Is the Patriarch of Jerusalem aligned with Moscow? No doubt. He made that clear in the case of the Sinai Monastery, when he openly defied the Phanar’s line. At the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the issue isn’t even discussed.
Georgios Gerapetritis and Alexandra Papadopoulou relate to Orthodoxy affairs about as much as President Trump does to the “woke” agenda. Their ignorance is now producing consequences. Papadopoulou, reportedly, is already counting down her final weeks in the post. Take note.
Meanwhile, Theophilos made sure to meet with Turkish President Erdogan – Putin’s close ally – to demonstrate that “he has his own channels.” That he can stand independently, without support from the Phanar.
The meeting with Erdogan was far from merely “ceremonial,” despite attempts by Theophilos’ associates to present it as such. “Jerusalem is firmly in the Russian camp, and this is nothing new. The Holy Land has become an open field for Kremlin activity, facilitated through Orthodoxy and Theophilos.”
Let us not overlook how Greek interests have been disconnected from all global hubs. Greek foreign policy bears responsibility for this failure. And not only the current government. Very few prime ministers have ever truly understood the importance of Orthodoxy and its contribution to national policy.
Straining at the leash
This is not the first time the Ecumenical Patriarch has been “betrayed” by the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Nor is it the first time the Greek government couldn’t care less.
Behind the scenes, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is already taking steps. Many believe that during his visit to the United States, he will put the Theophilos issue squarely on the table in meetings with senior U.S. foreign policy officials.
How can pressure be applied? Through American leverage in Israel. The Israeli government is currently preoccupied with pressing issues in Gaza. Yet it remains certain that the authority capable of “pulling the plug” on the Patriarch of Jerusalem could, if it chose to act, succeed.
This is especially true now that Theophilos is increasingly identified with the Kremlin’s line—and, more troublingly, with Turkey’s president. Such alignments are intolerable for Israel in its own backyard.
Theophilos’ deviation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s common stance is nothing new. What is new is that Bartholomew, from U.S. soil and in direct dialogue with top officials, has a rare opportunity to address the matter decisively.
Whether Theophilos will finally be reined in—or continue charting his own course—will become clear soon enough.
Melchizedek
*Published in the newspaper “Orthodoxi Alitheia”
