Alexandros Remoundos | May 19, 2026
The clouds are gathering over the
patriarchate of Patriarch Bartholomew, which is approaching its natural
completion despite the efforts of the Greek State to prolong it with
“artificial” support… This is the conclusion suggested by diaspora and other publications,
which have been increasing lately. In them, often indirectly, but many times
also without mincing words, it is emphasized that the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
if it is to survive after the present Patriarch, needs a “change of course.” Necessary
for this purpose — as is stressed — is a well-intentioned but also unbiased
evaluation of the last thirty-five-year patriarchate, so that whatever positive
aspects it may have may be identified and, at the same time, its many or few
negative effects on the life of the Orthodox Church may be noted. Only if the
indicated objective conclusions are drawn — the press notes — will it become
possible to chart the needed new line of navigation, so that the Patriarchate
may rise to the occasion, responding to the manifold challenges, religious and
international, of the new era.
Of the various assessments that
the media are making regarding the present leadership of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, some are more or less known, while others, more severe, are now
being expressed for the first time, raising new questions.
Until now, criticism usually
focused chiefly on journalistic descriptions connected with the “satrapism”
that generally characterizes the decisions and actions of the leadership of the
Phanar.
Among the specific issues with
which print or online journalism has dealt from time to time are the diminished
role of the patriarchal synod, the election and frequent dismissal of
hierarchs, the conflicts with other Orthodox Patriarchates and Autocephalous
Churches, the frequency of the patriarchal trips, the “gaping wounds” in the
Archdiocese of America, the Patriarchate’s relations with the Turkish
authorities, and the failure of the latest patriarchal visit to the White
House.
There follows a brief analytical
presentation of the issues with which the journalistic pen has dealt up to the
present:
a) Downgrading of the Synod
The press has repeatedly pointed
out the “vertical” downgrading of the role of the patriarchal synod over the
last thirty years, since the collective handling of matters has essentially
been abolished and dialogue within the synodal framework has disappeared.
Although the decisions of the Patriarchate, for reasons of formal
ecclesiastical legality, bear the seal of the synod, in reality they are
dictated by the president of the synod, that is, the Patriarch, and are adopted
without discussion by the rest of the hierarchs. The role of the synod today
has been limited to a mere formal ratification of the Patriarch’s apt or inept
preferences.
The above downgrading depends
directly on the manner in which the synod is composed. Today the synod is
composed of hierarchs who are called to serve as “synod members” not on the
basis of an established list (syntagmation), as happened in the past,
but by the Patriarch himself, who determines who will participate in the work
of the synod for a certain period. Thus the members of the synod are selected
according to purely personal criteria. In the event that some synodal hierarch
happens to disagree with the Patriarch during the discussion of some matter, he
is usually dismissed immediately and without discussion, for example, the cases
of Adrianople, Chicago, and others.
b) Authoritarianism in the
election or dismissal of archbishops and metropolitans
The present Patriarch is often
criticized by the press for imposing his purely personal preferences in the
election of clergymen to episcopal positions of every rank, and he is likewise
censured for the dismissal or compulsory resignation of a multitude of
hierarchs — most recently: Evangelos of New Jersey, Athenagoras of Mexico, of
Lambis and Sfakia, and others — without the prescribed procedure of “defense.”
The press also does not fail
frequently to recall the “Homeric” conflict between Patriarch Bartholomew and
the then Archbishop Iakovos of America, which ended up taking the form of a
public dispute on Greek television, giving rise to a series of negative
comments against the Patriarch himself and the Patriarchate.
c) A confrontational stance on
pan-Orthodox issues — Relations with the other Autocephalous Orthodox Churches
In this connection, the press
usually recalls the “violent” handling of the case of Archbishop Christodoulos
of Athens, which, without the intervention of the Greek State, would have ended
in a new schism within Greek Orthodoxy.
According to the relevant
publications, the problems with the Church of Russia were dealt with by Patr.
Bartholomew in a confrontational spirit and ultimately led to the effective
cancellation of the work of the pan-Orthodox council of Crete. At this point,
critical reference is also made to the haste and lack of foresight with which
the issue of Ukrainian Autocephaly was handled, which ultimately led to the
present “Russian schism” and to a historically unprecedented division among the
Orthodox Churches: Greek-speaking, Slavic-speaking, Arabic-speaking, and
others.
The fragmentation — it is
emphasized — has reached such a point that the Orthodox Church throughout the
world not only “appears” but also “is literally a sad scattered village,” while
“the concept of the one and indivisible Orthodox Church now seems like an
illusion.” It is reasonably observed that the Slavic-speaking, Arabic-speaking,
and even Greek-speaking Churches, such as Jerusalem, are moving farther and
farther away from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, aligning themselves with Moscow,
with the result that “the Ecumenical Patriarch has become visibly isolated.”
The diaspora newspaper Ethnikos
Kyrix (The National Herald), in a related comment,
characteristically notes:
“And then we here in America, as
well as many others throughout the world, live under illusions, expecting Patr.
Bartholomew to unite the Orthodox Church, at the very moment when he
contributed to its becoming a scattered village. Yes, a scattered village — a
fact which hierarchs, even among those most ‘his own’ in the Phanar and
elsewhere, admit in sacred secrecy, yet they do not dare tell him so, because
they fear his wrath, bearing in mind his abusive behavior toward a great many
hierarchs. The wounds he has opened here in our own Archdiocese are gaping:
Evangelos, Methodios, Nathanael. It is nightmarish to think calmly and
objectively about the legacy he is leaving behind after thirty-five years in
the Patriarchate.”
The journalists also recall that
the tone of certain public statements by Patr. Bartholomew, especially toward
the aggressive Russians, “is not fitting for a Patriarch, and indeed for the
First of Orthodoxy.” They emphasize in this regard that, “when the Patriarch
uses expressions (‘we couldn’t care less,’ ‘I am not afraid of them’…) which
are not in keeping with the tone of the institution, he does not silence his
critics, but on the contrary gives them occasion for new attacks.”
d) Excessive public-relations
activity
According to the journalistic
comments, “the excessive frequency of Patriarch Bartholomew’s trips —
especially to Greece, but also more generally — gradually creates a sense of
ease, almost of everyday routine, which is not in keeping with the weight of the
office. When the Patriarch appears constantly ‘on the move,’ the institution
inevitably loses its radiance and certainly something of its uniqueness. His
presence ceases to constitute an important event and becomes routine.”
For this reason, the faithful now
observe with “discomfort” that the churches are half-full, noting limited, “not
mass, participation of the people in the Patriarch’s visits and appearances.”
The concluding journalistic
comment is usually that “a person’s reputation is not formed while on the fly”…
e) The continual ferment in
the Archdiocese of America
The position of the press
specializing in ecclesiastical affairs is almost unanimous: the “gaping wounds”
in the Patriarchate’s largest province, the Archdiocese of America, are due to
the present Patriarch’s continual “vertical interventions” in the archdiocesan
administration. In particular, the following are attributed to Patriarch
Bartholomew:
– the fragmentation of the
Archdiocese into dioceses thirty years ago, which ultimately accelerated the
de-Hellenization of the Greek diaspora.
– the “painful” changes of
archbishops for the Church of America, and the creation within it of the
unofficial status of a “second archbishop” — a Patriarchal Legate acting in
parallel with the elected official Archbishop — which, according to journalistic
reports, fall within a broader framework of a financial plan based on “the
long-standing thought and desire of the Phanar for the complete ‘capture’ of
the Church and the Greek diaspora of America.”
– the appointment of an
archbishop with pro-Turkish views and with particular activity in the buying
and selling of ecclesiastical property assets.
The press also does not fail to
recall that all the above led to the noticeable reduction in the number of
registered members of the Archdiocese, which over the last thirty years fell
from 650,000 to only 120,000.
By way of conclusion, the press
emphasizes “the grim and paralyzing reality, for which Patr. Bartholomew is
chiefly responsible, because the one here — the Archbishop — is merely an agent
carrying out orders.”
f) The patriarchal stance
toward the Turkish authorities — International issues
In this connection, the press
recalls the patriarchal blessing of Turkish arms in Erdoğan’s military
operation “Olive Branch” in Afrin, northwestern Syria, in 2018. The media also
highlight the lack of any patriarchal reaction to the issue of the conversion
of Hagia Sophia and the Monastery of Chora into mosques, stressing that
“silence is not a neutral stance — it is a loss of witness.” On the issue of
the reopening of the Theological School of Halki, it is pointed out that,
although no substantive progress has been achieved, “inaccurate and misleading”
statements to the contrary are nevertheless being made. Finally, journalism
also touches on the patriarchal silence concerning the U.S.–Iran war, while at
the same time praising the courageous stance of the Pope of Rome.
g) The “shipwreck” of his
patriarchal visit to the White House
According to ecclesiastical
observers, the “glaring” failure of the visit was due to inadequate
organizational preparation. They considered it a “fatal” mistake on the part of
Patr. Bartholomew to entrust the organization of the visit to the “second archbishop,”
Fr. Alex Karloutsos, at a time when the latter’s relations with those governing
in Washington were strained, due to his involvement, as co-organizer of the
diaspora event for the celebration of March 25, 2025, at the White House, in an
issue concerning the sale of tickets to the “guests.” The matter had taken on
such proportions that the U.S. government spokesman was forced to issue an
official statement, rejecting any relevant involvement by the White House.
Therefore, responsibility for organizing the patriarchal visit was assigned to
an unsuitable person, since he was in disfavor with the White House.
In the journalistic effort to
evaluate the visit, reference was also made to “enormous diplomatic blunders”
that occurred during the meeting with President Trump and that are attributed
exclusively to Patr. Bartholomew.
h) Uncontrolled financial
management
To the above list, journalistic
criticism now comes to add the delicate issue of the management of the
Patriarchate’s finances — an issue about which, for years, the synodal
hierarchs were kept in “pitch darkness.” However, the empty coffers of the
Patriarchate and the absence of any financial accounting for the “flood of
millions of dollars” which, for thirty-five years, has been flowing into the
Phanar, are tending to make the issue “explosive,” since it directly concerns
Patr. Bartholomew on a personal level.
In this connection, the press
recalls that the only person who ineffectively asked Patr. Bartholomew for a
financial accounting — even an elementary one, and limited only to the amount
of the Greek subsidy to the Patriarchate — was Theodoros Pangalos as Minister
of Foreign Affairs.
As is known, the Greek media,
both in Greece and in the diaspora, kept Patr. Bartholomew beyond criticism for
decades, presumably for “national” reasons. The Athens News Agency (ANA), that
is, the official state body which gathers, processes, and distributes news in
Greece and abroad, as a rule censors and blocks every text considered critical
of Patriarch Bartholomew. For decades, journalistic criticism appeared only in
a very few marginal Athenian newspapers, in certain purely ecclesiastical
publications, or in spaces on the internet.
The same situation prevails today
as well, since the Greek Government, because of international circumstances,
continues to avoid the “diplomatic headache” that a possible patriarchal
resignation and election of a new Patriarch would create. However, independent
journalism — trying to overcome the “fences” of the state ANA, especially in
the sphere of the Greek-American diaspora, chiefly Kalami, Helleniscope,
and lately also The National Herald — is making interesting revelations
of financial data that are creating a different situation, with perhaps new
prospects. At the same time, indicative of the gradual formation of a new
Phanariot scene is the already apparent activity of the candidates who aspire
to succeed Patr. Bartholomew. For the moment, two groups of hierarchs have been
formed in Constantinople: the first includes Metropolitans Demetrios of the
Princes’ Islands and Meliton of Philadelphia; the second, Metropolitan Emmanuel
of Chalcedon and his friends. The press, of course, also takes for granted the
involvement of Elpidophoros of America, who, although far from the Phanar,
maintains — as is rumored — excellent relations with the Erdoğan regime and has
never concealed his ambition to be the next Ecumenical Patriarch.
For observers of ecclesiastical
developments, it is evident that the clouds are gathering ever more densely
over the waning patriarchate of Patr. Bartholomew, who is now called upon to
cope with 1) the new, serious criticisms of the press on extremely sensitive
matters of a financial nature, and 2) the seemingly guileless yet clearly
undermining initiatives of the ever more impatient would-be successors. Will
Patr. Bartholomew’s tendency to present himself as ever-active and
indefatigable suffice this time to offset the clearly visible effects of his
advanced age? From the columns of the press, the view is being expressed —
always with some reservation — that only Patr. Bartholomew’s characteristic
unorthodox machinations can serve as an effective means for dispersing the dark
clouds that have once again accumulated over his setting patriarchate.
Greek
source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.