My friend and ecclesiastic compatriot Archimandrite Romanos Anastasiadis in Crete -who shares common interests and employs a similar approach in expressive tact, has faced unjust criticism by Archbishop Anastasios, elements within the Russian Church and even state-run media. This occurs even though his viewpoints align with those of myself, many esteemed Orthodox theologians, and ordinary Christians. The mildest criticism of Archbishop Anastasios from an ordinary individual is met vehemently and with the official press, while Patriarch Cyril's endorsement, no, assistance in fratricidal war remains unaddressed or handled with gentle velvet gloves. Why? It's worth pondering why certain patriarchates or specific ecclesiastical bodies, such as those in Albania, Jerusalem, and Antioch, prioritize the propagation of the Russian status-quo theory over adherence to canon law raises intriguing questions. Let’s use the term "Orthodox status-quo" encompasses a complex set of arrangements, understandings, and traditions that have been established and upheld within the Eastern Orthodox Christian community. This framework pertains not only to religious practices but also to inter-Orthodox interactions and the observance of canonical law. These arrangements have evolved over time, their evolution shaped by the interplay of historical, political, and religious factors. Not to be confused with the status-quo context of the Holy Land, imposed by Muslim rulers where multiple Christian denominations share sacred sites. This Holy Land status-quo predominantly revolves around the allocation of rights and responsibilities among various Orthodox Christian groups, such as the Greek Orthodox, Russian, and Armenian Orthodox, among others. Its purpose is to regulate matters like access, worship schedules, and the maintenance of holy places like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. In a parallel fashion, intricate dynamics surface within the autocephalous churches. However, the origins of the Orthodox-status-quo are rooted in historical factors, marked by Moscow's consistent disregard for canon law. This self-imposed arrangement is driven by Russian interests which, throughout its history, have been impelled by the Ruso-delusion of being the sole liberated Orthodox Church. This intricate dynamic can essentially be distilled to a conflict between following Canons and the vested interests of the Moscow Patriarchate. The Orthodox-status-quo functions as a protective measure for the Moscow Patriarchate, aiming to prevent conflicts within various distinct Orthodox canons and her anomalous ecclesiastical narrative. This Orthodox-status-quo attempts to navigate the tensions between the realities of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church and Moscow patriarch’s geopolitical interests. Its primary goal is to preserve harmony and stability among these diverse communities, preemptively addressing potential clashes, even if this requires overlooking jurisdictional issues. This tension arises from the Ecumenical Patriarch's efforts to bring everyone onto the same path, synodos (σύνοδος), while the Moscow Patriarchate insists on their own approach or nothing at all. The Ecumenical Patriarchate emphasizes a unified voice, synfonia (συνφωνία), while Moscow persistently challenges their own inherited conception and stance. The term "status quo," within this context, essentially signifies the preservation of existing arrangements to avoid disrupting the delicate equilibrium among the diverse Orthodox Christian groups and the Moscow Patriarchate's interests which always align with Czarist, Soviet, and today, Putin’s interests. When one seeks to understand the motivations behind the endorsement of these spiritual leaders for the resolute positions of Patriarch Cyril, delving into the reasons behind their support for Moscow's stances reveals intriguing motives. While the evident and logical financial incentives that underpin their stance can be understood, in “the constant fear of deprivation” the nature of their support seems to be more of a performative act rather than a substantiated course of action, as it lacks a canonical foundation. Regrettably, even in instances such as Jerusalem, the allure of influence wielded by well-endowed patriarchs can be comprehended; the tangible impact of monetary resources is evident. Nevertheless, adopting a narrow viewpoint that constructing or restoring a church somehow justifies the erosion of the fundamental tenets of the Orthodox faith appears shortsighted if not blasphemous. While it might be challenging, indeed a harsh reality to voice these sentiments, acknowledging the truth remains crucial for our intellectual and spiritual emancipation from Moscow’s canonical misrepresentations. Throughout history, the Moscow Patriarchate has experienced various moments that have raised concerns about its adherence to canon law. Here are some historical highlights spanning from the 9th century to the 21st century:
Throughout its history, the Moscow Patriarchate has encountered difficulties in upholding its canonical integrity. Challenges persisted beyond the 20th century, with Cyril and Putin. Moscow has made minimal progress in dispelling the lingering echoes of the KGB's influence. The exertion of the Russian state control over religious affairs in the Muscovite church has habitually led to concessions that ran counter to established ecclesiastical traditions and norms of the Orthodox Church.
The era of leniency (economia) concerning Moscow's deviations has come to an end, as a spirit of strictness (akrivia) takes root within the hearts of those who advocate uprightness. Regarding my friend in Crete, I wholeheartedly urge others to unite with the "lone voices in the wilderness" and together form a harmonious chorus of righteousness. Let this choir be a manifestation of our profound devotion to the Orthodox Church of our forefathers, our cherished Hellenic Orthodox Romiosini, The Great Nation, and our revered Most Holy Ecumenical Patriarchate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Most Popular Posts
Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
Αγιογράφος
Ηλίας Δαμιανάκης Άρχων Μαΐστωρ της Μεγάλης του Χριστού Εκκλησίας AuthorBy the Grace of God Archon Elias Damianakis has ministered in the study of Holy Iconography since 1980. In his biography you can read about Elias' life and on his portfolio page you can see where he has rendered some of his hand painted iconography or visit the photo galleries to see some of his work. There is a complete list of featured articles, awards and testimonials which you can visit, as well as a list of notable achievements here below. Please contact Elias for more information or suggestions for this website, thank you and God Bless. |