Patriarch of Moscow Cyril - There is only One Church!

[Ridgerunner]

Russian Orthodox Church was found in Ukraine, they don’t view themselves as something alien to the Ukraine. There was no schism in Ukraine, until current non-canonical Patriarch of Kiev Philaret didn’t start it. He was a candidate for the Patriarch of Moscow, but when he lost to Alexey II, he decided to create schism in Ukraine and start independent Church of Ukraine, it was in 1990s.

Catholics understand Protestantism, and this is not dissimilar, but there are differences. To my understanding, Philaret is every bit as Orthodox as is Kirill, except in that Philaret maintains there can be a Ukrainian Orthodox Church that isn’t part of the Moscow Patriarchate. Moscow, of course, claims that Orthodoxy in Ukraine must be under Moscow. Given Russian aggression against Ukraine and Kirill’s seeming endorsement of it, it’s not surprising that some Ukrainian Orthodox would not want to be under Moscow.

So, like the schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, this split is essentially political too.

 

[Vaseljen]

That is the impression I have gained as well. Given that the sitting Pope is unlikely to declare himself Orthodox, be re-ordained, possibly even re-baptized and essentially repudiate the Catholic Church, I would say Orthodoxy (or at least the Russian brand) has established a barrier that it knows can never be crossed.

And that territoriality comes up as well. As I understand it, Russian brand of Orthodoxy maintains that the** “Patriarch of Rome” would have no jurisdiction beyond the City of Rome** and perhaps a bit of the countryside around it. He would have none in the Americas, any other part of western Europe, Africa, or Asia notwithstanding that the Catholics in those places overwhelmingly outnumber the Orthodox. Catholics in, say, America, would come under Patriarchates from elsewhere. The Russian Patriarchate, as I understand it, claims jurisdiction over North America. So, for us Catholics, the authority would be the Patriarch of Moscow. Catholic priests and bishops worldwide would be defrocked or sort of “Protestantized” en masse if they could not convince the Patriarch of Moscow that they deserved to be ordained as Orthodox.

In other words, reunion can only come if the Catholic Church dissolves itself and a new Orthodox Patriarch of Rome is named.

Again, barriers Orthodoxy knows full well that Catholics will never cross. Reunification is not desired by Orthodoxy, and barriers of that nature ensure it won’t happen.

But I think you have already affirmed that Orthodoxy has no desire to reunify with Catholicism, so all of this is just idle conversation beyond that affirmation. Even as idle conversation, however, it needs to be forthright. And you have been forthright in affirming that official Orthodoxy is not interested in reunification.

Like many Catholics, I used to believe reunification possible; just a matter or resolving a few arcane details of doctrine and ritual. Having been re-educated by Orthodox on here, I no longer believe that. Moreover, I marvel at my prior ignorance of Orthodoxy, and am embarrassed to realize how little I knew before encountering Orthodox on CAF.

Not just countryside, jurisdiction over Italy. Nations such as France, Austria, Germany, Spain… are more than mature to have their own Patriarchates.
But the bishop of Rome would be first among equal among all Patriarchs.

 

[Vaseljen]

Catholics understand Protestantism, and this is not dissimilar, but there are differences. To my understanding, Philaret is every bit as Orthodox as is Kirill, except in that Philaret maintains there can be a Ukrainian Orthodox Church that isn’t part of the Moscow Patriarchate. Moscow, of course, claims that Orthodoxy in Ukraine must be under Moscow. Given Russian aggression against Ukraine and Kirill’s seeming endorsement of it, it’s not surprising that some Ukrainian Orthodox would not want to be under Moscow.

So, like the schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, this split is essentially political too.

The Ukrainian schism is purely political, the schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy has theological differences, not just politics.

 

[Wandile]

And your fathers once didn’t have Filioque in the Creed. Things happen. xD

But our fathers always believed it. Unlike you where there was a rupture between what your fathers once believed and what you believe now

 

[Vaseljen]

But our fathers always believed it. Unlike you where there was a rupture between what your fathers once believed and what you believe now

Not that simple. Orthodoxy never changes, our original Creed proves it, our way of worship also proves it.

 

[Wandile]

Not that simple. Orthodoxy never changes, our original Creed proves it, our way of worship also proves it.

And how many times have you flip flopped between doctrines? Outwardly you don’t change but when you really assess deeply? You guys have changed many time. Once you believed in catholic roman primacy now you believe in first among equals novelty. You once acknowledged the filioque and at two reunion councils you acknowledged it, now you don’t.
The Russian church affirmed the immaculate conception of Mary explicitly for at least two centuries and held its a secure doctrine without any controversy. Today its heresy! At the council of Jerusalem you taught indulgences, purgatory and original sin all catholic style. Today you call these ideas heretical.

You haven’t changed in outward practice but have changed a lot in the essentials and substance of the faith. What you believe today, is not the faith of the ancient fathers of the east

 

[Cavaradossi]

And how many times have you flip flopped between doctrines? Outwardly you don’t change but when you really assess deeply? You guys have changed many time. Once you believed in catholic roman primacy now you believe in first among equals novelty. You once acknowledged the filioque and at two reunion councils you acknowledged it, now you don’t.
The Russian church affirmed the immaculate conception of Mary explicitly for at least two centuries and held its a secure doctrine without any controversy. Today its heresy! At the council of Jerusalem you taught indulgences, purgatory and original sin all catholic style. Today you call these ideas heretical.

You haven’t changed in outward practice but have changed a lot in the essentials and substance of the faith. What you believe today, is not the faith of the ancient fathers of the east

Bullocks. After the flip-flop on ecclesiology which occurred after Unitatis Redintegratio, I think we can be fairly certain who the flip-floppers are.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Bullocks. After the flip-flop on ecclesiology which occurred after Unitatis Redintegratio, I think we can be fairly certain who the flip-floppers are.

both have kept the faith although BOTH have flipped a lot on the Filioque , original sin etc over the centuries. Not just thr RCC

Keep the faith , Starwars

 

[Vaseljen]

And how many times have you flip flopped between doctrines? Outwardly you don’t change but when you really assess deeply? You guys have changed many time. Once you believed in catholic roman primacy now you believe in first among equals novelty. You once acknowledged the filioque and at two reunion councils you acknowledged it, now you don’t.
The Russian church affirmed the immaculate conception of Mary explicitly for at least two centuries and held its a secure doctrine without any controversy. Today its heresy! At the council of Jerusalem you taught indulgences, purgatory and original sin all catholic style. Today you call these ideas heretical.

You haven’t changed in outward practice but have changed a lot in the essentials and substance of the faith. What you believe today, is not the faith of the ancient fathers of the east

You have challenged me, so i will have to be a bit more direct. xD

You taught indulgences, not the Orthodox. I believe you stopped with that practice. Orthodox Church always believed in primes inter pares, that is why the Church was ruled by 5 Patriarchates. Just look at Roman-Catholic Church today and you will realize there is only one Patriarch and few Eastern Catholic Patriarchs that are not even valued as cardinal. Oh i mentioned cardinals, there were no cardinals in the early Church. Oh i mentioned early Church? The Church in which Ecumenical Council was called by the emperor, not pope as it happened when Rome failed to excommunicate the Constantinople, Rome ended up as excommunicated one.
You tell us of some papal early suprimacy.
But let me tell you first interesting things from the Orthodox point of view.

First, we don’t even have clear historical evidence that saint Peter was first pope of Rome. The Church in Rome was organized by Peter and Paul together. On the other hand, we know that st Peter was the first bishop of Antioch, if i am not wrong.

"The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.

That is Linus is entrusted by the Apostles (plural). It is suggested that this evidence means that Linus was pope whilst Peter was still alive. Rome’s church could be said to be founded (or organised) on both Peter and Paul.

---

7 Ecumenical Councils deny papacy.

Ecumenical Councils were called by the Emperor, not by the pope. Popes were mostly not even present at the Holy Councils.

1st Ecumenical Council. Even that pope’s Council in 320 condemned Aries’s heresy, Ecumenical Council was needed in 325 again to condemned it. Also 4th canon of the 1st Ecumenical Council says that bishops are appointed locally, and this goes against Roman-Catholic canon law that elects pope world-wide and that says that pope can intervene against the election of local bishop in area anywhere.

2nd Ecumenical Council was presided by Patriarch Melitius of Antioch, who was not even in communion with Rome.

3rd Ecumenical Council summoned Nestorius to answer for his teaching, even though he was already condemned as heretic by Pope Celastine I. So the Church did not consider pope’s condemnation as definitive. In today’s Roman-Catholic Church, if pope someone condemned as heretic, that would be definitive, unlike in those time when Rome was in communion with the Orthodox Catholic Church.

4th Ecumenical Council was called, even against the expressed wish of the Pope of Rome. In today Roman-Catholic Church, so called Ecumenical Council could not be called against the expressed wish of the pope.

5th Ecumenical Council. Pope of Rome Vigalius defended the Three Chapters. Assembled bishops condemned Three Chapters (written by Theodore, Theodorit and Ibas), while pope Vigalius defended Three Chapters. Holy Council threatened to defrock Pope Vigalius. Then Pope Vigalius repented and blamed devil for his mistake. Also 5th Ecumenical Council was summoned without the assent of the Pope of Rome.

6th Ecumenical Council proclaimed Pope Honorius of Rome and Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople heretics, and cast them out from the Church. In 11th Century, when Rome it-self removed itself from the Church, rejected Holy 6th ecumenical Council and proclaimed Pope Honorius not heretic.

The holy Council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time Patriarch of this royal God-protected city to Cyrus, who was the bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.

7th Ecumenical Council declared its adhesion to the anathema in it’s decree of faith. Thus an Ecumenical Council could rule on the faith of a Pope and expel him from the Church.

Council of Constantinople 880 condemned Filioque and Papacy. This Council was rejected officially in 11th century by Rome, because this Council disagreed with this new post-schism Rome.

The 14 Synods Rome claims are Ecumenical, which Rome held after breaking away from the Church were completely of new nature. They had no opposition to the Pope of Rome, and if i am not wrong, they were all called by Pope and they were all presided by Pope, which was not the case when Rome was part of the Orthodox Catholic Church, when Pope was mostly not present, nor Pope presided, some were even called against the expressed wish of the Pope. As i have listed it already.

 

[Wandile]

Bullocks. After the flip-flop on ecclesiology which occurred after Unitatis Redintegratio, I think we can be fairly certain who the flip-floppers are.

Lol Unitatis Redintegratio did not break with tradition. What you call bullocks is true a the sky is blue. Flip flop is what the Byzantines have been known for. Even when we see in communion. How many compromises did the Greeks make with heretics that caused controversy. That never changed after the schism but only got worse. Sadly…

 

[Starwarsfan2]

You have challenged me, so i will have to be a bit more direct. xD

You taught indulgences, not the Orthodox. I believe you stopped with that practice. Orthodox Church always believed in primes inter pares, that is why the Church was ruled by 5 Patriarchates. Just look at Roman-Catholic Church today and you will realize there is only one Patriarch and few Eastern Catholic Patriarchs that are not even valued as cardinal. Oh i mentioned cardinals, there were no cardinals in the early Church. Oh i mentioned early Church? The Church in which Ecumenical Council was called by the emperor, not pope as it happened when Rome failed to excommunicate the Constantinople, Rome ended up as excommunicated one.
You tell us of some papal early suprimacy.
But let me tell you first interesting things from the Orthodox point of view.

First, we don’t even have clear historical evidence that saint Peter was first pope of Rome. The Church in Rome was organized by Peter and Paul together. On the other hand, we know that st Peter was the first bishop of Antioch, if i am not wrong.

"The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.

That is Linus is entrusted by the Apostles (plural). It is suggested that this evidence means that Linus was pope whilst Peter was still alive. Rome’s church could be said to be founded (or organised) on both Peter and Paul.

---

7 Ecumenical Councils deny papacy.

Ecumenical Councils were called by the Emperor, not by the pope. Popes were mostly not even present at the Holy Councils.

1st Ecumenical Council. Even that pope’s Council in 320 condemned Aries’s heresy, Ecumenical Council was needed in 325 again to condemned it. Also 4th canon of the 1st Ecumenical Council says that bishops are appointed locally, and this goes against Roman-Catholic canon law that elects pope world-wide and that says that pope can intervene against the election of local bishop in area anywhere.

2nd Ecumenical Council was presided by Patriarch Melitius of Antioch, who was not even in communion with Rome.

3rd Ecumenical Council summoned Nestorius to answer for his teaching, even though he was already condemned as heretic by Pope Celastine I. So the Church did not consider pope’s condemnation as definitive. In today’s Roman-Catholic Church, if pope someone condemned as heretic, that would be definitive, unlike in those time when Rome was in communion with the Orthodox Catholic Church.

4th Ecumenical Council was called, even against the expressed wish of the Pope of Rome. In today Roman-Catholic “Church”, so called Ecumenical Council could not be called against the expressed wish of the pope.

5th Ecumenical Council. Pope of Rome Vigalius defended the Three Chapters. Assembled bishops condemned Three Chapters (written by Theodore, Theodorit and Ibas), while pope Vigalius defended Three Chapters. Holy Council threatened to defrock Pope Vigalius. Then Pope Vigalius repented and blamed devil for his mistake. Also 5th Ecumenical Council was summoned without the assent of the Pope of Rome.

6th Ecumenical Council proclaimed Pope Honorius of Rome and Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople heretics, and cast them out from the Church. In 11th Century, when Rome it-self removed itself from the Church, rejected Holy 6th ecumenical Council and proclaimed Pope Honorius not heretic. This proves immaturity of the new heretical and arrogant Rome.

The holy Council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time Patriarch of this royal God-protected city to Cyrus, who was the bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.

7th Ecumenical Council declared its adhesion to the anathema in it’s decree of faith. Thus an Ecumenical Council could rule on the faith of a Pope and expel him from the Church.

Council of Constantinople 880 condemned Filioque and Papacy. This Council was rejected officially in 11th century by Rome, because this Council disagreed with this new Rome.

The 14 Synods Rome claims are Ecumenical, which Rome held after breaking away from the Church were completely of new nature. They had no opposition to the Pope of Rome, and if i am not wrong, they were all called by Pope and they were all presided by Pope, which was not the case when Rome was part of the Orthodox Catholic Church, when Pope was mostly not present, nor Pope presided, some were even called against the expressed wish of the Pope. As i have listed it already.

First the 880 council was not recognized as ecumenical , second ,the council of Florence was temporarily accepted officially by both churches ( i.e. Including the Filioque and original sin hence not heresy ) , third ,Rome never rejected the sixth council, I agree that popes can be heretics and the councils reject papal supremacy and infallibility,
Also the west and east split from EACH OTHER not one from the other .

Let the shots firing begin :slapfight::stretcher:

Keep the faith , Starwars

 

[Wandile]

You have challenged me, so i will have to be a bit more direct. xD

You taught indulgences, not the Orthodox. I believe you stopped with that practice. Orthodox Church always believed in primes inter pares, that is why the Church was ruled by 5 Patriarchates. Just look at Roman-Catholic Church today and you will realize there is only one Patriarch and few Eastern Catholic Patriarchs that are not even valued as cardinal. Oh i mentioned cardinals, there were no cardinals in the early Church. Oh i mentioned early Church? The Church in which Ecumenical Council was called by the emperor, not pope as it happened when Rome failed to excommunicate the Constantinople, Rome ended up as excommunicated one.
You tell us of some papal early suprimacy.
But let me tell you first interesting things from the Orthodox point of view.

First, we don’t even have clear historical evidence that saint Peter was first pope of Rome. The Church in Rome was organized by Peter and Paul together. On the other hand, we know that st Peter was the first bishop of Antioch, if i am not wrong.

"The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.

That is Linus is entrusted by the Apostles (plural). It is suggested that this evidence means that Linus was pope whilst Peter was still alive. Rome’s church could be said to be founded (or organised) on both Peter and Paul.

---

7 Ecumenical Councils deny papacy.

Ecumenical Councils were called by the Emperor, not by the pope. Popes were mostly not even present at the Holy Councils.

1st Ecumenical Council. Even that pope’s Council in 320 condemned Aries’s heresy, Ecumenical Council was needed in 325 again to condemned it. Also 4th canon of the 1st Ecumenical Council says that bishops are appointed locally, and this goes against Roman-Catholic canon law that elects pope world-wide and that says that pope can intervene against the election of local bishop in area anywhere.

2nd Ecumenical Council was presided by Patriarch Melitius of Antioch, who was not even in communion with Rome.

3rd Ecumenical Council summoned Nestorius to answer for his teaching, even though he was already condemned as heretic by Pope Celastine I. So the Church did not consider pope’s condemnation as definitive. In today’s Roman-Catholic Church, if pope someone condemned as heretic, that would be definitive, unlike in those time when Rome was in communion with the Orthodox Catholic Church.

4th Ecumenical Council was called, even against the expressed wish of the Pope of Rome. In today Roman-Catholic Church, so called Ecumenical Council could not be called against the expressed wish of the pope.

5th Ecumenical Council. Pope of Rome Vigalius defended the Three Chapters. Assembled bishops condemned Three Chapters (written by Theodore, Theodorit and Ibas), while pope Vigalius defended Three Chapters. Holy Council threatened to defrock Pope Vigalius. Then Pope Vigalius repented and blamed devil for his mistake. Also 5th Ecumenical Council was summoned without the assent of the Pope of Rome.

6th Ecumenical Council proclaimed Pope Honorius of Rome and Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople heretics, and cast them out from the Church. In 11th Century, when Rome it-self removed itself from the Church, rejected Holy 6th ecumenical Council and proclaimed Pope Honorius not heretic. This proves immaturity of the new heretical and arrogant Rome.

The holy Council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time Patriarch of this royal God-protected city to Cyrus, who was the bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.

7th Ecumenical Council declared its adhesion to the anathema in it’s decree of faith. Thus an Ecumenical Council could rule on the faith of a Pope and expel him from the Church.

Council of Constantinople 880 condemned Filioque and Papacy. This Council was rejected officially in 11th century by Rome, because this Council disagreed with this new post-schism Rome.

The 14 Synods Rome claims are Ecumenical, which Rome held after breaking away from the Church were completely of new nature. They had no opposition to the Pope of Rome, and if i am not wrong, they were all called by Pope and they were all presided by Pope, which was not the case when Rome was part of the Orthodox Catholic Church, when Pope was mostly not present, nor Pope presided, some were even called against the expressed wish of the Pope. As i have listed it already.

Nothing i haven’t heard. I won’t respond to it until you respond to my proofs of you flip flopping. That was the beginning of this. Lets keep order in our dialogue please?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Indulgences are still common in the Latin Church, they are not “sold” as some errant priests did in German around Luther’s era - however the theology and praxis of indulgences is just as popular now as it ever was - perhaps even more so.

In addition, Eastern Orthodox have similar practices historically:
Like the Western Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church believes that the only way to be absolved from sins is by the Sacred Mystery of Confession, which in the East is preced by a period of fasting. Because of differences in the underlying doctrine of salvation, indulgences for the remission of temporal punishment of sin do not exist in Eastern Orthodoxy, but until the twentieth century there existed in some places a practice of absolution certificates (συγχωροχάρτια - synchorochartia). While some of these certificates were connected with any patriarch’s decrees lifting for the living or the dead some serious ecclesiastical penalty, including excommunication, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, with the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, had the sole privilege, because of the expense of maintaining the Holy Places and paying the many taxes levied on them, of distributing such documents in large numbers to pilgrims or sending them elsewhere, sometimes with a blank space for the name of the beneficiary, living or dead, an individual or a whole family, for whom the prayers would be read.

Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheos Notaras (1641-1707) wrote: "It is an established custom and ancient tradition, known to all, that the Most Holy Patriarchs give the absolution certificate (συγχωροχάρτιον - synchorochartion) to the faithful people … they have granted them from the beginning and still do."

A Russian Orthodox source says that these certificates were in use among Greek Orthodox until the middle of the twentieth century, and were “certificates which absolved from sins, which anyone could obtain, often for a specified sum of money. The absolution granted by these papers, according to Christos Yannaras, had no connection with any participation of the faithful in the Mystery of Penance, nor in the Mystery of the Eucharist”. The same source interprets the Western indulgence also as absolution from sin, not as remission of temporal punishment.

 

[Vaseljen]

First Rome is not heretical, but heterodox , second the 880 council was not recognized as ecumenical , third the council of Florence was temporarily accepted officially by both churches ( i.e. Including the Filioque and original sin hence not heresy ) , fourth Rome never rejected the sixth council, I agree that popes can be heretics and the councils reject papal supremacy and infallibility, however calling the church arrogant, immature, heretical, really?
Also the west and east split from EACH OTHER not one from the other .

Let the shots firing begin :slapfight::stretcher:

Keep the faith , Starwars

I failed to filter all those insultive remarks.

 

[Vaseljen]

At least i proved that there was no universal papal jurisdiction. I believe papal infallibility too. Isn’t that enough? xD

 

[Starwarsfan2]

At least i proved that there was no universal papal jurisdiction. I believe papal infallibility too. Isn’t that enough? xD

I edited the post , sorry that I didn’t catch the change in time

 

[Vaseljen]

I edited the post , sorry that I didn’t catch the change in time

Now i am in trouble. lol

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Sympathize with this post. I am attending Greek Orthodox vespers one evening a week. and haven’t had a chance to speak with anyone there at this time. But being a Roman Catholic, my past impression was that you have to be Greek to be part of this church, that goes against the more transcendent reality of the universal faith and living out the Gospel.

I am praying for the re unification of the Universal Church and I strongly believe that each has much to offer the other, especially when studying the effects of Vatican II, confession and our attitude towards it…that our teachers are pointing us into a perspective that is more Orthodox.

SS Peter and Paul came to Rome solely for the Church and not for imperialism. But prior, Christians in Asia Minor were almost wiped out and Emperor Constantine restored the faith there by assisting the bishops and building churches, and making Christianity legal. There is that tie of the Eastern Orthodox tied to temporal rulers.

I am a little envious seeing Russian priests blessing the military, their jets…I read our chaplains are becoming more restricted in ministering to our military who do have Judeo Christian faith.

I have found the same at the two I have attended i.e. Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox here in Australia. Unless you are/speak or understand Greek or Russian or Serbian etc you are an outsider. The Liturgy itself is beautiful though.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/files/2015/02/crusades.jpg

 

[SAVINGRACE]

You copy pasted the comments from the pawn of new Kiev’s anti-Russian regime. And you base opinion on Patriarch Cyril with that.
On the other i trust and admire Patriarch Cyril. He did good reviving Christianity in the Russian Church. And patriotism that Patriarch is promoting is something completely normal for the Orthodox Patriarchs. All Orthodox Patriarchs promote patriotism.

You did not refute any of the points though. He would get rid of all Catholics in Russia too if he could. Don’t be fooled.

This particular patriarch is meddling in the politics of war which is never a good idea. Even encouraging war.

Not the province of a religious leader or someone to admire in my humble opinion. Why the other EO patriarchs don’t pull him into line I don’t know, hopefully they have and he will tone down the rhetoric.