We are going to be publishing more pieces about this. Some coming from our Catholic friends who are just as concerned as we are about how we arrived at this juncture. What they have had to do to prepare for this insanity will astound you.
So this is just a small taste of what is to come.
(ZENIT News / Rome, 10.09.2024) reports: Next May, Pope Francis will undertake a significant trip to Turkey, an event that promises to be both ecumenical as well as politically relevant. This journey, announced by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I, will commemorate the 1700 years of the first Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, held in 325 in present day Iznik, Turkey.
Bartholomew I revealed that both religious leaders have agreed to celebrate this important anniversary at the end of May. Up to now, the Holy Father had mentioned this event as a possibility, but now the Patriarch has confirmed the date.
Pope Francis Will Visit Turkey in May 2025, Says Patriarch of Constantinople | ZENIT – English
***
I’m not sure how Bartholomew can confirm anything for the pope. Let’s see what the pope had to say to a delegation Bartholomew sent to the Vatican in June about the event. . .
“2025 will also mark the 1700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. It is my hope that the commemoration of this highly significant event will inspire all believers in Christ the Lord to testify together to their faith and their desire for greater communion. In particular, I am pleased that the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity have begun to reflect on how to join in commemorating this anniversary, and I thank His Holiness Bartholomew for inviting me to celebrate it near the place where the Council met. It is a trip that I truly wish to make.”
***
I found the excerpt from Cogwriter (see below) of interest. It’s not an Orthodox piece. It’s not a RC piece. I went searching to see how the rest of the Christian world is looking at this meeting and this article popped up. It’s from The Church of God, which I think is a Pentecostal denomination. It surprised me because they have given so much thought to this “unity” idea and came to the same conclusion we did. It’s a mistake. It’s also a ruse. This is about leveraging Christianity in a One-World-Government. The Gospel will be replaced. Bibles will be rewritten. Instead of the Beatitudes, we will be reciting things about the care of the environment as good “Christians.”
We look at everything from our present POV. We think things won’t change. But they do.
Apparently, even the Pentecostals are talking about what a mistake this is. That Bartholomew doesn’t see it really shouldn’t come as a surprise, given how badly he wants it to define his legacy. He’s thinking only of himself, per usual. Has he called an Orthodox Council to discuss this? It may precipitate the Church’s complete undoing if he moves forward. I suspect we’ll just ignore it, as we do most things he does. But now even AI is calling him the “spiritual leader of 300 million Orthodox worldwide,” which is patently ridiculous but we’ve done what about it, exactly? Nothing.
He seems certain the pope will attend this meeting. I’m not so sure that will be the case. Unless Francis can come out of this as “the” pope, it’s not going to happen. A problem Bartholomew is too arrogant to consider, apparently.
They both seem to think the Catholic Church’s 3-year foray into “synodality” is the lynchpin for making this happen. Yet it was such a disaster on so many fronts. They had “synods” of every variety and the end result was a great deal of confusion. I would not be surprised to learn they used the word “synod” more often than they used any other word hoping it’s frequent use would belie the fact that there can be no Holy Synod in the Catholic Church.
They don’t have patriarchs of independent Churches. They have a pope and they’re stuck with him. That they still want a pope is beyond my understanding, but I think most of them do. They don’t want independent Churches sharing one faith. And we don’t want someone like Bartholomew, as an example, becoming a pope.
Nothing has changed since 1054.
What’s changed is our world and the desire of some to run it, including our Churches. We are part of their 2030 plan. You don’t think so? Take a look at the World Council of Churches Strategic Plan 2023-2030, and I quote: “A plan that aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and focuses on gender and racial justice, climate crisis response, and economic justice. Churches to be key partners in the UN’s 2030 Agenda, which includes providing resources for public health, social protection, and climate mitigation and adaptation.”
***
Excerpt cogwriter.com:
“Yes, Francis wants full unity with the Eastern Orthodox Catholics. He also wants it with the Protestants and various Protestants also want to be part of this 1700th anniversary celebration (see also Pope re-institutes ‘Patriarch of the West title, while the Lutherans hope Orthodox ‘Creation day’ will help ecumenical efforts).
Regarding the 1700th anniversary, back in 325 A.D., the sun-worshiping Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea. The Roman and Eastern Orthodox Catholics consider that to have been the “first ecumenical council.”
The Eastern Orthodox contend that there were seven ecumenical councils and that an eighth one will come.
The seventh one was the second Council of Nicea of 787.
The third Council of Nicea might be considered to be the eighth ecumenical council by the Eastern Orthodox. As it turns out, one of their saints put forth the following prediction:
Saint Nelios the Myrrh-Gusher (died 1592): During that time the Eighth and last Ecumenical Synod will take place, which will satisfy the contentions of the heretics…(Tzima Otto H. The Great Monarch and WWIII in Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Scriptural Prophecies. Verenika Press, Rock City (SC), 2000, p. 111)
By satisfying “heretics”, clearly this council compromises and changes the religion, which will be called “Catholic”.
Yet, some Orthodox look forward to this, but also expect an antipope near then:
Helen Tzima Otto (20th century): We have been told time and time again through the prophets that the Great Monarch and Papa Angelorum … will convene the 8th Ecumenical Council, which will reunify all Christians … The Emperor will spend three years waging wars against the non-Christian nations … {later will be} the end time schism of the Roman Catholic Church of the End Times and the rise of an antipope (Tzima Otto, pp. xxv, 103, 122).
Such unity will be dangerous for both the Church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox. Signs and lying wonders may be a deceptive factor in this occurrence (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:9).
Notice that one Orthodox writer worries that it may come about because of apparitions claiming to be Mary:
Peter Jackson (20th century): To which Mary are Muslims and Protestants being drawn?… Rome began to see her more and more as a “goddess,” a fourth Hypostasis of the Trinity…Today, as heterodox Christians become more and more ecumenist and work toward creating a “One World Church,” the search has begun for a Mary of universal recognition, one who will appeal not only to those who bear the name Christian, but apparently to Muslims and others as well, just as attempts are likewise being made to identify the “new Christ” with the Muslim concept of their coming Mahdi and with the Messiah still awaited by the Jews. This, of course, will be no Christ at all but the antichrist (Jackson P. ORTHODOX LIFE., No. I, 1997., Brotherhood of Saint Job of Pochaev at Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, N.Y. pp. 18-22).
Since the Bishop of Rome already has stated that the Vatican will compromise doctrinally in order to get the Orthodox to join (as I was told privately when I was at the office of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople back in May 2008), the Eastern Orthodox are justifiably concerned that such unity will take place. Furthermore, Roman Catholics are right to be concerned that since the Vatican has already stated that it will compromise for the sake of unity with the Eastern Orthodox, that compromise will occur in Rome for such unity.
Notice what two Roman Catholic priests wrote:
Priest O’Connor (20th century?): This final false prophet will be a bishop of the church and will lead all religions into becoming one…
Priest Paul Kramer (21st century): The errors of Orthodoxy and of Protestantism will be embraced by that false church, it will be an ecumenical church because the Anti-Pope will be recognized by the world—not by the faithful, but by the world—by the secular world and the secular governments…
The Anti-Pope will be recognized as the legitimate Pope of the “church,” and the legitimate head of the Vatican State. That “church” will be united with all the false religions. They will be united together under the universality of the Masonic umbrella. In that motley ecumenical union will be the established religion of the so-called civilized world. This is how we will get into the time of great persecution such as the world has never seen (2012 and the Rise of the Secret Sect, pp. 171, 173).
Notice that both Roman and Eastern Orthodox sources are concerned that such unity will result in the rise of the final Antichrist.
Oddly, certain Orthodox and Roman Catholic prophets seem to look forward to the time that Babylon will be re-established:
Monk Leontios (died 543): Rejoice, oh most unhappy one, oh New Babylon!…You, who are the New Babylon rejoice now on behalf of Zion! New Babylon, dance, bounce and leap greatly, make known even those in Haydes what a Grace you have received. Because that peace which was yours to enjoy in times past, and which God has deprived you of in course of battles, receive it once more from the hand of an Angel…oh, the City of Seven Hills the dominion will be yours… (Tzima Otto, pp. 82-83)
Abbott Joachim (died 1202)…A remarkable Pope will be seated on the pontifical throne, under special protection of the angels. Holy and full of gentleness, he shall undo all wrong, he shall recover the states of the Church, and reunite the exiled temporal powers. As the only Pastor, he shall reunite the Eastern to the Western Church…This holy Pope shall be both pastor and reformer. Through him the East and West shall be in ever lasting concord. The city of Babylon shall then be the head and guide of the world. Rome, weakened in temporal power, shall forever preserve her spiritual dominion, and shall enjoy great peace…At the beginning, in order to bring these happy results, having need of a powerful assistance, this holy Pontiff will ask the cooperation of the generous monarch of France (Great Monarch) (Connor E. Prophecy for Today. Imprimatur + A.J. Willinger, Bishop of Monterey-Fresno; Reprint: Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford (IL), 1984, pp. 31-33).
Yet, according to the Bible, the Babylonian power will fall during the Day of the Lord (Revelation 18:2). Since the Babylon in the Book of Revelation is a city on seven hills (Revelation 17:5-9), this is referring to a city such as Rome. And this is known by Roman Catholic scholars.
Since so many biblical and non-biblical writings seem to warn against a coming unity that seems to be being discussed by Rome and Constantinople, it is not correct to state that it is only “fanatics” that should be concerned. . ”
It still looks like this third council will take place.
Now some may say, they believe ecumenical unity between the Catholics of Rome, the Eastern Orthodox Catholics, and Protestants is a good thing. And if they were intent on contending earnestly for “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (June 3), it could be.
But it is not.
That said, the Church of Rome wants more than unity among the trinitarians, it also continues to push an interfaith agenda.
For an example of that, notice the following:
Catholic church in Portland hosts Tibetan Buddhist monks for talk on non-Christian meditation
Tualatin Resurrection Catholic Parish in the Archdiocese of Portland also raised money to support the Buddhist monastery in India.
June 28, 2024
A Catholic church in Oregon is promoting non-Christian practices of prayer and is helping raise funds for a Buddhist monastery in India.
On Wednesday, June 26, Resurrection Catholic Parish in Tualatin hosted a talk by Tibetan Buddhist monks on non-Christian “meditation.” The event included a sale of handcrafted items made by the monks in an effort to raise money for their monastery in India. …
LifeSiteNews also asked why Resurrection Catholic Parish is raising money for monks who are not even Christian, and whether this is not a form of endorsement for another religion. It was also inquired whether the event was hosted with the knowledge and permission of Archbishop Sample.
No reply was forthcoming from either the parish or the diocese before publication. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-church-hosts-tibetan-buddhist-monks-for-talk-on-non-christian-meditation/?utm_source=most_recent&utm_campaign=usa
This looks like another step towards a one-world religion.
Those promoting such simply do not wish to embrace original Christianity.
***
Misha says
PS:
Although I understand the concern and speculation given the characters involved in the dynamics of the Nicea 2025 event, if it materializes, I don’t believe it will be an actual concelebration, though Francis may be present at the service and perhaps close to the altar, but hopefully not within.
The reason I say this is I’m not sure Bartholomew has given any clear indication of a planned “reunion” nor proposed any comprehensive Act that I’m aware of that would begin that union and address the logistical and canonical, let alone theological and ecclesiological, issues this would entail. These are two different, mutually exclusive faiths. Any Athonite scholar or Russian expert in canon law and Church history will tell you no different.
Francis himself has repeatedly insisted that any union with the Orthodox was a non-starter without the ROC.
What’s more, the ROC has put Pat. Bartholomew in an unenviable position by severing communion with him and all those who recognize the OCU. If C’pol merely tried to muddy the waters speaking about the “lifting of anathemas” that occurred in the 1960’s, etc., attempting to minimize the significance of an actual concelebration, I do not think it would work now. Due to C’pol’s actions and Moscow’s response, the pressure on non-Greeks to follow Bartholomew’s lead will be far less, if there is any at all.
The new Unia would simply constitute a clear negative criterion for Orthodoxy enacted by an already highly controversial personality who has been marginalized by half of world Orthodoxy. He may take some Greeks with him and cause some schisms within Greek local churches, but that’s about size of it. And the ecclesiology and canon law will be clear about what has happened.
In fact, the Antiochians would probably simply cease intercommunion with the new Uniates but otherwise ignore the situation completely and let time work its magic.
After all, these things pass.
Gail Sheppard says
They’ve been planning it since 2014. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/may/documents/papa-francesco_20140525_terra-santa-dichiarazione-congiunta.html
It was the whole reason behind the 3 year venture of the Catholic Church into the world of synodality, a term recently coined to describe the process of “collaboration and discernment that takes place within the Church; a way of life that involves speaking and listening to one another and the Holy Spirit to address the Church’s issues and fulfill its mission (it’s mission being unity).”
“The Synod of Bishops” which took place in Rome from October 4–29, 2023, brought together Catholic bishops, priests, and lay people from around the world to discuss synodality. The heads of the assembly of the Synod of Bishops was Pope Francis, Rev. Ann Burghardt, general secretary of the Lutheran World Federation, Anglican Archbishop Justin Welby of Canterbury, Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Aphrem II, and Bartholomew. There is a picture in the link.
This effort was to overcome the obstacle identified in The Chieti Document between primacy and synodality in the first millennium Churches of the East and West. They believe they’ve addressed it and made the announcement in front of 1800 people in St. Peters Square.
https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/ecumenical-gathering-at-the-vatican-a-little-assisi
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-10/pope-ecumenical-vigil-synod-christian-unity-vatican-ii-anniversa.html
Brendan says
“This effort was to overcome the obstacle identified in The Chieti Document between primacy and synodality in the first millennium Churches of the East and West. They believe they’ve addressed it and made the announcement in front of 1800 people in St. Peters Square.”
‘Addressing a problem’ does not mean ‘solving a problem’
Have they put the primacy of power claimed by Rome
back into its bottle and replaced it with
the primacy of honour?
If not, the problem remains unsolved.
There also remains the Filioque,
and lots of other stuff…
Gail Sheppard says
Of course! Nothing has been resolved. As I said a few days ago, 1054 might as well be 2024. Nothing has changed. But this “effort” is to fool people into believing the problem of primacy no longer exists. The Catholic Church is now “synodal” like the Orthodox Church!!!! It’s ridiculous.
Brendan says
Little Red Riding Hood: “Granny got big teeth!”
Michael Steele says
Schism is the work of the Devil. The Triumph of Satan. Rationalization is the Playground of Satan. The Great Commission? Only a suggestion? Some think so.
Ronda Wintheiser says
You know, in the historicist view of the Apocalypse, the Antichrist already arrived. And if I understand it correctly — and there were some Fathers who believed and taught this — it was the Pope. The Papacy.
Do you guys know who Jonathan Photius is? He has written EXTENSIVELY about this.
Jonathan Photius’ views on the end times are “historicist”; he believes the prophet Mohammed was the fulfillment of all of the prophecies of the “beast” and “little horn” in Daniel and Revelation. Other Orthodox monastics and theologians throughout the centuries have written on that view (not that many, as the west, but they still held that view).
Many of the church fathers were “Futurists”, i.e. they looked for the Antichrist and a period of tribulation to occur in the future. All of the Greek and Latin commentaries through the 8th centuries were for the most part futurist.
It was only after the 1204 Latin Crusades did we start to see some of the Greek Orthodox commentaries looked towards “fulfilled eschatology” primarily viewing the 2 beasts of Revelation as Islam (Mohammed) and the Papacy. We are now finding at least 20 commentaries after the fall of Constantinople that wrote from this perspective. But it seemed to die out after the Greek Asia Minor catastrophe and the 1917 Russian Revolution, a shift in mindset changed back to Futurist.
Gail Sheppard says
Exactly right, Ronda.
George Michalopulos says
Ronda, I’ve been intending to write something about the Fourth Crusade for quite a while now. FWIW, the Byzantines were not victims, the Crusaders were hired by Byzantine insiders to divert their intentions from Jerusalem in order to help “sort out” a dynastic situation.
That’s the thumbnail. More to follow.
P.S. I also don’t accept the Protestant view that the Pope is the Antichrist. More to follow on that front as well.
Misha says
In a “historicist” narrative, I would nominate the papacy for the Antichrist, Muhammad for the false prophet and the Quran as the beast. The resolution being that everyone, in the end, is cast into the lake of fire; i.e., are destroyed by the energy of the Holy Spirit/Christ. In this scenario, the return of Christ would be the universal prevalence of Christianity (with or without a physical Second Coming at the culmination).
I’m not saying I agree with this narrative in its particulars, but it does have a certain correspondence to what has and may transpire. But I would note that the possibility of a culmination without a physical return of Christ reminds me of the Reform Judaism teaching about a “messianic age” rather than the actual appearance of a Messiah. I’m more of a literalist than that and I think that is more in keeping with Tradition.
Brendan says
Is the Pope a Catholic? I don’t think this one is.
And I know plenty Catholics who agree…
Question Two: Is Bartholomew Orthodox?
Discuss…
Gail Sheppard says
Let’s put it this way: If Bartholomew is Orthodox, 2/3(+) of the Church is not. He has, in fact, nothing in common with the vast majority of the Church.
In 2017, when many of the bishops, including from the OCA, were invited by Russia to meet, they all showed up EXCEPT for Bartholomew (who was invited) because he felt it was more important for him to be in Israel to protest Trump’s decision to make Jerusalem the capital.
Or so he said.
Interestingly, on the second day of this Council in Moscow, the bishops had resolved to heal the schism between the schismatic church in Ukraine (now the OCU), headed by former Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev and All Ukraine, with the Russian Orthodox Church. They did this the “Orthodox way,” where the offending party, in this case Philaret, repented to the Russian Orthodox Church who had previously deposed him but were willing to take him back for the good of all involved.
In other words, the “Orthodox” way.
Then what does Bartholomew do? He goes into the Russian territory of Ukraine and tricks Philaret into changing course by promising him he would make him a patriarch, which was a lie. Philaret fell for it, unfortunately, openly admitting he had been deceived much to his chagrin. The rest, as they say, is history.
***
Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church adopts a Resolution ‘On the Appeal of the former Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev and All Ukraine’
News
On the second day of its work, the Bishops’ Council, held in Moscow from November 29 to December 2, 2017, heard a written appeal of the former Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev and All Ukraine to His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia and the episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The letter dated November 16, 2017, contains a request to restore the Eucharistic and devotional communion with Christians in the Ukrainian church schism and repeal ‘all the decisions on bans and excommunications… for the sake of achieving God-commanded peace between Orthodox Christians of the same faith and reconciliation between nations’. The letter concludes with the following words: ‘I ask your forgiveness for everything in which I have sinned by word, deed and all my feelings and I also sincerely forgive all from my heart’.
The Resolution adopted as a result of the discussion states that the Council sees the appeal with satisfaction as a step towards overcoming the schism and restoring the church communion on the part of those who once fell away from the unity with the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
The Bishops’ Council members stressed, ‘Today’s duty both of those who are in the Church, and those who seek to reunite with her, lies in the hourly feat of mutual love and self-renunciation so that the long standing alienation may be overcome, putting our trust in the mercy and charity of Jesus Christ our Lord and God Who has destroyed the dividing wall of enmity. The resolute rejection of violence and capture of churches, the rejection of mutual accusations and reproaches, mutual forgiveness of each other’s old grievances – these are the healing means of self-sacrifice and love of Christ which alone can help restore the unity of the canonical Church in Ukraine’.
It is not for the first time that the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church addresses the problem of healing the church schism in Ukraine. Thus, in 2008, the Council’s Resolution ‘On the Unity of the Church’ approved the efforts of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to overcome the schism through dialogue based on ‘faithfulness to the canonical tradition of the Church and desire to bring back to church communion those who separated themselves from salvific unity’. And the Message of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of July 26, 2010, to the Orthodox Christians in Ukraine, who remain outside unity with the Holy Church, stated, ‘What can be more desirable than the return of fallen-away brothers to the salvific fold of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? It would be a true triumph of Orthodoxy, a triumph of the love of Christ! We pray for the approach of the hour when those who have diverted into the schism may wish freely and unconstrainedly to return to the fold of the Church and for the longed-for day that will bring peace and salvation to many exhausted souls. And we believe that it will certainly come’.
For conducting further negotiations with those who have fallen away from church communion, the Council established a commission, which includes Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk (chairman), Metropolitan Antoniy of Borispol and Brovary (Ukrainian Orthodox Church), Metropolitan Feodore of Podolsk and Gorodok, Metropolitan Mitrofan of Lugansk and Alchevsk (Ukrainian Orthodox Church), Archpriest Nikolay Balashov, Archpriest Nikolay Danilevich (Ukrainian Orthodox Church), and Archpriest Igor Yakimchuk (secretary).
DECR Communication Service https://old.mospat.ru/en/2017/11/30/news153579/
Brendan says
I concur.
Joseph Lipper says
Metropolitan Filaret repented and sought forgiveness in 2017 as you point out, but he was also still insisting on Russia granting autocephaly to Ukraine as a means to heal the schism. In 2017, there was war in Ukraine, and Russia had just annexed Crimea.
In 2017, the response of the Russian Church was still no to autocephaly, and therefore still a no to restoring communion with the former Metropolitan of Kiev.
Gail Sheppard says
The Russian Church was under no obligation to grant him autocephaly. Have you seen his bio?! Even Bartholomew wouldn’t grant him autocephaly but he lied to him and said he would. He told him there would be a patriarchate of Ukraine and that he would be the head. All he had to do is give him everything that was legitimately his to Bartholomew, which he did.
The point isn’t that he wanted autocephaly. Of course, he did.
Did he get it? No. He was promised by Bartholomew that he would be the patriarch. You know what Bartholomew told him after he snookered him? He told him that at the Ecumenical Patriarchate, they would “think of him” as the patriarch, even though, of course, he wasn’t!
But even that wasn’t true, was it, Joseph? You’ve go to know this story as well as I do by now. Bartholomew made Epiphany the same promise. Epiphany was also told he was the patriarch! A man with no apostolic succession, who frankly continues to have no interest in all the “Orthodox” stuff and refuses to be ordained.
The point is, Bartholomew got in the middle of the legitimate way of handling a situation when one is defrocked and wanting to come back into the Church and leveraged old man’s dreams to undercut the Church by lying to him.
The 2017 Resolution states that “the Council sees the appeal (to bring Philaret Denisenko back into communion) with satisfaction as a step towards overcoming the schism and restoring the church communion on the part of those who once fell away from the unity with the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.” The canonical Ukrainian Church was under the Moscow Patriarchate.
Unless you’re willing to argue that this is the “Orthodox way,” you have no case. What Bartholomew did in Ukraine wasn’t “Orthodox” in any way, shape, or form.
He didn’t operate as any other legitimate Orthodox bishop would. We have canons about such things! He behaved like the pirate he is, stealing what wasn’t his.
I believe the question we’re discussing now has to do with whether or not Bartholomew is Orthodox. He is not. Not in most everything he does. In this particular instance, he went into another bishop’s territory and offered a schismatic something that wasn’t his to give. If what he did was “Orthodox,” the 14 Local Churches wouldn’t have written him letters telling him he was way out of line.
The “Orthodox” way of course, would have been to let Kirill, the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia and Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, who was over the Church in Ukraine, to resolve the problem, which he attempted to do until Bartholomew intervened and lied to an old man, enticing him by giving him his dream which Bartholomew never intended to do or could do, as he made Epiphany metropolitan. This is while Metropolitan Onufriy was Metropolitan over Kiev and all Ukraine!!!
What a mess.
Interestingly, becoming patriarch might have been in Phileret’s future (who can say) if Bartholomew had stayed home and presided over his own patriarchate with it’s 2000 (probably less now) Orthodox Christians.
To this day, Ukraine remains under Moscow, and will continue to remain under Moscow, until the MP decides to make Ukraine autocephalous, if they ever do. I predict Epiphany will break ties with Bartholomew and the Church altogether. The tomos will be known as Bartholomew’s biggest “nothing burger” ever: One that caused a whole lot of people a whole lot of pain.
In 2017, the conversation had nothing to do with autocephaly. They were attempting to restore communion with a defrocked metropolitan and his followers, not create a patriarchate, which Ukraine never was and isn’t now. Not even under Metropolitan Onufriy.
https://orthochristian.com/116749.html
Brendan says
“All he had to do is give him *everything that was
legitimately his* to Bartholomew, which he did.”
In other words, as an excommunicate
he gave *nothing* to Bartholomew.
who is playing with smoke and mirrors.
Misha says
https://orthochristian.com/102025.html
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/Petition-Concerning-the-New-Ecclesiology-of-Ecumenical-Patriarch-Bartholomew.pdf
https://www.orthodoxethos.com/post/the-council-of-crete-the-chronicle-of-a-premeditated-deviation
I don’t take it as a serious question that Bartholomew is a heretic. It is merely that he has not yet been condemned as such by a competent synod. And the real question is why the rest of the Church (other than the ROC, which has severed communion) has maintained communion with him and why the Church itself has not condemned him – either synod by synod or in some pan-Orthodox synod.
Laziness, patience, cowardice . . . who knows? Probably the reasons differ from local church to local church. Perhaps they are just waiting for the old man to pass . . .
Brendan says
While the question wasn’t serious,
the answers do seem to be.
Which was why I asked.
George Michalopulos says
Oh joy! Gail, thanks for doing the research for this. I didn’t know about the Pentecostals and their position.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the other mainstream denominations get on board with the Bart and Frankie Show.
You know me, always looking for the silver lining to this exceedingly dark globalist cloud: it will blow up in their faces.
Misha says
Yes, Gail did a wonderful job on this one. One thing I would point out about Filaret, the thing to bear in mind, is that the “Kiev Patriarchate” was created in 1992, and Filaret had been calling himself “patriarch” for quite some time before the current festivities began. But his egotism was broadly overshadowed by his opportunism.
You see, Filaret rose in the ranks of the Soviet Church (for that is what they were) in a truly impressive manner. He was not a cooperator. He was a collaborator. And an enthusiastic one as well. And likely an agent of the KGB. Yet that is not what many faithful Russians hold against him with such fervor since appeasement of the Soviets was par for the course. You could only resist so far or be martyred.
“For example, while he was Metropolitan of Kiev, many churches were closed under the Khruschchev regime, and many remember that Philaret was often there to hang the locks. He had been rector of the Kiev Theological Seminary for less than three years when the seminary was ordered closed under Khrushchev.” – https://www.pravoslavie.ru/srpska/print116749.htm
There are any number of such incidences of his acting on behalf of the government against the Church. Betraying clerical colleagues, praising the Soviet system and condemning those brave enough to question it.
But worse:
“Philaret’s work with the KGB apparently shaped his managerial style. As the Statement of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church reads,
‘Metropolitan Philaret is extremely cruel and arrogant in relation to the subordinate clergy and to his brothers in the episcopal ministry. Instead of fatherly care, love, and compassion to the younger brethren, he embarked upon the path of dictatorialness and intimidation, which is absolutely unacceptable in the behavior of an Orthodox hierarch.'”
“The statement’s next point was,
‘By his personal life, Metropolitan Philaret brings temptation among the faithful and also gives occasion for defamation and blasphemy against the Orthodox Church from the outside world, for which, according to Canon 3 of the First Ecumenical Council and Canon 5 the Fifth-Sixth (Trullan) Council, he is subject to the strictest canonical punishment, for, as Holy Scripture says, woe to that man by whom the offence cometh (Mt. 18:7).’
“That is, he had a wife and three children, and this fact was being made publicly known—although it had been generally known among the clergy for years but no one dared speak openly about it for fear of reprisal. And the clergy and bishops in the Ukrainian Church feared his wife, Evgenia Petrovna Rodionova, whom many secretly called, “Herodias”, possibly more than Philaret himself.” – all ibid
* * *
In March 1976, Philaret was included in the commission of the Holy Synod for Christian Unity and Inter-Church Relations, and in November 1976 he headed the delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church for the pre-conciliar pan-Orthodox discussions in Geneva. This council was part of the preparation for what became the Council of Crete.
In November 1979, he was named chairman of the commission of the Holy Synod on matters of Christian unity.
Philaret was all but set up by the KGB and Constantinople to be Patriarch of Russia. But a funny thing happened on the way to that illustrious office: The Soviet Union ceased interference in Church Affairs, first in 1988 as a product of glasnost, but the trend continued right up to the dissolution of the USSR.
On May 3, 1990, Patriarch Pimen reposed. On the same day, Metropolitan Philaret was chosen as locum tenens for the patriarchal throne of Moscow and All Russia. Against his firm expectations, he was not elected Patriarch—he lost in favor of Alexei II, eighteen months before the dissolution of the Union. – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Alexy_II_of_Moscow
Now here’s the rub to all of that: Filaret was an egotist and opportunist, but this is not that uncommon among the clergy (sad to say). However, the ROC has taken some pains to remove false Christians as clerics from their ranks who were collaborators or actual agents of the intelligence services. In light of the fact that Filaret simply considered himself a clergyman in the eyes of the Church, but a married man in the eyes of the KGB, he would not be a bad place to start separating the wheat from the chaff.
However, there’s more. After losing the election for patriarch, he moved to the Ukraine and set up his own “Kiev Patriarchate” there – an uncanonical Church invented by a charlatan. This was the mess that Pat. Bartholomew walked into by sticking his nose into Russian canonical territory. There was one canonical UOC and several uncanonical pseudo-churches. What Bartholomew did was, mostly through bribery, organize these nefarious institutions into an entity to compete with the real UOC and thus with the ROC.
Now, it’s not just that C’pol is an outpost of the US State Dept. and tried to put a soulless charlatan on the throne of Moscow, but rather, against all canonical and moral order, Bartholomew completely ignored Church discipline and the requirements of ordination and consecration to form the current monstrosity that is the OCU and in the process double crossed almost everyone involved, including Filaret who was promised a patriarchate.
This is just one mess that Bartholomew is involved in. The list is endless. But the point that comes across of both men who seem to be birds of a feather is that they seem to have no conviction whatsoever higher than personal advancement.
So, no, when the final story is told, neither Bartholomew nor Filaret will be found to be actual believing Orthodox Christians.
Now though his rise to clerical status was almost meteoric, a funny thing happened on the way to the patriarchate
Gail Sheppard says
I wish I had called it that: “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Patriarchate” There at the end, he had us all feeling sorry for him!
An observer says
Good summary, Misha. Thank you.
Reminds me of the excellent video “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” — an excellent video that should be required watching for anyone who finds the seemingly flawless execution – against all odds – of the Apollo Moon missions to be somewhat, well, manufactured.
Different topic altogether. Close this can of worms if you’d like.
Iakovos says
It pains me to say that Kirill, the current Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, is hardly any better. Just recently Kirill made a splash by saying that evolution is part of God’s plan and that Darwin was a very religious man. Google it if you don’t believe me. Kirill should join former NIH director Francis Collins, who is known for pushing his BioLogos evolution heresy to Evangelicals. Kirill also pushed Covid vaccines, saying that those who don’t get them should repent. I can just see Kirill and Francis Collins buddying up to host vaccine parties and hand out “Darwin Awards” to the fools who come to get jabbed.
Kirill has always been an avowed ecumenist, as early as the 1970s, when he represented the Soviet church in the central and executive committees of the World Council of Churches. In the past decade, Kirill has been cozying up to the most heretical Pope yet (Francis). I bet Kirill, Bart and Francis will have a kumbaya with other sellout “Christian” leaders to usher in the church of the antichrist. The fish starts rotting at the head.
Regarding evolution, it is as much a part of God’s plan as the Devil is a part of God’s plan. Evolution is an evil ideology because it gives people a blank check to be selfish by saying that the only thing that matters is for their DNA to be propagated as much as possible. If killing and destroying achieves that goal, evolution says you should go for it. How does that reconcile with the words of our Savior in John 15:13 – “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”? How can a monk or nun take Kirill seriously when that implies their remaining childless makes them an evolutionary dead end/waste? Personally, I believe evolution, like death, is a consequence of our fallen world, but certainly not something that should be praised. In God’s original plan, there was no death, no suffering, no evolution, and “the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb” Isaiah 11:6
Brendan says
Just as I don’t get my Theology from Darwin,
I don’t get my Science from Met. Kirill,
or my Poetry from J M Keynes.
I can live with that.
George Michalopulos says
Misha, thanks for filling in the gaps!
If I may, the fact that Bart was on board with Filaret’s (expected) elevation to the Muscovite throne, helps explain much of the cancerous rot that inhabits the Phanar ever since Bart’s accession to that throne, doesn’t it?
Joseph Lipper says
The Pope of Rome, ever since the Great Schism, has always been the bigger problem in Christianity. The papacy was the reason for the Protestant Reformation and the resulting wars in Europe between Catholics and Protestants.
Elder Joseph of Vatopedi foresaw that the Vatican would also be greatly involved with the instigation of WWWIII as a battle against Orthodox Christianity:
“There will be great slaughter upon the territory of the former Byzantine Empire. Of those who perish, there will be some 600 million, alone. The Vatican will also participate greatly in all this, in order to impede the growing role of Orthodoxy and prevent such unification. Thus will Divine providence find its fulfillment.”
https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/07/prophecies-of-elder-joseph-of-vatopaidi.html