At least, this impression is formed after a number of publications by Phanar and OCU supporters.
The latter still cannot find sufficient grounds to legitimize the anti-canonical actions of Patriarch Bartholomew and therefore resorted to new argumentation. This time they explain the policy of the Istanbul hierarch by the desire to “unite” Orthodoxy under the “spiritual guidance” of the Phanar to “ensure the bright future” of the Ecumenical Church. In this regard, an analogy has even been put forward with the formation of the British Commonwealth, where the monarch is supposedly the head formally, but at the same time all countries are independent.
With this in mind, we have a number of questions.
1. Are the authors of the thesis about the “British Commonwealth” familiar with history at least a little? The history of British colonialism and the policy that the British carried out in the territories under their control? If so, the analogy is quite interesting. Since Patriarch Bartholomew appears in the role of the leader of the force that exploited other Local Churches, and at some stage decided to transfer this exploitation to a milder format.
2. And what prevents the head of the Phanariots from securing the future of Orthodoxy without “forming a community” with himself at the head? He was previously perceived as “the first in honor” in the entire Orthodox world. Or is this not enough and, in the opinion of the Turkish hierarch, it is possible to “secure the future” only by elevating him to the rank of “Eastern pope”?
3. How can we “unite” Orthodoxy, introducing new lines of division into it and ensuring the legalization of schismatics? What is this logic? Or is it still not a question of “unification”, but of reformatting the Orthodox world for the powerful needs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople?
