Born of Schism

On the historical circumstances of the emergence of the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada”

The Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew delegated Archbishop Daniel and Bishop Hilarion to Ukraine, “for the healing of the schism”, and to provide a tomos for a “Single Orthodox Church of Ukraine” which is as yet not recognized by anyone. Both of these hierarchs represent two formerly schismatic Ukrainian groups in the US and Canada, which were [summarily] received under the omorphorion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1990, and 1995.

On the subject of the historical circumstances of the Ukrainian churches born from schism across the ocean, we spoke with Bishop Job (Smakouz), who for 13 years bore the responsibility of Administrator of the Patriarchal parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in Canada, and temporarily administered the Patriarchal Parishes in the US (2009-2010), and in September of this year, arrived in Ukraine for further archpastoral service.

Schismatics’ council. October 14, 1921, Kiev Schismatics’ council. October 14, 1921, Kiev

Your Eminence, as history shows, Orthodox immigrants [to North America.—Trans.] from the Western Russian lands—now part of Ukraine—remained under the omorphorion of the Russian Orthodox Church. This diocese, which arose due to the labors of monks from Valaam Monastery, had its center in San-Francisco since 1872. In 1905, this center was moved to the new Saint Nicholas Cathedral in New York City, by Archbishop Tikhon (Belavin)—the future Saint and Patriarch of all Rus’. Where did the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada” come from?

Indeed, since 1907, the only Orthodox diocese of the American continent was called the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic[1] Church in North America, under the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical rule of the Russian Church. It covered the entire territory of the United States and Canada, and had about one hundred parishes and tens of thousands of believers.

Regrettably, after the 1917 coup in Petrograd[2], and the brief emergence of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, the spirit of nationalism and revolutionary radicalism gradually began to penetrate into the environment of Orthodox Ukrainians in Canada.

In August of 1918, a conference of Orthodox Ukrainians in the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta was held, the majority of whom had been forced to visit Uniate parishes. From this, the Ukrainian Orthodox Brotherhood was created for the sake of the organization [creation] of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada.

—How did it act?

—This brotherhood, understanding that a Church cannot exist without a Bishop, turned to a bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church Alexander (Nemolovsky)[3], born in Volhynia, with a petition to become the head of the “Ukrainian Greek-Orthodox Church in Canada” (as they decided to name their church organization). Bishop Alexander first agreed to help with the organization of the church life of these Orthodox Ukrainians, and preside over the proposed council, but then, thanks to the staunchness of the administrator and leader of the Canadian mission, the rector of the Holy Trinity Church in Winnipeg, Archimandrite Adam (Filipovsky), a native of Galicia, a “strict Rusin[4]” [Carpatho-Russian], and a stalwart champion of the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church and Carpathian Rus’ with the entire Russian nation,[5] refused.

Regardless of all the slander against him, and the lack of support of his own bishop, Father Adam, a firm supporter of the unity of “Canadian Rus” with Great Rus’[6], managed to succeed in that Bishop Alexander did not attend the 1918 congress of Ukrainian separatists, and did not support them. Father Adam referred to nationalism, and the violation of church canons and oaths in the ecclesiastical life of Galicia, and Canadian Galicians, as “the Austro-Galician Swamp”.

—But did such a council take place?

Without the blessing of a bishop, it was not a [true] council, but rather a self-organized gathering, which took place on December 28, 1918. Since there was not a single hierarch in it, there were no decisions made on the canonical education of the ecclesiastical life of Ukrainians. But decisions were adopted on organizing a spiritual seminary in the city of Saskatoon. And soon, the second “council”, took place, on November 27, 1919, at which the Antiochian [Syrian-Lebanese] Metropolitan Germanos[7] (Shehadi) was present, illegally taking under his care the Ukrainian parishes in Canada, as he had done in the United States earlier.

The next gathering was when the so-called “Council of the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada” (UGOCC) on July 16-17 of 1924, as well as another gathering of Ukrainians in the United States, which decided to invite Ivan Teodorovich[8] to lead their church, and he accepted.

According to the information of the “self-sanctifiers”[9] themselves, their temporary head, Metropolitan Germanos who lead the Antiochian Orthodox Church[10], transferred his rights to the self-sanctifier Ivan Teodorovich. What right he had to lead them, and subsequently transfer them to the non-canonical fugitive “theater artist” in hierarchal vestments is uncertain.

—How was this “church” represented in numbers?

Self sanctifier[МS1] Teodorovich visited Canadian parishes only in the winter, and in the summer, he was replaced by the head of the Consistory Semyon Savchuk. According to the dubious data of the Ukrainians themselves, by the end of 1928, the non-canonical Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada had 64 thousand members, united 152 parishes, in which twenty-one “Milord[11] Fathers” served in the Ukrainian language. In 1940, there were already 189 parishes. Besides a small number of former Uniates, they consisted of “sincere[12]” Bukovinians and Volhynians from a new wave of emigration from Poland in the 1930s. In Canada, however, after some time, protests began against the non-canonical “ordination” of the Kievan Self-Sanctifier Teodorovich.

Met. Hilarion (Ohienko) Met. Hilarion (Ohienko)
—Did the situation change after the Second World War?

—In 1951, the Canadian schismatic-autocephalites invited the former metropolitan of the Polish Orthodox Church Hilarion (Ohienko, 1882-1972), who fled with the retreating fascists[13] to the West. He was the “First Hierarch” of the so-called Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada from 1951 to 1972, with the title of “Metropolitan of Winnipeg”. According to the memoirs of Metropolitan Evlogii (Georgievsky), “Though Orthodox by religious confession, Ohienko believed, however, that it is possible to commune with the Uniates.”

Thanks to the labors of Hilarion (Ohienko)—a historian of Ukrainian nationalist bent, political actor, philologist, and translator of the Bible into Ukrainian—the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada reached its apogee.

He was ordained by the Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland Dionizy (Waledyński) to the dignity of Bishop of Kholm during the years of the Second World War—in 1940; but this was not for the German occupied Ukraine, but rather for the so called “General Government”, which was then a part of Poland under the control of the Third Reich.

—Was Metropolitan Hilarion (Ohienko) a canonical hierarch before coming to Canada?

Hilarion could be recognized as a quite canonical hierarch, if not for a number of circumstances. Of note, that in 1944, he was in Warsaw together with the autocephalites of Sikorsky; having headed the Canadian Ukrainian “church”, Hilarion, like his predecessor Mstislav (Skrypnyk), was obliged to recognize the same self-sanctifying principles of the “church’s” creation based on the “canons” of 1921. No reordination of it’s graceless “priests” happened this time either.[14]

Some say, however, that Hilarion disguised the reordination of the self-sanctifiers in the guise of awarding them with the elevation to the dignity of “Archpriest”: i.e. they knelt before the throne, he recited the prayers for laying of hands (ordination to priesthood)[15], proclaimed axios, and presented some form of award.[16] But can such a thing be considered a grace-filled action?

As we see, there is every reason to consider the American and Canadian Ukrainian “Churches” to be equally effected by the metastases of self-sanctification, and therefore, without grace.

—And yet they were still received by the Patriarchate of Constantinople?

On April 1, 1990, the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada was accepted into the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Having lost its schismatic independence, it took on a canonical status of a somewhat dubious character. It is difficult to speak of [them possessing] the fullness of grace, since they did not bring forth repentance for the sin of schism.

2. Consecration of Pascha breads in St. Andrew’s UOC Cathedral in Canada. A portrait of Petliura hangs in the church hall. 2. Consecration of Pascha breads in St. Andrew’s UOC Cathedral in Canada. A portrait of Petliura hangs in the church hall.

—Then the attention turned to the U.S. Ukrainians?

—Four years and eleven months later, on March 12, 1995, the Patriarchate of Constantinople accepted another North American group—the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA”, whose hierarchy was previously considered schismatic within the Orthodox world.

In 1996, parishes of the Ukrainian diaspora of Western Europe and other continents were joined in. And so, two non-canonical Ukrainian émigré groups were recruited [and summarily legitimized—Trans.] by Constantinople. We’ve come full circle as we see today, with the case of the “tomos of autocephaly” coming up to Kiev, and all relations with Constantinople have been suspended.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople, hastily receiving into it’s fold the former schismatics, did not require them to sign an Act, in which they unequivocally condemned the self-sanctifying “autocephaly” of Vasyl (Lypkivsky) in 1921, or that of Polycarp (Sikorskyi) in 1942, as well as all the contemporary schisms in Ukraine, with an indication that in Ukraine, they will recognize only the one canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

100th anniversary of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA. Image from 100th anniversary of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA. Image from

Today we can see what this results in for the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and for all of world Orthodoxy.

—Your Eminence, what was the reaction of the Local Churches to those actions by Constantinople?

—Much time has passed… It’s not so easy to quickly recall those events. From the Orthodox Churches, at first, there was no reaction. They considered these acts of the Phanar to be an internal affair of Constantinople, and also of the Russian Church. I don’t know how the Patriarch of Constantinople informed the Primates of the Local Churches about these assemblies of his.

It seems that we learned about these events after some time, from news reports of North American Ukrainians. Later in Canada, a small chronology of these events was made known. Our Church entered into correspondence with the Phanar, trying to clarify all the circumstances and details of this foggy matter.

It is very similar to how a child vexes his parents and then runs crying to his grandmother so that she will feel sorry for him and shield him from all the consequences of his misconduct and naughtiness.

This culminated in the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church did not officially join into eucharistic communion with the formerly Ukrainian Church schismatic structures that became a part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Soon followed the worst Estonian Crisis, when the Constantinople synod created with impunity its own parallel structures on the canonical territory of the Russian Church in violation of the canons. Then followed a cessation of Eucharistic communion with the Phanarites, with the aspiration of our hierarchy to heal not only our church but the entire universal (ecumenical) Orthodox Church, as the suffering of one member effects the condition of the entire body.[17]

Further in 1995, the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew gave in writing a promise that the adopted communities would not “cooperate or have any contact with any other Ukrainian schismatic groups.” As we see today, this promise was a lie.

Fake Patriarch Philaret’s reception of a delegation of the UOC of Canada, headed by Metropolitan Yuri (Kalischuk) in February 2015. Apparently, plans for receiving the long-awaited tomos were already born then. Fake Patriarch Philaret’s reception of a delegation of the UOC of Canada, headed by Metropolitan Yuri (Kalischuk) in February 2015. Apparently, plans for receiving the long-awaited tomos were already born then.

—Your Eminence, the self-declared Ukrainian “orthodox churches” of the “Kiev Patriarchate” and the “Ukrainian Autocephalic Orthodox Church” [in Ukraine—Trans.] are supported exclusively by political, and often radical forces. What about in Canada?

In the life and actions of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada, a major role is played not by the bishops, but by a consistory, nearly half of which is comprised of laity, as well as secular nationalist organizations such as the “Ukrainian Canadian Union[18]” and the “Ukrainian Canadian Congress”,[19] upon whom the “bishops” and “parishes” are largely financially dependent.

It’s true that with the passing away of the old emigration, parishioners of the Ukrainian churches in the Americas are becoming more English-speaking and apolitical towards affairs in Ukraine. Their children, especially those who are in mixed marriages, who consider themselves one hundred percent Canadian and speak only English, are far from Ukraine, and they know almost nothing of the church life therein. True, they may know a few Ukrainian words relating mainly to the old Ukrainian cuisine and holidays (congratulatory greetings on “Ukrainian Christmas and Pascha”).

Unfortunately in Canada, Ukraine is most often remembered in connection with various political scandals, fights in parliament, reelections, corruption, Chernobyl; resurgent interest in Ukraine was caused by the previous Maidan revolution [2014].

—And how should one regard today the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada and the USA, since they are formally considered canonical?

—As we see, they received a strange kind of canonicity: “canonicity obtained in an uncanonical way”: Canonicity without love, canonicity without truth, and canonicity carrying with it the legalization of the sin of schism without repentance! It’s pandering to schism! And the anathematized father of the main schism in Ukraine is very much hoping for the same condoning and pandering to these precedents, which will bring many problems to the Greek Patriarchate in many corners of the world.

Many of them are already experiencing these problems planted by the Patriarchate of Constantinople—not only Greeks, but all the Orthodox people of North America… And, well, we must remember that the prodigal son from the Gospel parable returned to his natural father, and not to some “kindly” good neighbor trying to appropriate what belongs to someone else. This is a kind of analogy to the robbery of children under a “children’s rights” system from the home of the Church, the family of Christ.

These church [schismatic] structures should be regarded as the synod of our Church resolved to regard them in its last emergency session. In the same way as we regarded these structures before. Now in this same way, this regard extends over the entire Constantinople Patriarchate. And not our church, but rather the politicking Phanarites is to blame for this.

—Your Eminence, what should an Orthodox believer of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) do if he is abroad and there won’t be any churches other than those of the Phanar?

These days, the prayerful commemoration of the Primate [of Constantinople] and [his] Hierarchs—guilty of anti-canonical actions—the concelebration of hierarchs and participation in common events was suspended. But in cases of extreme necessity[20], the laity and simple clergy—I think—can receive communion[21] and pray in the Ukrainian churches of Canada and the USA[22] during trips, pilgrimages, or family events (there are mixed families). But in such cases, it is best to take the blessing of your bishop or spiritual father. And remain faithful to our Mother Church, which spiritually gave birth to us in the mysteries, with maternal care for our spiritual growth! And also to pray for those who are against us to be brought to reason—those who are against the love of Christ, who think they were doing the right thing by forcefully capturing our churches in the early 1990s.

Our church calls upon us to do this! But to agree with schism, with lawlessness, means to become partners in the sin and crime.

From all these dangers, may the Lord save us by His grace!

Bishop Job (Smakouz) Bishop Job (Smakouz)
—But still, Your Eminence, in your opinion--how should the faithful of the canonical Orthodox Church of Ukraine relate to what is happening?

—I will only recall the words spoken by our Primate—His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry

“If a man is bound hand and foot by sins, then no such tomos can help him. Because such a person is saved through repentance, through a personal podvig, and no one can do this for him.”

We should all do as our First Hierarch urges—focus on personal salvation, to pray and keep the purity of faith. This is our sacred task. Without condemning anyone, we must follow the path that leads a person directly to God. His Beatitude also said:

“The Holy Orthodox Church together with its people lived through the stormy years of wars and hardships, persecution and starvation. Orthodox Ukrainians witnessed the firmness of the Christian spirit. The example of our countrymen, our predecessors, who endured these trials with dignity inspires us to be courageous at this very hour.”

And there is nothing more to add.

Sergei Geruk
spoke with Bishop Job (Smakouz)
Translation by Matfey Shaheen


[1] This does not refer to the Greek Catholic Uniate Churches in Ukraine, Romania, and abroad, etc. This does not refer to Eastern Catholics. In this case, it seems Greek Catholic was intended to refer to Byzantine style worship and Catholicity (universality) as one of the four pillars of the church i.e: One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic. Still, this term may cause confusion, especially because few subjects within Orthodoxy are more confusing than the canonical territories and history of North America, and the Ukraine crisis.—Trans.

[2] Saint Petersburg, the capitol of the Russian Empire built by Peter the Great, [called Leningrad during the Soviet era] was called by its Slavic name Petorgrad during WW1, to avoid the Germanic name Petersburg, which has the same meaning “City of [Saint] Peter”.—Trans.

[3] Alexander (Nemolovsky; 1880-April 11 1960) was from July 6th, 1916 to December 10th, 1918, the vicar bishop of the Aleutian and North American dioceses with the title “Of Canada” (later the Metropolitan of Brussels and Belgium of the Moscow Patriarchate)—original author’s footnote

[4] This is one of the situations where no matter how hard you try, someone will be offended. Many Carpatho-Russians/Rusins feel understandably strongly about the name for their nation, if it should be Carpatho-Russian, Rusin, Rusyn, etc. due to years of being persecuted, mainly by Austro-Hungarians.

The original Russian article does not say “Carpato-Russky” (which is a term generally unused in Russian) but instead “русин”. In Russian and Ukrainian, among other languages, the primary word for one of these people is русин.

I choose to transliterate as “Rusin” instead of “Rusyn” in order to above all, emphasize that we are all united around the concept of Holy Rus’.—Trans.

We are all Rusians, —people of Rus’. We must not forget it is this word Rus’ which all these terms come from, as with the different ways to describe a citizen of Belarus. Let us not also forget, that in modern Russian, there are two ways to say Russian: Russky and Rossissky—the later coming from the word Rossia, which was adopted by Tsar Ivan the Great as part of the Third Rome tradition, as it was the Greek word for Rus’. Of course, regardless which of these words we say, we are expressing the same concept—Rus’ is the key to all of this. Still, I completely understand this is a very controversial subject which people are passionate about.—Trans.

[5] The “Russian people” at that time included Ukraine, Russia, and Belorus’.

[6] Great Rus’ refers to both Russia proper, as opposed to the Ukraine (Little Rus’) or Belarus’ (White Rus), however the term can also refer to the general (theoretical) united body of all Rus’, i.e. the place with the majority of Rus’ people, which has always corresponded with Russia itself.—Trans.

[7] Herman/German, Germanius, etc.

[8] Ivan Teodorovich (born October 6th 1887) near Pochaev of Volhynia, studied at Zhitomir Seminary, from which he was expelled for “revolutionary Ukrainophilia”. In 1915, he took holy orders, and between 1917-1920, he was a chaplain of the army of the UPR. In October 26th of 1921, the self-sanctified false-Metropolitan Lipkivsky, and the false-Archbishop Sharaivsky “ordained” the widow Teodorovich to the Podil Cathedra. In 1924, he went to North America to lead the Mazepites—Original Author’s footnote.

(Mazepites are Ukrainian nationalists—taken from the name of famous traitor Ivan Mazepa, who was excommunicated and anathematized for supporting Swedes to destroy Rus Churches, and for oath breaking—trans.)

[9] Russian: “samosviat”, i.e., having non-canonically consecrated themselves in the hierarchical rank. Canonically, it takes two canonical bishops to consecrate a new bishop.—OC.

[10] This incredibly complicated situation only demonstrates how the great tragedy of the fall of the Russian Empire had global repercussions felt even to this day. The Antiochian Orthodox Church in North America founded by Syrian/Lebanese Saint Raphael of Brooklyn (who studied in Kiev, received his vestments from Tsar Nikolas II, and considered himself of the “Russian soul”) was supported by the Russian Church. Saint Raphael was consecrated the first bishop on American soil by Saint Tikhon of Moscow. After the fall of the Russian Empire, the Antiochian church was divided into those who still wanted to remain in the Russian Metropolia (primarily the dioceses of Toledo), and those who wanted to go under the Patriarch of Antioch. This Metropolitan Germanos was one associated with the “Pro-Russian” Toledo diocese, formally called the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Toledo and Dependencies. In this case, Pro-Russian refers to being in favor of the Russian Church. While I cannot speak to, or defend his controversial actions with the Ukrainians, it is worth noting that the Toledo diocese and the “Pro-Russian” Antiochians in general were not attempting to steal Ukrainian parishes from the Russian Church, but rather, as a part of the broader Russian world, they were among the many churches scrambling to reunite or rejoin the broken splinters of the Russian Church during the confusing years of the 1920s. These Syrians felt a deep kinship by blood and spirit with Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian people, considering that Syrian priests and bishops were among those who participated during the Baptism of Rus’. Many Syrians always saw Russia as their younger, stronger brother, who now carries the light of Orthodoxy from the fallen cities of Antioch and Constantinople. Russians educated and protected the Syrians of the Middle East during the Imperial period; many to this day speak Russian/Ukrainian, and consider themselves to be of a united Orthodox people. In the interest of full disclosure, I—the translator Matfey Shaheen—am a cousin of Metropolitan-Archbishop Michael (Shaheen) of Toledo, (my grandfather being his uncle) who lead one of the diocese (Toledo) which was traditionally (historically) considered to be in favor of remaining with the Russian Church.—Trans.

[11] The word used was “Pan”, which in many Slavic countries such as Ukraine, Poland, and Czechia, is equivalent to Lord or Sir, and also used as Mister, a title for generally speaking anyone of honor or nobility. Pan Otets can be an honorable way to address a priest, meaning literally “Lord Father”, as well as Pani Matushka, for his wife. Pana is the form for a young unmarried woman, a noble maiden.—Trans.

[12] The word used here for sincere was Ukrainian (щирі), not Russian, which, as with the above example, gives the impression of how Ukrainianized these people were. This is something which is lost in translation, but noted here as its important to absorb as much of the cultural background as possible.—Trans.

[13] Even after the end of WWII, there were still small pockets of insurgents of the forces that had allied with Hitler hiding in Galicia.—Trans.

[14] In other words, Hilarion himself began his carrier canonically, however when he took control of the schismatic church, he became the “hierarch” of a church with a mix of formally canonical, and never even ordained “clergy”. Therefore regardless of his own status, he was leading a “church” of non-canonical people, and he could not make them canonical, because to do so would in effect be denying that they were canonical in the first place, therefore making his own position illegitimate.—Trans.

[15] See above; if the “priests” were really canonical, they would not receive an ordination to archpriest. Archpriests are simply priests who have been elevated to a higher dignity, but they are of the same order as other priests. This implies that Hilarion understood these priests were never canonically ordained, and so he attempted to circumvent this by saying the prayers of priestly ordination over these alleged “priests”, when in a normal situation, the priest would simply be blessed and awarded with his new dignity of Archpriest during the liturgy as is typical.—Trans.

[16] See above, this all implies Hilarion did indeed realize this entire thing was non-canonical in nature.—Trans.

[17] 1 Corinthians 12:26—trans.

[18] Союз Українок Канади

[19] Конґрес українців Канади

[20] In other words, if literally no other canonical churches can be found, and the only option is to not attend church at all.—Trans.

[21] So long as Eucharistic communion has not yet been severed by the Holy Synod of the Russian and/or the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. There is already discussion of this happening.—Trans.

[22] See above, this is only permitted because these churches are part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which as discussed, effectively legalized them in spite of, rather than in absence of their previous non-canonicity. If communion is broken with the Phanar, such communion would also be broken with these groups.

See also
Ukraine on the Threshold of Catastrophe: What the Fighters for Autocephaly Really Want Ukraine on the Threshold of Catastrophe: What the Fighters for Autocephaly Really Want
Dimitry Marchenko
Ukraine on the Threshold of Catastrophe: What the Fighters for Autocephaly Really Want Ukraine on the Threshold of Catastrophe: What the Fighters for Autocephaly Really Want
Dimitry Marchenko
That is why I, a parishioner of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, living in Kiev, would like to show you the situation from the inside, from the very epicenter.
What moved Patriarch Bartholomew to lay to ruin Ukrainian Orthodoxy? What moved Patriarch Bartholomew to lay to ruin Ukrainian Orthodoxy? What moved Patriarch Bartholomew to lay to ruin Ukrainian Orthodoxy? What moved Patriarch Bartholomew to lay to ruin Ukrainian Orthodoxy?
Kirill Alexandrov
Dubious initiatives by the Phanar in Ukraine are becoming increasingly puzzling; but is Patriarch Bartholomew really free in his actions?
Behind the Sourozh Phenomenon: Spiritual Freedom or Cultural Captivity? Meletios Metaksakis, Metropolitan, Archbishop, Pope and Patriarch Behind the Sourozh Phenomenon: Spiritual Freedom or Cultural Captivity? Meletios Metaksakis, Metropolitan, Archbishop, Pope and Patriarch
Priest Srboliub Miletich
Behind the Sourozh Phenomenon: Spiritual Freedom or Cultural Captivity? Meletios Metaksakis, Metropolitan, Archbishop, Pope and Patriarch Behind the Sourozh Phenomenon: Spiritual Freedom or Cultural Captivity? Meletios Metaksakis, Metropolitan, Archbishop, Pope and Patriarch
Archpriest Andrew Phillips, Priest Srboliub Miletich
These tragic events have therefore once again focused attention on the extraordinary universalist and meddling pretensions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Where did these strange and novel ideas originate?
Constantinople exarchs in Ukraine could be planning to reconsecrate schismatic bishops—Met. Hilarion (Alfeyev) Constantinople exarchs in Ukraine could be planning to reconsecrate schismatic bishops—Met. Hilarion (Alfeyev) Constantinople exarchs in Ukraine could be planning to reconsecrate schismatic bishops—Met. Hilarion (Alfeyev) Constantinople exarchs in Ukraine could be planning to reconsecrate schismatic bishops—Met. Hilarion (Alfeyev)
The Patriarchate of Constantinople may have sent its exarchs into Ukraine in order to legitimize the schismatics there through reconsecration, His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) believes.
The Apotheosis of Eastern Papism The Apotheosis of Eastern Papism
Archpriest Andrei Novikov
The Apotheosis of Eastern Papism The Apotheosis of Eastern Papism
Archpriest Andrei Novikov
This article was put forth to analyze the speech of the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew, at the Synaxis (Council) of the Archbishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which was held in Istanbul on September 1-4, 2018.
The current situation creates a threat of schism for Universal Orthodoxy The current situation creates a threat of schism for Universal Orthodoxy
Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev)
The current situation creates a threat of schism for Universal Orthodoxy Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev): The Current situation creates a threat of schism for Universal Orthodoxy
Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev)
We have made this statement today in the hope that they will reconsider their decision, that no exarchs will go to Kiev. However, in the event that the decision is not reconsidered, we will be forced to think of retaliatory measures. At the moment, such measures are being discussed by our Holy Synod.
Anthony10/2/2018 8:42 pm
Dear Joseph, Greetings beloved! I am certainly not judging anyone. I am simply pointing out the wrongs that our hierarchs have/are committing through ecumenism bringing down God's wrath. It was the same in pre-Revolutionary Russia, and it is the same and even worse within our Churches in Cyprus and Greece. The point is sin is not just individual. It affects us all. These Hierarchs are responsible to God, and they are responsible for our souls. You can't say to me, having watched that video that Russian hierarchs are any better than the Phanar. But you are correct. Same as with every preceding heresy, it is always up to the laity to stand steadfast when our Hierarchs lead our Church astray.
Joseph10/2/2018 8:21 pm
Anthony: Let's let God be the judge, through the hierarchs of Local Churches. Even patriarchs walk under God, and He will have the last word. By the way, the EP will not succeed in taking over the Ukrainian Church, only a band of schismatics. The people in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will mostly stay right where they are.
anthony10/2/2018 2:27 pm
Dearly beloved respondents! Greetings! The Ukrainian Church is a part of the Russian Church. The Russian leadership has engaged in ecumenist heresy trying to unite Orthodoxy with heresy. Now they are reaping the effects with a part of their own Church being torn from them to unite with heresy. And what is the phanar is reaping? Err. What is Constantinople today? A turk occupied entity - so double occupation. By turks and amerikans. Sorry if that ain't clear enough. Ecumenism is a grievous heresy rejected by every saint. Look at what St Spyridon did to the Latins when they tried to defile a Church dedicated to him in Kerkyra. If you can't see the fruits of this maybe you need to pray harder.
Pavlos Dams10/2/2018 11:47 am

if God's wrath befalls the Russian Church again because of this infection, a similar one ought to befall on the Phanar, because of an infection with more than similar proportions. An infection of which some symptoms have been named by anthony. Some other symptoms:
-Theft in 2017-2018 of a large amount of money (about 10 million US dollars) from the budget for the construction of the Orthodox Church of St. Nicholas in New York. The withdrawal of these funds abroad happened on the orders of Bart.
- Calling qurans holy and offering them as a gift to a muslim
- Stating that the Fathers at the time of the Schism were unfortunate victims of the serpent who is chief of all evils
Joseph10/1/2018 11:08 pm
Anthony: so what did the Ukrainian Church do to deserve this?
Anthony10/1/2018 10:44 pm
I have been exceptionally critical of the Phanar and his behaviour - but after seeing this video, perhaps there is reason why God's wrath is befalling the Russian Church once again- there can be no unity without Truth; absolutely frightening how infected the Church has become -
anthony10/1/2018 8:11 pm
Thank you for clarifying what the Ukrainian "church" in N. America is. We have a recurring theme - That of the phanar committing one dastardly deed after another. We see that all trouble within our Church comes from this jurisdiction. From the new calendar to the heretical council of Crete to second marriages of priests to potential escalation of bloodshed through his actions in the Ukraine. He "prays" with heretics and voodoo witches and even once made a speech condemning the Greek Revolution as being the cause of division between 'brothers' - Greek and turk! He prayed for Erdogan's victory over the Kurds in Syria too. Why have Orthodox jurisdictions not taken a stand to condemn this man???
Editor10/1/2018 6:19 pm
Nicholas: The ROC granted the OCA autocephaly and continues to recognize it. The ROC continues to observe the agreement in the tomos of autocephaly that they would not open any new churches or monasteries in the OCA's jurisdiction. There are some churches that were left to the ROC, such as the one in New York. The ROC continue to maintain those churches and send clergy but do not open new ones.
Nicholas Young10/1/2018 5:13 pm
This should be, perhaps, a subject for another time, but what is the ROC's attitude towards the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America? Why is there a need to establish new ROC parishes in the territory of an autocephalous body? This causes some confusion for me. Maybe the autocephaly of the OCA was given unwisely?
Here you can leave your comment on the present article, not exceeding 4000 characters. All comments will be read by the editors of OrthoChristian.Com.
Enter through FaceBook
Your name:
Your e-mail:
Enter the digits, seen on picture:

Characters remaining: 4000

to our mailing list

* indicates required