PAN-ORTHODOX COUNCIL OR BARTHOLOMEW’S BENEFIT?

Mikhail Tyurenkov

Believing in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, we must not forget that this Church is Orthodox.

In Russian history, many things have split our existence into “before” and “after” - before the “Christianization of Rus,” before the “Mongol and Tatar raids,” before the “Time of Troubles,” before the “Schism,” before “Peter the Great,” before the “Revolution,” before “the war.” But there are also events which are at first glance not so epochal, but which have immensely influenced the course of history. Among the latter, without a doubt, is the recent pilgrimage to Holy Mount Athos by the Patriarch of the Russian Church and the head of the Russian state.

Of course, Patriarch Kirill and Vladimir Putin visited Mount Athos. But the fact that on Saturday the spiritual and national leader of the country united in prayer in the place where for centuries the traditions of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, were carefully preserved, is extremely important. Such an event is like one from a thousand years ago, when the first Russian monks become monks of Mount Athos, when the kingdom of Muscovy was the heir of the fallen empire of the Romans.

We should remember that, following the Florentine Union of 1439, the Second Rome, the Constantinople Patriarchate, joined the Catholics and thus lost its role as the guardian of Orthodox Christianity. When Constantinople sent Metropolitan Isidore, who signed the union, to Moscow only for him to be expelled for having done so, the role of Orthodox guardian passed to the Russian Church and the Russian state.

Meanwhile, still considering themselves to be the “ecumenical” patriarchs, the bishops of Constantinople continued to interfere in the internal life of the autocephalous Russian Church throughout history. The most vivid intervention was the active role of the Greek hierarchs in implementing the tragic church reforms of the second half of the 17th century which gave rise to the worst split in the history of the Russian Church.

The further course of the church, after the Turks occupied Constantinople, only became more questionable from the point of view of patristic Christianity, Orthodoxy. This was especially evident in the 20th century when, for example, in 1920 Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal See Metropolitan Dorotheus of Bursa issued encyclical “On the Church of Christ in all the world” in which he arbitrarily assigned himself the role of “Pan-Orthodox Pope” and called upon all Christians, regardless of their doctrinal difference with Orthodoxy, to embrace ecumenical unity. At the same time, as a first step towards this rapprochement, he offered to adopt a uniform calendar with Catholics and Protestants.

At the same time, the throne of the Constantinople Patriarchate was occupied under questionable circumstances by the notorious Meletios (Metaxakis), who was a member of the Masonic lodge “Harmony.” Patriarch Meletios played a fateful role in the demarcation of the Russian and Constantinople Churches. In 1923, he convened the so-called Pan Orthodox Sanhedrin (Congress), which recognized Soviet dissident reformists as well as various churches as independent (such as the Ukrainian and Estonian). The same fake synod adopted a series of anti-Orthodox decisions contrary to canonical law, which included changing the church calendar and the right of priests to second marriage. In addition, the Sanhedrin of Meletios indirectly called for St. Tikhon of Bellavina, the Patriarch of Moscow, to leave the patriarchal throne in favor for a reformer.

The subsequent weakening of Russian statehood during the collapse of the Soviet Union gave rise to a new confrontation between the Moscow and Constantinople patriarchates. The latter became a patron of schismatic groups such as the independent Estonian and Ukrainian churches and the Constantinople Patriarch Bartholomew I recognized the so-called Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church which, in turn, led the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church on February 23rd, 2016 to historically decide to postpone the canonical and eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Finnish autonomous Archdiocese, as well as forego commemoration with the Patriarch of Constantinople of the diptych of local Orthodox churches.

Although this issue was then politically resolved, relations between the Russian and Constantinople Churches were not healed. The upcoming Pan-Orthodox Synod, which is scheduled to be held June 16th-17th on Crete, is the most evident example. Personally, I am far from accusing the hierarchy of the Russian Church of planning to take part in this council in order to compromise and retreat from church orthodoxy. The fact remains that it is Patriarch Kirill (along with a number of Greek and Georgian hierarchs) who has maintained consistent positions.

But the coming Pan-Orthodox Council has raised many controversies, including those which have appeared in the prepared documents bearing a mildly “diplomatic” attitude towards non-Orthodox Christians, whom Orthodox consider to be not “heterodox,” but heretics. The political implication of this council is no less important for the Church. After all, if the Council will be held as scheduled, then it will be a kind of “benefit” for Constantinople Patriarch Bartholomew I. Yes, we recognize his historically established “primacy of honor” in the diptych of local Orthodox churches, but we also perfectly know that this man has been involved with Western intelligence agencies and that he has made many inherently Russophobic statements in recent years (including openly critiquing the concept of the Third Rome).

Hence why today many Orthodox Christians are seriously concerned that the planned Pan-Orthodox Council will not be a representative meeting of the Orthodox bishops of local Churches, but a kind of simulacrum of the Eighth Ecumenical Council. That means a fake Council at which Patriarch Bartholomew will try to impose his personal will (and thus, the will of his Western curators) upon the Orthodox world. In the end, this formal event will not lead to a convergence between Orthodox Christians, but will lead new confrontations and even splits.

Thus, although disagreeing with the hysterical “true Orthodox people” who today organize various acts of disobedience and groundlessly criticize our hierarchy, I nonetheless wonder: is the game worth it? Is it necessary to solve issues in this format? Perhaps instead of going to Western intelligence agencies-infected Crete in June, it would be better to buy a moth and go fishing, something which is so historically beloved by the Russian people, including Church hierarchy.

Извор: “Katehon“