Where Did All These “Theologians” Come From?

So when did they officially start taking over the Church?   

Perpetual students who call themselves theologians, I mean? 

I know they’ve been around, but all of a sudden they’re everywhere.  So many meandering around like zombies thinking they have the wherewithal to make up the rules.

(Note to Zombies:  You do realize that the NGO fiat money that feeds you is drying up?  Soon, no one is going to back your efforts because you globalists play with monopoly money and we’re all switching to gold.  Kiss your central banks good-bye.) 

 And these are people in the Church!  It’s like their brains have been scrambled or something.  They come to Church just like we do.  They take the Eucharist just like we do.  They’re taught Church doctrine just like we are and all of a sudden they stand up and in unison say, “Excuse me.  May I have your attention, please?  We’ve decided this 2000-year-old institution needs changing so we’re going to start dismantle it now.  We’ll let you know when we’re done!”


The following article was sent to us by Father Joseph Wilson, a Catholic priest, and a friend of Monomakhos.  We were all taken aback by that video about the “theologians” that we posted a few days ago so I guess it shouldn’t surprise any of us that now the globalists are doing a “full court press” on the Catholic Church!

Oh, joy!  [Not]

I noticed Pope Francis started using the term “synodal” back when he and Bartholomew were buds.  I assumed he was trying to orient the Catholic Church to be more like the Orthodox Church when they had this idea they were going to merge in 2025.  I thought what he meant by “synodal” is allowing the cardinals and bishops to operate little more independently:  Independently, in a cohesive way. 

Not go off the rails!  

But what he seems to be doing is introducing what I would call a “free for all”.  No serious discussions among cardinals and bishops who are working toward common goals within the context of the Church. 

No, instead it’s an invitation to “do you own thing,” as we used to say, but now I think it’s called, “you be you.”

In any case, Cardinal Müller is characterizing it as a “hostile takeover.”  He isn’t kidding!

In an explosive interview Thursday on EWTN’s The World Over, the former head of the Vatican’s highest doctrinal office condemned heterodox ideas expressed by Synod leadership and in synodal reports and slammed the initiative’s focus on “self-revelation” as opposed to the Catholic faith.

“This is a system of self-revelation and is the occupation of the Catholic Church” and “the hostile takeover of the Church of Jesus Christ, which is a column of the Revealed Truth,” Cardinal Müller told EWTN host Raymond Arroyo.

“This has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, with the Triune God, and they think doctrine is only like a program of a political party who can change it according to their voters.

The Synod on Synodality, launched by Pope Francis in 2021, is a multi-year process that involves gathering opinions of lay Catholics – and even non-Catholics – in every diocese in the world ahead of the Synod of Bishops in Rome next October. Pope Francis has described the goal of the Synod as creating “a different Church,” and top synodal officials have indicated that it could lead to changes in Church doctrine and leadership.

Sounds a lot like what’s going on in our neck of the woods.  The reason we need to pay attention to this is to appreciate, again, how far down the road these globalists are and to see they are going at breakneck speed to get to the finish line. 

We can’t afford not to pay attention.  This is an all out war on every front and a lot of us are still fumbling around in the dark. 

We have to pick a side.  There is no time to quibble about who is what anymore.  If someone is on the side of traditional values, they’re on our team.  It’s that simple.  So don’t tell me what’s happening on the Catholic side of the fence is unimportant.  It’s not. 

Read this and tell me if it doesn’t sound familiar:  After Pope Francis described the goal of the Synod as creating “a different Church,” top synodal officials have indicated that it could lead to changes in Church doctrine and leadership, like teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual acts is “no longer correct” and needs “revision.” 

Where have we heard that before?  Doctrine has become “a theory of some theologian.”

“It’s like the old heresies of Arianism, when Arius thought according to his ideas what God can do and what God cannot do,” the cardinal said. “The human intellect wants to decide what is true and what is wrong.”

Synod leaders are “dreaming of another church [that] has nothing to do with the Catholic faith” and is “absolutely against” it, Cardinal Müller slammed. “They want to abuse this process for shifting the Catholic Church and not only in another direction, but in the destruction of the Catholic Church.”

I’m getting goosebumps from that creepy deja vu feeling again.  How about you?






  1. Termites are often behind walls. This often means that we never see the damage they do as a structure falls apart around us.

    Put a stop to obvious evil corruption within the GOA and OCA by not being a part of it anymore. Oops! Did I say something scary? Shall we continue to live in denial of what’s taking place?

    Do NOT feed them your dollars. Starve those theology termites eating away at Orthodox Christian doctrine. Your silence means you consent!

    God is waiting for us to act. The Bible warns a great deal of false prophets, false teachers, false Christs, false brethren, false teaching and false gospels. In fact, we are told that there will be, at the end of the age, a false church, that is an apostate church.

    • Jane, a sincere question: where do I go? As far as I can see, all these bishops are in full communion with each other, which means they share the same theology and confession. There are an infinite number of Greek and Russian Old Calendar groups who keep splitting up and rejoining (solve et coagula?) Their confession is Orthodox but they are uncanonical. Where shall I go?

      • I cannot answer for you. I wish I could. For myself, I would go to a Russian Orthodox Church but I do not speak the language and my driving ability is limited. I am finding much solace by reading the Russian Faith blog and reading Scripture in my Orthodox Study Bible. Prayer helps me a lot. For myself, at this juncture in time, I do not know who to trust. I do not see a quick fix to what is happening. I am deeply grateful for the work of the owners of this blog and Helleniscope for shining a bright light on the corruption of Orthodox Christianity taking place. I am very sad but know that God will lead us out of the dark.

        As stated in an earlier article on this blog, skilled journalists need to interview each bishop and ask the difficult questions that need to be asked. We can no longer sit and do nothing. The blasphemy must cease.

        • Gail Sheppard says

          Jane, your love for the Church is fierce. I greatly admire that.

          But you can go to any canonical parish. Doesn’t matter which one. God’s strength is made perfect in weakness; and that’s true of the Church, as well.

          Taking the Eucharist is important. Being with other believers is important, as is hearing the Gospel. Every aspect of the Orthodox Church is finely tuned for our edification.

          The expectation was never that the people in the Church were going to be perfect or even close to perfect. They’re not. But we don’t go to Church to be closer to people (although this is often part of the experience).

          We go to Church to be closer to God. This is the way Christ wanted it and this is something we can trust.

          • There are three Orthodox Christian churches near me. Two are GOA. One is OCA. I recently called the OCA church priest to talk to a priest and request Confession. I called twice and never received a call back.

            One of the GOA churches, where I was chrismated in my sixties, offered me a deep awakening.. I attended every liturgy and Orthros. I volunteered full time to be the priest’s assistant for one year time without pay. It was the happiest time of my life. But, there was always the issue of the church must make more money. Prepping for the Greek festivals was actually more important than going to liturgy.

            I live on a limited income. Those membership forms categorized donations and listed names of those giving much money. I saw a lot behind the scenes.”

            This church was not poor at all. I gave what I could. It’s a long story. I was also told not to come to Confession so often. Imagine. I was attending the other GOA church for a time when COVID control were imposed. I was horrified by the rules imposed by the GOA to mask up, stand on dots six feet apart to receive Communion, see plastic gloves and a mask on the priest, and have a temperature gun placed toward my head when I walked into this church. Then I started reading about the corruption of hierarchs in the GOA and OCA.

            It’s very sad for American converts in the know. Too much to tell here. Thank you so much for caring to comment. I am deeply grateful.

            • Gail Sheppard says

              If you’d like some help in finding a good priest, I might be helpful in this regard. Just email me at gail.sheppard@usa.net.

            • Solidarity Priest says

              I’m sorry to hear of your experience. In my OCA church, you would not be required to mask up or any such thing. I would certainly be happy to hear your confession, but it sounds like you are probably far from our parish. Maybe with God’s help some church can be found.

            • As you know, Jane, we must find good priests and deacons tethered to Holy Tradition – – specifically, to the monasteries – – and consider relocating our residence to be closer. There are many good priests and deacons in our midst, and specifically a good brotherhood in the Pacific Northwest. We will take care you!

          • George Michalopulos says

            Very well said, my dear!

          • I looked at the photo of Archbishop Elpidophoros beaming over the two “gay parents” at the scandalous baptism. He is leading that entire family into eternal damnation. When the shepherd is leading the sheep to the wolves, the sheep have the right and are enjoined by the Holy Fathers to break away. Do you agree that Elpi should be Deposed? Since there is no body to act against him because his synod supports him, can I receive the Holy Mysteries from him because he is canonical yet obviously not Orthodox? When Demetrios was Archbishop he entered a synagogue and prayed with the Jews. This is an act for which he should have been deposed. He denied Our Savior. Does The Grace of God still abide with these men?

            • Gail Sheppard says

              I think I said the GOA needs to get rid of him right now, no ifs ands or buts.

              However, I do think God covers those to whom a sinful priest or bishop gives the Holy Mysteries because, as I understand it, this is what the Church teaches. In a canonical Church, when the priest or bishop puts on those cuffs, God’s grace comes through them not from them.

              Elpi’s sins are very visible but what if I had to figure out who was worthy just by looking at them? Who could do that? There are probably priests and bishops who are further from God than than Elpi, and I suspect I know of one of them: Bartholomew. But I wouldn’t know by looking at him and I don’t think God expects us to know. Again, as I understand it, it is the bishop of the individual who is held accountable by God. Not the people under him.

              The Church also teaches that we are to receive the Holy Mysteries from a canonical Church which one could argue the GOA is not, because if you pray with a schismatic you, yourself, become schismatic. Both Bartholomew and Elpi have prayed with deposed, unordained, self-described bishops and priests which means the GOA is technically no longer canonical.

              But the laity has everything to do with what how a bishop performs because people give their money to support his presence in their archdiocese. They have a right to keep him or displace him. I’ve used the word “displace” because they cannot depose him, but they can get rid of him and they should. In Elpi’s case, they should never have accepted him in the first place because Bartholomew didn’t follow their constitution when he placed him there.

              Whether or not he is deposed, however, is up to the bishops. A bishop, even outside his jurisdiction, can take him to spiritual court.

              The problem is not Elpi. The problem is Bartholomew. Elpi is an extension of Bartholomew, as is the EP’s syod. They don’t operate like a synod because Bartholomew won’t allow it.

              If Bartholomew does not correct his errors and the errors of his patriarchate (and he won’t because he is the problem), he should be deposed. Or so it would seem to me.

              Some sane bishop(s) from an outside jurisdiction are going to have to take this on because it is negatively affecting the whole Church.

              I am open to being corrected. This is just how it seems to me.

              • Agreed, Gail.

                I really would like a clear and concise patristic answer to this, but, maybe there isn’t one?

                There seems to be two schools of thought, as best as I can tell:

                1) The schism/heresy of a bishop applies to his entire patriarchate.

                2) The schism/heresy of a bishop(s) applies only to that particular person.

                If #1 is applied then everyone within the EP & it’s dependencies, including all GOA laity, Elder Ephraim’s monasteries and Athos is defacto schismatic. This extends to the clergy/laity of the Church of Greece, Cyprus and Alexandria.

                If #2 is applied then only Bartholomew, Elpidophoros & those who have concelebrated with them are schismatic.

                Example 1: Great Schism – Even after the mutual excommunications in 1054, if I remeber right, Latins were still communed in Byzantine parishes for another couple centuries until that schism and it’s subsequent Latin errors made it down to the actual parish level and were adopted wholesale by the Latins.

                Example 2: Ariansim/Iconoclasm/Nestorianism, etc. – During all of the major heresies in Church history when almost the entire episcopate had fallen into heresy, most notably Arianism or Sergianism, were the faithful laity/clergy still living in heresy even though they were under a heretical bishop? I haven’t seen anything to support that (If I’m wrong please let me know).

                Current Example: Those who have concelebrated with Bartholomew/OCU, or, have recognized them – The entire Churches of Greece, Cyprus, Alexandria would all now be in schism. This includes Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou who is under Cyprus who’s primate has recognized the OCU, and all African clerics and laity who are still under Alexandria and have not switched to the Russian Exarchate.

                Another current issue is that other than Moscow every other local Church is in communion with either Russia or Constantinople, or both.

                Donatism, which was eventually suppressed, comes to mind as well: “Donatism rejected the validity of sacraments celebrated by priests and bishops who had betrayed the Faith during persecution or who had in other ways sinned”

                It seems heresy and schism have been dealt with differently throughout Church history depending on the situation and circumstance. It does appear that the laity is usually left out of the mess and it applies mostly to the episcopate.

                Would really enjoy some opinions on this though.

                • George Michalopulos says

                  Petro, this is an interesting analysis. I believe you are right (as to option #2).

                  As far as the Churches of Africa, Cyprus and Greece, the recognition of the OCU was done in a highly irregular manner, one in which a future synod could recognize as illegal and thus, null and void. Kind of like when a judge overturns a local election because of outright fraud being discovered.

                  Anyway, there are several bishops in Greece and Cyprus who have not recognized Epiphony. And there are several monasteries on Mt Athos who have slammed the door shut when one of the schismatic Ukrainian bishops show up. I remember not that long ago when a certain Greek metropolitan from Latin America showed up at a liturgy in the States, the local priest refused to show up to church that day.

                  • Perhaps the manner in which the presiding
                    bishops of Alexandria, Cyprus and Greece
                    ‘recognised’ the OCU was carefully chosen
                    to provide a measure of plausible deniability,
                    should the need arise to distance said churches from it?

                  • It’s all pretty maddening to try and figure out, and it’s unfortunate that this has to be the case, especially with everything else going on in the world the last couple of years.

                    One of my best friends is getting married in a few months (in a GOA parish), I’m in the wedding and it really annoys/pains me that I may not be able to take communion (pending my spiritual fathers approval) in ANOTHER Orthodox Church because of what is going on thousands of miles away on a different continent because I’m in ROCOR.

                • When Constantinople was a serious
                  Patriarchate and Kiev’s bishop was the Rus Metropolitan,
                  and all the bishops at the Council of Florence except one
                  (St Mark of Ephesus) had signed the articles of the Unia,
                  did all their parishioners become heretics upon the instant?
                  I don’t think so – though I am open to correction…

                  • I believe you are correct. However, if the parishioners accepted the articles of Unia knowingly and voluntarily would they then become heretics? Yes, and we would all be Roman Catholics now. We are sheep, but we are rational sheep and when our shepherds lead us astray we must separate ourselves from them. What St Mark did is binding on all Orthodox people. To celebrate what he did but not emulate him when our time comes is cowardly.

                    • Indeed. But has Unia been re-proclaimed?
                      I don’t think so. Not yet, at any rate.
                      But if and when it is, who will the flock listen to?
                      Those who have left already and are no longer visible?
                      Or those who have waited to choose that very moment
                      to emulate St Mark – and on precisely the same grounds?

                  • Joseph Lipper says

                    A council was convened in 1450 by the emperor Constantine Palaeologus that condemned the false “Council of Florence”. It also deposed the apostate patriarch Gregory III Mammas, and put in his place the Patriarch Athanasius II. While St. Mark of Ephesus’ writings beautifully condemn the false teaching of Florence, that false union itself wasn’t officially settled as heresy until 1450.

                    Yet the Russian Church, like most everyone else, still continued to commemorate and be in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople even during its apostasy. The Russian Church didn’t break communion with Constantinople until 1467, that’s twenty-six years after Metropolitan Isidore was imprisoned. By that time, Constantinople was no longer apostate.

                    The thing is, Metropolitan Isidore was a foreigner in Russia. He was Greek. So there was naturally a resistance from the Russians, especially from the Muscovite Prince Vasily II, in accepting what was essentially a foreign Greek political union with Rome. The Russian bishops simply refused to commemorate the Pope of Rome as head of their church, as they were instructed by Isidore, and instead they continued to commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople as their head.

                    It should be noted, however, that the Russian bishop, Abraham of Suzdal, also signed the false “Council of Florence”, even using his own special Chinese ink so that his Slavic signature stands out and is more well-preserved today than all the others:


                    • The Unia (concluded in 1439) was officially proclaimed in St. Sophia in 1452 with the participation of Emperor.

                      Russian Church denounced Unia in 1441 and 1448. Constantinople after playing some games (like trying to reimpose its jurisdiction with support from Catholic king of Poland) repented and denounced Unia in 1474, this was confirmed by a council of four patriarchs in 1484 .

        • Jane,

          Almost all Russian parishes here have bi-lingual services unless they are convert parishes in which case it is all English. My advice is to find a ROCOR or Serbian parish (where, in my experience, the same arrangement prevails) since if you do, then you will likely have found a “forever home” rather than another temporary arrangement depending upon the rate of decay in a modernist parish.

          I would strongly discourage you from going to a new calendar Greek parish or to an OCA parish outside the DOS.

          • Just a dad says

            “I would strongly discourage you from going to a new calendar Greek parish or to an OCA parish outside the DOS.”

            I understand the expedience of making blanket statements, but I hope those reading would also understand that there bad apples in the OCA inside the DOS (I can name one, for certain, from personal experience) and good apples outside of the DOS (I have personal experience with one of those as well).

          • I will look into this. What is the DOS? Many thanks.

            • Diocese of the South, one of the OCA dioceses more resistant to liberalism.

              • Archbishop Alexander has some very liberal tendencies. A strange diocese to put him in charge of.

                • Gail Sheppard says

                  Interestingly, he’s not as one-dimensional as he seems. Yes, definitely liberal. Intelligent, which makes him interesting. Fair. Not afraid to make up his own mind. And monastic minded, which I didn’t expect. There’s certainly enough there to connect with the South.

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    Gail speaks correctly regarding His Eminence. A complex but highly intelligent and monastically-minded bishop indeed.

                    America could use more like him.

                    • Just a dad says

                      I wouldn’t argue about the comments re: liberal, intelligent, monastically minded, etc. The last part is a little bit of a head scratcher for me. I have my own concerns about the laissez-faire approach regarding a few parishes in the DOS that have clearly run off the rails. Also, I’ve not seen much explained regarding the position of the OCA (and the broader Orthodox church, for that matter) and how that squares with Archbishop Alexander’s fawning over Origen who he believes to be a Saint.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      I’ve never witnessed Archbishop Alexander “fawn over Origen.” What I meant by being “monastically minded”, is he talked about his spiritual father Elder Aimilianos, for a good hour on one of his visits to our parish and the time he apparently spent in a monastery.

                      You’re going to have to be specific when you talk about “the laissez-faire approach regarding a few parishes in the DOS that have clearly run off the rails.” What parishes?

                    • Just a dad says

                      @Gail – I thought about this after I posted and should probably have worded my reply differently. I have no reason to believe Archbishop Alexander is not sincere, intelligent, devout, and monastically minded. What I should have said is that I agree “America could use more like him”, but preferably in a monastery praying and not necessarily in a position of hierarchical authority. As you know better than I, the DOS was in a bit of bind after Abp Dimitri reposed and chose Alexander largely because, IMHO, Fr. Gerasim was not ready. (And I’ve heard from one member of the metropolitan council that some of the Synod were not overly supportive of a hieromonk as a successor. I on the other hand am a pretty big fan of Fr Gerasim, his awful Covid letter of the Spring of 2020 not withstanding.)

                      As for Archbishop Alexander and his thoughts on Origen, there is at least 1 video online of him discussing his views, in detail, and states very clearly that he believes Origen is a Saint and the church got that decision wrong. The fact that it came via a canon of an ecumenical council did not seem to carry sufficient weight for Alexander. I am too tired and it’s too late to look it up again – but anyone can find it if they are sufficiently motivated.

                      As for the parishes, that is probably not productive to detail here. Suffice to say that my last private conversation with Fr Gerasim came a couple months before my family left one of those problematic parishes and I do regret withholding my full perspectives from him – out of “respect” for the parish priest. Too much to go into here. I am not referring to any type of financial or extreme misconduct, just a parish that has been allowed to “go its own way” in full view of the leadership in Dallas.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      RE: “I agree “America could use more like him”, but preferably in a monastery praying and not necessarily in a position of hierarchical authority.”

                      You know, even he might agree with you. Being a bishop has got to be one of the most difficult jobs in the world because you’ve got people coming at you from all sides. I have seen him exist the dust of confusion and know exactly what to do. Pretty impressive to watch.

                      Thanks, JAD. About the other thing, I don’t think he wrote that letter. Can’t tell you how I know but I do.

                      P.S. I think you can still talk with Bishop Gerasim about your concerns, although it sounds like you’ve moved on. A guy named Milos, whom I got to meet the day before he became ill, used to handle financial things for Archbishop Demetrios. Every diocese needs a “Milos” but he was one of a kind.

              • Thank you.

            • George Michalopulos says

              diocese of the South.

        • Attending Church on Sunday is a non-optional part of being a Christian. I pray you find a parish to call home soon.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Katherine, solve et coagula? Very perceptive!

  2. Deacon John says

    I wouldn’t worry about it . When Our Lord Jesus Christ comes back He will set everything right. We just gotta hang on, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

  3. I would say that “theologians” took over the Roman Catholics all the way back in the 800s. That’s when you started to see them fall into heresy, and after the schism they were free to go full speed ahead on their scholasticism producing such “wonderful” ideas as Papal Infallibility and Indulgences. Roman Catholicism has always viewed theology as something to be rationalized and discovered, is it any surprise that they would fall victim to this stuff with that outlook?

    Orthodoxy is far less prone to such nonsense precisely because it’s so hard to change anything in addition to God’s promise that the gates of Hades shall never prevail against it. This isn’t the first time we’ve had droves of heretics, remember that during the time of St Athanasius most of the church were actually Arians. Yet, through struggle, perseverance, and the Holy Spirit Orthodoxy was restored. Have faith brothers and sisters, find more faithful parishes if you must but going schismatic as some have suggested is exactly what the enemy wants.

  4. Charlie Patseas says

    As Paul made tents, clergy need day jobs not yayaland. The more you pay clergy,they more they veer off topic and pontificate on unneeded things. In Greece, this happened after WW2 when the government began paying priest salaries. Before that priests had to pay their own way with day jobs. In Greece, the dumbest become priests or teachers because they have the easiest college admission and at least it is a college degree. In USA, same is true for teachers (lowest SAT scores). The Pomfret textbooks were concise and brief, not endless blather like Scum Vodkomirs.

  5. In Orthodoxy, a theologian is someone who prays. And it’s not a lot more complicated than that. Hence the tale of the Three Startsy. One of my favorite Orthodox theologians is Vladimir Lossky who wrote the classic, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.

    Beware innovation. There is nothing new under the sun.

  6. Ronda Wintheiser says

    I find it a bit ironic to be commiserating with the Roman folks.

    They started it, after all.

    • Gail Sheppard says

      We have to own our own stuff, but I agree, what we’re going through now is remarkably similar to the Catholic Church. It’s interesting that both Churches started in the same space and time and in spite of the many years that divide us, ended up in the same space and time.

      God must be trying to get our attention.

      That’s why I’m not sure we’re quite at the end yet. Maybe Jesus didn’t know the date and time because it was going to depend entirely on us. There have been many generations who have had to don sackcloth and sit in ashes not knowing what God was going to do with them.

      Maybe this is our sackcloth moment.

      For us, however, it’s like God turned on the light and we’re seeing things we’ve never seen before. The people of the dark must be really alarmed as they can’t as easily hide in the shadows anymore.

      If God were done, He would be done. I’m not sure we’d see it coming. But for some reason God is opening our collective eyes so we can see what’s happening around us, and truthfully, within us, as well. At the end of the day, it probably matters less what happens (it’s up to God, anyway) and more important how we handle what we are shown.

      Repentance is a huge part of this.

      One of the things I really admired about Metropolitan Jonah is that he repented for all the bishops (and, of course, for himself) at the 15th All-American Council of the Orthodox Church in America, in Pittsburgh, PA. Not sure all the bishops liked it but it was necessary and having been forced to acknowledge the financial scandal, they were largely successful in putting it behind them. (What they later did to Metropolitan Jonah, however, was horrendous and they should have released him upon request. People aren’t going to forget that.)

      This is a long way of saying I’m following the first bishop who repents like Metropolitan Jonah.

      I must say, that’s what disappointed me about Metropolitan Joseph. If he was guilty, he should have repented before he retired.

      If he wasn’t guilty, he should have stood up and fought. Because the way he slinked off the stage like that let everyone down. He was probably advised to do it, but it didn’t serve anyone. It made him look guilty in spite of his many protestations to the contrary.

      He should have taken the more difficult path, whatever it was. Instead he taught the rest of us to not to stand up and be accountable for what we’ve done or been accused of; but to shrug our shoulders and disappear after we’ve hurt someone.

      And I don’t mean her. If you do the deed, whatever it is, you’re accountable for your own actions, especially if you’re approaching middle age and you continue doing it for years. We did NOT need to be brought into this drama. If she needed to “let go of her secret” she should have seen her priest or talked to her therapist. We have our own sins to deal with. We shouldn’t have to deal with hers (or with his, if that’s the case). We can’t absolve either of them of anything, nor should we have to. She should have left us out of it.

      I think one of the greatest sins is to drag someone else into it in a way where it hurts another person; let alone a whole Church.

      Unlike her, however, Metropolitan Joseph is accountable to his archdiocese. People deserve to know the truth (from him). If the truth is she is making it all up, he needed to stay where he was because of the commitment he made to the archdiocese and to Antioch. He didn’t just waltz into this role of his own accord nor is it honorable for him to be able to waltz out.

      If he is guilty, his denying it is a travesty. Again, not because of her, but because it was a betrayal to the people he served.

      That’s the one thing I think is seriously lacking in our Church. We’re very good at going through the motions but we don’t quite get the traction we need spiritually where the rubber meets the road.

      • George D. Karcazes says

        Transparency & Accountability. These are not just words. They require action and it will not come from those who police themselves. It must come from the laity who know that police officers (and lawyers, doctors, teachers, bishops, clergy etc., et al) never do a good job of policing themselves. Ecclesiastical courts should actually be used. The rules should be transparent. They must insure procedural due process for all parties. And, they must include qualified lay people who are truly independent and free to act without fear or favor to prosecute the guilty and exonerate the innocent.

        • Gail Sheppard says

          Yeah, I don’t think I said anything that disagrees with what you’re saying, being what some would describe as a very independent lay person. But some people are more transparent and upfront than others. Different use of the word.

        • This is a Western, juridical point of view. Bishops are accountable to their synod. This is the way of The Church. The lay people you suggest would be under the authority of the bishop who is on trial. Concepts such as due process are foreign to The Church. If the synod will not correct a bishop, it is because they have concluded that the bishop has done nothing wrong, or that the entire synod is corrupt.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Mr Karcazes, I agree with you that something must be done. Having said that, I would look to the OCA as it was in the bad old days in which we had a Metropolitan Council and then an Executive Committee. They would override the Holy Synod by ‘going into Executive Committe” to discuss this, that, or the other thing.

          And as we came to find out during the tenure of Jonah, the MC itself was far from transparent.

          But, you are right. Things need to change. First, the laymen themselves need to up their game re spirituality and rectitude.

          Let’s not forget that catechesis in the GOA is woeful at best. An example: when Roe v Wade was overturned, the joy in my OCA parish was palpable. Not so in a parish of another jurisdiction. In fact, among certain elements there was genuine outrage.

          I’m sorry, but outlawing the dismemberment of babies and/or the crushing of their skulls in utero is Orthodoxy 101. Until we get catechesis straight, I would hesitate to putting the fate of bishops –even errant bishops such as Elpi–in the hands of secularist/modernist laymen.

          Having said that, I do appreciate your contribution to this blog.

  7. “He was [almost certainly] advised to do it…”

    “Go on Joe … take one for the team”
    and leave the team wounded and vulnerable
    as another scapegoat’s blood stains the water
    and the sharks still circle…

    One question remains: Who’s next?

    • Gail Sheppard says

      Who’s next? I guess whoever next challenges Elpi.

      Until the Antiochian Board of Trustee removes the people who have a history of doing anything (break the law, for example) for a buck, they’ll offer anyone up. Won’t matter who it is. If Christ came down, Himself, they’d probably offer him up too. . . for a price.

      They’re the Judases of our time.

      And if the State Department and Biden’s handlers want Elpi where he is, and why wouldn’t they, I can see them throwing a few bucks their way to get rid of someone who might get in his way.

      Right before Met. Philip died he put some pretty unsavory characters in high places where they could not be easily removed. (He often said he would know exactly when he would die and he did! In retrospect, it’s not hard to figure out why.)

      I am more and more convinced Elpi was specifically groomed for his role as Archbishop of the GOA, that Bartholomew receives/received some type of compensation, and perhaps even the forgiveness of sins (past crimes).

      Now where are the Greeks on getting to the bottom of where all that money went that wasn’t spent on St. Nicholas? Has Jerry Dimitriou, Former GOA Finance Director, said nothing to the Feds? Or has he talked but the Feds don’t want anyone to know so they’re keeping him on ice longer than expected?

      Met. Joseph kind of stepped in it. He challenged Elpi’s position on Belya. The State Department would want a Belya over a Slavic Vicariate. Joseph is not a liar, but he’s also not a fighter, unfortunately.

      • Met. Joseph kind of stepped in it. He challenged Elpi’s position on Belya. The State Department would want a Belya over a Slavic Vicariate. Joseph is not a liar, but he’s also not a fighter, unfortunately.

        I do believe that Met. Joseph fell on his sword on our behalf, not just those in the Antiochian Archdiocese but all Orthodox in America. Had Belya been promoted to the episcopate then there almost certainly would have been a schism in America. For that I think we should all be grateful to Met. Joseph, whatever his faults.

        But he’s also not a fighter, unfortunately

        My prayer is that whoever is chosen to replace him is a fighter. There have been some solid bishops put in place as of late, not just in America but across the Orthodox world, let’s hope that continues here in the States. If we don’t have strong bishops willing to come to bat for us, then we’ll be fed to the wolves.

        • Whatever else may or may not be true, I don’t think it is at all fair to say Met. JOSEPH wasn’t, or isn’t, a “fighter.” With the exception of Covid (which he clearly regretted and was determined not to repeat), I’d say he held the line admirably against those who would pervert and destroy the flock entrusted to him.

          Which is to say that he fought for others, though not for himself.

          • Gail Sheppard says

            He’s not a fighter when someone above him tells him to do something. It’s that obedience thing about him.

            • Again, whatever else may or may not be true, it is precisely such (perceived) weakness that overcomes the world.

              Blessed are the meek…

              This world is powerless against virtue.

          • I didn’t mean to insinuate that Met. Joseph was not a fighter, I’m sure he is. I saw him here in Atlanta only a week or so before the news broke and he very clearly loves the Church and the laity.

      • George Michalopulos says

        At the end of the day, I think we should all be grateful to His Eminence for leading the fight against the insipid “Slavic vicariate” in all its particulars.

        It was a significant “shot across the bow” to the GOA that regardless of the grandiosity of its delusions, it’s not that powerful after all.

        My opinion.

  8. George Michalopulos says

    Meanwhile, Archbishop Vigano continues to speak the truth about the globalist conspiracy: