Metropolitan Geron Apostolos of Derkoi characterizes Russia’s attack on Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew as “unbrotherly, irreverent, and indecent.”
Commenting on the abusive accusations directed against the Patriarch, the Metropolitan of Derkoi notes at the outset: “This is not the first time that Moscow, acting through the deep state and the secret service SVR, has attacked — unbrotherly, irreverently, and indecently — the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. This time, the SVR, instigated by the official state and tightly embraced by it, the Russian Church, unleashed a remotely guided bomb. Not like the one with which they struck an apartment building and a playground in Kharkiv, Ukraine, killing six people and wounding at least fifty-five. Among the dead was a fourteen-year-old girl. Nor like the bomb with which they struck a maternity hospital in Mariupol, Ukraine, and, among others, fatally wounded an unfortunate pregnant woman along with the child she was carrying.” He adds: “This time, the SVR, remotely guided by Russia’s deep state, deployed a bomb of another technology — ancient and time-tested. Its components are a political–religious mixture of irrational and arrogant claims, all manner of blackmail, and fratricidal slanders.”
“The story is old and is connected with the narrative of the ‘Third Rome,’ which the Russian authorities fabricated and imposed upon their instrument, the Church of Moscow,” the Metropolitan of Derkoi points out.
He continues: “Let us recall, however, some events that highlight this embrace of Russian authority with the Church of Moscow. They show that the serpent’s egg was hatched long ago and that its poison continues to infect Orthodoxy to this day. It was then, in 1448, that Prince Vasily ordered the secession of the newly formed Church of Moscow from the Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate. An uncanonical synod of Russian bishops was convened, electing Jonah as archbishop.
“This is the first time that a Russian archbishop is styled ‘of Moscow and of all Rus’,” he adds. “And while the Ottomans, in 1452, were standing before the walls of the ill-fated Queen of Cities, the Ecumenical Patriarchate was forced to bless the Russian ecclesiastical rebellion by recognizing Jonah’s election. It did not, however, grant the local synod of Moscow the right to elect a metropolitan. Seven years later, the ruler ordered that bishops no longer be elected by the Ecumenical Patriarchate but by the local synod. The first rupture had occurred. A century later, in 1580, Tsar Ivan IV ‘the Terrible’ pressured Joachim V, Patriarch of Antioch, to elevate the Archbishopric of Moscow to a Patriarchate. He refused, stating that this was the responsibility of the ‘Synod in Constantinople.’ Did the tsar relent in his obsessive demand that the Patriarchate of Constantinople elevate the Church of Moscow to a Patriarchate? Tsar Feodor, however, demanded this from Patriarch Jeremiah II the Great of Constantinople, keeping him under detention. Jeremiah yielded, convening a large synod in 1590. The Patriarchal and Synodal Chrysobull officially elevating Moscow to a Patriarchate was signed — always, of course, under the aegis of the Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This, however, was not sufficient for the Russian authorities, who incorporated into their imperial designs the theory that they were allegedly the heirs of the Byzantine emperors.”
But what about the Patriarchate of Moscow? It was unable to articulate an independent voice imbued with Christian ideals — neither in the era of Tsarist Russia, nor in the era of Soviet Russia, nor in the era of Putin’s Russia. It has always stood as a faithful collaborator of Russian authority and has, of course, reaped the benefits of its tight embrace with it.
Not even this constitution of Christianity, Holy Scripture itself, does the Patriarchate of Moscow wish to follow. The Patriarchate of Moscow — or more precisely, its primate, the Patriarch of Moscow — reminds us rather of the “preeminence-loving Diotrephes,” who “prates against [his superiors] with malicious words” (3 John 9–10). The recent slanders uttered by the secret service SVR reveal that the one hiding behind them is the contemporary Diotrephes, the primate of the Russian Church, since only he, alas, as the religious leader of the local Church, objectively possesses the authority to declare who is a “cassocked antichrist” and who is an “incarnate devil.” The fact that he arbitrarily and arrogantly — overstepping the bounds defined by the Canons of the Church — attributes these slanders to the Primate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Mother Church that elevated him, reinforces the view that he serves as a mouthpiece of Putin’s authority.
How, then, does the Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and its Primate, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, respond? He courageously emphasizes that “fake news, insults, and fabricated information of every kind by propagandists do not discourage the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”
It continues to commemorate the Patriarch of Moscow, following the tradition of the Christian constitution, which reminds us that the first Christians, “continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart” (Acts 2:46). For the Ecumenical Patriarch, it is an affront to ignore the exhortation of the Apostle Paul, the apostle of all nations, that all Christians should glorify “with one accord and with one mouth… God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 15:6). By contrast, the Patriarch of Moscow decided to cease commemorating Patriarch Bartholomew and to break communion with hierarchs of the Patriarchate.
Finally, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew — the “Green Patriarch,” the Patriarch of reconciliation, internationally acclaimed and widely recognized by numerous parliaments as the preeminent spiritual leader of Orthodoxy — waits patiently, as a father waits for his unruly and wayward child finally to come of age, and like the prodigal son of the parable to return to the paternal home, the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos.
Commenting on the abusive accusations directed against the Patriarch, the Metropolitan of Derkoi notes at the outset: “This is not the first time that Moscow, acting through the deep state and the secret service SVR, has attacked — unbrotherly, irreverently, and indecently — the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. This time, the SVR, instigated by the official state and tightly embraced by it, the Russian Church, unleashed a remotely guided bomb. Not like the one with which they struck an apartment building and a playground in Kharkiv, Ukraine, killing six people and wounding at least fifty-five. Among the dead was a fourteen-year-old girl. Nor like the bomb with which they struck a maternity hospital in Mariupol, Ukraine, and, among others, fatally wounded an unfortunate pregnant woman along with the child she was carrying.” He adds: “This time, the SVR, remotely guided by Russia’s deep state, deployed a bomb of another technology — ancient and time-tested. Its components are a political–religious mixture of irrational and arrogant claims, all manner of blackmail, and fratricidal slanders.”
“The story is old and is connected with the narrative of the ‘Third Rome,’ which the Russian authorities fabricated and imposed upon their instrument, the Church of Moscow,” the Metropolitan of Derkoi points out.
He continues: “Let us recall, however, some events that highlight this embrace of Russian authority with the Church of Moscow. They show that the serpent’s egg was hatched long ago and that its poison continues to infect Orthodoxy to this day. It was then, in 1448, that Prince Vasily ordered the secession of the newly formed Church of Moscow from the Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate. An uncanonical synod of Russian bishops was convened, electing Jonah as archbishop.
“This is the first time that a Russian archbishop is styled ‘of Moscow and of all Rus’,” he adds. “And while the Ottomans, in 1452, were standing before the walls of the ill-fated Queen of Cities, the Ecumenical Patriarchate was forced to bless the Russian ecclesiastical rebellion by recognizing Jonah’s election. It did not, however, grant the local synod of Moscow the right to elect a metropolitan. Seven years later, the ruler ordered that bishops no longer be elected by the Ecumenical Patriarchate but by the local synod. The first rupture had occurred. A century later, in 1580, Tsar Ivan IV ‘the Terrible’ pressured Joachim V, Patriarch of Antioch, to elevate the Archbishopric of Moscow to a Patriarchate. He refused, stating that this was the responsibility of the ‘Synod in Constantinople.’ Did the tsar relent in his obsessive demand that the Patriarchate of Constantinople elevate the Church of Moscow to a Patriarchate? Tsar Feodor, however, demanded this from Patriarch Jeremiah II the Great of Constantinople, keeping him under detention. Jeremiah yielded, convening a large synod in 1590. The Patriarchal and Synodal Chrysobull officially elevating Moscow to a Patriarchate was signed — always, of course, under the aegis of the Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This, however, was not sufficient for the Russian authorities, who incorporated into their imperial designs the theory that they were allegedly the heirs of the Byzantine emperors.”
But what about the Patriarchate of Moscow? It was unable to articulate an independent voice imbued with Christian ideals — neither in the era of Tsarist Russia, nor in the era of Soviet Russia, nor in the era of Putin’s Russia. It has always stood as a faithful collaborator of Russian authority and has, of course, reaped the benefits of its tight embrace with it.
Not even this constitution of Christianity, Holy Scripture itself, does the Patriarchate of Moscow wish to follow. The Patriarchate of Moscow — or more precisely, its primate, the Patriarch of Moscow — reminds us rather of the “preeminence-loving Diotrephes,” who “prates against [his superiors] with malicious words” (3 John 9–10). The recent slanders uttered by the secret service SVR reveal that the one hiding behind them is the contemporary Diotrephes, the primate of the Russian Church, since only he, alas, as the religious leader of the local Church, objectively possesses the authority to declare who is a “cassocked antichrist” and who is an “incarnate devil.” The fact that he arbitrarily and arrogantly — overstepping the bounds defined by the Canons of the Church — attributes these slanders to the Primate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Mother Church that elevated him, reinforces the view that he serves as a mouthpiece of Putin’s authority.
How, then, does the Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and its Primate, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, respond? He courageously emphasizes that “fake news, insults, and fabricated information of every kind by propagandists do not discourage the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”
It continues to commemorate the Patriarch of Moscow, following the tradition of the Christian constitution, which reminds us that the first Christians, “continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart” (Acts 2:46). For the Ecumenical Patriarch, it is an affront to ignore the exhortation of the Apostle Paul, the apostle of all nations, that all Christians should glorify “with one accord and with one mouth… God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 15:6). By contrast, the Patriarch of Moscow decided to cease commemorating Patriarch Bartholomew and to break communion with hierarchs of the Patriarchate.
Finally, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew — the “Green Patriarch,” the Patriarch of reconciliation, internationally acclaimed and widely recognized by numerous parliaments as the preeminent spiritual leader of Orthodoxy — waits patiently, as a father waits for his unruly and wayward child finally to come of age, and like the prodigal son of the parable to return to the paternal home, the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos.
