Abp. Elpidophoros has accomplished a trifecta. On June 11, the archbishop of the Greek Church in the Americas once again cast pearls before swine by celebrating the divine mysteries in the synagogue of Satan, St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church in Manhattan. The same parish, grand in its bastard Byzantine architecture, is the epicenter of the abominable homosexual and transgender movement to queer Manhattan. Here are three remarks that fell trippingly from Elpi’s lips during the liturgy and this author’s initial reactions to them. Elpi is a prevaricator, or a damned liar, if you prefer.
St. Bart’s, Manhattan festooned with the old rainbow flag.
Elpi the Prevaricator makes bold to say, “Such connectedness with others is often feared in many Christian communities today, as if contact with those of differing perspectives might somehow pollute one’s faith.” Fiddlesticks! We all distinctly recall that it was Elpidophoros, archbishop of the GOA, who meanly refused to grant religious exemptions to the faithful who could not, for conscience’ sake, submit themselves to inoculation with an experimental serum during the pandemic. So much for Elpi’s own ability to listen to differing perspectives.
Elpi the Prevaricator boasts, “Thus, the Ecumenical Patriarch models for the Orthodox Christian Church, and for all people of good will, what it means to love your neighbor, even as you claim to love God.” What a patent lie! Bartholomew betrayed the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by unilaterally proclaiming the founding of a phony replacement entity in that cradle of Slavic Orthodoxy. Black Bart’s ultra vires meddling led to the disenfranchisement of the UOC in her motherland and the persecution of her clergy and people, and the theft of her property. History will not be kind to that schismatic, Black Bart of Istanbul.
Elpi the Prevaricator exaggerates: “The Patriarch welcomes all at the Phanar, the Sacred Center of worldwide Orthodoxy.” Not so. Orthodoxy doesn’t have a headquarters like the Vatican. Constantinople’s Phanar is a mere shadow of its former grandeur, but even at the apogee of its trajectory, it never was the “sacred center of Orthodoxy”. The hierarchical authority of the Church has always been shared by the several patriarchates and metropolises. Thank God for the decentralization, especially now when Orthodoxy groans at the heresies and schisms caused by Bartholomew and Elpidophoros.
The godless minions of the Democrat Party have played their latest hand in the game of Lawfare quite successfully. Never before has a president of the United States been convicted of a crime, but now the vindictive Democrats have made one for the Guinness Book of World Records. The kangaroo court in Manhattan has taken one of the most bogus lawsuits to date and conducted a shamefully flawed trial that will go down in the annals of legal history. For all intents and purposes, America is now a banana republic. The only way to turn this around is for the voting public to cast their ballots for Donald Trump in November, if for no other reason than to spite the demonic powers that have nigh on overthrown the rule of law in our beloved country.
The U.S. government is making itself felt in Orthodox internal politics.
(The following article is so good that Handwritings’ editor has decided to lift it wholesale from its original publication, The American Conservative. All credit for this fine piece is attributed to its author, Michael Warren Davis. Photos and captions are not from the original text.)
Everyone knows that the Moscow Patriarchate is in bed with the Kremlin. Few realize that the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is deeply beholden to the United States government.
This ignorance is surprising, given that many Greek Orthodox leaders are quite proud of the fact. In 1942, Athenagoras Spyrou—the Archbishop of America for the Greek Orthodox Church—wrote to an agent of the Office of Strategic Services. “I have three Bishops, three hundred priests, and a large and far-flung organization,” Athenagoras wrote. “Every one under my order is under yours. You may command them for any service you require. There will be no questions asked and your directions will be executed faithfully.”
In 1947, the OSS was rechristened as the Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA. One year later, Athenagoras was elected Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the spiritual leader of Eastern Orthodoxy.
One might point out that, when Athenagoras reached out to the OSS, his native Greece was under Nazi occupation. It is understandable that a Greek bishop in America would support the American war effort. But it was more than that. Athenagoras was a strong supporter of American exceptionalism and encouraged Washington’s militarist foreign policy. The U.S. Consul in Istanbul recounted a conversation with Athenagoras in 1951: “As usual, he talked at some length of his belief that the United States must remain in the Near East for several centuries to fulfill the mission which had been given it by God to give freedom, prosperity and happiness to all people.”
(These quotes, by the way, are pulled from a talk given by an Orthodox historian called Matthew Namee at Holy Cross Hellenic College, the Greek seminary in Boston. These are not malicious forgeries peddled by Russian propagandists—the Greek Orthodox are quite proud of their association with the American deep state.)
Athenagoras was not merely an Americanist. He was also known as a renovationist, as liberal Orthodox are known. In 1964, he met with Pope Paul VI in Jerusalem; together, they officially lift the mutual excommunications placed by their predecessors in 1054. This gesture sparked outrage across Orthodox world. Athenagoras was accused of compromising the Orthodox Faith for the sake of a paper union with Rome.
Bartholomew whispering sweet nothings into Elpidophoros’ ear.
The current Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew, is cut from the same cloth as Athenagoras. He is very close to Pope Francis; the two share a passion for mass immigration and environmental activism. Also like Athenagoras, Bartholomew shares a close relationship with the U.S. government—a partnership that has proven mutually beneficial.
The Ecumenical Patriarch is the spiritual leader of Orthodoxy. However, he only has direct jurisdiction over a few thousand Orthodox Christians in Turkey. The rest of the Greek Orthodox world are autocephalous, or self-governing. This includes the Church of Greece, the Church of Cyprus, and the American metropolises (or dioceses). Many look to Bartholomew for leadership, but they are not directly under his authority. It is also worth noting that a large majority of Orthodox Christians around the world belong to the Russian Orthodox tradition. These churches do not look to Bartholomew for leadership in any meaningful way. Some, like the Patriarchate of Moscow, are in schism with Constantinople.
Bartholomew is not the “pope” of Orthodoxy—although he would like to be. Over the last few decades, the ecumenical patriarch has also worked to consolidate hard power over the various Greek Orthodox churches. This effort has proven most fruitful in the United States.
In 2014, Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, the current Archbishop of America and Bartholomew’s heir apparent, published a short essay called “First Without Equals.” Its name was a play on the phrase primus inter pares, or first among equals. This title originally referred to the Pope of Rome, but was transferred to Patriarch of Constantinople by the Orthodox following the Great Schism of 1054. Of course, the Schism itself was caused in no small part by a sense that the Roman Pontiffs failed to respect the rights and privileges of their fellow bishops, especially in the Christian East. Clearly, the Archbishop was signaling his desire to cultivate a more authoritarian, centralist ecclesiology within the Orthodox Church, a philosophy which has been dubbed Greek papism.
In 2022, during an interview with the Greek newspaper Ta Nea, Elpidophoros was asked if he expected to become the next Ecumenical Patriarch. Elpidophoros demurred, claiming that “the succession will be decided by God.” This, too, is a radical departure from Orthodox tradition. In fact, it goes beyond Greek papism. Even the Roman Catholic Church explicitly denies that the Pope is chosen by God.
Nevertheless, the United States government officially supports the doctrine of Greek papism, as will be shown. Strengthening the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s position within global Orthodoxy serves two purposes. First, it necessarily subtracts from the influence of Constantinople’s rival, the Moscow Patriarchate. Washington regards Russian Orthodoxy as a tool for Kremlin propaganda and, therefore, a legitimate target for counterintelligence operations. Secondly, the renovationist Ecumenical Patriarchs are willing partners in Washington’s campaign to spread liberal, democratic values across the globe.
Consider, for example, the schism in the Ukrainian Church. In 1990, the Patriarchate of Moscow granted self-governing status to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). It was not, however, given full autocephaly. However, a group of Ukrainian nationalists led by then-president Minister Petro Poroshenko organized an “independent” Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU). With the support of Western media, these nationalists successfully branded the canonical UOC as the “Russian Church.”
In 2018, when asked about the Orthodox Church of Ukraine’s bid for autocephaly, Kurt Volker—then Special Representative of the United States Department of State for Ukraine—appeared to wave the question off. He insisted that the U.S. government does not take a position on such matters and would respect the decision of Bartholomew and his synod.
Make no mistake: By declaring that the decision belongs to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the U.S. government is taking a position. First of all, autocephaly cannot be granted unilaterally by any patriarch or bishop. Second, if the decision belonged to anyone, it would be the Patriarch of Moscow, the spiritual leader of Slavic Orthodoxy. Even the great Kallistos Ware denounced the Ecumenical Patriarchate for meddling in the Ukrainian Church:
Though I am a metropolitan of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, I am not at all happy about the position taken by Patriarch Bartholomew. With all due respect to my Patriarch, I am bound to say that I agree with the view expressed by the Patriarchate of Moscow that Ukraine belongs to the Russian Church. After all, the Metropolia of Kiev by an agreement of 1676 was transferred from the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to that of the Patriarchate of Moscow. So, for 330 years Ukraine has been part of the Russian Church.
Third, just days before Volker gave his interview, Joe Biden—then only the former vice president—flew to Ukraine to express his support for the OCU. As soon as Bartholomew ruled in favor of the OCU church, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo expressed the Trump administration’s firm support for his decision. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, our government has implicitly supported Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelensky’s policy of seizing property(including church buildings) from the UOC and transferring them to the OCU. In one particularly egregious episode, a nationalist mob attacked a UOC church in the middle of a funeral, dispersed the worshippers and beat the celebrant-priest so badly he had to be hospitalized. The kicker? It was a funeral for a Ukrainian soldier who died fighting against Russia.
This one detail cannot be emphasized enough: Whatever the media claims, the canonical UOC is not an arm of Russian influence. Its members are not “pro-Russia”; much less are they Russian collaborators. They, too, are giving their lives to defend their homeland against Russian aggression. But that doesn’t matter to Washington or Constantinople. By supporting the separatists, Bartholomew is undermining Moscow’s influence within global Orthodoxy. And that’s good for the Russophobes in our foreign-policy establishment.
In 2019, the State Department gave $100,000 to the Orthodox Times, a news site strongly aligned with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The purpose? “To counter entities spreading fake news and misguiding believers in Orthodox communities”—in other words, Russian disinformation.
It’s ironic that Trump’s State Department pursued this pro-Constantinople agenda given that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is openly and proudly aligned with the Democratic Party. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America boasts:
President Truman often emphasized the pro-American convictions of Patriarch Athenagoras and the importance and influence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, along with the Greek Orthodox community in the U.S., as vital to American foreign policy objectives. Indeed, Truman saw the Patriarchate and Athenagoras as crucial to bolstering the pro-Western resolve of both Greece and Turkey, as well as to promoting stability in the Middle East.
In 2020, Patriarch Bartholomew wrote to congratulate his old friend Biden for defeating Donald Trump in the presidential election. “You can only imagine my great joy and pride for your successful election as the 46th president of your distinguished nation, the United States of America.” Archbishop Elpidophoros, in that same interview with Ta Nea, also offered a thinly-veiled endorsement of Joe Biden:
In America, the issue of abortion has been completely politicized…. It is as if the only qualification for being a good Christian or a good politician depends on one’s stance on the issue of abortion. All other principles and doctrines of Christianity do not matter; you can be a crook, a liar, a swindler, a warmonger, violent, or a misogynist, but if you are against abortion, then you are a politician suitable enough for “pious people” to support.
As Rod Dreher pointed out, this little-noticed interview contains quite a few shocking revelations. For instance, Elpidophoros is not simply concerned that abortion has been “politicized”: he is openly pro-choice. “Women bear the full burden in giving birth and raising their children, while men, otherwise directly involved in the pregnancy, do not bear the same burden,” he told Ta Nea. “Therefore, we must support women’s right to make reproductive decisions of their own free will.” Elpidophoros also discusses how proud he was to support the protests which erupted after the death of George Floyd, as well as the infamous “gay baptism.”
For those who aren’t up on their Orthodox church politics: In 2022, Elpidophoros baptized the sons of two wealthy Greek-Americans, Evangelo Bousis and Peter Dundas. (The children were conceived through surrogacy.) The baptism was performed in Vouliagmeni, a suburb of Athens. This set off a firestorm in world Orthodoxy for two reasons. Firstly, it is wrong to baptize a child if there is little to no chance of their being raised according to the Church’s teachings. The parents are making a commitment to their child to the Christian faith without giving them the tools to fulfill that commitment. Second, visiting clergy (including bishops) must receive permission from the local metropolitan before publicly celebrating the sacraments within their jurisdiction. In this case, the local metropolitan was Antonios of Glyfada. Elpidophoros requested and was granted permission to baptize the children of an American couple, but did not inform Antonios that the parents were a same-sex couple.
Elpidophoros was condemned by the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece as well as the monks of Mount Athos, but he didn’t care. The Archbishop was simply giving the Orthodox world a taste of how he’ll do things once he becomes Ecumenical Patriarch.
Karloutsos yucking it up with Elpidophoros. Rumor has it that, truth be told, they can’t stand each other.
There’s more. In 2019, Elpidophoros appointed Father Alexander Karloutsos as vicar-general for the Archdiocese of America. Father Alexander is, for all practical purposes, the Biden family’s pastor. He sits on the board of the Beau Biden Foundation and serves as a spiritual advisor to the President. In 2015, Father Alexander attended a (now infamous) dinner hosted by Hunter Biden at the Café Milano in Georgetown. The dinner was a private reception for several Eastern European oligarchs, including Yury Luzhkov, the profoundly corrupt former Mayor of Moscow. This was the night that Hunter introduced his father to Vadym Pozharskyi, an executive at Burisma, allegedly fulfilling the deal for which Baturina had paid Hunter $3.5 million the year before.
More troublingly, Father Alexander is also close to John Poulos, the Greek-Canadian founder of Dominion Voting Systems. Father Alexander has been credibly accused of serving as a go-between for Poulos and the Bidens during the 2020 election scandal. It is said that the priest relayed information between the two parties, but cannot be subpoenaed due to New York’s clergy privilege laws. Though all parties admit that Father Alexander was in frequent communication with both parties during that time, they also insist that he was simply offering them spiritual counsel. Undoubtedly both Poulos and Biden spent those difficult months in prayer and fasting.
As it happens, in 2018, Father Alexander also found himself at the center of an $80 million financial scandal, which was probed by the U.S. government. The federal government’s investigation to the matter was dropped shortly after it began, despite the fact that no explanation was ever unearthed. When President Biden awarded Father Alexander the Presidential Medal of Freedom last year, he jokingly warned, “I’m going to ruin your reputation by talking.”
Unfortunately, such allegations of corruption are fairly widespread in the Archdiocese of America. The Greek Orthodox Church is by far the wealthiest denomination in this country relative to its size. (A Roman Catholic priest can expect to make no more than $45,000 per year; a Greek Orthodox priest can earn upwards of $130,000.) There are many well-established second-generation families who still feel a deep loyalty to the Church even if they tend not to practice very faithfully.
In other words, the Archdiocese of America is in roughly the same position that the Catholic Church was under Kennedy. It is rich in capital and assets but largely beholden to secular, liberal donors. Hence why the Hellenic College Holy Cross, the Greek Orthodox seminary, refers to former congressman Michael Huffington as a “faithful Orthodox Christian” despite the fact that he’s a practicing homosexual who publicly dissents from the Church’s teaching on sexuality.
Happily, most Greek Orthodox jurisdictions are not renovationist; neither are they in the pocket of the American government or beholden to liberal, secular donors. In fact, when the Greek parliament voted to ratify same-sex marriage, the Church of Greece called the decision “demonic” and excommunicated several of the “immoral lawmakers” who voted for the bill.
But whatever our government may claim, it will promote Bartholomew and his successor, Elpidophoros, as “Greek Popes” in order to liberalize Greek Orthodoxy and counter Russian Orthodoxy. This is the policy of the U.S. government. There are State Department personnel (and taxpayer dollars) dedicated to achieving this exact goal. It is discussed—openly; gleefully—in the major institutions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Archdiocese of America. And yet anyone who suggests that this is a gross betrayal of both the American people and the Orthodox faithful is immediately accused of being a “Russian asset.” Go figure.
EDITOR’S COMMENT: The author of this fine article, Michael Warren Davis, lays all the cards on the table vis à vis the infuriating duplicity of Greek Orthodoxy’s two jackals, Bartholomew and Elpidophoros, and Karloutsos, the hyena. We might ask ourselves whom we have to blame for promoting those three men’s betrayal of our Faith and their unjustified enmity against Russian Orthodoxy.
Why, no one else but our very own CIA and the Biden administration!
A vote to reëlect Biden and his Democrats this fall will be a vote to support the corruption which is American foreign policy for Ukraine and a vote to deepen the rift between Moscow and Istanbul, aka Constantinople. You many American Greeks who intend to defy righteousness and do just that had best take a time to fast and pray before you vote, knowing that heaven will hold you responsible for your 2024 ballot.
It is a widely known fact that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy celebrate Easter on different days. Some years they celebrate Easter one week apart. Some years, for example in 2024, their Easter celebration is more than a month apart. In 2024, Roman Catholics celebrated Easter on March 31, while the Orthodox will be celebrating Easter (aka Pascha) at Midnight May 4.
The disparity between Western Easter and Orthodox Easter has led some to deplore the differences and call for both traditions to agree on a common date. Recently, on 31 March 2024, Patriarch Bartholomew in his homily expressed his desire that beginning in 2025 both Roman Catholics and Orthodox would celebrate Easter on the same day.
But also from this position we extend a heartfelt greeting of love to all Christians around the world who celebrate Holy Easter today. We beseech the Lord of Glory that the forthcoming Easter celebration next year will not merely be a fortuitous occurrence, but rather the beginning of a unified date for its observance by both Eastern and Western Christianity.
This aspiration is particularly significant in light of the upcoming 1700th anniversary in 2025, marking the convening of the First Ecumenical Synod in Nicaea. Among its pivotal discussions was the matter of establishing a common timeframe for the Easter festivities. We are optimistic, as there is goodwill and willingness on both sides. Because, indeed, it is a scandal to celebrate separately the unique event of the one Resurrection of the One Lord! [Source, Emphasis added.]
Apparently, Patriarch Bartholomew is hoping that by 2025 both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy will have agreed on a common date for Easter and that after 2025 there will no longer be different dates for celebrating it. In addition, he reminds his listeners that 2025 will mark the 1700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council (325). Nicea I was a landmark event in which bishops came from all over the Roman Empire to proclaim their common faith in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God who came to save humankind.
Rejecting Cosmetic Unity
All Orthodox Christians ought to seek the ending of the schism between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. However, we are to guard against changing Holy Tradition for the sake of cosmetic unity. To agree on a common date for Easter while overlooking significant issues arising from the Great Schism of 1054 would be rushing to premature ecumenism. It would be like a contractor painting over the cracks in the wall of a house after a devastating earthquake. To paint over the cracks and certify a severely damaged building as inhabitable is not only highly irresponsible, it is fraudulent behavior that verges on criminality.
The Great Schism of 1054 and its Aftermath
For the first millennium, Christian unity was manifested in such markers as the Eucharist, the canonical Scriptures, the Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, the Nicene Creed, the episcopacy, and the Pentarchy. The Pentarchy was comprised of the five patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Unlike Protestantism which believes that the unity of the Universal Church is an invisible, spiritual unity, Christians in the first millennium believed in a visible, tangible Universal Church.
Christian unity suffered a major setback when Pope Benedict VIII unilaterally inserted the Filioque phrase “and the Son” into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381) in 1014. By 1054, the papal legate, Cardinal Humbert, excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius. This resulted in the mutual excommunications by both sides. While some have exaggerated the fracas of 1054, it serves as a reference point for when Rome and the Eastern churches went their separate ways. It is worth noting that it was not just Constantinople that rejected the Filioque, the other patriarchates: Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem likewise objected to the Filioque.
The insertion of the Filioque was a highly significant move by the pope. First, it implied that the pope had an authority equivalent to the Ecumenical Councils (Nicea I {325} and Constantinople 1 {381}) to define the universal creed. This is contrary to Orthodox ecclesiology, which holds that the highest ecclesial authority resides in the ecumenical councils. When a council is convened, the bishops, as successors to the Apostles, gather together as representatives of the Church Catholic. Second, the insertion of the Filioque implied the pope’s universal supremacy over all Christians in matters of faith and practice. Papal supremacy is implicit in the Filioque. It would take several centuries until papal infallibility was explicitly promulgated by the First Vatican Council (1869-1870). Third, the Filioque has significant implications for the doctrine of the Trinity that many Orthodox would consider dubious or even heretical. For the Orthodox, it is significant that the Filioque does not have the general support of the Church Fathers.
Steps Towards Authentic Unity
Patriarch Bartholomew rightfully deplores the calendar differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. However, it is significant that he has not said much about the need to resolve the issues stemming from the Schism of 1054. Until these issues are resolved, talk of a common Easter date is premature. Agreeing upon a common date for Easter without attending to the deeper matters of faith and practice would be more of a public relations (PR) stunt than a genuine healing of schism.
Below are some suggestions for steps that can be taken to reach genuine reunification between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Basically, it calls for both sides to return to their shared roots in Apostolic Tradition, e.g., the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Church Fathers, and the historic liturgies.
1. Drop the Filioque
The first step towards reunification would be for Roman Catholicism to return to the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381) as the normative creed for its Sunday Mass in all parishes worldwide. The suspension of the Filioque in the Sunday Mass worldwide would show that Pope Francis is serious about reunification with Orthodoxy. It has been the practice that when Roman Catholics and Orthodox come together to recite the Nicene Creed with the Filioque omitted for that occasion. Notwithstanding, such actions are more PR gestures than serious attempts to heal the schism between the two traditions. Genuine reunification entails the eschewing of innovation and the restoration of historic liturgical practices.
The second step would be for Pope Francis to announce that the unilateral insertion of the Filioque was a mistake and that saying the Filioque is to be suspended until a universal church council (including the historic Pentarchy and other autocephalous jurisdictions) rule on the Filioque. It is imperative that the Church Catholic come to an agreement on the Filioque, whether to adopt it or exclude it.
Many staunch Roman Catholics, in their interaction with Orthodox Christians, have said much in defense of the double-procession of the Holy Spirit, all the while misunderstanding the differences between the two traditions. Where many Roman Catholics approach the Filioque in terms of systematic theology, for the Orthodox, the Filioque controversy is fundamentally about liturgical theology: that is, our worship of the Triune God in the Liturgy. The insertion of the Filioque has serious implications for the way in which we understand the Trinity. So, while Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians are reciting nearly identical versions of the Nicene Creed, they are articulating rather different understandings of the Trinity. This difference in wording is a far more serious matter than the discrepant Easter dates that troubles Patriarch Bartholomew.
2. Repudiate Papal Supremacy
For Roman Catholics to reunite with the Orthodox, the Bishop of Rome and the Vatican would need to formally repudiate papal supremacy and formally endorse the conciliar understanding of the Church Catholic. Historically, Orthodoxy has accepted papal primacy but rejected papal supremacy. To put it another way, Orthodoxy accepts the bishop of Rome as first among other bishops, but not as superior in rank or authority to the other bishops. Once the bishop of Rome has formally repudiated papal supremacy, the details of church administration and canon law can be worked out by both sides.
3. Formally Assess the NovusOrdo Mass
Almost a thousand years have passed since the Great Schism, since then Roman Catholicism has undergone many changes in its theology and worship. When an Eastern Orthodox Christian visits a Coptic Orthodox Liturgy, he will see and hear much that is familiar to his home parish. However, when he visits a Catholic Mass, especially a Novus Ordo Mass, he will be surprised and even shocked by how different the Novus Ordo Mass is from the Orthodox liturgy.
The Novus Ordo Mass (aka the Vatican II Mass, aka the Mass of Paul VI), which originated in the 1960s and the 1970s, is a striking departure from the historic liturgies. Many Catholics have complained about the lack of reverence and shocking innovations in the Novus Ordo Mass. Of concern to the Orthodox is the recent suppression of the traditional Latin Mass by Pope Francis. To Orthodox Christians, it appears that Roman Catholicism has abandoned its historic liturgical heritage for one based on modern innovation. Examples of liturgical innovation include: the inclusion of secular songs such as “You Got a Friend” or “Stairway to Heaven,” the introduction of lay Eucharistic ministers to distribute the consecrated Host, and the priest ceasing to pray adorientem (facing East).
The ultimate goal of Catholic-Orthodox reunification is the Eucharist, but is that possible if the Novus Ordo Mass is incompatible with the ancient liturgies of Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Basil the Great? It is suggested that if the bishop of Rome were to implement the first two steps recommended above (i.e., suspend the use of the Filioque in Sunday worship and formally renounce papal supremacy), that the Orthodox hierarchs convene a pan-Orthodox synod that will examine the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass. The Novus Ordo Mass is not necessarily heretical, but it is a striking innovation that appears to diverge from historic Christian worship. This is an issue that cannot be ignored. A simpler approach would be for the Roman Catholic church to lay aside the Novus Ordo Mass and return to the historic Latin Mass, duly translated into the vernacular, as the normative form of Sunday worship worldwide.
These three suggestions are just initial steps that would demonstrate that Pope Francis and his fellow bishops do sincerely desire reunification with Orthodoxy. Until Pope Francis and the Vatican suspend the use of the Filioque from the Sunday Mass worldwide, all talk about reunification between the two traditions is premature. One has to wonder why Patriarch Bartholomew has not given greater attention to the Filioque in his pursuit of closer ties with Rome. It is incumbent upon the Orthodox laity to humbly request that our priests and bishops not succumb to premature ecumenism and that the local Orthodox clergy relay their concerns to their respective primates. A fundamental component of Orthodox ecclesiology is that the whole people of God, from the bishop down to the priest and deacons, and to the laity, are responsible for safeguarding Holy Tradition. It is the job of ordained clergy, bishops and priests, to safeguard Holy Tradition. The laity should speak out only if it appears that attempts are being made to tamper with Holy Tradition.
Avoiding False Unity
Patriarch Bartholomew has been a very vocal advocate for reunification with Rome. In late 2019, he informed the monks of Mount Athos that there are no dogmatic differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, and that reunion is inevitable (See the website OrthodoxChristianity). However, his optimism may be premature. There is very little evidence that Pope Francis is seeking to undo the tragic legacy of the 1054 Schism. It is concerning that Patriarch Bartholomew has not taken a stronger stand on the Filioque and papal supremacy. Until then, the best stance for the Orthodox to take with respect to reunion with Roman Catholicism is to reiterate: We are Orthodox, and we hold to Holy Tradition without change.
The temptation for many enthusiastic ecumenists is to sweep under the rug the hugely significant issues that stand between Roman Catholics and Orthodox. However, doing that would entail the abandonment of Holy Tradition. If Roman Catholicism wishes to return to its patristic roots, we Orthodox should by all means help them return to Pre-Schism Christianity; but we cannot and must not pawn off the family heirloom for counterfeit unity.
It may be that this author protests too much. However, Patriarch Bartholomew’s recent words are cause for concern. As we look to 2025, we should be alert for PR campaigns pressuring the Orthodox faithful into false unity with Roman Catholics. It is important that the Orthodox laity become familiar with the core beliefs and practices of Orthodoxy. A solid understanding of Holy Tradition is key to obeying the Apostle Paul’s admonition in 2 Thessalonians:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or epistle. (2 Thes. 2:15; emphasis added)
To be able to stand fast means to not easily be pushed around and to hold fast to something means that it cannot be easily yanked out of one’s grip. In this context, we need Orthodox Christians who are familiar with the Holy Tradition. If we are unfamiliar with the teachings and practices of Orthodoxy, we will be susceptible to being bamboozled by the polished rhetoric of ecumenical enthusiasts, whether Orthodox or Roman Catholic. We need a united front against the false ecumenists.
In opposing false ecumenism, we also need to guard against the spirit of spiritual pride and judgmentalism. We should seek to develop the Orthodox phronema (way of thinking) of humility and charity. And, we should seek the prayers of the great saints such as Irenaeus of Lyons, Vincent of Lérins, Mark of Ephesus, and Justin Popovich. Let us emulate the spirit of humble service exemplified by these saints.
I would like to close by quoting another Orthodox patriarch, Philaret of Moscow. In 1965, when the patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras, met with Pope Paul VI to lift the mutual excommunications of 1054, Philaret wrote to express his concerns.
No union of the Roman Church with us is possible until it renounces its new doctrines, and no communion in prayer can be restored with it without a decision of all churches, which, however, can hardly be possible before the liberation of the Church of Russia which at present has to live in catacombs. [Source.]
With the ending of the Cold War, the Russian Church has emerged from its catacombs. This has allowed the patriarchate of Moscow to play a more prominent role in the Orthodox world. Orthodoxy’s conciliar nature means that we are not totally dependent on Constantinople. If we suspect that one patriarchate is in danger of straying from Holy Tradition, we can turn to other patriarchates for guidance. While Catholic-Orthodox reunification is highly desirable, it is imperative that Constantinople not seek reunification with Rome without the consent and approval of Moscow and the other patriarchs and primates. True Church unity requires fidelity to Holy Tradition. The Apostle Paul wrote to Bishop Timothy:
Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. (2 Tim. 1:13-14)
Let us heed the words of the Apostle Paul and emulate the example of Bishop Timothy.
I suppose the title of this article will sound like name-dropping to one or two former charismatics out there, but that isn’t my intention in the least. I am not trying to jack up my reputation by associating myself with an erstwhile Christian rock star. There would be no nexus between Carlton Pearson and me if we had not gone to a small Christian college together. I bring him up because a renowned yet controversial Pentecostal preacher, pastor and singer, Pearson died of cancer last November at the relatively young age of seventy.
Bp. Carlton Pearson
This is an Orthodox blog, so I doubt if many of our readers have ever heard of Bp. Carlton Pearson. He was the co-founder of a wildly successful megachurch in the Bible-belt city of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Pearson was hardly an Orthodox believer, or a canonical bishop, but there is a connection between him and me – we were together at Oral Roberts University. Carlton matriculated in the fall of 1971, a year before me. I hardly knew the upperclassman, but I saw him on campus from time to time and I remember a sermon that he preached at one of the semi-weekly chapel sessions. It was called the “Shepherd’s Bag.” As one who can barely remember what his priest talked about last Sunday morning, I certainly won’t even try to recall what was in the shepherd’s bag, but I do remember the talk’s catchy title.
Carlton himself was catchy. He had the most flamboyant personality of anyone on campus, even more than Oral Roberts himself, the televangelist and founder of his eponymous university. Carlton grew up in his father’s black Pentecostal church in San Diego. At ORU, Carlton sang with the exuberant World Action Singers, the celebrities of the student body who performed to a nationwide audience with Oral Roberts at his quarterly primetime television specials. Oral, who was part Cherokee, identified with ethnic minorities, so he took a liking to Carlton. You might say that Oral played favorites, but in the Pentecostal world effervescence of personality is de rigueur. Richard Roberts was Oral’s biological son, of course, but according to Carlton, Oral claimed him as his black son. They were tight and did a lot of ministering together.
Oral Roberts & Carlton Pearson in the early 1970s
Carlton never graduated from ORU. Instead, he and a white classmate of his named Gary McIntosh started a church on the mostly-white south side of Tulsa in 1977 called Higher Dimensions. This start-up went from 75 to 6,000 in short order. Carlton often appeared in shows on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, where he achieved national exposure. He was a guest preacher the world over and became the recipient of several honorary doctoral degrees. He preached up a storm in a way that one imagines his fathers before him had done, or that Oral himself preached. The contemporary Christian rock music at Higher Dimensions was rowdy. Carlton said his band was “slammin’ it”. The congregation was racially integrated on purpose, beginning with the black and white clerical staff, and people of all shades gathered at Higher Dimensions. Times were good in Tulsa.
They were very good… until Pearson had an epiphany. When his two children were small, Pearson witnessed on television the suffering of the victims of the civil wars in Uganda and Rwanda. He saw the suffering of the people around him. It seemed to him that that there was no hell other than the one right here on Earth. If there is no hell, there is no danger of anyone falling into it. There is no reason to preach the Gospel to save the heathen from it. Jesus Christ, the God of love, had already accomplished the redemptive work for everyone everywhere, so there was no reason for anyone anywhere to repent and believe. Pearson had now embraced the age-old heresy of Universalism. Uh oh.
When he started to preach this newly-inspired old “gospel of inclusion”, Pearson suddenly lost his people. Steeped in the bible and sensitive to heresy, his evangelical and pentecostal congregation shrank in number to 200 in no time. Pearson could no longer pay his staff and he lost the building that was their church home. The other bishops of the black Pentecostal Church of God in Christ upbraided Pearson for his error. Oral Roberts himself, now advanced in years, warned him to turn away from this dangerous heresy. Regardless, Pearson would not relent.
Pearson on the radio
Now, one might ask what Carlton Pearson’s story has to do with me and my Orthodoxy? I was raised a stuffy Episcopalian, but I had a born-again experience while in high school. I started to go to “meetings” and Bible studies with charismatic Mennonites and long-haired Jesus People. That’s what led me to apply for entry into ORU. Those were four of the best years of my life. Fast forward half a century. I’m a former Anglican priest who is now fortunate to be an Orthodox layman. Having experienced Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement, and having ultimately converted to the Orthodox Faith, I can look back on Pearson’s saga from an Orthodox mindset and view it as a cautionary tale.
Two things struck me about Carlton Pearson’s very public fall from grace. He seems to have known nothing about the weighty authority of the Orthodox and Catholic Church’s Sacred Tradition. Or, if he was aware of it, he dismissed it. The scant tradition upon which Pearson could base his uber-vocal ministry was the Sola Scriptura of Calvinism spiced with the evanescent rhema, or supposéd utterance of the Holy Ghost. This Pearson expressed in an electrified spirituality, absolutely individual and forever loud and fresh. A successful preacher in this Pentecostal milieu is liable to consider his innovative interpretation of Scripture to be the True Way. As we can see, Pearson did just that.
Pearson had allowed himself unwittingly to build a large-scale personality cult that centered upon himself. He became rich and famous. He was known and praised by the stars of the Pentecostal world. By contrast, we Orthodox, in our quasi-monastic observance of self-abnegation, are taught to keep a low profile. Flashy, pop-music performances and sweaty preaching are entirely foreign to our religious custom. They’re ephemeral and shallow. It’s a shame – no, it’s tragic – that such an energetic minister as Pearson, once distraught by the suffering of his racial kin and skeptical that a loving God could assign anyone to eternal suffering worse than that, did not search for the truth of controversial soteriological issues in the rich and clear consensus of Orthodoxy when it was available to him if he had only sought for it. The trouble with Pearson’s mindset was that it was inspired by the emotions of subjective experience, not the unchanging dogmas of the ancient Church. He soon started to normalize gay relationships on the basis of the vague doctrine of love to which his theology devolved. How does God square away the soul of a minister who has so blatantly and abruptly abandoned Church teachings on eternal damnation?
It’s not our place to question whether the soul of Carlton Pearson has landed in the very hell whose existence he so adamantly denied. Christian charity would prevent us from wishing that fate upon him. I suffered a stroke not long after Pearson’s death and I’ll soon turn seventy myself, so the issue of eternal life with God versus eternal separation from God is now front and center for me and people of my generation. Great Lent is a good time for us to sober up and take stock of our lives.
Handwritings on the Wall 