Patriarch Bartholomew continues to distort history surrounding Crete Council

Istanbul, Turkey, June 21, 2021

Photo: pravmir.ru

Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has often spoken about his disappointment that four Local Churches did not attend the Council of Crete in the summer of 2016.

However, the history surrounding the Council that Pat. Bartholomew and his supporters present is often seriously distorted, in an effort to blame and shame the four non-attending Churches—Antiochian, Georgian, Bulgarian, and Russian.

The Patriarch raised the issue again yesterday, during the Liturgy for the feast of the Holy Spirit, reports the Orthodox Times.

According to Pat. Bartholomew, the four Churches “did not honor their signature, nor did they respect the efforts of their representatives and the sacrifices of decades, which all Orthodox Churches made, first the Great Church of Christ, which was the one that generously took over the financial charge of the council.”

The Constantinople primate is referring to a document that was signed during the Synaxis of Primates in Geneva in January 2016, agreeing upon when the council would be held—June 16-27, 2016—and which topics would be discussed. The official announcement from the Patriarchate of Constantinople following the Synaxis gives the impression that all Local Churches signed the document.

However, the Greek agency Romfea later revealed that, in fact, the Patriarchate of Antioch never signed off on convening the council. In the space left for the Antiochian Church, His Eminence Metropolitan Isaac, who was representing His Beatitude Patriarch John of Antioch at the Synaxis, wrote instead of a signature: “The Church of Antioch has a contrary opinion and therefore is not signing”:

The scanned document reads, in the place left for Antioch's signature: "The Church of Antioch has a contrary opinion and therefore is not signing."

A representative from the Patriarchate of Antioch told Romfea that the Church had concerns about the council’s rules of procedures, and that it expected that its disagreement with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem be resolved first (Antioch has been out of communion with Jerusalem over a territorial dispute since 2014).

However, Pat. Bartholomew said that the issue with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem would be addressed only after the council, which the Patriarchate of Antioch deemed unacceptable. (His Eminence Metropolitan Siluan of Buenos Aires of the Church of Antioch also explained the Church’s concerns about the council’s procedural rules and other issues in more depth here.)

Thus, Pat. Bartholomew’s statement that four Churches “did not honor their signature” is not true, and the absence of Antioch’s signature raises the question of why the council was held without the previous agreement of all the Local Churches.

Closer to the time of the council, the Patriarchates of Georgia and Bulgaria also expressed their own concerns, asking that certain issues be addressed before the convening of the council. However, again, Pat. Bartholomew refused to address their concerns and instead pushed ahead with the council.

Seeing that three Local Churches had already backed out of the council, and that it thus could not be pan-Orthodox, the Patriarchate of Moscow also chose not to attend.

Pat. Bartholomew personally blames the Russian Church for the absence of the three other Local Churches. However, had he been willing to address the concerns of the Antiochian, Georgian, and Bulgarian Churches, then all Local Churches would have attended the council.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Vkontakte, Telegram, WhatsApp, MeWe, and Gab!

6/22/2021

Comments

Theodoros 6/29/2021 3:30 am

David, I mentioned Patriarch Kyril's suggestion of appointing committees to Patriarch Bartholomew in response to your comments that the Russian Church was not interested in talking. Patriarch Kyril and the Russians demonstrated that they were interested in talking. It is only Patriarch Bartholomew that refused to have any discussions. As recently as 2014, Patriarch Bartholomew's exarch at the enthronement of Metropolitan Onuphry in Kiev stated that Constantinople only recognized Metropolitan Onuphry and his synod as the canonical Church of Ukraine. Four years later Patriarch Bartholomew reversed his previous position and did not even offer an explanation as to why. It is only Constantinople that refuses to discuss anything. As to your question as to how often Constantinople and Moscow concelebrated in a spirit of brotherly love before 2018. I recall that Patriarch (then Metropolitan) Kyril concelebrated with Patriarch Bartholomew at the cave Churches of Cappadocia. On other occasions Metropolitan Hilarion Alfayev concelebrated with Patriarch Bartholomew at the holy sites in Cappadocia. In 2010, Patriarch Bartholomew concelebrated the liturgy at the Monastery of Panagia Soumela in Trebizond for the first time since the end of the Pontian Greek Genocide in 1923 which was attended by Russian Bishops, government officials, and faithful. Patriarch Bartholomew has also served the liturgy with the Russians on at least two visits he has made to Russia in 1993 and 2010. With regard to your assertion that both Constantinople and Moscow believe they are right. Moscow in fact is absolutely in the right. All the free Orthodox Churches fully agree with Moscow that Ukraine is the canonical territory of the Russians. The non free Church of Greece took a whole year to "recognize" the schismatic entity in Ukraine. The Synod of Athens took a pass on the issue for a whole year and then recognized the criminal institution of the OCU after Mike Pompeo flew to Athens and asked Archbishop Ieronymos to recognize the fake entity. Patriarch Theodore of Alexandria and Archbishop Chrysostom of Athens in their original responses to Constantinople's actions in Ukraine refused to recognize the fake church. It is only after heavy pressure and arm twisting that they changed their positions. Moscow is fully in the right and this is confirmed by the support shown to the canonical Church of Ukraine by the free Orthodox Churches and the slow and hesitant recognition of the OCU by the non free Church of Greece. The fact that the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Archbishop of Cyprus recognized the OCU without consulting their synods further strengthens the Russian case. With regard to your assertion that "deposing people will not solve anything". Would you not agree that when the fathers of the third ecumenical council of Ephesus deposed Nestorios from the Patriarchate of Constantinople that this solved a very serious crisis within the Church. Deposing bishops who promote schism and teach heresy resolves problems. I will disagree with your assertion that deposing Filaret Denisenko did not solve the Ukrainian problem. Denisenko was properly deposed and anathematized for his canonical offenses. This solved the problem because the canonical Church was freed from the destructive actions of a narcissistic individual. The canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church was left free to fulfill its spiritual mission without Denisenko. The schismatic entities that came into being were never part of the Church and so in my opinion there was no problem. Deposing Patriarch Bartholomew at this time might cause a few upheavals but over the long term it would be for the greater good of Orthodoxy and the threat of schism will end.

David6/27/2021 4:20 pm

Theodoros: "Committees" are what got us here in the first place. Before 2018, how often did concelebration between EP and MP hierarchs take place (in a spirit of brotherly love)? The MP believes it is right and the EP is wrong (and vice versa). No dialogue can come from that. Deposing people will not solve anything. Deposing Philaret didn't solve the Ukrainian problem. At any rate, this is where we are. Nobody is seeing anybody and we are all talking past each other. I ask for your prayers, as I will keep everyone here in mine.

Theodoros 6/26/2021 3:51 pm

David, It is not true that the Moscow Patriarchate is not interested in talking. From the very beginning of the crisis instigated by the Phanar, Patriarch Kyril suggested establishing committees on both sides to examine the history of the Church of Ukraine. Patriarch Bartholomew rejected this. Furthermore, after the fake "unification" council but before the fake tomos was bestowed on the fake bishops by the Phanar, Patriarch Kyril reached out to Patriarch Bartholomew assuring him at the time that it was not too late to go back. The Russian Church broke communion with Constantinople in phases hoping that Constantinople would stop. Patriarch Bartholomew knows full well what he is doing. His collaboration with the State Department is deplorable and immoral. Even if you are correct, that Patriarch Bartholomew feels he is under attack from the Russians, that would further justify deposing him. Having a Patriarch who is paranoid does not do Orthodoxy any good. Patriarch Bartholomew enjoys being propped up by the secular government of the United States. That is a great deal of power that he presently enjoys. I suspect his desire to remain in Turkey is because he knows the Orthodox Churches cannot easily depose him. If he were residing in Greece or any Orthodox country with a normal synod he could not possibly have done what he has done without being deposed. I do not think there is any question he aspires to become an Eastern Pope. His arrogant dismissal of all requests from the local Churches to convene a council is proof of this. This Church crisis has been dragging on for nearly three years. It is time to bring it to an end by Orthodox means. This means convening a real and genuine Ecumenical Council and deposing Patriarch Bartholomew and the Greek Archbishop of America for his "first without equals" heresy. I do not think there is any question that Patriarch Bartholomew needs to go.

David6/26/2021 8:20 am

Theodoros: The EP defensively and gruffly asserting its canonical privileges (real or imagined) is not Papism---it is the reaction of someone who feels under attack. The Patriarchate is thoroughly convinced the MP wants to undermine them and "take over." The Churches and people who dissent on Ukraine are under "Moscow influence." When a person's defenses are up to that degree, there are many "enemies." It is by God's will that a Council has not taken place, because both the EP and MP are not interested in talking. Time and small conciliatory gestures are called for. No more Councils. No more Statements. Just the EP and MP together in a room. Deposing HAH will not solve the problem, as EP critics will likely hate his successor even more.

Theodoros 6/25/2021 2:58 am

To David, You assert that Patriarch Bartholomew is not looking to become an Eastern Pope. I totally disagree and I would the cite the letters he sent to Archbishop Anastasios of Albania in response to the Archbishop's request that Patriarch Bartholomew convene a council. Patriarch Bartholomew in his very rude responses told the Archbishop that his responsibility was to ratify decisions made in Constantinople. At this late date, there can be no doubt that Patriarch Bartholomew claims Papal like authority. His refusal to convene a council because he knows it will rule against Constantinople makes a mockery of the conciliar tradition of the Orthodox Church. The greatest example of Patriarch Bartholomew's claims to Papal style authority can be seen by the backing he has received from the State Department and the American embassy's influence over the Church of Greece and Mount Athos. The American embassy has become an enforcer for the Phanar's dictates in Greece and the Holy Mountain. If this does not demonstrate Papal like authority, I do not know what does. Patriarch Bartholomew's power has crept out of Constantinople and into the affairs of "autocephalous" Churches in Alexandria, Greece, and Cyprus which has resulted in damaging the relations of these Churches with the sister Church of Russia. There will be no peace in the Orthodox Church until Patriarch Bartholomew has been deposed.

David6/25/2021 2:54 am

Mother Cornelia, I would certainly agree with what you have written. My post was a clumsy attempt to reply to you and everyone else who engaged with my comment---upon re-reading it, it is more like a shotgun blast than a focused posting. My apologies. I brought up the past mostly to rebut the notion that "Constantinople is to blame." The EP has made many mistakes in the last hundred years or so (as we noted before, our hierarchs are human), but he is not alone in this. That was my point: That the blame game can go on forever. Your point about Christian virtue is spot on----Both the EP and MP have hurt each other, and only when each "side" is willing to admit this, can true healing begin. I thank the Lord that a Council has not met, and I am against one convening at this time. For the simple fact that the EP and MP are not ready to talk with each other as brothers----because that is what HAH Bartholomew and His Beatitude Kyrill are. I speak from personally experience: I was personally estranged from my younger brother for many years, where we were not speaking and there was real alienation. It was only when we both were able to talk about our childhoods candidly and with humility, were we able to see the pain we inflicted on each other (the Lord softened my heart in ways I can't even describe). This is what needs to happen between the EP and MP, and no healing in the Church will take place until this is done. May God grant it! I do appreciate you engaging with me and posting my comments. Despite my disagreements with your editorial content, I do enjoy your website overall and hope that you will continue to favor spiritually edifying content over the "other stuff." Panagia protect you.

m. Cornelia6/24/2021 12:07 pm

David, respectfully, you are digressing from the point of my comment. We can certainly dig up all sorts of complaints on both sides. But that is irrelevant to solving the issue at hand. If you really want to study the whole picture you need to scrutinize each point. Why exactly did the Bulgarians want to restore their autocephaly and why the Russians supported them in this; what exactly did the Council of Crete aim to accomplish and were those aims good for Orthodoxy; what was the CP's role regarding the Russian Church under Communist persecution; and what is the nature of the new organization created in Ukraine, among other things that I'm sure could be dug up. The Church does not solve problems by diverting attention away from them to past wrongs, and justifying a reciprocal action, as secular statesmen do. Purely on a personal level, self-justification by citing past wrongs in not a Christian virtue.

David6/24/2021 3:22 am

Mother Cornelia: Thank you for your reply. I agree that it is a matter of psychology, personalities, and I would add politics. I would also agree that Papalism is to be avoided, and the Ecumenical Patriarch would agree as well. If there is a misunderstanding, it goes both ways. The EP is not seeking to become an Eastern Pope. Here is a link, for those interested in what the EP (and "the Greeks") actually believes and understands about Ukraine, et al: https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2019/06/the-ecumenical-patriarchate-and-ukraine.html#more Now readers may still disagree, and that is fine, because it is the major debate of our time in the Church (just as we have had others in the past). I think a loving candor is a good thing, but all too often it becomes acrimonious and bitter. It is great that Antioch and Jerusalem are moving closer together, and ideally the EP should not be involved at all (Bishops should be able to resolve their differences themselves). As for "fault," the only way for true reconciliation to take place is moving beyond blame, and acknowledging the pain of the other. Both the EP and MP have hurt each other in different ways over the years----The MP talks about the EP's support for the Renovationists and "schismatics," but Russia supported Bulgaria and the other Autocephalist movements in the 19th Century, which were technically uncanonical and "schismatic" (and the EP defrocked, excommunicated and anathemized people then, but that didn't stop intercommunion). No doubt the EP felt bitterness towards Moscow, feeling that Russia benefitted at their expense (even if this was not true, but the sentiments remained). The hierarchs and clergy involved in that mess were still alive when the Russian Revolution came round. That is my point. There are many underlying issues that undergird the problems we saw at Crete and in Ukraine.

sherlock_holmes6/23/2021 9:05 pm

Motto : " But as you said, our hierarchs are human beings like the rest of us. And that is why it is imperative to avoid papalism in the Orthodox Church. "... So well said !... The problem is not only with the fake " orthodox " pope ( I think the US deep and shallow state have a malicious influence here ) but through deception and ecumenism they can bring the real pope in the Church. And because the real pope is " infallible " the mistakes would become eternal...Talking about Crete council, imagine that at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils the Holy Fathers wouldn't have talked at all about Arius and his heresy. Would we have had a Church today ?

Antiochene Son6/23/2021 6:53 pm

David: There is no need to say "we can easily say that now in 2021 after all that has happened." No, this was said at the time! Antioch and Jerusalem wanted to resolve their issues before the Council. Constantinople's refusal to mediate that resolution is the reason why Antioch did not attend. Antioch and Jerusalem were — and still remain — out of communion, so they would not have been able to concelebrate at the Liturgy. This entire situation is Constantinople's fault. They were so married to having the council on Pentecost 2016 that they refused to delay it to actually realize the point of the council.

Alexander Leitner6/23/2021 1:44 pm

The bitterness grew even more ...what do you think how extremly the bitterness grew the last 10 years seeing Bartholomew trampling down on the Holy Canons over and over again.

He had to be removed! Depose him now

m. Cornelia6/23/2021 1:02 pm

David: Re: "Given the influence the Moscow Patriarchate has in Eastern Europe, it is not hard to see why the EP believes that Moscow sabotaged the Council" It seems to me that if Pat. Bartholomew really does view the Moscow Patriarch as having strong influence in Eastern Europe, he is conflating the MP's relationship with the Churches of Eastern Europe with his own influence over the Greek autocephalous churches. I think the fact is, Pat. Bartholomew does influence the Greek Churches, but he doesn't have that same influence on the other churches (however much he would like to have it). So he assumes that Moscow is somehow pressuring other Churches, in the same way that he pressures the Greek Churches. This is simply not the case. A more likely scenario is that the other Churches simply don't accept his pressure, or cannot be pressured, and follow their own ecclesiastical consciences. It looks like a matter of psychology, and it's unfortunate that it's gone this far. But as you said, our hierarchs are human beings like the rest of us. And that is why it is imperative to avoid papalism in the Orthodox Church.

Guillaume6/23/2021 12:25 pm

Moreover, it was the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem who undertook to draw closer without waiting for the stanbuliot "mediation". Lord Forgive those who tear up your Church for their taste for power by presenting themselves as an Orthodox Pope.

David6/23/2021 10:22 am

There is a deeper context here. While Antioch did not sign that particular document, for many years they participated in the preparation of the Council. HAH Bartholomew was speaking of that reality, and condemned their (all those who didn't attend) non-participation. Antioch's non-participation is understandable, but the other Churches who did sign off on everything should have attended anyway. Serbia did----and if Serbia was able to attend, then there is no reason why the others (aside from Antioch) could not have attended also. This is the exact reasoning that no doubt went through the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and so the bitterness that was already there grew all the more. Given the influence the Moscow Patriarchate has in Eastern Europe, it is not hard to see why the EP believes that Moscow sabotaged the Council (it may not be true, but it is plausible to believe it---which in itself is sad and tragic). If we take an honest look at the decade prior to the Council, and all the conflicts (in particular over the autocephaly document, and the fight over whose signature would be on the Tomos), all of this mess was coming. The Ecumenical Patriarchate made a mistake in pushing too fast and too big, I think. More time and care was needed, particularly considering the ugliness that was under the surface between the EP and MP----combine that with the Antioch-Jerusalem fight, and it was a recipe for disaster. Antioch and Jerusalem's issue should have been resolved first, but we can easily say that now in 2021 after all that has happened. The EP probably thought they "had time" and everything could come together. When you're in the middle of things, sometimes you can't see something or you believe the wrong information or listen to the wrong person. It is a terrible responsibility, to be a Bishop. Lord, have mercy.

Petros6/23/2021 8:22 am

The last gasps of a dying patriarchate...that’s where this nonsense comes from

Rdr Daniel6/22/2021 9:57 pm

What is forgotten in all this is that a Pan-Orthodox council is not established by the number of patriarchs or their representatives who attended a pre-decided council, in fact the canons of the ecumenical councils imply they are only important sees with privileges over the local metropolitans with every bishop and his flock a local church. It is rather that a council is formed by the bishops of the whole Church gathering in the Holy Spirit "as it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" to address important issues which face the Church, chiefly heresy. As such there is a need for a council, and one which condemns the heresies facing the church, namely the Metanoiamachians [Fighters against repentance] & Physimachians [(Fighters against nature] (i.e. those who bring the LGBT movement, Queer Theory and the idolatry of each human's fallen will over God's created order into the Church), the so called ecumenicalists or pan-religionists, and the Neo-Papists, of which Patriarch Bartholomew is the head. In regards to the council of Crete and its long inception let us attend not to its supports but to our contempory saints such as St Justin who wrote against it http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stjustin_council.aspx

Alex6/22/2021 4:58 pm

Pat. Bartholomew needs to start writing fictional novels!

Patriarch Bartholomew continues to distort history surrounding Crete Council

Subscribeto our mailing list

Subscribe
to our mailing list