Technically speaking, phyletism is the heresy that a church should be formed along ethnic lines. Yeah, that sounds bad. But when you get down to both (a) the history behind it and (b) modern chanters of phyletism, you will see that (a) the anti-phyletists were pimping their congregations and (b) the most phyletist churches today are in the loudest denouncers of anti-phyletism.
(1) Did Turkokratia sell the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the highest bidder, yes or no?
(2) Would that not mean that the EP bishops would have to come up with income to secure their spots?
(3) Would not this income have come from the taxed laymen in the Balkans?
(4) When the Bulgarians kicked out the foreign Phanariot bishops (many of whom were ranking Freemasons), did this not mean that the Phanar could no longer pay off their Turkish and Jewish creditors?
Answering yes to any of the above questions gives the lie to the “phyletist” charge. Some more questions:
(5) To so-called phyletists today actually forbid different ethnicities from joining? (No)
Bourgeois Orthodox will point out that the Council of 1872 that condemned “phyletism” was a valid council. Yeah, what of it? You see, since I am not Eastern Orthodox I can easily say that said council is “wrong” because (1)-(4).