Russian Synod condemns Patriarch Bartholomew’s anti-canonical visit to Ukraine

Moscow, September 24, 2021

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church met in Moscow yesterday and today under the chairmanship of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia.

Among other things, the hierarchs evaluated and condemned the recent visit of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to Ukraine, which was undertaken without the invitation and blessing of the proper canonical authorities—Patriarch Kirill and His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine.

As the Synod notes in its report, such an act is a “gross violation of the canons, in particular, the 3rd Canon of the Council of Sardica, and the 13th Canon of the Council of Antioch.”

The Synod “also noted the purely political nature of the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew, which reveals his dependence on external forces in relation to the Church.”

While the Russian Church remains ever grateful to Constantinople for bringing it the Orthodox faith, “the noble exploits of the ever-memorable Patriarchs of Constantinople in the past do not justify the current canonical crimes of Patriarch Bartholomew.”

By entering into communion with the schismatics in Ukraine, Pat. Bartholomew lost the trust of millions of Ukrainian Orthodox faithful, the Synod laments, and bears responsibility for undermining the unity of the Church.

The Russian Church has consistently responded to Constantinople’s ill-willed attacks on its canonical territory. After Pat. Bartholomew sent exarch bishops to Ukraine to prepare for the false “unification council” without the proper episcopal permission, the Synod authorized Pat. Kirill to cease commemoration of Pat. Bartholomew, but without breaking communion.

However, after Constantinople announced in October that it had entered into communion with anathematized schismatics and that it intended to create a new church on the territory of the ancient Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Russian Synod fully broke communion with Constantinople, which had willfully become one with the Ukrainian schismatics.

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

9/24/2021

Comments

Jason10/1/2021 9:40 pm

Sergei, please stop bro! The "jurisdictional differences" are turned on and off by P. Bartholemew's masters and not by the people of Ukraine or Russia! We have been speaking about the transfer of Kiev from Constantinople by a TRUE ORTHDOOX Patriarch to Moscow which took place 400 YEARS AGO!! Most Holy Theotokos save us from those who love the world more than the Church, and desire to be of the world, while claiming to be followers of your son. Save us oh Lord Jesus Christ from the godless men pleasers that have crept into the church desiring to serve mammon over God! Please Holy Lord Jesus expose the wolves in sheep's clothing and cleanse Your house as you cleansed the temple in Jerusalem. Maranatha!

Sergei Lukianov10/1/2021 1:22 am

Most Holy Theotokos save us! Jason, Joshua, and Steve, these are all interesting points you make. I would like to point out, however, that the the jurisdictional disagreement over Ukraine's autocephaly only dates back to 1992. It is not even thirty years old yet!

Jason9/30/2021 6:02 pm

Steve, once again you start to play your trickery of diversion and deceit. Once again, like a slippery snake you try to use your straw-man argument like the shameless enemy of truth that you are. You completely ignore the fact that dumenko was regarded as a schismatic and heretic, by Erdogan's Patriarch Bartholemew as well as the entire body of the local churches. You try to support your defense of this heretic Bartholemew by appealing to a "string attached" argument? Pathetic! Even though you are a dishonest person, and I seriously doubt that you are Orthodox at all, I will go ahead and address your flawed line of reasoning. You and the other members of erdogon's harem state that since the EP of 400 years asked that his name be commemorated first naturally means that at any point in time -no matter the amount of time that passes- the Ecumenical Patriarch has the right to "revoke" the transfer, at his will, whenever he pleases! However, you are to blind to see that you are making an assumption! An assumption that is heavily skewed by political and financial ambitions, and is not rooted in the historical behavior of the Church, the guidance of the canons, or the teachings of the Holy Fathers. For you and your sisters to make such a claim, you need to be able say more than "there is a string attached, and that string means.." you cant just make things up! When the holy fathers speak, they are clear and direct, there is no room for interpretation. You and your fellow globalist slaves are desperately trying to interpret historical correspondence between two primates of the church from 400 years ago to suite your false narrative! Let me say it this way, so that maybe you will understand...you are like a protestant trying desperately to twist scripture to suite their false interpretation. In like manner you and your sisters in satanic globalism are trying desperately to justify the wicked, un-canonical, weak, sinful and traitorous behavior of "Bartholomew" (as he likes to be called) by pouring your own biased interpretation into the written exchange between the two primates, namely the REAL Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Moscow from 400 years ago...400 YEARS AGO!! You have no ground to stand on, and no real bases to make such an absurd claim, so you use words like "must have been" "naturally means" etc. Since the EP and her supporters, such as yourself, are making these claims, the burden of proof is upon you to prove without any doubt and through the teachings of the Holy Fathers, and the canons of the church that the wording you refer to over and over and over again naturally means that Bartholomew can today commit the crime of replacing the true Metropolitan with a fake one, and then revoking the transfer from 400 years ago, but not from the true Metropolitan, but from the fake one that he and Mike Pompeo created! But before you do that, you need to prove that Dumenko is a true Metropolitan, and that what Bartholomew did by "consecrating" him was actually canonical and orthodox, but you cant! None of your sisters in satanism can, but it doesn't matter because who cares about canons, and patristic teachings when you are serving the greater cause of the "great reset", right Steve? disgusting! Please be a man, and become a Christian, get some dignity, honor and self-respect and stop trying to defend the works of satan, even if the agent of his work is a "patriarch" it's still rather shameful and utterly disgraceful!

Joshua9/29/2021 5:27 pm

Steve: You speak like a lawyer (read: Pharisee). Well, okay, if that's how you want to look at it--there is a statute of limitations on cases like this of about 30 years. Almost 400 years have passed. Even if CP could somehow justify this de jure, the Ukrainian Church has de facto been under Moscow for all this time, and the real church-goers are happy that way. Is it Christian to violate the wishes of all those people just to satisfy Bartholomew's ambitions and desire to curry favor with certain geopolitical powers?

Steve9/29/2021 4:50 pm

Jason, yes of course the EP gave full jurisdiction to Moscow in 1686, but that's not the point of contention here. The book, "The Ecclesial Crisis in Ukraine and it's Solution According to the Sacred Canons", wastes a whole chapter proving that Ukraine was fully under the jurisdiction of Moscow, but Constantinople isn't arguing against this. What is being argued by Constantinople is that while full jurisdiction was granted to Moscow in 1686, it was granted with a string attached. That explicitly attached "string" is the stipulation that the Patriarch of Constantinople should always be commemorated first by the Metropolitan of Kiev. This is clearly not a normal transfer of jurisdiction, and Constantinople's argument is that this was intentionally so. The preceding correspondence between Moscow and Constantinople (which unfortunately Metropolitan Nikiforos completely avoids in his book) sheds light on these very intentions. In this correspondence, Patriarch Joachim of Moscow's intentions are made clear. He writes, "...not wanting to take the eparchy [Kiev] into our possession, but seeking a fraternal union in Christ, so that Christians who live not only in our country but also in Poland could benefit from it, to express your good will...." The Moscow Patriarch is clearly asking to manage the Kievan Eparchy on behalf of Constantinople, rather than actually taking ownership of it, that is, "to express your good will [Constantinople's]". Thus the glaringly strange stipulation, the "attached string", that Constantinople always be commemorated first by the Metropolitan of Kiev makes perfect sense here in the context of Patriarch Joachim of Moscow's written request.

Jason9/28/2021 8:40 pm

Steve, it really amazes me how defenders of Erdogan's Patriarch -like yourself- are so capable of spinning truth and reality! Almost all of the false statements you make in your comments have been dealt with in the book "The Ecclesial Crisis in Ukraine and its Solution According to the Sacred Canons" By Metropolitan of Kykkos and Tylliria Nikiforos (a Greek Metropolitan!). Without considering the fact that for almost 400(!!) YEARS the status quo has been for Kiev to belong to Moscow, and to assert that the reason why The Patriarch of Constantinople was to be commemorated "logically" means that the church intended that 400 years later when an anti-Christian spirit ruled over the west, the patriarch would have the authority to do the bidding of the likes of Obama, Soros and Pompeo and cause schism in the church is completely absurd and ridiculous, and anyone using this sort of childish argument should truly be ashamed of themselves! The question you should be asking is why there is no mention of a returning to Constantinople whenever Constantinople wills in the original Tomos? If it is as you say, and for some reason Moscow simply wanted to have a brotherly relationship with Kiev -WHICH THEY ALREADY HAD- and intended to one day give Kiev back to Constantinople, then why even go through the effort? What would be the point? There would be no point! Also, you are really avoiding the elephant in the room steve! The fact that the True Metropolitan (Onuphry) did not request to "return" to Constantinople, but that Bartholomew, directed (ordered) by the likes of Pompeo and the US department of defense, as well as Ukraine's former president Petroshenko decided to simply take a man off the streets, rejected by ALL of the LOCAL CHURCHES (which you appealed too in your first comment), condemned as a heretic and a schismatic by the same LOCAL CHURCHES, was suddenly recognized by your Turkish patriarch as the real Metropolitan of Kiev, and ONLY THEN brought back to the "safety" of Istanbul's Patriarchate! How do you look at yourself in the mirror knowing that you are defending such insanity? How can you read any of the Holy Fathers and not feel shame when you try and defend such anti-christian sinful behavior? Read the book I refrenced above, repent of freemasonry, and come to Christ! Gnostic garbage will get you nowhere, and your "fraternity" sends people to hell! Did Bartholemew share any of the 40+ million dollars he received from the US Department of Defense and the Petroshenko with you yet? He really should pay you for your sad attempts to defend such un-canonical and anti-patristic behavior! You deserve a few dollars for sure ;-)

Steve9/28/2021 3:59 pm

Jason, the fundamental disagreement between Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew is really whether the much-discussed "1686 transfer" could later be revoked by the EP. All the other accusations of Patriarch Bartholomew's "canonical transgressions" and "papism" in Ukraine are secondary and follow from this disagreement. The strange stipulation from the 1686 document that the Patriarch of Constantinople be commemorated first (and in perpetuity) by the Metropolitan of Kiev, is actually reflective of what was requested by Moscow Patriarch Joachim at the time. He plainly requested a "fraternal union" with Kiev (rather than an outright paternal one), and he pointedly said that he was not seeking to take over Kiev as his own territory. Thus, what was granted by Constantinople in 1686 was exactly what was requested by Moscow at the time. Yet why is Moscow only questioning now the terms of the 1686 transfer after 350 years of it's acceptance and precedence?

Jason9/28/2021 5:53 am

Steve, the local churches of the fourth century where themselves in communion with Arian Bishops, but Arianism was still a heresy. The government of the Roman empire supported the Arians and persecuted the true Christians. Iconaclasm was treated in a similar fashion, with the emperor supporting and upholding the false teachings that icons were idols, and no Bishop dared protest, and those who did were unsuccessful and paid with their lives! Today Bartholomew is most certainly a heretic, and the sad fact that no local church dares condemn him is not because they disagree with the reality of how anti-christian he is, but it has more to do with the fact that they are afraid of him just as the bishops of old were afraid to stand against Arianism since it would lead to very negative consequences. Only a few bishops dared stand against it, and they paid dearly such as St. Athenasios. When St. Maximus called out the emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople for their heretical innovations regarding the nature of Christ, it cost him his life, but only after he was beat, exiled, tortured and humiliated! How many people in the church would dare stand up against the powers that P. Bartholomew serves? We know that his allegiance is not to Christ, His Church or the Holy Fathers, but to the world, its servants and all those who serve mammon. These same agents of darkness have a great deal of power, and nobody wants to cross them! They control Georgia, Romania, Greece, Cyprus and to some degree Serbia. Do you really think that the local churches would condemn P. Bartholomew if it means the end of their life or their position? Imagine the pressure that the west will put upon the government of Georgia (for example) if His Holiness Catholicos Elia tried to stand up against the pseudo patriarch of istanbul. Then imagine the pressure the government of Georgia would put upon the church! I would go so far as to say that they would even persecute the church if it did not do their binding, since the alternative would mean the end of their career in government or potentially the end of their lives! P.B. is a nasty fellow with very very evil connections! No one wants to cross those connections! We must us our own judgment in today's day and age, and hold P. Bartholomew to the standards as set fourth in the Ecumenical Councils, the Rudder and the teachings of the Holy Fathers, and we must do so with all of our bishops and patriarchs, since today is unlike anytime in the history of the church! May God help us!

Steve9/25/2021 6:50 pm

Alexander Leitner: Since all the local churches, except for Russia, still commemorate Patriarch Bartholomew, it would seem prudent not to label Patriarch Bartholomew as an apostate. Doing so apart from the rest of the church would be papist. That is, after all, what the Roman Catholics did in 1054.

Gary9/25/2021 2:12 pm

Patriarchs of the Church, wake up! If Constantinople is not stopped from stomping on the Russian Orthodox Church then do you think that you are not next on the list of those to be controlled? Pray for our Patriarchs and Bishops!!!

Alexander Leitner9/25/2021 11:54 am

@Steve: this is nonsense per se! Constantinople is in apostasy and not since the case of ukraine but since almost 100 years. Calendar change, innovations, ecumenism. I can remember that 10 years ago or so peopke protested against Bartholomew for his uncanonical and heretical deeds. Also how he re-organized Mount Athos and his Synod. Only those who agree with him can stay.Others are thrown out or persecuted. Also when he threatened whole greece....Bartholomew is insane

Dionysius Redington9/24/2021 9:38 pm

Talking about Ukraine is talking about a symptom. The synod should talk exclusively about the cause: Constantinople's phyletistic doctrine of Primus Sine Paribus. Talking about Ukraine may even be harmful, because it reinforces the impression that Moscow's main interest is retaining control of Ukraine. What the Synod should have done is condemned the Bartholomew/Elpidophorus doctrine and offered the canonical Ukrainian church autocephaly, whether it wants it or not. Dionysius Redington

Steve9/24/2021 7:09 pm

From an ecclesial perspective, this is interesting, because all of this disagreement fundamentally rests on whether or not the 1686 transfer could later be revoked by Constantinople. Perhaps it would be more useful for Moscow to make an attempt at proving that the 1686 transfer of ecclesial authority from Constantinople to Moscow was indeed somehow irrevocable.

Russian Synod condemns Patriarch Bartholomew’s anti-canonical visit to Ukraine

Subscribeto our mailing list

Subscribe
to our mailing list