Orthodoxos Typos | October 24, 2025
[Written from the perspective of "Official Orthodoxy," but contains many valid points.]
Proof
of payment by Patriarch Athenagoras (Aristocles Spyrou) for the receipt of the
33rd Masonic degree.
“The
appointment of Patriarch Athenagoras was intended to send a message to the then
Soviet Union and today to Russia, to the Orthodox community, and to the states
of Greece and Turkey, that the Patriarchate belongs to America.”
Religious
diplomacy was considered, especially during the Byzantine era, a powerful tool
for the exercise of foreign policy. It is a fact that particularly after the
end of the Cold War and even more so after September 11, 2001, there has been
an increasing interest on the international political stage in matters of a
religious nature. The significance of religious diplomacy both as a means of
prevention and as a means of conflict resolution has been recognized at an
international level. For this reason, it is becoming more and more frequently
the subject of interstate meetings. A diplomacy which the Protestant superpower
America has already practiced—since the Second World War and even more so in
our days—to the highest degree, with the sole aim of sidelining and removing
Russia from regions with which it has a direct connection, such as Ukraine, as
well as indirect ones, such as the Balkans.
The
USA aims at the alteration of Orthodoxy
We
all know that the Second World War ended in 1945, and immediately the United
States of America began to impose its global dominance, a dominance which is
not based exclusively and solely on the political and military sector, but
pertains to every aspect of human activity, so that over time a globally
uniform society may be formed, modeled after the American one, in which every
local tradition and particularity would be eliminated. Within this framework,
the USA targeted the alteration of the Orthodox Faith through Ecumenism, using
the Patriarchate of Constantinople as a tool, placing its own people, its own
instruments, such as Athenagoras and subsequently the current Patriarch
Bartholomew, so that the Patriarchate might become a lever of support for the
West, and especially for American policy
The
fact which confirms religious diplomacy on the part of the USA as a tool of
prevention is also the ascent of Patriarch Athenagoras to the patriarchal
throne of Constantinople.
In
early 1946, Maximos V was enthroned as the new Patriarch of Constantinople,
who, since he proved incapable of serving America's plans during this critical
period, was led to resignation. Today, he is known primarily as the predecessor
of Athenagoras, the strong Patriarch loyal to the American authorities who
succeeded him.
Paradoxically,
the CIA has released a large number of documents based on the Freedom of
Information Act, which help one to learn the history of the patriarchate of
Maximos. We shall use these CIA documents, as well as texts published in the
newspaper of Orthodoxos Typos at the time of his repose, in 1972, in
order to examine the history of this important Patriarch. It is imperative to
do this, because it is a very interesting part of ecclesiastical history, and
also because it shows how closely the CIA followed the events of the Orthodox
world—something that was also evident in our own time with the Council of
Crete, which in the final analysis was organized and financially supported by
the CIA.
The
blessed Hierarch Maximos was deposed on October 18, 1948, while he was at the
peak of his activity, at the age of only 52. In 1936, when the patriarchal
throne was vacant, the then Hierarchy had proposed as successor to the deceased
Photios the Metropolitan of Chalcedon Maximos. However, Benjamin I was ultimately
elected, who served as Patriarch for ten years, until 1946. When Benjamin
passed away, his successor was unanimously elected—Chalcedon Maximos—at the age
of 48, and it appeared that he would serve for a long time. However, his
Patriarchate would be relatively short, as Maximos resigned just 32 months
later. It must be noted that the process of selecting a Patriarch of
Constantinople during the patriarchal election of 1948, in which Athenagoras
was elected—i.e., after the resignation of Maximos—proved to be a difficult
matter due to the direct involvement of external parties unrelated to the
matter, whose interests were in direct opposition to those of the electors; and
this because the Phanariot Metropolitans were not willing to accept the already
predetermined decision for the promotion of Athenagoras of America to the
patriarchal throne—a decision that was imposed by the Americans, the English,
and the governments of Athens and Ankara, which, of course, operated and
continue to operate as instruments of the Western powers.
The
response of the Metropolitans of the Phanar is also confirmed by the manner in
which Maximos V ascended to the patriarchal throne, as he was elected
unanimously—a result that had been anticipated due to his acceptance. And while
Patriarch Maximos was elected in February 1946 under the best of omens, in
November of the same year the first sign of a severe disturbance of his mental
health is observed.
According
to the CIA documents, “doctors informed the Phanar that the illness of Maximos,
which displayed symptoms of deep disappointment and melancholy, required
treatment in a sanatorium in Switzerland, and arrangements were made for his
immediate departure from the country.” And while the health of the Patriarch
showed improvement after the therapeutic treatment administered to him, a
handwritten note by the professor of Halki, Vasileios Anagnostopoulos,
emphasized that “it is medically necessary and indeed urgent that he be
relieved of his patriarchal duties and responsibilities and other restrictions
incumbent upon an active Patriarch….” Also, the Russian newspaper Isvestia
at that same time, referring to the French press, stressed that the Patriarch
was being isolated by individuals who were attempting to convince him of the
incurability of his illness, aiming at his resignation.
In
January 1947, the newspaper Chicago Tribune reported that a committee of
mental health specialists examined the Patriarch and determined that “he was
suffering from a nervous disorder.” The Tribune concluded its article by
citing sources who proposed Archbishop Athenagoras, head of the Archdiocese of
North and South America, as a “possible candidate.”
The
CIA reports on February 14 that: “Turkish newspapers … published a statement in
which the Soviet Consul General had placed the Russian summer residence of the
Embassy at the disposal of the Patriarch. Officials at the Phanar insist,
however, that there is no basis to the report and consider the documents an
attempt to create problems for the Patriarchate.” “A few days prior to the
above-mentioned CIA report, Archbishop Athenagoras was in Washington, bestowing
upon President Truman the medal of the True Cross.” It was then that the famous
photograph was taken of Athenagoras kissing the head of Truman.
In
a publication of an anonymous article titled “The Patriarchate” in the
Greek newspaper Kathimerini on June 26, 1947, the danger faced by
Hellenism “through the actions of the bands [of communists]” was described, and
the article focused attention on “a surrounding movement aiming to turn the
external centers of spiritual radiance—and consequently of defense—of Hellenism
in the Near East, the Patriarchates.” It must be emphasized that during the few
months of Maximos’s patriarchate, the accusation of Russophilia hovered over
him. His initiative for the lifting of the Bulgarian schism in 1945 had been
interpreted by London as a pro-Russian and left-leaning act. His relations with
the Soviet consul in Constantinople, his boarding the Russian consul’s car to
travel to the cemetery where Patriarch Benjamin was buried—a report that was
even denied by the American Consul General—were causes that intensified the
accusation. Generally, however, “he was accused of being pro-Russian based
largely on unfounded arguments,” since, had they been valid, they would have
been sufficient to prevent his ascent to the patriarchal throne.
Meanwhile,
on April 8, the Patriarch of Moscow Alexei sent an official invitation to the
heads of the Orthodox Churches for their presence at a pre-conciliar gathering,
which he hoped would establish the framework for an “ecumenical council” in
Moscow in 1948. On May 9, the New York Times reports that “The Turks
refer to Archbishop Athenagoras as the unofficial ambassador of Turkey to the
United States,” something which demonstrates how cordial his relations are with
the Turkish government.
On
May 21, the CIA reports that Maximos is traveling to Athens in order to consult
with specialists. A little later, on July 3, the CIA appears to revise its
views, when it is recorded that the real reason for Maximos’s visit to Athens
was not the stated health issues, but “to consult with the Greek government
regarding three main issues”: a) Whether Maximos should resign in favor of
someone with a stronger personality; b) If he were to resign, who would be
Athens’ preferred candidate; and c) How the Phanar could confront the steadily
increasing prestige of Patriarch Alexei of Moscow. Thus, one year before the
official resignation of Patriarch Maximos (October 18, 1948), the candidacy of
Archbishop Athenagoras of America—Freemason and close friend of President
Truman—was known to all. It is worth noting that even when the Patriarch’s
health showed signs of improvement, with the result that his resignation was no
longer considered entirely certain, he had nonetheless accepted his resignation
due to the enormous pressures he was under. For this reason, during the week
preceding his resignation, he endured intense psychological pressure so that
any resistance on his part might be overcome.
While
Maximos was in Athens, his deputies at the Patriarchate of Constantinople sent
a letter to the heads of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, stating that
Constantinople would not participate in the pre-conciliar gathering, and that
only the Patriarch of Constantinople had the right to convene a council or
pre-conciliar assembly. The primates of the Churches in Alexandria, Jerusalem,
Cyprus, and Greece agreed with this, and the Greek press at the time strongly
criticized the Patriarchate of Moscow as a mere instrument of the Soviet
government. Having received the rejection of the Greek hierarchs, Patriarch
Alexei, toward the end of the year, changed his approach, saying that he was
now merely seeking to host a “gathering of the highest-ranking hierarchs of the
Orthodox Churches.”
The 1948 Assembly Condemned
Ecumenism
Quite paradoxically, no document
concerning the Patriarchate of Constantinople has been found in the CIA
archives from July 1947 to August 1948. Given how closely the CIA had been
following Patriarch Maximos and the Patriarchate of Constantinople up to that
point, it seems unlikely that no reports were issued for an entire year. It is,
however, more probable that such reports do exist, but for some reason have not
been made public.
It is a fact that the Patriarchate
in Constantinople holds a key role in the effort of Western diplomacy to
control the Orthodox Church, and we know that placing the Archbishop from New
York in this position is certain to lend a political interpretation to the
entirety of Orthodoxy.
It should be noted that, despite
predictions to the contrary, Maximos was retained in the Patriarchate for most
of 1948. And this, in our humble opinion, because the American factor wanted
the enthronement of Athenagoras to take place after the pan-Orthodox assembly
in Moscow in 1948.
The year 1948 was a very
significant one for Orthodox ecclesiastical history for many reasons, among
which was the important pan-Orthodox assembly in Moscow in July, held to honor
the 500th anniversary of Russian Autocephaly. Although it was not an “ecumenical
council,” which the Church of Russia had initially desired, it was nonetheless
a very important historical ecclesiastical event, in which even a
representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was present—Metropolitan
Germanos of Thyateira and Great Britain. No one should forget that at the very
moment when Patriarch Athenagoras was being installed at the Phanar in 1948,
just shortly before, the historic Conference of the Primates and other
representatives of the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches had convened in Moscow. The
Council of 1948 not only condemned the heretical doctrines of the Vatican,
stating that it “has been led into the alien furrow of anti-Christian Papism,
unbefitting the Christian Church,” but also condemned Ecumenism at a
pan-Orthodox level and reconnected, through its decisions, the contemporary
Orthodox Church with the undivided and timeless Tradition, which holds the
Orthodox Church to be One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic. It should also not
escape our attention that this very important council annulled the recognition
of Anglican ordinations. All these decisions prove that its delegates foresaw
the destructive consequences that Ecumenism would have for the Orthodox Church.
This is why the Church of Russia, during the 1950s, had insisted on its
opposition to the World Council of Churches. And while Western propaganda
claims that the World Council of Churches and the Ecumenical movement were
largely part of the West’s effort to halt Soviet penetration into the
ecclesiastical realm, in reality, these movements are part of the Protestant
West’s attempt to alter the Orthodox Faith and Orthodox Dogma, so that the
union of the churches might subsequently be accomplished.
With Patriarch Athenagoras, the
Patriarchate entered the modern era
Ultimately, on October 18, 1948,
Patriarch Maximos V resigned. On November 1, Athenagoras was officially elected
as Ecumenical Patriarch. President Truman and the newly elected Patriarch
Athenagoras had a meeting on December 16. On January 23, 1949, Athenagoras
boarded Truman’s airplane, named the Sacred Cow, bound for Turkey.
Truman’s action was intended to send a political message: it was a gesture
undertaken by the American president who regarded Athenagoras and the
Patriarchate as instruments of influence and power, and therefore considered
them key collaborators in the advancement of U.S. international interests, as
well as of Western humanistic values. It was a strong diplomatic message that
the American president intended to send to Ankara and Moscow. We must not
overlook that through this symbolic act, the global order—then laying the
foundations of the new order of things to be built in the near future—sought to
send a message in every direction, but especially to the then Soviet Union and
now to Russia, to the Orthodox community, and to the states of Greece and
Turkey: that the Patriarchate belongs to us, it is ours, and it is under our
full and direct control.
Patriarch Athenagoras, who was 62
years old at the time of his enthronement, remained on the patriarchal throne
for a full 23 years and was one of the most historically significant and at the
same time controversial figures of modern Orthodoxy. With Athenagoras on the
throne, the United States had a reliable, steady ecclesiastical leader who
could voluntarily assist in the implementation of American plans on a global
scale—precisely as is happening in our days with Patriarch Bartholomew, since
the Orthodox Church possesses worldwide reach.
With the election of Patriarch
Athenagoras, one could say that the Patriarchate of Constantinople entered the
modern era. From the year 1948 onward, the world has operated within the same
system—the Cold War system. Although some changes have been observed due to the
passage of time, in essence, neither its principal protagonists nor its
operational terms have changed. After all, the war in Ukraine confirms this. In
this context, the Church has been and continues to be a critical factor in the
Cold War reality and diplomacy, as the Cold War has demonstrated that the
Church plays a significant political role. Through his election, Athenagoras
introduced the Patriarchate of Constantinople into the international political
stage of the Cold War era. His election was a product of this new era, and he
himself governed as Patriarch by taking advantage of the rules of this new
reality. But even for the Patriarchate itself, the election of Athenagoras is
particularly significant. Even after his death, the Patriarchate continues to
walk in the footsteps of the ecclesiastical policy he charted.
The most characteristic example is
the inter-Christian and interfaith dialogues, which he himself believed in and
which his successors continued. Likewise, his efforts at rapprochement with the
Papal church, which culminated in his famous meeting with the Pope in
1964—during which “the anathemas” against one another were lifted—was one of
his fundamental ecclesiastical choices. An endeavor which, in our days under
Patriarch Bartholomew, has reached its peak. Furthermore, he managed to restart
the process of planning the Great Council, organizing this process through a
series of meetings that helped to rekindle relations between the Orthodox
countries under the Soviet sphere and those outside of that sphere. It should
be noted that the Great Council was eventually held in 2016 in Kolymbari,
Crete, by the current Patriarch Bartholomew.
Finally, we must remember that up
until the end of the 19th century, the Patriarchate of Constantinople had
excellent relations, both with the ecclesiastical and the political
administration of Russia, as it was supported by it both politically and morally.
Before the early 20th century, any relationship with the heretical West was
unthinkable, since shared Orthodoxy was the exclusive factor that determined
the Phanar’s relations.
Today, the modernization and
secularization of the Church of Constantinople—a Church that was once a symbol
of the Roman ecumenical consciousness—has shaped a course of over a century.
Yet the major steps in this direction were taken by Athenagoras, whose
continuation is the thirty-year patriarchate of Patriarch Bartholomew.
The Patriarchate today,
territorially controlling merely the district of the Phanar—and not even the
Church of Hagia Sophia—has been transformed into a Vatican of the East,
attempting, through non-existent sacred canons and appeals, to control the
entire Orthodox Church. The Patriarch’s desire to be the pope of the East
recalls his position in the Ottoman Empire, with the difference that the Sultan
today is the President of the United States. Let us wish and pray to our
All-Good Lord that the occupied Patriarchate of Constantinople—of Gregory the
Theologian, of John Chrysostom, of Photius the Great—may be liberated and once
again become a center of Orthodox Tradition, a Tradition which holds the Church
of Christ to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Greek source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.