By Markos (Helleniscope’s Theological Commentator)
- Why didn’t Constantinople send a similar letter to Alexandria, to “discipline” that Metropolitan in Zimbabwe who decided he can unilaterally tonsure a female as a “deaconess”?
- Why didn’t Constantinople depose Elpidophoros after the Metropolitan of Glyfada complained that he did not receive permission to perform the high-profile baptism he did?
- Why did Constantinople ignore Archbishop Anastasios’s caution not to elevate Theophan to a bishop, and when they did, Theophan recited the Filioque at the Phanar, and they STILL made him a bishop even after confessing heresy? Is that perhaps the “new spirit of Constantinople” and the reason why they didn’t like Tychikos’ “older position”.
- etc, etc, etc. (too much to list…)
The Ecumenical Patriarch demanded disciplinary action against a Cypriot hierarch who insisted on rebaptizing Protestants converting to Orthodoxy.
The removal of Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos came after direct intervention by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who, in a letter to Archbishop George of Cyprus, demanded that the disobedient bishop be brought to order. This was reported by the Cypriot outlet Philenews, which published relevant documents.
A central point of conflict was Metropolitan Tychikos’s firm stance on rebaptizing individuals who had been previously baptized in Protestant denominations. The Patriarchate of Constantinople considers this an archaic practice, maintaining that Chrismation (confirmation) is sufficient for receiving Protestants into the Orthodox Church.
Philenews published a complaint from an American professor of Cypriot origin who was unable to get married in Paphos due to conflicting practices between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Metropolis of Paphos regarding the reception of non-Orthodox Christians.
The Protestant bride had received Chrismation at the Church of St. Spyridon in New York (under the Ecumenical Patriarchate) after nine months of catechesis and being given an Orthodox name. However, the Paphos Metropolis deemed Chrismation insufficient and insisted on full baptism.
“After about nine months of catechism, my wife received an Orthodox name and underwent Chrismation,” the professor wrote in his complaint. A copy of the Chrismation certificate was sent to the Paphos Metropolis, but when the couple tried to register for a church wedding in Cyprus, they were told that full baptism would be required.
The situation became even more complicated because all wedding arrangements had already been made – the banquet hall was reserved and paid for, invitations sent, and a certificate of singleness obtained from the parish of the Three Hierarchs in Chicago. When the professor spoke with the Paphos Metropolis by phone, he was told that Metropolitan Tychikos wished to meet his wife in person. Upon learning that she was not in Cyprus, the professor was referred to another priest, who told him, “Protestants do not have valid sacraments, so their baptisms are invalid.”
The professor filed complaints with the Archdiocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in New York and the Metropolis of Chicago, where the rebaptism requirement was deemed unjustified.
The matter eventually reached Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who sent a “strong protest” to Archbishop George of Cyprus. In it, the Patriarch expressed “astonishment and indignation,” calling Metropolitan Tychikos’s views “conservative and entirely outdated.” He also noted that the Metropolitan spoke “disrespectfully and inappropriately about the revered Ecumenical Throne.” The Patriarch further warned that such incidents contribute to “isolationism and jeopardize our sensitive relations with other Christian denominations and Churches.”
“Your Beatitude, convinced as we are here at the Phanar that the traditional relations between our sister Churches must continue as before, for the common good – something we are sure you and your holy brothers desire – we ask you to bring Metropolitan Tychikos to order and forbid him from disrupting the exemplary relations between the ancient Churches of Constantinople and Cyprus,” the letter stated.
Reporting the situation to the Holy Synod, Archbishop George remarked, “Because of this complaint, we have been discredited before the Orthodox Church in America [i.e., the Archdiocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate – Ed.] and American governmental authorities.”
As previously reported by the UOJ, the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus has removed Metropolitan Tychikos from the administration of the Metropolis of Paphos.
Πάντα υπήρχαν οι δωσιλογοι… Αρχιερείς στην Ορθοδοξία, αλλά στις
μέρες μας το παράκαναν, πέταξαν το καπίστρι και το Πετραχείλη που είναι
η ραχοκοκαλιά της πίστης του κληρικού το φορούν για σαλιάρα δεν το τιμούν διόλου.
Με όλα αυτά που συμβαίνουν δυστυχώς γύρω από την Ορθόδοξο
Εκκλησία μας μου έρχονται στα μάτια
εικόνες των παιδικών χρόνων που
όταν βλέπαμε υψηλοβάθμιους κληρικούς χρησιμοποιούσαμε το σλόγκαν : “ πιάσε τα…… τον Παπά.”
Δυστυχώς παντού λειτουργούν οι νόμοι της φύσης: “ κοντά στο ξερό καίγεται και το χλωρό…..” , το αναφέρω γιατί ευτυχώς στην ιστορία
της Ορθόδοξης Εκκλησίας μας υπήρξαν
και Αρχιερείς γίγαντες οι οποίοι
βροντοφωνούσαν με ηρωική Πίστη
Το: “ Τας θύρας …..τας θύρας , εν
Σοφία πρόσχομεν “oπως ο Μάρκος ο
Ευγενικός και άλλοι…….
1. Why didn’t Constantinople request to discipline the Metropolitan of Zimbabwe? Because the Patriarch of Constantinople is not a Pope. The ordination of a female deacon in Africa does not directly involve Constantinople. In contrast, the Metropolitan of Paphos’ refusal to accept a convert to Orthodoxy from America’s Greek Archdiocese does in fact directly involve the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
2. Why didn’t Constantinople depose Elpidophoros after the Metropolitan of Glyfada complained that he did not receive permission to perform the high-profile baptism he did? That’s twisting the facts. Archbishop Elpidophoros fulfilled all the necessary requirements for that baptism to the very letter, dotting every “i” and crossing every “t”. The Metropolitan of Glyfada’s only valid complaint was the negative press that came from the Greek tabloids that created a media circus.
3. Why did Constantinople ignore Archbishop Anastasios’s caution not to elevate Theophan to a bishop, and when they did, Theophan recited the Filioque at the Phanar, and they STILL made him a bishop even after confessing heresy?
Bishops make mistakes, but the important thing is that Bishop Theophan recanted his mistake in a formal letter afterwards. Bishop Theophan has only two parishes in his diocese, so you can’t really blame Constantinople for not finding someone else less prone to making mistakes. That’s basically the diocese that no one else wants.
You have become delusional in your zealousness to defend Bartholomew at all costs…even when there is nothing to defend…
1) The Zimbabwe action was total and flagrant heresy… “textbook heresy” in fact…it’s one thing to claim a revival of an old role, but that’s not what the Zimbabwe metropolitan did…he created a twisted innovation that is not aligned with history or Orthodox tradition. To see a female dressed up in a male deacon’s vestments reciting petitions, etc is not Orthodox, nor was what ancient deaconesses did. So, that does impact Constantinople directly, because Constantinople commemorates Theodore in the dyptichs, and the Canons are quite explicit about communion with those bishops that are also in communion with clear heretics…and it is absolutely a Papist attitude to demand from another autocephalous Church to conform to an exercise of spiritual “economy” that your Synod devised locally, hoping that the rest of Orthodoxy would simply “jump on board”, without a decisive Pan-Orthodox, Ecumenical Synod agreement on the matter…
2) Twisting the facts? Dotting every “i” and every “t”? Why don’t you produce a copy of the baptismal paperwork that is used in Greece, and explain to us what name was put under the section of the form labeled “Mother’s name” for the baptism Elpidophoros conducted, if you want to tell us about “t’s” and “i’s”? Without a properly completed application, you normally can’t get anything done in Greece. Did the Metropolitan of Glyfada know in advance this was a child in the custody of “2 men”, or was perhaps the request “generic” in nature (I plan to do a baptism in your town)? Withholding critical details when asking permission isn’t exactly “cool”. Furthermore, do you think that if someone who is not Orthodox shows up and says, “I want to baptize the kid as Orthodox, but I will teach it non-Orthodox values at home”, that the Church should go ahead an baptize that child? That’s a mockery of the Mystery. And if you don’t feel this is sufficient, should we start listing the multiple other “infractions” that have been exhaustively referenced in the media that should have had him removed by the same standards, including his opinion on offering Holy Communion to non-Orthodox spouses, etc?
3) Bishops make mistakes…really? How many mistakes are acceptable before someone is deemed incompetent to be a bishop/patriarch? So Anastasios’ caution was ignored, based on this guy’s previous history and track record…was that the first mistake? Then he recited the Filioque at a most critical point of the ordination…was that the second mistake?…and then they proceed with the ordination anyway…was that the third mistake? And now you produce this sorry excuse about Theofan “recanting”, when in fact the only reason they asked him to recant (a couple days later) is because the media got wind of this and Constantinople didn’t like the negative publicity and noisy backlash? If the cameras weren’t there, do you think they would have asked him to recant? Either way, Theophan’s ordination can easily be invalidated by any future Synod, and other Synods can still consider him an invalid bishop, because at the moment when it counted, during the service, he recited the Filioque and proclaimed heresy…that’s the moment when it really counts.
At some point you really need to get serious, Joseph… nobody is exactly sure what your incentive is to keep defending the indefensible here, but it’s quite ridiculous to watch, and unfortunately much of your rhetoric persistently defends and promotes the positions of the perennial Uniate agenda…you may be “selling” it, but we aren’t “buying” it… :)
Markos, by whose authority is the Patriarchate of Alexandria committing “flagrant” and “textbook” heresy? Your own? None of the autocephalous churches have broken communion with the Patriarchate of Alexandria over this ordination of a female deacon, not even after one year.
In regards to the Metropolitan of Paphos’ refusal to accept a convert from America’s Greek Archdiocese, the problem is that his refusal went against the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus. Anyone is free to make a complaint to the Church of Cyprus if they want to. It wasn’t the complaint of Patriarch Bartholomew, or anyone else who complained, that deposed the Metropolitan of Paphos. It was the Church of Cyprus that deposed him.
In regards to infant baptism, the only legal requirement is the consent of the parent(s) and/or legal guardian(s). It is not necessary to list the name of the mother if it is non-applicable, such as is the case with orphans. The Church requirement is that the infant have Orthodox godparent(s). All of these requirements were met by Archbishop Elpidophoros.
In regards to the episcopal ordination of Bishop Theophan, thank God the cameras were rolling, because yes, the mistake was recorded, acknowledged, and then later corrected.
Here is the response by Markos:
Joseph,
Your words reveal that you are applying selective memory in a deceptive, propagandized manner…unless you’ve been living in a deep hole in the earth with no internet and no access to news for several years.
Do you forget that multiple metropolitans from multiple jurisdictions declared this Zimbabwe act of ordination non-traditional / non-canonical / and even heretical? Are you going to ask them “by whose authority” as well…?
https://imp.gr/%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B8%CE%B9%CE%B5%CF%81%CF%89%CF%83%CE%B7-%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83-%CE%B3%CF%85%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%B1%CF%83-%CE%B9%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%83%CF%85%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%83/
Η πρώτη προτεραιότητα σήμερα, κατά την ταπεινή μας γνώμη, είναι η ακύρωση των αποφάσεων της «Συνόδου» της Κρήτης», η Συνοδική αντιμετώπιση της παναιρέσεως του Οικουμενισμού και στη συνέχεια η θεραπεία του γνωστού υφισταμένου σχίσματος με αφορμή το ουκρανικό Αυτοκέφαλο. Εν προκειμένω, παρακαλούμε ταπεινά το δευτερόθρονο Πατριαρχείο Αλεξανδρείας, να ανακαλέσει την εν λόγω «χειροτονία», στην οποία δυστυχώς δεν τηρήθηκαν τα αρχαία τυπικά που καθορίζουν τον τρόπο της «χειροτονίας» της διακονίσσης, αλλά και τα καθήκοντα της. Η παρούσα χρονική συγκυρία είναι τελείως ακατάλληλη για τέτοιου είδους ενέργειες, καθ’ όν χρόνον η παγκόσμια Ορθοδοξία μετράει τις πληγές της από την προηγηθείσα «Σύνοδο» της Κρήτης και το ουκρανικό Αυτοκέφαλο. Ας μην δημιουργούμε αφορμές για καινούργια σχίσματα και διαιρέσεις.
https://www.romfea.gr/epikairotita-xronika/63226-ikoniou-theoliptos-i-xeirotonia-afti-einai-ekseftelismos
https://tasthyras.wordpress.com/2024/05/17/%CE%BC%CE%B7%CF%84%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%AF%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82-%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%8C%CE%B7%CF%82-%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%B5%CE%AE%CE%BC%CF%89%CE%BD-%CF%80/
https://www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/63265-akyrotea-i-xeirotonia-tis-protis-orthodoksis-diakonissas
Η χειροτονία όμως δεν μπορεί να ισχύει, εφόσον θεωρηθεί ισόκυρη με αυτήν των ανδρών λειτουργών Διακόνων.
Είδαμε τη χειροτονηθείσα να κοινωνεί τους πιστούς. Ανεπίτρεπτο και πρωτοφανές στην Παράδοσή μας!
Από τις εικόνες βέβαια που διέρρευσαν δεν ξέρουμε αν συμμετείχε και με άλλο τρόπο στη θεία λειτουργία, όπως με την εκφώνηση λειτουργικών αιτημάτων.
Μάλλον πρέπει έτσι να έγινε, εφόσον συμμετείχε και στη μετάδοση της Ευχαριστίας.
Αλλά και μόνο η μετάδοση καθιστά αντικανονική την εν λόγω χειροτονία, διότι την εξισώνει με αυτήν του ανδρός Διακόνου (πρώτου βαθμού της ειδικής ιερωσύνης).
Did I say anyone has formally cut ties with Alexandria over this? But then again, the likely reason they haven’t is because of the statement Alexandria scrambled to issue in the immediate aftermath of this scandal…(we are studying the matter and the Synod has not made a final decision yet, even though the metropolitan acted).. They formally asked the wider Orthodox world to “buy time” , and for the world to “Trust Alexandria” to study this matter…remember that formal letter? That would explain the delay (out of courtesy) of formally severing ties…look at the statement closely…the Synod distanced themselves from the incident (but Bart didn’t send a note demanding to depose this guy, did he):
Η Ιερά Σύνοδος του Πρεσβυγενούς Πατριαρχείου Αλεξανδρείας και πάσης Αφρικής έλαβε κατ’ αρχήν την απόφαση της αναβιώσεως και ενεργοποιήσεως του θεσμού των Διακονισσών εντός της ποιμαντικής δικαιοδοσίας του.
Ομως, παραπέμφθη η Απόφαση αυτή σε περαιτέρω μελέτη προς τελική διαμόρφωση των επιμέρους λεπτομερειών, όπως είναι η αμφίεση, ο τρόπος διακονίας και η λειτουργική θέση των διακονισσών στην ζωή της Εκκλησίας σήμερα.
Ωστόσο, ο Σεβ. Μητροπολίτης Ζιμπάμπουε κ.Σεραφείμ, επί σειρά πολλών ετών ιεραπόστολος στην Αφρική, προσχώρησε στην υλοποίηση της αρχικής αποφάσεως της Ιεράς Συνόδου, η οποία όμως δεν έχει καταστή ενεργή έως σήμερα, αφού δεν έχει ολοκληρωθή η επί του θέματος μελέτη προς λήψη της τελικής Συνοδικής Αποφάσεως.
For the Metropolitan of Paphos, if there was ever an “international Pontius Pilate hand-washing award”, I would nominate you for it based on your last statement…(“it was the Synod of Cyprus that deposed him…)….Yeah right…hide behind a formal technicality…would that have happened if Chicago didn’t complain to Constantinople, who in turn complained to their friend George of Cyprus? Good thing for date stamps, so that we understand the sequence of events here…
For infant baptism, you are wrong on all counts, because you have deceptively omitted the most important responsibility of the Church when it comes to “who they baptize”… the idea that those who are supposed to “catechize” and “raise the infant in the Church” ARE ACTUALLY SPIRITUALLY FIT TO DO SO….remember that? And you are advocating that two males that are choosing to live a life contrary to the core family values of our Church, as well as the “sponsor” that has no problem with the “modern-day child sacrifice” that modern pagan society allows for such “couples” to adopt children…you are advocating that they can convince the Church that they will teach that child Orthodox values? Proceeding with such a baptism is a mockery of the Mystery, and you should be ashamed of advocating this. Historically and traditionally the Church has not baptized children of “pagans” only for those parents to raise the child in a pagan mindset…
As for Theophan, you are saying “thank God for cameras”…why? were the bishops ordaining him deaf and blind, so that they needed a “replay” because they didn’t see him and hear him Confessing heresy? Give it a break, dude. Nobody is buying your Uniate propaganda…
Jospeh, we all have to admit, you are consistently entertaining!
The Global Orthodoxy Police work hand in hand with the US State Department.
At one time ROCOR was receiving virtually all converts from other Christian denominations through chrismation. Often converts would then travel to Greece and would be required to be baptized. NOT by the Old Calendarists, but rather by the State Church. I am not a fan of corrective baptism, but the bishop can order things done the way he wants. My OCA bishop blesses me to baptize converts, so I usually receive people that way. If things are done right the first time, it saves trouble down the road. Many converts, after studying the faith, regret having been chrismated rather than baptized.
As for Theofan Koja, he was part of a nationalist anti-Greek Albanian movement. Yet, when he was passed over for being made bishop for the OCA Albanian diocese, he runs to the Greeks for episcopal consecration. I call him the “Albanian Philaret”. Philaret of Kyiv was anti-Ukrainian, until he was passed over for becoming Patriarch of Moscow. Then he suddenly “remembered” that he was Ukrainian, so that he could become a patriarch.
I’m an old hieromonk and really don’t care for polemics. I’ve enough sins of my own. I understand people caving in under persecution, like Patriarch Sergius. I shudder to think of people playing games with the Holy Spirit.
Nick. Here’s a very interesting article from OrthodoxTimes, you have to wonder the veracity of the statements from the unknown person
https://orthodoxtimes.com/what-sources-from-phanar-and-kyiv-reveal-to-orthodox-times-about-the-situation-in-ukraine/
Conference on the OCU issue underway in Greece
Participants at the conference have called for an appeal to Patriarch Bartholomew, urging him to acknowledge the mistake of creating the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU).
https://spzh.eu/en/news/86562-conference-on-the-ocu-issue-underway-in-greece
The self-entitled “orthodox pope” will have to face reality or be further marginalized. The UOC will never abandon their spiritual leader, a holy man full of humility and piety, Metr. Onufry, to join the fake church of Ukraine. I have met people from both size of the isle. What a difference! Ones side chants Glory be to God while the other curses and chants Glory to Ukraine. What a brainwashed bunch! They steal the churches but don’t pray in them, while the other side prays and do services outside because their churches are no longer available to them. They are nothing but a bunch of thieves! How could I possible pretend I am a christian, if I steal… churches?