Why Are Orthodox Hierarchs Accustoming Us to "Archbishopesses"?
Patriarch Theophilos received Sara Mullally in Jerusalem, while at the Phanar they pray with lesbian "bishopesses." This is not courtesy or diplomacy. This is how the Overton window opens.
On June 24, 2026, Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophilos III received the "Archbishopess" of Canterbury Sara Mullally. She was accompanied by the Anglican Archbishop in Jerusalem Hosam Naoum and other individuals.
At first glance, this appears to be an ordinary diplomatic meeting with a religious leader visiting the Holy City — such meetings are not uncommon. For example, in the autumn of 2025, Patriarch Theophilos guided US Vice President JD Vance through the holy sites of Jerusalem. But in this case, things are different. Sara Mullally is not a politician or public figure. She is the first "archbishopess" to head the Anglican Church. An official meeting with her by the Jerusalem Patriarch — and especially a shared prayer — is not merely a gesture of courtesy. It is a silent legitimization of female priesthood, a step toward its recognition throughout the entire Christian world. This is precisely how the Overton window opens.
The Official Position of the Orthodox Churches
The issue of the "ordination" of women to holy orders arose in the Anglican Church as early as 1976. Then in 1978, a special session of the Anglican-Orthodox Doctrinal Commission was held in Athens. This commission included representatives of the Churches of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus, Poland, and Finland — that is, virtually all of Orthodoxy. In the final document, the Orthodox members of the commission unanimously condemned the ordination of women to holy orders and called it "an innovation without any foundation in Holy Tradition."
It is especially significant that the Orthodox participants of the Athens Statement refused to regard this question as "an internal Anglican matter." They explicitly stated: "We, the Orthodox, cannot regard Anglican proposals to ordain women as a purely internal question that does not concern the Orthodox."
In 2006, at a session of the Anglican-Orthodox Commission in Cyprus, the Orthodox participants once again expressed categorical disagreement with the decision of Anglican churches to ordain women to holy orders.
Many Local Churches have called the ordination of women an obstacle to dialogue with Anglicans. For example, in 2008, after the General Synod of the Church of England decided to introduce a female episcopate, the Russian Orthodox Church stated that this decision "significantly complicates dialogue with Anglicans for Orthodox Christians, increasingly distances Anglicanism from the Orthodox Church, and contributes to the further division of the Christian world as a whole."
But times change…
What Happened in Jerusalem
This was not merely a diplomatic reception. It was a joint prayer. Sara Mullally herself states this explicitly. On the official website of the Archbishopess of Canterbury, a text has been published in which she thanks Patriarch Theophilos for the reception and says that "to pray together in this holy place, at the heart of Christian history, was an invaluable gift for all of us."
As is well known, Orthodox canon law has always regarded joint prayer as a very important ecclesiological act. Numerous canons strictly forbid not only liturgical acts but even simple prayer with those outside Church communion. For example, the 10th Apostolic Canon: "If anyone shall pray with one who is excommunicated, even in a private house, let him be excommunicated."
Here we see not merely prayer with someone outside the Church, but with a person who subverts one of the foundational principles of the priesthood and who promotes the LGBT agenda even at the cost of a schism within their own church.
Sara Mullally, who advocates for the blessing of same-sex couples, became the first woman to serve as Archbishop of Canterbury in the entire history of the Church of England, the spiritual leader of approximately 85 million believers worldwide. However, this has caused a most serious crisis within Anglicanism itself. In October 2025, the Anglicans of Nigeria separated from Mullally, and in March 2026, 347 bishops and 121 leaders from 27 provinces of the Global South officially declared a break with the administrative center in London and established their own Global Anglican Council.
And here a strange picture emerges.
Even within Anglicanism, which is considered a fairly liberal religious community, the figure of Mullally is unacceptable to many. Yet an Orthodox Patriarch sees no problem in praying together with her on the Holy Land.
Of course, one cannot say that Patriarch Theophilos formally recognized female priesthood by this act. But it is undoubtedly a departure from the apostolic and patristic tradition.
Compelled by Necessity?
Why would Patriarch Theophilos engage in such meetings at all? The Church's position on female priesthood, the schism it has caused within the Anglican Church, and Sara Mullally's support for the LGBT agenda are all well-known facts, and the Jerusalem Primate is certainly acquainted with them. Perhaps the explanation lies in the situation in which the Jerusalem Church finds itself today — and it is quite dire.
In August 2025, the municipal authorities of Jerusalem froze the bank accounts of the Jerusalem Patriarchate due to a tax dispute. Employees of the patriarchate, schools, monasteries, and charitable institutions were left without funds.
This dispute concerns not only the Orthodox. In March 2025, the heads of Christian churches in the Holy Land protested against attempts to compel them to pay taxes, as the unbearable financial burden could threaten the very presence of these churches in the region.
The situation is further aggravated by the war in Gaza. The Jerusalem Patriarchate endeavors to assist refugees, which requires significant financial expenditure. For example, the Orthodox Monastery of Saint Porphyrios has become a refuge for hundreds of civilians.
The Jerusalem Church is in need of international support and financial assistance and hopes to receive it from influential Christian structures in the West. This may explain the particularly warm reception of the Canterbury Archbishopess in Jerusalem.
In other words, the Jerusalem Patriarch makes compromises not for himself, but for the good of the Church. But is the price not too high?
Constantinople Opens the Overton Window Even Wider
If the actions of Patriarch Theophilos can be explained by the difficult situation of the Jerusalem Church, the situation with the Patriarchate of Constantinople is somewhat different. On January 30, 2026, at the Holy Trinity Cathedral in New York, belonging to the Archdiocese of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the USA, an ecumenical prayer service was held with the participation of representatives of various confessions, including the Lutheran "bishopess" Katrina Foster. Moreover, Foster is not merely a "bishopess" but also an openly practicing lesbian. Also participating in this event was the "priestess" of the Episcopal Church USA, Kirsten Guidero, known for promoting LGBT ideology. Representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople prayed together with all of them.
Even earlier, in 2022 in Istanbul, Patriarch Bartholomew prayed with representatives of other religious organizations "for ecumenical unity." An unknown woman wearing an epitrachelion also prayed there.
And such prayer services are unlikely to cease. On the contrary, given the number of female "ordinations" among Anglicans, Lutherans, and Protestants, this tendency will only grow. And there is no doubt that the Constantinople hierarchs in such contacts are also guided by considerations of "the good of the Church."
The Old Trap of Compromise
The idea of "compromise for the good of the Church" is not new. Today it is justified by the necessity of financial assistance, international support, dialogue, peace, and so on. All of this sounds very noble — and even resembles self-sacrifice.
But church history testifies that
when hierarchs begin to do things that contradict doctrine or church morality "for the good of the Church," the result is almost always the opposite.
A few examples.
The Council of Ferrara-Florence in the 15th century. Constantinople was on the verge of conquest by the Turks and desperately needed military assistance from the West. The Emperor and a significant portion of the hierarchs agreed to a union with Rome "for the good of the Church and the Empire." The outcome: the city received no assistance, the Church was brought to the brink of schism, and Constantinople was captured by the Ottoman Turks in 1453.
The second example is the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of 1927, pledging complete loyalty to Soviet power. By this declaration he sought to save the Church from total destruction in the furnace of the repressions of the 1920s–30s. The outcome: the persecutions only intensified; thousands of priests, monks, and laypeople were arrested, exiled, and shot. Thousands of churches were destroyed. The Church fell under the complete control of Soviet authorities. The consequences of this policy, later called "Sergianism," have not been overcome to this day.
Compromise on doctrinal and moral questions has almost invariably led to tragedy in the history of the Church and has undermined its authority. And the opposite has also proven true.
The Saints Chose Faithfulness
The Church has been preserved not by those who knew how to negotiate with the powers of this world at any cost, but by steadfast confession of the faith. Here, too, are a few examples.
Saint Basil the Great (4th century) lived in an era when the authorities supported Arianism. The Orthodox were driven from their churches and sent into exile. The local governor, the eparch Modestus, attempted to persuade Basil to embrace Arianism. He threatened him with the confiscation of property, torture, and death — not only for Basil himself, but for his flock as well. Basil could have compromised, as many did. But he answered the eparch: "Threaten such things to others; as for us, these things have no effect upon us."
The Venerable Maximus the Confessor (7th century) lived at a time when the authorities supported the Monothelite heresy. Church hierarchs one after another agreed to compromise for the sake of "peace." But Maximus said: "I think not of the union or division of Romans and Greeks, but of how I may not depart from the right faith."
Saint Mark of Ephesus (15th century) refused the union with the Catholics. He stood against everyone: the Byzantine Emperor, the Roman Pope, the church hierarchs, and the political leadership of the empire. And it was precisely his position that saved the Church.
Alongside all these saints were those who proposed compromise, who skillfully explained concessions by "difficult circumstances" and "the good of the Church." But the truth of God was on the side of the confessors of the faith. And history proved them right.
Should an Abbot Compromise "for the Sake of the Brethren"?
Of course, female priesthood is far from the only challenge facing the Church today. Another example is far more acute at present — the legalization of the OCU. Among the Local Churches one can find well-known hierarchs and clergy who previously supported the canonical UOC and then turned one hundred and eighty degrees. We will not examine the "flip-flopping" of each one — two examples will suffice: Patriarch Theodore of Alexandria and Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos of the Church of Cyprus. Both visited Ukraine on multiple occasions, both warmly supported the canonical UOC and Metropolitan Onuphry personally. And then they simply "forgot" all of this.
But it is especially painful when Athos appears in this company — the stronghold of monasticism, to which people have traveled for centuries in search of the undefiled faith. Let us dwell on the arguments of its abbots, Ephrem of Vatopedi and Eliseos of the Simonopetra Monastery.
Archimandrite Ephrem spoke out many times in support of the canonical UOC and called upon Ukrainians to remain faithful to Metropolitan Onuphry. But, as we recall, in 2019 he came to Kyiv for the enthronement of Serhiy Dumenko. True, he did not attend the ceremony itself, having suddenly fallen ill and immediately left Ukraine. Later, commenting on the situation with the OCU, the abbot of Vatopedi stated that the Athonites cannot speak on the topic of the OCU, since the Holy Mountain is under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and therefore all questions regarding Dumenko should be directed there.
Even more remarkable is the rhetoric of the abbot of the Simonopetra Monastery.
According to information from the SPJ, Archimandrite Eliseos told the brethren that if he refused to recognize the OCU, he would be compelled to leave the monastery, and the Patriarch of Constantinople would appoint another, more "compliant" abbot. And the monks, after such a declaration, "did not let" Eliseos go, as he is too dear to them.
But is the meaning of a monk's life to remain at the head of a monastery by any means necessary?
In the history of the Church there are many examples of holy abbots who not only did not cling to their positions, but themselves sought to depart in order to devote themselves entirely to prayer.
The Venerable Anthony the Great. He was the head of a monastic settlement, but, burdened by the multitude of people, he withdrew far to the east, to Mount Kolzim, where by a spring and a few date palms he spent the remainder of his life.
The Venerable Sabbas the Sanctified. The founder of the famous Lavra near Jerusalem. Every Great Lent he would withdraw into the desert for solitary prayer, returning to the brethren only for the feast.
The Venerable Anthony of the Caves. When brethren gathered around him, he would again go to dig himself a new cave for the sake of solitude, entrusting the governance to appointed abbots.
The Venerable Theodosius of the Caves. Already serving as abbot, he would withdraw into a cave every Great Lent for solitary prayer, returning to the brethren only on Lazarus Saturday.
The Venerable Sergius of Radonezh. While serving as abbot of the Trinity Monastery, after a conflict with his brother Stephen, he secretly departed from the monastery without bidding farewell to anyone, in order to avoid discord.
The Venerable Cyril of Belozersk. He was the archimandrite of the Simonov Monastery in Moscow, but was burdened by the honor and sought solitude. Laying aside the abbacy, he left Moscow, departing with the monk Ferapont to the north, to the White Lake, where he founded the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. In his case, the departure for the sake of prayer proved to be final.
And these are only isolated examples, of which there are in reality very many. Can we imagine that any of the saints would have entered into prayerful communion with an unordained layperson merely to remain in the position of abbot? The answer, it seems, is clear. For whoever is prepared to compromise the faith in order to preserve their position is no longer saving the Church, but their own place within it — and that road does not lead where they think.
Conclusion: The Window Opens Quietly
What has no place in the Church does not enter through the gates. First comes an ordinary meeting, one of dozens, shared photographs. Then a joint prayer (who would object to a prayer for peace?). And at every step there are reasonable and "correct" arguments: do not exaggerate, you see the situation of the Church, one must be able to speak with everyone. There seems to be nothing to object to. But this is how the Overton window opens, centimeter by centimeter.
The danger is not in what is visible. The Church has always dealt with an open adversary and has outlasted it every time. What is more frightening is something else, less noticeable: the readiness of the shepherds themselves to yield — of course, "for the benefit of the Church."
History has shown more than once what this concern leads to. The Florentine Union did not save Constantinople — it only hastened its end. The Declaration of 1927 did not stop the persecutions. Every time faith was trampled upon "for the good of the Church," the reckoning proved heavier than the calamity from which they fled. And it was not those who knew how to negotiate who preserved the Church, but those who refused to negotiate — Basil the Great, Maximus the Confessor, Mark of Ephesus. In their lifetimes they were called stubborn and destroyers of church peace. But in the end, it was they who were proven right.
Yet this entire story has a deeper dimension. For why are we in the Church at all? Surely not to manage its earthly affairs? No, we are in it to cultivate trust in God, to nurture faith within ourselves. And what does faith consist of? Certainly not in negotiating or bargaining with someone for the sake of the Church's peaceful existence. Christ — her Head — will take care of the Church's earthly existence. Our task is entirely different: to think about how to save ourselves, how to strengthen our own faith. And this concerns a patriarch, a bishop, or an abbot no less than a simple layperson. Beyond governing the Church, they too must work out their own salvation — precisely in accordance with the words of Seraphim of Sarov: "Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved."
And our faith is strengthened precisely here, in critical moments — when there is no money, when it is dangerous, when threats come from all sides. This has always been so; in the language of the Church it is called temptation. And temptations are not to be avoided — they are to be passed through. That is why they are given: so that a person may pass through them, holding fast to God, and emerge with a stronger faith, with a living bond with Him. That is its essence.
Therefore, attempts to "lay down straw" for the Church and for oneself within the Church are a movement against faith itself — pure human calculation where trust in God is required. And the Psalmist said this long ago: "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the sons of men, in whom there is no salvation." And also: "Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain; unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain."
All of Scripture directs us toward one and the same thing. "Some trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we will call upon the name of the Lord our God." Let the powerful of this world place their hope in their connections and agreements — our path is different.
