In recent years, many drew attention to the fact that the head of the Church of Cyprus is extremely biased policy towards the ROC and Russian.
The first signals appeared during the controversy with the dissenters in the occupied part of Cyprus. All of a sudden Archbishop Chrysostomos said that the Russians must leave this part of the island. Many were extremely outraged by this bias. If he wanted to say that the inhabitants of the occupied part of the island somehow violate the rights of Cypriots, whose property remained on the uncontrolled territory, the question arises, why did not mention citizens of other countries in Europe, UK citizens, etc.? Why the emphasis was on Russian?
Against this background, actively inciting hatred against the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian. Some journalists claimed that the dissenters ROCOR(A), which operate in the occupied part of Cyprus, is somehow connected with the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian security services. Approval it was fantastic, after the split of the ROCOR(A) has a very aggressive attitude towards the Russian Orthodox Church. When during the press conference, the Archbishop asked whether this stand of the ROC to put pressure on the Church of Cyprus on the Ukrainian question, Chrysostom declared that does not exclude such an option.
Another attack in the direction of the ROC happened yesterday: after the ROC broke Eucharistic communion with the head of the Greek Orthodox Church Archbishop Jerome in response to the recognition of the Ukrainian schismatics, Archbishop Chrysostomos said that such actions of the Russian Orthodox Church was unacceptable, though said that it does not support the actions of Patriarch Bartholomew and the head of the Greek Church. He further continued that to break off communication should be only with heretics, and since Bartholomew and Jerome, as heretics are not recognized, the actions of the ROC is to be condemned. However, apart from heretics in the Church is not supported by Eucharistic communion with the schismatics, and, according to the canons, anyone who conducts liturgical services with schismatics or heretics, cannot be part of Christ’s Church. Therefore, all who enter into prayerful and Eucharistic communion with schismatics, are themselves dissenters. But Chrysostom somehow forgot about these canons of the Church. Moreover, the criticism has been extremely one-sided: Bartholomew gave rise to the problem that created the crisis, but not a word of criticism in its address, but the Russian Orthodox Church, which is protected from the provocations and attacks, put the enemy.
But today the Cypriot newspaper ΠΟΛΙΤΗΣ published an article which stated that Archbishop Chrysostomos in 2015, was involved in a corruption scandal and for the sake of money helped to obtain Cypriot citizenship to a person who soon thereafter became known to many of the media as a fraudster, and a number of countries now he’s wanted for financial fraud.
It is known that a Malaysian financier Joe Lowe got access to the national Fund and in his hand was $ 5 billion. It was reported that “in September 2014, former Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad received evidence linking Lowe to the fraud with the national sovereign wealth Fund”.
Lowe fled from justice in 2016 has been declared wanted by almost half the countries of the globe. Shortly before he was declared wanted, Lowe secured a cover, getting a Cypriot passport. And help to circumvent the laws he helped himself Archbishop Chrysostomos. It is known that the Cyprus issue passports in exchange for investments, but there is a strict procedure according to which the investment must pass through the Bank of Cyprus and checked for absence of corruption. Naturally, through the Bank of Cyprus Lowe couldn’t get citizenship so he put money in the Church business in circumvention of the existing legislation. In the end, the head of the Church of Cyprus Archbishop Chrysostomos wrote two letters to the interior Minister with a request to grant citizenship to Mr Lowe.
It was stated that Lowe’s has already invested 5 million euros in Church lands, and discussed the issue of additional investment in Church business. Of course, no inspections were not conducted, and thus the Archbishop helped the financier to circumvent existing legislation. Moreover, it is reported that after a petition Chrysostom Lowe was issued a passport in two days(!!!) at the time, as people in Cyprus waiting for 7 years the opportunity to apply for citizenship by naturalization. Was that enough to invest a few million in Church business, and thus to circumvent the law.
The question arises: why people who knew about this corruption scandal, reported it now? I am deeply convinced that the scandal of the dissenters in the occupied part of the island, the statements of Chrysostom the Orthodox Church and the scandal – the links of one chain. This is also evidenced by the fact that the letters of Chrysostom today published the same newspaper that had previously tried to artificially inflame Russophobic scandal Raskolnikov ROCOR(A). Then I had a journalistic investigation and found that this not only a split may not be associated with the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian intelligence services, but was created with the participation of Colonel of US military intelligence Makarovskogo Eugene, and later a part of the Synod this structure was introduced the closest ally of the head of the split, the famous American diplomat John Herbst, who has the ability to affect the financing of this structure and the acceptance of key decisions.
Amid the foment of Russophobia and hatred against the Russian Orthodox Church, perhaps, was planned to formalize the recognition of the Ukrainian schismatics. Author Russophobic and antichnykh works for this newspaper tried to social networks to justify the Americans and said that my investigation was not credible. But due to the fact that it was built on open data sources which I indicated in the records, readers immediately realize that the journalist just manipulating and having no facts, just trying to bleach the culprits of the situation. In fact, in support of the Tomos played himself Herbst, who stood behind the schismatics, and it is stated on the website of the Atlantic Council, where the Herbst is the Director of the Eurasian center. But plan to inciting hostile attitudes towards the Russian Orthodox Church was torn off. Followed by separate statements of Chrysostom, however, in such circumstances, the head of the Church of Cyprus it would be extremely difficult to discuss the admission of dissenters. That is why the first created information a negative field around the ROC, the more active and engaged Chrysostom. At the same time, the Archbishop delayed the issue of recognition, and this, apparently, angered the Americans, who would like to see the “parade of recognitions”, and immediately after the recognition by the Church of Greece would like to see the pinning effect in the form of recognition by the Church of Cyprus. This is probably why the same newspaper which previously maligned ROC threw out a case against Archbishop Chrysostomos.
It should be noted that this is not the only case that indicates the pressure on the Cypriot bishops of the Ukrainian question. Earlier prominent hierarchs of the Church of Cyprus, who supported the UOC headed by Metropolitan Onufry, complained that against them is a kind of information campaign, and their statements are distorted. It is also noteworthy that simultaneously with the scandal associated with the dissenters in the occupied part of Cyprus when Archbishop Chrysostomos said that admits a potential relationship between ROCOR(A) and the Russian Orthodox Church, took the court against one of the metropolitans of the Church of Cyprus over the remarks against LGBT people. Shortly after the announcement of Chrysostom about the Russian Orthodox Church and his demands that the Russians leave the occupied part of the island, the Metropolitan was acquitted and the charges dismissed. In addition, according to my information on metropolitans that support UPC, is now so pressured that they have not only ceased to make statements, but from their dioceses began to receive signals that they would not like now to support projects in favor of the UOC. There is a lot of work on the part of the anti-Catholic forces in order to destroy the unity of Orthodoxy and configure the hostility of the Church against each other, and, unfortunately, there are people who for money is ready to step over their allegiance to Christ. The same pressure goes to the secular part of Cyprus – it is known that following instructions from the USA Cypriot banks over the last two years have closed tens of thousands of Bank accounts associated with Russian business, which suddenly became suspicious.
What the outcome of this scandal, the Archbishop is unknown, but it is clear that some forces have decided to act very aggressively with the aim of obtaining the desired result.Alexander Voznesensky