“The interests of Greek solidarity, that is actually a manifestation of ethnophiletism, outweighed the interests of the whole fullness of Orthodoxy.” Commented on the Department for external Church relations of the UOC (MP) Primate recognition EPTS Jerome “of the autocephaly of Ukraine”, “given” the same Greek Bartholomew.
It is nothing like an accusation of heresy. Heresy of ethnophiletism is called in Orthodoxy the service of the immediate interests of the nation (often falsely understood) to the detriment of the unity of the Church.
Although the DECR statement is dated October 29, 2019, the disease manifested in the Constantinople Patriarchate at the dawn of the Renaissance (not for nothing named after L. N. Gumilev Era Of Degeneration).
“National problems in the Byzantine Empire for many centuries did not exist — told in his movie “fall of the Empire. Lesson of Byzantium”, Metropolitan Tikhon (Shevkunov). The Byzantines literally sang the Christian doctrine of the new humanity in the Divine spirit, “where there is neither Greek nor Jew nor Scythian”… On the Byzantine throne, for example, the emperors of the Armenians was almost the same as the Greeks, there were people from the Syriac, Arabic, Slavic, Germanic roots… All this provided an incomparable cultural wealth of the Byzantine civilization…
The idea of the nation and then the national self-glorification, the Byzantines, or rather the Byzantine Greeks, who no doubt were constituent peoples in the Byzantine Empire, borrowed from the Europeans who lived in small national States built on ethnic principle. For example, France, German States, Italian Republic… 100 years the Byzantine Greeks struggled with this temptation and didn’t give him a break. “We are all Romans — Orthodox citizens of the New Rome,” they said.
It should be noted that there was all these processes at the beginning of the epoch called by historians the Revival — world re-creation is a national, Hellenic Greek, pagan idea. It was hard for the Greeks not to be seduced by this Western European Renaissance, not to fall into temptation before the delight and reverence of Europeans, Plavsic from the culture of their great ancestors.
The first succumbed to the then intellectuals: the enlightened Byzantines began to feel as Greeks. I went to the nationalist movements, the rejection of Christian traditions and, finally, the emperors of the Palaeologus Imperial idea gave way to narrowly ethnic Greek nationalism. But the betrayal of the Imperial idea was not in vain: the nationalist fever tore the Empire, and she quickly was absorbed by the neighboring Islamic power… By the way, the arrogance of the Greeks led to the fact that the Slavs in the Empire began to discredit. This Byzantium alienated the Bulgarians and the Serbs, who could really help in fighting the Turks…”.
“Greek arrogance and ecclesiastical nationalism contributed to the penetration in West Asia Islam and adoption of it among the Arabs (not all of course), which the Greeks believed people below them”, — commented on our publication catastrophe that marked the decline of the middle Ages, historian Andrei Marchukov.
And even in modern times, Russian Orthodox observed within the once really of the Ecumenical Patriarchate the following picture: “they Consider themselves the most Orthodox and for us, Russians, and everyone else looked down upon the Orthodox, and Greek Orthodox turned to the only one national flag; the clergy in very poor condition; white clergy were ignorant and monks who learnt anything residing in the cities and gave the monastery unwashed and unkempt parasites that are a disgrace to monastic orders… There are, thank God, exceptions, but not enough” [Letter V. kN. Konstantin Greek Queen Olga Konstantinovna (sisters). GARF. F. 660. Op. 2. D. 214. L. 5-10. No. 1. Athens. 3 (15) January, 1886]. And then the Queen of the Hellenes Olga wrote to his brother: “Sad to say, but I see Orthodoxy in Greece becomes more and more a national flag and not have the need of the national soul” [GARF. F. 660. Op. 2. D. 229.L. 184 -184 about. No. 12. Athens. February 22 (6 March) 1899].
“…Here we go into all sorts of Catholic influences, the narrowness, the intolerance, the arrogance… again, there I remember about Orthodoxy only when it is necessary for policy” [GARF. F. 660. Op. 2. D. 233. Athens, March 25 (April 7), 1903].
It is striking that in this period is the Church of Constantinople and defines the heresy of phyletism (Church, 1872). But not in relation to itself — long since the suffering and adjectival to the Bulgarian schism (the proclamation of the autocephaly of the Bulgarians). Despite the fact that the first canonical Autocephalous Bulgarian Church existed since the X century!
However, the definition of the heresy of phyletism as such was correct and received the fullness of Orthodoxy: “We reject and condemn tribal division… in Christ’s Church as contrary to gospel teachings and sacred laws of our fathers blessed… Accept this division in tribes and who dare to base on it hitherto unheard tribal gatherings, we preach according to the Holy canons, alien to the one Catholic and Apostolic Church and are real schismatics.”
Barely a century, as “rejecting and condemning tribal division” has tackled openly and officially divide the Conciliar Church is more honored and less worthy tribes. Here, as in Istanbul explained the refusal of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to accept the invitation of the Russian Church on the resulting pan-Orthodox meeting in 1947 on the question of ecumenism: “If the Slavic peoples have forgotten that the Greeks gave them the culture and that they had received the light of Christian faith from Christian lamp Greek Byzantine through the Greek missionaries, and that therefore they should out of gratitude to pay tribute to the esteem and favor of the Greek race, which they brought up and educated, not to show themselves low and ungrateful enemies, the pan-Orthodox consciousness will sweep away their dark and treacherous plans wrote later, some two years after the victory of the Eastern Slavs over another “superior race” Metropolitan of Zante Chrysostomos And if ever going to the General Congress of the Orthodox Churches or Ecumenical Council of all Orthodox Churches, the first speech would have Ecumenical Patriarchate, which by divine law will call for the Ecumenical Council of all Orthodox Christian Churches on the basis of the rights it has to the Holy canons…”.
This here is the epitome of “Who wants will be great among you, let him be your Minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” (Matt. 20:26-28). No wonder that the Holy Pope Gregory Dialogus, calling himself a “servant of the servants of God” in the VI “protrolili” so the Patriarch of Constantinople, the first Ecumenical calling.
But what, ask the relevant question of “ingratitude” Slavs “had brought them to the Greeks” (although, as we already know, to enlighten the Slavs not Greeks in their understanding of, and multinational Romei). But is that, it appears, dared to convene pan-Orthodox meeting, without asking the will of Istanbul!
“Offensive to the Russian Church thought about some of her neprijateljski against the Greek Churches, about it “dark and treacherous plans” can be only those who are accustomed to judge others by himself, was responsible in 1947 Fanaru outstanding canonist, Professor S. V. Troitsky. — As for Greek culture, it is not necessary to forget that the Slavs had its own, standing on a fairly high stage of culture and that the impact on the Slavs of Greek culture hasn’t always been beneficial. Remember, though, the humanity of the Russian legislation “Russian Truth” and cruelty of Byzantine legislation in the “Prohiron” learned and Orthodox Slavic countries”.
But the most striking representative of the Greek “Orthodox” chauvinism in the twentieth century was the Ecumenical heresiarch Bartholomew…
To be continued.