The Truth About December 29th: When "Genuine Invitations" Come With Police Escorts
- Special Correspodent
- Jan 3
- 19 min read
The recent article from "Orthodox Integrity" attempts to reframe the events of December 29th as a simple misunderstanding—120 families who misread a genuine invitation and chose protest over prayer. Their narrative is carefully constructed, technically precise, and fundamentally dishonest.
Let us address their claims directly.
"The Invitation Was Public and Genuine"
Orthodox Integrity writes: "A genuine, public invitation was extended to all, including those who have received legal notices."
Let us examine what happened in the hours before that "genuine invitation" was extended:
7:45 AM: Police vehicles arrive at St. Sava Cathedral
7:50 AM: Officers position themselves around the property
8:00 AM: Parishioners begin arriving for Divine Liturgy
8:15 AM: Fr. Dragan Vuković emerges and invites people inside
8:20 AM: Police issue dispersal warnings to those who hesitate
Orthodox Integrity asks us to believe this sequence is coincidental. That four police vehicles spontaneously materialized at 7:45 AM on a Sunday morning. That their arrival 15 minutes before parishioners, 30 minutes before the invitation, was uncoordinated happenstance.
This defies basic logic.
Police vehicles do not appear by accident. They are called. They are requested. They are coordinated with specific timing for specific purposes.
The December 26th announcement itself reveals the coordination: "Everyone is welcome—including those who have received legal notices... There will be zero tolerance for demonstrations or disruptive behavior."
Think carefully about this phrasing. If everyone is genuinely welcome, why mention legal notices at all? Why announce "zero tolerance" for behavior that hasn't occurred? Why make threats before anyone has even arrived?
Because the entire structure was designed to create an impossible choice: Enter under duress and validate the new regime, or refuse and be labeled as choosing exile over worship.
Orthodox Integrity claims: "This is not a trap. It is the enforcement of publicly stated conditions."
We respond: When enforcement arrives before invitation, when police precede priests, when threats accompany welcomes—that is not hospitality. That is entrapment that failed because the target recognized it in time.
The Claim of "Miscommunication" About the Bishop
Orthodox Integrity writes: "Any statement by police attributing property decisions to 'the Bishop' reflects either miscommunication or a misunderstanding of church governance."
This is gaslighting disguised as administrative clarification.
And it is directly contradicted by video evidence from December 29th.
On camera, a police officer states to the gathered families: "The Bishop doesn't want you here."
Not "the Board." Not "the property managers." Not "the administration."
"The Bishop."
This was not a misunderstanding. This was not miscommunication. This was exactly what the officer was told—and exactly what every parishioner already knew to be true.
Let us be absolutely clear about what this video evidence proves:
Police were briefed before arrival. Officers don't spontaneously mention bishops. They repeat what they were told.
Someone told police "the Bishop doesn't want them here." That someone was either the Board (acting on the Bishop's authority) or the Bishop's representatives directly.
The police statement reflects the actual chain of command. Officers understood—correctly—that the ultimate authority behind the trespass enforcement was episcopal, not merely administrative.
Orthodox Integrity's claim of "miscommunication" requires us to believe that:
Police independently invented the Bishop's involvement
Or misunderstood clear administrative distinctions
Or were never properly briefed on who actually called them
None of these explanations are credible when the simplest explanation is obvious: Police said "the Bishop doesn't want you here" because that is exactly what they were told, and that is exactly what is true.
The video doesn't lie. The officer's words are preserved. And Orthodox Integrity's attempt to dismiss this as "miscommunication" is an insult to everyone who heard it, everyone who recorded it, and everyone who now watches it and knows the truth.
When your defense requires denying what is captured on video, you have already lost the argument.
Yes, technically the Temporary Board of Trustees manages the property. And who created this "Temporary Board"? Who authorized it? Who directs it?
Bishop Irinej.
Orthodox Integrity claims the police "misunderstood" when they said "the Bishop doesn't want you here."
The police understood perfectly. They stated exactly what every parishioner knows: The Board exists because the Bishop created it. The Board acts because the Bishop directs it. The police enforce because the Board—acting on the Bishop's authority—requests it.
This is not miscommunication. This is how institutional power actually works, no matter how many administrative layers you place between the decision-maker and the consequences.
Claiming "the Board decides, not the Bishop" is like claiming "the hand pulls the trigger, not the person holding the gun." Technically true. Substantively false.
Trespass Notices: Criminalizing the Faithful
Orthodox Integrity writes: "Trespass notices are prepared for specific individuals who have established a pattern of entering church property for purposes other than worship—specifically, to photograph, record, and gather material for opposition publications."
Let’s see who are these "specific individuals" so readers may judge whether this characterization is accurate:
Mothers who brought their children to Sunday School for years.
Grandmothers who baked prosphora for decades.
Parish council members who questioned financial irregularities.
These are the "specific individuals" Orthodox Integrity characterizes as coming "to photograph and record" rather than "to worship."
Yes, they photograph. Yes, they record. Yes, they document.
But they document BECAUSE they are faithful, not INSTEAD of being faithful.
When you see sacred items in a dumpster, you photograph it—not because you oppose the Church, but because you serve the Church by bearing witness to its desecration.
When you see security cameras destroyed, you document it—not because you want to undermine authority, but because you understand that legitimate authority does not hide evidence.
When you see the Antimins stolen from the altar, you record it—not because you are a provocateur, but because you know that future generations must understand what happened here.
In Orthodox tradition, bearing witness—martyria—is itself a form of worship. The martyrs did not remain silent in the face of persecution. They testified. They documented. They ensured the truth would survive.
Orthodox Integrity suggests that "parishioners who come to pray are welcome."
But how does one prove they have come only to pray?
Must they leave their phones at the door? Sign an affidavit promising not to notice anything disturbing? Avert their eyes from discarded icons? Pretend not to see what has been done to their spiritual home?
The condition "come to pray, not to document" is impossible to meet when the very act of entering requires witnessing desecration.
The Dumpster: "Routine Maintenance" or Desecration?
Orthodox Integrity writes: "Old, damaged, and unusable items were disposed of as part of facility maintenance. The wheelchair referenced in opposition articles was non-functional and was damaging the terrazzo flooring."
This dismissal reveals either profound ignorance of Orthodox tradition or deliberate disregard for it.
Let us be specific about what was found in that dumpster on December 27, 2025:
Icons (some damaged, some not)
Prayer books
Religious literature from the church bookstore
Items that had been blessed and sold as sacred objects
A wheelchair
Even damaged icons are not thrown in dumpsters in Orthodox practice. This is not an obscure monastic tradition. This is basic Orthodox piety taught to every catechumen:
Damaged icons are burned reverently, with prayer. Their ashes are either buried in consecrated ground or placed in running water. This ensures that the image—which has been venerated, which has been the focus of prayer, which has been a vehicle of grace—is treated with respect even in its disposal.
This is not optional. This is not a matter of personal preference. This is Orthodox tradition.
To throw icons in a dumpster—whether damaged or not—is to treat them as common trash. It is to say: "These are just objects. They have no sacred character. They can be disposed of like old furniture."
This is not "facility maintenance." This is desecration.
As for the wheelchair: Orthodox Integrity describes it as "non-functional" and "damaging the terrazzo flooring."
We do not know if it was functional or not. What we know is:
It was a mobility aid donated to help disabled parishioners enter the church
It was discarded during a purge that locked out the faithful
The symbolism is precise: A tool for helping the weak to enter, thrown away when the strong no longer want them inside
Whether this symbolism was intentional or unconscious is irrelevant. The effect is the same: Those who built this cathedral, those who sustained it for decades, those who need assistance to enter it—all are now unwelcome.
And even the devices meant to help them enter are trash.
On Vojvoda Momčilo Đujić: Dismissing the Prophetic Voice
Orthodox Integrity writes: "Vojvoda Đujić was a military leader, not a theologian or canonist, and his views on church governance—while sincerely held—do not reflect Orthodox ecclesiology."
This is academic elitism deployed to silence a prophetic warning.
No one claims Vojvoda Đujić was a trained theologian. But Orthodox Christianity has never required theological degrees for prophetic insight.
The prophets of the Old Testament were shepherds, farmers, soldiers—not seminary graduates.
Vojvoda Đujić was a Serbian Orthodox Christian who:
Vojvoda Đujić was a Serbian Orthodox priest before World War II.
He graduated from the Orthodox theological seminary in Sremski Karlovci in 1931.
He was ordained as a priest in 1933.
He served as a parish priest in Strmica (near Knin, northern Dalmatia) from around 1931/1933 until the Axis invasion in 1941.
Before the war, he was known as "Pop Vatra" (Fiery Priest) for his passionate sermons and community leadership.
His 1998 letter does not attempt to rewrite ecclesiology. It makes a straightforward observation born of lived experience:
"Church properties are managed by the people who acquired them. Our Church cannot do anything without the decision of the Church-People Assembly."
Is this theologically sophisticated? No.Is it canonically precise? No.Is it true in its essence? Yes.
The cathedral at 6306 Broadview Road was not built by the Diocese. It was built by Serbian immigrants—Pavle, Tode, and hundreds of others—who came to America after surviving genocide, worked in factories, saved their wages, and constructed a house of God with their own hands and donations.
Vojvoda Đujić's warning was not about congregationalism. It was about accountability. It was about ensuring that those who sacrifice to build churches have some protection against those who would later confiscate them.
And his warning has proven prophetic:
October 2025: Priest removed without proper notice
November 2025: Cameras destroyed, Antimension stolen, locks changed
December 2025: Police coordinate with unelected Board to threaten arrest of the cathedral's builders
Orthodox Integrity dismisses Đujić because he "was not a canonist."
We honor him because he was right.
The "Church-People's Assembly" and the Concentration of Power
Orthodox Integrity writes: "The 'Church-People's Assembly' that Đujić invoked has been removed from the life of the Church in North and South America."
Yes. It has been removed.
The recently published Diocesan Rulebook, approved by the Holy Synod, clarifies episcopal authority in diocesan administration. When exercised with pastoral care and accountability, this authority serves the Church well.
But what happens when this authority is exercised without pastoral consultation, without transparency, and without regard for those who built and sustained the parish?
We have witnessed the answer at St. Sava Cathedral.
Orthodox Integrity celebrates the Rulebook as "reflecting centuries of Orthodox practice."
We do not question the Rulebook itself—which the Holy Synod has approved and which we respect. We question how it has been applied here: without dialogue, without mercy, and without recognition of the legitimate voices of those who built this cathedral with their own hands.
The transition to new governance structures requires pastoral wisdom. Episcopal authority, when exercised with consultation and humility, strengthens the Church. When exercised hastily and punitively—as we have witnessed here—it wounds deeply.
We do not challenge the Holy Synod's authority. We challenge how that authority has been implemented at St. Sava Cathedral: to silence rather than shepherd, to punish rather than pastor, to exclude rather than embrace.
The Ustasha Comparison: Structure, Not Scale
Orthodox Integrity objects: "Comparing the reassignment of a priest to genocide trivializes the suffering of hundreds of thousands who perished during World War II."
This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what was actually said.
No one compared the reassignment of Fr. Dragoslav to genocide. That would be absurd and offensive.
What was compared to Ustasha tactics was the specific method employed on December 29th: Inviting people into an enclosed space while coordinating with enforcement authorities to arrest or disperse them.
The Ustasha did not only commit atrocities. They also employed deception:
They told Serbs they were being "relocated for their safety"
They gathered them in churches and schools—sacred spaces where people felt safe
They used priests and respected figures to issue invitations
They waited until targets were enclosed or surrounded
They then sprung the trap
The psychological tactic was consistent: Create false security, then deploy force.
The comparison on December 29th is not about scale of violence (there was none) but about structure of deception:
An invitation that appears benevolent ("Everyone is welcome!")
The concealed coordination with enforcement authorities (police arrive BEFORE parishioners)
The criminalization of hesitation (dispersal warnings for standing outside your own church)
The claim afterward that victims "chose" their fate ("They chose not to enter")
This structure—invitation masking entrapment—is recognizable to the children and grandchildren of genocide survivors.
And it is intolerable.
Could this comparison have been stated more carefully? Perhaps.
Is the comparison invalid because the outcome was less severe? No.
Because the reason we remember the Ustasha is not only the number they killed—it is the methods they used. Methods that depended on betraying trust, corrupting sacred spaces, using religious authority for political ends, and then blaming the victims.
When you invite people to church while police wait outside, you are employing the structure of betrayal, even if the outcome is not violent.
For the children of Jasenovac survivors, that structure is instantly recognizable—and instantly rejected.
Bishop Irinej's Biography: Credentials Do Not Justify Actions
Orthodox Integrity provides an extensive defense of Bishop Irinej's background:
Born in Cleveland
His parents helped build the cathedral
Defended Kosovo's monasteries
Serves on Jasenovac Committee
Healed schism in Australia
Scholar, diplomat, builder
Several of these claims require historical correction.
On "Defending Kosovo's Monasteries"
Orthodox Integrity presents Bishop Irinej as a defender of Kosovo's Serbian Orthodox heritage. The historical record tells a different—and deeply troubling—story.
In 2010, WikiLeaks published thousands of classified U.S. State Department diplomatic cables. Among them were cables from the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, dated 2006-2007, concerning the Serbian Orthodox Church's position during Kosovo's final status negotiations.
These cables identified a confidential source providing intelligence to American officials about the Serbian Orthodox Church's internal discussions and positions on Kosovo.
The source's name: Hieromonk Irinej Dobrijević.
The cable from May 31, 2006, begins: "Strictly protect throughout."
This designation indicates a confidential human source whose identity must be protected. In diplomatic language, this means: ongoing intelligence relationship.
What the cable reveals:
According to U.S. State Department records, Hieromonk Irinej "is a moderate voice within the Church and has been helpful on Kosovo."
What does "helpful on Kosovo" mean? The cables detail:
He identified which Serbian bishops were "moderate" (useful to U.S. policy) versus "hardline" (obstacles to U.S. policy)
He revealed confidential discussions from the Assembly of Bishops
He provided character assessments of senior hierarchs to foreign officials
He downplayed Serbian diplomatic efforts at Vienna negotiations
He discussed Serbian Orthodox diaspora "funding sources" with American officials
Most damning: When church leadership became suspicious and sent him to Australia, the cable notes that "he has assured us that he will seek to remain engaged on Kosovo issues" even from that distant posting.
This was not casual conversation. This was an ongoing intelligence relationship that continued even after he was moved to the other side of the world.
By June 2007, he had graduated from confidential source to public influencer, becoming the first Serbian Orthodox Church official to publicly condition church support for Kosovo on concessions—at a U.S. Contact Group outreach event.
"Defended Kosovo's monasteries"?
While the Serbian Orthodox Church fought to protect Kosovo's spiritual heritage, Hieromonk Irinej Dobrijević was providing intelligence to the government working to separate Kosovo from Serbia.
While Serbian negotiators worked at Vienna, he was undermining their positions to U.S. officials.
While senior bishops sought to preserve church unity on Kosovo, he was characterizing them as "hardline" obstacles to American officials.
The declassified cables are publicly available. They are not allegations. They are U.S. government records of his cooperation with American policy goals that directly opposed Serbian and Serbian Orthodox Church interests.
We do not mention this to attack Bishop Irinej's past service. We mention it because Orthodox Integrity's characterization of him as someone who "defended Kosovo's monasteries" requires correction.
The documentary evidence shows he did the opposite.
For comprehensive documentation of Bishop Irinej's intelligence work during the Kosovo negotiations, see:
On His Parents and the Cathedral
Orthodox Integrity states that "his own parents took out a substantial bank loan to help build this very church, donating the funds outright."
This requires historical clarification.
In 1963, when the great schism divided Serbian Orthodox communities across America, St. Sava Cathedral made a courageous decision: it remained canonical, loyal to the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Patriarch in Belgrade. Many families paid a heavy price for this faithfulness—friendships ended, business relationships fractured, even families divided.
Some parishioners—including, reportedly, Bishop Irinej's parents—chose to leave St. Sava Cathedral and align with the schismatic "Free Serbian Orthodox Church."
Bishop Irinej was eight years old in 1963. He bore no responsibility for his parents' decision. Children do not choose their parents' church affiliations.
But children do absorb the culture, the attitudes, the way of thinking of the communities in which they grow up. And the community young Mirko Dobrijević grew up in was one that had broken with Belgrade, that opposed the Patriarch's authority, that saw itself as fighting against what it perceived as communist influence in the Mother Church.
Whatever his parents' reasons—and they may have been sincerely held—their son spent his formative years in a community defined by opposition to the very authority he now represents.
This is not a moral criticism. Many good people joined the Free Serbian Orthodox Church in 1963 for reasons they believed were right. The question is not whether his parents made the wrong choice. The question is whether growing up in that oppositional culture shaped patterns of thinking and behavior that persist today.
Whatever donations his parents made to help build St. Sava Cathedral occurred before 1963. When the cathedral chose to remain canonical, his family chose the schism. Young Mirko grew up in the schismatic community. He later changed sides—as many did after Patriarch Pavle's reconciliation work in the 1990s.
But did he ever truly leave the oppositional mindset behind?
The question is not whether he returned to canonical Orthodoxy—he did. The question is whether the patterns learned in a community defined by opposition to episcopal authority, by resistance to Belgrade, by seeing itself as righteous rebels against an unjust hierarchy—whether those patterns can be unlearned simply by changing which church one attends.
Children absorb more than doctrine. They absorb culture, attitudes, ways of responding to authority. Young Mirko Dobrijević grew up in a community that had broken with the Patriarch, that saw compromise as betrayal, that valued defiance over obedience when convinced of its own righteousness.
He changed sides. But the WikiLeaks cables from 2006-2007 show a man still operating in opposition—this time secretly, to foreign powers, against Serbian interests. He changed sides again. But his governance in Cleveland since 2024 shows a man who blocks communication with Belgrade, removes priests who question him, operates with minimal transparency, and creates division wherever he serves.
Same pattern. Different target. The oppositional culture he absorbed as a child appears to have shaped him more deeply than the canonical Orthodoxy he later embraced.
The historical record shows that his family's active involvement with St. Sava Cathedral—the canonical one that remained loyal to Belgrade—ended when he was a child.
This makes the current situation deeply complex: The cathedral that remained canonical in 1963—despite losing families who left for the schism—now finds itself in conflict with a bishop who grew up in the schismatic community, returned to canonical Orthodoxy, but may have never fully left behind the oppositional patterns learned in his youth.
The question is not whether Bishop Irinej has accomplished things in the past. The question is whether his actions toward St. Sava Cathedral since October 2024 have been just, canonical, and pastorally sound.
Let us review those actions:
October 28: Fr. Dragoslav removed
November 16: Security cameras destroyed
November 18: Antimension taken from altar
November 18: Sacred items found in dumpster
December 2-3: Unelected "Interim Board" installed without congregational vote
December 5: Locks changed; parishioners cannot enter their own church
December 21: Trespass notices issued to mothers, grandmothers, lifelong parishioners
December 26: Conditional invitation issued: "Come worship, but police are ready"
December 29: Four police vehicles arrive before 8:00 AM; dispersal warnings issued
These are facts that must be addressed.
Not Bishop Irinej's birthplace. Not his parents' donations. Not his service in Australia or Kosovo.
In Orthodox tradition, we judge trees by their fruit, not by the soil in which they were planted.
And the fruit of these five months has been:
Division. Exile. Desecration. The criminalization of faithfulness. One hundred twenty families standing in the rain, reading a 26-year-old warning that has come true with devastating precision.
The Australian "Success" vs. Cleveland Catastrophe: Why Healing There and Destruction Here?
Orthodox Integrity loves to tout Bishop Irinej's "great achievement" in Australia – supposedly healing a decades-old schism. They present this as proof that he is a "unifier," not a "divider."
But this story actually makes the current situation in Cleveland even more tragic – and far more revealing.
A man who allegedly spent years "patiently" healing a 50-year schism in Australia has spent just five months rapidly creating a new one in Cleveland that could last just as long.Why?
Because whatever "methods" worked in Australia have been completely thrown out in Cleveland – replaced with brute force and zero tolerance:
There: years of dialogue
Here: 48-hour ultimatums
There: listening to both sides
Here: unilateral decisions with no discussion
There: respect for local tradition
Here: dismantling parish governance structures that worked for decades
There: transparency
Here: midnight installations of "temporary boards" without a single parish assembly
There: humility and willingness to compromise
Here: threats of "zero tolerance," police coordination, and criminal charges
The Australian "success" (if it was truly a success) only happened because both sides wanted reconciliation. In Cleveland? No dialogue. No assembly. No explanation for removing Fr. Dragoslav. No answers for destroyed cameras. No accountability for the stolen Antimension.
No apology for sacred items dumped in a dumpster.
No consultation on the "temporary board."
Just escalation – faster every week: priest removal → cameras smashed → locks changed → trespass notices → police on standby.
A man who supposedly "healed" a schism with patience is creating one here with pure haste and intimidation.
The question is obvious: Why?
What happened to that "patience"? The dialogue? The respect for local communities?
Or was the Australian "success" only possible because it wasn't "home"? Because he wasn't personally invested, emotionally entangled, or tearing down the very parish his own parents helped build?
Here in Cleveland, we see the real picture: a bishop who cannot tolerate questions, who installs relatives and close allies, who calls police on his own people, who discards holy objects in trash and blames others for his actions.
This isn't about "healing."
This is about control.
And control doesn't heal divisions – it creates them.
UNWORTHY.
December 29th: What Actually Happened
Orthodox Integrity concludes: "No one was arrested. No 'trap' was sprung. The liturgy was celebrated. The doors remained open throughout. The opposition chose not to enter."
Let us reframe this with one change—replacing passive constructions with active ones, revealing who did what:
What Orthodox Integrity Claims:
"No one was arrested" (passive)
"Doors remained open" (passive)
"The opposition chose not to enter" (blaming)
What Actually Happened:
The parish leadership called police before 8:00 AM (active)
Four police vehicles arrived and positioned themselves (active)
Fr. Dragan issued an invitation while police waited outside (active)
120 families recognized the trap and refused to enter (active)
Police issued dispersal warnings (active)
Families moved across the street and prayed there (active)
No liturgy was offered to them (active - by omission)
No priest came outside to serve them (active - by choice)
This is what happened.
Orthodox Integrity asks: "Why didn't they just enter?"
We answer:
Because Serbian Orthodox Christians do not enter churches at gunpoint.
Because the grandchildren of Jasenovac survivors know what it means when authorities say "enter" while police wait outside.
Because you cannot worship freely when your presence has been criminalized.
Because the invitation was not genuine—and 120 families had learned, through nine Sundays of standing in the rain, not to trust words when actions contradict them.
On Open Churches and Closed Hearts
Orthodox Integrity concludes: "The church is open. The Eucharist is offered. The invitation stands."
No. The church is not open. Not really.
A church is not defined by unlocked doors. It is defined by welcomed people.
A church where 120 families choose not to enter because of the Bishop’s questionable activities is not open.A church where police arrive before parishioners is not open.A church where cameras are destroyed to hide evidence is not open.A church where sacred items are thrown in dumpsters is not open.A church where the children of builders cannot enter what their parents built is not open.
You can unlock every door, turn on every light, and celebrate every liturgy—but if the people who built and sustained it cannot enter without fear, the church is closed.
Spiritually closed. Morally closed. Closed in every way that matters.
On Reconciliation
Orthodox Integrity speaks of reconciliation as if it means: Submit. Be silent. Forget what happened. Go back inside and pretend October through December never occurred.
That is not reconciliation. That is capitulation.
True reconciliation requires four elements:
1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - The leadership must admit what was done wrong2. ACCOUNTABILITY - Those responsible must face consequences3. AMENDMENT - The structures that enabled this must be reformed4. ASSURANCE - Safeguards must be established so it cannot happen again
Until these four elements exist, there is no reconciliation—only surrender.
And the 120 families standing in the rain have made clear: They will not surrender.
They will stand. They will pray. They will document. They will appeal to the Holy Synod in Belgrade. They will teach their children what faithfulness looks like when institutions fail.
They will wait.
Not for doors to open—the doors were always physically open.
They wait for the Church to open. For leadership to remember that the Church is not property to be managed but the Body of Christ to be served. For recognition that parishioners are not tenants who can be evicted but members who built the very walls they are now forbidden to enter.
On Traps and Truth
Orthodox Integrity objects to the word "trap," insisting that December 29th was "merely enforcement of publicly stated conditions."
But a trap is not defined by physical restraints. It is defined by deception.
A trap is:
Saying one thing while meaning another
Extending an invitation while preparing consequences
Offering the Eucharist with one hand while calling police with the other
Creating an impossible choice where every option is wrong
If they entered: "See? They came back. The opposition is collapsing. They've submitted."
If they refused: "See? They don't want to worship. They only want to protest. This proves they're not genuine."
This is the structure of a trap. Not bars and locks, but a rigged game where every move is used against you.
And 120 families recognized it.
They recognized it because they have spent nine Sundays watching this leadership's pattern.
They learned not to trust words when actions contradict them.
So when the invitation came—"Everyone is welcome!"—accompanied by four police vehicles at dawn, they knew exactly what it was.
Not an invitation. A trap.
And they refused to spring it.
Conclusion: Accuracy vs. Truth
The Orthodox Integrity article is a masterpiece of technical accuracy deployed in service of fundamental dishonesty.
Yes, the invitation was public.Yes, no one was arrested.Yes, the liturgy was celebrated.Yes, the Board manages property.
Every sentence is defensible. Every claim has a factual basis.
And yet the entire article is a lie—because truth is not the same as accuracy.
Accuracy tells you WHAT happened.Truth tells you WHY it happened.
Orthodox Integrity tells us that:
Four police vehicles appeared
An invitation was extended
No one was arrested
Doors remained open
They do not tell us WHY:
Police arrived before parishioners
The invitation came with threats
Families feared to enter
120 people stood in the rain instead of entering the church their grandparents built
Because answering those questions would require admitting what everyone present already knew:
December 29th was not an invitation. It was a test designed to break the resolve of 120 families.
It failed.
Not because police didn't show up—they did.Not because the threat wasn't real—it was.
But because the families recognized the trap and chose a third option:
Stand across the street. Pray together. Wait for the Holy Synod. Refuse to be driven away OR driven inside under false pretenses.
This was not the choice the leadership wanted.
But it was the choice of free people who will not be manipulated into abandoning their principles or accepting their exile.
Final Words
Orthodox Integrity asks us to judge December 29th by technical outcomes: no arrests, no violence, doors open.
We judge it by moral reality:
Four police vehicles before 8:00 AM. Coordinated intimidation. An impossible choice. And 120 families standing in the rain, singing hymns across the street from the church their grandparents built with their own hands.
When you need four police vehicles to offer the Eucharist, you have already lost everything that makes the Church holy.
When you throw icons in dumpsters, you have already desecrated what you claim to protect.
When you lock out the children of builders, you have already betrayed the legacy you claim to honor.
When you call police on grandmothers with prayer ropes, you have already forgotten what it means to be Orthodox.
The technical facts do not vindicate the leadership.
They indict them.
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
— Matthew 5:10-12
THE TRUTH WILL NOT BE SILENCED BY TECHNICALITIES.
Comments