Tag: orthodoxy

Dark Clouds with  a Bright Silver Lining


YouTube’s algorithm can produce interesting results. It recently recommended two sharply contrasting podcasts. One was a sober analysis of church decline in rural Illinois by a self-described “old geezer” Christian; the other was an “audit” by a young Gen-Z atheist who raved about his visit to an Orthodox Liturgy. That afternoon I found myself going back and forth between feeling pessimistic, and feeling hopeful as I watched the two videos.

The purpose of this article is to stimulate discussion about the current religious situation in the United States. Do we indeed have a church attendance crisis in America? Does Christianity have a future in America? Can Orthodoxy help reverse church decline in America?


“The Coming Church Attendance Crisis” [54:12]


Tom Wadsworth, a former pastor and independent scholar, presents the findings of his survey research which he conducted in his hometown of Dixon, Illinois, from 1983 to 2023. His research deserves our attention because of its solid data and meticulous methodology. One surprising finding is that Gallup polls significantly overestimate the percentage of Americans who attend church/religious services. Where Gallup polls report that 31% of Americans attend church services (based on self-description), Wadsworth estimates that the actual percentage may be around 13% (based on head counts) (see 18:15-24:54; see 24:12). Wadsworth notes that if church attendance is 13% for a conservative, rural area, like Dixon, Illinois, then the rate of church attendance is likely to be even lower in major urban areas like Chicago, Orlando, New York, etc. In other words, the problem of church decline may be even worse than we think it is.

Wadsworth introduces the concept of “critical mass”—the minimum size or amount of something required to start or maintain a venture. For churches to survive they need a certain number of congregants and income to survive. Which begs the question: What are the critical thresholds needed for a church to survive? Wadsworth hypothesizes that if a church has: (1) 40 in attendance on average and (2) 60% of its attendees are 65+ in age, then that church is likely to close its doors in ten to twenty years (28:16). This numbers-driven approach is pragmatic and helps generate a realistic assessment of a congregation’s vitality. These two findings—actual attendance rates and critical mass needed for church growth—are what makes Wadsworth’s presentation noteworthy. Here he breaks new ground. While Wadsworth’s discussion of ten factors contributing to church decline (31:17-42:06) is also worth considering, this is familiar ground that has been discussed by others. Among the reasons he gives for church decline are the recent public pastor scandals, the pandemic lockdown, the polarizing effects of the religious right, the 9/11 effect—the ejection of religious fanaticism, youths rejecting the Evangelicalism of their parents, the effects of social media on socialization, the declining birth rate, and the fact that secular culture is now in fashion, etc.

Overall, this author finds Wadsworth’s discussion of possible causes for church decline to be full of insights. However, I do have a few quibbles with him. The youth’s rejection of their parents’ Evangelicalism is not so much a causal factor as it is a description of an aspect of the overall decline. Based on anecdotes I have read on the Internet; I am inclined to agree with his identifying the Religious Right as a contributing factor. However, one must also take into account the drift of the historic mainline denominations towards secularism and liberalism. The drift away from historic orthodoxy in the mainline denominations has resulted in liberal theology devoid of belief in the supernatural, i.e., watered down Christianity. As a former atheist, I find mainline Protestantism lacking the robustness and vitality of historic supernatural Christianity. Another factor I believe that Wadsworth’s analysis overlooks is the impact of rising divorce rates. I suspect that children of divorce find it harder to feel at home in churches that hold the intact nuclear family to be the norm; divorcees, single parents, never-married singles, and those with confused sexual identities will feel unwanted and marginalized.


“An Atheist visits an ORTHODOX Church (and has a surprisingly nice time)” [25:20]

Jared Smith, creator of Heliocentric, visited an Antiochian Orthodox parish and rated it as “exceptional,” a “Knock ‘em dead! Home run out of the park!” experience. Unlike Tom Wadsworth’s careful analysis, Jared Smith’s report consists more of comparisons between what he saw at one Orthodox parish against other churches he had visited. He notes that a lot of thought and care had gone into the interior of All Saints Antiochian Orthodox Church and that the church was built for reverence. He contrasts this against the ugliness of the four bare walls of “the run-of-the-mill box church” or “a CVS church” (2:45-3:05).

Jared described how the greeter welcomed him warmly but did not pounce on him as in other churches. Then, as the greeter was explaining the church service, the priest entered the foyer, censing the room. The greeter paused, turned to the priest, and bowed in respect (5:36). For Jared Smith, that was impressive because it showed that in the Orthodox Liturgy, God is the center of the show, not you. I found his criticism of Protestantism’s audience-centered approach to worship quite insightful. It suggests that among the Gen-Z cohort there is a hunger for reverence that is not being met by Protestantism’s contemporary worship service. Jared Smith was surprised that he was invited to meet with the priest one-on-one (7:52). His  experience has been that pastors only meet with loyal church members, not with outsiders. Sadly, it seems that personal contact with the pastor has become a rare exception, especially with huge mega churches (18:20, 20:27). I was surprised by Smith’s observation of icons in the Orthodox church. The icons of the saints reminded him that we are not alone but surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses (11:05). This contrasts sharply with the Baptists’ emphasis on Jesus and you—and you alone.

Part of Jared’s church review was the coffee hour (16:14 ff.). He was surprised that the priest stayed around after the Liturgy, taught adult religious education class, talked with people after the class, then to Jared’s surprise, invited him to his house for coffee. For Jared, the one-on-one personal contact was a far more effective way of doing outreach than the didactic lecture approach favored by Protestant Evangelicals. He also noted that the priest did not attempt to argue him out of his atheism, but accepted him.

What I find striking is that Jared Smith is the demographic polar opposite of Tom Wadsworth. Jared is in his late 20s, a former Evangelical, a graduate of Wheaton College, etc. His glowing description of Orthodoxy represents a bright silver lining in an otherwise gloomy situation described by Tom Wadsworth.

Jared Smith’s positive assessment of Orthodoxy seems to be part of a broader trend. The New York Post in December 2024 published an article: “Young men leaving traditional churches for ‘masculine Orthodox Christianity in droves.” This article has caught the attention of many and has generated considerable discussions among Protestants. If Orthodoxy can appeal to Gen-Zs like Jared Smith, then it is possible that the problem of church decline can be arrested and possibly reversed.



What Does the Future Hold?

The overall religious picture for the United States looks grim. It is like a long, extended drought drying up the landscape with plants and trees everywhere slowly dying off. This religious drought has been going on for several decades now. Surprisingly, there are a few spots of greenery popping up here and there. One of these spiritual oases is Eastern Orthodoxy. The recent influx of young men flocking to Orthodoxy can be seen as something like a rain shower that potentially signals a change in season.

We could be witnessing Orthodoxy’s transition from being seen as an exotic transplant to a well-regarded alternative to Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. For that to happen, American Orthodoxy will need to experience solid church growth. In addition to welcoming inquirers, we will need to give attention to the nurture of cradle Orthodox. Orthodoxy will thrive if the children of recent converts along with the  grandchildren of immigrants are nurtured into a living faith in Christ. Both the recently-baptized convert and the recently-baptized infant whose ancestors embraced Orthodoxy centuries ago, are the future of Orthodoxy. For Orthodoxy to reverse the problem of church decline, we will need, not just thriving current parishes, but also new mission parishes planted in the same urban areas as well as in areas that have zero Orthodox parishes. For that to happen, we will need a wave of men to be ordained to the priesthood and the diaconate. And, we will need bishops that support the evangelization of America. We need a vibrant American Orthodoxy that presents the Ancient Faith to a post-Christian America.


Entering into the Harvest

And, let us not forget to pray. Jesus exhorted his followers:

The harvest is truly plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. (Matthew 9:38, OSB)

The time of harvest has come. If you see new people at your local parish, that means that there is work to do. Let us welcome the visitors who seem lost in the Liturgy by giving them a helping hand. Let us invite them to join us for coffee after the Liturgy. If you see someone standing alone during coffee hour, introduce yourself to them. Getting the cold shoulder during the coffee hour can leave a bad impression after experiencing the Liturgy. Many first-time visitors are fearful of rejection, so be ready to put them at ease. Be ready to listen to them and to answer their questions, and be ready to share your faith story with the inquirer. Tell them how the Lord has been good to you. Let us keep in mind the words of Jesus:

Go home to your friends, and tell them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He has had compassion on you. (Mark 5:19, OSB)

Newly illumined Orthodox Christians – Is this the future? Source


For Discussion

For readers who visit Handwritings, I would like to pose three questions:


Does your personal experience confirm or disconfirm Tom Wadsworth’s analysis of church decline?


Does your personal experience of Orthodox worship confirm or disconfirm Jared Smith’s positive assessment of Orthodoxy?


Do you think that Orthodoxy can help reverse church decline in America? How do you see that happening?

Elpidophoros the Prevaricator

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.

Elpi at the “big, fat Greek gay baptism”

The CIA’s Man in Constantinople

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.

AVOIDING COSMETIC UNITY

Not Rushing to Premature Ecumenism

Patriarch Bartholomew 2024 (Source)

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 Novus Ordo 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 ad orientem (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.

Athenagoras

References

Britannica. “East-West Schism.“

Father Lawrence Farley. “The Filioque Clause.” OCA.org 11 July 2012.

Konstantinos Menyktas, transl. “Ecumenical Patriarch: It’s a scandal to celebrate separately the one Resurrection of the One Lord.” Orthodox Times, 1 April 2024.

Ecumenical Patriarch: It’s a scandal to celebrate separately the one Resurrection of the One Lord

Orthodox Christianity. “Patriarch Bartholomew Tells Athonites Reunion With Catholics Is Inevitable, Reports UOJ.” OrthodoxChristianity.com, 27 November 2019.

OrthodoxWiki. “Holy Tradition.”

Patriarch Philaret. “A Protest to Patriarch Athenagoras—On the Lifting of the Anathemas of 1054.” Orthodox Christian Information Center, December 2/15 1965.

Sylvia Poggioli. “The 1,000-Year-Old Schism That Pope Francis Seeks To Heal.” 21 May 2014. NPR. 

Wikipedia. “Filioque.”

Wikipedia. “First Vatican Council.”

Wikipedia. “History of the filioque controversy.”

Theomimesis. YouTube video: “Catholic and Orthodox Liturgy Compared.” [5:18]

Papal Supremacy and the Suppression of the Latin Mass

Latin Mass Source

On 16 July 2021, Pope Francis issued the motu proprio (apostolic letter) Traditionis Custodes, which imposed severe restrictions on the celebration of the Latin Mass. This policy has upset many conservative or traditional Roman Catholics. They are aggrieved because they very much prefer the Latin Mass to the Novus Ordo Mass aka the Vatican II Mass. Many took to social media protesting the Pope’s decision. But traditional Catholics may be unaware that the recent revival of the Latin Mass was in large part due to another motu proprio Summorum Pontificum issued by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007. In other words, what the pope gives, the pope can take back.

This points to a more fundamental theological problem underlying the brouhaha over the Latin Mass—the Pope’s power to regulate the liturgical life of the Church Catholic. The central issue here is papal supremacy. Papal supremacy means the pope has ultimate authority, not just over all Christians—even non-Catholics—worldwide, but also over the manner in which they are to worship.

This throws light onto one of the fundamental differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy rejects papal supremacy. In Orthodoxy, the authority of bishops and patriarchs, even the Bishop of Rome, is contingent upon fidelity to Apostolic Tradition. The bishop receives Holy Tradition from his predecessor and is expected to transmit Holy Tradition unchanged to his successor. In the Orthodox paradigm, the bishop is under Apostolic Tradition. In Roman Catholicism, however, the pope is over Apostolic Tradition. Thus, it is asserted that the Pope can unilaterally alter the form of worship for millions of Catholics worldwide.

The scope of the pope’s authority over Roman Catholicism is breathtaking. Following Vatican II, Pope Paul VI unilaterally replaced the Latin Mass with the Novus Ordo Mass aka the Vatican II Mass. Despite scattered protests and acts of resistance, the Novus Ordo Mass has become the de facto form for Sunday worship for millions of Catholics worldwide. Traditional Catholics are scandalized by the new expressions of worship—for example, the so-called “chicken-dance Mass”—taking place under the auspices of the Novus Ordo Mass and they yearn for the solemn reverence of the pre-Vatican II Mass. In contrast to these changes, Orthodoxy worldwide for over a millennium—actually for 1500 years—continues to use the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, which dates to the 400s. This has given rise to the criticism from Roman Catholics that Orthodoxy is stagnant and ossified. To which the Orthodox reply is: Thank you for the unintended compliment!

Is Roman Catholicism Still Catholic?

Traditionis Custodes has troubling implications for Orthodox-Catholic reunion. By suppressing the Latin Mass, Pope Francis has further weakened Roman Catholicism’s historic ties with the Latin Christianity of the first millennium. Through the Latin Mass, Roman Catholicism was able to claim a liturgical link to historic Catholicism of the Middle Ages, as well as Latin Christianity of the first millennium. The Latin Mass linked Roman Catholics to renowned theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo. However, with Traditionis Custodes their link with the past has been all but severed. Reunion has become all but impossible given Orthodoxy’s adherence to Apostolic Tradition and Rome’s continued drift from its historic roots.

According to the ancient theological principle lex orandi, lex credendi (the rule of prayer is the rule of faith) the way one worships God is interrelated with the way one understands God. With the adoption of the Novus Ordo Mass, Roman Catholicism has moved further away the historic Christian Faith towards a new kind of theology. This theological drift has taken on alarming proportion by the recent controversial declaration issued by the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2023: Fiducia Supplicans, which allows Roman Catholic clergy to give a blessing to couples not considered married according to church teaching, including same-sex couples. With the apparent jettisoning of traditional liturgical forms of worship in Traditionis Custodes and the implied revision of sexual ethics in Fiducia Supplicans, one has to wonder whether the Roman Catholic church still Catholic?

For traditional Roman Catholics the recent controversies raise troubling questions about the validity of the papacy. Can papal infallibility be regarded as valid in light of the recent controversial decisions that have diverged from historic Roman Catholicism? For many devout Catholics, to question the validity of the papacy would constitute another trauma added onto the other crises of faith taking place, but these questions must be faced head on. Roman Catholics who find themselves in this horrific situation need our sympathy and prayers, not triumphalist pressure to convert to Orthodoxy.

The Filioque Again

A lot of ink has been spilled on the Internet (metaphorically speaking) in defense of the Filioque phrase. “Filioque” is the Latin rendering of “and the Son.” (See Wikipedia article: “Filioque.”) Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the insertion of the phrase “and the Son” into the section of the Nicene Creed pertaining to the Holy Spirit. In my opinion as an Orthodox Christian, Roman Catholics and their Protestant counterparts who defend the Filioque by arguing that the inserted phrase makes theological sense have missed the point. The key issue underlying the controversy over the Filioque is: Does the Pope have the authority to unilaterally alter the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381? The Orthodox position is that only the Church Catholic through an Ecumenical Council has the authority to revise the Nicene Creed. This is what happened in 381, at the Second Ecumenical Council.

The issue here is papal supremacy. Is the pope superior to Apostolic Tradition? Because Orthodoxy holds that the pope was wrong to unilaterally insert the Filioque into the Nicene Creed, the Orthodox position is that Rome must drop the Filioque and restore the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 to all its Sunday worship. Until this is done, there can be no reunion between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. (It should be noted that for all the attention given to the scandal of the 1054 incident, the papal alteration of the Creed took place in 1014.)

Safe Harbor from the Storm

A Word for Distressed Roman Catholics

The recent actions by Pope Francis have caused great distress for many former Protestants who sought refuge from the confusion and tumult in Evangelicalism and mainline Protestantism. My advice to distressed Roman Catholics, both cradle and convert, is for them to take a vacation by attending a nearby Orthodox Liturgy for the next several months. Lie low, spend time in prayer and quiet reflection. Enjoy the reverent atmosphere and the ancient hymns and prayers of the early Church. And enjoy the coffee hour after the Liturgy. Tell the Orthodox Christians that you need time for healing and that you are not ready to convert. Thoughtful mature Orthodox Christians will honor your desire to be left alone.

Grieving for a Lost Past

For better or for worse, Latin Christianity and its signature rite, the Latin Mass, is gone for good. Conservative and traditionalist Roman Catholics will need time to mourn their loss. Many will need time to process their feelings of anger, loss, sadness, and emptiness, while also giving thought about their future. It is important that they understand that Eastern Orthodoxy cannot be a replacement for the Latin Mass they have lost.

It is important for Orthodox Christians to realize that they too have suffered a great loss with the recent suppression of the Latin Mass. The Latin Mass and the Latin Fathers, e.g., Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, Leo the Great, and Gregory the Great, are part of the Orthodox heritage. As Roman Catholicism drifts further and further from its historic roots, it now falls on the Orthodox to rescue and preserve these spiritual and theological treasures for future generations.

Western Rite Orthodox Mass at St. Patrick Orthodox Church, Bealeton, Virginia – Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

Convert to Orthodoxy?

The Latin West and Orthodoxy, having been separated for a millennium, have diverged with respect to theological frameworks, devotional practices, and local customs. For distressed Roman Catholics who have lost their home, Orthodoxy can be their new home but moving into the new home will require adjustment. They cannot expect to carry their traditional Roman Catholicism into the Orthodox Church. One possibility for some is Western Rite Orthodoxy. The Western Rite is patterned after the Latin Mass but it is done in the local vernacular. So far as this author knows, there is no Latin Rite in Eastern Orthodoxy.

If traditionalist Roman Catholics desire to convert to Orthodoxy, we welcome you but you must want to become Orthodox. There is much in the Roman Catholic tradition that can be brought over into Orthodoxy, but there are elements of Roman Catholicism that are incompatible with Orthodoxy and so must be left at the door. To attempt to hold onto these problematic beliefs and practices as one seeks to become Orthodox is like a smuggler seeking to covertly transport contraband over the border. If you desire to become Orthodox, we will help you. However, if you wish to reshape Orthodoxy into something reminiscent of the Latin Rite you are longing for, we ask you to go elsewhere. We’re Orthodox, and we are not going to change.

Priest distributing the antidoron.

You are welcome to attend the Sunday Liturgy as an ecclesial refugee who needs a comforting corner for respite. We ask that you refrain from going up for Holy Communion as the Orthodox leadership have not yet changed the Church’s position on Roman Catholics receiving Holy Communion. Please don’t take this as a sign of rejection or judgment. To receive Holy Communion means that one shares the same Faith as the Orthodox Church and are under the pastoral care of an Orthodox bishop. However, after the Liturgy has been concluded you are welcome to come up and receive the antidoron (blessed bread) from the priest. The antidoron is given to the Orthodox and non-Orthodox as a sign of hospitality.

May God have mercy on us all in these troubled times.

Athenagoras

REFERENCES

Documents

Fiducia Supplicans. Vatican.va

Traditionis Custodes. Vatican.va

Summorum Pontificum. Vatican.va

Articles

Susan Benofy. “The Day the Mass Changed, How it Happened and Why — Part I.” In CatholicCulture.org

Fr. Stephen Freeman. “Belief and Practice.” Glory To God For All Things.com

Belief and Practice

“Filioque” in Wikipedia.

“Nicene Creed” in Britannica.com

YouTube Videos

YouTube video: “Shocking: Scandalous Chicken Dance Mass in Germany – Dr. Taylor Marshall” [48:23] 

YouTube video: “Western Rite Orthodox Mass” [1:05:21]

YouTube video: “Western Rite Orthodoxy Explained” [21:02]

Orthodoxy – Right worship for the ages of ages. Come and join us!