Eminence Front

​Point-by-Point Response
To Moscow’s Attack on Orthodoxy

A so-called ‘Autocephalous Church’ cannot stop the commemoration of another Church for reasons of secondary importance, particularly the commemoration of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Such a state-of-affairs constitutes ‘ecclesiological heresy’.

​The fratricide of the Moscow Patriarch towards the rest of the Orthodox church is objectively far more wounding to the security and unity of Orthodoxy than any other external interventions in the Ecumenical Patriarchate. We should be outraged if not scandalized by Moscow's behavior, which signals an ecclesiastical and moral divergence from Orthodox phronema. Patriarch Cyril is resolved to create a para-synagogue from genuine Orthodoxy.
​
If for decades, legitimate autocephalous churches accepted, out of economia, the false status Moscow claims... namely autocephaly, is it not time now for akrivia to be reclaimed by the competent church? Regardless of whether the Ecumenical Patriarchate granted a tomos of autocephaly to Moscow, for which there is no evidence, the question relevant to today's Orthodoxy is whether the self-proclaimed modern Moscow Patriarchate (1945) with no clear ecclesial patriarchal lineage to her foundation in 1589 can claim autocephaly and determine its own Patriarchal status (1917) and autocephaly (?).

Contemporary criticism of the Kremlin-centric Russian Orthodox church is ostensibly curbed due to the obscene persecution of Soviets in the last century. The Kremlin exploits this mindset and utilizes the body of the church to further its campaign of misinformation. 

An ancient Greek proverb “It is hard for you to kick against the pricks” illustrates our predicament.

“An ox goad [prick] was a stick with a pointed piece of iron on its tip used to prod the oxen when plowing. The farmer would prick the animal to steer it in the right direction. Sometimes the animal would rebel by kicking out at the prick, and this would result in the prick being driven even further into its flesh. In essence, the more an ox rebelled, the more it suffered. Thus, Jesus’ words to Saul on the road to Damascus: “It is hard for you to kick against the pricks.”
​
Moscow wants so badly to be the farmer, and control his ox; Orthodoxy. The church has become like the rebellious ox and Patriarch Cyril, the prick.

The Russian Patriarchate has always had a bloated sense of self-importance in Orthodoxy's ecosystem. Just as Russia can assert its the largest territorial country in the world, the fact is, it’s mostly uninhabitable land. Similarly, the muscovite church claims the largest membership, yet churches are empty, and adherents are sporadic. The well-crafted propaganda visuals of Moscow would lead you to believe otherwise.
​
“There is a great need for unity in church life, so that spiritual gifts are united with the canonical structure of the Church, neptic life with the holy Eucharist, man’s cure with the doctrinal teaching of the Church.”

​Occasionally, you might find yourself in the company of someone who is not taking advantage of your kindness because he is lazy or selfish, but rather because it is a strategic plan to undermine you. Sociopaths have the long-term objectives of exploiting, manipulating, and abusing others to serve their own needs. These individuals are good at putting on a show of superficial charm that can hide their true nature and will go to great lengths (including telling fantastic lies) to disguise their true intentions.

Case in point Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev Volokolamsk who recently said, “that the basic flock of Constantinople is found in America.” Some might attribute simple ignorance to Metropolitan Hilarion, I maintain his motives are malicious and intentions far more insidious. His offenses garner currency with the sycophant Russophiles. The Soviets used butts of rifles and threats of Gulags to instill fear, the Moscow Patriarchate uses similar tactics to intimidate, territorial invasions and threats of schism.
The absolute lies, distortions, and mendacities of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Kremlin based Russian Orthodox Church are blatant and disgraceful. A lurid tale of ecclesiastical promiscuity is the latest reincarnation of the Moscow Patriarchate.

---

​In anticipation of the Ecumenical Patriarch’s visitation to the United States in 2021, the Russian Orthodox Church frantically funded and established the newest propaganda outlet of the Department for External Church Relations: a YouTube channel in 14 languages. More than a "provocateur," this slick video show covertly packaged as credible news is a division for the conscious propagandist Metropolitan Hilarion who is merely a thin-skinned ecclesial terrorist.

On November 16, 2021, Metropolitan Hilarion published an official video “Constantinople and Moscow: what is the essence of the conflict?” He revels in distorting the truth and exults in belittling the first throne of Orthodoxy, abrogating the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils, and developing an entirely new ecclesiology for the Russians.
​
Metropolitan Hilarion’s blasphemy, sacrilegious, and profane talk with the ultimate purpose of disunity in the Orthodoxy is revolting and below his station in the church. I rebuke his continued petulance and blatant lies; I refute his false assertions and Kremlin based ecclesiastic propaganda. He is intentionally misleading and gas-lighting inherent prejudices clearly a “wolf in shepherd’s clothing” his lies are enveloped in a mantle of truth. 

Unworthy! Ανάξιος! Недостойный

---

A 10 Point-by-Point Response
​

“What are the main points of our disagreement.” With these words Metropolitan Hilarion attempts to lay out 10 points which caused the ROC to remove the Patriarchate of Constantinople from Moscow’s diptych in 2018. This was followed by the removal of the Churches of Cyprus, Greece, and Alexandria from liturgical commemoration anchored by threats to other Churches of the same fate. Hitherto no other Autocephalous Church has broken away endorsing Moscow’s spectacle.

One quickly realizes that there are no canonical justifications to verify Moscow’s self-isolationist contentions. The unworthy claims are only exceeded by the antichristian atrocities of Patriarch Cyril’s sowing discord in the Body of the Orthodox Church by invading ecclesial geographic territories of other patriarchates astonishingly creating new Russian exarchates: Korea, Cyprus, Romania, Georgia, Alexandria.... Rediscovering Russian tactics of the Middle Ages uncanonically expanding territories clearly against canon law. The Stalin ecclesiology is alive and well in the Kremlin church.

The Moscow Patriarchate’s new self-isolation anathema-mantra is embarrassingly straightforward “We don’t agree with that” so we violate unity. This new Muscovite ecclesiology based on protestant principles “antichristian, covetous ideology necessitated definite methods of struggle: in the first place, falsehood, then deception, propaganda, calumny, terrorization, violence, persecution, inquisition; and finally, the entire liquidation not only of the [Orthodox] Church but even of all religion in the souls of men.”
​
We must remind the Moscow Patriarchate “The Church is not a Public Prosecutor to pronounce verdicts of guilt or innocence, but a spiritual hospital that heals.” With no canonical basis Moscow endeavors an antichrist narrative of Christ’s Orthodox Church. Let’s survey the belligerent pretentiousness of an anemic theologian’s endeavor to destroy the unity of the Orthodox Church with the obvious guidance and blessing of the Patriarch of Moscow.

Embarrassingly Metropolitan Hilarion begins his diatribe and Moscow’s self-isolated justification with some sort of a personal grudge. His first Point to justify Moscow’s self-isolationism, which only the Russian calls schism, is the decades old, personal interpretation of the then Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Prousa (Current Archbishop of America) “First without equal” Metropolitan Hilarion’s distortion seems self-evident.

“The Patriarchate of Constantinople is one of fifteen Orthodox Churches, each of which is completely independent in its internal administration. All autocephalous Churches and their heads are equal. However, the Patriarch of Constantinople claims to have special privileges. Earlier it was believed that he was “the first among equals”, but now it is claimed that he is “the first without equals”. What are these claims based on and what is the essence of the disagreement between Moscow and Constantinople?”

Metropolitan Hilarion obfuscates Moscow’s reaction to Ukrainian autocephaly with an obscure reference to a 2013 powerful response to earlier erroneous claims made by Moscow on the matter of primacy.

Metropolitan Hilarion affirms Constantinople an Honorary Primacy then inserts [gaslights] “The honorary Primacy does not grant the Patriarch of Constantinople any Papal powers or privileges.” The not so veiled imputation of “Papal powers or privileges,” a cantankerous trope akin to impugning somebody a racist and not relevant to the conversation. A straw man is a fallacy in which an opponent's argument is overstated or misrepresented to be attacked or refuted. Metropolitan Hilarion well versed False equivalence excels at strawman tactics.

“The local Orthodox Churches should not therefore be understood as being independent autocephalies. They should be understood as local Churches in a Eucharistic sense.” Hence, as Ecumenical Patriarch there are Canonical and Ecclesiastic rights only afforded to the First Throne of Orthodoxy…

As Archbishop of Constantinople, he is one among all bishops “an equal.”
As Patriarch of Constantinople, he is first among the “equal” heads of Autocephalous Churches, and as the Ecumenical Patriarch, he is first without an “equal”
 
Archbishop of Telmessos, Job declared:
The Ecumenical Patriarch is not only one among the patriarchs in the Orthodox Church. He is not only “the first among equals.” Incidentally, the Latin formula “primus inter pares” is nowhere to be found in Orthodox Church law, which, on the contrary, refers to the “seniority of honor” (presveia timês), indicating a certain hierarchy or at least some sort of order. Having this “seniority of honor” according to the sacred canons, the Ecumenical Patriarch, as the “head” and “protos” [first] in the Orthodox Church, he must ensure the unity of the Local Churches and coordinate them.
 
Let’s observe how the manifestation of “the ‘first’ among or without equals, is validated in the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) of the Orthodox Church. Who can disagree with this Truth? For example, during the Mystery of Holy Eucharist, an Ecumenical Patriarch presides over a concelebration of the Primates.” This is the Truth.
 
The millennia old Diptychs recited by all autocephalous churches also acknowledges the reality of proper Orthodox ecclesiological phronema which includes a “first” and a “fifth” and I strongly uphold this.
 
“There are certainly many sides to the Ukrainian ecclesiastical issue. The most fundamental aspect, however, is that many people have not understood what ‘autocephaly’ means in the Orthodox Church; what ‘Autocephalous Churches’ are; how the sacred institution of the Church functions; to what extent ‘Autocephalous Churches’ can function independently of the Ecumenical Throne, which is the first throne and presides over all the Orthodox Churches, and has many powers and responsibilities; and also how the Ecumenical Throne operates in relation to the ‘Autocephalous Churches’.”
 
“The ‘punishment’ of the Churches that recognize the Autocephaly of Ukraine with the establishment of Russian Dioceses and Exarchates in their canonical jurisdiction, reveals the real intentions of Moscow to take over Orthodoxy. The only bulwark in this expansionist policy is the Ecumenical Patriarchate. "And if it did not exist, we should have invented it (John of Pergamon).”
 
Perhaps it is time to reassess the Fifth position as for centuries the Moscow Patriarchate was abolished. “Peter the Great abolished the office of patriarch in 1721 and replaced it with a holy synod. Centuries later, in 1917-18 a large council of bishops, parish clergy and laity met in Moscow and initiated a thorough reorganization of all aspects of church life, restoring the Patriarchate.” This self-established Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church wouldn’t last long and broke apart into several factions each excommunicating the other.

“By the beginning of World War II, the church structure was almost completely destroyed throughout the country and the Patriarch was once again dissolved. Today’s Russian Orthodox Church was World War II forced Stalin to mobilize all the national resources for defense, including the Russian Orthodox Church as the people's moral force. This process, which can be described as a "patriotic union", culminated in Stalin's receiving on September 4, 1943, Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky).”  “The outcome was a historic informal concordat between the Soviet government and church, with the church leadership… the tide of which had turned in favor of the Red Army. In the long term, the church now had official government structures for its affairs in the shape of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church. At times, it is cast in terms of a crafty politician seeking crucial domestic and international support during a time of crisis and then using the church as an instrument of Soviet expansion, aided by “collaborationist” clergy seeking to work with a “dictator” in the name of Russian nationalism and for its own earthly ends (Solzhenitsyn 1972).
 
Echoes of the Soviet Patriarchal Church still exist in Russia: "It is better not to go to any church whatever or receive communion at all than to be implicated in a church of evil-doers," "I cannot live without church," some people say, "but I do not recognize the Soviet Patriarch." Many are going to the Soviet churches only because of the venerated and miraculous icons that are still there. "We go to church when there is no service to kiss the icons."  

Today like the 1945 church “a hand-picked selection of the most craven bishops in Russia agree to unprecedented total control of the State over the Church.” Shumilo writes: “An internal result of the Moscow council of 1945 that was positive for the Soviet regime” and this symbiotic relationship has endured through todays Kremlin based Patriarchate and is even more manifest in the Cyril-Putin relationship.
​
“Ecclesiastical Stalinism” was the most horrific sign of the lack of repentance of the Moscow Patriarchate even now that it had been liberated from Soviet oppression. That lack of repentance has continued and intensified in the first decade of the twenty-first century. In 2010, it became the official ideology of the Moscow Patriarchate as preached by her new leader, Patriarch Cyril, who believes that “we must be penetrated with a special understanding of the redemptive significance of the Great Patriotic War – and this is a religious understanding”. Cyril glorifies the Soviet victory in 1945

Metropolitan Hilarion’s Second Point:
“The Patriarch of Constantinople regards himself at the highest court of appeals…
We don’t agree with that.”

Metropolitan Hilarion disagrees with Canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council: The right to hear appeals, if invited, regarding disputes between clergy/hierarchy and among autocephalous leaders. In contrast to many Canons Hilarion asserts a false ecclesiology “Ecclesial legal procedure starts and ends with that local church that the defendant belongs.”

Canon 9
If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop’s consent, select. And if anyone shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman has a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried.
​
Hilarion’s deviousness is even more pronounced in the video (Link) which are superimposed on images and videos of the former Ukrainian ‘Patriarch’ of Kyiv stoking age old rivalries, stoking the ambers between Ukraine-Russian propaganda. Hilarion neglects to mention the stance of the Russian Orthodox Church with regards to the many atrocities of Moscow on Ukraine. Some cruelties as simple as forbiddance to use native language to pastoral abuses like not communing or offering funeral rites to Ukrainian soldiers who fought against Mother Russia. Beyond the Kremlin’s belligerence not acknowledging numerous requests for self-rule from the 1990’s (which even bishop Onoufry signed) to attempting to derail unity at every opportunity, Moscow’s catchphrase is Russian first Orthodoxy second.

Metropolitan Hilarion’s third, fourth and fifth points are essentially the same and his distortion of ordination, validity, and schismatics. Hilarion petitions by any possible means, injudiciously for vindication.

Third Point:
“Patriarch of Constantinople considers that he has the right to "restore to sacred dignity" those, who had never been legally ordained… The Patriarch of Constantinople believes that he has the right to declare those self-ordained people ‘valid’ bishops.
We strongly disagree with this.”
Fourth Point:
“The Patriarch of Constantinople claims that he has the right to review such decisions and declare them invalid, so that a former bishop who had been defrocked would be ‘restored to dignity.’
We strongly disagree with this.”
Fifth Point:
“The Patriarch of Constantinople believes that he has the right to declare a group of schismatics «the Orthodox Church», and the real Orthodox Church would be declared non-existent…
We absolutely do not accept these acts of robbery.”

The hypocrite Hilarion makes his position known in clear contradiction to Moscow’s historic ecclesiastic reality. So, let’s examine Hilarion’s use of language: Hilarion uses “Patriarch of Constantinople” and not Ecumenical Patriarch an incompetent theological position yet a subtle virtuoso propagandist slant.

Unable to present a cohesive argument defending his illegitimate position Hilarion betrays his own animosity towards the Ecumenical nature of the first throne. His disparagingly transparent tone “The Patriarch of Constantinople considers, claims, believes…”  insinuating the Ecumenical Patriarch executes unilaterally. This is simply untrue. It is only Moscow who disingenuously behaves in such a manner. Hilarion utilize some novel ecclesiastic gymnastics to justify their anomalous behavior and invariably accuse others of the disparate form. ROCOR being one such example.

By 1920 34 bishops separated from the Moscow Patriarch, to form a higher ecclesiastical organ for the administration of the dioceses abroad. Accordingly, Patriarch “Tikhon and his Synod formally dissolved the exile group, which nevertheless continued to exist as a separate Russian ecclesiastical entity, viewed as schismatic by the Moscow Patriarchate until 2007.”
​
This ecclesiastical entity: ROCOR stayed in schism and in May 2007 “The ceremony of the reestablishment of the fullness of communion within one Local Russian Orthodox Church was attended by President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation, along with other government officials.” The local bishop (Patriarch of Moscow) believes that he had the right to declare a group of schismatics «ROCOR». Nevertheless, Patriarch Cyril “restored to sacred dignity” those, who had never been legally ordained… In an interesting twist “Father Tikhon (Shevkunov)—currently the Pskov metropolitan and widely regarded as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s confessor—was one of the authors of this successful reunification. The current patriarch, then Metropolitan Kirill, opposed it.”

Metropolitan Hilarion’s Sixth Point is replete with devious inaccuracies.
“Patriarch of Constantinople claims that it is only him who has the right to grant autocephaly to a particular Church, including by forcibly alienating her from her Mother Church.
We also strongly disagree with this.”

Beyond his continued disrespectful tone and false accusatory tenor against the person of the “Patriarch of Constantinople” Hilarion distorts facts and lineage. Let’s work backwards on this one: Constantinople is the Mother Church of Kyiv and Kyiv is the Mother Church of Moscow. The only “forcibly alienating her from her Mother Church” is and always has been Moscow, from Constantinople.

“There have been different ways of proclaiming and granting autocephaly in history, not just by the Patriarch of Constantinople.”

Incredibly ignorant and inaccurately erroneousness statement.

Metropolitan Hilarion’s theory can only be true via the prism of historical revisionism and ecclesial treachery. Beyond the ancient Churches founded by the Apostles: Constantinople (St Andrew), Antioch (St Peter), Alexandria (St Mark), Jerusalem (St Iakovos), and Cyprus (St Barnabas) there is a tradition of honor accorded to them.

The other autocephalous churches have all been granted autocephaly by Constantinople:

Church of Russia (Moscow) -?
In 1589, the Metropolitan of Moscow was proclaimed a Patriarch, fifth in rank behind the others. Russian autocephaly was never granted and no Tomos was ever granted, thus it has never been produced as proof. Through economia over the next few centuries, the four Patriarchs existing at the time accepted whereas in 1721 the Patriarchate was completely abolished in Russia until she self-appointed herself a Patriarchate 1917, two centuries later.
 
Church of Greece (Athens)                           -Constantinople in 1833,
Church of Romania (Bucharest)                 -Constantinople in 1885.
Church of Albania (Tirana)                            -Constantinople in 1937.
Church of Bulgaria (Sophia)                         -Constantinople in 1945.
Church of Serbia (Belgrade)                         -Constantinople in 1879.
Church of Poland (Warsaw)                          -Constantinople in 1924.
Church of Georgia (Tbilisi)                             -Constantinople in 1989.
Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia  -Constantinople in 1998.
Church of Ukraine (Kyiv)                                -Constantinople in 2018
 
“In addition, there had already been a document prepared on the inter-Orthodox level, stating that in the future, autocephaly would be granted only with the consent of all Local Churches.
Constantinople is now completely ignoring that document.”

The fraudster makes blank statements not honest devious tenor. Here is a portion of the document he refers to: The text on “Autocephaly and the manner of its declaration” Ἡ συζήτηση γιά τήν ἀνακήρυξη Αὐτοκεφαλίας σέ μιά Ἐκκλησία'' Hierotheos of Naupaktos:

3. Complete agreement has been confirmed regarding the necessary canonical conditions for the declaration of autocephaly of a given local church; namely, as to the consent and the operations of the mother-church, as to the ascertaining of pan-Orthodox consensus and as to the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and of the other autocephalous Orthodox churches at the time of the declaration of autocephaly. According to this agreement:

(a) The mother-church, when she receives the request of the ecclesiastical region which is under submission to her, assesses the existing ecclesiological, canonical and pastoral conditions for the granting of autocephaly. In the event that the local synod (of the mother-church), as the highest ecclesiastical agent, grants its consent, it submits a relevant proposal to the Ecumenical Patriarchate for a search for pan-Orthodox consensus and it also informs the other local autocephalous churches.

b) The Ecumenical Patriarchate, according to norms established in a pan-Orthodox manner, communicates by a Patriarchal Letter everything relevant to the particular request and seeks the expression of pan-Orthodox consensus. Pan-Orthodox consensus is expressed through the unanimity of the synods of the respective autocephalous churches.

c) The Ecumenical Patriarch expresses the consent of the mother-church and the pan-Orthodox consensus and then officially declares the autocephaly of the church requesting it through the issue of a patriarchal tomos. This tomos is signed by the Ecumenical Patriarch. It is desirable for it to be endorsed also by the primates of the autocephalous churches; but if not, in any case, at least also by the primate of the mother-church.

Hierotheos of Naupaktos concludes “the Ecumenical Patriarch officially declares autocephaly to the church that requested it.” Yes, the very document heralded by Metropolitan Hilarion states the exact opposite of his deceptive comments. This simply illustrates his false narrative and biased prejudices he promotes in a failed attempt muddy the waters.
​
To deepen the Metropolitans lies further, it was the Russians (Moscow Patriarchate) and more specifically Metropolitan Hilarion personally as the Kremlin Church’s representative who demanded this be removed from the agenda of the 2016 Council, as one of the many menial last-minute demands prior to attending, which they reneged attending and coerced additional Patriarchate. Even with the monstrous Russian energies to destroy the Council it was an overwhelming success.

Metropolitan Hilarion’s Seventh Point.
“Patriarch of Constantinople claims to have the right to: unilaterally repeal acts that have legal value. In particular, in 1686, Patriarch Dionysius IV of Constantinople and the Synod of Constantinople signed a legal Act, ratifying the fact that Kyiv Metropolitanate was part of the Moscow Patriarchate.”

The 1686 Act, in fact doesn’t say that. Here (Link) is the actual document and translation.
Patriarch Dionysius IV of Constantinople survived a tumultuous episode in Christian history serving five time as Patriarch in twenty years:
November 1671 – July 1673
July 1676 – July 1679
July 1682 – March 1684
March 1686 – October 1687
August 1693 – April 1694
 
He was imprisoned twice by the Ottomans, and held under house arrest, was persecuted, and made to pay ransom for his freedom. In fact, the 1686 Synodal letter granted the right to ordinate the Metropolitan of Kyiv by the Moscow Patriarch. However, it was obligatory that the Metropolitan of Kyiv should commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch as his First Hierarch in any service, proclaiming and confirming his canonical dependence on the Mother Church of Constantinople. This is an indisputable fact.

Within 30 years the Metropolitanate of Kyiv became one of the ordinary dioceses when Peter the Great in 1721 abolished the Moscow Patriarchate and elected Barlaam (Voniatovych) in the rank of archbishop, not metropolitan, yet was till obliged to commemorate Constantinople as did the Russian Church until 2018.

The Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the process of granting autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine during its meeting on October 11, 2018, canceled the Synodal Letter of 1686:
“To revoke the legal binding of the Synodal Letter of the year 1686, issued for the circumstances of that time, which granted the right through oikonomia to the Patriarch of Moscow to ordain the Metropolitan of Kyiv, elected by the Clergy-Laity Assembly of his eparchy, who would commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch as the First hierarch at any celebration, proclaiming and affirming his canonical dependence to the Mother Church of Constantinople,” the Ecumenical Patriarchate said in a statement published on its official website following the 3-day Synod meeting in Istanbul.

“However, in 2018, i.e., more than 300 years later, Constantinople unilaterally repealed this Act, stating that allegedly, the Moscow Patriarchate was preserving unity with the Ukrainian Church by force.”

The Ecumenical Patriarchate wrote in an official letter in 2018: "the Holy Metropolitanate of Kiev has always belonged to the jurisdiction of the Mother Church of Constantinople, founded by it as a separate Metropolitanate, occupying the 60th position in the list of the eparchies of the Ecumenical Throne. Later, the local Synod in the state of Great Russia — upon an unfounded pretext — unilaterally cut itself off from its canonical authority, i.e., the Holy Great Church of Christ (1448), but in the city of Kiev other Metropolitans, authentic and canonical, were continually and unceasingly ordained by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, since the Kievan clergy and laity did not accept their subjection to the center of Moscovy."

“This action was perceived in the Russian Church as a robbery, and the invasion of Ukraine by Constantinople is regarded as an example of how one tramples those fundamental norms, upon which the system of co-existence of Local Orthodox Churches had been built for centuries.”

Frantically and with no remorse Metropolitan Hilarion speaks of perceptions, sentimentality, and threats yet avoids the Orthodox mindset, Canons and Apostolic Tradition. Intentionally avoiding oikonomia and akrivia for benefit and coercion. The system of co-existence he speaks of are Canons of the church, not Russian opinion. He says built for centuries avoiding the realities of Ottoman domination, Czarist and communist oppression, the stench of Stalinism, the scorn of nationalism and the false teachings of Russian wolves wearing the omophorion.

Metropolitan Hilarion’s Eighth Point.
The Patriarch of Constantinople claims the exclusive rights for the entire so-called "diaspora".
Based on a theory invented in the 1920s, he claims, that all Orthodox dioceses and parishes that are located outside the borders of Local Orthodox Churches, should supposedly belong to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.”
​
Again, the Metropolitan accuses others of exactly that which the Moscow Church alone is guilty. The Faculty of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology address Canon 28 (Link) which clearly articulates this Hilarion Falsehood:
“The Ecumenical Patriarch has been accorded specific prerogatives of witness and service from the time of the fourth century. This was a period when the Church was able explicitly to provide for canonical structures following the period of great persecution of the first three centuries. These prerogatives form the basis for his ministry to the entire Orthodox Church. These prerogatives distinguish the responsibilities of the Ecumenical Patriarch from other bishops of the Orthodox Church. They clearly grant to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople a primacy among the bishops of the Church. This primacy of service brings with it significant authority and responsibilities.
 
A number of recent commentators have challenged the leadership and responsibilities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. They have misinterpreted canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (451), and related canons and practices. In order to appreciate properly the significance of canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, it must be interpreted in the light of other canons and practices of the Church at that time. It is far from being irrelevant as some may claim.
 
The Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople (381) in canon 3 acknowledged that the bishop of Constantinople enjoys “prerogatives of honor (presveia times).” While recognizing that the bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) ranked after the bishop of Old Rome, a parallel between the primatial positions of the two bishops was affirmed.
 
At the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon, the privileges of the bishop of Constantinople received further elaboration especially in canons 9 and 17. These canons stated that disputes in local churches could be appealed to Constantinople. Canon 28 of Chalcedon continued to draw a parallel between Old Rome and New Rome and reaffirmed the decision of 381. Canon 28 of the Council stated that the bishop of Constantinople had “equal prerogatives” (isa presveia) to those of Old Rome. Over two hundred years later, the distinctive position of Constantinople was also reaffirmed in canon 36 of the Penthekti (Quinsext) Council (in Trullo) in 692.
 
Furthermore, canon 28 of Chalcedon explicitly granted to the bishop of Constantinople the pastoral care for those territories beyond the geographical boundaries of the other Local (autocephalous) Churches. At the time of the fifth century, these regions commonly were referred to as ‘barbarian nations’ because they were outside the Byzantine commonwealth. (St. Paul in Romans 1: 14 also had used the term ‘barbarians’ to refer to those beyond the old Roman Empire.) Canon 28 of Chalcedon appears to clarify the reference in canon 2 of the Council of Constantinople which says that churches in the “barbarian nations” should be governed “according to the tradition established by the fathers.”
 
This interpretation of canon 28 is supported by the fact that the geographical boundaries of the Local Churches are set. Their bishops are not permitted to minister beyond these limits. The Council of Constantinople in canon 2 clearly states: “Bishops should not invade churches beyond their boundaries for the purpose of governing them…” This principle is also reflected in canons 6 and 7 of the Council of Nicaea (325) and in the Apostolic Canons 14 and 34, also dating from the fourth century.”

With Metropolitan Hilarion’s Ninth Point, the maestro dives deep into his imaginary and racist papal tropes. Again, an accusation which only Moscow is guilty.

“In dialogue with other Christian organizations, for example, with Roman Catholics, The Patriarch of Constantinople presents himself as the head of the entire Orthodox Church.
That is, Catholics have the Pope, and in Orthodoxy it is allegedly the Patriarch of Constantinople who possesses the same functions.”

“The Ecumenical Patriarch has never said that he is the “supreme high priest” and “vicar of Christ” on earth. On the contrary, he has often stressed that we do not have a Pope in the Orthodox Church. At the Council of Crete, he said emphatically: “In Orthodoxy we do not have a Pope.” He is, however, the exponent of the unity of the Church and its minister. He is the President of the Eucharistic assembly, and, by extension, the President in the administrative structure of the local Churches. The system of the Orthodox Church is neither papal nor Protestant; it is “synodically hierarchical” and “hierarchically synodical”.

The Ecumenical Patriarch, as first-throne patriarch, has certain duties, which in practice all the Orthodox Churches have recognized. “Among these is that he presided at the Second Ecumenical Council and at later Ecumenical Councils, and granted not only the tomoi of autocephaly, but also patriarchal dignity and honor, to all the newer Churches, from the Church of Russia until today. Who has denied him these special privileges and duties? Anyone who denies them belatedly, should, to be consistent, reject all the Autocephalous Churches and the patriarchates that he has granted in recent years."

This idea of Eastern Papalism is in fact a creation of Russians theologians like Troitsky.
Alexander Dragas confirms “In the early 1940s, Stalin begun to adopt these ideas when he sought to utilize the Moscow Patriarchate to foster patriotism as a tool for Soviet ambitions. Thus, concepts like Moscow the Orthodox Vatican, or Moscow the Third Rome, began to reemerge as if a local autocephalous church (the Russian Church) would regain and rule over its territories in opposition to Eastern "Greek" Papism (Constantinople). Troitsky returned to Moscow, after being asked to receive a teaching position at the Moscow Theological Academy. It is here where he propagated and expanded his views, as well as those of the other Karlovtsy scholars, against Constantinople when he published his article The Limits of the Authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the Diaspora two months later, in November 1947. This particular article articulated most of the main arguments of the Karlovtsy scholars against the actions and prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which to a greater extent has remained the official view of Moscow as well as most if not all Russian based Churches abroad to this day. A comprehensive response to Troitsky's article was given in Greek by the Chalki professor Photiades one year after its publication, which encompassed the official view of Constantinople that is still being used to this day.”

But the Orthodox Church is a family of Churches, and each of them has its own First Hierarch. On a universal scale, the Orthodox Church has only one head, The Lord Jesus Christ. This doctrine was professed by all Patriarchs of Constantinople up to the beginning of the twentieth century, including in the polemics with Catholics.
But now a different teaching has been invented and preached in Constantinople. A teaching that destroys the very foundations of the Orthodox understanding of the Church.

A pathetic devilish accusation. The Orthodox Church has only one head, The Lord Jesus Christ. And yet millennia of teachings, “canons of the Fathers,” traditions those canons that reflect the nature of the church as the body of Christ have an unchanging validity. Yet even Metropolitan Hilarion upholds when in synod with Patriarch Cyril “The bishop is primarily the guardian of the faith and, as such, the centre of the sacramental life of the community. The Orthodox church maintains the doctrine of apostolic succession—i.e., the idea that the ministry of the bishop must be in direct continuity with that of the Apostles of Jesus.”

“Since Pentecost, the Body of Christ is a source of God’s uncreated grace, by virtue of the union of the divine and human natures in the hypostasis of the Word. Thus, the Body too “is indivisibly divided among divided beings.” Christ is the head of the Church. The local Primates are regarded as heads in the type and place of Christ, and not as His representatives and vicars.”
​
There is no “different teaching” except those narratives produced and promulgated by the Russian Church. As they say in Texas, Hilarion is all hat and no cattle. All accusations, and subtle aspersions placating the lowest common denominator of century old fear and hateful tropes.

​Metropolitan Hilarion’s Tenth Point is convoluted and polluted with many devious misleading campaigns...

During the last few decades, when the Pan-Orthodox council was being prepared, The Patriarch of Constantinople was endowed with certain coordinating functions, with the consent of other Local Churches.

The Patriarch of Constantinople was endowed with certain coordinating functions during the last few decades, when the Pan-Orthodox council was being prepared… These were granted centuries ago by Ecumenical Councils. Initiated and organized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

So, for example, he was given the right to convene pan-Orthodox conferences and be the chairman during those conferences. But his rights were exclusively based on the consensus of the Orthodox Churches.

His rights are based on Ecumenical Council canons and no on the consensus of any other church. This is simply a fantasy of the Russian historical revisionism.

Now he presents himself as an authority that is able to act without the consent of other Orthodox Churches and even against their will, because of some hitherto unknown privileges, received, allegedly, almost from the Apostles themselves.

Neither the Ecumenical Patriarch nor the Ecumenical Patriarchate have never acted against “the will” of other Orthodox Churches. The only anomalous hitherto unknown privileges perceived or executed are by the Kremlin based Moscow Patriarchate. Invasion into Korea, Turkey, Georgia, Romania, Northern Cyprus, and now Africa. The Stalin founded; self-proclaimed Patriarchate of Moscow is guilty of going beyond endowed privileges should be ashamed of the antichrist tactics utilized.
Unworthy! Ανάξιος! Недостойный!

​We cannot agree with this in any way.
“We strongly disagree with this,” is not cause for self-isolation (so-called schism), illegal invasion of jurisdictional territories, or Russo-centric Papalism as the Moscow Patriarchate now practices. Having entered the realm of self-isolation the Moscow Patriarchate stands alone and estranged. Moscow Patriarchate alone disassembled into a faction, and therefore has become a ‘persona non grata’ for the entire Russian Orthodox Church and for its self-governing part.

We pray for Patriarch Cyril to come back to his senses, and for his return unto the path of canonical Orthodoxy. We recommend his first order of business to recall Hilarion to monastic status as recourse to his treachery against the Unity of Orthodoxy.
​
The abandonment of traditional Orthodox values has led to a moral crisis in the Russian Orthodox Church. 

It is time for Truth, not partisanship.
It is time for Tradition, not domination.
It is time for Unity, not coercion.

​-Archon Elias Damianakis