The relative success of Constantinople Patriarchy’s foray into the vipers’ tangle of Ukrainian church politics has whetted its appetite to try to go further along the same lines, following the general direction set by its overseas “partners.”

A few days ago in Kiev, a mammoth crowd of about 350,000 Ukrainians voted with their feet (as they used to tell us during the Cold War) in a procession organised by the local Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. The occasion was the 1033^rd anniversary of the baptism of Kievan Rus. The bottom line is that the procession participants were manifesting their adherence to most of the concepts patiently and at length enunciated recently by President Putin in his detailed exposition of the interrelationship of the three major ethnic branches of the eastern Slavic world, of which the Ukrainians happen to be one. (Résumé of Putin’s thesis: they are all one people, and after reading his essay go to the Atlantic Council website here to have a good laugh at a pathetic attempt to debunk it.) As almost invariably happens with events that do not conform to prevailing Western narratives, the procession was blotted out by “fact checkers.” Although it occurred in the epicentre of the artificial anti-Russia that NATO is aggressively erecting in its Ukrainian vassalage, the event’s clear implications were ignored by those in the West who should have been the first to take realistic note of it. The massive “no” to their agenda in the streets of Kiev still resonates and pretending that this did not happen is an error greatly to their geopolitical disadvantage.

Although the general West, in its narcissistic self-fascination, is largely unaware of the existence of a vibrant Christian Orthodox East, preferring instead to equate traditional Christendom with its Roman Catholic religious offshoot, political strategists and specialists are well aware that the Vatican is only an important segment but by no means the whole of a complex religious picture. Those instances, unlike the man on the street, have therefore paid careful attention to the affairs of the Orthodox East and have factored it into their global competition and domination plans.

Hence, they long ago allocated intelligence resources to and engaged collaborators in the target religious community, fully taking into account the specific spirit and structure of Orthodoxy, in order to influence its behaviour and where possible bring it under their sway.

Thus, the close working relationship and policy consultations between the major Western powers and the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople go back over seventy years. With his captive and demographically decimated see in NATO member Turkey, the Greek Ecumenical Patriarch is an ideal subject for political manipulation and control, and that fact has not been lost on Western policy-makers. A strategic alliance with the Patriarchal see was concluded in the 1940s, at the time not just on an anti-communist but also specifically anti-Russian basis, not unlike Reagan’s “deal” with the Vatican much later in the 1980s. The Patriarchy henceforth became engaged in a number of Western political projects, crass interference in Ukrainian church affairs in the last few years being just one obvious example.

The gist of that affair, worthy of the machinations of any former eastern bloc country’s police religious affairs department, should be recalled briefly. At the direction of its NATO “partners,” the Ecumenical Patriarchate in December 2018 sponsored an irregular “church council” consisting of a patchwork of schismatic and uncanonical religious groups to which it awarded the status of a self-governing “autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church.” The new religious entity is not recognised by the majority of the Orthodox world, but merely establishing it under Constantinople’s auspices is enough to give a boost to Ukrainian separatism (which just happens to be a major NATO political goal) and also to engender division and hostility between the two main centres of Orthodoxy, Constantinople and Moscow. That, in turn, undermines the unity and integrity of the Orthodox Church as a whole, which has been judged correctly to be, in its traditional and “unreformed” incarnation, manifestly incompatible with virtually every objective inscribed in the globalist agenda.

The relative success of Constantinople Patriarchy’s foray into the vipers’ tangle of Ukrainian church politics has apparently whetted its appetite to try to go further along the same lines, again following the general direction set by its overseas “partners.” Speaking for the “Russia 24” network, the head of Moscow Patriarchy’s Department of external church relations, Metropolitan Ilarion, said recently that signs of a “Ukrainian scenario” (code word for externally induced ecclesiastical schism and disarray) are increasingly being noticed in Belarus. A self- proclaimed “Belarussian Orthodox Church” apparently is already taking shape and, interestingly, some of its core worshippers also seem to be individuals and their descendants who after the defeat of the option they had aligned themselves with in World War II took refuge and bided their time in the “free world.” So far, a perfect parallel with their schismatic Ukrainian co-religionists.

The autonomous canonical Belarussian Orthodox church, like its canonical Ukrainian counterpart which is the dominant religious tradition in that country, is in communion with the Moscow Patriarchy and an integral part of it. While, according to Metropolitan Ilarion, there is at present little chance of the new Belarussian “church” gaining much grass roots traction, he also points out prudently (and diplomatically) that abroad there are “forces interested in the political destabilisation of Belarus, having observed the trajectory of events in the Ukraine and realising that the church has the capacity to become a significant factor.” How and when the “church card” will be played in Belarus to further undermine the Lukashenko government will be fascinating to watch.

In a recent interview, Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov warned that Orthodoxy is the target of a comprehensive Western offensive which, in the religious sphere, complements similar initiatives in the political field:

“On the face of it, this is being presented as a movement for each Orthodox people having the right of choice. All of us are well aware of how the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) was created. It was not just an initiative suggested by Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew. It was directly dictated by the United States. By and large, they do not conceal this fact themselves. The U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom appointed by the previous administration was doing things that were directly opposite to his mandate. He was undermining the freedom of religion and imposing organisational parameters (to use the bureaucratic idiom) on different local churches. He was destroying the unity of the Orthodox believers of Russia and Ukraine and creating in Ukraine a schismatic and, in effect, powerless church. He was also destroying the unity of the Church of Antioch and attempting to wean from it the Lebanese Orthodox believers. The same is happening with regard to the canonical territory of the Serbian Orthodox Church.”

There does not seem much that should need to be added to this panorama of perfidy.

Improvised new religious systems regularly accompany hare-brained Western “nation building” schemes. Montenegro and Macedonia [now “northern,” of course] could be cited as examples. The Ukraine is no exception. The formation, beginning in 2014, of an active Ukrainian “anti-Russia,” to use Nikolay Starikov’s apt expression, could not be completed without concocting its own pseudo-ecclesiastical infrastructure. We outlined that process some time ago (and here).

Essentially, in the implementation of the Ukrainian religious operation the office of the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople played a key role. Going back almost a century, the patriarchal office has in the theological sense been filled by Western stooges. But in the nitty-gritty political and intelligence sense, its vassalage, encompassing a close working relationship with NATO political centers and Western special services, dates back to at least the period immediately following World War II.

That cosy relationship bore ample fruit after the Ukrainian crisis was exacerbated in the aftermath of the 2014 Maidan coup. The radical reconfiguration of the Ukraine as a NATO arsenal and forward post strategically situated on Russia’s border presupposed certain factors of social cohesion that could hold it together. One of those factors was the whipping up of extreme Ukrainian nationalism. It was given particular impetus by the massive and multigenerational influx of World War II Ukrainian Nazi collaborators and their descendants who had taken refuge in the U.S., Canada and other Western countries while waiting for their hour to strike. The other factor was the calculated intrusion of the Ecumenical Patriarch, at his curators’ behest, and after receiving a hefty bakshееsh from the Poroshenko government, into the chaotic Ukrainian religious situation. While the majority of Ukrainians remain faithful to the autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is in communion with the Moscow Patriarchy, there are numerous competing splinter groups operating without canonical recognition. The brilliant hare-brained idea of Western “experts” was to consolidate these canonically irregular factions around an equally illegitimate hierarch who would then be anointed by our old friend, the self-presumed Orthodox “Eastern Pope” in Constantinople. And voilà!, now you’ve got your native religion to go along with the nationalist fervour and political megalomania. All the building blocks of the “new nation” are thus nicely in place.

It passed largely unnoted, but the recent rise in tensions and NATO Ukraine’s bellicose behaviour on the political and military fronts was anticipated late last year by a quiet visit paid to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew by Ukrainian Prime Minister Dinis [Denis, presumably] Schmygal, on 30 November 2020. It is reported that Schmygal was accompanied by several other cabinet ministers as well as some clergy from the canonically dubious church structure known as the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OKU), the very same outfit which Schmygal’s host had recently decreed into existence.

According to a well-informed German source, “more details about the meeting have only recently become known. The Ukrainian Prime Minister has assured the Constantinople Hierarch that Kiev is ready to implement all measures required by the Constantinople Patriarchate to strengthen the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OKU). This includes the official support of the OKU and the guarantee of congregational transfers from the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (OUK) to the canonically disputed OKU. In January 2019, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew, ‘recognized’ the OKU, newly founded from several schismatic churches, by awarding it a tomos – which is a church charter. In the opinion of most other Orthodox churches, he has thus exceeded his competencies as ‘first among equals’.”

In the “opinion of most”, that much is correct, but to be exact not all Orthodox churches because the Ecumenical Patriarchy has been frantically busy arm-twisting wherever possible to gain some semblance of legal recognition for its illegitimate Ukrainian progeny, much as its Western directors have been doing on behalf of their Kosovo entity. So far, the Patriarchy has scored some successes with the Greek and Alexandrian, as well as partially with the Cypriot, Orthodox Churches.

But the disclosure about these high-level talks that is of the greatest interest by far, especially in light of the border provocations which subsequently took place during the first months of this year, is the Ukrainian side’s apparent commitment to their patriarchal host. It is, no less, than to accelerate by state interference the transfer of parishes from the canonically established church in the Ukraine to the canonically problematic agglomeration of schismatic factions to which Bartholomew awarded a veneer of legitimacy in 2019. It does not require much analytical sophistication to see clearly the operation of the identical political mind-set which inspired in the recent weeks the projected use of force to “solve” the Donbass and even the Crimean situations.

Indeed, completely ignored by globalist media, a deliberately instigated religious war has been raging in the Ukraine since the 2014 coup. That has, in fact, recently been reaching crescendo and in visible coordination with plans for forceful NATO-Ukrainian interventions on the military and political fronts that were simultaneously being laid.

In the poignant film that follows, the appalling situation on the ground is eloquently portrayed:

The tragic persecution of the Ukrainian faithful, forcible takeover of their parishes, the systematic despoiling of their property, and denial of their right to worship as they choose, all of which is everyday reality in the NATO colony of Ukraine – none of that triggers the slightest notice or arouses the concern of “human rights” and “rule of law” advocates. Least of all does it perturb anyone at the Office of International Religious Freedom.

In the same vein, Poroshenko and his parliamentary cronies moved fast to try to ensure that Zelensky’s freedom to govern would be restricted. Immediately following the vote, legislation was advanced in the Verkhovna Rada to transfer powers from the president to the Rada (and hence to the prime minister), to limit the president’s power to appoint cabinet ministers, to lock in exclusive official use of the Ukrainian language, and to impair Zelensky’s ability to call early elections (his new Servant of the People party currently holds no seats). Predictably no western government or “democracy” watchdog group has cried foul over these blatant attempts to clip the wings of the voters’ overwhelming favorite. Nothing to see here folks – now let’s get back to regime change to install “democracy” in Venezuela …

Even without obstructionism from the old guard it’s doubtful Zelensky can achieve much. During the campaign, parallels were drawn to fellow “outsider” Donald Trump and his improbable 2016 win. Whatever Trump’s intentions to #DrainTheSwamp and institute an #AmericaFirst policy, they have come to naught in the face of a united, bipartisan establishment. If anything the Kiev “Swamp” facing Zelensky is worse than the one that bested Trump in Washington – in fact, it’s fair to say that the former is to a great extent just a function of the latter. Whatever his intentions and personal qualities, which remain in doubt, Zelensky is being set up to be the latest failed president of a failing state.

However, one area in which we can expect some improvement is the crisis in the Orthodox Church, which last year was plunged into an ugly schism over Ukraine. As noted earlier, while many people, especially some of a secular mind who scorn mere “religion,” tend to underestimate the importance of spiritual matters in relation to politics and society, there are some parts of the world where they are taken very seriously. Paradoxically, this is especially true in parts of eastern and central Europe that until recently were under the sway of militant atheists. Indeed, that legacy – and the eventual failure of communism – seems to be a factor in Christianity’s revival as a potent societal force in much of that region, in most cases allied with national identity, in sad contrast to progressively secularizing (and morally self-destructing) western Europe and North America.

Without repeating all the details here, Poroshenko had sought to create his very own “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” as a prop for his reelection bid with the enthusiastic (and reportedly monetary) involvement of the US State Department and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in Constantinople, along with cheerleading from the global LGBT lobby (itself weaponized against Christianity by western governments and the Soros network). Under Poroshenko’s and Patriarch Bartholomew’s patronage, the “Robber Council” of Kiev on December 15, 2018, purported to transform a hodgepodge of schismatics into a new “autocephalous” Ukrainian church, though in fact the new illegitimate body would be totally subject to Constantinople, with even less independence than that enjoyed by the existing, canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, who heads the Russian Orthodox Church, of which the UOC is an autonomous part, responded by breaking communion with Constantinople.

While Zelensky has met pro forma with the supposed primate of the phony church – as well as with the first hierarch of the canonical Church, Metropolitan Onufry – for obvious reasons he’s unlikely to involve himself too deeply insustaining his predecessor’s pet project. That project now seems to be failing quicker than anyone had dared hope. Not a single autocephalous Orthodox Church has responded positively to Constantinople’s call to recognize the new entity.

Perhaps most significantly, recently the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem gathered on Cyprus with the Archbishop of that country’s Church, ostensibly to discuss problems of Christians in the Middle East. Thankfully, they seem to have resolved a schism between Antioch and Jerusalem unrelated to the Ukraine imbroglio, but by all indications Ukraine was the real purpose of the meeting – with Constantinople pointedly absent. To the extent that the rift between Moscow and Constantinople threatened to break down globally along ethnic lines with “Greeks” on the one hand and Russians or “Slavs” generally on the other, the conclave of the culturally Greek Churches seems to have averted that danger. The Church of Albania, also largely Greek, has also strongly criticized Constantinople.

Hopefully, we will soon see floated an initiative to give Patriarch Bartholomew a face-saving way to back down from his misstep in Ukraine. Sadly, he as yet shows no sign of doing so, despite the Ukrainian schismatics’ he has taken under his wing having given him more than ample grounds to disavow them.

Among the strongest bulwarks against the schismatic schemes of Kiev, Constantinople, Washington, and the Soros/LGBT network has been the Serbian Orthodox Church, based on a principled rejection of Constantinople’s anti-traditional, neo-papal claims. The vehemence of the Serbian Church’s stand on Ukraine also reflects particular internal threats Serbia faces from politically motivated schismatic groups that could provide tempting targets for meddling by Patriarch Bartholomew and his western backers. These include the “Macedonian Orthodox Church,” which claims to be independent of the Serbian Church but is recognized by no other Church (and where state authorities in the NATO puppet and newly renamed “Republic of North Macedonia” harass the canonical Autonomous Archbishopric of Ohrid), as well as attempts to create a separate “Montenegrin Orthodox Church.” In this context, never far from anyone’s consciousness is the formation of an ersatz “Croatian Orthodox Church” in 1942 under the World War II-era regime of Ustaša dictator Ante Pavelić, as a cover for the genocide of Orthodox Serbs in the so-called “Independent State of Croatia.”

Thus, the approaching failure of Poroshenko’s, the State Department’s, and Patriarch Bartholomew’s project in Ukraine is a victory not only for the Orthodox Church as a whole but for the Serbian Church in particular. The Archpastors and faithful of that Church deserve praise for their bold witness. That said, it is unfortunate to note that at the same time the same hierarchs (Orthodoxy does not regard any bishop or synod of bishops as infallible) have failed to correct a grave injustice within their own Church – one evidently prompted from Washington, the very same point of origin as the Ukrainian crisis.

I refer to the 2010 removal without an ecclesiastical trial of His Grace, Bishop Artemije from his Eparchy of Raška and Prizren, which includes the province of Kosovo and Metohija, and his later (purported) reduction to the status of a simple monastic. The ostensible reasons for the action taken against Vladika Artemije are allegations against him and Fr. Simeon (Vilovski) concerning improper use of funds earmarked for repairs to places of worship (to put Serbian churches and monasteries in good order for further vandalism and destruction from NATO-empowered Albanian Muslim militants) for lobbying in Washington, starting in 2006, on behalf of his flock and against western plans to separate Kosovo from Serbia. As the lead lobbyist for that effort, I can personally attest to the emptiness of these accusations, on which I have written in detail (for example, available here in English and in Serbian). The charges against him are unfounded, which is why, in addition to suffering at the hands of the Holy Synod in Belgrade, Vladika Artemije has never been brought to trial by state authorities despite an ongoing campaign of defamation and legal harassment that continues to this day.

Why has he been treated this way? First, because he has been openly defiant of the bogus charges labeled against him. Unwilling to “repent” for allegations of wrongdoing he has not committed, he insists that he is the true Bishop of the Raško-Prizrenska Eparchy in Exile – leading to his being falsely being accused of schism. Second, he is an outspoken opponent of ecumenism, which offends many in all Orthodox jurisdictions, which sadly are infected with this spiritual malady to a greater or lesser degree.

But the chief reason is flatly political. Vladika Artemije was punished for his forthright opposition to US and NATO policy in Kosovo and his spearheading the lobbying effort to oppose creation of that terrorist-mafia pseudo-state (and hotbed of Islamic jihad) under NATO protection. In addition, he sued the NATO powers in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and in 2009 sought to bar a visit by then-US Vice President and current 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden (a belligerent proponent of war against Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo and of detaching Kosovo from Serbia, not to mention a Ukraine profiteer via his son Hunter Biden) from visiting Visoki Dečani monastery – a decision overturned by the Serbian Church at the behest of the Serbian government, then headed by western quisling Boris Tadić.

But the final push evidently came from the US military. The proof of Vladika’s effectiveness is in the fact that there is reason to suspect that the campaign to eliminate him as an obstacle to Western policy was undertaken in direct response to a NATO, and specifically US, initiative. As reported by NATO, US Admiral Mark P. Fitzgerald, then Commander, US Naval Forces Europe and Africa, and Commander, Allied Joint Force Command (JFC) Naples, “with operational responsibility for NATO missions in the Balkans, Iraq and the Mediterranean,” took part in meetings in Kosovo in January 2010 (“JFC Com Visits Kosovo,” with this link now evidently pulled down from the Naples Command website; note, this occurred on January 8, the second day of Orthodox Christmas according to the Julian Calendar) and on February 2010 (“JFC Commander visists [sic] Viskoki [sic] Decane [sic] Monastery,” also now pulled down). During his January 2010 visit Admiral Fitzgerald (who retired later that year, becoming, unsurprisingly, a consultant “with numerous defense and commercial maritime and aviation contractors”) publicly stated that he considered Serbian so-called “parallel institutions” – that is, the legitimate structures of the sovereign Serbian state, as opposed to the Albanians’ illegal separatist administration installed under NATO patronage – to be a “security threat” to the NATO occupying forces. Further, an unconfirmed report indicates that a high NATO officer (whether Admiral Fitzgerald or someone else is not specified) stated in the course of one of the January meetings (this is verbatim or a close paraphrase) “What we need here is a more cooperative bishop.”

While it is impossible to authenticate this report definitively or firmly identify the speaker of the comment the timing is highly indicative. Just over a month after Admiral Fitzgerald’s earlier visit, and just before his later one, Vladika Artemije’s authority over his Eparchy was “temporarily” suspended. This was followed by his physical removal from the province of Kosovo and Metohija and by a declaration of the Holy Hierarchical Assembly of the Serbian Orthodox Church that he had been stripped of the episcopal dignity and reduced to the status of a monk. (For further accounts of relevant western pressure on Serbian Church and state authorities, see “ANY PRETEXT WILL DO: Totalitarianism in Service to the West: Serbia Betrays God, Helps Evict Last of Kosovo Christianity,” by Julia Gorin; the speaker in question is identified, perhaps imprecisely based on available information as “a KFOR officer”; and “Eleven Years Later: NATO Powers Prepare Final Solution In Kosovo,” by Rick Rozoff.)

In sum, Vladika Artemije was victimized by the same aggressive, anti-Christian western powers who now seek to use the Ukrainian schism as a political and moral weapon against Orthodoxy, with compliant Serbian government and Church authorities acting on their behalf. With the effort in Ukraine visibly withering, and with it Washington’s ability to meddle in Orthodox Church affairs, it is long past time for the Holy Hierarchical Assembly of the Serbian Orthodox Church to rectify the injustice done to Vladika Artemije. May they now display the same courage and commitment to principle in this matter that they have shown with respect to Ukraine.

The most serious schism within the Eastern Orthodox Church since the Great Schism of 1054 continues this year, with the excommunication of the Constantinople Patriarch, Bartholomew I, following his “rehabilitation” of two schismatic hierarchs on October 11th of this year. The local Orthodox Churches already had a reaction before this ever happened, and that response has largely deepened now.

Prior to that event, though, the possibility that the Ukrainian government, consumed with a fervor to utterly purge the country of all things Russian, was going to try to eject the leading Orthodox Church in that country because it is under the Moscow Patriarchate. The noisings of Filaret Denisenko and President Poroshenko were getting noticed by Constantinople and by the West, who seek to use Ukraine as the next outpost in its proxy battle against Russia.

This is not merely an ecclesiastical spat but a major front in the fight between secular or atheist globalism and Christian sovereignty.

On the 6^th of July of this year, the Union of Orthodox Journalists compiled a list of the thoughts expressed by the fourteen “Local” Orthodox Churches regarding Ukrainian autocephaly, or total independence.  (A “Local” Church is such a church, in 100% communion theologically with all the other Orthodox Churches, but administered independently of them. There is no single human point of authority in Eastern Orthodoxy, with each bishop having independence within his own see.)

The following is excerpted heavily from the Union’s piece, with emphasis added where we thought it would be useful for the reader in understanding the nature and character of this problem:

World Orthodoxy supports the UOC (the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Moscow Patriarchate) and condemns the split.

Recently, representatives of the unrecognized Kyiv Patriarchate have voiced manipulative theses about the support of the Ukrainian authorities by the Local Orthodox Churches. In particular, head of the UOC-KP Filaret stated that autocephaly for the schismatics will be supported by 12 out of 15 (although the recognized autocephalous churches at the moment are only 14) Churches.

The UOJ has prepared a selection of statements by representatives of the Orthodox Churches, upon which one can make sure that the fullness of Orthodoxy condemns the split and does not accept its legalization in any form. Priests of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church can print out this material and deliver the truth to their parishioners.

Alexandrian Orthodox Church

On June 29, 2018 Metropolitan Luke of Zaporozhye and Melitopol took part in the Liturgy in the Greek city of Berea and communicated with representatives of the Orthodox Churches, in particular with the Patriarch Theodoros II of Alexandria.

Regarding the initiative of the Ukrainian authorities, the Patriarch of Alexandria noted that modern politicians are more likely to harm the Church than to help it. They and we need to remember that “even hair cannot fall from our head without the will of God” (see Matthew 10, 29), therefore not always what they want will be pleasing to God, Who does everything for our eternal salvation, and not for up-to-the-minute whims.

Patriarch Theodoros II stressed that the issues of autocephaly should be resolved through fraternal discussion, since only general support can contribute to their solution.

“Let us pray to God, Who does all for our good, that He will impart wisdom to everyone by solving these problems. If the schismatic Denisenko wants to return to the bosom of the Church, then he must go back to where he left. What has fallen off must return to where it fell from. God is merciful to those who repent. So the Church forgives and accepts in its maternal embrace all those who repent,” said the Primate of the Alexandrian Orthodox Church.

Serbian Orthodox Church

On May 23, 2018 Primate of the Serbian Orthodox Church Irinej stated the following: “Everyone knows the feat of hundreds of thousands of Serbs who fought to the death for holy Orthodoxy. Therefore, I think, it is not necessary to say a lot of words to explain how the Serbian Church sees everything that is happening in Ukraine today,” Patriarch Irinej said.” Our response is the same as the response of our predecessors: the Serbian Church entirely supports the unity and integrity of the Russian Orthodox Church and resolutely condemns actions of Uniates and schismatics who tear apart the robe of Christ at the place of Kievan Baptism betraying their people to the enemies of faith. Their end shall be according to their works (2 Corinthians 11:15).”

“Everyone who helps Ukrainian schismatics is not only an enemy of the Russian Church and the Russian world, but also of all Orthodox Slavonic peoples and the whole Orthodox world,” Patriarch Irinej said.

Earlier, on May 10, 2018, the SOC’s Council of Bishops expressed full support to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

“We express our full solidarity in compassionate brotherly love for our sister – the Church-martyr in Ukraine, which is subjected to the brutal persecution by the current regime in Kiev.”

Bulgarian Orthodox Church

On June 15, 2018, deputy head of the presidential administration, Rostislav Pavlenko, met with Patriarch Neophyte, the leader of the BOC.

The chief secretary of the Holy Synod of the BOC, Bishop Gerasim of Melnish, stressed that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church is well acquainted with the Ukrainian situation and its complexity. However, within the framework of this process, said Bishop Gerasim, it is necessary to strictly observe the ecclesiastical canons, which the Orthodox Church has been following for many centuries.

Earlier the Primate of the Bulgarian Church has repeatedly expressed his support for the UOC and condemned the actions of the schismatics.

Polish Orthodox Church

On May 17, 2018, the Synod of the Polish Church expressed support for the UOC.

“As for the letter of His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine, who informs us of the current situation of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, we express a clear position of the Polish Autocephalous Church, namely, that the ecclesiastic life of the canonical Orthodox Church should be based on the principles of dogmatism and holy canons of the Orthodox Church,” reads the decision of the Holy Synod of the Polish Orthodox Church. “Violation of this principle leads to chaos in the life of the Church. In Ukraine there are certain schismatic groups that must first of all repent and return to the canonical Church. Only then can we discuss the issue of granting autocephaly.”

The hierarchs of the Polish Orthodox Church emphasize, “The Holy Synod of Bishops of the Polish Orthodox Church professes, above all, the observance of the canonical order in the life of the Church. The Mother Church can grant autocephaly in accordance with the opinion of the Local Orthodox Churches provided it has been confirmed by all Primates of the Local Churches.

“When it comes to dogmatic-canonical issues, one cannot be guided by political considerations,” the Synod summed up.

Orthodox Church of Jerusalem

On April 26, 2018, His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine met with the Primate of the Jerusalem Orthodox Church, His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III.

“We are doing our best to restore the unity of the Church,” said the head of the Jerusalem Church. “I have always believed and believe, like my spiritual fathers, that the best way to resolve the church schism in Ukraine is to restore the unity of Ukrainian Orthodoxy with the Moscow Patriarchate and then to start a dialogue as a way of solving the problem. As an example, I often refer to the relationship between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Church of Greece.”

Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia

On May 30, the Ukrainian delegation with the participation of former presidents Kuchma and Kravchuk visited Metropolitan Rostislav.

His Beatitude Metropolitan Rostislav drew the attention of interlocutors to the fact that interference in the affairs of religion on the part of the authorities is unacceptable in a democratic society.

“The schism that arose out of human egoism can only be healed through repentance and return to the Church,” Vladika said, adding that the new autocephaly (for the canonical Church – author) should be born out of an all-Orthodox consensus.

Georgian Orthodox Church

On June 21, the Holy Synod of the Georgian Orthodox Church took place. According to the member of the Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Petra, at the meeting on June 21 the Synod did not consider this issue in the sense of “support it or not”.

“The Holy Synod took a reasonable position, which lies in that the discussion on this issue will take place after the Ecumenical Patriarchate has clarified its position,” the hierarch said in a conversation with reporters.

However, according to the Greek media outlet Romfea, one of the metropolitans of the Georgian Patriarchate, on condition of anonymity, reported that Patriarch Ilia II expressed deep dissatisfaction with the Ukrainian issue: “His Beatitude does not agree with the initiatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on Ukraine and accepts as legitimate exclusively the Church under the leadership of Metropolitan Onufry,” said the Georgian hierarch.

Contrary to the position of the Patriarch and the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Peter (Tsaava) supported the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. In his statements to the Georgian media he justified his opinion by the fact that 40 million people in the country should have their independent Church. Yet it should be emphasized the above said is just his private opinion.

Antiochian Orthodox Church

A communique of the Holy Synod of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, published on April 30, commented on conflicts in the Orthodox world, in the course of which “efforts are being made to change the borders of the Patriarchates and autocephalous churches.”

The Synod stated that “the Patriarchate of Antioch suffered and continues to suffer from the invasion of the Jerusalem Patriarchate to its canonical territory and the establishment of the so-called “diocese” in Qatar. In this context, he calls for a return to the principle of consensus by addressing important issues, because it has always helped Orthodoxy avoid splits and fragmentation.”

Greek Orthodox Church

On June 26, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the ROC, met with Archbishop Jerome, the head of the GOC.

Archbishop Jerome noted, “I am particularly pleased by today’s meeting with Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, which gave us a wonderful opportunity to exchange views on ecclesiastic topics in general, to discuss our good fraternal relations with the Russian Church, as well as a number of pressing issues, for example, the situation of church affairs in Ukraine. We decided that we will follow the development of events in order to state whether we agree or not. We wish enlightenment to all those who, unlike us, are endowed with great powers to achieve the result for the good of the whole Church.”

Orthodox Church of Cyprus

On July 21, 2017 a letter from His Beatitude Archbishop Chrysostom II of New Justinian and the whole of Cyprus arrived in the name of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia regarding the position of the canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

In his return letter, His Beatitude Archbishop Chrysostom, in particular, notes: “Whenever the state and especially the parliament interfere in the issues of the Church, the harm is obvious. The actions of the parliament will lead to the creation of a certain schismatic church, while the holy fathers view schism as the deepest wound on the sacred body of the Church. The Church is a feeding Mother, and it strives for unity in the love of all the people of the Ukrainian state. Laws are always compulsory, causing division among the people. The Ukrainian people have suffered enough and continue to be in distress, so there is no need for additional misfortunes and torments. The Church of Cyprus expresses its discontent with this interference,” Archbishop Chrysostom said.

Having assured His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of his support of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church “in this troubled and difficult time,” the Primate of the Church of Cyprus noted, “Our Church prays to the Organizer of the Church, our Lord Jesus Christ, to enlighten the political leaders of Ukraine so that they could persuade the schismatics to return to the Church headed by Your Holiness.”

Deputy Head of the Department for External Church Relations of the UOC, Protopriest Nikolai Danilevich, told on his Facebook page about the position of the Cypriot hierarchs: “I had talks with the priests from Cyprus. They asked me about the situation around our ecclesiastic issue. They said, “We communicate with our bishops. All of them are against it. No one supports (the idea of giving Tomos in circumvention of the UOC). Everyone says, “We do not know what it will result in, but we will not recognize this new structure. We will be with the Church of Metropolitan Onufry.”

Romanian Orthodox Church

In April 2016, Bishop Varlaam, secretary of the Holy Synod of the Romanian Church, supported the UOC as the only canonical Church in Ukraine and stated, “The Romanian Orthodox Church prays continuously for peace in Ukraine, on whose body the bleeding wound is gaping caused by the ongoing armed conflict, which is aggravated by actions of the schismatics being lawless and contradictory to the Gospel and canons, which can not in any way contribute to the establishment of peace on the Ukrainian land.”

Albanian Orthodox Church

The Church of Albania has not yet expressed its official position concerning the initiative of Ukrainian authorities, yet one can make conclusions based on its previous statements it also supports the UOC.

UPDATE: From the article linked here, the Albanian Church struck a non-polarized point of view, calling both sides out – for the Albanians, Russia was wrong to excommunicate Constantinople, but the Ecumenical Patriarch’s actions were also uncanonical, and the solution is for all the Local Churches to settle the matter. Albania offered to mitigate.

Orthodox Church of Constantinople

Finally, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which the schismatics pin high hopes to and assert it is determined to recognize them, declares quite the opposite.

Metropolitan Luke of Zaporozhye and Melitopol held talks with the representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Metropolitan Ambrosios of Korea, who said literally the following:

“Patriarch Bartholomew is particularly concerned about the split triggered by the current head of the “Kyiv Patriarchate” with the support of politicians. Aware of the responsibility for the church unity, His Holiness wishes, without interfering in the internal life of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and in the political situation, to help solve a very difficult issue – the existence of the schism in Ukraine, which can only be settled by canonical means. The issue is so complex that so far no one knows how to resolve it and at the same time not to lose our brothers, who are in schism, and to return them to the saving bosom of the Orthodox Church.”

Arising from the aforesaid, the position of the Local Churches can be summed up as follows:

Politicians should not interfere in the internal affairs of the Church;

Schismatics must unite with the canonical Church after their repentance and only later can the prospect of autocephaly be discussed;

All complex ecclesiastical issues should be resolved by consensus, together, rather than by an individual decision;

The overcoming of the split must take place strictly on a canonical basis.

Since the ancestors of modern Russians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians were first baptized in 988 in Kiev, the Patriarchs of the Russian Church have never had problems visiting Kiev, the birthplace of their church. Not even under the Bolsheviks did such prohibitions exist. So, for Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church to be denied permission to visit Kiev can only be compared to a possible prohibition against the pope visiting Rome. Since 2014, there have also been several criminal cases filed against the priests of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC MP) because they have called the hostilities in eastern Ukraine a “civil war” and have discouraged the faithful from supporting that war. This has been interpreted by the Ukrainian state authorities as a call for soldiers to desert the army.

Why Poroshenko’s meeting with Bartholomew is ominous

Despite the fact that the UOC MP has become used to all sorts of trouble since 2014, things have been looking even worse for the canonical church lately, as 2018 draws to a close. In early November 2018, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko broke the wall of separation between church and state in the most overt manner possible — he signed “an agreement on cooperation and joint action” between Ukraine and the so called Constantinople Patriarchate, the oldest institution of Orthodox Christianity, which is now based in Turkish Istanbul.

Rostislav Pavlenko, an aide to Poroshenko, wrote on his Facebook page that the agreement (not yet published) is premised on the creation of a new “autocephalous” Orthodox Church of Ukraine — a development that the official, existing Orthodox Churches in Russia and Ukraine view with foreboding as a “schism” that they have done all they can to prevent. Why? Because Poroshenko’s regime, which came to power via a violent coup in Kiev in 2014 on a wave of public anti-Russian sentiment, may try to force the canonical Orthodox Church of Ukraine to merge with other, non-canonical institutions and to surrender to them church buildings, including the famous monasteries in Kiev and Pochai, as well as other property.

President Poroshenko was visibly happy to sign the document — the contents of which have not yet been made public — on cooperation between the Ukrainian state and the Constantinople Patriarchate, in the office of Bartholomew, the head of the Constantinople Patriarchate. Poroshenko smiled and laughed, obviously rejoicing over the fact that the Constantinople Patriarchate is already embroiled in a scandalous rift with the Russian Orthodox Church and its Ukrainian sister church over several of Bartholomew’s recent moves. Bartholomew’s decision to “lift” the excommunication from two of Ukraine’s most prominent schismatic “priests,” in addition to Bartholomew’s declaration that the new church of Ukraine will be under Constantinople’s direct command — these moves were just not acceptable for the canonical Orthodox believers in Russia and Ukraine. Kirill, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), as well as Onufriy, the Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine, are protesting loudly, viewing this situation as a breach of two basic principles. First of all, the Ukrainian state has interfered in the church’s affairs, asking Constantinople to give the Ukrainian church “autocephaly,” which that church never requested. Second, Constantinople itself has interfered in the affairs of two autonomous national churches, the Russian and the Ukrainian. In the eyes of Ukrainian and Russian clergy, Bartholomew is behaving like the Roman pope and not as a true Orthodox leader who respects the autonomy and self-rule of the separate, national Orthodox Churches.

The Russian President sympathizes with the believers’ pain

Two days before Poroshenko made his trip to Istanbul, Russian president Vladimir Putin broke with his usual reserve when commenting on faith issues to bitterly complain about the pain which believers in Russia and Ukraine have experienced from the recent divisions within the triangle of Orthodoxy’s three historic capitals — Constantinople, Kiev, and Moscow.

“Politicking in such a sensitive area as religion has always had grave consequences, first and foremost for the people who engaged in this politicking,” Putin said, addressing the World Congress of Russian Compatriots, an international organization that unites millions of ethnic and cultural Russians from various countries, including Ukraine. Himself a practicing Orthodox believer, Putin lauded Islam and Judaism, while at the same time complaining about the plight of Orthodox believers in Ukraine, where people of Orthodox heritage make up more than 80% of the population and where the church has traditionally acted as a powerful “spiritual link” with Russia.

Despite his complaints about “politicking,” Putin was careful not to go into the details of why exactly the state of affairs in Ukraine is so painful for Orthodox believers. That situation was explained by Patriarch Kirill. After many months of tense silence and an unsuccessful visit to Barthlomew’s office in Istanbul on August 31, Kirill has been literally crying for help in the last few weeks, saying he was “ready to go anywhere and talk to anyone” in order to prevent the destruction of the canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

Politics with a “mystical dimension”

Kirill said the attack against the Orthodox Church in Ukraine “had not only a political, but also a mystical dimension.” Speaking in more earthly terms, there is a danger that the 1,000-year-old historical Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) — which now owns 11,392 church buildings, 12,328 parishes, and two world-famous monasteries in Ukraine — will be dissolved. The roots of the UOC MP go back to the pre-Soviet Russian Empire and even further back to the era of Kievan Rus, the proto-state of the Eastern Slavs in the tenth-twelfth centuries AD, when the people who would later become Russians, Ukrainians, and Byelorussians were adopting Orthodox Christianity from the Byzantine Empire. It is by far the biggest church in Ukraine, as Mikhail Denisenko’s non-canonical “alternative” church has only 3,700 parishes that include church buildings (fewer than a third of what is owned by the UOC-MP, despite the fact that Denisenko enjoys official support from the Ukrainian state).

What many Russian and Ukrainian believers fear is that the Istanbul-based Patriarch Bartholomew will eventually grant Kiev what is being called autocephaly. In that event, the UOC-MP may be forced to merge with two other, non-canonical churches in Ukraine that have no apostolic liaison. The apostolic succession of the UOC-MP consists in the historical fact that its first bishops were ordained by medieval bishops from Constantinople, who had in turn been ordained by Christ’s disciples from ancient Israel. Apostolic succession is crucial for the Orthodox Church, where only bishops can ordain new priests and where the church’s connection to the first Christians is reflected in many ways, including in the clergy’s attire.

Metropolitan Hilarion (his secular name is Grigory Alfeyev), the Russian church’s chief spokesman on questions of schism and unity, accused the patriarch of contributing to the schism by officially “lifting” the excommunication from Ukraine’s most prominent schismatic church leader — the defrocked former bishop Mikhail Denisenko. That clergyman stands to gain most from the “autocephaly” promised to Poroshenko by Patriarch Bartholomew. A hierarchical Orthodox Church is considered to have autocephalous status, as its highest bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has stated that for Ukraine to be granted autocephaly from Istanbul, this would mean a complete “reformatting” of the country’s religious status quo and the severing of all links to Orthodox Russia and its “demons.”. Most likely, the new “united” church won’t be headed by the UOC MP’s Metropolitan, but by Mikhail Denisenko, who was excommunicated by both the UOC MP and the Russian church back in 1997 and with whom real Orthodox priests can only serve against their will and against the church’s internal rules.

Constantinople’s first dangerous moves

On October 11, 2018, the Constantinople Patriarchate made its first step towards granting autocephaly by repealing its own decision of 1686 that gave the Moscow Patriarch primacy over the Kiev-based Metropolitan. This 17th-century decision reflected the political reality of the merger between the states of Russia and Ukraine and established some order in the matters of church administration. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Moscow gave the Ukrainian church complete independence in financial and administrative matters, but the two churches retained their cherished “spiritual unity.” “Constantinople’s decision is aimed at destroying that unity,” the ROC’s Patriarch Kirill explained. “We can’t accept it. That is why our Holy Synod made the decision to end eucharistic communication with the Constantinople Patriarchate.”

How Moscow “excommunicated” Bartholomew

The end of eucharistic communication means that the priests of the two patriarchates (based in Moscow and Istanbul) won’t be able to hold church services together. It will be maintained as long as the threat of autocephaly continues. The Western mainstream media, however, interpreted this decision by the Russian church as a unilateral aggressive act. The NYT and the British tabloid press wrote that it simply reveals Putin’s “desperation” at not being able to keep Ukraine’s religious life under control.

However, Patriarch Bartholomew seems undeterred by the protests from the Russian faithful and the majority of Ukraine’s believers. Bartholomew said in a recent statement that Russia should just follow the example of Constantinople, which once granted autocephaly to the churches of the Balkan nations. Bartholomew’s ambassadors in Kiev do not shy away from communicating with the self-declared “Patriarch” Filaret (Mikhail Denisenko’s adopted religious name from back when he was the UOC MP’s Metropolitan prior to his excommunication in 1997). For true Orthodox believers, any communication with Denisenko has been forbidden since 1992, the year when he founded his own so-called Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate (UOC-KP). Unfortunately, Denisenko enjoys the full support of Ukrainian President Poroshenko, and recently the US State Department began encouraging Denisenko, by giving its full support to Ukraine’s autocephaly.

The lifting of Denisenko’s excommunication by Patriarch Bartholomew in Istanbul both upset and embittered the Orthodox believers in both Ukraine and Moscow, since Denisenko was excommunicated by a joint decision of the Russian church and the UOC MP in 1997, after a five-year wait for his return to the fold of the mother church. So, by undoing that decision, Constantinople has interfered in the canonical territory of both the Ukrainian and the Russian churches.

The UOC-MP protested, accusing not only Patriarch Bartholomew, but also the Ukrainian state of interfering in the church’s affairs. “We are being forced to get involved in politics. The politicians do not want Christ to run our church; they want to do it themselves,” said Metropolitan Onufriy (Onuphrius), the head of the UOC-MP, in an interview with PravMir, an Orthodox website. “Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate has been independent. Our church did not ask for autocephaly, because we already have independence. We have our own Synod (church council) and our own church court. Decisions are made by a congress of bishops and priests from all over Ukraine. We have financial and administrative independence, so autocephaly for us will be a limitation, not an expansion of our rights.”

Poroshenko’s premature jubilation

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Poroshenko did not conceal his jubilation about Constantinople’s moves. “This is a victory of good over evil, light over darkness,” Poroshenko said when the news about the lifting of Denisenko’s excomnmunication came from Istanbul in early October.

Poroshenko said he wanted a “united Orthodox Church” for his country, and he openly pressured Patriarch Bartholomew to provide autocephaly to Kiev during his visits to Istanbul in the spring of 2018 and in November of the same year. Meanwhile, Denisenko said that the provision of autocephaly would mean the immediate dispossession of the UOC MP. “This Russian church (UOC MP) will have to cede control of its church buildings and famous monasteries to the new Ukrainian church, which will be ours,” Denisenko was quoted by Ukrainian media as saying. “These monasteries have been owned by the state since Soviet times, and the state gave them to the Russian church for temporary use. Now the state will appoint our communities of believers as the new guardians of this heritage.” Denisenko also made a visit to the US, where he met Undersecretary of State Wess Mitchell, obtaining from him America’s active support for the creation of a “unified” Ukrainian church.

There is still a chance to prevent the schism from occurring. Poroshenko’s presidential aide, Rostislav Pavlenko, made it clear on Tuesday that the actual “tomos” (a letter from the Constantinople Patriarchate allowing the creation of an autocephalous church) will be delivered only IN RESPONSE to a request from a “unifying convention” that represents all of Ukraine’s Orthodox believers in at least some sort of formal manner. This new convention will have to declare the creation of a new church and elect this church’s official head. Only then will Constantinople be able to give that person the cherished “tomos.”

Since the UOC-MP has made it very clear that it won’t participate in any such convention, the chances of the smooth transition and easy victory over the “Muscovite believers” that Poroshenko wants so badly are quite slim. There are big scandals, big fights, and big disappointments ahead.

Photo: Twitter

The latter historical watershed almost a millennium ago was when the unitary Christian Church split into Western and Eastern hemispheres, each subsequently centered on Rome and Constantinople, respectively.

That timescale suggests the magnitude and gravity of this week’s rupture, when the Russian Orthodox Church decreed that it could no longer be in communion with the Constantinople Patriarchate.

The Russian move was prompted by Constantinople’s controversial recognition of breakaway Ukrainian Churches, which have been in schism with the Moscow Patriarchate for several years now.

To many people in the Western world these developments may seem rather obscure, or even inconsequential. But they are a direct result of geopolitics, which are further fueling international tensions.

In particular, the dynamic follows the US-led NATO military alliance’s relentless attempts to shift former Soviet countries into Washington’s geopolitical orbit.

The use of religion as a vehicle for imperial conquest is certainly nothing new. Centuries attest to that unseemly business.

More recently, when the Soviet Union broke up in the early 1990s, the Vatican (Rome) and Western political powers exploited the dismemberment of Yugoslavia to undermine the Serbian Orthodox Church, and to encroach on Russia’s sphere of influence, religiously, but primarily, politically.

The Ukrainian Churches’ schism since the early 1990s with Russia has been driven by NATO and Kiev’s partisan political agenda to repudiate Moscow. The Cold War didn’t die. It was resurrected through religious means.

Since the CIA-backed coup in Kiev in 2014 by Neo-Nazi factions, the sectarian religious tensions have intensified, with the Ukrainian Churches expropriating properties and sanctities belonging traditionally to the Russian Church. Historically, the Moscow Patriarchate has included Kiev under its religious jurisdiction.

Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) is the titular head of the wider Orthodox Church. Its move earlier this month to grant recognition to the Ukrainian Churches as independent from Russia was reproached this week by the Moscow Patriarchate as unlawful and a breach of its clerical authority. That move has now led to the epoch-making rupture between Russia and Constantinople, which oversees the Greek Orthodox Church.

The present schism is an extremely regrettable fracturing of the entire Orthodox Church, which numbers some 300 million people among several countries. The Russian Patriarchate, while announcing the split with Constantinople this week, has expressed a desire for common sense to prevail in the future and for a reconciliation.

Nevertheless, there are serious implications from the latest schism. There is a real danger of an even sharper sectarian polarization in Ukrainian society and more broadly across Eastern Europe. Despite the breakaway Churches under Kiev, many Ukrainians still profess adherence to the Russian Orthodox faith and the Moscow Patriarchate.

It is ominous that the Kiev Patriarchate is now demanding Ukrainians to repudiate the Russian Church. That will further sharpen the West-East divide within that country. The sectarian tensions reflect the growing belligerence from the current Kiev political leadership towards the ethnic Russian people of Eastern Ukraine.

How deplorable that supposed religious aspirations are adding to the drumbeat of war.

Again, it must be stressed that Washington and NATO’s agenda of enlisting Kiev into its ranks is a key factor in why the religious tensions have burst into a rupture. That, in turn, is leading to more divisiveness and conflict across Ukraine.

The irony here is that Washington and other Western capitals accuse Russia of interference in their countries, when in fact the much more extant interference is from the West in Russia and its region, as can be seen from the momentous schism unfolding in the Orthodox Church.

Another factor is that the Orthodox schism is consonant with Washington and NATO’s agenda of trying to isolate Russia geopolitically. By fomenting a rupture in Orthodox unity, it is calculated that the Russian Church and the political leadership of President Vladimir Putin will be seen as more isolated internationally.

This NATO-inspired assault on Russia’s religious standing is without doubt connected to the war in Syria. Russia’s military intervention in Syria since late 2015 is viewed by Orthodox Christians in the region, as well as by other faiths, as saving that country from a covert, dirty war sponsored by NATO using barbaric Islamist proxies.

The latest intrigue to undermine and fracture the Orthodox Church, Russia in particular, is a very dangerous, not to say reprehensible, assault on the internal stability of countries, ranging from the Middle East, Africa to Asia.

By undermining religious institutions and forcing sectarian polarization, the fabric of societies is being tampered with. That potential instability is being propelled by Washington and NATO’s agenda of trying to weaken Russia under Putin, who is viewed as a serious obstacle to US-desired global hegemony.

The unholy intrigues in the Orthodox Church are beckoned by completely areligious and profane political objectives. It is a shame that the Constantinople and Kiev Patriarchates are evidently willing to make an expedient, selfish pact with the devil of foreign imperialist ambitions.

Poroshenko’s administration thus claimed explicit and public American official endorsement for his quest for the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople to grant autocephaly (complete self-rule among the various member Churches of the Orthodox Christian communion) to a schismatic body headed by self-styled “Patriarch Filaret” Denysenko – an entity recognized as canonical by no local Orthodox church in the world, including (as of this writing) by the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself. As noted in this space two months ago when hardly anyone was paying attention, this effort by Poroshenko, Denysenko, and their supporters is part of a two-pronged attack against Russia and against the Holy Orthodox Church itself, in part to further the agenda of academic purveyors of moral/sexual LGBT and “genderqueer” theology like “Orthodoxy in Dialogue” and the hardly less revolutionary “Orthodox Christian Studies Center” at Fordham University – both, unsurprisingly, staunch supporters of Constantinople’s neo-papal pretensions.

Kiev’s account of the Brownback-Poroshenko meeting immediately seemed suspicious when it was first noticed by this analyst. Brownback is a careful and principled advocate for religious freedom. While as a State Department official he is bound by administration policy – which is overtly anti-Russian, whatever President Donald Trump’s preferences may be – Brownback would know better than to wade into the internal canonical affairs of Orthodoxy, in which he has no particular authority. Upon investigation it seems he said nothing of the sort attributed to him concerning Poroshenko’s claimed “right to have the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.”

Support for that suspicion is found in the words of a high State Department official, Ambassador Michael Kozak, speaking at the 2018 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting of the Organization of Security and Co-operation in Europe, who stated on September 13: “… the United States is a staunch supporter of religious freedom, including the freedom of members of religious groups to govern their religion according to their tenets. We therefore believe any decision on autocephaly is an internal church matter.” (video at 2:52:29; -12:21) Granted, Kozak introduced and concluded his short remarks with the standard anti-Russian rhetoric, but the point is clear: contra Poroshenko, the US government hasnot taken an overt official stand in support of Ukrainian autocephaly.

One would hardly know that from the behavior of Poroshenko and Denysenko, who seem to think that the status of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is not only a matter to be decided from on high by the Ecumenical Patriarchate (about which more below) but by western geopolitical “experts” who wouldn’t know Orthodoxy from orthodontia. Like mushrooms in Ukraine’s forests, analyses of the Ukrainian church situation have popped up in learned Orthodox theological journals like The Economist and Newsweek. Taras Kuzio, writing for the Atlantic Council, a top establishment think tank funded heavily by US and foreign government agencies and their corporate contractors (at page 64) but not particularly renowned for its spiritual perspicacity, weighed in with what clearly are the real goals of the push for autocephaly, which are entirely political and directed at Russia:

‘It’s no exaggeration to write that the granting of autocephaly from the Russian Orthodox Church to Ukraine’s millions of Orthodox believers is as significant as the disintegration of the USSR for Ukraine. Granting Ukraine’s Orthodox Church a Tomos [from Orthowiki: a small book that contains a major announcement or similar text promulgated by a holy synod, such as a recognition of autocephaly] is the last step Ukraine needs to take in order to become truly independent. [ … ]

‘With the Russian Orthodox Church as the last source of Putin’s soft power now gone, Ukraine’s movement out of Russia’s orbit is irreversible. The creation of an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church is Ukraine’s ultimate answer to Putin’s aggression.’

Not surprisingly Denysenko was reverently received in Washington by the Atlantic Council on September 19, which also by pure coincidence was International Talk Like a Pirate Day. In an address (video) heavy on politics and hostility to Russia and meager on anything relevant to tradition or spirituality, Denysenko confirmed that his own “church” is currently illicit in the eyes of the whole Orthodox world and would (he contended with no supporting authority) be legitimated by a Tomos, absent which many people would remain hesitant to join it. He also confirmed it would up to the Ukrainian government to decide upon the seizure from their rightful owners, the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, of major centers like the Kiev Pechersk (Caves) Lavra and the Holy Dormition Pochaev Lavra – all “peacefully,” of course, and in accordance with law.

The abbot of Pechersk reports that violent threats have already begun. If and when fighting breaks out, we can be sure that western governments, think tanks, and media will with one voice rush to blame it all solely on Russian meddling, not on militant nationalist supporters of autocephaly, many of whom are not even believers:

‘“Soon there will be one unified national church,” says Crimean Tatar journalist Aider Mudzhabayev in his videoblog, “I see this as a big step forward. God willing….hmmm, I’m an atheist, but God willing it’ll go that way”.

‘For many “church passers-by” [i.e., occasional or nominal] and atheists like Mudzhabayev, “our” “Ukrainian” church should be recognised and receive a Tomos on autocephaly. [ . . . ]

‘The main thing, after all, is to create a symbol: an Independent United National Ukrainian Church – patriotic and recognised by Orthodoxy around the world.

‘In the circumstances, however, this united church is very unlikely to be genuinely united. Practicing believers, who mostly belong to the Moscow Patriarchate, will not join it. This will be for various reasons: their conservatism, their conception of the unity of the Russian Church and their reputation in the eyes of the public. In this sense, the united national church – if it receives its Tomos – will be merely a symbolic victory for Ukraine’s patriotic “church passers-by”.’

Poroshenko, who hopes achievement of a united national church will be his ticket to reelection next year, is also making his pitch to the DC Swamp’s powerbrokers. Via a Washington Post interview with Lally Weymouth, whose lack of interest in the issue is palpable even through the medium of print, once the important stuff like Ukraine’s becoming a “full member of the European Union and of NATO” has been dealt with, it’s evident that Poroshenko’s case is entirely a political one against Russia:

‘We have another topic — the independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from Russia.

‘Q: I hear that you’re the architect of an imminent deal regarding the orthodox church.

‘A: I am proud of that. I hate the idea that the Ukrainian church is manipulated from Moscow.

‘Q: Has it been manipulated by Moscow?

‘A: Yes, because the formal patriarch of part of our church is Russian, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. We hate to accept that. We asked the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, to give us independence. Shortly, we will have an independent Ukrainian church as part of an independent Ukraine. This will create a spiritual independence from Russia.’

Now the next step is up to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and his purported “exarchs” sent from North America to Kiev without agreement from Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev, who heads the only canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine.Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) of the Moscow Patriarchate suggests they may be planning to reconsecrate Denysenko’s schismatic “hierarchs” to “at least give them the appearance of legitimacy,” as “at least two bishops are needed to celebrate an episcopal consecration.” Such an action, which would be the equivalent of a declaration of war against Moscow, is itself a tacit admission that the priestly orders of Denysenko’s “church” are invalid, and that in Ukraine the only canonical hierarchy recognized by the entire world – including Constantinople! – is the one led by Metropolitan Onufry, who has not asked for autocephaly.

Almost ignored in western accounts of the dispute is the fact that Constantinople has no lawful power to reach into the territory of another autocephalous church to consecrate bishops and confer canonical status on schismatics. The contrast is painfully apparent between Patriarch Bartholomew’s increasingly extravagant claims of papal or even imperial authority (for example, in his failed bid, after decades of preparation, to convene an “Eighth” Ecumenical Council, a modernizing Orthodox “Vatican II” in 2016) and the virtual absence of an organic flock within his own home area. If it were not for administration of the Greek Diaspora (including this analyst) in places like the Americas, Australia, and parts of Western Europe – which Constantinople has only by virtue of its status of the once-great capital of the Christian East Roman Empire, Constantine’s “New Rome,” Царьград (Tsargrad) to the Slavs, Miklagard (Great City) to the Vikings – the Constantinopolitan synod is revealed as a group of bishops almost without any people, a rotten borough able to count perhaps only a few hundred mostly elderly Greeks left huddled in Istanbul’s Fener district. As Saint John (Maximovich) of Shanghai and San Francisco observed decades ago, Constantinople had even then become in truth only a “pitiful spectacle,” a sorry shadow of its former glory, even while “in theory embracing almost the whole universe.” If the Ecumenical Patriarch imprudently unleashes the worldwide schism now looming, forcing other autocephalous Churches to choose sides, it cannot be excluded that one casualty may be his own See’s fictional and anachronistic standing.

Returning to the official position of the US government, Kozak at least is correct in stating that the status of Ukraine’s church is an internal Orthodox affair. Whether that can be relied on is another matter, in light of Denysenko’s open appeal for American support during his Atlantic Council talk. It should also be noted that the Greek government, which has been moving towards closer cooperation with NATO in light of growing discord between Washington and Ankara, has undertaken a campaign of harassment against Russian clergy seeking visas to Greece and specifically to enter as pilgrims en route to Mount Athos. A few months ago, as the church controversy was building, Ernst Reichel, the German Ambassador in Kiev, openly endorsed autocephaly for Ukraine.

In short, given the level of political interest in sowing havoc in the Orthodox Church and taking a jab at Russia, a hands-off approach from Washington, Brussels, Berlin, etc. cannot be taken for granted – whatever the pro forma stated position of the State Department. All Orthodox believers, as well as anyone genuinely dedicated to freedom of conscience, should join in inviting the US and NATO governments to just butt out of where they don’t belong.

Photo: News On Ukraine

On September 2, the Council of Bishops of the Church of Constantinople confirmed that the Constantinople Patriarchate, the first among equals in Orthodox Christianity, may grant autocephaly without obtaining prior approval. That council began the procedure to enable the Church of Ukraine to be recognized as autocephalous without delay. Shortly after the confirmation, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew appointed two representatives as exarchs, or envoys, to prepare for the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. His position is clear and he did not hesitate to take this action that brings a declaration of ecclesiastical independence for the Church in Ukraine one step closer. Bishop Illarion and Bishop Daniel who were chosen for the mission are known for their anti-Russian views.

This is a flagrant violation of the canonical domain of the Moscow Patriarchy. The Greek Patriarchate did not even inform Moscow of the decision. A third of the Russian Orthodox Church’s 35,000 parishes are in Ukraine. Obviously this move will create an enormous schism in Orthodox Christianity, comparable to the rupture between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches in 1054 (the East-West schism). Some Orthodox Churches will recognize the independence of Ukraine’s Church, while others will reject it.

Actually, there will now be three Orthodox Churches in Ukraine: the Kiev Patriarchate, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church, and the Moscow Patriarchate, in addition to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which has many followers in the western part of the country. All of Ukraine will be divided along religious lines just to make it easier for the US to accomplish its goal of subjugating that nation through a “divide and rule’ policy.

The schism will not be limited just to Russia and Ukraine. If the decision to separate the Churches is implemented, the Russian Church may have no choice but to sever relations with Constantinople. The entire Greek Orthodox world would be divided.

The intentions of the Holy Synod of Constantinople are understandable. The Russian Orthodox Church is the biggest in the world. The Holy Synod has seized this opportunity to weaken its rival and to assert itself as the leader of the Orthodox world. Ambassador Brownback’s visit confirms the fact that the US wants this schism to take place. This is one way to weaken the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church among the Slavic nations and to create an alternative to it in Kiev, thus sidelining the Russian Church in the Orthodox world. Washington wants to see a rollback of Moscow on all fronts.

This is happening at a time when US policy is shifting in favor of expanding military assistance to Ukraine. US Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker confirmed this US commitment before his visit to Ukraine on Sept. 13. He arrived right after Mr. Brownback. Kiev is playing host to one US envoy after another. The very frequency of these visits is curious. Evidently something’s cooking.

All this is added to the US support of Ukraine at a time of heightened tensions, as the situation in the Azov Sea, a real tinderbox, keeps on deteriorating. Ukraine has just boosted its military presence there. Ukrainian Ground Forces Commander Colonel General Serhiy Popko brought this up on Sept. 11. Ukraine has a foreign military presence on its soil, as well as an official NATO status. The US is using Ukraine for its own economic and political ends. Ukrainian President Poroshenko has just tabled a bill to amend the constitution paving the way for NATO and EU membership. He wants it sealed and the parliament is to consider the amendments next week.

Washington is looking for ways to slow Russia’s growing strength, independence, and influence. A large country that is openly hostile to Moscow while sharing a long border with Russia fits that bill nicely. This policy will hardly help Ukraine become more prosperous or secure. Seizing each and every opportunity to emphasize its independence, Kiev is happily playing the role of a marionette being controlled by Washington.

Quite “spontaneously,” as these things are wont to happen, agitation at state and ecclesiastical levels in the Ukraine has been turned on to demand autocephaly, which in Orthodox church terminology is self-ruled status for the Orthodox religious community in the Ukraine. But not for just any of the existing communities (there are at least two major ones, the Orthodox church in spiritual communion with the Russian Orthodox patriarchy in Moscow, and a breakaway group espousing all the politically correct Ukrainian nationalist and Russophobic views). Alert and politically savvy readers should have guessed that in this controversy center-stage is the breakaway, NATO-friendly group.

The seemingly plausible argument is that since the Ukraine is an “independent” country, it is entitled also to have its own “independent” national Orthodox church to go along with that. That may or may not be so, depending on how church authorities in charge of these matters interpret and apply the relevant provisions of church law, or cannons. But before the issue was even presented to higher church councils for a ruling, the Ukrainian government itself avidly jumped into the fray to support its local Russophobic ecclesiastical proteges.

Needless to say, the Moscow Patriarchy affiliate in the Ukraine, which is followed by a majority of believers in that country, has taken a strong stand against the combined offensive against it of the NATO backed regime and its allies, anti-Russian zealots in cassocks. That means that now a new religious front also has been opened in the portion of Ukraine controlled by the Kiev regime. It is an attempt to complete the process already begun in the spheres of language, culture, education, history, and a number of other key areas, in this case to extirpate the last vestiges of “malign” Russian spiritual influence by severing the last remaining ecclesiastical link to Moscow. Driving the point home are the fervent partisans of the “native” Ukrainian church, led by defrocked former bishop Philaret Denysenko, now styling himself the new Ukrainian patriarch.

The fact that in the early 90s the same Denysenko, who at that time was an Orthodox bishop, had no qualms about putting forward his candidacy for Patriarch of Russia, and that, although a Russian-speaker, he subsequently embraced Ukrainian nationalism and conveniently developed passionate anti-Russian sentiments only after failing to achieve that objective, is beside the point. What matters is that he has now become a willing tool and visible symbol of the hybrid war being waged by NATO against Russia in the region, a war which in this instance has also a vibrant religious component.

What must be making hybrid war experts at the headquarters in Mons and other centers which attend to such matters jubilant is that igniting a religious confrontation in the Ukraine holds for them much more than merely local benefits. It is equivalent to opening a Pandora’s Box in the most literally geopolitical, and not just purely religious sense of the expression. A dispute of this nature cannot be properly settled either within the Ukraine itself or by means of intra-church dialogue between Kiev and Moscow. In the Orthodox world it is possible for a national church to gain self-rule, or autocephaly, but only under strictly prescribed conditions designed to preserve church unity and harmony. That means, at a minimum, that the consent of the Mother Church (in this case the Moscow Patriarchate) is required, as well as the approval of all the other churches around the world which form the Orthodox communion. And on top of that, to greatly complicate matters, there is also the ambiguous role in this process of the Orthodox Oecumenical Patriarchy in Istanbul (formerly Constantinople). That see traditionally enjoys the position of “first among equals,” and it is not expected to act unilaterally but in consultation with other churches in resolving important issues. In the last couple of decades, however, it has notably tried to shake off those institutional constraints and has sought to turn itself into the Orthodox equivalent of the Roman Catholic Vatican.

The precarious position of the Oecumenical Patriarchy in Turkey, where it has very few, mostly ethnic Greek, followers remaining and is under heavy, and frankly unreasonable pressure from the essentially hostile Turkish government, since about the middle of the last century has motivated its patriarchs to seek the friendship and protection of Western NATO powers, simply to survive. That protection, however, did not come free of charge. Increasingly, and in particular during the Cold War period, the Oecumenical patriarch has been obligated to actively support various Western political initiatives. The increasingly Islamist complexion of the Turkish regime has now made toeing the Western line an existential necessity to an even greater degree.

Hence the unprecedented move by Poroshenko, during his visit to Turkey in April, taking a practical shortcut to resolve the Ukrainian situation without waiting first for a broad Orthodox Church consensus on the issue to emerge. Instead, Poroshenko urged directly the trapped  Oecumenical patriarch Bartholomew to personally, and without bothering to consult peers, issue to Denysenko and his Kiev flock a grant of self-rule, in the requested form as patriarch of the NATO-invented and anointed “Ukrainian Orthodox Church.”

To sweeten the deal, Poroshenko was supposed to bring in his coffers $25 million collected by devout Ukrainian oligarchs in the US, as a humble offering to patriarch Bartholomew to take a benevolent view of the fervent plea delivered to him on behalf of the Ukrainian faithful. Remarkably, the delivery of only a $10 million gift to the Patriarchy was recorded by the time the pious emoluments actually reached their destination in Istanbul. Where the missing $15 million might have evaporated can only be guessed, but given the Ukrainians’ sticky fingers when handling cash it does not require a long stretch of the imagination.

Predictably, the Russian Orthodox Patriarchy took a very dim view of such back-door church politicking lubricated with plenty of cash, even if one considers only the diminished sum that actually reached the designated recipients. Its foreign relations spokesman, Metropolitan Hilarion, warned the patriarch in Istanbul that he was playing with fire by turning a receptive ear to Kiev’s entreaties because, in his view, granting Ukrainian church self-rule (autocephaly) in disregard of canonical regulations would be “to cause a Great Schism equivalent to the one that occurred a thousand years ago”. It should not be forgotten that this is no idle threat because the Russian church is the most numerous among Orthodox nations and a split between it and the Oecumenical see in Istanbul would plunge the entire Orthodox world into disarray. But that is just what the NATO doctors ordered, isn’t it?

It is, of course, quite normal for officials of the Russian church to seek to protect their faithful and safeguard their status in the Ukraine. But the impending, NATO-engineered convulsion, using the alleged spiritual needs of its Ukrainian colony as a hollow pretext, unleashed within the Orthodox religious communion which sits astride the arc of geopolitical competition stretching from the Balkans to Russia, and from the Black Sea basin into the Caucasus, with a significant historical presence throughout the Middle East, is fraught with serious implications. For one thing, its clear purpose is to add another layer to the campaign to “isolate Russia,” this time around by disrupting Russia’s spiritual and cultural ties to other kindred Orthodox lands, which may soon face a contrived “religious” choice between Moscow and Istanbul. The fact that the “choice” is couched in seemingly canonical rather than unapologetically and crudely political terms, makes it no less political.

Photo: 112.ua

No, we are told, the current Washington-Moscow standoff is a turf war, nothing more. Unlike the 1945-1991 rivalry it “lacks an ideological dimension” beyond the authoritarian determination to elevate “the Russian state, ruled by him and his clan.”

Such a view totally dismisses the fact that following the demise of communism as a global power bloc there has been an eerie spiritual role reversal between East and West. While it’s true that during original Cold War the nonreligious ruling cliques in Washington and Moscow held basically compatible progressive values, ordinary Christian Americans (mainly Protestants, with a large number of Roman Catholics) perceived communism as a murderous, godless machine of oppression (think of the Knights of Columbus’ campaign to insert “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance). Conversely, today it is western elites who rely upon an ideological imperative of “democracy” and “human rights” promotion to justify a materialist global empire and endless wars, much like the old Soviet nomenklatura depended on Marxism-Leninism both as a working methodology and as a justification for their prerogatives and privileges,. In that regard, promotion of nihilist, post-Christian morality – especially in sexual matters – has become a major item in the West’s toolkit.

This has a special importance with regard to Russia, where under Putin the Orthodox Church has largely resumed its pre-1917 role as the moral anchor of society. This elicits not only political opposition but a genuine and heartfelt hatred from the postmodern elites of an increasingly post-Christian West, not only for Putin personally and Russia generally but against the Russian Orthodox Church – and by extension against Orthodox Christianity itself.

This antipathy has many facets, too many to be detailed at one time in this short space. But for now it is sufficient to note two current attacks, both of them arising from within Orthodoxy itself, though no doubt with outside encouragement. One such attack relates to ecclesiastical structures and is overtly political. The other is in the moral sphere and seeks to inject into Orthodoxy the moral decay that has undermined so much of western Christianity.

The first, overtly political attack aims to split Ukraine from the main body of the Russian Orthodox Church under the authority of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. The post-Maidan authorities in Kiev, namely Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and the Verkhovna Rada (parliament), have asked Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople (Istanbul) to issue a Tomos of autocephaly to the self-styled “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate” led by former Metropolitan Filaret (Denysenko). In such case, the Ukrainian authorities declare that the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is an autonomous part of the Russian Orthodox Church under the authority of Metropolitan Onufry, would be forbidden to call itself “Ukrainian” would regarded as a representative of an “aggressor” power. Issuance of a Tomos would also set the stage for the government’s forcible seizure of churches and monasteries from Metropolitan Onufry’s canonical Church and handing them over to the state-approved schismatic body, with the world-renowned Kiev Pechersk (Caves) Lavra and the Holy Dormition Pochayiv Lavra in west Ukraine the most prominent likely targets.

For their part, Ukrainian officials state their chances of getting the Tomos are virtually certain, but so far public signals from Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew have been mixed. Recently, it was announced by pro-Moscow observers that the Ecumenical Patriarch had turned down Poroshenko’s request after a visit of bishops from the Moscow-affiliated Ukrainian Church. Other reports, however, indicate that Constantinople considers it an open question whether the areas now constituting Ukraine were ever permanently transferred to Moscow’s jurisdiction in the first place – which one voice, “Orthodoxy in Dialogue” (to which we shall return below), cheered as “taking Moscow down a peg”.

Viewed from western countries, where ecclesiastical matters have long ceased to have life-and-death political consequences, the Ukrainian church situation may seem archaic, even bizarre, especially taking place in a part of the world that not too long ago was under the domination of militant secularists. Be that as it may, the current Ukraine crisis fits into a dismal pattern of powers hostile to Orthodoxy attempting to create new church bodies to serve their political purposes. The most notorious of these were the purported creation of a “Croatian Orthodox Church” in 1942 under the genocidal regime of Ustaša dictator Ante Pavelić as a cover for the genocide of Orthodox Serbs in the so-called “Independent State of Croatia,” and the so-called “Renovationist Church” formed in early Soviet Russia during the most murderous period of communist anti-religious persecution.

At stake today is not only the peace of Ukraine – where violence over state-imposed church transfers is a real concern – but peace within the Orthodox world as a whole. While the honor accorded the Ecumenical Patriarch in Orthodoxy doesn’t remotely approximate that of the Pope of Rome within his confession, as the bishop of the former imperial capital and once-foremost city in Christendom he speaks with great honor and authority. On the other hand, the flock of the Church of Russia under the Patriarchate of Moscow as currently structured (including Ukraine) constitutes an absolute majority of the world’s Orthodox Christians. An incautious move could trigger a major rupture, not just in Ukraine but worldwide, with the constituent national churches forced to take sides. For his part, Patriarch Irinej of the Serbian Orthodox Church has spoken strongly against the Kiev authorities and their aspiring autonomous church: “Anyone who helps the Ukrainian schismatics is an enemy not only of the Russian Church and the Russian world, but also of all Orthodox Slavic nations and the entire Orthodox world.”

Shifting now from the structural to the moral sphere, recently there appeared on the excellent websites Fort-Russ and Pravmir a commentary, “ORTHODOXY, CAPITALISM, AND “THE WEST”: IS ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY STUCK IN THE PAST?” by Nathaniel Wood, identified as a scholar of Orthodox theology and political theology and associate director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center of Fordham University. The piece opens with an unobjectionable observation mainly relating to economic issues:

‘Orthodox political theology has often been strongly communitarian, skeptical of rationalist legal order, and reliant on the benevolence of autocratic rule. In… Russia, for instance, the influential Slavophile movement of the 19^th century praised the Russian peasant commune as the highest expression of Orthodox social principles and even made it a basis for their model of the Church (the notion of sobornost’). The Slavophiles’ ideal Orthodox society was not only explicitly anti-capitalist, going as far as to ground all property ownership in social obligation, but was critical of the “rationalist” culture of legal relations standing behind the Western capitalist order, even to the point of investing all political authority in the autocrat out of fear that a society based on legal rights was antithetical to Orthodoxy.’

In addressing Mr. Wood’s comment on economics, Professor Jonathan Chaves of George Washington University, observes as an Orthodox Christian:

‘It is perfectly possible and respectable to be a Christian conservative and unhappy with “Plutocracy.” Plutocracy is the conglomeration or aggregation of small businesses into vast multinational corporations. In the 1920’s G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, both devout Roman Catholics, founded a tint party, the Distributist Party. Distributism said, “No” to Socialism, recognizing that private property is a foundation-stone of Liberty; and “No” to Plutocracy, realizing that it led to vast entities aggregating power to themselves. They said “Yes” to private, small business. And so must we all. If this discussion takes place only within the Orthodox Church, it will remain a tempest in a teapot. Let us link arms with those in agreement on the specific issues we can agree on.’

So far so good.  It’s one thing to question whether Orthodox Christians should uncritically accept the neoliberal global order and its corporatist economic and financial system (“capitalism”). Neither Scripture, nor the Canons of the Ecumenical and Regional Synods, nor the Church Fathers had much specific to say about this system simply because it didn’t exist in their day. Neither did socialism, for that matter.

But it’s quite another thing to redefine, under the guise of scholarship, moral principles that far precede the modern era and are central to Christian anthropology. Today, as noted above, those principles are under threat in increasingly godless Western Europe and North America. Moreover, in a manner reminiscent of the 20^th century Bolshevik assault on Christianity (including the so-called “Renovationist” church), the West has made moral aggression against the socially conservative countries of formerly communist Europe a key element of its foreign policy. (See my “The West’s Quest to ‘Save the World Through Degeneracy’.”)

It is clear that such a redefinition of Christian morality, not economics, is the real deliverable in Mr. Wood’s essay and of the Fordham program he represents. Moreover, Russia is the particular target. The following is from website of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center of Fordham University (emphasis added):

'Fellow co-director Aristotle Papanikolaou, Ph.D., professor of theology and the Archbishop Demetrios Chair in Orthodox Theology and Culture, said the Russian Orthodox Church has been trying to redefine human rights language in such a way that allows them to uphold “traditional values” for the last decade. This understanding of human rights doesn’t protect a band like Pussy Riot from protesting in a Church, or art that’s deemed blasphemous, and it’s consistent with laws that ban gay marriage and homosexual “propaganda.”

'“Normally people would say, that’s a violation of human rights, and some Orthodox Christians want to say ‘No it’s not. We have our own particular interpretation of human rights, and we are justified in doing that because the West’s concept of human rights is biased and anti-Christian,” he said. “Our project hopes to offer a more nuanced understanding of Orthodox Christianity’s relation to human rights language than the diametrical opposition proposed by certain Orthodox Christians, especially in the post-communist context.”

'Papanikolaou further noted that the Russian government also uses the language of human rights and the defense of religious freedom to justify its ongoing military intervention in Syria.'

So, “a more nuanced understanding of Orthodox Christianity’s relation to human rights language” doesn’thave a problem with blasphemous antics in Moscow’s Christ the Savior Cathedral (lovingly rebuilt after being blown up by the Bolsheviks)? With sacrilegious “art” (which in the west is often subsidized with believers’ tax money)? With indoctrinating innocent young children in alternative sexual morality (for example, in several US cities “Drag Queen Story Hour”)? With marriage not restricted to one man and one woman? With western-supported head-choppers seeking to kill, enslave, or uproot the Christians of Syria, and have been prevented from doing so mainly through Russia’s heroic intervention in that country?

Also, as an Orthodox Christian of Greek origin myself, I can’t help but notice more than a whiff of Hellenic intellectual and academic arrogance in the way mainly Greek principals of the Fordham project formulate their criticisms of the Russian Church’s positions. (Similarly, it is important to bear in mind that if the Ukrainian schism spreads further, the fault lines will partly though far from entirely split between Russians and Greeks, with disastrous results.) Rather than a case of the Russian Church’s seeking to ‘redefine human rights language in such a way that allows them to uphold “traditional values”’ it is quite clear that it is the Fordham academics who are themselves seeking to redefine authentic Orthodox Christiantraditional values (without the quotation marks) as stated forthrightly, clearly, and faithfully in the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church (which link, to give Mr. Mr. Wood credit, he did include in his posting).

Sadly, the Fordham program is not alone in cutting-edge Orthodox academia. Another effort, “Orthodoxy in Dialogue,” cited above with respect to the Ukrainian crisis, displays the same agenda, including demanding that Orthodox clergy advocate open borders in the US on a par with opposing abortion, being Orthodox and “genderqueer,” explaining the finer points of “intersex” vs. “transgender” (and faulting the esteemed Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou for ignoring the priceless “contributions that empirical sciences have made to our understanding of sexual and gender variance in human nature”), trashing respected American Orthodox Christian voices like Fr. John Whiteford and Rod Dreher, and – well you get the idea.

What is perhaps most tragic is that while ever-growing numbers of western Christians, lapsed Christians, and non-Christians are attracted to the Holy Orthodox Church precisely because they perceive Her, correctly, to be the Ark of Salvation that – with the powerful global support of the Russian state – does not change course with the gales and storms of a tempestuous and darkening world, revisionist Orthodox scholars would have us trim our sails to match the course of some western confessions that are increasingly rendered Christian in name only, if that. It is counsel we dare not heed.