Official Greek Church Theologian: The Church of Russia Should Take the Initiative

Georgios Tramboulis, Theologian | October 22, 2026 | Orthodoxos Typos

 

 

It is an indisputable fact that the actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople now resemble a spreading metastatic cancer within the Catholic Church of Christ. The longer the Orthodox Churches fail to take initiatives to resolve the problem, the more it will grow, with the result that the cancer will spread to an ever-increasing number of Local Churches. Moreover, the expulsion of the canonical Metropolitan Tychikos from the Metropolis of Paphos, at the demand of the Archbishop of Cyprus, because he refuses to submit to his ecclesiastically unlawful and uncanonical demands, confirms that the neo-papist mentality is a reality within the Orthodox Church.

The revelations brought to light in the English-language section of the Union of Orthodox Journalists, through the leak of an internal document attributed to Metropolitan Gregory of Ankara, who participated in the delegation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to Kyiv during the 2018 “Unification” Council, which gave rise to the uncanonical “church” under “Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kyiv,” which is answerable to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, confirm how the Phanar understands its position within the Orthodox Church and that the ecclesiology it professes is absolutely identical to that of the Papists.

[See: https://uoj.news/news/exclusive-full-english-text-of-leaked-unification-council-chronicle-published-by-uoj/]

The Metropolitan of Ankara, addressing a representative of the schismatic Church of the “Kyiv Patriarchate” under Filaret, said to him without the slightest hesitation:

“Your Eminence, I respectfully perceive a misunderstanding. We did not come here to negotiate or to cast doubt upon the rights of the Mother Church. She teaches and you are taught. In this case we are not negotiating as equals with equals, but we love you greatly… We are not in the position of the beneficiary, but of the benefactor, in the name of His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch, who truly benefits you.”

These words of the representative of the Phanar testify to the boundless arrogance that pervades the circles of the Patriarchate. What, then, are these rights of the Mother Church, which, moreover, are not open to question, and what is the ecclesiological decree according to which they do not engage in dialogue as equals with equals? Does this not demonstrate that, for the Phanar, the fact that all Local Orthodox Churches are equal in standing—not by virtue of any agreement, but because the same Divine Eucharist is celebrated in each of them and the same Christ is present—remains a dead letter?

Then, at another point, he states:

“His Eminence assured Metropolitan Alexander that His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch, exercising his right to render assistance beyond his borders through the right of appeal, would under no circumstances leave without that assistance the clergy of every rank who might come forward. He urged him to convey this in every direction, under sacred secrecy, to encourage those who desired to do so.”

According to the Metropolitan’s words, it is evident that the Phanar could tomorrow make an uncanonical intrusion into another Local Orthodox Church, as it did in Ukraine—for example, into the Metropolises of Northern Greece or into Montenegro, which is under the jurisdiction of the Church of Serbia—on the pretext of protecting certain schismatics, and subsequently declare: “We have not come here to engage in dialogue, but to impose our demands through you.”

From where, then, does the Phanar derive the authority to display such boundless arrogance, which allows it to make intrusions into other jurisdictions, interfere in their affairs, issue unlawful Tomoi, trample upon sacred canons and traditions, and, in short, behave like a “Vatican”? It is an undeniable fact that, since the time of Athenagoras, the Patriarchate has become an instrument of the political objectives of the United States, indeed with an enhanced political role.

Moreover, this very document confirms that the Ukrainian issue is the result of political factors, since the strategy of the West, which seeks to weaken, encircle, and destabilize Russia, employs not only economic and military means, but also religious ones.

It is also characteristically noted in the document that:

“That same evening, representatives of the country’s secret services came to brief His Eminence of France and those with him. They gave assurances concerning the security measures, [and] the genuine intention of many from His Eminence Onuphry’s faction to come to the Council.”

And at another point it is stated that:

“In response to a question from His Eminence of Adrianople, His Eminence of France answered that we were being detained and had been forbidden to leave the country.”

And furthermore, that:

“On the way, His Excellency Archbishop Daniel of Pamphilon, who protested to his compatriots about the forcible conveyance (editor’s note: of the Patriarchate’s delegation), informed the American Embassy, while His Eminence Metropolitan Amphilochios of Adrianople informed the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We received reassuring replies from all.”

It is abundantly clear that the events of the 2018 Unification Council unfolded amid intense political intervention and pressure, not only from the Ukrainian side, but chiefly from American diplomacy, as well as Greek diplomacy, as was subsequently confirmed. According to the document, Ukrainian government officials undertook the supervision of the delegation, repeatedly intervened in the negotiations, summoned representatives of the Patriarchate to the presidential palace, and at one point even appear to have prevented them from leaving the country, as the Unification Council was threatened with collapse… The account of the events reveals that the then-President Petro Poroshenko intervened personally and repeatedly to prevent the process of establishing the schismatic Orthodox Church of Ukraine from collapsing.

And whereas for 15 years Patriarch Bartholomew had regarded the members of the Kyiv Patriarchate and the UAOC (Uniates [sic]) as laymen, suddenly, in 2018, he began calling them bishops. In 2016, Patriarch Bartholomew referred to Metropolitan Onuphry as the sole legitimate head of the Church in Ukraine; in 2018, he began referring to Metropolitan Epiphanius Dumenko as holding that position. And all this coincided with the beginning of Poroshenko’s presidential election campaign, in which the main emphasis was placed almost entirely on the Tomos and the establishment of the schismatic Church, the OCU.

The document proves that Ukraine’s political elite had decided, without consulting the canonical Orthodox Church or the faithful, to establish a schismatic Church in order to sever relations with the Russian Church once and for all. It reveals that the circumstances surrounding the process of granting Ukrainian autocephaly were such that they can hardly be reconciled with the image of a purely internal and freely conducted ecclesiastical process. Methods of blatant coercion were employed to achieve political objectives, namely, the creation of a manipulable schismatic “church.”

Furthermore, following the revelation of the circumstances that prevailed during the 2018 unification “council,” no one can rule out the possibility that bribery was also involved in the granting of autocephaly by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Indeed, this was also revealed by Savvas Kalenteridis in a post on Facebook, in which he states:

“Former CIA agent of Greek descent John Kiriakou has alleged that the United States bribed the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople to recognize the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Specifically, appearing as a guest on Julian Dorey’s podcast, John Kiriakou stated that the Ecumenical Patriarch initially expressed reservations about granting autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, since that Church had been under Russian influence for 1,000 years. Politically, he believed that he could not proceed with such a decision. According to Kiriakou, Hillary Clinton suggested that a sum of 20 million dollars could help bring about the decision. […]”

We are not in a position to confirm or dispute this information. However, the events that took place during the 2018 “council” are corroborated by the document in question, so it is by no means unlikely that this, too, may have occurred…

Moreover, as a result of the establishment of the schismatic “church,” the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church—the largest religious denomination in the country, uniting millions of faithful—has found itself targeted by the Kyiv regime, which, although it initially began by merely exerting political pressure, subsequently developed a comprehensive state campaign aimed at eliminating it and driving it out of the religious life of Ukraine.

It is abundantly clear that the cancer of neo-papism, which is eating away at the Church of Constantinople, is a reality that has today targeted the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, but tomorrow the same could happen to any other Local Church. After all, the Phanariots are quite explicit: “In this case we are not negotiating as equals with equals.”

For this reason, it is perfectly evident that there is an urgent need for the Local Orthodox Churches to reflect upon their responsibilities and confront the problem. The letters of the Bulgarian Church, publicly expressing support for the suffering Church of Ukraine and the Ukrainian faithful, should serve as an example to the other Local Churches, and above all to the Greek-speaking Churches. Furthermore, the letter of the Bulgarian clergy and faithful, informing Patriarch Bartholomew that he is unwelcome at the celebrations for the feast of Saint John of Rila because of his dogmatic and theological deviations, and in which they even call him an ecumenist who makes unjustified claims over the entire Orthodox Church, behaving like a Pope of the East, constitutes yet another means of exerting pressure that could awaken Orthodox consciences, so that efforts may begin to condemn both the neo-papist course of the Patriarchate and its dangerous and poisonous theology.

Finally, given that the Church of Russia is the only Church over which the American factor can exert no influence, it would be prudent for it to undertake initiatives to denounce the missteps and heretical deviations of Patriarch Bartholomew and those around him, especially since these deviations and missteps also affect the other Local Churches. A synodal condemnation by the Church of Russia would, on the one hand, absolve it of any responsibility and, on the other, give other Local Churches the strength and grounds to condemn the uncanonical actions and claims of the Phanar. Finally, it would contribute decisively to the condemnation of the papist mentality.

 

Greek source:

https://orthodoxostypos.gr/%e1%bc%a1-%e1%bc%90%ce%ba%ce%ba%ce%bb%ce%b7%cf%83%ce%af%ce%b1-%cf%84%e1%bf%86%cf%82-%cf%81%cf%89%cf%83%ce%af%ce%b1%cf%82-%ce%bd%ce%ac-%e1%bc%80%ce%bd%ce%b1%ce%bb%ce%ac%ce%b2%ce%b7-%cf%80%cf%81%cf%89/