THE KALLINIKITE UNIA

He who joins hands with the unrighteous will not go unpunished He who judges the unrighteous as righteous, and the righteous as unrighteous, He is unclean and abominable before God. Proverbs 11.20, 17.6. The devil, they say, is in the details. This must surely be true even more of ecclesiastical unions than of business agreements; for the devil is much more interested in the Church, hich he does not control, than in business, hich is largely his domain. !ut could "od be in the overall conce#tion, or could $e be bringing a large good out of, or in s#ite of, many smaller evils% &fter all, 'all things or( together for those ho love "od) *+omans ,.2,-. /et us e0#lore these #ossibilities in relation to the ecclesiastical union sealed through liturgical concelebration on the 1unday of the $oly Cross this year bet een the True 2rthodo0 Church of "reece led by &rchbisho# 3allini(os of &thens *"T2C- and the 4cclesiastical Community of the 1ynod in +esistance *other ise (no n as 'the Cy#rianites)- together ith the +omanian, !ulgarian and +ussian Churches that are in communion ith the latter. &ll those ho sincerely believe in True 2rthodo0y (no that one of the greatest obstacles to the salvation of men, to their 5oining the 2ne, $oly, Catholic and &#ostolic Church, is our disunity. The multitude of 5urisdictions calling themselves True 2rthodo0 but not in communion ith each other is a scandal 6 and it is small comfort to (no that this is far from being the first #eriod of such chaos and disunity in 2rthodo0 Church history. &s a rule, here there is no 2rthodo0 em#eror acting as a focus of unity, heresy becomes dominant and the True 2rthodo0 are divided among themselves. 7nias bet een True 2rthodo0 1ynods in our time have usually been short8lived and highly controversial. 9n 1:6:871 the +ussian Church &broad under 1t. Philaret united ith the "ree( 2ld Calendarist 1ynods of the ;lorinites under &rchbisho# &u0entius *first- and the <atthe ites under &rchbisho# &ndreas *a little later-. !ut this unia bro(e u# in mutual recrimination bet een all three grou#s less than a decade later. 9n 1::= another attem#t as made> the +ussian Church &broad under <etro#olitan ?italy, the "ree( 2ld Calendarists under <etro#olitan ?italy, the +omanian 2ld Calendarists under <etro#olitan ?lasie and the !ulgarian 2ld Calendarists under !isho# Photius united on the basis of a 'Cy#rianite) confession of faith, hich contradicted the confession of faith both of the ;lorinites and of the <atthe ites * hich is hy they ere not #art of it- and of the +ussian Church &broad *as e0#ressed in the anathema against ecumenism of 1:,@-. 9n 2001 the +ussian Church &broad divided. 2ne #art under <etro#olitan ?italy *outside +ussia; there ere other leaders inside +ussia- re5ected the Cy#rianite confession and unia, but then s#lit u# into three or four arring synods. The other #art under <etro#olitan /aurus eventually united ith the <osco Patriarchate in 2007.

The "ree( Cy#rianites, and +omanian and !ulgarian 2ld Calendarists remained together, but reunited ith one of the +ussian bisho#s, &gathangel, ho had refused to 5oin the unia ith the <P. &lthough &gathangel had been the last bisho# to leave the sin(ing shi# of the +ussian Church &broad, he refused to 5oin the other +ussian bisho#s ho had 5um#ed shi# earlier. 9n fact, he considered himself to be the only com#letely canonical +ussian bisho#. &ll the +ussian True 2rthodo0 bisho#s, in his o#inion, ere and are graceless. &s for the <osco Patriarchate, hile condemning it, he refused to say that it as graceless. 1ince he did not ant to remain on his o n, ho ever, and anted to create his o n hierarchy, he as loo(ing for a #artner. The Cy#rianites obliged, and so the &gathangelite hierarchy came into being. 9n 200: the Cy#rianites entered into negotiations for union ith the ;lorinites under &rchbisho# Chrysostomos *3iousis-. The union tal(s failed, but the Cy#rianites made some significant concessions. 9n #articular, they agreed that their brea( ith the ;lorinites in 1:,6 had been 'hasty) 6 in other ords, wrong, that the ne calendarist church of "reece as not their 'mother church), and that they ould no longer tal( about heretics being 'ailing members) of the True Church. 1 9n 2010 &rchbisho# Chrysostomos died, being re#laced by &rchbisho# 3allini(os, and then <etro#olitan Cy#rian also died. Then the Cy#rianites decided to ma(e a second attem#t at union ith the ;lorinites. *2r did the ;lorinites ta(e the initiative% Ae donBt (no -. /ast ee( agreement as reached bet een the "ree( T2C and the Cy#rianites ith their allies from +omania *<etro#olitan ?lasie-, !ulgaria *!isho# Photius- and +ussia *<etro#olitan &gathangel-; and on the 1unday of the $oly Cross the uniates concelebrated the Civine /iturgy in &thens. 9n almost all #olitical unions, there is a signed treaty for everyone to see, and then there are secret clauses, hich may or not be ritten do n. &gain, in almost all #olitical unions, there is the su##osed 'great 5oy and victory for everyone), and then there are the real inners and losers. 9t shouldnBt be li(e that ith ecclesiastical unions, in hich even those ho submit and re#ent have truly trium#hed 6 by saving their souls. !ut in false unias there are real inners and losers. 2r rather> in the long term everybody in the unia is in fact a loser. /et us see ho the real inners and losers are in this false unia. &lready in ;ebruary, hen it loo(ed as if the unia ould go ahead, the Cy#rianite &rchbisho# Chrysostomos of 4tna declared, on the one hand, that there ould be no inners or losers in this unia *'foolish and evil #rattle) as his name for this 'ina##ro#riate trium#halism)-, and on the other hand that they *the Cy#rianites- ere not reDuired to abandon any of their #rinci#les as a result of the unia. Be assured, he rites, that none of our principles, none of our moderation, and none of the spirit bequeathed to us by our late and enerable !etropolitan "yprian ha e been set aside, as some naysayers ha e suggested. !ut since the #rinci#les of the Cy#rianite ecclesiology are false, this means that no re#entance for their errors as reDuired from the Cy#rianitesE

1 1ee 'The Cessation of 9nformal Cialogue), htt#>FF .synodinresistance.orgF#dfsF200:F06F02F200:0602aCessationofCialogue G20;olderF200:0602aCessationofCialogue.#df.

Chrysostomos himself gains much from this unia. Hot having been reDuired to renounce his errors, he can re#eat them. Hor is it li(ely that he ill be brought to order> according to the administrative arrangement agreed u#on, he is a metro#olitan not sub5ect to the senior hierarch in &merica, <etro#olitan Cemetrius of &mericaE 2n <arch 7F20, 5ust after the unia had been signed, the senior Cy#rianite hierarch, <etro#olitan Cy#rian of 2ro#e *the younger-, confirmed the victory of the Cy#rianites. #he $fficial %ialogue &%ecember '()'*+ebruary '(),- led us to the reali.ation that our /ct of walling oursel es off in )01, from our #rue $rthodo2 brethren should be abrogated, since the reasons of faith and righteousness that then pro o3ed it no longer e2ist. 9n other ords> '9n 1:,=, e bro(e communion ith the T2C for #erfectly valid Ireasons of faith and righteousnessB. !ut no those reasons no longer e0ist, the T2C have corrected themselves, so e can go bac( into communion ith them.) This is, in effect, a retraction by the Cy#rianites of their admission in 200: that they had been 'hasty) in brea(ing ith the "T2C in 1:,=> in fact, it im#licitly accuses the "T2C of causing the schism. <oreover, none of the other concessions they made in 200: are confirmed no , in 201=. 9n reality, as e shall see later, it is the True 2rthodo0 Church of "reece that has made the concessions. $o is it that the t o Cy#rianite metro#olitans can be so bold, basically reaffirming their loyalty to the ecclesiological heresy of Cy#rianism, even after the union ith the "T2C has been signed% The ans er is that they were not as3ed to renounce their heresy 6 in #ublic, at any rate. 2f course, e do not (no hat ent on behind closed doors, or hat as contained in the secret clauses of the agreement, if such e0isted. !ut even if they ere as(ed to renounce certain #ositions in #rivate *of hich, ho ever, e have no evidence-, it is obvious that they have no inhibitions about renouncing any such renunciation in #ublic. Hor 8 most significantly and fatefully 6 have the T2C hierarchs rebu(ed them in any ay. J !ut hat about the official 5oint confession of faith, the Common 4cclesiological 1tatement, hich all #arties signed% Coes that not contain the renunciation of any Cy#rianite #osition% &s e shall see, it does not. Hor is this sur#rising since it as in fact ritten by a Cy#rianite, !isho# Photius of Triaditsa *!ulgaria-E. Ahat it does contain is a highly rhetorical condemnation of 4cumenism; a more sober and useful condemnation of 1ergianism; and a significant ea(ening of the True 2rthodo0 #osition ith regard to the validity of the sacraments of the 'Aorld 2rthodo0). !efore e0amining this 1tatement, let us remind ourselves hat Cy#rianism is in essence. Cy#rianism is a hidden form of 4cumenism, an attem#t, unheard of in the ritings of the $oly ;athers, to se#arate grace *blagodatnostB- from 2rthodo0y *#ravoslavnostB-, as if the one could e0ist ithout the other. 9t su##oses that it is #ossible to be a 'heretic of heretics), and a '#an8heretic of #an8heretics), and yet remain an 'uncondemned) member of the True Church having the "race of the $oly 1#irit. Cy#rianism has already been condemned by several "ree( and +ussian 1ynods. This 1tatement could and should have given it the final death8blo .

The 1tatementBs section on 4cumenism begins thus> ' Ecumenism, as a theological conce#t, as an organiKed social movement, and as a religious enter#rise, is and constitutes the greatest heresy of all time and a most wide-ranging panheresy; the heresy of heresies and the #an8heresy of #an8heresies; an amnesty for all heresies, truly and veritably a pan-heresy. Point ta(enE Aith such sturm und drang, e cannot accuse the signatories of this confession of being ambiguous or te#id about ecumenismE Hor about sergianism 6 the section on that sub5ect is good and es#ecially elcome in vie of the fact that "ree( 1ynods very rarely mention the sub5ect. 9n fact it corrects one of the lesser8(no n errors of the Cy#rianite ecclesiology, its affirmation that 1ergianism 'no longer e0ists). ;or on <ay 10F2@, 2007 the Cy#rianite 1ynod declared that 'the historical basis and occasion for the rift among the +ussians *1:178- has been removed and no longer e0ists. 9t is Duite different from the dis#ute hich divided, and continues to divide 6 since it still e0ists and is, indeed, reinforced daily, 6 the 2rthodo0 into ecumenists and resisters &)0'(, )0',*-. )*#oint :- Perha#s the correction of the Cy#rianite #osition here is o ing to the fact that the confession as ritten by a !ulgarian bisho# ho (no s from e0#erience hat communism and its evil effects on church life are. 9n any case, this section of the confession is to be elcomed as constituting #robably its most useful #art. !ut then e come to the section on the '+eturn to True 2rthodo0y). The first four #oints are fine> '1. Hevertheless, Lconomy assuredly can never and in no circumstance whatever #ermit the #ardoning of any sin or any com#romise concerning the 'correct and saving confession of the Faith, ) since Lconomy aims clearly and solely, in a s#irit of loving (indness, at facilitating the salvation of souls, for whom "hrist died. '2. The a##lication of Lconomy in the reception of heretics and schismatics into communion ith the Church in no way beto(ens that the Church acknowledges the validity and the reality of their mysteries, hich are celebrated outside Her canonical and charismatic boundaries. '@. The $oly 2rthodo0 Church has never recognized, either by e actitude or by !conomy, mysteries #erformed com#letely outside $er and in a#ostasy, since those ho celebrate or ho #arta(e of these mysteries remain ithin the bosom of their heretical or schismatic community. '=. Through the a##lication of Lconomy in the reception of #ersons or grou#s outside $er in re#entance, the 2rthodo0 Church accepts merely the form of the mystery of heretics or schismaticsM#rovided, of course, that this has been #reserved unadulteratedMbut endows this form with life through the "race of the $oly 1#irit that e0ists in $er by means of the bearers of this fullness, namely, 2rthodo0 !isho#s.) This is good. !ut no e come to #oint 6> '<ore s#ecifically, ith regard to the <ysteries celebrated in the so8called official 2rthodo0 Churches, the "rue #rthodo $hurch, within the boundaries of Her pastoral solicitude, does not provide assurance concerning their validity or concerning their salvific efficacy, in #articular for those ho commune 'knowingly) N ittinglyO ith syncretistic ecumenism and 4ergianism, even though 1he does not in any instance re#eat their form for those

entering into communion ith $er in re#entance, having in mind the convocation of a <a5or 1ynod of True 2rthodo0y, in order to #lace a seal on hat has already occurred at a local level.)2 #his is pure "yprianism5 The signatories are saying in effect> '&lthough the Aorld 2rthodo0 are heretics, e donBt (no hether their sacraments are valid or not.) !ut this 'agnosticism) contradicts &#ostolic Canon =6, hich insists that the sacraments of all heretics and schismatics are definitely in alid. 9t also contradicts the confession of faith of the True 2rthodo0 Church of "reece in 1:@P, 1:P0, 1:7= and 1::1E <oreover, the anathema of the +ussian Church &broad s#ecifically anathemati.es those ho affirm that the sacraments of heretics and schismatics may be valid. 9n 1::=, at the time of the +ussian Church &broadBs acce#tance of the Cy#rianite ecclesiology, !isho# "regory *"rabbe- affirmed that she had fallen under her o n anathema. This #resent #oint, although more veiled, and camouflaged, as it ere, by the much stronger #oints that #recede it, comes #erilously close to the same #osition. 1o the devil is definitely in this detail. <oreover, there are other dubious details. Point si0 a##ears to be asserting *although not very clearly- that hether or not the sacraments of a Aorld 2rthodo0 church are valid de#ends on hether the #erson ho a##roaches them 3nows about the heresy that church confesses. $o ever, this is to confuse the ob5ective alidity of the sacrament in a heretical church ith the sub5ective degree of guilt of the communicant in that church. &#ostolic canon =6 Duite categorically declares that the sacraments of heretics are invalid, and ma(es no Dualifications ith regard to the orthiness or (no ledge of the communicant. 2f course, the guilt of the communicant in a heretical church ill be greater or lesser de#ending on many things, including his (no ledge of the hereticalness of that church. !ut this in no ay affects our 5udgement as to hether the sacrament itself is valid or not. 9f, as the Cy#rianites admit, the Aorld 2rthodo0 are heretics, then i#so facto their sacraments are invalid, and he ho denies this comes under the #enalty #rescribed by the canon. &nother dubious detail is the #hrase> 'bearing in mind the convocation of a <a5or 1ynod of True 2rthodo0y, in order to #lace a seal on hat has already occurred at a local level.) Ahat the Cy#rianites 6 ith the acDuiescence of the T2C 6 are here trying to assert is their old error, the idea that the Councils that have so far condemned 4cumenism and 1ergianism ere only /ocal Councils that did not have the authority to e0#el heretics from the Church. 2nly a Pan82rthodo0 or 4cumenical Council, according to the Cy#rianites, can do that. &nd until the convening of such a '<a5or) Council in order to 'seal) the decision of a /ocal Council, the heretics remain 'uncondemned).@
2 ;or those ho read "ree( e #rovide the original "ree( te0t for greater clarification> 'QRSTUVWXYZ [WXS \ VZ ]^_V`XabZ VZ VWcY^deZbZ Wf Vg\f cWhYdeZgf [S_idY^f XjYRklY^f TTc`_agf, mZ`_ag XjkRYlYf TTc`_ag RW\Z RSgnWngSY [WXS \ VY ToXY^f gVZ, YVW TgS \ [WXS \ Vf _bV`XSYcYhSTf [YVWcW_dgVSTkV`VYf VYoVbZ, Rabf Wf _Y^f TYSZbZYZ pZ hZU_WSq dWVg\ VY _^hTX`VS_VSTY rTY^dWZS_dY, f TgS \ VY sWXhSgZS_dY, _Vb TgS \ Z tV` RW\Z [gZgcgdnuZ [b_Ri[YVW VY\Z Vo[YZ gVZ Wf VY^\f Z dWVgZYa W_WXvYdeZY^f Wf TYSZbZagZ dWVB tVf, Z wWS ducS_Vg V f _^hTci_Wbf dSf ]Whuc`f s^ZkRY^ Vf mZ`_agf XjYRYlagf, W f [S_xXuhS_SZ V Z R` hWZYdeZbZ Wf VY[STY\Z [a[WRYZ.) 3 The #resent riter has analysed and refuted this #osition in detail here> htt#>FF .orthodo0christianboo(s.comFarticlesF26@F8condemnation8hereticsF

This idea as first develo#ed by <etro#olitan Cy#rian *the elder- in 1:,=, in his notorious 6cclesiological #heses. The uns#o(en aim of these #heses as clearly to undermine the authority of the +ussian Church &broadBs anathema against ecumenism the #revious year. !y hoo( or by croo(, Cy#rian as determined to demonstrate that the anathema did not say hat it clearly did say> that all the ecumenists of Aorld 2rthodo0 ere outside the True Church and de#rived of the grace of sacraments. To this end he and others mobiliKed a hole variety of arguments. 1ome said that the anathema did not e0#el anyone from the Church, but as only a ' arning) to the Aorld 2rthodo0. 9n other ords, it as 5ust 'a ra# on the (nuc(les), no more. &gain, it as said that the anathema e0#elled only ecumenists inside +2C2+. 9n other ords, a +ussian old oman inside +2C2+ might be under anathema, but the #atriarchs of Constantino#le and <osco ere notE &gain, others said that since the ording of the anathema as not com#osed by the +ussian bisho#s themselves, but by some &merican mon(s inside +2C2+, it could not be valid. &gain, others said that since no heretic as s#ecifically named in the anathema, it fell on nobody. !ut the least im#lausible of the arguments as this one, that +2C2+ as a /ocal Church, so its decisions could not have universal #o er or significance. 9n fact, in their later ritings the Cy#rianites ent further and declared that no present*day 4ynod has the authority to launch an anathema e2pelling heretics from the "hurch. Thus they rote in 200: that 'so great a right and IdignityB Nof anathematiKingO is IgrantedB only to the choir of the &#ostles Iand those ho have truly become their successors in the strictest sense, full of "race and #o erB *1t. yohn Chrysostomos-). &nd they go on> 'Ae are unable to understand this hasty tendency in our day to anathematiKe and condemn, since until such successors come into e0istence, Ieveryone ho is 2rthodo0 in every res#ect anathematiKes every heretic #otentially, even if not verballyB *1t. Theodore the 1tudite-.) The #resent riter has criticiKed this #osition in detail else here. = 9f there is no 1ynod in the orld today hich has the "race and #o er to anathematiKe heretics, then the 2ne, $oly, Catholic and &#ostolic Church 6 "od forbidE 8 has lost her #o er to bind and to looseE Then even if the &ntichrist ere to a##ear and #ronounce himself to be "od today, the Church on earth ould have no #o er to anathematiKe him 6 he ould be an 'ailing) and 'uncondemned) member of the True ChurchE & ay ith such blas#hemy, such manifest lac( of faith in the #o er and dignity of the Church, hich, by virtue of its Catholicity, e0ists in every right8believing 1ynod, hatever its siKeE 9f 'everyone ho is 2rthodo0 anathematiKes every heretic #otentially, even if not verbally), then a fortiori the hierarchs of the Church have the #o er to anathematiKe every heretic, not only #otentially, but actually, and not only under their breath, but verbally and from the houseto#sE ;or, as 1t. yohn Chrysostom said, 'in orldly matters e are mee( as lambs, but in matters of the faith e roar li(e lionsE) +eturning to the 4cclesiological 1tatement, strong and ea( #oints. e see a continuing alternation of

4 htt !""###$%&th%'%()h&*+t*,-.%%/+$)%0",&t*)12+"243"4)5 &*,-*t2+4 %#2&4,-,th20,"$

'10. &s a general rule, monastics and laity from these Churches, ho have definitely been ba#tiKed according to the 2rthodo0 rite, are received into communion through anointing *zX_dg- by means of a s#ecial order, in con5unction, to be sure, ith the <ystery of sacred Confession, while clergy submit a ritten #etition and, as long as this is a##roved, are received into communion through a s#ecial brief 2rder of the 9m#osition of $ands *zWSXYjW_ag-, s#ecifically com#iled for such cases.) This is strong. To chrismate a layman is to recogniKe that the church he is coming from is false and graceless. However: '11. 9t is understood that, on the basis of idiosyncrasies in different #laces and in different cases concerning the a##lication of a more lenient or a stricter order, a decision is to be made by the local %ishop or by a competent &ynod, according to 1t. Cy#rian of Carthage> 7n this matter we do not coerce or impose a law on anyone, since e ery 8relate has freedom of will in the administration of the "hurch and will ha e to account for his actions before the 9ord *'/etter to Po#e 1te#hen,) in "oncilia ad regiam e2acta, ?ol. 9 N/uteti{ Parisiorum> 9m#ensis 1ocietatis Ty#ogra#hic{ /ibrorum 4cclesiasticorum iussu +egis constitut{, 1671O, col. 7=1-.) This is much ea(er. 9t is not rong for being ea(er, because it is true that a hierarch can rela0 the rule of rece#tion if he ants. &s 1t. Cy#rian says, it is his right as having 'freedom of ill in the administration of the Church). $o ever, the irony is that, in the failed negotiations for union bet een "T2C and the +ussian True 2rthodo0 Church under &rchbisho# Ti(hon of 2ms( and 1iberia *+T2C- that too( #lace in 200:811, the ma5or stumbling8bloc( as #recisely the +ussiansB insistence on this right, hich the "ree(s denied them *at least, #erha#s, until the final agreement statement on oe(onomia, hich the riter has not seen #ublished any here-. 1o hy are the True 2rthodo0 "ree(s being so much more fle0ible on this #oint no % There are #robably t o main reasons. The first is that to 'reform) the #ractice of all the hierarchs of the ne ly8formed bloc so that all, or at any rate the ma5ority of the heretics ho come to the Church are chrismated, is an unattainable goal. Probably only the +omanians consistently chrismate the ne calendarists ho come to them. !oth the Cy#rianites and the "ree( True 2rthodo0 are far from consistent in this #ractice. &s for the +ussians under <etro#olitan &gathangel, as e shall see later, their #ractice goes beyond the bounds of the la0est #ermissible oe(onomia. The second reason lies in the #ersonality and em#ire8building ambitions of &rchbisho# 3allini(os, ho clearly thought that union ith the Cy#rianites and their allies as a far larger and more '5uicy morsel) than the com#aratively small and #overty8stric(en +T2C. This hierarch has the re#utation of being e0tremely strict on matters of the faith. !ut the truth is that he is 'strict) to the #oint of manifest in5ustice hen some #erson or community is not useful to his #lans, but the strictness disa##ears hen he ants to dra the #erson or community into his net. Ho doubt some ould 5ustify this on the grounds that a hierarch has to manoeuvre bet een strictness and la0ity in order to serve the good of the Church as a hole. !ut 'the good of the Church) is a slogan that can 5ustify any la lessness in the mouth of an unscru#ulous man> in matters of faith, as 1t. <ar( of 4#hesus said, the true good of the Church can only reside in consistent strictness and e0actness.

&nd so e may agree ith ;r. +oman |uKha(ov, ho has ritten on ;aceboo( concerning the 4cclesiological 1tatement> '9t is already clear that the basic #rinci#les of Cy#rianism are not being #laced in doubt. The shar# anti8ecumenist rhetoric of the document should not mislead us> the grace8filled nature of the sacraments of IAorld 2rthodo0yB is, as before, not being denied; it is 5ust that it Iis not recogniKed ith certainty. es#ecially in relation to those #eo#le ho are consciously in communion ith syncretistic ecumenism and sergianismB. 9t is evident that this formulation is that invisible difference 6 invisible, that is, to the na(ed eye 6 bet een ICy#rianismB and Ithe !ulgarian 2ld Calendarist confessionB hich must no become the official doctrine of this union.)P J /et us no turn to an as#ect of the agreement of <arch, 201= that has es#ecially scandaliKed +ussian 2rthodo0 Christians> the inclusion of '<etro#olitan) &gathangel in the ne bloc. 9t is in relation to &gathangel that the o##ortunism of 3allini(os manifests itself most clearly. $aving re5ected communion in 200:811 ith the most canonical of the +ussian chief8hierarchs, &rchbisho# Ti(hon, he no enters into communion ith the orst of them, hose canonical violations and false ecclesiology are notoriousE This is not the #lace for a detailed biogra#hy of &gathangel, but some account of his more glaring and dangerous errors is necessary.
1$ 9n 1::6, shortly after becoming a +2C2+ bisho#, he

rote in the official 5ournal of his 2dessan diocese that the Catholics, the <ono#hysites and the 2ld +itualists all have grace of sacraments *:estni3 78#s, 1::6, H 2-. 1o at that time at any rate he as not sim#ly a Cy#rianite in his confession, but definitely an ecumenist heretic. &nd to the #resent riterBs (no ledge, he has not re#ented of that statement. ent as the re#resentative of the +ussian True 2rthodo0 Church under &rchbisho# /aKarus *the #redecessor of &rchbisho# Ti(hon- to He |or( in order to #resent the #oint of vie of the True 2rthodo0 inside +ussia to the 1ynod of <etro#olitan /aurus. $o ever, instead of re#resenting the True 2rthodo0 Church, &gathangel #rom#tly changed sides and 5oined the /aurite 1ynod. Curing the ne0t si0 years, &gathangel loyally signed all the decisions of the /aurite 1ynod, including those relating to 5oining the <osco Patriarchate. hen <etro#olitan /aurus signed the unia bet een +2C2+ and the <osco Patriarchate, &gathangel changed sides again 6 he refused to 5oin the unia. 2nly this time, he did not re5oin the True 2rthodo0 inside +ussia, ho ere #re#ared to receive him bac( ithout conditions, in s#ite of his #revious betrayal of them. 9nstead, he formed his o n 5urisdiction, claiming that he as the only remaining truly 2rthodo0 +ussian bisho#E $is reasoning as original> although /aurus and his 1ynod had been rong in 5oining the <P, all his decisions u# to the very #oint of 5oining the <P *including bans on many right8believing +ussian clergy and, #resumably, the very decision to 5oin the <PE-, had been correct, and so he, &gathangel, as the only +ussian bisho# ho had been loyal to /aurus to the last
.faceboo(.comFgrou#sF2,,@,022=6=,2P7F

2$ 9n 2001 he

3$ 2n <ay 17, 2007,

6 htt#s>FF

#ossible moment, as the only true +ussian bisho#. 9t is as if one said> all those ho leave a sin(ing shi# before the ater is u# to their eyebro s have left it illegitimately, and should be considered to have dro nedE
4$ Ahile condemning all the True 2rthodo0 bisho#s as graceless, &gathangel refused

to condemn the <osco Patriarchate as graceless. 9n this he follo ed, as al ays, the Cy#rianite ecclesiology. 2nly in his choice of hom to receive into his Church, he sho ed himself to be more e0treme and more indiscriminate than the Cy#rianites 6 to hom he as no indebted because they had hel#ed him in founding an uncanonical hierarchy.
6$ ;or e0am#le, in 2007 he received under his omo#horion in 3iev the ' ell8(no n

7(rainian #olitician) C. 3orchins(y and his ultra8nationalist neo8HaKi occult8totalitarian sect or brotherhood. 3orchins(y had fought in the Chechen ars on the side of the Chechens, and taught his adherents martial arts, hich he then encouraged them to #ractice on #eo#le ho disagreed ith him. The 7(rainian media called this brotherhood 'the 7(rainian 3lu83lu083lan), and many of its members ere im#risoned for acts of violence. 3orchins(y also has close lin(s ith the so8called '"reat Prior of the 2rder of the Tem#lars of the 7(raine), &le0ander |ablons(y. 3orchins(yBs sect has come close to being banned by the authorities; but &gathangelBs recognition of him, giving his sect the status of a church organiKation, ith a church building and a #riest, has #rotected him from #rosecution.
7$ &nother e0am#le. 9n 2011 &gathangel received three #arishes in 9Khevs(, 4astern

+ussia together ith their #riests. $o ever, they received a very original dis#ensation> they ere allo ed to remain in the <osco Patriarchate hile being under &gathangelBs omo#horion. &nd no they call themselves '<P in +2C2+)E
8$ & third e0am#le. &gathangel and the former Patriarch 9renaeus of yerusalem * ho

as removed from his see for rongdoing- have agreed to commemorate each other at the Civine /iturgy. Ahat does this mean if not that &gathangel is in official communion ith Aorld 2rthodo0y% &nd no this &gathangel, this scourge and bane of the +ussian True 2rthodo0 Church, has been acce#ted into communion by the True 2rthodo0 Church of "reece ithout, as far as e (no , being reDuired to correct any of the above glaring dogmatic and canonical violations.6 This is truly a betrayal of the +ussian ChurchE 2ne conseDuence of this unia, therefore, ill undoubtedly be a idening of the ga# bet een the ma5ority of the +ussian and 1erbian True 2rthodo0, on the hand, and &gathangel and the ma5ority of the !al(an and Aestern True 2rthodo0, on the other. J

7 &s ;r. +oman |uKha(ov rites on ;aceboo(> '9t seems to us that <etro#olitan &gathangel ill most
li(ely not disavo the decisions of the +2C2+ Council of 1::= on the identity of the ideology of +2C2+ and the theology of Cy#rianism, that he ill not brea( communion ith Patriarch 9renaeus, and that everything ill remain 5ust as it as.)

$o ever, in vie of the fact that e began this article by ondering hether "od could #roduce some good out of this evil, let us in conclusion consider some #ossible benefits. 7ndoubtedly a short8term benefit ill be that many ill be relieved and re5oice that the continuing disintegration of True 2rthodo0y into ever more 5urisdictions has been halted and #artially reversed. &lso to be elcomed is the #ossible encouragement it ill give to some Aorld 2rthodo0 to loo( again at True 2rthodo0y and consider 5oining it. !ut such a gain ill be real only if this unia does not eventually go the same ay as the false unia of 1::= 6 and generate still more divisions as a result. &nother #ossible benefit is that those 5urisdictions hich, because of their continuing re5ection of Cy#rianism, are not #art of this unia, 8 e are thin(ing here #articularly of the +ussian 5urisdictions of +T2C and +2&C and some #arts of +2C& *?-, 6 ill feel their s#iritual (inshi# more strongly and initiate tal(s for union amongst themselves 6 a union that is founded on the roc( of Christ and not, li(e the 3allini(ite unia, on the shifting sands of #olitical ambition and calculation. !ut as the unsound foundations of the 3allini(ite unia become clearer to more and more #eo#le, e can ho#e for another, longer8term benefit> the removal and re#lacement of its driver and leader. &rchbisho# 3allini(os has al ays been a controversial hierarch, ith many fierce critics both inside and outside "reece. $e came to the e#isco#ate *ironically, together ith Cy#rian of 2ro#e- in a flagrantly dishonest and uncanonical ecclesiastical #ra0i(o#ima, or cou#, in 1:7:. Controversy also surrounds the ay in hich he acDuired the monastery of the &rchangels in Corinth, hich resulted in the e0ile of its founder and his elder, <etro#olitan 3allistos. 2ften Duarrelling ith his first8hierarch, &rchbisho# Chrysostomos *3iousis-, he as an e0ce#tionally laKy and divisive e0arch of Aestern 4uro#e and 1erbia, a "ree( nationalist ho famously once rote that 'the 1lavs have never been good 2rthodo0). 9n contem#t of all canon la , he as called by one of his senior hierarchs 'locum tenens of the 1erbian #atriarchal throne), and tram#led on the #astoral needs and canonical rights of his 1erbian floc( to such a degree that most of them have sought refuge else here. Ahen negotiations ere begun for the union ith +T2C, 8 a union hich &rchbisho# Chrysostomos believed in but he did not, 8 he did his best to scu##er it 6 and eventually succeeded.7 &ll this ill no doubt be forgiven and forgotten by many in the eu#horia of the #resent uniate celebrations, as 3allini(osB dream of recovering 'the lost lands of the !yKantine em#ire), as he once #ut it in a sermon, by restoring "ree( ecclesiastical suKerainty over the !al(ans, loo(s to be a##roaching fulfilment. $o ever, '#ride #recedes a fall), and em#ires acDuired by illegitimate means can unravel very Duic(ly. 2ne day 6 ho (no s% 8 he may loo( bac( on the day of his greatest trium#h, the 1unday of the $oly Cross, 201=, and remember ith com#unction the ords of the /ord in the "os#el of that day> 'Ahat does it #rofit a man if he gains the hole orld but loses his o n soul%...) *<ar( ,.@6!arch )';'<, '(),. #uesday of the =ee3 of the Holy "ross. 4t. Gregory the %ialogist, 8ope of >ome.
8 Ho , ho ever, in vie of the false unia 3allini(os have created, the +ussians ill #robably than( "od that their o n union ith him did not ta(e #lace.