. The Church of Cyprus seems to be buckling to Western pressure as well:

    Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos (Cyprus) addresses Ukraine and various moral issues

    “Asked about his goals if he becomes the next Archbishop, Met. Isaiah said first is to restore unity and cooperation among the members of the Holy Synod. Next: ‘The modernization of the pastoral policy of the Church, so that it becomes beneficial for the whole world, without discrimination.’

    ” Met. Isaiah was once among the Cypriot hierarchs who strongly opposed the recognition of the so-called ‘Orthodox Church of Ukraine,’ which strained his relationship with the recently departed Archbishop Chrysostomos. Asked if he has changed his mind, the Metropolitan responded:

    ‘With the information we had at that time, we rightly asked for the opportunity of peace, through dialogue and neutrality, so that the autocephaly would function properly in Ukraine. Now the theological facts have changed, but also, with the invasion, the national facts have also changed, since any revisionism undermines our own existence, as well as that of Greece. We’re not ecclesiastically dependent on either the East or the West. We have autocephaly and we must have an opinion on it, according to the information we have in front of us.

    ‘The matter is over and if I’m elected, I won’t bring it back to the Holy Synod.’

    Met. Isaiah did not clarify which ‘theological facts have changed.’ ”

    “Asked whether the Church should have position on issues like abortion, cremation, euthanasia, and sexuality, and intervene politically on such issues, the hierarch of Tamassos said:

    ‘The Church respects and protects the gift of God, which is our very life, dignity and health. We always act supportively, consultatively and pray that people will be enlightened. Our concern is that human life isn’t interrupted for social reasons, but, at the same time, we shouldn’t forcibly intervene and judge people’s legitimate and personal decisions, without even having proposals to solve problems.'”

    Not promising!

    • Gail Sheppard says

      And another one “bites the dust.”

      • I have a feeling Cyprus and the Cypriot people will suffer greatly if their next Archbishop is this man. The spiritual manifests itself in the physical, when a country wholesale goes into schism that spiritual reality has physical realities. One could say this about the current situation in Ukraine.

      • Fortunately Metropolitan Isaiah lost pretty decisively. (Thank you to Google translate)

        I admit I know nothing about Metropolitan Athanasius.

        • Gail Sheppard says

          What a relief.

          I believe Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol is “Father Maximos” in that book Kyriacos C. Markides wrote called The Mountain of Silence: A Search for Orthodox Spirituality. “Father Maximos” was instrumental in helping me understand the heart of Orthodoxy, especially when it comes to understanding the Nous. I devoured that book.

          Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol would be an incredible choice for Cyprus and for the Church. Maybe God is intervening here.

        • Joseph Lipper says

          The public vote is over, but the Cyprus Holy Synod’s vote is ultimately the ones who decide later next week. It’s the same with most any episcopal election. Metropolitan Isaiah might still be chosen to be Archbishop. Stay tuned.

        • George Michalopulos says

          The irony is that Isaiah would have either won outright, or come in a strong second, if he hadn’t buckled under the pressure of the EP.

        • Illumined: “I admit I know nothing
          about Metropolitan Athanasius.”

          Here is what Orthodox Times said about him:

          The obsession of the Metropolitan of Limassol
          regarding the Ukrainian issue

          ‘ … during the celebrations of the Baptism of the Rus in Kyiv, the Metropolitan of Limassol gave an interview to Ukrainian media, highlighting that Metropolitan Onufriy (of the Russian Church in Ukraine) is the “canonical” Metropolitan of Kyiv, and claiming that everything that is relevant with the Tomos and Autocephaly, “has nothing to do with God”.

          His attitude took place at a time when in Kyiv and next to the Metropolitan Epifaniy of the Church of Ukraine, concelebrated the Elder Metropolitan Emmanuel of Chalcedon as a representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Kyrenia as a representative of the Church of Cyprus and Theodore, Bishop of Babylon.

          In his televised interview, the Metropolitan of Limassol stated that “we must remain faithful to the canonical Church of Ukraine, headed by Metropolitan Onufriy, assuring viewers that in Cyprus, they pray for the Church of the Metropolitan Onufriy.

          He stressed that the creation of the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” and the persecutions associated with this event against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, do not cause joy.

          “From the beginning, I had a negative attitude towards them. I am very sorry for what is happening in Ukraine today. But we must understand that these will pass in time. After all, everything related to the “Tomos” and the “Autocephaly” has nothing to do with God. Eventually, God will save everything and put it back in its place. We must understand that ecclesiastical rules exist and non canοnical bishops cannot be recognized as canonical.” … ‘

          Heartening, isn’t it?

          • Joseph Lipper says

            And here’s what good ol reports on Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol:

            “Whoever is elected the next primate of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus should continue to commemorate ‘Metropolitan’ Epiphany Dumenko, the primate of the OCU, says His Eminence Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol, who is known for publicly speaking out against the recognition of the OCU many times in the past.

            “The next Archbishop must abide by the earlier decision of the Holy Synod on the matter, he said in a recent interview with Alpha, adding that as long as people are suffering in Ukraine, it’s not the time to make decisions about ecclesiastical matters.”


            • Gail Sheppard says

              He’s changed his mind once and he may change it again. There is some reason they’re all saying the same thing in almost exactly the same way.

            • “…it’s not the time to make decisions
              about ecclesiastical matters.”

              Not exactly a ringing endorsement…

            • Gail Sheppard says

              Thanks, Jeff.

              It’s weird because wasn’t he the one who literally walked out of a Liturgy when he realize they were commemorating Epiphany?

            • ‘ …the Holy Synod thoroughly discussed the issue,
              and voted 10-7 not to support, but simply
              “not to oppose this decision of His Beatitude.” ‘

              His Beatitude is no longer in the driving seat.
              It will be open to the Synod to correct this error,
              should a new Ethnarch ask them to consider it.

  13. m. Cornelia says

    Slightly off the subject, but please everyone pray for the people of Donetsk. The Ukrainian army has been shelling that city (as well as others in the Donbas) for eight years now, but for the past few weeks they have been shelling Donetsk city continually. They are targeting residential areas, markets, large supermarkets, and other public places–intentionally shelling civilians–often with US-supplied HIMARS. And today they shelled non-stop. This is a tendency they have–when things aren’t going well on the front, they take it out on Donbas civilians. Many are wounded or dead. Just last week, thirty civilians were killed in one village alone. Some Russian sources say that the Ukrainian secret services now want to target doctors who are laboring there to treat both Russian and Ukrainian wounded soldiers, as well as civilians. You won’t read about this anywhere in the mainstream Western media, but Patrick Lancaster is trying to cover it. Anyway, please pray that this all ends soon. Don’t know what else do to. May the Lord and His Most Holy Mother protect them!

  14. Anonymous II says

    Once again, let it be known, the West wants blood.

    Ukraine Blasts ‘Appeaser’ Henry Kissinger For Urging Peace Negotiations

    The Ukrainian official added that the proposal was simplistic, saying: “All supporters of simple solutions should remember the obvious: any agreement with the DEVIL – a bad peace at the expense of Ukrainian territories – will be a victory for Putin and a recipe for success for autocrats around the world.”

  15. And today, they Ukrainians shelled a hospital and a kindergarten in Donetsk. One patient died, many seriously wounded. Really, can’t a single Western news outlet report on this? Genocide?

    • Gail Sheppard says

      These people are mercenaries. They like to kill. That’s why they were hired. But why should we be surprised? The same kind of people are bent on exterminating the entire human race. Soon, very soon, the tables are going to turn. When they do, they’ll have to answer to a high authority.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Good Lord in Heaven!

      Why should we be surprised? How many hundreds of thousand civilians did we kill in Iraq?

      The late, unlamented Madeleine Albright even said it was OK that we starved 500,000 children to death in Iraq. She said it was “justified.”


  1. […] Patriarch Bartholomew, who supports the idea of pan-Hellenism, criticizes Patriarch Kirill for supposedly pushing pan-Slavism,; reaction, […]

Speak Your Mind