Ukraine Schism: What is a Layman To Do?

The Battle of Salamis

I recently received an e-mail with some practical questions about how people should deal with the implications of the mess created by Constantinople's incursion into the canonical territory of the Russian Church, and their embrace of unrepentant and unordained schismatics in Ukraine:

"I've been watching the ecclesiastical crisis over Ukraine since it began. As the crisis worsens, it's causing me growing concern about how it is affecting Orthodox life here in North America. Could you kindly formulate some advice for Orthodox Christians who wish to avoid involvement with the schismatics?

I believe the Ukrainian schismatics are indeed schismatics, and their "clergy" are unordained individuals, and that anyone in the canonical Church who communes or serves with the schismatics deserve to be subjected to the prescribed canonical penalties in due course.

However, I am aware of clergy in canonical jurisdictions who openly support the schismatics, including an OCA deacon who writes for the Fordham blog. How is an Orthodox Christian like myself supposed to act around such clergy? How would I handle it if I visited a canonical parish somewhere for a service, and a clergyman unexpectedly endorsed the schismatics during the service? (For example, Patriarch Theodoros commemorating Dumenko while serving in Cyprus.)

Another difficult issue is that Mr. Dumenko, the self-styled "Metropolitan Epifany," was in the United States in October, and concelebrated with GOA clergy for Liturgy at the GOA cathedral in New York City. During the service, Mr. Dumenko performed a ceremony to "ordain" a man named George Kazoulis as a deacon, and Kazoulis is now serving as a deacon somewhere in the GOA. As far as I know, Dumenko has no holy orders, and cannot transmit what he does not possess.

What happens during services concelebrated by canonical clergy with a man who is no bishop? What happens during services where a man like Kazoulis is serving as a deacon? What should Orthodox Christians do if we unexpectedly find ourselves in a service like this? (For that matter, what happens if Kazoulis is ever subjected to a priestly ordination on the pretext that he is already a deacon?)

I am sorry to have to send a ton of questions at once, but I really wasn't sure what or who else to ask, and I figured that if you chose to respond, you could use it for a blog post that would be helpful to a lot of people. There has been a disappointing lack of practical advice from the canonical jurisdictions. Even ROCOR says very little these days, except to stay away from the clergy and churches that have defected to the GOA.

For what it's worth, I fully expect this crisis to get much worse before it gets better, I expect it to become a practical issue for all Orthodox Christians everywhere, and I think ignoring it is an unconscionable way of downplaying a serious problem."

The schism that has been initiated by the uncanonical actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople, has created a crisis in the Orthodox world, and I think we have only just begun to see how bad things will likely get. However, we also need to rest assured that God is on His throne, and that if not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from God's providence (Matthew 10:29), then certainly He will work His will in this crisis, despite the fact that it seems we are surrounded by treason against the Faith, cowardice, and deceit. On the one hand, we face problems we never thought we would encounter from within the Church, but on the other hand, God is using this crisis, I believe, to prune His vine.

The immediate issue that is stirring things up is the schism over Ukraine, but there are many other issues at work here. We have long seen those who have been pushing an Ecumenist agenda in the Church. There is also a renovationist agenda being pushed, that began with things like allowing priests to enter into second marriages, but has gone way past that point. Now we have an increasing number of voices, especially from within the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but by no means limited to that Church, who are pushing for the acceptance of homosexuality, transgenderism, and a whole host of other perversions.

For example, five years ago we had the case of Gregory Pappas of the Pappas Post who publicly complained that a Greek Orthodox priest refused to commune him, because he is an active homosexual. In his complaint, there is no suggestion that he is struggling against this sin, only justification for his sin -- and in fact, a clear denial that it really is a sin. But the saddest part of this story is that, according to him, Metropolitan Savas of Pittsburgh told him that while the priest was "technically within his canonical rights" to deny him communion, he would commune him, and that other priests had likewise offered to commune him. This was all posted publicly, and there have been no denials or clarifications from Metropolitan Savas, so far as I have heard.

I have previously been told by Greek Orthodox clergy that in the Metropolis of Chicago, they have been told that they are not to refuse active homosexuals from receiving communion, and just this past week, this was confirmed in a report on the most recent clergy meetings of that Metropolis:

"On Monday, November 18, during a Clergy Syndesmos meeting for the Metropolis of Chicago, His Eminence Metropolitan Nathanael forcefully instructed his priests that they were no longer permitted to announce the parameters for receiving Holy Communion prior to its distribution at any time, even on festal celebrations such as Pascha and Nativity, when there are multitude of unknown persons in the Church.

Nathanael said he knew that his priests were doing this, that he himself had heard them make such announcements and read them in their bulletins and on their websites — no longer!

Nathanael, a noted deep theological thinker and pastoral wizard, explained that if St. John Chrysostom, “the author of the Divine Liturgy” (uh…no…) had wanted such an announcement to be made prior to the distribution of Holy Communion then it would have been encoded in the service itself. As it is, the only “announcement” is that people should approach with the “fear of God, faith and love.” Since the blessed Patriarch of Constantinople included no other warnings, the priests of the Metropolis of Chicago will here after be forbidden from saying anything more than that, hence, as of November 18, 2019, Holy Communion is OFFICIALLY OPEN in the Metropolis of Chicago. No public announcements describing who ought not approach the Chalice will be permitted, Canons be damned.

Nathanael explained that the clergy have no right to discourage anyone from approaching the Chalice, and after all, he said, it makes us “look like bigots” if we forbid people.

He further explained that if a person is told not to approach the Chalice to receive Holy Communion because he / she / it is engaged in sinful behavior that, according to CANON LAW, forbids their participation, they might not come back to Church. He reminded the priests that we don’t want to discourage people from attending Church" (See: "Nathanael Announces Open Communion in the Metropolis of Chicago").

His Eminence would do well to read St. John Chrysostom's homily that is read a few days prior to Pascha:

"O my beloved and greatly-desired brethren who have gathered in the Holy Church of God, in order to serve the Living God in holiness and righteousness, and, with fear, to partake of the holy, most-pure, and immortal, awesome Mysteries of Christ: Hearken unto me who am lowly and unworthy. For it is not I who am speaking to you and instructing you; rather the grace of the Most-holy and Life-giving Spirit; for I speak not from myself, but as I have been instructed by the divine canons, and the God-bearing Fathers, as the Church received instruction from the divine Apostles who received their wisdom from God, so do I myself speak, who am lowly and least of all. I know not your works; I consider not that which you have begun; and so, as one who fears God, I give counsel to everyone among you, whether man or woman, whether great or small, to anyone of you that may be guilty of sin, convicted by your own counsels, that first you must repent and confess your sins, that you may dare, considering yourself unworthy, to approach and touch the Divine Fire Itself. For our God is a consuming Fire, and they, therefore, who with faith and fear draw near to the God and King and Judge of us all, shall burn and scorch their sins; and It shall enlighten and sanctify their souls. But It shall burn and scorch with shame, the souls and bodies of them that draw near with unbelief. Therefore, many among you are ill and sleep in sickness, that is, many are dying unconfessed and unrepentant. And furthermore, my brethren, I beseech you, and I say: no one that swears oaths, nor a perjurer, nor a liar, nor one that finds fault with others, nor a fornicator, nor an adulterer, nor a homosexual, nor a thief, nor a drunkard, nor a blasphemer, nor one that envies his brother, nor a murderer, nor a sorcerer, nor a magician, nor a charmer, nor an enchanter, nor a robber, nor a Manichean, shall, unconfessed and unprepared, approach, touch, or draw near the dread Mysteries of Christ, for it is terrible to fall into the hands of the Living God. For the Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the joints and marrow and bones, and thoughts and hearts. See, therefore, my brethren, that no one approach, unrepentant or unprepared or unworthily, to partake of His dread and most-pure Mysteries. For He Himself saith: I am He, and there is no god besides me; I kill, and I make alive; neither is there any that can deliver out of My hand; for I, Myself, am King forever: to Whom is due all glory, honor, and worship: to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages, Amen" (Homily for Holy Thursday (See The Great Book of Needs, Volume II, St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 1998, pp. 332-333)).

Given the support that the Greek Archdiocese gives to publications like "Public Orthodoxy," which incessantly promotes the acceptance of perversion within the Church, this should come as no shock to anyone. This is the fruit of nearly a century of spiritual drifting on the part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which St. John of Shanghai spoke of in 1938, in a report to the 2nd All-Diaspora Sobor. It may be that repentance will turn Constantinople around, but it is not likely to happen in the near term, if it happens at all.

So to get to the practical answers you are looking for here, we need to stick to the royal path between the extremes, neither turning to the right nor to the left. In the history of the Church, there have been heresies and schisms. Many times heresies have brewed for long periods of time, and at times it has taken centuries for those heresies to either be finally put down, or for those who have refuse to be corrected to finally be cut off from the Church entirely. During these periods of controversy, the lines have often not been clear and things have been messy.

St. Basil the Great compared such times to a naval battle:

"To what then shall I liken our present condition? It may be compared, I think, to some naval battle which has arisen out of time old quarrels, and is fought by men who cherish a deadly hate against one another, of long experience in naval warfare, and eager for the fight. Look, I beg you, at the picture thus raised before your eyes. See the rival fleets rushing in dread array to the attack. With a burst of uncontrollable fury they engage and fight it out. Fancy, if you like, the ships driven to and fro by a raging tempest, while thick darkness falls from the clouds and blackens all the scenes so that watchwords are indistinguishable in the confusion, and all distinction between friend and foe is lost. To fill up the details of the imaginary picture, suppose the sea swollen with billows and whirled up from the deep, while a vehement torrent of rain pours down from the clouds and the terrible waves rise high. From every quarter of heaven the winds beat upon one point, where both the fleets are dashed one against the other. Of the combatants some are turning traitors; some are deserting in the very thick of the fight; some have at one and the same moment to urge on their boats, all beaten by the gale, and to advance against their assailants. Jealousy of authority and the lust of individual mastery splits the sailors into parties which deal mutual death to one another.

Think, besides all this, of the confused and unmeaning roar sounding over all the sea, from howling winds, from crashing vessels, from boiling surf, from the yells of the combatants as they express their varying emotions in every kind of noise, so that not a word from admiral or pilot can be heard. The disorder and confusion is tremendous, for the extremity of misfortune, when life is despaired of, gives men license for every kind of wickedness. Suppose, too, that the men are all smitten with the incurable plague of mad love of glory, so that they do not cease from their struggle each to get the better of the other, while their ship is actually settling down into the deep" (On the Holy Spirit, Ch. XXX).

We should neither be indifferent to these issues, nor should we take the "landmine" view of the canons, and assume that everyone in the Ecumenical Patriarchate is already outside of the Church because of the actions of their leaders.

What should a layman do under today's circumstances? A lot would depend on what parish you are in, and what options you may have. There are many priests within the jurisdiction of Constantinople that I know to be devout, and firm in their stand for the Faith. Were I a layman in such a parish, I would certainly not make any hasty decisions, particularly if there was not a better option in the area  that I lived in. However, it is hard to see how much longer faithful clergy will be allowed to remain so, given the kind of instructions they are getting from their bishops.

I would say that one should absolutely not participate in any service in which one of the Ukrainian schismatics, or anyone ordained by them was serving. As time goes on, this is a line that will become increasing difficult to draw within the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because of ordinations such as the one you mention, which was clearly done as a means of forcing those in America to accept this schism, whether they like it or not.

One thing I think we all need to avoid, is allowing anyone to paint this crisis in terms of it being just a matter of Russians vs. the Greeks. This is not about ethnicity, this is about Orthodoxy. This is not Russian vs. Greeks -- it is Orthodoxy vs. heresy and schism. I know too many Greeks who are standing for the Faith, and know enough Russians who are not, to see it in those terms.

Everyone should look to their conscience, and ask their guardian angel to speak them through the voice of their conscience. One should also seek wise counsel with regard to their specific circumstances, and pray that God would show them the way, and then they should take the wiser path that is in accordance with their conscience. They should also pray that God would correct them, if they should stray from the right path.

There is a Chinese proverb, which I think is a good and wise one: "A wise rabbit has three holes." I think it would be wise for those within the Ecumenical Patriarchate, or any other jurisdiction that has bishops who show signs of wavering in terms of the Truth, to at least contemplate their alternatives now, and keep their options open.

One thing that is clear, is that if Constantinople does not correct itself, everyone in the Church will eventually have to make a choice to either take a stand against what they are doing, or to accept the growing apostasy that we are seeing unfold.

If push comes to shove, obviously, one should go to a parish that is standing for the Truth. That may mean another parish down the road, or it may mean a parish that is far away, and doing reader services at home when you are unable to make it to that parish. See: What should Orthodox Christians do, when there is no parish nearby?

For more information on the Crisis in Ukraine, see:

What's Going on in Ukraine? Part 1: The Historical Background

What's Going on in Ukraine? Part 2: The Canonical Issues

An American Perspective on the Ukraine Crisis

Sermon: The Schism over Ukraine

Sermon: St. Maximus the Confessor and the Schism in Ukraine

Sermon: Papism and Neo-Papism

Sermon: Papism and Neo-Papism

A sermon given on the Sunday of St. Gregory Palamas, March 24th, 2019, on the Ukraine Crisis and the ultimate triumph of Orthodoxy.

Click here to listen: http://www.saintjonah.org/podcasts/sermons/neopapism.mp3

An American Perspective on the Ukraine Crisis

With Fr. Sergei Baranov, who translated 

This is the text of a talk that I gave at St. Tikhon University in Moscow, at a conference entitled "Causes and Challenges of the Current Crisis of Inter-Orthodox Relations," on February 25th, 2019.

Introduction.

I discovered Orthodox Christianity a bit more than 30 years ago. I was studying to be a Protestant minister, and was serving as an associate pastor at a church which organized a pro-life group in Oklahoma City, and invited other churches in the area. At the first meeting, I was sitting with my wife, and in came a Russian Orthodox priest. I had never seen anything quite like him. He was wearing a black cassock, a gold pectoral cross, and had a long gray beard. I said to my wife, “Could you imagine me dressed like that?”

As time went on, I got to know the priest, and began asking him theological questions, and was intrigued by his answers which made a lot of sense to me. Then one Saturday I visited his parish for a Vespers service. It was not in a beautiful Church like you have here in Russia. It was in a small storefront, in a rundown shopping center. But the beauty of the service and of the hymns had a deep impact on me. I was not ready to convert just yet, because I had a lot of theological objections that I had to work through, but about a year later, I did. And since I became Orthodox, I have devoted a great deal of time and effort to bringing others into the Church. I had discovered a great treasure, and I wanted to share it with as many people as possible.

This brings us to the topic at hand. You might wonder why Orthodox Christians in America would care about what is going on in Ukraine, but even though it is far away from us, one reason why this matters to me is because it harms the witness of the Orthodox Church, and it makes it a lot more difficult to explain to people what the Orthodox Church is, when we have the waters being muddied by the uncanonical actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Many speakers have already ably discussed the history, and the canonical issues in question here, and so I will not attempt to rehash those issues, but will simply talk about how this issue is viewed by the Orthodox in the United States, how it is impacting us, and what the long term implications are.

I. Background in America

In order to understand the situation we are in, in the United States, let me explain briefly a few things about the Orthodox Church in America. The Russian Church sent missionaries to North America 225 years ago. But for the most part, Orthodoxy was brought to the United States by immigration from various parts of the Orthodox world, and so we have different jurisdictions reflecting the various ethnic groups that established parishes in in the United States. Of these groups, the largest are the Greeks, though they have been experiencing a decline in recent years. Orthodox Christians represent about one percent of the total population. The Greeks in the United States were originally under the Church of Greece, but were transferred to the jurisdiction of Constantinople in the 1922 by Patriarch Meletius Metaxakis, of whom we will talk about more later.

However, the Russian Church began the process of translating the services into English in the late 19th century, with the hopes of reaching out to the non-Orthodox people of the United States, and this eventually began to bear fruit – particularly beginning in the 1980’s, and today there are now many converts to the Orthodox Faith in the United States.

II. Reactions to the Ukraine Crisis in America

The reactions among the Orthodox in the United States to the Ecumenical Patriarch’s actions in Ukraine have varied. In the Greek Archdiocese, there are of course company men who support the the Patriarch, regardless of the merits of his actions; there are those who are confused by what has happened, and there are those who are indifferent. But there are also those who are opposed to what the EP has done. For example, we now have a new ROCOR parish in Lubbock, Texas, because several families from the Greek parish there could not in good conscience stay under the EP, and so have now formed a new parish. There are many more who are waiting to see what will happen, but I have personally spoken with quite a few of them, and if the EP does not change course, they intend to leave too.

Most other jurisdictions in the United States have been very negative towards the actions of the EP. On the other hand, we have Ukrainian Nationalists who are very anti-Russian, and very supportive of what the EP is doing.

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is very supportive of the stance taken by the Moscow Patriarchate, and I have not seen much evidence of dissenting opinions on the matter. And this is certainly not because ROCOR has anything against Ukraine or Ukrainians. Our Metropolitan is a Ukrainian. My Archbishop is of Don Cossack descent. Our most important monastery, Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York, was founded by monks from the Pochaev Lavra. We also have a large number of Ukrainians in our parishes. In my own parish I have quite a few Ukrainian families, from various parts of Ukraine.

III. How it is Affecting Us.

In many ways this crisis has a bigger impact on those of us in the US, then it does in Russia. Of course, those in the Ukraine are impacted the most, by far. But in Russia, you don’t have Greek parishes around you, and so the fact that we have broken communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not disrupt fellowship with parishes in your area, but for us, this is a big issue.

I have personally spent many years working to strengthen inter-Orthodox relations in my area. We have had a very strong clergy association, that includes all the Orthodox Churches in the Houston area, and I was the president of that association for many years until just this last year. Now the current head is a priest of the Greek Archdiocese, and so I cannot even attend the meetings. In my parish I have many people who have family who attend Greek parishes, and I have some parishioners who have moved to places where the only parish is a Greek parish. In Texas there are two very pious Greek monasteries, and quite a few of my parishioners have frequently visited those monasteries, and they love to go there to pray. And so this is very painful to us, because there are many good and pious people in the Greek Archdiocese, they are our friends, and parts of many of our families, but now these relationships are being disrupted.

As I mentioned, this impacts our ability to reach out to the non-Orthodox in our country. One of the common questions I am asked by non-Orthodox people is, “What is the Orthodox Church?” And one of my quick answers to that question has been, “You have probably heard of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the Russian Orthodox Church… well it’s the same Church.” That’s an answer that has been made more complicated by this mess.

IV. What is the Cause of this Crisis?

I would like to talk about the observations made in 1938, by St. John (Maximovitch) of Shanghai, in a report to the 2nd All-Diaspora Sobor, which was held in Yugoslavia. It is interesting to note that what he observed then is only all the more apparent today. To summarize the points that he made, he noted that the Ecumenical Patriarchate had been greatly diminished as a result of the Balkan wars of liberation, and then the after effects of the Turkish Ethnic cleansing of Greeks from Asia Minor after World War I, and that ever since that time, the EP has been trying to make up for lost territory and lost revenue. The EP has also been trying to find some way to make itself relevant to the rest of the world. The EP also began to take advantage of the chaos the Bolshevik Revolution was causing, and to slice off portions of territory that had belonged to the Russian Church – and did so, for the first time, under the pretext that the Kiev Metropolia was really under their jurisdiction. It was also around this time the EP assumed control of the Greek parishes in North and South America, which had been under the authority of the Church of Greece, and to establish dioceses in Western Europe and Australia. St. John also pointed out that during the 1920’s, the EP recognized the renovationist “Living Church” as the legitimate Church in Russia, and entered into communion with it.

St. John closed his report with these words:

“The moral authority of the Patriarchs of Constantinople has likewise fallen very low in view of their extreme instability in ecclesiastical matters. Thus, Patriarch Meletius IV arranged a "Pan-Orthodox Congress," with representatives of various churches, which decreed the introduction of the New Calendar. This decree, recognized only by a part of the Church, introduced a frightful schism among Orthodox Christians. Patriarch Gregory VII recognized the decree of the council of the Living Church concerning the deposing of Patriarch Tikhon, whom not long before this the Synod of Constantinople had declared a "confessor," and then he entered into communion with the "Renovationists" in Russia, which continues up to now.

In sum, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in theory embracing almost the whole universe and in fact extending its authority only over several dioceses, and in other places having only a higher superficial supervision and receiving certain revenues for this, persecuted by the government at home and not supported by any governmental authority abroad: having lost its significance as a pillar of truth and having itself become a source of division, and at the same time being possessed by an exorbitant love of power – represents a pitiful spectacle which recalls the worst periods in the history of the See of Constantinople.”

V. Meletios Metaxakis 

It is interesting to note that the “Living Church” held its first “Council” in April of 1923, and that the Ecumenical Patriarch, Meletius (Metaxakis) held a so-called “Pan Orthodox Congress” in May of 1923. Although this “Pan Orthodox Congress” issued a statement supporting Patriarch Tikhon, its agenda was remarkably similar to that of the “Living Church.” This council was called “Pan Orthodox” despite the fact that Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem all refused to take part in it. In addition to the introduction of the New Calendar, they supported allowing clergymen to remarry, the shortening of the fasts and the shortening of the services.

Patriarch Meletios had a very interesting career. He began as a priest of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, but was expelled for "activities against the Holy Sepulcher." He then went to the Church of Greece, and was even made Archbishop of Athens, but was deposed by it because of his active participation in an Episcopalian service in the United States (he was fully vested, venerated their holy table, gave a sermon, and blessed the people). However, the Church of Greece was pressured into lifting his deposition because he was elected Patriarch of Constantinople. And even this election was highly questionable. Another candidate was actually elected with 16 out of 17 votes, but he was pressured into withdrawing his candidacy, and Meletios (Metaxakis) was elected instead. Not long after his election, he held this “Pan-Orthodox Congress”. The faithful were so incensed by the decisions of that council that he was forced to resign. He was then elected Patriarch of Alexandria, through the influence of the British, who then occupied Egypt. In fact, at each step in his career, foreign governments used their influence to advance him, because they knew he would favor their agenda. At the second council of the “Living Church,” held in 1925, both Constantinople and Alexandria sent representatives and gave their support to the “Living Church” against the canonical Church of Russia. And also, soon after Meletios became Patriarch of Alexandria, he switched that Church to the New Calendar as well.

And we see from recent proposals of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that they have very much the same agenda as the Living Church even today. However, today, they make the Living Church look Traditional by comparison.

In the United States and in the English-speaking Orthodox world generally, we hear many voices from within the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which are supporting homosexuality, openly. The Archons have helped fund an Orthodox institute at Fordham University. The heads of this institute have used this platform to launch a website called “Public Orthodoxy” which regularly promotes homosexuality and other forms of deviancy. And it is not bad enough that they publish this material in English, but they now translate their articles into Russian, Greek, and Serbian. And they do this without the slightest hint of any rebuke from the Greek Archdiocese of America. In fact, whenever they have a big event, Archbishop Demetrios of New York is usually present, adding his authority to that event. For example, one of the heads of this institute, Aristotle Papanikolaou, in an article in another pro-homosexual journal, The Wheel, wrote that expecting people who suffer from same-sex attraction to remain celibate is “unrealistic” and unhealthy, and that such desires should best be expressed in the context of “long-term committed relationships or marriages” (The Wheel 13/14, Spring/Summer 2018, p. 97 [emphasis added]. See also "Unitarian Morality With a Little "Theosis" Sprinkled on Top," "The Living Church 2.0," and "Cultural Marxism and Public Orthodoxy").

Patriarch Bartholomew’s Archdeacon, Fr. John Chryssavgis, has made a number of pro-homosexual statements. For example, he wrote a review of a book that was a simple piece of pro-homosexual propaganda written by a homosexual Episcopal priest, and he gushed with praise for what a great contribution this book was to the important “dialogue” on homosexuality. The only slight criticism he made of this book was to say that he remained “unconvinced” by some of the book’s arguments that the Scriptures support homosexuality. This is from a man who has no difficulty expressing his disagreement, in eloquent and striking terms… when he wishes to.

Many of you are aware of the call that was made to “Metropolitan” Epifany, by a Russian prankster, who pretend to be a western diplomat, and congratulated him on the “autocephaly” of the Church in Ukraine, but expressed his hope that the Epifany would take a different stand on homosexuality than the conservative one taken by the Russian Church. Epifany assured him that he would not take such a conservative stand against homosexuality.

And what I have noticed, in the English-speaking Orthodox world at least, is that those who promote the acceptance of homosexuality in the Orthodox Church have all been consistently lining up behind the EP’s actions in Ukraine.

One other agenda item that I think is clearly behind the EP’s actions in Ukraine is the goal of union with Rome. We already see the schismatics in Ukraine concelebrating with Uniates with increasing frequency. One thing that is certain is that Patriarch Bartholomew’s actions in Ukraine make no sense, if he intends to remain in the Orthodox Church.

Furthermore, there are very strong indications that the United States State Department has had some role in pushing for these actions, but to what extent, or in what form this pressure was applied, we do not yet know.

VI. Where We Seem to be Headed

It does not appear to me to be at all likely that Patriarch Bartholomew will change course. The best-case scenario, that might yet minimize the damage to the Orthodox Church would require very swift and strong stances taken by the other local Orthodox Churches, leading not just to a call for a Pan-Orthodox Council, but to actually holding one, which would formally condemn the EP’s actions. This would have the best chance of forcing the EP to back down from the positions he has taken on Ukraine – but it seems unlikely that he would do so, even then.

If this schism becomes permanent, I believe we will see further divisions in other local Churches that will ostensibly be about the schism in Ukraine, but will really be driven by divisions over the moral issues that are really behind the EP’s agenda. I think that the Russian Church Abroad, Antioch, and the Serbian Patriarchate will all remain firm. However, I think the Greek Archdiocese in America and the Orthodox Church in America will likely see a split.

Most of the Greek Archdiocese will probably remain with the Ecumenical Patriarch, because of the financial costs that would come with opposing him. However, there are very Traditional and conservative people in the Greek Archdiocese that will place fidelity to the Tradition over any financial considerations they may have to face.

I think most of the Orthodox Church in America will likely stand with the rest of the Church, but they do have a liberal faction that will likely side with the EP.

I hope that I am wrong, and that this whole question is resolved in the right way soon, and we are all united in the Faith at the end of the day.

I would note in closing that I believe it was providential that the New Calendar Patriarch of Constantinople chose the Old Calendar Feast of St. Maximus the Confessor for the enthronement of the schismatic “Metropolitan of Kiev” – who at least for the time being, observes the Old Calendar. St. Maximus stood firm against a heresy that was motivated by purely political purposes, which was aimed at uniting the Empire with one faith and one Church, but had little concern for the Truth of the Orthodox Faith, and so attempted to compromise that Faith. St. Maximus went to the West, participated in councils that condemned what the Patriarch of Constantinople was doing, and then when he was captured by the emperor, and brought back to Constantinople, he was threatened in every way imaginable to try to force him to accept entering into communion with the heretical Patriarch of Constantinople. They even lied to him, and tried to convince him that all of the Church had now accepted the compromised teachings of the EP, and had entered into communion with Constantinople again. St. Maximus replied:

“Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching.”

And

"…This is the reason why I, your servant, will not enter into communion with the Church of Constantinople. Let these offenses, introduced by the aforementioned men into the Church, be removed; let those who have introduced them be deposed; and then the path to salvation will be cleared of all barriers, and you will walk on the smooth path of the Gospel, cleansed of all heresy! When I see the Church of Constantinople as she was formerly, then I will enter into communion with her without any exhortation on the part of men. But while there are heretical temptations in her, and while heretics are her bishops, no word or deed will convince me ever to enter into communion with her."

Fortunately, we see many people in Ukraine who like St. Maximus, are willing to suffer the loss of property, and are even being beaten for their Faith. St. Maximus was beaten, and had his tongue cut out, and his right hand cut off to silence him. But when the Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened, it was St. Maximus who was affirmed, and all those who opposed him who were condemned by the Church. So I pray that the Church in Ukraine will stand firm for the Faith, because that is the treasure that I want to preserve, and that I want to pass on to others in the United States.

I also want to thank you, the faithful in Russia, for having stood firm for the Faith in your country, and to thank your ancestors for having brought that Faith to United States so that people like me could come to know that Faith as well.

Sermon: St. Maximus the Confessor and the Schism in Ukraine

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Patriarch Bartholomew applauding themselves for establishing a pseudo-Church in Ukraine.

Click here to listen to a sermon on the feast of St. Maximus the Confessor, which coincided with the "enthronement" of the false Metropolitan of Kiev:

http://www.saintjonah.org/podcasts/sermons/stmaximus_ukraine.mp3

You can also read about how the "enthronement" went today, here:

http://orthochristian.com/119099.html

What's Going on in Ukraine? Part 2: The Canonical Issues

The Schismatics the Ecumenical Patriarch has Joined With

In order to fully understand the seriousness of the Ecumenical Patriarch's actions in Ukraine, and why they are so reckless, you have to understand who the people are that the EP has decided to join himself to.

Filaret Denisenko, the founder and real leader of this schism, was the former Metropolitan of Kiev who was justly deposed by the Russian Church in the early 90's. He attempted to appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch at that time, and was rebuffed. Patriarch Bartholomew wrote to Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow:

"In response to the corresponding telegram and letter of Your greatly beloved and honorable Beatitude on the problem that has arisen in Your Holy Russian sister Church that led her Holy Synod, for reasons known to her, to the deposition of the until-recently leading member of her Synod, Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev, we desire to fraternally inform Your love, that our Holy Great Church of Christ, recognizing the fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church’s exclusive competence on this issue, synodally accepts the decisions regarding the one in question, not desiring to bring any trouble to Your Church. It is precisely in this spirit that we sent two brothers, His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon and His Grace Bishop Vsevolod of Skopelos, after a visit to us by the one in question who has been deprived of his office, that we could be directly notified firsthand of what had occurred and avoid a misinterpretation in the given case. Consequently, we should note that we were grieved when we learned that there was not a full understanding of the purpose of their mission" (Letter of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to His Holiness Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow and All Russia, August 26, 1992, emphasis added).

For an example of how far Filaret is from being worthy of being admitted into the Church, even as a layman in good standing, watch the following video, in which he allows a Psychic kook, by the name of "Gagik Sarkisovich Avakyan," to "bless" him:

And for more, watch this documentary about Filaret and the schism that he established in Ukraine:

See also: The Official History of the Defrocking and Anathematization of Philaret Denisenko: Documents of the June 1992, 1994, and 1997 Bishops’ Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Canons the Ecumenical Patriarch has Violated

The Canons of the Holy Apostles are among the most ancient Canons of the Church, and were specifically endorsed by the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils. Canon 11 of  the Holy Apostles says:

"If anyone who is a clergyman pray in company with a deposed clergyman, he shall be deposed too" (D. Cummings, trans., The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the Holy Canons Saints Nicodemus and Agapius (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 23).

Canon 16, says that if a clergyman is suspended or deposed, and goes to another bishop, and "the Bishop with whom they are associating, admits them as clergymen in defiance of the deprivation prescribed against them, he shall be excommunicated as a teacher of disorder." (Ibid., p. 27).

Canon 28, says: "If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, who has been justly deposed from office for proven crimes, should dare to touch the liturgy which had once been put in his hands, let him be cut off from the Church altogether" (Ibid, p. 40). Which is a canon clearly violated by Filaret, which is why he was also anathematized. And when he was anathematized, Patriarch Bartholomew again stated his agreement with the decision:

“Having received notification of the mentioned decision, we informed the hierarchy of our Ecumenical Throne of it and implored them to henceforth have no ecclesial communion with the persons mentioned” (Letter of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to His Holiness Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow and All Russia, April 7, 1997).

And this means very clearly that the EP has knowingly joined himself to a justly deposed and anathematized bishop, along with the schism that he established.

The Canons of the Council of Antioch were also specifically affirmed by the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils. The second canon of that council states:

"As for all those persons who enter the church and listen to the sacred Scriptures, but who fail to commune in prayer together and at the same time with the laity, or who shun the participation of the Eucharist, in accordance with some irregularity, we decree that these persons be outcasts from the Church until, after going to confession and exhibiting fruits of repentance and begging forgiveness, they succeed in obtaining a pardon. Furthermore, we decree that communion with those excluded from communion is not allowed, nor in another church is it to be allowed to admit those who have no admittance to another church. If anyone among the Bishops, or Presbyters, or Deacons, or anyone of the Canon, should appear to be communing with those who have been excluded from communion, he too is to be excluded from communion, on the ground of seemingly confusing the Canon of the Church" [Ibid., p 535, emphasis added].

And Canon 4 states:

"If any Bishop, deposed by a Synod, or any Presbyter, or Deacon, deposed by his own Bishop, should dare to perform any act of the liturgy—whether it be the Bishop in accordance with the advancing custom, or the Presbyter, or the Deacon, let it no longer be possible for him to have any hope of reinstatement even in another Synod (or Council), nor let him be allowed to present an apology in his own defense, but, on the contrary, let all of those who even commune with him be cast out of the Church, and especially if after learning about the decision pronounced against the aforesaid, he should dare to commune with them" (Ibid., p 536, emphasis added).

This canon makes it clear that Filaret, by continuing to serve after he was deposed, placed himself beyond the possibility of being reinstated by any subsequent Council. Furthermore, by entering into communion with Filaret, the Ecumenical Patriarch has committed an offense, for which he should be not only deposed, but cast out of the Church entirely.

The Ecumenical Patriarch's Flimsy Canonical Defense

We have already covered the EP's bogus claims to have jurisdiction over Ukraine (see What's Going on in Ukraine? Part 1: The Historical Background), a claim one of his own bishops has dismissed as contrary to history (See: Met. Kallistos (Ware): "I am not at all happy about the position taken by Patriarch Bartholomew"). But the EP claims to have some prerogatives that give him rights to intervene in Ukraine, by virtue of the fact that he is the first bishop in the diptychs of the Orthodox Church, so let's consider whether these claims hold up any better.

Archpriest Andrei Novikov, has made the case, in great detail, as to why the Neo-Papal claims of the EP are without basis, in his essay: The Apotheosis of Eastern Papism, but let me highlight the most important points he makes.

For one, the EP is making claims that closely mirror the claims of the Pope, and if these claims were consistent with Orthodox ecclesiology, one would have to wonder why were weren't still under the Pope of Rome.

The canonical claims that the EP makes based on Canon 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council do not hold up to scrutiny. Canon 9 (Canon 17 has similar wording) of Chalcedon reads:

"If any Clergyman has a dispute with another, let him not leave his own Bishop and resort to secular courts, but let him first submit his case to his own Bishop, or let it be tried by referees chosen by both parties and approved by the Bishop. Let anyone who acts contrary hereto be liable to Canonical penalties. If, on the other hand, a Clergyman has a dispute with his own Bishop, or with some other Bishop, let it be tried by the Synod of the province. But if any Bishop or Clergyman has a dispute with the Metropolitan of the same province, let him apply either to the Exarch of the diocese or to the throne of the imperial capital Constantinople, and let it be tried before him" (Ibid., p 253).

St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain comments on the meaning of this canon:

"So it is evident that the Canon means that if any bishop or clergyman has a dispute or difference with the Metropolitan of an exarchy, let him apply to the Exarch of the diocese; which is the same thing as saying that clergymen and metropolitans subject to the throne of Constantinople must have their case tried either before the Exarch of the diocese in which they are situated, or before the Bishop of Constantinople, as before a Patriarch of their own. It did not say that if any clergyman has a dispute or difference with the Metropolitan of any diocese or parish whatever, they must be tried before the Bishop of Constantinople... That is why Zonaras too says that the Bishop of Constantinople is not necessarily entitled to sit as judge over all Metropolitans, but (only) over those who are judicially subject to him (interpretation of c. XVII of the present 4th C.). And in his interpretation of c. V of Sardica the same authority says: "The Bishop of Constantinople must hear the appeals only of those who are subject to the Bishop of Constantinople, precisely as the Bishop of Rome must hear the appeals only of those who are subject to the Bishop of Rome" (Ibid, p. 253).

If one does not read these canons as St. Nicodemos suggests, it is possible to conclude that Constantinople could have even overruled Rome, something that the pre-Schism Roman church would never have accepted, nor is it likely that any other patriarchate of that time would have either. Within the context of the principle that Constantinople should have "equal prerogatives" to Old Rome, however, this has been interpreted to mean that Constantinople may be the highest court of appeal in the East (in those provinces belonging to his patriarchate) as Rome was in the West.

But even if one were to take this right as being universal, the EP's actions are not supported by the relevant canons. As Petrus Antiochenus points out, since the canons in question are based on the analogous rights that Rome itself had, we should look to how appeals were to be handled by Rome to better understand how they were to be handled by Constantinople, and Canon 5 of the Council of Sardica states:

"It has pleased this Council to decree that if any Bishop be indicted, and the Bishops of the same diocese remove him from his rank, and by way of appeal, he has recourse to the most blessed Bishop of the Church of the Romans, and the latter expresses a desire to hear the matter through and deems that it is right and just for the trial of the case to he reopened, let him write to these Bishops and request those who are close to the province in question to make a searching investigation of the points in the case with due diligence and accuracy, and in accordance with faith in the truth pronounce a decision regarding it. But if any person demands again to have his case heard and sees fit to request that it be tried by the Bishop of the Romans, let the latter send Presbyters from his own flank, in order that he may be in the authority of the Bishop himself. If he rules that it is right and decides that judges ought to be sent to try the case together with the Bishops and to exercise authority derived from the one who sent them, then let this too be done. But if he deems the verdict and decision in regard to the Bishop’s case to be sufficient, let him do whatsoever may seem best to his most prudent sense of discretion" (Ibid., 586).

As can plainly be seen, the right of appeal did not entail Rome arbitrarily overturning the decision of a local Synod, without hearing out all of the parties, and allowing them to participate in the hearings. At no point were any of these steps laid out by this canon followed by Constantinople. No opportunity to testify or present evidence was given to the canonical Church in Ukraine, or to the Russian Church as a whole. Furthermore, Constantinople already had twice rejected the appeal of Filaret.

Only if we grant the Ecumenical Patriarch powers that even the Pope was too ashamed to have claimed, would we be able to say that he has acted justly here. There are no canons which would support the course he has taken in Ukraine.

See also: What's Going on in Ukraine? Part 1: The Historical Background

For more information, See:

Experts on the Constantinople Patriarchate's Scandalous Decisions

The Apotheosis of Eastern Papism, by Archpriest Andrei Novikov

Primacy and Identity (A Response to "First Without Equals" and the Tragedy of Deficient Eccleisiology, by Bishop Irenei (Steenberg)

Can Orthodoxy exist with the Ecumenical Patriarchate? by Petrus Antiochenus

The Decision of the Ecumenical Patriarch is Uncanonical (an Interview with Metropolitan Amfilohija (Radovich) of Montenegro)

The Ecumenical Patriarchate Violated Canon 5 of Sardica in the Filaret Appeal, by Petrus Antiochenus

The Ecumenical Monarch

Sermon: The Schism over Ukraine

Senator John McCain, with the Fake "Patriarch of Kiev" Filaret Denisenko

This sermon was preached on Sunday, October 21st, 2018, and was given to explain to my parishioners why a break in communion has happened between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

It will not be posted on Ancient Faith Radio because they do not want to be perceived as taking a side in this dispute.

Click here to listen.

Here is the text of the sermon (courtesy of Fr. Aidan (Keller), who transcribed it, though I have made some corrections to make the written text a bit easier to read):

*****************************************

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

History is not just something that we read about in textbooks, but it’s something that we are living in. It’s just that we don’t realize it, because we don’t often see huge events happen. But in terms of the history of the Church, we may be in the middle of a very big shift. I hope that in retrospect we look back at this as just a little blip on the radar screen, because the problem is solved very quickly. But as most of you probably know, the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew, has announced that he’s going to establish an autocephalous church in the Ukraine and he lifted anathemas against schismatic bishops, restored them to their ranks from which they were deposed… and he has absolutely no authority to do that under the canons of the Church.

Now, one bit of solace from history I think that we can take, is that these kinds of things are not new to the Church. We’ve had controversies, we’ve had heresies, we’ve had schisms in the history of the Church, and as long as the Church exists in this fallen world, and as long as it’s inhabited by sinners who live in that fallen world, there are going to be people who will cause such divisions in the Church, and the Church has weathered many storms a lot worse than this one is likely to be.

We just yesterday celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the founding of our parish, and I would much rather be talking to you about where we’ve been as a parish, and where we are going, to mark that great event. But instead I feel like I have to talk about this, because I know many of you have had questions about it, and I want you to understand that when our bishops announced that we will no longer be in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch until this matter is resolved, they did not take this matter lightly.

We have in our parish many people who are from the Ukraine, and I know from talking to you about the politics of the Ukraine that not all of you agree. I don’t know if you’ve talked among yourselves and figured that out, but I certainly have figured it out from talking to you. There are people on various points of the spectrum in terms of how they view what has happened in the Ukraine, particularly in the last several years. But politics is one thing and ecclesiology is another. We’re all entitled to our own political opinions, but we’re not entitled to our own ecclesiology. There’s only one Orthodox ecclesiology. We have a canonical tradition where there is church order that we have to go by. The Russian Church has actually, despite all the accusations that it’s taken political positions in the Ukraine, has tried to refrain from taking any kind of political positions. Some people try to say that Ukraine is a cash cow for the Russian Church. Not one penny of the money that is raised in Ukraine goes to the Church in Russia; it’s just absolutely not true. But Ukraine is not just a part of the Russian Church, Ukraine is the heart of the Russian Church. Ukraine is where the Russian Church began. And I can tell you that the Russian Church Abroad, just to give you an example, is not just a bunch of "Great Russians," to use a phrase, for lack of a better term… it’s not just a bunch of people from the Russian Federation or from backgrounds that connect there, that are picking on poor Ukrainians. Our Church.. the very first primate we had, was Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, who had been the Metropolitan of Kiev. Holy Trinity monastery was founded by monks who came from the Pochaev Lavra. Our own bishop is descended from Don Cossacks, and our current metropolitan is a Ukrainian. I’ve not bothered asking about which bishop has a Ukrainian background, but over the years I’ve learned that many of our bishops have Ukrainian backgrounds that I just assumed were Russians. And, of course, Ukraine is a very diverse country. There are people who speak Russian and really consider themselves Russians, and then there are people who speak Ukrainian and consider themselves Ukrainian. And that’s all fine, and in the Church we can have these kinds of differences. And one other thing that I would say is the day may come when the Church of Ukraine becomes an Autocephalous Church when it’s done the right way, and that may very well be what is God’s will ultimately for the Ukrainian Church. I can’t say; that’s above my pay grade. But it can’t happen this way. This is not how things happen in the Church with any kind of good order.

I could spend a lot of time talking about the history of the Ukrainian Church and its connection with the Russian Church. There are a number of articles online that you can read about that, and I will actually be writing some articles myself on the subject with links to a lot of these texts, so those of you that are interested in the history, will certainly be able to read as much as you want to find that, for more than 300 years – longer than the United States has been an independent nation – the Ukrainian Church has been undeniably and fully part of the Russian Orthodox Church. But I’m not going to spend my time today talking about that, because it would take too long, but what I will talk about, just briefly, is that Patriarch Bartholomew himself knows full well that this is true, and has said so on a number of occasions. When the head of this schismatic group, Philaret Denisenko, was deposed by the Russian Church, for (among other things) having a wife and three children, which is obviously contrary to the canons, but also doing a number of other things that were causing huge problems in the Ukrainian Church, in a letter that Patriarch Bartholomew wrote to then-Patriarch Alexei II, he stated,

"We desire to make known to Your Love, as your brother, that our Holy and Great Church of Christ fully recognizes your Holy Church of Russia has the exclusive jurisdiction in the matter and accepts the Synodical decisions made with respect to [Philaret]" [Letter of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to His Holiness Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow and All Russia, August 26, 1992].

Patriarch Irinej of Serbia recently wrote a letter, an open letter, in which he was objecting to what the Ecumenical Patriarch was proposing to do at that point, and in that letter he made a very important point. He said,

"Your All-Holiness, in no way does the desire and intent to offend or to grieve you at all come into our mind, not even indeed briefly. However, we are obliged to remind you both of your promise which was given in Chambesy, Geneva, in the presence of the primates of the Orthodox Churches, in the presence consequently also of our own mediocrity, that you would not intervene in the affairs of the Church of Ukraine" [August 2018 Letter from Serbian Patrairch Irinej to Ecumenical Patriarch Batholomew]. 

And this happened in 2016, at a meeting of all the heads of all the Autocephalous Churches.

As a matter of fact, in a letter that the Russian Holy Synod wrote on September 14, when the patriarch announced his intentions, they made a similar point. They said,

"Meanwhile, earlier, during the Synaxis of the Local Orthodox Churches in Chambésy in January 2016, Patriarch Bartholomew publicly called Metropolitan Onufry the only canonical Primate of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. On the same occasion the Primate of the Church of Constantinople gave a promise that neither during the Council in Crete nor afterwards he would make any attempts to legalize the schism or to grant autocephaly to anybody on a unilateral basis" [Statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Concerning the Uncanonical Intervention of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Canonical Territory of the Russian Orthodox Church, September 14, 2018].

Even if the Ecumenical Patriarch himself sincerely believed that he had a legitimate claim on Ukraine – which obviously from his past statements we know is not the case… but even if he did, the way he’s dealing with it is not the way to do it. Even if he thought, for example, that the Russian Church was just mismanaging the situation in Ukraine, and that the people in the schismatic, so-called "Autocephalous Church of Ukraine" had some legitimate grievance that needed to be aired, the canonical way for him to deal with it would be to call for a Pan-Orthodox Synod. And some people might say, "Well, how do we know that the Russians would show up?" Well, after he announced what he was going to do, the Russian Church called for such a Pan-Orthodox Synod, as have the heads of several other Autocephalous Churches, so clearly the Russian Church would participate in such a council. But the reason why he doesn’t call such a council is because to date not a single Autocephalous Church outside of the Ecumenical Patriarchate has expressed any support whatsoever for what he’s doing. And several of them have in fact expressed just the opposite – they’ve made it very clear that they condemn what he’s doing.

I’d like to talk a little bit about a few canons that are of relevance here. The Church is built upon the canons of the Ecumenical Councils but there are some very ancient canons that even come before the Ecumenical Councils; among them are the Canons of the Holy Apostles. Canon 11 says,

"If anyone who is a clergyman pray in company with a deposed clergyman, he shall be deposed too" (D. Cummings, trans., The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the Holy Canons Saints Nicodemus and Agapius (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 23).

Canon 16 says that if a bishop admits as a clergyman "in defiance of the deprivation prescribed against [him]" …in other words, if you take a clergyman who’s been deposed, and you accept him as a clergyman, that you’re going to be "excommunicated as a teacher of disorder" [Ibid., p. 27].

And then Canon 35 says:

"A Bishop shall not dare to confer ordinations outside of his own boundaries, in cities and territories not subject to him. If he be proved to have done so against the wishes of those having possession of those cities or territories, let him be deposed, as well as those whom he ordained" [Ibid., p. 52].

And then Canon 2 of the Council of Antioch, which was specifically endorsed by later Ecumenical Councils and so has ecumenical weight, says,

"As for all those persons who enter the church and listen to the sacred Scriptures, but who fail to commune in prayer together and at the same time with the laity, or who shun the participation of the Eucharist, in accordance with some irregularity, we decree that these persons be outcasts from the Church until, after going to confession and exhibiting fruits of repentance and begging forgiveness, they succeed in obtaining a pardon. Furthermore, we decree that communion with those excluded from communion is not allowed, nor in another church is it to be allowed to admit those who have no admittance to another church. If anyone among the Bishops, or Presbyters, or Deacons, or anyone of the Canon, should appear to be communing with those who have been excluded from communion, he too is to be excluded from communion, on the ground of seemingly confusing the Canon of the Church" [Ibid., p 535, emphasis added].

The canons are exceedingly clear that what the Ecumenical Patriarch is doing is wrong, that he has no business doing it. So this is the reason why our bishops have said that they will no longer, until this matter is resolved, concelebrate with clergy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. We’ve also been instructed that we are not, even as laymen, to commune in their parishes. Now if there are some extraordinary circumstances, then you’d want to talk with me about that, and we can see. Because we don’t believe that the canons are like land mines. We don’t believe that because the patriarch has violated the canons, that he is therefore already deposed, and that everyone connected with him is already outside of the Church. We don’t believe that. But what we are saying is that that’s where things are headed, if they continue down that path and there is no reconciliation, and no attempt to address the situation and correct it.

Now I, and I’m sure many of you, have many friends among the clergy and the laity that are under the Ecumenical Patriarch, and it really saddens me that we have come to this point, and it’s been a very surreal feeling to be in this situation. And, up until very recently, I was the president of the Orthodox Clergy Association in Houston – that happened to just change (unrelated to this whole thing) in September, and as a consequence of this, as things stand right now, I won’t be able to participate in Clergy Association meetings or on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, if this continues to be a problem, to concelebrate with my brother clergy in the Houston area, and I’m very sad that it’s come to this point. But it’s come to this point because of the actions of people who have chosen to disregard truth, and who have chosen to disregard the canons. And there has to be order in the Church. We have canons for a reason. We don’t have a Pope, for the very simple reason that we don’t believe that Christ ever gave any person any infallibility, or any special powers, to rule the whole Church. Lord Acton famously said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Church has divisions, and it has checks and balances, much like our government (constitutionally at least) has, for a reason. That’s because as long as there are sinners we will have bishops that go astray – and even very prominent bishops. And we have to have the means to correct them, and we can’t have a bishop who doesn’t answer to anybody, who just does whatever he wants, and nobody can question it. We are not in that church. If we were going to be in that church, we would be Roman Catholics… and we’re not, because we don’t believe that that’s true. We don’t find that in church history. And so what we need to do is we need to earnestly pray that this matter will be resolved. I spoke with Vladyka Peter about this and he expressed some hopes that maybe it would be resolved in the not-too-distant future. He may know something about the situation that I don’t know, and I hope that he turns out to be correct. My own more skeptical opinion is that this may not be resolved anytime soon. But we need to pray. We need to pray for a miracle that people will repent and that unity and peace in the Church will be restored. Amen.