Nikolaos Mannis, Educator | September 9, 2026
“Among us, neither Patriarchs nor
Synods have ever been able to introduce innovations, for the defender of the
Faith is the very body of the Church, that is, the people themselves.” - Encyclical
Letter of the Orthodox Patriarchs of the East (1848)
The moment that many of us
foresaw is approaching.
Patriarch Bartholomew of
Constantinople, in the twilight of his life, has decided to take his great step
toward the West—a step following in the footsteps of his idol (Athenagoras),
and already planned in the mid-1960s, when he was studying at the “Institute of
Oriental Studies in Rome.”
The “Institute” in question,
which, as it itself reveals, undertakes “the education and preparation of a new
generation of leaders,” since “graduates serve as bishops in both the Orthodox
and the Catholic Church,” [1] was founded in 1917 and bears a remarkable
resemblance to the renowned “Collegium Graecum,” founded by Pope Gregory XIII
in 1577, in the following respects: a) both aimed to educate “schismatics” who
would return to their countries as preachers of Unia; [2] and b) both are
organically connected with the notorious Jesuit order, whose members
administered them (the Institute to this day, and the College until 1897, when
it came under Benedictine administration).
The culmination of Patriarch
Bartholomew’s course therefore comes as no surprise. Recently (September 4, 2026),
he publicly expounded his positions and his plan for the step toward Unia in
his address to the 27th International Congress of the Society for the Law of
the Eastern Churches, held at the “PHANARION” Center for Orthodox Christian
Dialogue in Budapest. [3]
His positions are as follows:
1. He accepts that the Church of
Rome holds the Primacy, which he himself understands as “a primacy of loving
service, exercised within and never above the communion of the sister Churches.”
[4]
2. By writing that “the
institution of the Pentarchy—the five great ancient Sees of Rome,
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem—constituted, during the
first Christian millennium, the very framework within which the unity of the
catholic Church found its most visible ecclesial expression,” [5] he
essentially accepts two things: that the Pentarchy alone is the framework
within which the Church has a more visible expression, and that the Pentarchy
was dissolved with the falling away of Rome in 1054.
3. He considers that the
Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem “stand as
unshakable pillars and unbroken foundations of the Apostolic Tradition and,
together with the Church of Elder Rome, constituted during the first millennium
the five-stringed lyre of the universal Church, participating actively in the
Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and ‘rightly dividing the word of truth.’” [6]
Continuing, Patriarch Bartholomew
sets out his plan, revealing that he sent a letter to the Patriarchs of
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem inviting them to meet on November 30 in
Constantinople to examine the challenges facing the flock that bears Christ’s
name, expressing the hope for “the restoration of full communion with the
Church of Rome within the one Body of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
Church, so that the Pentarchy may once again be whole and the ‘five-stringed
lyre’ of the universal Church may resound once more in the fullness of its
ancient harmony”! [7]
In examining the above positions,
allow me to offer a few observations:
1. Regarding the Primacy, the
issue is not how Patriarch Bartholomew understands it, but, on the one hand,
how Pope Leo XIV himself interprets it and, on the other, how the Holy Fathers
view it, with whom we must be in agreement if we wish to be called Orthodox.
The former continues to
understand the Primacy as authority over all the Churches without synodality
(as he demonstrated this past July by excommunicating the well-known “Society
of Saint Pius X” [SSPX], acting as an autocrat and without convening a Synod),
whereas the Fathers unanimously never accepted any primacy of authority (even
disguised as one of “service”) for any Pope or Patriarch, but regarded Jesus
Christ as the Head of the Church (both visible and invisible), and the
Ecumenical Council as its supreme governing body. [8]
2. Regarding the institution of
the Pentarchy, as a product of the Church’s development, it can disappear just
as it appeared, or even be modified (including a change in its number) owing to
changes in ecclesiastical life. The view that the Church of Christ is less
visible without the Pentarchy is unacceptable.
On the contrary, the visible
expression of the Church neither increases nor decreases, but remains intact,
visible, and complete among those who preserve the Orthodox Faith. Was this not
the case during the first three centuries of the Church, when the Pentarchy had
not yet been established?
Was this not also the case after
vast provinces broke away from her (as in North Africa with the Donatists, or
in Egypt and Asia with the anti-Chalcedonians)? Why, then, should the falling
away of Rome in 1054 and the dissolution of the Pentarchy signify a diminution
of the Church’s visible expression?
All the more so since this
dissolution of the Pentarchy after 1054 was temporary, as it was subsequently
restored—a fact that Patriarch Bartholomew passes over in silence!
For it is well known to all who
study Church History or Canon Law that the Pan-Orthodox Synod held in
Constantinople in 1593 (with the participation of Patriarchs Jeremias II Tranos
of Constantinople, Saint Meletios Pegas of Alexandria—who also represented
Joachim of Antioch—and Sophronios of Jerusalem), on the one hand, through its
Canon 8, [9] which renewed Canon 1 of the Council of Antioch, officially cut
off from the Body of the Church the Church of Rome, which had violated that
Canon only a few years earlier (1582), and, on the other, restored the
Pentarchy by granting fifth place to the Church of Russia, having decreed “that
the throne of the most pious and Orthodox city of Moscow be and be called a
Patriarchate, because this land has been deemed worthy by God of imperial
sovereignty; that all Russia and the Northern Regions be subject to the
Patriarchal Throne of Moscow and All Russia and the Northern Regions; that its
holder have his place after the Most Holy Patriarch of Jerusalem, both in the
sacred diptychs and in ecclesiastical assemblies, so that we may preserve
unshaken the aforementioned canons of the Holy Fathers; that he take precedence
over bishops, metropolitans, and archbishops throughout the entire catholic
Church of Christ’s Orthodox faithful, and be and be recognized as the head of
that ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Moscow and All Russia and the Northern
Regions… and that he be and be called a brother of the Orthodox Patriarchs,
bearing this title, of the same rank and sharing the same throne, equal in
order and dignity, and that he be styled and sign himself, according to the
custom of the Orthodox Patriarchs, ‘Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the
Northern Regions.’” [10]
Indeed, the Patriarchate of
Moscow is the only newer Patriarchate that has the approval of a Pan-Orthodox
Synod, unlike all the other new and improperly so-called Patriarchates (Serbia,
Bulgaria, etc.).
Of fundamental importance,
moreover, is the fact that the decision of 1593 has not been revised by any
subsequent Synod.
For Patriarch Bartholomew,
therefore, to disregard the Pentarchy already restored by synodal decision
(since 1593) and attempt to settle this matter on his own (even with the
cooperation of certain Primates) will have the same outcome as it did for the previous
Patriarch who acted similarly.
And, for those who do not know, I
am referring to Cyril V Karakallos of Constantinople, who, disregarding the
Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1484 as well as the majority of hierarchs throughout the
world, [11] unilaterally imposed the rebaptism of Latins and Armenians (with
the approval of two other Primates, obtained through coercion).
And what was the result? On the
one hand, his “Decree” was rejected by the majority of the Orthodox Church; on
the other, his fellow bishops accused him of being a petty pope, as the
denunciatory texts of the period (in the form of troparia) reveal, from which I
select just a few representative but highly illuminating excerpts: “You ought
not, Cyril, to have appropriated papal authority and made decisions alone. If
you wished, wretched man, to reopen the question of the reception of Armenians
and Latins, you should have consulted the Synod and obeyed it as one subject to
it. For the Eastern Church recognizes as her head not the patriarch, but her
Bridegroom, Christ the Saviour, whom we magnify in hymns. …The decrees and
ordinances of the Church were established through holy synods, lawless
patriarch, and never were doctrines or ecclesiastical questions decided by one
man alone; for it is acknowledged that the All-Holy Spirit speaks through
synods. Tell us, then, from where did you receive the authority to reject a
synod and decide on your own? But we, rejecting your papal madness, have obeyed
the Synod, through which the Lord speaks, being in its midst, He who has great
mercy. …Cyril set aside the decrees of the Church, rejecting a synod of godly
Fathers and showing himself to be a leader of pope-worship; for, having
overthrown the Church’s prerogatives, he seized her authority, and therefore
received from her an eternal punishment.” [12]
3. Neither have the Patriarchates
always been “pillars and unbroken foundations of the Apostolic Tradition,” nor
did the Church of Rome participate actively in the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
The former, on several occasions
and for considerable periods, fell into heresies (Arianism, Monothelitism,
Iconoclasm, etc.) and persecuted Orthodoxy, while Rome’s participation was
anything but active, since: a) its Bishop did not attend any Ecumenical Council
in person; b) it was not even represented at the Second Ecumenical Council; c)
at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, the then Pope Vigilius, who was in
Constantinople, refused to attend and only accepted its decisions some time
later under pressure; and d) it rejected the Quinisext Council in Trullo.
If Rome wishes to return to the
Church of Christ (which every Orthodox Christian wholeheartedly desires), then
it must, first of all, restore Jesus Christ as its Head in place of the Pope
and agree to submit to the supreme ecclesiastical body, which is the Ecumenical
Council.
Such a Council, however, should
perhaps receive Elder Rome as sixth in rank, not only so that it may do penance
for its bloodstained, thousand-year Luciferian apostasy, but also because only
then will its Primate be able to demonstrate that the title he uses for himself
(“Servus servorum Dei”!) is not hypocritical, an expression of feigned
humility, and devoid of substantive meaning… Such an evangelical Primacy of
humility [13] would be the only one appropriate in this case.
Otherwise, if the “four ancient
patriarchal thrones” insist on following unrepentant Rome in its fall through a
possible Unia, the people, as guardians of the Faith, will remain in Orthodoxy,
looking forward to a Pan-Orthodox Synod under the remaining authority of the
Pentarchy, the Church of Russia.
Of course, we do not know the
plans of God, who may interrupt a betrayal of this kind through a sudden death,
but we pray for the repentance of those in high office who wish to plunge the
Church into chaos, hoping that the words of Saint Porphyrios will be fulfilled:
“But it may happen, according to God’s plan, it may happen so that people gain
an awareness, so that they see the chaos brightly lit, vividly before them, and
say: ‘Hey! We are falling into chaos; we are perishing. Everyone back, everyone
back, turn back—we have been led astray.’ And they may return to the path of
God, and the Orthodox Faith may shine” [14].
Finally, as for those who have
doubts as to whether the path of union proposed by Patriarch Bartholomew might
ultimately be the right one, let them open the Synaxaria and Menaia
of our Church: there they will not find even a single “unionist” Saint as an
example, but, on the contrary, a multitude of Saints opposed to union, such as
Photios the Great, Mark Eugenikos, Gregory Palamas, Cyril Loukaris, Saint
Nektarios of Pentapolis, and the rest of the company of the Fathers, whom we
have hope of meeting in the Kingdom of Heaven only if we are of one mind with
them. Amen, may it be so!
NOTES
2. The Polish-Latin word Unia means Union, and the Uniates
are the ideological descendants of the Byzantine Unionists.
4. "Α primacy of loving service, exercised within, and
never above, the communion of sister Churches"
(https://ec-patr.org/05/09/09/12/address-by-his-all-holiness-ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew-to-the-participants-of-the-27th-international-congress-of-the-society-for-the-law-of-the-eastern-churches-at-the-fanarion/ )
5. "The institution of the Pentarchy — the five great
ancient Sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem —
constituted, during the first Christian millennium, the very framework within
which the unity of the universal Church found its most visible ecclesial
expression" (ibid.).
6. "Stand as unshaken pillars and unbroken foundations
of the Apostolic Tradition, and which, together with the Church of Elder Rome,
constituted in the first millennium the five-stringed lyre of the universal
Church, actively participating in the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and
“rightly dividing the word of truth"." (ibid.).
7. "Τhe restoration of full communion with the Church of
Rome within the one Body of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, so
that the Pentarchy may once again be whole, and the “five-stringed lyre” of the
universal Church may again resound in the fullness of its ancient harmony"
(ibid.).
8. I consider it unnecessary to quote here the numerous
testimonies of the Fathers concerning the Primacy of the Pope of Rome, since
almost the complete works of the Saints are available online for readers to
consult.
9. “We wish the determination of the Fathers concerning holy
and saving Pascha to remain unshaken, as follows: All who dare to set aside the
decrees of the holy and great Ecumenical Council convened at Nicaea in the
presence of the most God-beloved and pious Emperor Constantine concerning the
holy feast of saving Pascha are to be excommunicated and cast out of the Church
if they persist in contentiously opposing what has been rightly decreed. Let
this be said concerning the laity. But if any of those who preside over the
Church—a bishop, presbyter, or deacon—should dare, after this decree, to act
independently and celebrate Pascha with the Jews, to the perversion of the
people and the disturbance of the churches, the Holy Synod has judged him, from
that moment, to be alien to the Church. In accordance with these provisions, we
too, by the grace of God, follow the canon of the Fathers to this day, which
the Church of God preserves, just as it preserves the rest” (Dositheos of
Jerusalem, Tome of Love, Iași, 1698, p. 547).
10. Ibid., p. 545.
11. Mansi 38, 585–586.
12. Evangelos Skouvaras, Denunciatory Texts of the
Eighteenth Century [Against the Rebaptizers], Athens, 1967, pp. 194–195,
204).
13. “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all
and servant of all” (Mark 9:35).
14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCWB2LQd1dY
Greek source: https://www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/78513-olotaxos-pros-ounia
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.