Recently, Monomakhos published a piece on the recent gathering of the abbots and abbesses of the Athonite monasteries here in America.
As most everyone who reads this blog knows, Yours Truly is an avid supporter of Elder Ephraim and his monasteries here in America.
We posted the picture of the group thinking it was curious. Monomakhos regrets any embarrassment that the posting of this picture caused.
Having to pose alongside Archbishop Elpidophoros (“Bearer” of Schism, more-like) might have only been done out of obedience to said Eminence by at least some of the monastics, so any embarrassment or shame they received from the publication of the image was just more cross for them to bear.
Spasi, Gospodi!
Iran, interesting interpretation of the event. Nevertheless, the monks freely participated knowing that Elpi was going to be there. If they think of him as heretical they would not have attend nor prayed with him.
So far his Eminence hasn’t said or done anything heretical since his posting to America that I know of. The monks can take communion at this point because there is no reason not to. But, who knows what the future holds. The most important activity for all of us who are holding our breath as we wait for the ball to drop, is prayer. God has been known to “heal the land” in response to those who humble themselves and pray. I have seen some stoney hearts soften through the prayers of others.
Well said. No reason to give up on the farm yet. I know some of these monastics. Let’s just say that they haven’t been too happy with the globalist pretensions of the Phanar for quite some time.
Will some buckle when the time comes (if it comes)? Probably. Will all of them go along with schism? Hardly.
Rightly said. Some will fold, but not all, perhaps very few or none. Actually, knowing many of the monks from various monasteries, I would be surprised it any of them fold. The same goes for the sisters, they will follow the lead of Elder Ephraim. Me too.
They ARE following the lead of Elder Ephraim. That’s the point here. So are you following the lead of Elder Ephraim with them?
Joseph, what makes you think Elder Ephraim is leading them?
Because they don’t anything without the blessing of their Geronda.
Gail and Joseph, please pardon me for butting in.
They probably asked for a blessing to attend. They’re not impolite people. Everyone will treat Elpi warmly and it’s a great idea that they continue to get together like this so they can shape the process rather than be given directives. That does not mean, however, that Elder Ephraim is asking them to follow Bartholomew.
I welcome your comments, Ioan.
The photo of the monastics happily standing with the Bearer of Schism broke my heart.
Appearances can be deceiving.
Consider me deceived.
I cannot prove this with any evidence, Gail. But there was a period of time when Fr. Ephraim put himself under ROCOR in the 90’s. It is said that he traveled to Constantinople to confront Patriarch Bartholomew, thinking to dissuade him from his ecumenist course. The alleged response the Patriarch gave was to knock it off, or he’d be in bigger trouble than he already was.
If the above is true, maybe a Faustian bargain was reached; in which Fr. Ephraim was allowed to build his monasteries, maybe to appease the more traditional elements of the GOA. The price would have been loyalty to the Ecumenical throne, no criticism. Like I said, I have no proof. I hope this isn’t the case, but I suspect it might be.
Yes, I remember when this happened. Here’s Elder Ephraim’s letter from 1991 defending the “Russian Orthodox Church Abroad”:
My View of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
Apostolic Succession
The Apostolic Succession of the Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad cannot be impugned, since all of the present Bishops hold canonical Consecrations from the Bishops of the pre-Revolutionary era and their successors.
Canonicity
Canonicity (i.e., a local Church’s total conformity to the Holy Canons in its constitution and administrative functioning) is a rare commodity in nearly all of the Patriarchates and the autocephalous Churches today. The synodal system has been seriously weakened by diverse incursions from within and without, and there appears everywhere a move towards despotism among the major Hierarchs or local Synods. Were we to but begin with an examination of canonical impediments to the Priesthood and so on, I do not believe that we would occasion to find absolute canonicity anywhere. I can only say that the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad constitutes an exception to the foregoing, on account of its strict devotion to the Holy Canons and its freedom from the bonds of every worldly power. In response to the allegations which many have made against this Church’s ostensibly uncanonical status as a self-governing Church body, these observations can be made:
Patriarch Tikhon, foreseeing a bleak future for the Russian Church, issued a decree to the Bishops outside Soviet Russia, granting them the right to organize self-governing synodal bodies. Despite this, the exiled Russian Hierarchs, having lived in an atmosphere of utmost loyalty to the law and obedience under the Tsar, insisted, during their first few years of exile, on maintaining contact with their base (Patriarch Tikhon and his successors) and to seek from there approval for their more momentous decisions at least—though this was difficult under their circumstances at the time (persecutions, banishments, etc.). This communion was abruptly cut off by the capitulation of the locum tenens and later Patriarch Tikhon (Stragorodsky)* in his infamous declaration—something totally unacceptable to the Bishops in exile—, assuring the full submission of the Church to the atheist regime and ordering the faithful to show full obedience to and pray for the Soviet authorities. In my opinion, this rupture in communion was justified by the Canons, which provide for the cessation of all commemoration of the first Hierarch of a local Church in the event that he preaches heretical teachings; for Marxism is not only a political system, but entails a secular worldview, indeed a heresy.
The present Bishops of the ROCA, because of their isolation from the other Orthodox Churches, hearken back with genuine spiritual reverence to these events, directives, contacts, etc., which demonstrate the lawful and canonical establishment of their ecclesiastical body.
The most compelling argument in support of the canonicity of the ROCA, one insufficiently emphasized with regard to this issue, is that at the outset the Ecumenical Patriarch and all of the other local Churches maintained good relations with the Synod in Exile, which contained within her bosom, it is worthy of note, the “elite” of the Russian Hierarchs and theologians. Men of the stature of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev, who made a lasting impression with his memorable homilies at the Athens Cathedral and who cannot be likened to the low level of our own [Greek New Calendarist] Hierarchs, evoked respect and de facto recognition from everyone.
The position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate with regard to the ROCA radically changed after the First Pan-Orthodox Conference in 1923, when the First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad at the time, Metropolitan Anastassy,** distinguished himself as a leading personality by his resistance to the innovations of the acknowledged Mason Meletios Metaxakis. Things were somewhat more improved under the successors of Metaxakis, until the end of World War II and a full break in relations, when Soviet external political forces began, by various means, to urge all of the Orthodox Churches to cease communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and to recognize only the Patriarch of Moscow, who was fully under the control of Soviet political forces and whom these forces used to serve their own ends. The Patriarch of Moscow took the isolation of the ROCA as an opportunity to establish relations with the other Patriarchates and autocephalous Churches: “Either they or we.” Thus for political reasons and out of self-interest, but also for ideological reasons, as we have seen, the Phanar cut off all official relations with the Synod in Exile and, in imitation thereof, so did most of the other local Churches, except for the Churches of Jerusalem and Serbia, which have maintained semi-formal relations with the ROCA to this day.
The isolation of the ROCA from the other local Churches—albeit, not a complete isolation (the Blessed Justin [Popovich] and his disciples and the present Patriarch of Serbia have been well disposed toward the ROCA)—can in no way be taken as evidence of doubt about the canonicity of this local Church, since many similar examples can be found in Church history.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ephraim_roca.aspx
FWIW, a Philotheou monk (who shall remain unnamed), a direct spiritual child of Elder Ephraim said to me that if Elder Ephraim had stayed with ROCOR he would have established twice as many monasteries in North America than he has already established.
I said FWIW because I have never heard of any other of Elder Ephraim’s monastics or spiritual children say the same or even agree to this statement.
Joseph,I believe that ME TOO, above, was the answer to your question regarding following the lead of Elder Ephraim. I don’t know, though, how much he is capable of these days, he is getting older (as am I) and Elder Paisios has much more responsibility.
Jackson, it was meant as sort of a rhetorical question for anybody (not necessarily you) who says they will follow Elder Ephraim if he breaks from the GOA. I’m inclined to believe that if Elder Ephraim had any problem with this monastic gathering or had some major problem with Archbishop Elpidophoros, then this gathering wouldn’t have happened. These are all monasteries considered to be under Elder Ephraim’s spiritual direction (with maybe one exception).
Perhaps some problems or disagreements will emerge later, but I don’t see it currently. Will Elder Ephraim break away from the GOA? I don’t know. And so what if he doesn’t? Will people only follow him if he does break away?
Jacksson,
For starters, the “First Without Equals” heresy is Elpidophoros’ gift to the Church schism.
Here is the full-text on Fener’s own homepage:
https://www.patriarchate.org/-/primus-sine-paribus-hapantesis-eis-to-peri-proteiou-keimenon-tou-patriarcheiou-moschas-tou-sebasmiotatou-metropolitou-prouses-k-elpidophorou
OK, he didn’t exactly say this on American soil, but he hasn’t even come close to repenting of this heresy.
Hereticality Part Deux:
More Wisdom from Metropolitan Elpidophoros:
The fact that someone is anti-canonical does not mean he does not exist. The fact that he is schismatic does not deprive him of the right to ask for his rehabilitation and the settlement of his case. Outstanding issues relating to schismatic, anti-canonical and problematic situations fall within the competence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Among its privileges, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has that of appeal, that is to say that a bishop or a priest condemned by his Church for some transgression, has the right to appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch to hear his case and reopen his file for a final decision.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate is regarded as the supreme court and the last resort, to use secular terms, in the Orthodox Church.
Therefore, receiving an appeal is a right that can be exercised by the Ecumenical Patriarch in this case, and he cannot reject a request on the pretext that it comes from a schismatic and non-canonical cleric.
It is precisely because he is schismatic and non-canonical that he is given the right to appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch and to ask for the judgment of his case and for the reopening of his case for a final decision.
For this reason, the requests that can be addressed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate for the granting of autocephaly can come from anti-canonical, schismatic, or canonical personalities, or from Uniates, so-called “Greek Catholics”.
Source
https://orthodoxie.com/en/interview-with-metropolitan-elpidophoros-of-bursa-ecumenical-patriarchate-about-the-moscow-patriarchate-and-the-current-situation-of-the-orthodox-church-in-turkey/
Everyone ready for the “Autocephalous Greek Catholic Church?”
Will this be the Pope’s and the Greek Patriarch of Fener’s mutual gift to the world, an Autocephalous Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church?
An AUGCC that will then go into union with the OCU entity?
Well, he’s got that totally bass-ackward. The “right of appeal” only extends to the ability of the Pope (and now the EP) to either (1) accept the verdict or (2) to allow the case against an aggrieved cleric, bishop, etc., to be revisited by a local council. Not to hear it itself. Regardless, there is no automatic urgency which demands that the EP revisit any case.
That’s why all those years when Philaret was under the ROC’s anathema, Pat Bartholomew always turned away his pleas. The competence of the ROC was good enough to judge Philaret.
What we are seeing above in Elpi’s reasoning is what’s called in the business world “looking beyond the sale”. In other words, hoping that the buyer does not see the agglomeration of little things otherwise it might cause the buyer to reconsider. Pretty much every assertion which Elpi posits is not only arguable, but erroneous. And all of them rest upon new interpretations of established canons.
It’s like what liberals have been doing with the Constitution since at least the time of Wilson. Whereas the Constitution states that government is to “promote the welfare” of the nation and “provide for the common defense”, they have successfully cause the word “promote” to be transformed into “provide”.
Hysterical Part One: The Archbishop tries out some new material for his stand-up routine:
“Indeed, there been no greater and no more graceful experience for me that my time in “the Great Monastery” as the Phanar is often described, where I was able to learn and to love the order of the services, the discipline of obedience, and the power of sacrificial love under the paternal guidance and gentle support of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who initiated me – along with the other members of the patriarchal court – into the mystery of the church and the majesty of service in the Body of Christ. It was there that I was instructed in the fine balance between worldly power and divine love…”
Priorities: Worldly power first THEN divine love.
I wish we could’ve seen the faces of the assembled real-monastics when he dropped the “worldly power” line.
https://www.goarch.org/-/2019-09-21-monastic-assembly-address
jk, I’m trying desperately not to judge the monastics for what looks like capitulation and collaboration with the Bearer of Schism. But, God save me, it’s hard.
It’s particularly hard because the spiritual children, pilgrims and supporters of these monasteries tell me that these monastics represent the flower and strength of the Church and that they are the “tendons” that hold the this Body of Christ together.
If Fener Jr. has indeed co-opted the monasteries of Elder Ephraim for his purposes (to split the Church) then the mighty have fallen and the church body is falling apart.
My, as you called it, “interesting interpretation” came from remembrance of a saying of one of our Saints who admonished us not to judge:
“You see the fall but not the struggle.”
At this point, it looks like the monasteries of Elder Ephraim are on board with their Archbishop, if only to save their own. The mighty have fallen.
I hope and pray that this is not the case and my hope is that there will be some, if not all of these monastics who will stand up to the Archbishop against his schismatic schemes.
For me, American humorist, Josh Billings says it best:
“ It ain’t no disgrace for a man to fall, but to lie there and grunt is.”
Ioan, maybe the monastics see a greater good and don’t have the perception of Elpi as you do. They may not view the meeting as capitulation. “The gates of Hell will not prevail against the church”.
JK, the gates of hell will not prevail, but candlesticks can be taken away. We will likely get smaller, at least for a time. The sheep hear the voice of the good Shepard.
Amen, brother Michael. The monastics, male and female, will follow the lead of the Elder Ephraim. They have not capitulated to(the Phanar. I suspect that the monastics here in America will follow the lead of their brothers on the Holy Mountain. The times in which we live are becoming more and more difficult regarding the ugly culture that has developed around us and the toxic culture that has developed in the some parts of the church.
Jk please explain “greater good.”
GS, it seems you assume they were all required/invited to attend.
Ioan, maybe they don’t consider Elpi and his teachings heretical as you do. Also they may view unity in the church as being more important. Remember, the celebrated the Liturgy together.
Schism is something beyond heresy. A heretic may be educated and/or enlightened and can repent.
St. John Chrysostom said that not even the blood if martyrdom can wash out the stain of schism.
Which makes it very clear why this sin must be avoided, much less used as a means to attempt to exert one’s will over the Church!
The Archbishop has created a heresy that feeds schisms in the Church.
Consider that.
Lord, have mercy.
Below please find an article from this Tuesday, which appeared in The National Herald. It seems only three of the eight Metropolitans from the GOAA attended. In attendence were Metropolitan Alexios of Atlanta, Metropolitan Nathanael of Chicago and Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver, along with His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros.
First Ever Monastic Assembly Convened in America Concludes
By TNH Staff
September 24, 2019
https://www.thenationalherald.com/261680/first-ever-monastic-assembly-convened-in-america-concludes/
Under the mindset of some of the posters on this subject, if they were there (at the assembly), then they must be in agreement with Constinople and the archbishop representative here in the USA. Thus the five Metropolitans who did not attend must not be in agreement with the new archbishop. Who knows, we will to wait and see what happens, if the archbishop did experience some type of visitation from Saint Iakovos, then he may have difficulties with his previous positions; all of us need to pray for the archbishop and see what happens.
Below please find an article from this Tuesday in The National Herald. It seems only three of the eight Metropolitans from the GOAA attended. In attendance were Metropolitan Alexios of Atlanta, Metropolitan Nathanael of Chicago and Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver, along with His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros.
First Ever Monastic Assembly Convened in America Concludes
By TNH Staff
September 24, 2019
https://www.thenationalherald.com/261680/first-ever-monastic-assembly-convened-in-america-concludes/
GS, it seems you assume they were all required/invited to attend
Yes Jk, this is true. I would think they all would have been invited by His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros.
It would actually be strange if all the GOA bishops showed up for this event.
In addition, below please find an article from yesterday on the Authentic Transparency and Accountability website.
Authentic Transparency and Accountability
Friday, September 27, 2019
Little Chances of Orthodox Unity in America
http://protectingorthodoxchurch.blogspot.com/2019/09/little-chances-of-orthodox-unity-in.html?m=1
Below please find an article from this Wednesday in The National Herald.
Executive Committee of the Assembly of Bishops Recommits to Orthodox Unity in the USA
By TNH Staff
September 25, 2019
https://www.thenationalherald.com/261920/executive-committee-of-the-assembly-of-bishops-recommits-to-orthodox-unity-in-the-usa/
On a (semi) related note, the vast majority of the Rue Daru clergy – around 88 in total – have joined the Patriarchate of Moscow: https://www.egliserusse.eu/blogdiscussion/La-majorite-des-clercs-de-l-Archeveche-ont-rejoint-l-Eglise-orthodoxe-russe_a5850.html?fbclid=IwAR0VX9CpSrBQM5lTn2Y-O-ZzL9826Dp5KOTWx1y1zEgaXoiN2ZEODpPSnMs
You can Google translate for a summary.
Vive L’Orthodoxie!
That is great news!
Vive La France!
I’m still wondering why the ROCOR didn’t handle this instead of Moscow, ‘inside of Russia’ and ‘outside of Russia’ being as obviously different as they are, and western Europe’s being just as obviously outside of Russia..
They had meetings, according to recent reports, but it didn’t work out.
I don’t know all the details, but for whatever reasons ROCOR seems to be playing a more preeminent role for the Russian Orthodox Church in the English speaking world (Britain/Ireland, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Oceania) as well as in central/Latin America and the Caribbean. The MP seems to be having a more directing role for the Russian Orthodox Church in continental (including western) Europe, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, and of course there are the autonomous churches in China and in Japan.
There’s the large Russian Orthodox Church center built not long ago near the Eiffel Tower in Paris (Moscow patriarchate). ROCOR’s presence in France is not large.
Regardless of of whether they reunited with the Russian Church through ROCOR or the MP, glory to God! It’s taken long enough and has been a tough road. Next time I’m in Paris (God willing!) I pray to visit St Alexandre Nevsky on the rue Daru and give thanks!
It was Joseph Stalin’s dream after WWII, that the Russian Orthodox Church would overtake Constantinople and become the preeminent authority of global Orthodoxy. So how many countries does the Moscow Patriarchate now have a presence in? We are witnessing Joseph Stalin’s dream come true. Moscow has now even gone so far as to directly notify an Alexandrian bishop of his error in concelebrating with an OCU hierarch. Does Moscow have any boundaries to it’s perceived global authority?
https://orthochristian.com/124207.html
Joseph, I saw the link on orthochristian. Can you provide me any evidence that Stalin’s dream for Muscovite domination of Orthodoxy? If anything, he did everything in his power to continue Lenin’s deviltry regarding the Church (which was to extinguish it).
The only reason he failed in this endeavor was because of a certain Chancellor of Germany named A Hitler.
Yes, Joseph Stalin was a great persecutor of the Church, but that changed when Hitler went to war with Russia. Stalin then personally signed a directive, restoring the Russian Patriarchy in 1943, and allowing for the re-opening of churches, monasteries, and seminaries. This action probably helped to win the war. While the period from 1943 until Stalin’s death in 1953 was marked by a revival of the Russian Orthodox Church, the ROC nevertheless became subservient to Stalin’s political aims of global expansion and domination, even within global Orthodoxy:
“In return for these indulgences, the Church was ready to support the foreign policies of the State. Between 1945 and 1948 the USSR took advantage of a wave of pro-Soviet feeling in the West to extend its control over what are now the Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe. The Church’s brief was to extend simultaneously its own control over the Orthodox Churches of Europe and the Near East. This meant challenging the control of the traditional Orthodox leader, the Ecumenical Patriarch. Patriarch Alexi left for Jerusalem and the Near East in May 1945, pointedly excluding the Ecumenical Patriarch from his itinerary. At the same time, other hierarchs had been visiting the Orthodox Churches of Eastern Europe. The Bulgarian, Romanian and Serbian Churches quickly accepted Moscow’s leadership, and a Moscow nominee was appointed head of the Church in Albania. The small Orthodox Church in Hungary was taken over. The Orthodox Churches in Poland and Czechoslovakia were granted autocephaly by Moscow in 1948 and 1951 respectively, although this gift was traditionally the exclusive right of the Ecumenical Patriarch. The Moscow Patriarchate also attempted to assert its control over the Orthodox Churches in Western Europe and America. Metropolitan Nikolai visited Great Britain and France in 1945. He made a favourable impression and succeeded in winning the Churches in France back temporarily to Moscow’s jurisdiction; but they subsequently reverted to the Ecumenical Patriarch. A delegation to the USA also had initial success, but negotiations with the Orthodox Church in America were handled clumsily and this venture too met with ultimate failure. Part of the problem was that after 1948 western suspicion of Soviet political intentions was increasing again.
“As a practical demonstration of the primacy of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USSR over the Ecumenical Patriarch, Alexi planned a pan-Orthodox conference to be held in Moscow in 1947. Such gatherings were traditionally convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch, who understandably took a dim view of Alexi’s initiative. When invitations were issued the Churches in Constantinople, Greece and Cyprus sent their apologies. Patriarch Alexi therefore invited world Orthodox leaders to a different function, to be held in Moscow in July 1948: the celebration of the 500th anniversary of Russian autocephaly. He added that there would be a conference afterwards. These events duly took place; but they were only partially successful in their universal aim and the subjects discussed and conclusions announced at the conference-including attacks on Protestantism, the Vatican and the ecumenical movement in western Churches-too obviously reflected Soviet political preoccupations. The 1948 celebration marked the end of Moscow’s bid for primacy in the Orthodox world.”
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rcl/08-3_218.pdf
Yet here we are, 70 years later, and we are witnessing the same old stuff. Stalin’s dream of Russian Orthodox global primacy is being resurrected once again. Even if we want to blame Constantinople for this, by saying the EP is the cause and the EP is out of control, there still has to be a careful analysis of what’s going on here.
Joseph, thanks for the link.
A major problem though: the verbiage that the EP was the “traditional Orthodox leader” of the Orthodox Churches.
He never was that, his writ extended only to the eparchies and dioceses of his patriarchate.
This idea was first promulgated by Metaxakis and was met with extreme opposition throughout the other Orthodox churches. His calendar innovation for one caused riots in the Kingdom of Greece when it was adopted there which was followed by subsequent schism. Further, it solidified in the minds of the other Balkan churches that they had to either break away from Cpole or solidify their own autocephalies.
To this day, the suspicion by these churches to Cpole has never abated.
Elder Ephraim also expressed dismay over the non-canonicity of “nearly all of the Patriarchates and autocephalous churches today”:
“Canonicity (i.e., a local Church’s total conformity to the Holy Canons in its constitution and administrative functioning) is a rare commodity in nearly all of the Patriarchates and the autocephalous Churches today. The synodal system has been seriously weakened by diverse incursions from within and without, and there appears everywhere a move towards despotism among the major Hierarchs or local Synods. Were we to but begin with an examination of canonical impediments to the Priesthood and so on, I do not believe that we would occasion to find absolute canonicity anywhere.”
-Elder Ephraim, “My View of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad”, 1991.
Joseph,
The continuing exploitation and distortion of canons is now called “tradition” !?
Ioannis, thanks for your question. I’m not sure I understand what you are referencing as “tradition”. Is this regarding Elder Ephraim’s letter?
An interesting historical note: Metropolitan Anastassy is mentioned. He reposed in the early 60s in NYC. Archbishop Iakovos went to his wake at the ROCOR cathedral to pay his respects. The Archbishop was asked why he went. He answered because Metropolitan Anastassy was a real bishop.
If Constantinople is so concerned about order, why on earth didn’t they stand up to Moscow in 1948? Why didn’t they intervene in the Serbian controversy in the 60′ s? And why was it ok for a Soviet controlled MP to issue autocephaly to the OCA in 1970? I witnessed a dialogue between the late Archbishop Kiprian of the OCA and a GOA priest. The bishop told the priest,”your Patriarch told us to reconcile with the Mother church. We did so, and now you are unhappy.”
Then when ROCOR reconciled with the MP in 2007 after being told.” You aren’t in communion with the Orthodox world,” everyone gets upset about it. The church in Russia is reviving after decades of bitter persecution and the world doesn’t like it.
I’m still happy that ROCOR reconciled with the MP, mainly because this reconciliation has overall supported Orthodox unity in America. Even with the current sad division between ROCOR and the GOA, at least ROCOR is still in communion with the Antiochians and OCA. It’s still a net positive for America.
ROCOR had to wait some time after Metropolitan Philaret reposed to enter into communion with the EP. I imagine, as the saying goes and with no disrespect, that the Metropolitan “turned over in his grave” when ROCOR and the MP reconciled.
SP, it’s ironic, isn’t it? Athenagoras, the EP back then told the Metropolia to go work things out with their Mother Church. They did.
Note, they did not call his bluff. They weren’t playing poker but seriously concerned about serious spiritual matters. The Phanar however is playing poker and as such, is not serious. At least in the spiritual sense. That’s why it’s losing the game pretty much everywhere: Estonia, Sourozh, Ukraine and now Rue Daru. It’s hedging its bets in the US though, hence the placement of Lambrianides as its Exarch. They are betting that he will toe the phanariote line.
Is the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese (ACROD) headed for dissolution?
And the name of the game is
,
” POWER, GLORY ! “.
,
St.John Chrysostom told us many times, but we didn’t believe him!
“The church in Russia is reviving after decades of bitter persecution and the world doesn’t like it.”
In my opinion, that is the heart of it.
And those (((elements))) that were behind the first destruction of the Russian Church and society in the 20th century are the ones pulling the strings this time too. It’s not even really a matter of debate.
Nice use of the (((echoes))), bro’
Keep it up.
“And those (((elements))) that were behind the first destruction of the Russian Church and society in the 20th century are the ones pulling the strings this time too.”
Exactly. I remember being taught in my high school in the American Northeast that the Bolshevik Revolution was a “popular uprising of most Russians against a hated Tsar.” Haha. What fantasy, yet that is what the victorious side wanted folks to believe, and to this day, this is what most Americans and Westerners believe actually happened in Russia 100 years ago.
The Bolsheviks never comprised more than 3-5% of the Russian population. They were a ragtag mix of miscreants and terrorists. However, in the wake of World War I, the West saw that Russia had vast natural resources as well as a huge population upon which it could grow economically and socially, poised to overtake the British Empire (and rising American empire) for world dominance.
London and New York would not have this, and they were supported by some wealthy Russian emigres who did, in fact, not like the Tsar. These are the folks – the New York and London financiers, supported by their governments – who funded the Bolsheviks and who supported them topple the Tsarist regime. It was most certainly *not* a “popular uprising.”
It was as if George Soros and his rich buddies funded some tiny terrorist group to take over India, and then the world ends up calling it a “popular uprising.” What hogwash.
Without the financial backing and support, the Bolsheviks would have fizzled out into nothingness, as they should have.
I’m guessing that if a similar phenomenon is up for happening again, the Russians will not allow themselves this time to be taken advantage of a second time by wealthy secularist Westerners. The Church in Constantinople should take note of this: Be careful calling the Western secularists in US government your best friends, since they will throw you under the bus in a second if they ever have to. Like the Western secularists 100 years ago, they care nothing about Christ and His Church.
Antiochene Son, Basil, et al.,
The triple parentheses have been adopted by antisemites, neo-nazis and white nationalists to identify individuals of Jewish background.
Do your uses of this symbolism identify you as belonging to one or more of these groups?
OK, I didn’t know that. I just thought it was a 4chan-generated meme like the OK hand sign being a white-supremacist signal. In other words, a hoax. In any event, I’d ask that we stop it with the code and stuff.
If any of us got something to say about any group, ethnicity, institution, cabal, race, trade-union, whatever, I ask that we be open about it. And also not given in the spirit of animosity.
I don’t want that. Please, this blog is growing by leaps and bounds and even though I want it to be a free and open forum where free speech and robust criticism is encouraged, I don’t want it to be associated with intolerance. I myself have been working on a rather long essay on the relationship between the Jews and the Church and I’ve strived to be as unbiased as possible.
Just so people know where I stand, I’m very right-wing (and getting more paleo-conservative/libertarian by the day) and I believe that nations should be as homogeneous and mono-cultural as possible. I also believe that all peoples deserve a right to their own homeland –Jews and Palestinians included. (In this respect Woodrow Wilson was correct.) Having said that, I’m being more isolationist as well. We need to pull out of the Old World as much as possible.
For those who wish to comment about historical events (and groups) let’s be up-front about our biases and back them up with facts.
You don’t need to be any of those things to be aware of the (((their))) involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution, their undue influence on the politics of most Western countries, and their over-representation in the media.
There’s a reason you can get thrown in prison for questioning the holocaust, but nothing will happen to those that question the Armenian genocide.
“The triple parentheses … identify individuals of Jewish background.”
There are certain coincidences that become interesting when you start to notice them.
(The rest is hyperbole that needs no response.)
RE: “There are certain coincidences that become interesting when you start to notice them.”
Like the sad and pathetic scapegoating of others for one’s own (or their perceived tribe’s) historical and current shortcomings and failures.
Lord (((Jesus))) Christ have mercy.
What rock should I turn over to find my Secret Decoder Ring?
And what else might crawl out?
Blessed Rosh Hashanah, Ioan.
Per George’s request I’ll nix my remarks and leave it there. I don’t want him deplatformed by the likes of the ADL on account of the open platform he gives us commentators.
FWIW I despise the ADL and the $PLC and all other grievance groups/shakedown outfits.
I don’t like bullies. I don’t care where they’re from.
But I have to believe what St. Silouan said:
The grace of God is not in the man who does not love his enemies.
O merciful Lord, by Thy Holy Spirit teach us to love our enemies, and to pray for them with tears.
O Lord, send down Thy Holy Spirit on earth that all nations may know Thee, and learn Thy love.
O Lord, as Thou Thyself didst pray for Thine enemies, so teach us, too, by Thy Holy Spirit, to love our enemies.
O Lord, all peoples are the work of Thy hands- turn them from enmity and malice to repentance, that all may know Thy love.
O Lord, Thou didst command us to love our enemies, but it is hard for us sinners, if Thy grace be not with us.
O Lord, pour down Thy grace on the earth. Let all the nations of the earth come to know Thy love; to know that Thou lovest us with a mother’s love, and more than a mother’s love for a mother may be forgetful of her children, but Thou forgettest never, because Thy love for Thy creation is boundless, and love cannot forget.
O merciful Lord, by the riches of Thy mercy save all peoples.
Captain American Orthodox
“The grace of God is not in the man who does not love his enemies.”
Very good, AND at the same time we must
condemn anti-christian ACTIONS done by any body, e.g.,
-even done by us, or
-our brothers and friends
-our clergy.
In this way we shall help ourselves and the others to save their souls.
Ioan and Captain, cool it with the moralising. If I were to say that Muslims were over-represented in the field of terrorism, people wouldn’t bat an eyelid; in fact, I’d probably get a pat on the back from the boomer crowd. It’s not scapegoating to point out a statistical fact, especially when the responsible parties openly admit it themselves.
As for suggesting that I don’t love my enemies, well, that’s a nice assumption you’ve got there, but it’s a shame there’s nothing to it.
Thanks, Antiochene Son!
And for you and yours, may the Lord Jesus Christ grant you Shana Tova Umetukah!
Basil, please forgive my moralising, especially if I presumed that you didn’t love your enemies.
You DO love your enemies.
Keep it up bro’!
Joseph,
The long and continuing exploitation and distortion of canons is now established as “tradition” !?
“Yet here we are, 70 years later, and we are witnessing the same old stuff. ”
Noooooo, it is not the same old stuff. At the pan-orthodox meeting of 1948 the Moscow hierarchs had fake beards. These days the beards are real.
Joseph Lipper says
October 2, 2019 at 8:28 am
Ioannis, thanks for your question. I’m not sure I understand what you are referencing as “tradition”. Is this regarding Elder Ephraim’s letter?
Joseph,
I am referring to the words “tradition -al-ly” used in your quoted text from PHILIP WALTERS, Soviet Jewish Affairs, A Journal on Jewish Problems in the USSR and Eastern Europe.
It mentioned :
“the traditional Orthodox leader, the Ecumenical Patriarch”.
So my question to you was really,
Which canon in the Rudder says such a thing?
Ioannis, that sounds like a question for Philip Waters. However, I wouldn’t disagree with him that the Ecumenical Patriarch is understood as having a traditional role, although obviously that role has become a matter of debate. He ascribes the role of calling councils and the role of granting autocephaly to the EP, and it’s probably fair to say the understood tradition of those roles has remained mostly unchallenged until recently.
Joseph
“that sounds like a question for Philip Waters”
I am asking you Joseph because you quoted it, meaning you agree with that quotation.
.
“I wouldn’t disagree with him that the Ecumenical Patriarch is understood as having a traditional role…”
You are often saying how bad and uncanonical things MP does. Now, imagine, for the sake of argument, that MP has a lot of influence for a long time and that the wrong things he does hav established themselves as “tradition-al”. Would you then accept those wrong things? I guess “No”. So why should we now accept the uncanonical things (Bartholomew is doing) although they are not according to the Canons?
“it’s probably fair to say the understood tradition of those roles has remained mostly unchallenged until recently.”
Exactly. Now he is going too far, and the other Patriarchs have had enough of that.
Oh man, just look at this Phanariote cope-posting. The reunification of the Russian churches in Europe is ‘Stalinist domination’ now. This is laughable.
“’The Patriarchate of Alexandria, is not and will never be allowed to become a protectorate of the Church of Russia,’ he writes, demanding an immediate public apology from Met. Hilarion.
“In Met. Alexandros’ view, Met. Hilarion’s letter shows Russian ‘aggressiveness’ and should serve as a wake-up call to the Alexandrian hierarchs about the issue of Ukrainian autocephaly.”
https://orthochristian.com/124207.html
Joseph, my dear mother taught me many wonderful things, one of the most important being “never say never”. The Metropolitan who spoke so defiantly against the ROC should be more humble and circumspect. God has a way of humbling the mighty. And crow doesn’t taste like chicken.
So, the EP recognizes a bunch of violent schismatics and causes a schism in the Church, yet when a bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is the victim in this whole escapade, points out that it’s wrong to serve with schismatics (hence why NOBODY has recognized them), it’s “muh Russian aggression.”
It’s sad to see that the Orthodox phronema of these hierarchs is so polluted by Hellenism and knee-jerk Russophobia. They are pathetic caricatures of their holy predecessors, like Saint Nektarios, who served in that Patriarchate.
Basil, you are right.
.
If I may make a small correction, that is not true Hellenism but Istanbul-ism.
.
True and pure Hellenism had the result that the whole Bible in now preserved/saved in Greek,
,
and that Alexandria (Egypt) is still called Iskandar-iya (Alexandr-ia) AND in a central square there is still the statue of Alexander and he is considered not a conqueror of Egypt but a liberator and one of their best Pharaohs!
Bartholomew and Elpi make use of Hellenism when it increases their glory/income, but they are otherwise devout Turkish citizens, adoring people like Ataturk, and praying for the Turkish Army. (Read recent comments by Elpi).
I humbly concede, Ioannis.
Being Greek myself, I should know better.
Indeed!
You’re a brave man Basil bro’.
Sharp words of bishops who appear to be little more than parish priests… Besides concelebration with schismatics make one schismatic as well.
If I’m correct the AROCWE has many churches that follow the new calendar, so ROCOR refused to accept them. Also, even more important than that is the fact that it would be kind of weird and canonically abnormal to have an autonomous archdiocese under the omniphoron of an already existing autonomous archdiocese, an “archdiocese within an archdiocese”. The main reason why the AROCWE left Constantinople and joined the MP was to maintain its canonical integrity as an autonomous archdiocese, which would not be possible under ROCOR as stated earlier, as it is already a completely separate autonomous archdiocese under the MP. The AROCWE didn’t just want to transfer Jurisdiction from the EP to MP, they wanted to keep their administrative structure prescribed by St. Tikhon, which was denied them by Constantinople.
I cannot prove this with any evidence, Gail. But there was a period of time when Fr. Ephraim put himself under ROCOR in the 90’s. It is said that he traveled to Constantinople to confront Patriarch Bartholomew, thinking to dissuade him from his ecumenist course. The alleged response the Patriarch gave was to knock it off, or he’d be in bigger trouble than he already was.
If the above is true, maybe a Faustian bargain was reached; in which Fr. Ephraim was allowed to build his monasteries, maybe to appease the more traditional elements of the GOA. The price would have been loyalty to the Ecumenical throne, no criticism. Like I said, I have no proof. I hope this isn’t the case, but I suspect it might be.
ES, what you write about Elder Ephraim and his confrontation with the EP has some, slight measure of coincidence to it. But having spoken with the Elder some five years ago, I can honestly say that if there was a “Faustian bargain”, I saw no evidence of it.
At any rate, there was no clamor for traditionalism in the GOA at that (or any other time). In other words, Elder Ephraim’s desire to come to America and set up Athonite monasteries was viewed as quixotic at the time. My gut tells me that the EP gave him permission to come to America knowing full well that he’d fail. It’s an old trick: get rid of the troublemaker by letting go do what he wants then when comes up empty-handed, he’ll come back chastened.
Well, I’m leaning more to the second hypothesis. At any rate, he did not fail.
I’m reminded, George, of the Romanian Archimandrite Roman Braga, a confessor who died here and may quite possibly be a saint.
When Fr. Roman was a young Hierodeacon, the Communist Romanian state kept him underground for literally two or three years. He never saw any light aside from light bulbs the whole time. That didn’t break his faith.
Eventually, he was released and ordained a priest. Then the church under communist pressure, sent him to a Rusin parish in Northern Romania, near the Hungarian border. It was thought that he would try to force them to be Romanians, and they would either throw him out, or the parish would be destroyed. He tolerated their different ways, and the church thrived.
Naturally, the Communist regime couldn’t tolerate this. Next, he was sent abroad to South America. He was so successful among Romanians there, that the Securitate( Secret Police) were supposed to take him out. Somehow, a Romanian Catholic cleric found out about the plot. He picked Fr. Roman up and drove him to the US embassy. There, he was able to get political asylum to come to the US.
I may have left out something, or been mistaken about details. I learned this from a spiritual child of his. Here, Fr. Roman’s faith triumphed over adversity. May he intercede with God for us!
That’s a wonderful story. It’s nice to know that there were Orthodox priests behind the Iron Curtain who were willing to emulate Pastor Richard Wurmbrand, a Jew who converted to Lutheranism and wouldn’t buckle under the Romanian regime.
Grace is where you find it. That Catholic priest who spirited him away to the American embassy was surely a vessel of grace.