Greek Archbishop: Orthodoxy and Hellenism are United
It's an amazing example of the double-speak which has become all too common for the Phanar.
On the one hand, Abp. Makarios attacks hierarchs of the Russian Church simply for speaking of the East Slavic peoples baptized by St. Vladimir of Kiev as a broader "Russian" civilization.
On the other hand, he speaks of Orthodoxy and Hellenism not as similar or tied to one another, but as "two wings of the same body... united and inseparable."
The first is merely an ethno-historical reality, a statement of fact; the second is a dangerous conflation of faith and ethnicity or culture.
One has to wonder how the Phanar and its clergy can claim to be so opposed to ethnophyletism when they continuously preach it from the amvon.
But the double-speak does not end there.
On February 16, 2025, the Orthodox Times reported:
On global Orthodox affairs, [Archbishop Makarios] condemned the Russian Church’s expansionist policies... He reaffirmed that no war is justified in Orthodox theology, criticizing the involvement of religious leaders in conflicts.
And yet, in the hierarch's homily on Annunciation, he praises the Greek War of Independence, saying that God was with them:
They knew they were outnumbered and lacked military resources, yet their hearts were seized by the desire for freedom. It was this longing for liberty, along with their unwavering faith that “with God nothing will be impossible,” that led to the achievement of the independence of our homeland.
If there can never be a theological justification for war, how can one justify the Greek Church and its hierarchs celebrating the Greek War of Independence - much less their support during the conflict?
If the involvement of religious leaders in war is a cause for criticism, why does Abp. Makarios not condemn Metropolitan Germanos III of Old Patros, who called for revolution and blessed the revolutionary flag?
Should he not denounce Pat. Bartholomew for involving himself in the Ukraine conflict?
Clearly, the archbishops' statements are politically motivated. The Church has clear cut teachings on war and the duties of a Christian towards their nation which are rooted in Scripture itself [Jn. 15:13] and the lives and teachings of the saints.
Unfortunately, it is not only Abp. Makarios who makes such statements. As we have repeatedly pointed out, Constantinopolitan hierarchs regularly conflate Hellenism with Orthodoxy.
Can they not be said then to espouse an ideology of the Greek World? Can we not speak of Constantinople as promulgating an ethnophilic Grecheskiy mir heresy?
Perhaps. But this would all imply sincerity on the part of the Phanar, that their statements against the Russian Church's ecclesiology are based on actual theological differences - they are not.
Instead, these are political attacks. They have been launched with the hope of securing and maintaining the support of the West - the same mistake Constantinople made in the dying days of Byzantium.
Our Greek brothers have forgotten the words which the Holy Spirit spoke through the Prophet and King David: "Put not your trust in princes and the sons of men in whom there is no salvation."
Read also
Is Lying a Sin?
Why was the Ninth Commandment not expressed directly, Thou shall not lie ? Because a lie is not something that comes out of the mouth. It’s what comes out of the heart.
The Kyiv Post Proves Our Point
How media narratives about UOJ-USA and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church collapse under their own citations
Christian Zionism Is a Heresy
Last week, the Patriarchs and Heads of the Churches in Jerusalem condemned Christian Zionism. This is long overdue. Christian Zionism is a dangerous and heretical ideology. It distorts the clear teaching of Scripture and the Fathers: that the Church, not the Zionist state, is the true Israel of God. Worse yet, it leads Christians in the West to ignore—or even cheer on—the eradication of indigenous Christian communities in the Holy Land.
Vatican I Debunks Itself: A Response to Erick Ybarra
While converting from Catholicism to Orthodoxy, I realized the strongest argument against papal infallibility isn’t buried in obscure patristic quotes. It’s screaming from the plain text of Vatican I itself: the papacy it promises simply doesn’t exist.
Sorin vs. Yasi: The Curse of Infallibility
Papal infallibility, intended as a gift to clarify doctrine, has instead become "Schrödinger's Pope"—a source of profound confusion because Catholics cannot agree on when or how often it has been exercised, rendering it practically useless for defining the boundaries of faith and causing more doctrinal chaos than it resolves.
Smoke, Mirrors, and Bad Faith: A Response to John Jackson’s “Analysis”
A detailed rebuttal of false claims, selective evidence, and activist framing presented as journalism