Patriarch Bartholomew: Opposition to Ecumenism is “Diabolical”

September 10, 2015

Patriarch Bartholomew (Archontonis) in his recent August 29 speech at the Phanar states that opposition to the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s plans of “ecumenical unity” is diabolical.  In fact, any opposition, he says is diabolical, and, in deed, ‘slanderous’.  The Phanar’s “Sister Church” (according to their own words), the Roman Catholic Church, agrees with Bartholomew.

Although in the speech the Ecumenical Patriarch claims that his goal of unity with Papism does not degrade from the Confession of the “Orthodox Faith”, we must understand that he uses this terminology in a different sense than what many of us are used to.  In his view, the Vatican is just as much part of the “Church” as the Phanar.

Indeed, Bartholomew has gone further than that, and for years has been preaching that the Church of Christ (Orthodoxy) was the ‘victim’ of the Devil in breaking with Old Rome over its heresies:

“Those of our forefathers from whom we inherited this separation were the unfortunate victims of the serpent who is the origin of all evils; they are already in the hands of God, the righteous judge…And these men, being the causes for the schism, are now in the hands of God, the righteous judge.” (Address of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to the Papal Delegation at the Patronal Feast of the Phanar, Nov. 30, 1998; cited in: Community of Mt. Athos – Karyae, “Open letter from the Athonite Monks to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew”, 11th/24th May 1999)

In the recent 2015 book “For the Unity of All”, (which Bartholomew wrote the forward to, and which book he says he commends “to all with joy”), Fr. John Panteleimon Manoussakis openly attacks Orthodoxy:

“Reading the polemical works on either side of the [filioque] debate, one cannot find anything positive, not even that unintentional good which has been said to arise from heresies—namely that, in demanding a response, they stir the Church to better define its doctrine and sharpen its theological acumen. No such positive outcome can be credited to the filioque controversy. Rather, some of the better minds of their times heaped up words, treatise after treatise, in the service of a futile and hateful debate. We ought to know better today and so not follow them in this path of self-destruction.

“…Photius’ addition in his Mystagogia of the formula “ἐκ μόνου τοῦ πατρός” regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit (PG 102: 263–400)—an addition that was certainly as arbitrary and polemical an innovation as the filioque some centuries earlier.”


It was this same acolyte of Phanariote ecumenism and modernism who said, amidst the recent Finish controversy about the women’s ordination movement in the heretical modernist-ecumenist Church, that the “Orthodox” need to change their view on marriage (i.e. be open to ‘gay marriage’).

We can only assume that Archimandrite John Manoussakis’ sentiments in the book are received with the greatest approbation by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  Indeed, the same modernist-ecumenist Phanariot Archimandrite stated that if “Orthodoxy” doesn’t have Rome it will continue in chaos:

“In the debate over primacy the Orthodox can feel the need to unite with Rome in its most palpable and tragic urgency—yet, without the recognition of some primacy within the Orthodox Church, the Orthdox cannot reach out to Rome, nor could Rome reach out to the Orthodox Church. In one of those ironic turns of history, it is only Rome that can help the Orthodox communion overcome its own internal divisions. The possibility of a schism among the various Orthodox churches looms as real today as ever over any reconciliatory effort with the Catholic Church; furthermore, it taints and undermines Orthodoxy’s witness to the world and remains a danger to the Orthodox Church’s well-being, like a ticking time bomb placed at its foundations.”

The problem with simply saying, “Patriarch Bartholomew is a moron,” and leaving it at that, as if that exonerates his activities and justifies communion with him, even though ‘disagreeing with him’, is that, well, it is not true. Patriarch Bartholomew is not an ‘idiot’. He is a very intelligent man, and he knows exactly what he is doing. He is an heretic.  At this point, it is not incumbent on the True Orthodox Christians to justify why they have refused communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and bishops in communion with him for several years now.  We have our objection: the Patriarchate is heretical, and you cannot be in communion with heretics.  It is incumbent upon all those who are in communion with Bartholomew and other prominent heretics, and have been so for decades, to justify why they must continue to be in communion with Patriarchs and Bishops who are heretics. They must state Bartholomew rightly divides the word of truth and there is nothing doctrinally wrong with the heretical ecumenism and modernism that is promoted at the highest levels by the Phanar (as well as Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Moscow, etc).

In the 1920 Encyclical issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate “To the Churches of Christ Everywhere” (in which Constantinople officially identifies heterodox as being ‘churches of Christ’), we see why the Phanar sought to introduce a new ecclesiastical calendar into Orthodoxy (and why it and its allies so viciously persecuted everyone who would not accept it). It was not an argument in the abstract about a mere 13 days. The move was ecumenist to the core:

In our opinion, such a friendship and kindly disposition towards each other can be shown and demonstrated particularly in the following ways: By the acceptance of a uniform calendar for the celebration of the great Christian feasts at the same time by all the churches.”

Even when Patriarch Joachim III made a first foray into a discussion about the Calendar and relations with the heretodox in his 1902 Encyclical, as dangerous as this was, it was filled with, at the very least, a bit of trepidation on his part. Perhaps not necessarily from his own inner views, but, from the fact that he knew the massive opposition arrayed against him in 1902 by the Orthodox Churches. The 1902 Encyclical presents the matter as if it is one for ‘debate’, without actually doing anything for fear of the well-known negative reaction.  In contrast, the 1895 Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is honest, uncompromising, and enthusiastic about the Faith; there is no tepidness there (the clear lines are drawn, and the terms of surrender for heretical Papism are clearly enunciated).

In fact, far from the tepid and disingenuous criticism of the modern Soviet created 1942 Moscow Patriarchate, the solicited reaction of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1903 to Joachim III is as clear, unambiguous, honest, uncompromising, intelligent, enthusiastic, and strait to the point for Orthodoxy as the 1895 Encyclical.

At this point the choice is clear: Unity with ecumenist-modernist heresy or with True Orthodox Christianity.

One thought on “Patriarch Bartholomew: Opposition to Ecumenism is “Diabolical”

  • July 22, 2016 at 4:26 am

    The devil is inside him!

Comments are closed.