EDITOR’S NOTE (Nick Stamatakis). The article below from OrthoChristian argues that key figures surrounding the Ecumenical Patriarchate, B Elpidophoros and Karloutsos, have intervened a few months ago, using all their political leverage in DC to suppress demonstrations and informations of American political officials about the continued harsh suppression of the Ucrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) undet Met. Onufriy.

Their political engagement stands in stark contrast to the Patriarchate’s frequent accusations that the Russian Orthodox Church, particularly Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, acts as an instrument of state power. Karloutsos’ decades of political lobbying and Elpidophoros’ public advocacy on geopolitical issues are presented as evidence that Constantinople’s leadership is itself deeply involved in political affairs.

Let me remind everyone here that the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America, of which Abp. Elpidophoros serves as president, issued a statement in September 2024 expressing concern about state actions against the UOC in Ukraine—a statement bearing Elpidophoros’ signature. What a double-faced Phanariot!!

The article links this network of political relationships to Patriarch Bartholomew’s controversial decision to recognize the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Helleniscope has fully analyzed and documented that the “Cacocephaly” move was encouraged by the Deep State and Ukrainian political interests, rather than being purely a canonical or pastoral decision.

Ultimately, this is a prime example of hypocrisy.  All the money is in the last paragraph: “Critics will note that Abp. Elpidophoros, in working to prevent U.S. officials from hearing testimony about imprisoned clergy and legal persecution of a religious community, was acting not as a neutral ecclesiastical figure but as an advocate for a foreign government’s religious policies—the precise accusation he levels against those he sought to silence.”

==============================

source – orthochristian.com

Leaked letter shows Abp. Elpidophoros used political influence to suppress UOC persecution concerns in Washington

A private letter from Greek Orthodox Archbishop of America Elpidophoros to Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, dated November 21, 2025, reveals that the Archbishop personally intervened to try to cancel meetings between Orthodox clergy and U.S. government officials at which concerns about the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) were to be raised—while publicly denying he viewed those same clergy as foreign agents.

The letter, leaked to and published by the Union of Orthodox Journalists, describes in detail how Abp. Elpidophoros traveled to Washington and worked with Protopresbyter Alexander Karloutsos to cancel scheduled meetings between a pan-Orthodox delegation of hierarchs, clergy, and laymen and officials of the White House Faith Office, the State Department, and members of Congress. The delegation had sought to raise concerns including the imprisonment of UOC clergy, the conscription of priests into combat roles, and the legal suppression of the UOC under Ukrainian law.

Abp. Elpidophoros confirms the cancellations succeeded, writing that Fr. Alexander “informed me by telephone that through his coordinated efforts on November 19, the meetings with government officials were canceled.” However, the Orthodox delegation, organized by the Society of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, still held several meetings on several occasions, most notably with its day of action in December.

Admitting the persecution

Significantly, the letter doesn’t dispute the underlying facts that the delegation sought to raise with U.S. officials. Abp. Elpidophoros himself acknowledges that the Ukrainian government has taken measures “against Onuphry personally, his hierarchs and clergy, and his entire ecclesiastical presence” in Ukraine—framing the problem not as the measures themselves but as Ukraine’s inability to justify them internationally. He writes that “the Ukrainian side is unable to convince international public opinion of the correctness of the measures taken.”

It is notable that he fails to refer to His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine with any proper ecclesiastical titles.

The delegation’s stated concerns—repeal of Law 3894 targeting the UOC, release of imprisoned clergy including Metropolitan Arseny of Svyatogorsk (who, after 22 months behind bars, was finally released last month), removal of priests from combat roles, and assurances that U.S. military aid is not used against religious communities—are recorded in the letter without factual rebuttal.

Propaganda label as a shield

Rather than engaging the substance of these concerns, Abp. Elpidophoros systematically labels everyone raising them as instruments of Russian propaganda or foreign influence. He describes the participating clergy as “representatives here of Russian interests” and their media coverage as coming from “Russian propaganda” outlets, applying the characterization broadly to hierarchs of the Serbian, Antiochian, and OCA jurisdictions alongside ROCOR.

Notably, he refers to the OCA multiple times as the “so-called ‘Orthodox Church in America.’” He also notes that it “maintains permanent representation in Moscow,” but fails to note that the Antiochian, Jerusalem, Georgian, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Czech-Slovak Churches do as well. The Alexandrian Patriarchate also maintained a representation for many years, until it was ousted in 2019 for entering into communion with the Ukrainian schismatics.

The Archbishop also approvingly cites a congressional letter calling for the Attorney General to investigate whether Orthodox jurisdictions “could serve as vehicles for intelligence collection or foreign influence operations directed at U.S. policymakers.”

The public contradictions

The private letter’s candor stands in direct contradiction to a public statement Abp. Elpidophoros issued the same week in response to a controversial statement by the Order of the Archons. In that public statement he wrote: “I do not and would never perceive my brother Hierarchs—or, indeed, their official representatives—as agents of foreign governments.”

The private letter, however, written contemporaneously, describes those same hierarchs in such terms throughout. Clergy of the Serbian, Antiochian, and OCA jurisdictions are grouped together as part of “the effort of Russian-interest hierarchs, clergy, and laity to influence political factors in Washington.” The delegation’s Washington meetings are described as the work of “pro-Russian figures” operating on behalf of “Russian interests.”

The public statement was issued to calm members of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America who had threatened to withdraw or suspend participation following the Archons’ statement. Abp. Elpidophoros acknowledges in the letter that he acted quickly to manage the fallout, writing that he “conveyed to them that the statement does not express my feelings and views”—a claim difficult to reconcile with the private letter’s contents.

The private letter also casts doubt on the sincerity of another of Abp. Elpidophoros’s public commitments. The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America, of which Abp. Elpidophoros serves as president, issued a statement in September 2024 expressing concern about state actions against the UOC in Ukraine—a statement bearing his signature. His private letter to Pat. Bartholomew, in which he describes the Ukrainian government’s measures against the UOC as correct in substance while lamenting only that they cannot be adequately justified to international opinion, sits in direct contradiction to that public position.

Institutional stakes

The Archbishop’s position is not without context. The Patriarchate of Constantinople granted autocephaly to the schismatic “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” in 2019, a decision that remains deeply contested and that placed Constantinople in direct institutional opposition to the Moscow Patriarchate. The suppression of the UOC removes the principal rival to the OCU on Ukrainian soil, an outcome that serves the Patriarchate’s institutional interests directly.

Critics will note that Abp. Elpidophoros, in working to prevent U.S. officials from hearing testimony about imprisoned clergy and legal persecution of a religious community, was acting not as a neutral ecclesiastical figure but as an advocate for a foreign government’s religious policies—the precise accusation he levels against those he sought to silence.