As an unrepentant Cold Warrior, I hate to start right off the bat by quoting Marx, but I think it was he who said “history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce” (or something that effect).
As far as the Phanar is concerned, we’re now in the farcical stage. Definitely in the farcical, fantastical –one could even say delusional–stage.
Folks, it’s bad. Whether it’s laughable or not is difficult to say. It’s hard for many of us (myself included) to be dispassionate about anything the Phanar does at this point, what with Bulgarian stallions, gold cufflinks, and the assorted grandiosity and vainglory of it all.
But the messianic (literally) allusions that are heaped upon Patriarch Bartholomew wherever he travels are positively cultic in nature. In case there was ever any doubt, these laudations are specifically reserved for Christ alone –God’s anointed–and not for any one man.
It kind of makes you wonder about the level of theological education these metropolitans received. They could have saved themselves a lot of money by going to Pastor Billy Bob’s Jump for Jesus Bible College in Bugtussle, Arkansas and gotten a more rigorous understanding of Christology. Oh, well.
To spare you the cringe-worthiness of these vain laudations, I will not post them here as many of you have already linked to these unfortunate ramblings in your own comments. They’re nauseating and better left to God’s judgment. I will comment instead on the disease that such sycophancy produces.
Speaking of God’s judgment, what did you think about when you heard that His Holiness skipped liturgy because he had been admitted to George Washington University Hospital the night before? Not only were the good people of St Sophia Cathedral (the one in DC, not the one in Istanbul which is now a mosque) deprived of a patriarchal Divine Liturgy, but the banquet in his honor that night was a dud.
Commenting strictly on the political optics of this, simply put, His Holiness needs a new PR crew. The minions who surround him presently, have a tin ear. Clearly, they haven’t gotten the memo that the American leadership as exemplified by Biden, Blinken, and Nod (sorry —Pelosi–I couldn’t help myself) are as popular as Nicolai and Elena Ceausescu right before they entered the history books.
At this point, however, we are beyond that Rubicon. We used to make charitable allowances for them because they were Greek and as Greeks, we kind of knew there was more than a little “wink/wink-nod/nod” type of gameplaying going on. We had to bow and scrap because that’s how the game was played in the Old Country. (Heaven forbid we make the pasha or bey mad and they demand more baksheesh.) And now they’ve transferred this Phanariote obsequiousness to the potentates in America. That’s why they can’t understand how a priest kissing the hand of Andrew Cuomo is such a bad idea.
The Sublime Porte was a closed circle. So too is the present American Establishment. Here too, we have crossed the Red/Blue divide and for those of us who don’t inhabit the DC/NYC/Boston corridor, we too barely register as peasants and serfs. Our job is to bow and scrape before the denizens of the Emerald City. In their eyes, we are too evil, too benighted, too bigoted (or racist or xenophobic or homophobic or transphobic) to bring anything of value to the table. We don’t count. Period. End of story.
Having said all that, I have a sneaking suspicion that things have changed. Oh sure, they still don’t like us but I don’t think that their beliefs are as rock-solid as they were last year. In the last ten months, too many things have gone wrong in too many places and too quickly for even the most hardened ideologue to believe that it’s the fault of all those horrible rednecks. Even if they do, it’s irrelevant.
Why? Because. rhetorically, we are now at Stalingrad, where neither the Germans nor the Russians gave a fig about ideology. “Was national socialism better than international socialism or was it the other way around?” In the brutal hand-to-hand combat that the Germans and the Russians were engaged in, thoughts like these didn’t matter. Things were so bad that when they ran out of ammunition, they pummeled each other with rifle butts and sidearms. Those that had bayonets used them. Other’s gouged eyes out or bit their enemies as if they were wild dogs. Things were that bad.
Whether our own cold civil war turns this hot is an open question. I can see bad things on the horizon. In the meantime, I’d say that a majority of the country is not impressed by the present leadership. That being the case, Bartholomew is not taken seriously when he moves heaven and earth to be seen in the embrace of corruptocrats like Pelosi.
As you can see from the photo above, His Holiness doesn’t get it. Don’t get me wrong, he’s sincere, but that only proves my point: he’s doing this on a day in which Pelosi announced that she would probably not run for reelection next year. In case you didn’t know, Pelosi is one cagey politico; she can read the room as good as anyone this side of Bill Clinton and Willie Brown. And she doesn’t like what she sees. Bartholomew and his advisors on the other hand are oblivious to this reality.
Folks, things are that grim for the Democrats. All the Republicans have to do is hide under the table and not say anything and they’ll not only take the House but the Senate in a Red Wave reminiscent of 1994. Not that the GOP deserves it but in the present chaotic political and economic situation, this is what happens.
Unfortunately for the Greek-American community, the intelligentsia are not that politically attuned. If they were, they would have locked the Archbishop in his room before letting him out to march with the BLM rioters last year. But they didn’t. Like many ethnic groups, we Greeks can be very insular. It’s not uncommon for us to share the same stories ad nauseum whenever we get together. Not just stories but cherry-picked histories and rosy reminiscences. In some instances, it’s all we’ve got.
That’s tolerable in an extended family-type of setting. Say a baptism, Thanksgiving dinner, or funeral (especially a funeral). In fact, it’s kind of positive in that it reinforces group cohesiveness and bonds of loyalty. It can also help assuage the pain of lost opportunities. “Yeah, I could have invested in Microsoft but the pipes in the diner had busted and we had to repair it.” (Ladies, I’m sure you can insert your own regrets here about “the one that got away”.) Essentially, it’s a positive thing when kept at the familial or local level. But it’s a sure-fire recipe for disaster when it comes to exercising effective leadership. And that’s why we keep making the same mistakes.
On a national level, however, where real clarity is needed, that’s a pathetic paradigm for leadership. And yet, that’s what the GOA is saddled with. I used to think that the GOA was merely the cash cow for the EP. I’ve now come to realize that it’s somewhat more the other way around in a weird, twisted sort of way. Yes, the GOA is the premier cash cow/eparchy of the “Ecumenical Throne” but it’s that same “Ecumenical Throne” that is the enabler of Greek-American dysfunction.
Like the battered wife who assures everybody that “she fell down the stairs”, the Greek-American elites assure one another that because they are “Archons,” they really matter. “This time, things are different, Officer!” because now the EP has elevated several of us to Senatorial rank. “See this shiny new object? We matter!”
Nobody outside their circle really believes them but that’s not the point, they believe it. Or at least they try awfully hard to convince themselves that they believe it. At the end of the day, that’s all that matters.
And so, despite the declining numbers and despite the fact that now we know how obviously, patently obsequious the entire Constaninopolitan hierarchy is towards Turkey, the GOA will continue to trudge along. They don’t even try to hide it anymore. And that’s because now seated among those empty pews will be “Senators” as well as “Archons”. And to keep up the pretense, these dignitaries will open up their wallets when the Archbishop comes around with hat in hand.
Are there any young people in those pews? Is there any evangelism going on? Doesn’t matter. Just yell “Canon 28!” at the top of your lungs. “We’ve got Archons and Senators! And we’re now part of the “Ecumenical Throne!”
It may not be the cat’s pajamas, but it’s all they’ve got going for the moment.
I believe I have come to a point on the personal level where I’ve come to terms that nothing in the GOA is going to change, the head honchos at the top are going to make sure of that and it seems everyone that’s left in the trenches just has Stockholm Syndrome.
The sooner the GOA dissolves or shrinks into oblivion the better.
We are all chief of sinners, but, to place yourself on the same pedestal as Christ with all this fake humility is utter blasphemy, and God will not be mocked and I imagine the downfall of Bartholomew and his patriarchate will be pretty spectacular.
We see this happening before our very eyes. Let it serve as a warning – not only to the CP and its sycophants, but to all of us.
I largely agree with what’s said here and I’m usually not one to make excuses for the EP, but I do want to bring up 2 things.
First, I don’t actually know if there’s a theological issue with calling EP Bartholomew the “all-star of the East,” despite it being pretty flowery and over the top. I cant recall what else he was called that might be objectionable, but since the star of Bethlehem, or the star of the East, was the light that directed the Magi to Christ, it doesnt seem inappropriate to the EP as a Christian leader, even if it is unusual and kind of off-putting. You could probably say all kinds of things about lack of evangelism here, but I dont think its blasphemous.
Second, I very much doubt he missed church on purpose and I think Nick Stamatakis is kind of pushing that point and I just…don’t think so. He’s an older guy and the plane trip probably genuinely wore him out. It’s a bad look for him not to go to church and then go to the white house the next day or whatever but I think he and his entourage are probably aware of that. I think we should give the benefit of the doubt on that particular aspect. Also keep in mind that a patriarchal divine liturgy would probably be even more taxing than the plane trip and I can see why his doctor would say no. I blame whoever made this schedule with apparently no regard for the man’s age or health; a normal schedule would allow him a day of rest in between. So maybe it was scheduled with no regard for that need but I don’t think the EP himself is likely to have “skipped church” rather than participate. I’m sure St Sophia and the EPs entourage were prepared for whatever.
St Gregory the Dialogist:
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_the_Dialogist
“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others….”
He is not only doing that, but Elpidophoros seems to be exalting on him on the same level as Christ Himself, unless I am reading these quotes wrong:
He sets him in the place of God. Utterly blasphemous.
Aww… I like Arkansas.
Arkansas is indeed lovely. Especially the northwestern part of the state, i.e. the heart of the Ozarks. I highly recommend Eureka Springs. It has it all: mountains, springs, lakes and Victorian charm.
Congratulations Brendan for coming up with that quote from St. Gregory the Dialogist which describes the malady or the passions burning inside His Holiness. I’m sure scripture and the fathers must have some strong medicines to cure what ails the patriarch. Solitary confinement in a serious monastery? daily swimming in a pool of holy water? Let’s pray he’s wise enough to consult a holy elder.
In other news…
Even as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was honored to welcome His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew and to receive his Patriarchal blessing on the Democrat-controlled Congress, she/they had just quietly advanced their all-unholy work in the House of Representatives with the House passage of the Women’s Health Protection act of 2021.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-abortion-rights-amid-challenges-roe-v-wade-n1280003
S.1975 – Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1975/text?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_Jb1Wqc6DcYP58WtPDCcVwX8v2UIJQOnbefbTmT7Pta8-1635215663-0-gqNtZGzNAnujcnBszQi9
And what, exactly, is The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1308/text
And…
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42%20section:2000bb%20edition:prelim)
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/09/29/everything-line-senate-under-pressure-protect-abortion-rights
Faithful American Orthodox Christians find solace in knowing that such work is blessed by His All-Holiness, the spiritual leader of over 300 million of their fellow Orthodox Christians throughout the world.
Meanwhile, American Bishops – even those who regularly participate in the annual March for Life – appear to be largely oblivious to the measure, as they have thus far remained silent, their last official instruction to the faithful having extolled the Christian virtue of obedience to government officials, as well as scattered individual episcopal admonitions against the Faithful being “too political” lest the Church be divided.
For any of you still unconvinced that the pope is an antichrist:
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/10/28/pope-francis-calls-for-big-tech-to-censor-hate-speech-conspiracy-theories/
The Pope is an antichrist archetype who has gone bonkers. I think he has found a kindred spirit in Frances Haugen. They both want Big Tech to manipulate the algorithms to censor everything that fails to line up with their own thinking.
She thinks she lost a friend. – She has lost her mind.
You will notice I wrote “an” antichrist, not “the” antichrist. Scripture mentions that there will be antichrists in the end times, also referring to one in particular as especially bad. 1 John 2:18
The Left has been after FB for quite awhile. From our perspective it does seem contrived since we see them all as one Borg. However, there are those who blame FB and social media for “populism”, for instance. Now that the libs are in power, everything they don’t like is hate speech or Russian agents. It’s almost cartoonish.
If the American people don’t find the will and courage to cancel the Democratic Party in 2022 and 2024, there will no longer be an argument for a Republican or third party, just for emigration.
I think the “will” is there and based on the number of military flights we’ve had over the Tulsa today, they may be “canceling” the Democratic Party as we speak. – They’re gearing up for something!
In other news…
While the Party Ministry of Public Information (CNN) was distracting us with Biden’s Town Hall Meeting and His All-Holiness Bartholomew was giving his Patriarchal blessing to the good work of the Congress, the Party was busily engaged with the most pressing issue facing the country: House passage of the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-abortion-rights-amid-challenges-roe-v-wade-n1280003
S.1975 – Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1975/text?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_Jb1Wqc6DcYP58WtPDCcVwX8v2UIJQOnbefbTmT7Pta8-1635215663-0-gqNtZGzNAnujcnBszQi9
And what, exactly, is The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1308/text
And…
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42%20section:2000bb%20edition:prelim)
Lest any reader here be too blinded by legacy party loyalty to “connect the dots” of the implications of this legislation, allow me to spell it out for you. This means that if this bill becomes law:
• Absolutely no one (Crisis Pregnancy councilor, healthcare provider…no one) will be allowed to impede or encourage any sort of reflection on a women’s decision to kill her child.
• No pharmacist will be allowed to refuse to fill an abortifacient prescription
• No physician will be allowed to refuse to refer a patient for abortion
• No medical student who pursues a career in women’s health will be allowed to refuse to perform abortions in the course of their training
• No state will be allowed to make any law that in any way conflicts with this Federal law.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/09/29/everything-line-senate-under-pressure-protect-abortion-rights
One wonders whether our hierarchs are even aware of the peril in which their faithful will be placed if this bill somehow manages to pass in the Senate. Or whether they will continue, as they do now, to preach the Christian virtue of obedience to governing authorities. Or whether their concern that the Church will be divided over issues that are “too political” will once again be an excuse for silence or indifference in the face of what is a manifest – and yes, unavoidably political – evil.
Or whether some of these hierarchs – even those who participate in the annual March for Life – will continue to say, “The Church has consistently taught that abortion is a grievous sin, but it doesn’t really matter how you vote because “as Orthodox Christians we know better.”
For those who don’t know: The Hyde Amendment does NOT prevent women from having abortions but it does prevent taxpayers from having to pay federal taxes for them. (Note: If taxpayers want to pay for it at the state level, they certainly can and do. It’s already being done in 17 states.)
So why should I have to pay for someone else’s abortion when the pregnancy could have been prevented in the first place? Unlike in 1973 (when Roe vs. Wade was passed), there are now a plethora of options to prevent pregnancy and they can be obtained for free through Medicaid.
However, if a woman insists it’s “HER body, HER choice” to terminate HER pregnancy, shouldn’t it be on HER dime?
Gail,
You are correct, of course, about the Hyde Amendment, but lest anyone be distracted, the Women’s Health Protection Act (a typically lovely deceptive name) FAR exceeds the issue of funding alone. I urge folks to read the language (see my comment above). It is downright tyrannical… evil at its very worst.
I concur, Gail.
The thirty pieces of silver ought to come from the aborting mother’s own pocket.
Fr. Alexander, bless! I just came across a sermon of yours from nearly a year ago. It was about spiritual warfare. “Gates don’t move.” I think the biggest thing that stuck out to me was that we should be on offense, not defense. So direct and simple and yet so difficult. I do feel like I’ve been on defense, really, my whole Christian life. And these days, it seems like much of the Church as a whole is on defense.
Well, yes.
It’s ironic that that same “my body, my choice” rhetoric isn’t being honored by those who are vaccine hesitant.
Another irony in a world where ANTIFA are among the fascists is how the ‘my body, my choice’ crowd have been given far less choice than they think, and in a way that they’re now surely only 1 or 2 steps away from actually being made to murder their babies. I mean, choice implies options, and yet when those running the show have done almost everything to make it impossible for the average woman to really hear the other side of the abortion question, then her mind is all but made up for her. And if/when the day comes when the lack of choice becomes even more obvious, I’m still not certain that people will mind, owing to the ‘my planet, my duty’ slogan that would be popular by then.
Have you heard of the trans “women” trying to force young lesbians into having sex with them? Some still with male genitalia. Calling them transphobic if they don’t agree to it and guilt-tripping them for being fixated on female genitalia. It’s causing quite a debate in the lesbian community (some are actually going along with it, though maybe some others are beginning to appreciate just a teeny bit how Christian cakebakers and such targeted by gays feel).
Chillingly, it’s not hard to see the next step in the insanity is, “You have a duty to have sex with whoever wants to have sex with you. If you don’t, you’re a sexphobic bigot.” I’ve seen language coming close to that in a subset of the gay community for years. Really stick stuff for which we better be prepared – especially parents, as it is the young who are being targeted with this kind of messaging.
So, “My body, my choice” is morphing into “I can do whatever I want with your body, it’s your duty to submit and you’re a bigot to resist.”
I used to think that the GOA was merely the cash cow for the EP. I’ve now come to realize that it’s somewhat more the other way around in a weird, twisted sort of way.
There are several clues that it is a symbiotic relationship or even that the US Greek community is the stronger party:
– Hasn’t it been the voluntary decision of GOARCH parishes and individuals whether to stay under the CP or join the OCA, ROCOR, etc.? Yet they chose to stay with the CP.
– He who pays the poper calls the tune is a famous maxim. Goarch and archons etc. are the big donors.
– IIRC, A Masonic bishop in the US, Meletius, was becoming the head of the Church of Greece COG and planned for the US to be under the COG. Then when he became the CP, he switched his plan and set the US under the CP. Thus it was a US based Greek bishop who made the current relationship.
-Turkey is in NATO and the US-EU geopolitical sphere of influence. Thus in a way, the CP is indirectly under the US/EU sphere of influence.
– Greek Americans probably have some say over how the US government approaches its Church. The Greek American lobby is not nothing. Bush’s CIA Director George Tenet was Greek. By analogy, the Isr. Lobby in the US has a big role on US policy toward the SOI.
– Being under Turkish rule, the CP is more indebted to US patrons for protection, including both US interests and the Greek American lobby.
– Constantinople patriarchs have repeatedly been from the US, educated in the West, or served in the US. Abp. Athenagoras especially comes to mind.
“I used to think that the GOA was merely the cash cow for the EP. I’ve now come to realize that it’s somewhat more the other way around in a weird, twisted sort of way.”
When I put this in my message above, I was quoting George M’s article, but the block quote dodn’t work.
Something that the Church of Russia could do in its synod coming up in a few weeks, rather than outright anathematizing Patriarch Bartholomew, it’s to anathematize his actions (first without equals, Ukraine, etc), and send the anathematization’s to the other autocephelous Churches.
Rather than giving the other Churches the option to also choose to anathematize Bartholomew, it might be much easier for them to follow along with Russia if they present the anathemas as clearly going against the canons of the Church. I don’t think even the Churches of Greece, Cyprus and Alexandria would wholesale be on board with the papal agenda that Bartholomew is pushing
That’s just my take as fully anathematizing him is a huge deal.
Good thinking, Petros!
“That’s just my take as fully anathematizing him is a huge deal.”
Unless you’re the fake “Patriarch Filaret” – in his case, Constantinople simply said that it magically “undid” his prior anathematization and just, heck, made him Patriarch again. Just because.
For the Church, anathematizations are indeed last resorts, but it’s a method of housekeeping for someone who’s already been given a million chances and refuses to come back.
In my opinion, not anathematizing the Patr of Constantinople at this point would be akin to the battered woman just letting her abusive husband home again because she thinks that it’s too emotionally painful to let go.
God calls us to love one another as He loves us, not to let ourselves be abused. Because God does not abuse His people.
For years the Church has tried to set clear boundaries with the narcissistic Constsntinopolitan patriarch, who either refuses or is unable to hear because of preconceived delusions about his self-proclaimed papal pretensions.
If anathematization is not done now, like the abused wife who just gets beat up again, just expect more of the same behavior from C’ple.
I know it’s so tempting, but love and kindness thrive best in the context of clear boundaries. May the Church not be afraid to set and enforce boundaries.
I’m glad that I’m not the decisionmaker here.
Based on how breaks in communion have worked in the past and on what basis (eg. MP vs. ROCOR vs. Metropolia/OCA, Antioch vs. JP, EO vs. RC, etc.), it looks like the MP would be justified whether it chose to break or not to break communion with the CP. It could avoid further anathematizations based on principles of mercy or ekonomia.
I am hesitant to give an opinion, because it could hamper the MP’s decision-making. I’m in the OCA, and I’m happy being in communion with the CP and GOARCH, but would find either decision (breaking communion or retaining it) hypothetically chosen by the OCA and MP to be acceptable. However, it’s the MP, rather than the OCA, that is the most directly injured party, so a different perspective coming from the MP than what I would offer coming from the OCA is understandable.
Starting at Minute 57, he goes into how his attitude about the MP stopping commemoration of the CP is “Skasila Mou.” (Slang term spelled σκασιλα μου)
Skasila Mou = Skao (Burst) + Ila (Shed, as in cowshed) My (first person possessive)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMx7y8-CtkU&t=2s&ab_channel=GreekOrthodoxChurch
https://www.helleniscope.com/2021/10/30/pat-bartholomew-i-dont-give-a-s-t-if-the-russians-commemorate-me/
Hal: “Skasila Mou = Skao (Burst) + Ila (Shed…) My (first person possessive)”
Might there possibly be connotations of Arius here?
How so?
Burst?
It seems as though the Russian Synod isn’t meeting until next May (I think?) unless I’m missing something. So I guess we’ll have to wait
I assume what the MP is doing is leading by example, but not coercion. The ROC (and ROCOR) has excommunicated the Phanar and other sees that recognize the Ukrainian schismatic entity. There has already been one synaxis in Amman and I assume the local church leaders will meet again. The MP is probably waiting for a consensus to develop on the heresy question. IMHO, sine paribus is clearly heretical. It is practically the same heresy that Rome asserted prior to and following the Great Schism which separated them from the Church.
But “everyone knows” is not evidence. Until the other local churches are ready to go on record and condemn the Phanar outright, if the ROC does it alone it merely isolates itself in that it would be obligated to forego communion with any local church which maintains communion with C”ple. That is why I say it has done all it can do. Now, if Pat. Bartholomew concelebrated with Rome, that would be a different matter altogether. The MP would either have to accept a Unia or anathematize everyone involved inasmuch as Roman papism has been consistently condemned as heresy by the Church.
As it stands, from the ROC’s perspective, the Phanar led schismatic churches are as effectively isolated as possible at this juncture and the door is open for transfer of clergy who wish to avoid schism from the Church. I would not look for the MP to go further unless it was as part of a synaxis of those local churches not recognizing the OCU if they condemned Bartholomew’s heresies in a manner similar to that of the petition which was sent to the Synod of Greece several years ago (to die on the table, it seems).
I think as laity we need to become more organized- like a labor union- and strike. We should withhold donations from bishops who do not seek unity and true Orthodox faith and worship amd piety. Our hierarchs are supposed to serve Christ AND us. They should be railing against all the immorality our public institutions are falling into. They should not meet with our enemies- like Pelosi. He is tone deaf to do such things.
And magically undoing it is apparently also a method of trying to gain the followers of the anathematized person that refuses the anathema itself and just won’t go away…and to stick one in the face of the Russians, of course.
And then there was this little event:
“BioNTech, Pfizer, and Regeneron CEOs honored for the St Andrews Order Athenagaros Human Rights Award by Patriarch Bartholomew.”
https://www.facebook.com/GreeceinNY/posts/244005414428248
https://www.facebook.com/frjohnpeck/posts/10158529887473811
Ahh…yes. “Human Rights” Huh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYIJxoh7gqw
This was the meeting of the Archons that our priest was bragging about.
Lots of comments on FB negative.
Any more information?
The ROC has done all it can at this point. Severing direct communion with the Phanar and with any entity that recognizes the OCU is a clear enough break. Interference in the Ukraine will be remembered as the beginning of the second great schism.
The ROC is playing past it and getting in the habit of thinking of these entities as outside the Church. Bear in mind, the Phanar is heading for a Unia. Adjusting the extent to which one even acknowledges their existence is the wise move given the trajectory. If you operate as if they were already gone – for example, regarding the Alexandrian Orthodox applying to come under the MP – then you make the transition to the new normal much more seamless. Living in reaction to the Phanar gives it too much significance. The MP is simply leaving the dead to bury their dead and moving forward as the flagship of Orthodoxy.
Going beyond excommunication would impair communion between the MP and those remaining in communion with the Phanar. If that is to occur, it should occur with a pan-Orthodox, or as pan-Orthodox as possible, a condemnation of Constantinople’s heresy in something like the Amman format – a synaxis at a minimum.
Ye gods and little cat fishes! We were told at church this morning that the Archons enjoyed a great feast last night and honored two of themselves who were instrumental in producing the wonderful covid vaccines. They are not like the fellow who gave their scraps to Lazarus.
A little off-topic, but is anyone here following what’s going on with UK ROCOR Bishop Irenei Steenburg? Apparently he’s taken his UK diocese into schism with the ROC MP Diocese of Paris over mode of reception of priests, after the MP received an eastern rite Catholic priest by confession and vesting, but not ordination. Thirteen UK ROCOR priests subsequently left ROCOR and were received by ROC, in order to avoid being in schism, to which Bishop Irenei is also objecting. Here is a statement released by the MP, quite long and detailed as to the canonical issues, which I don’t entirely understand. But it’s pretty disappointing to see this. I’m an admirer of Bishop Steenburg, but going into schism like this seems drastic.
http://www.events.orthodoxengland.org.uk/statement/
Bishop Irenei is a pillar of the faith, and I’ve had the blessing of being under his bishopric in ROCOR. It seemed to many of us that he was on the ROCOR leadership track for so many good reasons. When he left California and was assigned to shepherd England, I remember a priest saying that Bishop Irenei was being sent to clean up a mess. Perhaps that is what he is doing, and is receiving pushback for draining the swamp? There must be more to this story than meets the eye, and am hoping more facts come out soon to help us understand what is happening.
The problem is that Bishop Irenei has brought lots of sectarian attitudes from the US which (like the US more generally) have no place in Europe. His anti-Russian views on the reception of heterodox are just one case in point.
Bp Irenei has become a cause of schism, not a focus of unity. He’s turning ROCOR in the British Isles (PS not just in England as you mistakenly said) into an American-style sect.
If Bp Irenei continues here, then ROCOR is finished here. The Russian and Eastern European faithful want nothing to do with him. (They have jokes about how he is a CIA agent working to destroy the unity of the Russian Church.) Regular British people (from whichever nation) just don’t take him seriously, but view him as a crazy American convert drunk on power. Nobody finds him believable.
The fact that Irenei spends more time going back to the US than he spends on many of the parishes in his own Disease is very telling. The faithful see these things.
The best result now would be for ROCOR to recognise that Bp Irenei is not able to be a Diocesan Bishop, and to withdraw him to be maybe a teacher somewhere, after a period of repentance for the schism he has caused.
The MP diocese in question is the recently-received Archdiocese of Western Europe, formerly under the EP, so it’s not the actual MP diocese in the UK (Sourozh) or France (Korsun). It’s part of the continuing squabble between the two Russian diaspora jurisdictions, both of which are still under and in communion with the MP.
I like Fr. Andrew’s writings and have done for many years, but, having observed the back-and-forth public statements coming out of this mess, I think it’s best if we wait for what the Patriarchate has to say, as they are undoubtedly involved at this point. Fr. Andrew has a penchant for the fantastical at times, so take what he says with a handful of salt.
“13 priests” is false too. I had a look at the documentation, and it’s 9 major clergy and 1 minor. Of the major clergy, 7 are associated with Fr. Andrew’s parish and two were Western Rite priests who were never under Bishop Irenei to begin with. So, basically, one parish left ROCOR. A whole bunch of parishes/missions that were never on the ROCOR Western European diocesan directory to begin with were “transferred” to the other diocese, so there’s a lot of inflation going on.
Although I disagree with Bishop Irenei’s response to the reception of the Uniate priest, it seems like this situation was used as a way for the Parisians to get back at ROCOR for receiving two of their Italian parishes, with associated clergy, when they were still under the EP. Ultimately, both discredit themselves when the Patriarchate has to step in to resolve the issue, as I’m sure it will, as Moscow will not tolerate this kind of disruption.
I think you’ve maybe been misinformed here.
Bp Irenei decided to suspend and defrock several of the clergy who had transferred to the Archdiocese. The Archdiocese published its Communiqué in response to this, stating that the clergy who were being attacked by Bp Irenei were clergy of the Archdiocese, and so could not be suspended or defrocked by him. They didn’t name the rest of the clergy in that Communiqué, who had apparently escaped Bp Irenei’s ire.
Also, there are multiple parishes represented by these clergy. It’s simply untrue to say that only one parish was involved.
Suspending clergy who transfer without a canonical release is par for the course. I know they’ve offered their justifications (as have the EP clergy who were received by the MP) but the bishop on the losing end doesn’t normally see things that way.
One parish and its satellites, then, if that’s better. It’s noticeable that none of the clergy who were not affiliated with Fr. Andrew’s parish and missions did anything.
As I said, I’ll wait for what the Patriarchate has to say about this. I doubt that either side is going to walk away without some kind of reprimand.
As for the faithful in the UK viewing Bishop Irenei as a “crazy American convert,” that says more about them than it does Bishop Irenei.
Yes, suspensions are par for the course. But claiming to defrock clergy in another Church is certainly neither normal not acceptable.
Again, it’s not correct to say that no clergy transferred other than those directly affiliated with Fr Andrew’s parish. Not all the transfers were from Fr Andrew’s region of England, and the Western Rite transfers were obviously completely separate from Fr Andrew.
Re the craziness: well, people in Britain are not so easily fooled when it comes to foreign religious figures. They know very well that “all that glitters is not gold”. And this clearly been the experience of a great many of them.
Speaking of Old Blighty:
“Remember, remember the fifth of November,
gunpowder, treason and plot.
We see no reason why gunpowder treason
should ever be forgot.”
I read critical articles on the Gunpowder Plot and it looks like an Inside Job with an Anti-Catholic agenda. A clearer example of this anti-Catholic repression wrongly imposed on false pretences from the period was the Popish Plot anti-Catholic hysteria.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised.
The irony of course is that Guy Fawkes’s face has become an anti-Establishment icon for years now.
The King of the day, James I of England
(aka: Jamie Saxt of Scots – the Wisest Fool in Christendom),
was personally involved in the late 16th century witch hunts in Scotland.
It is always useful to governments to have witches to blame.
It’s amazing just how involved with religious and theological issues King James was. He was like an Anglican Justinian.
As well as writing the Bible (no mean feat), he wrote theological tracts about monarchy, demonology, and sent theologians to the continent to discern happenings at the Synod of Dort, etc.
It’s a pity that the Brits got rid of the Stuarts.
Good point.
We should have hunted ours down beginning with Betty Freidan & her ilk back in the 60s.
Basil, Jamie Saxt was a very talented man.
However, I don’t think he wrote the Bible.
Brendan,
I watched a special on Clan Mackenzie, and it talked about how they stepped up to help King James hunt down witches. One of things it said was that many people in those days really believed these people had power to hurt them in various ways through their practices.
The hateful anti-Catholic attitudes and persecution in Anglican religious tradition are one of the things that I dislike most about the Episcopalian church and that push me away from it. Guy Fawkes night became a British religious and monarchist holiday, combining anti-Catholic hysteria and a pro-monarchy nationalistic/”patriotic” rallying point. On Guy Fawkes’ night, British people traditionally have carried a kind of Halloween style night parade of effigies of the pope and other nationally-despised villains (Putin was in one such parade) and burned them.
It reminds me of the lynching mob tradition in the southern US in terms of the hate based mentality of a mob, except that in the Guy Fawkes tradition, the mob doesn’t kill real people. But it relates to the Popish Plot hysteria when lots of Catholics were wrongly hanged after show trials when they were wrongly blamed for London’s fire.
We are talking about the 16th-18th centuries when Catholicism was even banned and Henry VIII physically destroyed their nation’s monasteries and thus many holy places as part of a policy. The Catholic Church in England never really recovered, and the number of English Catholics today is miniscule compared with the number of US Catholics.
I haven’t researched whether the V for Vendetta movie producers that popularized the Guy Fawkes masks intentionally and cynically made their movie knowing that the Gunpowder Plot was an inside job. I read that over the centuries, some of the Guy Fawkes Night celebrators were in a gray zone and may have been anti-Establishment, actually sympathizing with Guy Fawkes as a hero, which makes sense in a superficial way.
The UK Parliament website itself throws doubt on the official version:
“The origins of the plot remain unclear and it is doubtful that the truth will ever be known. Generations of historians accepted it was an attempt to re-establish the Catholic religion. Others, in more recent times, have suspected that the plot was the work of a group of agents-provocateurs, anxious to discredit the Jesuits and reinforce the ascendancy of the Protestant religion.”
https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/gunpowder-plot/
That’s too bad, Theo.
The issue of receiving heterodox Trinitarians (I am thinking specifically of mainstream Protestants and Catholics) is one of the few significant differences in practice between the ROCOR & older Greek Tradition and the MP & OCA. I recall that the Greek Church for a long time required Trinitarian converts (eg. Lutherans like myself) to the Greek Church to undergo Orthodox Church baptism. I don’t know when or even if GOARCH abandoned that requirement for converts. Does someone here know?
For a few reasons, I never desired a separate EO baptism for myself. The basic one is that the earliest known tradition is to receive the Trinitarian heterodox without a second baptism, and the Ecumenical Councils don’t actually suggest a second baptism, and it is the basic Russian Orthodox Tradition to avoiding rebaptism (eg. when German Lutherans converted to Orthodoxy in past centuries).
In BP. Steenberg’s case, the article that you linked to gave good examples like St Alexis Toth being received in the Russian Church without reordination.
It was the practice of the Russian Church to (re)baptize all heterodox Trinitarian converts from at least the 1440s (in the aftermath of the Council of Florence) until the Nikonian reforms of the 1660s when, in conformity with Constantinopolitan practice at the time, it was altered to chrismatuion (in 1667).
The patriarchs of C’ple, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem did not formally repudiate the Council of Florence until 1484 (although it was treated as a “dead letter” after 1453). When they repudiated it they decreed that all Latin converts must repudiate the filioque and then be chrismated. In 1750, however, Cyril V insisted that Catholic (Latin) converts should be (re)baptized when becoming Orthodox, just like Protestants, and his position was endorsed by the Synod of C’ple in 1755. This remains the “official position” of the EP, but it does not seem to be observed at all strictly (unlike in Greece).
The Russian Church was taking Eastern Catholics in without rebaptizing or rechrismating them during the time of Met. Peter Mogila of Kiev (Born: December 21, 1596, Suceava, Romania. Died: January 11, 1647, Kyiv, Ukraine). This preceded the Nikonian reforms of the 16660’s:
========================
“…the reason why St. Mark says we don’t rebaptize Latins, is not because of ekonomia (which would have been totally inappropriate at the time), but rather because this is what the canons teach. This belief was also repeated by his spiritual son, St. Gennadius Scholarius, and would go on to be the standard Orthodox belief as professed by all authoritative Pan-Orthodox Councils, starting with all four Patriarchates ratifying this prohibition on rebaptizing Latins at the +1484 Council of Constantinople.
The next Pan-Orthodox Council to do this would be the Council of Moldova +1642, also ratified by all four Patriarchates, which approved of St. Peter Mogila’s profession of faith which stated, in agreement with the teachings of Sts. Mark and Gennadius and the +1484 Council, that “the mystery of baptism is not to be repeated” on converts who were baptized in the name of the Trinity. Interestingly, however, the Council also states that chrismation is allowed to be repeated on those coming into the Church, however it does not say that this is always necessary.”
========================================
SOURCE: https://ancientinsights.wordpress.com/2021/02/04/why-i-dont-support-re-baptism/
St. Firmilian and St Cyprian were extraordinary clear on this issue in 256. If Saint Paul baptized even those Baptized by Saint John the Baptist, because his baptism did not give the Holy Spirit how much more reason to baptize those heretics who’s “clergy” are in fact laymen according to Saint Basil in Canon I? Saint Cyprian, St Firmilian and the Synods and Canons at Carthage were all confirmed by the Synod at Trullo in it’s 2nd Canon. What ecumenists non-sense Russia did in the 15th century plays little role in the consensus of the Church on this issue. And most importantly, Saint Basil specifically stated that those who use a single immersion must be baptized. Take a look at any Protestant “baptism” on YouTube and you will see a single immersion in the name of all sorts of things 99% of the time.
And with the current climate among the papist there is no actual legitimate reason to grant them Economia either. All of this arguing back and forth about accepting the heretics by Economia comes from a place of pure social capitulation and ecumenists influence. The Holy Kollyvades and the contemporary Athonite Saints would baptize without a doubt.
There is no legitimate reason in our time to grant anyone Economia concerning this issue.
SubDcn Nektarios,
You wrote, “If Saint Paul baptized even those Baptized by Saint John the Baptist, because his baptism did not give the Holy Spirit how much more reason to baptize those heretics who’s “clergy” are in fact laymen according to Saint Basil in Canon I?”
John the Baptist’s Baptism was not Holy Spirit baptism because of the well known difference in mission between his baptism and Christ’s baptism, the latter being in the name of the Trinity. John predicted one who is coming (Christ) “will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Luke 3:16). That is, John was not even claiming to baptise with the Holy Spirit.
Acts 4 explains:
((Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”))
In the case of the heterodox baptisms, we are not talking about Jewish preachers who merely immerse for repentance and to look for the Messiah, but rather we are talking about Trinitarian baptisms in the name of the Trinity, including with the Holy Spirit.
I am just addressing a single one of your objections to answer why the example of John’s baptism doesn’t resolve the issue for those with Trinitarian baptisms. A full discussion would require a full article, like the one that I posted above.
” What ecumenists non-sense Russia did in the 15th century” as their ongoing practice up to today is pretty important if we (or ROCOR-UK) under Bp. Irenei is going to use this kind of issue as grounds to break communion in the church. Should the rest of the world’s EOs have broken communion with Russia from the 15th century all the way up to today over this? ROCOR’s bishops and saints certainly did not!
Highly supportive of Fr Andrew Phillips in this matter, who more than anyone knows the suffering involved in standing up for unity and truth.
Sadly, this smacks yet again of Americans (ie, Bishop Irenei) swooping in uninvited and pretending to be the savior for everybody. Please, sometimes we take ourselves just too seriously.
You can’t both honor St Tikhon and St Alexis (Toth), for example, and then also imply that you know better than how their examples taught.
These times may very well be necessary struggles as the Church works to achieve only one jurisdiction in Western Europe and elsewhere. The overlapping Russian jurisdiction nonsense in the West must end.
Seems that ROCOR is becoming more or less an American continent and Australia/Oceania phenomenon. The MP presence here is minimal. The situation is flipped in Western Europe, where the ROCOR presence is minimal and the MP presence dominates.
I imagine that the OCA and ROCOR communities in North America will undergo similar healing pains as these groups move to unite in the years to come – that is inevitable. Yes, similar “I know better than you” fights and disagreements will happen, I’m sure.
I write all of this as a member of ROCOR in the United States. I am unhappy with Bp Irenei’s sectarian and nonsensical American pseudo-academic dilly-dallying in England. May God keep Fr Andrew Phillips and his brother clergy to stand up for Christ’s church and its health and unity in England and in Western Europe.
“Seems that ROCOR is becoming more or less an American continent and Australia/Oceania phenomenon. The MP presence here is minimal. The situation is flipped in Western Europe, where the ROCOR presence is minimal and the MP presence dominates.”
FTS, This could have to do with history. In the US, the OCA was the main show, but there were some ROCOR parishes. The MP reached an agreement with the OCA about 1970 that the MP would recognize the OCA as THE Church for the US and limit MP presence in the US accordingly.
In Western Europe on the other hand, the bulk of Russian diaspora churches (analogous somewhat to the OCA) AFAIK did not reach an agreement with the MP, but rather with the Const. P. in the mid 20th century, becoming the so called Western Exarchate. Hence the MP did not have an arrangement with the Exarchate (CP) limiting MP Churches in Western Europe.
It’s interesting that the OCA has received a few clergy from Rome (both Uniates and Latins) by vesting, the most recent being a Slovak Uniate priest out in Chicago (I think) earlier this year without a peep from ROCOR over here.
I do think that Bishop Irenei overstepped the mark, but there’s probably more to it. Like I mentioned above, the fact that it’s only Fr. Andrew and the clergy/parishes associated with him (plus the Western Rite clergy) that have departed ROCOR says a lot.
Can someone catch me up here? I don’t think I’ve heard of Fr. Andrew. I’m familiar with Bp. Irenei. He always seemed like a good man to me.
Seraphim,
Fr. Andrew laid out his version of events carefully here, and I recommend reading it:
http://www.events.orthodoxengland.org.uk/reflections-on-an-international-scandal/
It sounds like Abp. Irenei of ROCOR-UK took the initiative to break relations with the Russian Exarchate in the UK specifically over an issue that ROCOR in the US wouldn’t break relations with US EOs over. Of course, I would also like to have Bp. Irenei’s version.
This is all getting very confusing, and very he-said-she-said. At the end of the day, Bishop Irenei is still the ROCOR bishop of England and western Europe, and a few priests have gone to the Moscow Patriarchate. There have been no statements about “schism” because there is no schism. Sounds like there were grievances on both sides. Honestly, I trust Misha’s analysis on this, and won’t further engage in speculation that leads to slander since very few details are available. If facts (not just hurt feelings and hurled insults of schism) come out, I’ll be all ears. But I will support my ROCOR hierarchs on this matter whatever they decide, because I wholeheartedly love, respect, and trust them. It’s not blind faith; it’s eyes wide open faith.
Christine, the rules of defamation (slander) don’t apply here for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that these people are public figures.
So true, Gail! I was thinking of slander more in terms of sin, not necessarily as a legal term. 🙂
Seraphim,
I am sorry, but what I posted earlier wasn’t the clearest statement from Fr. Andrew.
Here is the statement from Fr. Andrew chronicling the events of the split in communion and the clergy leaving ROCOR UK:
STATEMENT
http://www.events.orthodoxengland.org.uk/statement/
To clarify, Metropolitan John of Dubna is head of the Archdiocese of Western European Parishes of Russian Tradition.
Seraphim,
I think everyone involved is sincerely motivated and I will not disagree with those who find Bp. Irenei’s action excessive. But there is a genuine point here at issue: The use and abuse of economia/pastoral leniency.
I will tell you a story to illustrate the point. This actually happened. At a large Russian Orthodox church in Russia, a Russian man had been attending church and receiving communion since the Gorbachev thaw in the late 1980’s. Now the parish (it may have been a cathedral, I wasn’t told) was large enough that the whole “everybody knows everybody else” thing did not apply. Presumably he had gone to confession on some reasonable basis, but I wasn’t told about that either. Nonetheless, it came up in conversation with the priest one day that he had never been baptized . . . or chrismated . . . or received in any deliberate way into the Church. He had figured that he was Russian and Orthodoxy was the Russian faith and so he just started going and neither he nor anyone else evidently never really thought much about it. This had gone on for over ten years.
I do not for a second doubt that this is possible because I have seen the same phenomenon arise in other Slavic churches here in America where people who sincerely believed they were doing the right thing accidently communed those outside the Church, but of Slavic origin, through no ones fault but ignorance.
So the priest didn’t know what to do and took him to see the bishop. He didn’t want to have a baptism unless he cleared it with the bishop because it might have been the cause of scandal, since the man had been communing for over a decade. The bishop listened to the story, asked a few questions to make sure that the man was sincere and had suffered no ill effects from communing. Finally he just blessed him and said, “Right, carry on.”
God can admit a person to the Church through any of the mysteries. The question is what is the correct way to do so according to Tradition. At certain periods, some of the Fathers admitted those who had lapsed into this or that heresy back into the church through chrismation instead of baptism. Having already had Orthodox baptism, this made sense. Gradually the practice expanded to generations that had never received Orthodox baptism. Moreover, after the Great Schism, Latins were received not only by baptism (which was among the particulars listed by Cardinal Humberto against Pat. Michael Cerularios), but later by chrismation and even confession and communion.
The theory was never that baptism or any other mystery served outside the Church had any effect or was grace filled in and of itself. It was that the grace which was lacking in the heterodox (but outwardly correct) form of baptism or chrismation was supplied through the mystery by which the outsider was received into the Church. The authority to allow such a leniency was thought to reside in the episcopal power of binding and loosing. It was considered a form of “mercy” or “economia”, a departure from strictness for a moment, after which strictness returned.
The problem is that it has become so attenuated and so commonplace that there is little doubt that the whole concept of economia has been abused to the point that it distorts the integrity of the Church itself. Exceptions can either prove the rule or become the rule. In this case, exceptions have become the rule. However:
“We believe in one baptism for the remission of sins.”
“Go forth and baptize all nations in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.”
The problem, the great heresy of our age, is ecumenism. Ecumenism is fundamentally blurring or erasing the lines that define the Church itself. One is tempted to believe by receiving Uniate clergy by confession and vesting that Roman Catholic orders are grace filled. That is a lie. An abominable lie which can lead to the detriment of souls.
And therein lies the problem. It is incumbent upon the episcopacy to take the responsibility to rein in economia when it becomes deleterious to the integrity of the Church. Moreover, in looking historically at the ebb and flow of how economia (leniency)/akrivia (strictness) has been administered, the main concern seems to be the degree of benefit to the Church above all else. Thus in times of greater friction with Rome or the Unia, akrivia might be followed. In other times, economia might be followed so as to facilitate the harmonious reception of Uniates who differed only in their allegiance to Rome rather than matters of practice or liturgics.
Bp Irinei may be convinced that we have entered an era of friction given the Ukrainian situation and thus that strictness is more in order. That judgment may be initiated by a single bishop, but it would have to be sustained by the local synod, or reversed. But that takes time. We Orthodox measure time in decades and centuries, not minutes and weeks.
A very thoughtful exposition.
Thank you, Misha.
I don’t know who is right or who is wrong, but the document makes a strong case.
The situation and the timing seem curiously tailor-made to embarrass Moscow in the midst of the schism with the EP though.
Right, Antiochene Son. It’s weird that Abp. Irenei would make the vesting of an Eastern Catholic in an MP Exarchate to be the defining issue for breaking communion when it is such a well established MP practice and Russian Tradition practice since before Abp. Irenei became clerical himself.
And this was the first break in communion or crucial, decisive problem in their current fiasco, even if one were to blame Fr. Andrew for leaving Abp. Irenei’s ROCOR UK diocese without a release, or if one were to blame the MP exarchate for having some supposed ecumenistic services or bad theology.
I wondered about that, but why would Bishop Irenei do that? Is he secretly pro-EP or something? Or just not thinking right?
AFAIK, ROCOR historically has been fine accepting the validity of other jurisdictions’ converts who don’t meet ROCOR standards, but meet the MP/OCA standards. For example, St Toth would have been historically recognized by ROCOR as a valid priest, and likewise I as an OCA convert have not been rebaptized as ROCOR would require if I converted in them. It seems therefore that Abp Irenei would have trouble defending his decision if it was help up to serious scrutiny.
I guess to answer your question, you would want to ask why other parishes under him have been going along with his decision. If they seem sincere, then theoretically, he could be too, and it could be like Old Calendarism.
https://orthodoxtimes.com/patriarch-of-alexandria-greek-greatness-will-never-be-eclipsed/
I’m all for patriotic fervor, but really…
That’s really not something you should be saying from the amvo, before the icon of the most humble Jesus Christ.
I have asked around and here is what I was told by folks I trust and respect. Met. Jean of Varna is brand new to the Moscow Patriarchate, having just been received from the Ecumenical Patriarchate like a year ago. He’s brand new to the MP, and apparently puts the “Ecumenical” in his former Ecumenical Patriarchate. There are a lot of loosey-goosey concelebrations going on, with female priests, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Catholics. Bishop Irenei is doing his best to bring order and reinvigorate and educate people about the Faith. This latest is simply an inflated, dramatic attempt on the new Met. Jean’s part to continue to “do” ecumenism. The piece posted above is full of inaccuracies. Monomakhos has superb canon experts who can weigh in about ecumenism and the reception of Catholic priests to the faith, so I’ll leave the theological debate to them. Bishop Irenei is in a sea of ecumenism and socialism, and I humbly ask your prayers that he will continue to be a true and just overseer of the Orthodox faith. (And if the Brits kick him out, he will be welcomed back in America with open arms and a rousing rendition of Yankee Doodle Dandy.)
Dear Theo,
We are living in a time when people can’t even read and understand, how can you say such a thing?
“ROCOR Bishop Irenei Steenburg? Apparently he’s taken his UK diocese into schism”
I said that because that’s what I’d read, which seemed weird, as I admire Bishop Steenburg. But as a convert to Orthodoxy I don’t know much about these matters. Thus I came here to ask about it, as I figured someone here would.
Another article from Orthodox England on Bishop Irenei and the ROCOR/ROC upset in Europe and England. Very interesting and sheds a lot more light, I think, though maybe not everyone here will agree with it.
http://www.events.orthodoxengland.org.uk/reflections-on-an-international-scandal/
Thank you everyone who answered my first question about Bishop Irenei above. I’ve been dealing with some family issues, so wasn’t able to come back right away. Though I’m too ignorant to respond intelligibly to any of it, I appreciate the variety of responses and perspectives! Lots to think about.
I’d add: several posts back I commented about wanting to visit a ROCOR parish some distance from me, but unable to because it continues to be closed to all but parishioners, with masking and social distancing required, months after all other churches in their area have fully re-opened. Might that be part of the US “sectarian mentality” mentioned in the article above?
http://rocadenver.org/
I wouldn’t ascribe it to sectarian mentality, but to some peculiarities of that parish when it comes to COVID. I know a ROCOR parish that stayed open during the heaviest time of COVID yet the last time I checked, about a month and a half ago, it was still doing masking. Yet I think that ROCOR seems to be the least COVID-restriction if I were to generalize as a jurisdiction.
I’m keeping a wide berth on this one, but this reflection would make it hard to maintain that the so-called UOC clergy are illegitimate if the shoe were on the other foot.
So if concelebration with an Orthodox bishop confers baptism, chrismation, and ordination upon the former schismatic, one would have to deny that Constantinople has grace in order to reject their actions as heretical per se. Bad administration, yes, but to deny their sacraments would not seem to jibe with the way in which Moscow receives heterodox clergy either, would it?
I don’t know, it’s not my place to decide, but this lends itself even more to my thought that this all seems fishy. And this reflection would seem to play into the hands of those of Constantinople who say Moscow is in the wrong. Was this a trap, and Fr. Andrew et al. walked into it? How will Moscow settle this while maintaining what seems to be the exact opposite position on Ukraine? (Aside from the uncanonical violation of territory, I am not on Constantinople’s side here, but the party line these days seems more about accusing the UOC of having false sacraments and being unordained clergy-pretenders.)
It’s all very interesting, and sad.
“Was this a trap, and Fr. Andrew et al. walked into it? How will Moscow settle this while maintaining what seems to be the exact opposite position on Ukraine?”
I can see the big difference between Moscow and Constantinople’s attitudes. Why can’t you?
The Moscow Patriarchate, when receiving heterodox clergy, at least insists on 1) repentance and 2) that the clergy in question be formally received through confession of faith and vesting. The concelebration comes AFTER these have been done. This is the best example available: the reception of Fr. Constantin Simon SJ into the Russian Orthodox Church in 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ksr6Sb_2A
Constantinople did not even bother with any such formalities, but simply declared the Ukrainian schismatics “canonical” with a stroke of a pen.
excellent point.
Actually no, that hasn’t always been the case. The MP received Ukrainian Greek Catholic clergy without repentance and at the stroke of a pen at the 1946 “Council of Lvov”. Although the MP may have changed it’s practices since, the clergy received from that “council” remain canonically accepted not only by Moscow but also by Constantinople.
Those priests were ordained (albeit Catholic) clergy. The charlatans in the new schematic sect were enrobed charlatans.
Admittedly, my own tendency and prejudice is to view Ukrainian Greek Catholic clergy simply as enrobed charlatans. I realize that not everyone here may share that point of view.
Are any of those clergymen still alive?
Probably not, but the means of liquidation of the UGCC at the 1946 “Council of Lvov” is still defended by the Russian Church.
There hasn’t been any proclamation backtracking, neither by Moscow nor Constantinople. There are, of course, people who rightly point out that the “Council of Lvov” was a political sham orchestrated by Joseph Stalin. Yet nobody says those received clergy were not actually Orthodox.
Antiochene Son,
When you say UOC, I think you mean the Ukrainian OCU founded in 2018.
You are getting into a lot of issues at once. You write:
“So if concelebration with an Orthodox bishop confers baptism, chrismation, and ordination upon the former schismatic, one would have to deny that Constantinople has grace in order to reject their actions as heretical per se. Bad administration, yes, but to deny their sacraments would not seem to jibe with the way in which Moscow receives heterodox clergy either, would it?”
First, the problem with the CP’s actions are not just that they made someone Orthodox through concelebration. There are numerous other problems that would drown this message post space, starting with the CP’s mistaken claims to being a First Without Equals that the CP used to justify its actions. Second, the MP is suspending communion but at this point it is not denying the validity of all CP Sacraments for all CP members.
No bishop can go into another bishops’ territory without his permission. This is the elephant in the room.
Because others have also wrongly established themselves where they don’t belong, Bartholomew is not the only one on the hot seat. If the Local Churches were to pressure him, Bartholomew could turn the tables and call many of them (including Russia) to task for the same thing.
Another sticky wicket is that the two schismatic bishops Bartholomew brought into the OCU are now birthing other unrepentant, schismatics!
Wanting no part of Russia, the OCU is refusing to have anything to do with the canonical Church. How are we supposed to deal with that?
When one of our own breaks into another brother’s home and rapes his wife, what are we supposed to do? Wait until they hug it out and “throwback a few”? We can’t operate as a Church like this.
The laity has had it. Even locally, I see the laity, across jurisdictions, bringing ourselves together. For the first time, true unity may be possible: from the ground floor, up.
Apart from God, being in communion with one another is the foundation of our Faith. We are to love one another. Bartholomew has effectively thrown the good order of the Church under the bus and for whatever reason, our bishops have failed to act.
Interestingly, Bartholomew wants to continue to explain why he was able to do what he did. Even if he were 100% correct, does it matter at this point? He burnt down the Church failing to realize his “special powers” went with it.
This is why bishops don’t have special powers.
I can only convey the impression I get. Having read some considerable amount of Fr. Andrew Phillips remarks regarding the whole situation, though I would like to be reassured by his rendition of events, his priorities seem out of order to me. He seems more concerned with the development of unified local churches than with long running distinctions between strictness and laxity.
And placing trust in the MP or any of its subordinate constructs over that of the ROCOR to me is unthinkable. ROCOR was country when country wasn’t cool. Compared to Moscow, it is the gold standard. His dismissal of the canonical logic of Greek Old Calendarists is also disturbing. It seems there is a spirit of modernism at work in his motivations, though I can’t say that Bishop Irenei’s actions were justified by the practice in question. However, Fr. Andrew’s critique of Irenei’s American-ness as supposed to English sensibilities and siding with supposedly nouveau Orthodox seems like bs.
Whatever ROCOR decides on this is what I’ll support. Hopefully, it will not lead to a re-separation with the MP. But I have remarked from time to time that the reunification may have been premature. What would be useful is a more elaborate treatment by Bishop Irenei on his reasoning for his actions. The ground at present lends itself to senseless turf wars since all of these people are under the MP. The problem, to which Fr. Andrew indirectly alludes, is that the MP is not theologically or ecclesiologically competent to resolve such matters. From as recently as the Joint Statement with the pope, it has been crystal clear that the MP remains quite ecumenist and somewhat ignorant of Orthodox tradition. Though one hopes this has been changing for the better, I would not trust them at present.
Thank you, Misha! I am thankful that you and Christine both are standing up for Bishop Irenei who seems to be fighting for truth. While I know everything isn’t perfect in ROCOR, I am thankful that Bps. Irenei and George are willing to stand up for truth. I was a long time reader and admirer of Fr. Andrew until recently. Over the past year or so, it seems that he’s gone in a complete different direction. Just read the first question and answer from his blog back in 2018. He seems to be a completely different person and I really am disgusted by his wording in attacking those holding true to our church.
http://www.events.orthodoxengland.org.uk/questions-from-recent-correspondence-september-2018/
Oh hi. For me personally, I would say that A. Phillips isn’t the most stable of people when it comes to holding fast to his beliefs (whatever those may be).
One thing that struck me about one of his latest missives is around Elder Sophrony of Essex. In bygone days, he was quite dismissive of the Elder and in a post in March this year accused the phanar of ”weaponising” Elder Sophrony’s canonisation against the Russian Church (a view I happen to agree with) He writes ”The split was inevitable and, despite his previous pro-Moscow writings, in 1965 Fr Sophrony walked out of Moscow for Constantinople and the new calendar. This caused such a scandal in the Moscow Patriarchate that even today there are virtually no Russians at Tolleshunt Knights. Personally, having seen some of the pre-1965 correspondence between Fr Sophrony and Metr Antony, I think it was all six of one and half a dozen of the other. As both characters are long gone, it is largely irrelevant, even though Patriarch Bartholomew has recently ‘weaponised’ Fr Sophrony against the Russian Church by unilaterally declaring that he is a local saint. That was with no investigation of his earthly remains, life, art nouveau painting and almost unreadable philosophical writings.”
Now as he has fled into schism, he seems to have backpeddaled and in one of his most recent posts writes ”Metropolitan Jean blessed us to venerate the icon of his ever-memorable spiritual father, St Sophrony of Essex, and told us to ignore the uncanonical actions of a small diocese which had fallen out of communion with his Archdiocese and his two vicar-bishops.”
Strange times.
That quote from Fr. Andrew just sounds like sour grapes. I mean his parish in Colchester is only a 20 minute drive from the thriving St. John the Baptist Monastery in Tolleshunt Knights (last I was there they had 12 monks, 45 nuns and a constant flow of pilgrims.) Yet he bemoans a lack of Orthodox monasteries in England!
Granted, the stavropegial monastery in Essex founded by St. Sophrony is directly under Patriarch Bartholomew, so Fr. Andrew’s being in the Russian Church presents an obstacle for him to visit there.
Nevertheless, there is probably no greater Russian saint for the English-speaking world than Saint Sophrony in these latter times. Born in Moscow, Russia in 1896, he was certainly far more Russian than most “Russians” are today, and yet he had the prophetic foresight and discernment to found a monastery in England using English and to place his monastery directly under the Ecumenical Patriarch.
I agree. His recent writings demonstrate quite a turnaround.
As an aside, I noted only yesterday that two priests have now left Rue Daru in the UK for the Antiochian diocese there. One of them was a ROCOR defector.
Something strange is going on and, despite all their public proclamations and official statements, I don’t think Rue Daru is being upfront about the full story.
Is this the St Sophrony who wrote or was in a biography of St Silouan, Enlargement of the Heart? It seemed like a good book.
Quite surprising that Fr. Andrew Philips would write this:
“ROCOR will then surely have to negotiate in a spirit of humility with the OCA and the Patriarchal parishes in North America to unite and at long last form together a single autocephalous North American Orthodox Church (NAOC), both truly Orthodox and also truly Local.”
Is that even possible?
Steve,
That’s why I think he’s lost it. From what little I know, I don’t think Bp. Irinei should have broken communion with the diocese in question; however, it seems to me that leaving his omophorion inspired by some vision of a united local church in Europe was a case of impatient, emotional overreaction. If Bp. Irinei is in the wrong, ROCOR will rectify the situation in due course. I don’t actually think that that is the reason for the move but rather the vision is the motivator, which is unfortunate.
I have to wonder what is this “sectarian” and “Donatist” spirit that Fr. Andrew Philips has observed in parts of the American ROCOR. Has anyone else observed this?
Perhaps Father Andrew Philips, as an Englishman, doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Robert Burns:
“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion.
It works both ways…
Misha, I think you are quite right. ROCOR’s Holy Synod will have to correct this, and the schism will ultimately be reversed and probably soon.
Misha,
I have to disagree with you there. As Fr Andrew had mentioned in his long and detailed statement, he didn’t leave ROCOR ‘inspired by some vision of a United local church in Europe’ but BECAUSE of the division and schism caused by Bishop Irenei. This was his sole reason for departing ROCOR.
It is safe to say that us Orthodox all fight for unity. We all dream to be United with the Greeks again as it were before the Ukrainian circus in 2019, so that we may become one strong family again and preach the gospel of Christ. Life in Christ can be summed up in two words, Love and Joy, not division and schism. Never has the Orthodox Church suffered so much division since the schism of 1054.
So as a priest who fought his entire priesthood for unity with the MP, and witnessed the unification of ROCOR with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007, the last thing that is on his mind is to create a division out of self-motivation and pride. And the way that Bishop Irenei took only a few weeks to create a schism between ROCOR, the Archdiocese of Metropolitan John and Sourozh all on his own without any backing from his clergy or consulting any other Bishops, came as a huge shock to the Orthodox in the UK, and certainly with Fr Andrew because it went against everything that he fought and worked for his entire life.
I can give him some slack to allow for him to just do some “brainstorming.” But it sounds like he is not as familiar with the US situation as he could be, or else he is really thinking more in terms of the West European situation, where combining a major portion of MP parishes with the ROCOR and with the Russian Exarchate of Western Europe could be a feasible option.
The 1970 Tomos to the OCA by the MP specified that a list of specific parishes would stay under the MP. It is a little bit like how in different Orthodox countries there are representative parishes. There are several “Georgian” parishes for example in the Russian federation. The MP in the USA is rather small and resembles more of a representative parish situation than the MP in West Europe does. I say that without belitting the MP in the US, and in the context of making a comparison between the US situation and the European one. In the latter, there was nothing really close to the 1970 OCA Tomos situation, and the history was quite different. The MP recognized the OCA as THE canonical Orthodox Church in the USA and Canada when it listed parishes that the MP would keep.
So in conclusion, putting the ROCOR in the US would make sense in line with the OCA’s framework, but putting the MP into the OCA would not make sense. Combining ROCOR and the Russian Exarchate in Western Europe and some of the MP parishes in Western Europe would also make sense, but I guess that it’s not really necessary. Forcing them together would be alittle like the CP trying to force ACROD and the UOC-USA (CP) into a single “East Slavic” or Rusyn-Ukrainian jurisdiction.
Hi Misha,
I value and respect your opinion (and agree with you!) on most things. Though I respectfully disagree with you on this one.
Fr Andrew Phillips and his brother clergy are boldly standing firm for what is true and right and what is the “narrow” path of life in Christ. Whether or not an Eastern-rite Catholic priest can or should be received into the Church by vesting may be a reasonable topic for discussion by the Russian Holy Synod (or any synod, for that matter). The fact remains that the Russian Church has a long history of receiving clergy in this method, and there are many canonized Orthodox saints who have been received by this method!
I’d venture to say that possibly most of the original clergy who comprised the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in North America (both ROCOR and OCA claim this history) 100 years ago – and those in the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese – were probably received by this method. Most of the pioneers of North American Orthodoxy in the early 20th century were former former Uniates/eastern rite Catholics. After the Alaskan Mission, most of the pioneers of “Russian Orthodoxy” in North America were not classic “Russians” but were rather what some call Rusyns or Carpatho-Russians (example: both Metropolitan Laurus, the current Bishop Luke at Jordanville, and the original Jordanville Seminary hailed or came from family from Carpatho-Russia).
Bishop Irenei may have a personal distaste for receiving Uniate clergy in this manner, but it is out of bounds for him to unilaterally declare a schism over his personal preferences. It’s counterproductive and will certainly backfire on him. This kind of sanctimonious indignation may play well on American-style internet discussion forums (hopefully not this one!), but in “real life” it functions as a complete disaster.
As Fr Andrew writes, “….above all we are missionaries to the vast majority of local Orthodox who were born in the former Soviet Union and now live here with their locally-born children….. (ROCOR and the MP parishes in Western Europe) have the same flock. Only very few of our people and even of our clergy have any concept of ROCOR and events of over 100 years ago. Today Russian Orthodox simply frequent their nearest parish, its jurisdictional tag is irrelevant and often goes quite unnoticed. The old jurisdictions are dying out by popular will, all that people want is a church that is authentically Orthodox, canonical and which welcomes them and their children, regardless of their nationality and politics. To keep separate administrations and to stand apart, or to hear the suggestion of one who has never been trained in an Orthodox seminary that clergy from the ex-Soviet Union (His Holiness therefore among them?) ‘do not know how to celebrate’ is simply not valid.”
What the faithful want is “a church that is authentically Orthodox, canonical and which welcomes them and their children, regardless of their nationality and politics.”
My gut tells me that Bishop Irenei’s internet-argument-style stunt will backfire big time, and this is the beginning of the end of ROCOR in Western Europe. Most of its sane parishes will go to the MP — really, as they should, since it is not 1950 any longer and ROCOR has fulfilled its purpose. I love ROCOR and its history, but I will not defend these petty arguments that drive wedges in the Church in order to prove some arcane theological point that is more apt for a holy synod-level discussion.
The ROCOR/MP distinction in Europe is generally not analogous to the ROCOR/other Orthodox disctinction in the USA, since most ROCOR and MP parishes in Europe are totally indistinguishable. Neither ROCOR nor MP parishes in Europe are modernist (the few modernist Russian-style parishes in the now-defunct Russian Western European Diocese in the EP did not follow Metr John of Dubna to the MP, but rather left him and stayed with the modernist EP). Neither ROCOR nor MP parishes in Europe are new/revised Julian calendar.
By contrast, in America, there is a modernist, secularist bent in some Orthodox parishes (mostly found in the new/revised Julian calendar jurisdictions) – and ROCOR in North America certainly plays a huge lead in being a “church that is authentically Orthodox, canonical and which welcomes them and their children, regardless of their nationality and politics.”
Seems that in years to come, we will probably see ROCOR grow as the Orthodox missionary arm to North and South America and to Australia/Oceania but it will probably fizzle out in Europe. Perhaps God is using Bishop Irenei’s stunt to help unify the Russian Churches in Western Europe. Thank God that He works to accomplish good even with human stupidity.
I do not disagree that Bp. Irenei’s actions were an overreaction. While speaking of different jurisdictions in this matter is useless inasmuch as everyone is directly or indirectly under the MP, he does not seem to have had sufficient cause to do what he did.
But two wrongs do not make a right. ROCOR will likely, in time, take the matter up in some synodal fashion and set matters straight within its own province of the Russian Church. Fr. Andrew bolted in a matter of days. This was an excuse to bolt based on a vision of the Orthodox Church in Western Europe as he schemes it should be. And that is above his paygrade, frankly.
It is a rather curious arrangement they have in Western Europe. The only thing I can say is that given the MP’s history over the past 50 years or so, I trust ROCOR incomparably more than Moscow. So whatever they decide will be fine with me, in Europe and here in America. Less than a decade ago, Patriarch Kirill was referring to the RCC as a sister church in a joint statement with the pope and at the time of the OCA’s “tomos”, the MP was routinely communing RC’s at the Russicum in Rome.
Though it may have been time to reunite, no one can seriously suggest that the MP is the place to look for ecclesiological certainty. When I find a matter is agreed on by the ROCOR, the Serbs, Jerusalem and, perhaps, the Greek Old Calendarists, then I can be certain that that is the Law of God. Neither the Phanar nor the MP factor into such calculations.
Two points, Misha. As far as I know, the MP has moved away from communing heterodox. Also, the Serbian church is not always so traditionalist. I once went behind the back of a Serbian priest to baptize a convert, because the Serbian priest would only chrismate him. My own bishop did bless me to do this. The Serb priest chrismated him the next day. I’m sorry to have deceived the Serbian priest, but not sorry to have done the baptism. That family was willing to be part of the Serbian church, but the priest did something else to upset them, so they did switch to the Greek Old Calendar church.
I also notice that in liturgics the Serbian church leaves much to be desired, whereas the Romanian church, though New Calendar, has a fuller schedule of services. That could be just my observations, however.
Misha,
As with Ukraine, the political situation as interpreted by the ruling bishop is what usually determines how the Church receives schismatic unordained clergy, either through economia or through akrevia (vesting vs. ordination).
For example, should Ukraine be part of Europe, or should Ukraine be part of Russia, or maybe it should be neither? The ruling bishops are entitled to their viewpoint on this, and whatever their viewpoint is, it will largely drive their decision between using economia or using akrevia for the reception of schismatic Ukrainian clergy.
The problem isn’t necessarily their viewpoint or decision (as bishops they are entitled to this after all), but rather the problem is competing jurisdictions with differing viewpoints that can create conflicting approaches on the same territory.
So with England, whose fault is it that both ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate exist on the same territory?
Exactly.
Rufus,
It’s a tempest in a teapot: “буря в стакане воды”.
If Fr. Andrew feels more comfortable directly under the MP, so be it. If Bp. Irenei objects, so be it. Sometimes crying babies just need to wear themselves out.
Yes, sometimes crying babies just need to wear themselves out: Σκασιλα μου.
You know, Misha, I had my own misgivings about ROCOR uniting with the MP back in 2007. I serve an OCA parish, but we are traditional, at least by OCA standards. Except for the fact that the parish is on the new style and almost all services are in English, I serve pretty much like a ROCOR priest. The bishop even allows me to rebaptize converts from heterodox.
I don’t know the story about Bishop Irenei. I prefer the strict method of receiving non-Orthodox clergy, but it seems bad form not to recognize another bishop’s use of economia. I don’t wish to rehash the conflicts between ROCOR and the OCA dating back to the time of 1970, but ROCOR bishops at times have used different standards. Archbishop Averky of Blessed Memory was known for strictness. He had a convert rebaptized who had already been received through chrismation by another ROCOR bishop. This seems a bit much, but it was Vladyka Averky’s call. I am not sure, but I think the convert in question was His Grace Bishop George of Australia.
A friend of mine who had been baptized in ACROD was rebaptized in ROCOR again with Vladyka Averky’s blessing. The reasoning behind this was that a.) My friend was sprinkled, not immersed and b.) There is a possibility that his chrismation was done with Uniate chrism.
No doubt there are those who will say that Vladyka Averky’s actions were extreme, it’s not my place to judge them. Vladyka Averky was a great defender of St. John of San Francisco. St. John himself was a model of strictness, but he received people like Fr. Seraphim Rose into the church by chrismation. I certainly do not share the opinion of the extremists who claim that Fr. Seraphim can’t attain salvation because he didn’t have an Orthodox baptism!
I am no fan of the ecumenism of the MP, but it may be that the patriarch met with Pope Francis to try to persuade him to call his boys off in Ukraine, ie, the Uniates, who are sticking their nose into Orthodox business and invariably support schismatics. I am hoping that the MP taking a hard line against the meddling of Bartholomew in Ukraine will vindicate the hard line which ROCOR has shown all along. I hope that the MP and ROCOR will be able to mutually help each other. The various splits from ROCOR seem to be an extremism of the right, something about which Fr. Seraphim Rose warned us.
Baptizing someone entering the Church who has not received an Orthodox baptism is never, ever wrong. And admitting anyone for any reason to the Church by any method other than baptism is always questionable, but not necessarily ineffective or contrary to Tradition.
I’ve never even heard of anyone questioning anyone’s “salvation” due to being admitted to the Church in an incorrect manner, including Fr. Seraphim Rose. Nonetheless, there may be such misguided busybodies.
The problem is the dovetailing of extreme economia with ecumenism.
I really think that this is the main issue here. This might be why there has been absolute silence from the rest of the ROCOR hierarchy.
Can’t recognize what doesn’t exist.
“Can’t recognize what doesn’t exist.”
Have you read The Hound of the Baskervilles?
RE: “I am no fan of the ecumenism of the MP, but it may be that the patriarch met with Pope Francis to try to persuade him to call his boys off in Ukraine. . .”
Hmmm. . . I wonder what the other 100 or something meetings (beginning in 2014) were about. My guess is nothing to do with the Uraites.
As far as I know, Bartholomew has not suggested, even once, that he was acting out of “Economia” in Ukraine. He continues to insist that the canons permit him, as the head of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to grant autocephaly to whomever, as he has done in other areas, as well. He thinks he is different from other bishops. Other bishops, within the Local Churches, may exercise “Economia” only within their territories, but he is not bound by the same limitations by virtue of who he thinks he is: (1) He is not the first among equals; he is first without equal. (2) He is not limited by the rules that govern other bishops. (3) He can intervene in any dispute, with or without permission, and decide the matter. (Whatever you do, do not ask him to mediate!!! In the case of Antioch and Jerusalem, he walked with all the parishes.)
Most importantly, Bartholomew can grant autocephaly to whomever, whenever he wants. He can even change the wording in the Tomas suggesting autocephaly is what is being given when it’s not. He insists he speaks for the entire Orthodox Church, including the MP. His patriarchate is the “Mother Church.” The rest of us are “sisters” or “daughters;” in other words, not first.
I don’t know why we’re even talking about this. Bartholomew walked away from the Church the moment he redefined it. We have no Pope and we have no King. Bartholomew is an A-P-O-S-T-A-T-E.
My hope is to get rid of the “Ecumenical Patriarchate“. As long as the location remains fixed in Turkey, any other deranged patriarch can inherit the “throne” and in due time and create a similar mess. I wish they could just pick up the whole thing as they did with the tornado in The Wizzard of Oz. and then drop them in Wonderland somewhere.
Anywhere but Turkey would be fine. Bartholomew is not the problem. It’s the patriarchate that’s the problem and all those “special powers” they talk about, real or imagined.
With respect to the USA, we do not exist. At best, we are “barbarians” and, therefore, part of his diaspora where he can move the pieces around at any time, for any reason.
Bartholomew’s ultimate goal is to unite the Orthodox Church, under him, and then reunite us to Rome. I doubt he cares if we fall under the Pope or him at this point, as long as he is handsomely compensated. The globalists would be tickled pink to leverage Christianity through such a merger.
There’s a name for who Bartholomew is (and what he is doing) but it’s not “Economia.”
John Harrington:
“Treason doth never prosper: what ’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
” I certainly do not share the opinion of the extremists
who claim that Fr. Seraphim can’t attain salvation
because he didn’t have an Orthodox baptism!”
Indeed. It is not out place to tell God
who he can have in Paradise.
It is his place to tell us…
Growing up in the ACROD and seeing lots of useless church politics, I think that a fatal error was made in 1938 by going under the jurisdiction of Patriarch Benjamin of Constantinople., since even though he was presumably a nice guy, he was in a patriarchate that had had Meletios Metataxis and now has Bartholomew. Just as the Carpatho-Russian parishes in Europe (current Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania) had been a strong movement going under the Patriarch of Serbia (it being considered treasonous by the A-H Empire to have contacts with the Russian Empire) starting in 1903 until World War I, I believe that it is a historical tragedy that the new parishes in America didn’t do the same and join the Serbians here . Instead there were those who said (“neither Rome nor Moscow”) and thought they were staying safe from such political influences on Orthodoxy.
Observer,
The fact that ACROD would say NEITHER ROME NOR MOSCOW and would fail to join the OCA/Metropolia is kind of annoying because the OCA/Metropolia was actually independent of the MP. Had ACROD left the Catholic Church before 1917, they certainly would have joined the Metropolia like the rest of the Carpatho Russians did. I understand that they wanted to preserve Carpathian culture and the Old Calendar, but the OCA did not really eliminate Rusyn culture per se and the New Calendar didn’t come into effect until over 30 years after 1938.
I would guess that Cold War anticommunist hysteria played a sad role in ACROD avoiding the OCA because the Metropolia was Russian in tradition, although not Communist.
The Metropolia really wasn’t a viable option at the time that ACROD was forming. The Metropolia had been fending off lawsuits from the Soviet “Living Church” claiming its church properties. Even the canonical status of the Metropolia was questionable as it was not in communion with Russia. The Antiochians and the Serbs had already left and organized under their “old world” patriarchates. The Metropolia was basically a sinking ship.
The Metropolia was in communion with ROCOR between 1935-1946 (and also previously from 1920-1926). From 1946-1970, the Metropolia were in a very irregular status, essentially having self-isolated themselves from the rest of the Orthodox world, until Met. Leonty began bringing them back into inter-Orthodox cooperation through SCOBA in the late 1950s/early 1960s.
ACROD was founded in 1938, during the period when the Metropolia and ROCOR were together.
The best way I was taught to think about these splits is not in terms of the Orthodox faith, but in terms of allegiance to and love for the Russian Tsar/monarchy.
The core of the Metropolia/OCA were former Uniates from Galicia in what is today eastern Ukraine (Carpatho-Rus’). Same thing with ACROD. The core of the Metropolia/OCA and ACROD are the same people according to ethnic heritage.
The core of ROCOR has always been those Orthodox Christians – often great Russians or not – who were steadfast Russian monarchists.
This monarchist/non-monarchist division has been the driver of most of the splits. ACROD and Metropolia parishioners 80 years ago saw themselves as strong Orthodox Christians, but not as Russian monarchists. They often didn’t like the Russian monarchy at all. Yet Orthodox Christianity was integral to their identity. (In Austria-Hungary, where Carpatho-Rus’ existed up until WW1, it was treason to speak favorably of the Russian monarchy.)
Contrast that with the ROCOR core who always viewed themselves as Russian monarchists as well as strong Orthodox Christians. Think St John of Shanghai and San Francisco here.
Figuring out how to be Orthodox but not be a monarchist was a goal of the Metropolia/OCA in the 1950s-1960s with the Frs Alexander Schmemann, John Meyendorff, Georges Florovsky etc leaders — they were trying to figure out how to lead people to be faithful Orthodox Christians without any allegiance to an Orthodox Christian monarch. Heretofore, this was almost unheard of in the Orthodox world — Orthodox Christians (whether in the Eastern Roman Empire, Tsarist Russia, royalist Romania, etc.) almost always lived under an Orthodox monarch.
(A big exception to this rule is the Greeks under the Ottomans between the 15th – 19th centuries. But they more or less made the Patr of C’ple their monarch. We are witnessing the disastrous ramifications of that today. But we see how strong the monarchical pull is for strong Orthodox Christians — it’s as if we are pulled in that direction.)
ACROD in 1938 was not interested in joining the Metropolia/ROCOR synod because they were “too Russian,” i.e., too monarchist. Visit a ROCOR parish in 1955 and you’d usually see several large photos of the Russian royal family. Visit a Metropolia or ACROD parish at the same time and, well, you wouldn’t. Rome wasn’t an option for ACROD in 1938 since they had just left Rome, so that left Constantinople, which seemed a good option at the time.
ROCOR canonized the Holy Royal martyrs in 1981. It wasn’t just the American protestants who made fun of ROCOR for doing so (all of us who’ve grown up in American know that Americans grow up with the myth that the Russian royal family was a bunch of wealthy out of touch aristocrats who were hated by their people (not true at all)). Because of their anti-monarchical history, the Metropolia/OCA and ACROD did not always have kind words for ROCOR in 1981 when they canonized the Holy Royal Martyrs. It took another couple of decades for the OCA to come around to that.
Very interesting.
St. Alexis Toth was a convinced monarchist, though perhaps as a result of his conversion. He made very clear statements both denouncing the papacy and in support of the Russian monarchy. Converting to that train of thought also is probably what it took for all those who left the Unia and followed him.
I would generally agree about the monarchist/anti-monarchist split between the ROCOR and the OCA. So perhaps St. Alexis is really more of a ROCOR saint in this regard. He certainly is venerated as a saint in ROCOR.
The Carpatho-Russians from the Austro-Hungarian Empire certainly had no love for the monarchy they lived under, since they lived for centuries under a monarchy that forced them under Papism (Roman Catholicism) after defeats in several battles, forcible removal of existing Orthodox bishops, etc. Orthodoxy had existed there from the time of SS Cyril and Methodius before 900 until at least 1646 (official date of the imposed Union of Uzhgorod, but some priests lived until early 1700s), so it is fact one of the earliest Orthodox entities in Eastern Europe, and the people always thought of themselves as Orthodox under oppression.
Very interesting, what I find interesting is that some Carpatho-Russians including some Uniates were strong Russophiles – so much so that the Austrian’s in 1914 set up one of the first concenration camps for them, in 1915 roughly 25,000 went into exile with the Russian army and a number fought for the White Army under Lavr Kornilov
Also, Carpatho-Russia was where ROCOR set up one of it’s main monasteries in Ladomirova , which published a journal, ‘Orthodox Carpatho-Russia’. After that war the printing press and monastery moved to Jordanville in the USA and the title of the journal changed to the present ‘Orthodox Russia’.
A number of the ROCOR hierachy also either came from or had lived in the region.
Patience is the key. Those who hold to Holy Tradition shall endure and prevail and those who do not shall grow weak in faith and fall away. The Lord has made it very simple. Those who cling to the ancient faith, have large families and evangelize the most will prevail. It has to be habit, nay, tradition. That is the importance of patriarchy, for example. Demographics is indeed destiny, at least as long as the Lord Jesus tarries.
Adherence to Tradition is what enables those Orthodox who dare to have lots of children and to evangelize to do precisely these things which grow the Church. It’s a parish level variable, but some jurisdictions probably do a better job than others on the whole. However, the like-minded or what we call единоверцы will endure and prosper.
Having read up on this interesting story, many more questions come to mind! I don’t concern myself with the aftermath of it but the starting and initial acts that started it. Seems that Bishop Irenei is a very well read person and as a Hierarch he must have known of the tradition of receiving clergy by vesting and concelebration (albeit at least by other church entities within the MP and the MP itself). Furthermore, Bishop Irenei broke communion with the MP Archdiocese only a month after the reception of said priest which was over the Christmas/Nativity feast, being an extremely busy time for all clergyman, giving not much time for responses or explanations, especially by postal letters as is often the case in-between Hierarchs. The rashness and speed with which this happened is what concerns me. My question is, is this hiding something else, was this done wilfully and/or to a secret agenda? When I have a problem at work I often discuss it with colleagues or superiors to get their understanding, did Bishop Irenei (who is after all a young Bishop) act unilaterally or was this backed up by the ROCOR (or some, even if not in its entirety), therefore using this as an entirely different reason for breaking communion. Also, even though this was in Western Europe, no one knew anything until a few weeks ago when the leaving clergy acted as whistle blowers, spoke their peace as they were in the ultimate position before being threatened of defrocking by their now previous Bishop (even if it would not have counted) and if they didn’t mention it, would anyone know of this now? Something doesn’t seem right, breaking communion in just 4 weeks for such an obviously dubious thing is too fast. Unless it’s an honest mistake, but things wouldn’t have gone this far if it was.
The tradition of receiving clergy by vesting and concelebration is not the issue here.
This issue is the priest in question was a Ukrainian Catholic Uniate priest. He was never baptized/charismated; in other words, he was not an ordained priest.
A bishop cannot take in an unordained priest who has never even been baptized! See what I mean by the sticky wicket? The clergy has to meet certain requirements to be received by vestment and concelebration.
The Church will experience these irregularities more and more often because of the situation in Ukraine.
A good contact tells me that said priest was baptised, although not in the orthodox church, which as far as I can see is the same case as St. Toth and many others. An article also still features on orthochristians. No one else seemed concerned, least of all the MP, it claims proper enquiries were made before the reception taking place. Someone says this and someone else says that, who knows what the truth is? However, worldwide synods should once and for all decide what the correct course of action is!
For me personally, breaking communion so quickly and casting judgement on others who are not in your diocese or church (but within your own patriarchate) is not right and casts serious doubts on the real reason for it. This should have been referred to the rocor synod and the synod in Moscow for them to investigate and take action, not a local Bishop. Again, the speed of decision is what concerns me, a break in communion should be the very last resort (as did the MP with the CP over Ukraine and rightfully so), here it is being used as an everyday thing and against another diocese within your own patriarchate! Making me think something else is at play!
The orthodox church should be one of conciliarity to each other, we accept after all that others use a different calendar and this for me is much more difficult to understand than this case, as it means we cannot often concelebrate the same feasts together!
Europe is vastly different to the USA and their ‘traditions” will differ greatly even within the same church, the MP has probably 10 times more parishes than the rocor, the same friend tells me the MP has 60 parishes in Italy alone and the principle language used there is neither Russian or Italian but Romanian as the majority of parishioners are Moldovian immigrants living there! (as is their local Bishop to take care of his flock), imagine the differences between them and us, but they are still orthodox. I hate to say it and I have seen it before, but we Americans have a tendency to arrive on the old continent in our boots claiming that only WE do things correctly ! I think this also has something to do with it!
Nothing surprises me anymore in the orthodox church; every time there is a problem it is one or a combination of greed, ambition, power and money, all of which have corrupted it and dare I say it’s one of those here! (only small and poor parishes still prophecy the true church). I’m especially wary of younger bishops claiming to be standing for the truth, but I could be wrong (may God forgive me). Let’s see what the rocor synod will do and the Patriarchate, if they want to get involved that is!
Great synopsis!
Having read up on this interesting story, many more questions come to mind! I don’t concern myself with the aftermath of it but the starting and initial acts that started it. Seems that Bishop Irenei is a very well read person and as a Hierarch he must have known of the tradition of receiving clergy by vesting and concelebration (albeit at least by other church entities within the MP and the MP itself). Furthermore, Bishop Irenei broke communion with the MP Archdiocese only a month after the reception of said priest which was over the Christmas/Nativity feast, being an extremely busy time for all clergyman, giving not much time for responses or explanations, especially by postal letters as is often the case in-between Hierarchs. The rashness and speed with which this happened is what concerns me. My question is, is this hiding something else, was this done wilfully and/or to a secret agenda? When I have a problem at work I often discuss it with colleagues or superiors to get their understanding, did Bishop Irenei (who is after all a young Bishop) act unilaterally or was this backed up by the ROCOR (or some, even if not in its entirety), therefore using this as an entirely different reason for breaking communion. Also, even though this was in Western Europe, no one knew anything until a few weeks ago when the leaving clergy acted as whistle blowers, spoke their peace as they were in the ultimate position before being threatened of defrocking by their now previous Bishop (even if it would not have counted) and if they didn’t mention it, would anyone know of this now? Something doesn’t seem right, breaking communion in just 4 weeks for such an obviously dubious thing is too fast. Unless it’s an honest mistake, but things wouldn’t have gone this far if it was.
The proper course of action, given what Bp. Irenei did (and I agree it seems unnecessary and precipitous to sever communion in these circumstances), would be for everyone involved to simply wait for the ROCOR synod to get its own house in order and avoid any further theatrics.
This is why it was a bad idea for Fr. Andrew and the other clergy to leave. It is not that Bp. Irenei is correct. He may very well not be. Yet the fact is that regardless, the right thing to do is not to abandon one’s jurisdiction but wait for it to right its own errant bishop. Bp. Irenei’s action does not render him or any other bishop “schismatic” and outside the Church. That is a canard. Those leaving were looking for excuses due to some ideological impetus regarding creating local churches in Europe and the US and some animus against the ROCOR for excessive stringency. You can see this clearly from Fr. Andrew’s own writing on the matter.
Again, the question is not whether Bp. Irenei is correct or not. Even if he is not, there is no justification for the reaction of Fr. Andrew and the rest.
Misha, very well said, you are most probably right. Although, the synod was contacted and the clergy were reprimanded for doing it, sounds like they simply tried to sweep it under the carpet and thought the clergy would forget about it if threatened, little did they know. Even though he/they were loyal to the ROCOR as a priest for over 30 years, sometimes enough is enough and we explode! We are all guilty of it at some point in our lives. What would anyone else do when no one listens and you resolutely believe you are right… 2 choices, you take the hits, continue and pretend all is going well in hope things will one day change or you simply leave and if you need, retaliate. Fr Andrew doesn’t seem to be the type of character to buckle easily or wanting to live hoping it will one day change, he’s a yes/no man with no ‘maybe’, I know the type ! The clergy never wanted to release the statement as they say, which is very well written with evidence, maybe they have a British lawyer within their ranks. they were pushed and like all whistle blowers they retaliated with the evidence. All looks bad… what a mess. I pray for all involved.
It seems an important issue if your bishop is going to break communion with someone for bad reasons. If a priest is in that situation, it seems hard to judge them.
By analogy, when the CP declared itself a virtual medieval papacy, messed with Ukraine, and got its communion suspended by the MP, there were CP clergy and parishes who left for the MP. Perhaps some of them left even before the MP suspended communion. Or imagine if you were in the RC Church before and during the schism. The schism happened piecemeal, with Rome and the CP schismating before Rome schismated with the rest of the EOs. You could leave Rome even before Rome schismated with the other EOs, and wouldn’t have to demand an Ecumenical Council be held before leaving Rome.
Things are never as they seem. Frankly, I’m having a hard time believing it. I’m sure we’re going to hear more about this soon.
Well, I would like Bp. Irenei’s version of events to see what justification he gave for breaking communion with the Western Exarchate (MP).
Possibly he did not given a public announcement on breaking communion, but rather some kind of unofficial decree.
Fr. Andrew quoted “Directive № 359/E”, in which Bp. Irenei seems pretty explicit that he is breaking communion over the issue of the Exarchate declaring Fr. Siemens an EO priest via vesting. Conceivably Fr. Andrew could be leaving out some of the Directive’s text.
http://www.events.orthodoxengland.org.uk/statement/
Since the Exarchate accepted Fr. Andrew and Fr. Andrew claims that he has his bishop’s blessing for his blog’s statement, it looks like the Exarchate is siding with Fr. Andrew’s version of events.
Bp Irenei’s documents are online. I can’t see any misrepresentation of them by the Archdiocese:
https://ireneifiles.wixsite.com/home/post/the-bp-irenei-schism-from-the-moscow-patriarchate-archdiocese-in-the-british-isles-2021
Thanks for posting this, Alexander.
A “ROCOR” vs “AROCWE (MP)” schism would be the worst disaster for the Orthodox world since several Hellenistic Churches went along with the CP’s Pope-style “intervention” in Ukraine. And it could just be a prelude for ROCOR breaking with the MP.
In his January Directive, Bp. Irenei says that he is issuing his Directive because the acceptance of Fr. Siemens “appears” to be in violation of the Canons as well as the “firm practices” of the Russian Church by accepting him without an EO baptism and EO Chrismation and EO Ordination. Then he says that accepting without EO baptism and EO Chrismation is not “unprecedented”, but that accepting into the clergy without an EO ordination is “wholly uncanonical.” Then he analogizes AROCWE’s acceptance of Fr. Siemens to P. Bartholomew’s acceptance of the OCU schismatics.
Further, Bp. Irenei bans not just concelebration and intercommunion, but even clergy participating “liturgically” or in “any ecclesiastical measure” with e AROCWE. However, in January, he limited his measures to the UK parishes of AROCWE, not AROCWE on the Continent. He also forbids publishing it online, because he says he doesn’t want it to be a public spectacle. But then in February, he announced that his February letter to the same effect should be read from the parish ambos aloud, ie as a public announcement.
From his side of the story, seems that Fr Andrew did indeed wait a long while (did he wait long enough? not sure how an outsider can be of sufficient authority to judge what constitutes “long enough”….), and he did try to address this issue with the ROCOR synod. They weren’t interested.
Also, if we apply the statement “the right thing to do is not to abandon one’s jurisdiction but wait for it to right its own errant bishop,” well, then, clergy in the Patr of C’ple are not justified leaving that jurisdiction, as many have done already. (I fully think that the clergy (and everyone else) should leave the C’ple jurisdiction.)
The C’ple synod has given no indication that it ever plans to try to “right its own errant bishop(s).” Perhaps this is what Fr Andrew thought as well – that the ROCOR synod simply wasn’t interested in addressing the issue in England.
I pray that the rift is healed in England and in Western Europe. Hopefully some good will come out of this rift – perhaps the start of doing away with the multiple overlapping jurisdictions of Russian tradition there. Just as North America has absolutely no need for ROCOR, the OCA, the Diocese of 30 or so MP parishes, and ACROD (in the EP) for those who desire to worship God according to the Russian Orthodox tradition — 4, count ’em, 4!!! ….. Western Europe has no need for a tiny ROCOR contingent, a large MP diocese, and a large diocese of Orthodox Churches of the Russian tradition for those in Western Europe that was formerly in the EP.
The Russian Orthodox Church has a massive responsibility now and in the years to come. It — and it alone — is the only remaining leader in bringing the Universal Christian Orthodox Catholic faith to the world, so that every soul has a means to grow close to his creator, to try to live in communion with God. The Russian Church must get its house in order before it can missionize effectively. To be blunt, the world needs what it has to offer.
It’s important to remember that our Church is meant for *everybody*, not just an ethnic few. It’s time we started acting like it.
Unfortunately, I don’t have a strong expectation of hearing ROCOR officially clearing up the problem with Bp. Steenberg’s decision and Fr. Andrew leaving for the Russian Exarchate of Western Europe under the MP. Fr. Andrew must be quoting Bp. Irenei’s Directive correctly because he said that he had his own new bishop’s (Jean’s) blessing for his blog post on the topic.
But this Directive could easily be an administrative directive sent to the ROCOR UK clergy privately, instead of a public announcement, and as such, not something that Bp. Irenei was expecting public discussion about. In that case, Bp. Irenei might just be intending to keep the discussion on the topic private instead of making a public response to Fr. Andrew’s revelations. Further, ROCOR UK clergy who go along with the Directive might not say anything about it publicly, but rather might simply avoid communing or concelebrating in the Exarchate’s parishes. Thus, there might not be much publicly noticeable conflict, even if there is actually a schism between ROCOR UK and the Exarchate due to the Directive. Further, ROCOR (global) and the MP might not intervene, out of a desire to avoid provoking Bp. Irenei.