The Repose of a Contemporary Saint: A Holy Man Adorns the Romanian Church (1985)

Archimandrite Chrysostomos (future Metropolitan of Etna)

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. II (1985), Nos. 3-4, pp. 7-11.

 

 

Until some ten years ago, when a Romanian clergyman from Moldavia visited the Holy Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina in Greece, few Orthodox Christians knew of the existence of the Church of True Orthodox Romanians of Greece, the some one million Faithful in Moldavia who resisted the change in the Orthodox Calendar by the Romanian Church some decades ago and remained faithful to Church Tradition. Once these people became known, so too did the holy reputation of their Metropolitan, the beloved and blessed Metropolitan Glycherie, a man of such holy stature that, at his repose on Saturday June 16/29, half of Moldavia turned out for his funeral. Little known to the rest of us, that day marks the loss of one of the greatest Orthodox confessors in modem times, a man so transformed in holiness that his very presence — as I myself know from my visit to his cell in Romania — would provoke tears.

The tragic history of the Church of Romania is set against the holiness of this little man. Some five or more decades ago, the Romanian Church was beset by modernism, ecumenism, and such ecclesiastical turmoil that its very structure was shaken. Seeing this, the retired secretary of the Synod, Metropolitan Galaction, a courageous and holy man himself, began to resist these trends, undertaking his mission in the form of the restoration of the Old Calendar. Chief among his supporters and co-workers was the then Hieromonk Glycherie, a man already recognized for his holiness.

As the Romanian Church took precipitous steps toward modernism, Metropolitan Galaction, being unable to find any co-Consecrator, Consecrated Hieromonk Glycherie to the Episcopate in 1956, requiring of him that he find, eventually, a true-believing Bishop to correct the Consecration, which done out of absolute necessity. (We will not discuss here, out of propriety, some statements made by certain clergy in America about this act of “economy.” Let it suffice to say that such individuals lack both the charity and theological education to understand such things and that their vulgar comments about Metropolitan Glycherie, a man of manifest holiness, say about as much as need be said.) It was in 1979, after contacts with the Synod of Bishops now under Bishop Cyprian (and then under Bishop Kallistos of Corinth), that Metropolitan Glycherie’s promise to the Blessed Metropolitan Galaction was fulfilled; in this year, Bishop Cyprian’s Synod and the Synod of Bishops of the Old Calendar Romanian Church came into full communion. This communion exists to this day.

Metropolitan Glycherie is succeeded by three Bishops, the senior among them being Bishop Sylvestros, a man of great energy and piety. They are left with a million Faithful, sixty huge parishes, five immense monastic communities (three for women and two for men), and numerous, smaller monastic hermitages. The Metropolitan bequeathed to them an order which is astounding, all services being many hours in length and conducted according to the oldest typica. Many of the parish Churches, destroyed during the persecution of the Old Calendarists, were personally rebuilt by Metropolitan Glycherie, who is as much the “grandfather” of Moldavia as their beloved Saint.

Metropolitan Glycherie died in his 100th year, having communed and having conversed, in the presence of all in his cell, with the Apostles Peter and Paul – one of endless miracles witnessed by those who knew this holy Father. For reasons that one can easily understand, given the situation in Romania today, Metropolitan Cyprian, much to his bitter disappointment, was unable to obtain a visa to be present to take part in the funeral of Metropolitan Glycherie. Hieromonk Ambrosios and Monk Dionysios, who were granted visas and sent as his representatives, were turned back at the border and also kept from entering Romania. Nonetheless, communications from Moldavia indicate that half of the province was at the funeral and that the government could do nothing to stop this massive display of religious fervor.

What can one say about a Saint like this and about the Orthodoxy which he preserved? When I went to Romania, I thought that in Moldavia I had been transported to another planet, or that I had returned to Byzantium. At every Church, literally thousands upon thousands of people greeted us, singing and throwing flowers on us. The Services were astounding. The piety of the people was something one sees only in the very best Old Calendarist communities in Greece. The Churches, built without approval, were beautiful, stately, and huge. The bravery of the people was obvious. And everywhere the Churches were filled with young men and women, as were the monasteries and convents, while the State Church institutions, with few exceptions, looked like museums. And at the core of all of this? Metropolitan Glycherie.

When I entered the Metropolitan’s cell (he was quite ill at the time and not expected to live then, some five years ago!), my heart stopped. I thought of all of the filth and slander I had heard from so-called traditionalists in America, who had told me about this uncanonical Bishop. Indeed, I thought, what fools these smug people are. For a moment, so profound was the presence of Grace in the room, I thought that my breathing also had stopped. Here in front of me this frail, old, tiny man was emanating a power that the world’s greatest conquerors could never have hoped to have. For one of the few times in my life, I had some idea what tangible Grace really was. The experience is one of which I can no longer even speak.

It would be fruitless to tell of the holiness of this man. Books will be written in Romania about him for years now. And undoubtedly these will be translated into Greek and English. One small miracle, so delicate and beautiful, however, tells us how much he pleased God and how much God loved him. Once, while escaping persecution, he and some spiritual children went deep into the forest. As they were fleeing, it began to snow. His spiritual children became very frightened, noting that their pursuers would see their tracks in the snow and follow them. Metropolitan Glycherie simply looked up and prayed to the Theotokos. Within minutes a flock of birds flew down and pecked at the snow, obliterating their tracks! Such was the love of God for this man.

There is no doubt that this holy man is now in the choir of Saints. I would be so bold, therefore, as to ask that he pray for us, who are now daily losing those who are our links to the great spirituality of the Fathers. As Mother Alexandra, retired Abbess of the Holy Transfiguration Sisterhood in Ellwood City, Pennsylvania, and former Princess of Romania, told me on hearing of this holy man’s death, “We now have another Saint to pray for us in Heaven.” May God raise us up, in our unworthiness, to be worthy of preserving what such holy Fathers as Metropolitan Glycherie have given us!

 

Imitators of Saint Glicherie of Romania

Bishop Cyprian of Oreoi | June 15, 2011 (N.S.)

 

 

Your Eminence Metropolitan Vlasiē,
Holy and Reverend Hierarchs,
Brethren and Sisters in Christ,

Today, all of us who participate in this holy Feast are greatly blessed by our Lord and God—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

And we are blessed because before us we have a true Rule of Faith, a true Image of Meekness, a true Teacher of Temperance.

Before us we have a true Image of God, a true Imitator of Christ: the newly-revealed Saint, Venerable One, Ascetic, Apostle, Martyr, Confessor, and Wonderworker, the Hierarch Glicherie, who calls and exhorts us: "Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ."

***

But how did our newly-revealed Holy Father Glicherie become an Imitator of Christ, so that we also may become his imitators?

Christ our Savior, after His Baptism in the Jordan, being in the Wilderness, on the Mount of Forty Days, faced three great temptations: Vainglory, Love of Money, and Love of Pleasure; and He conquered them and cast them out.

But He also faced a fourth temptation, before His Passion: the Martyr’s Death; He likewise conquered that temptation, when in the Garden of Gethsemane, He surrendered Himself and submitted to the will of His Heavenly Father.

***

Our Holy Father Glicherie likewise confronted successfully and victoriously—by the grace of our Lord and the help of the Theotokos—these four temptations.

Throughout his turbulent life:

a. He struggled against Vainglory through humility, simplicity, and prayer;

b. He struggled against Love of Money and Possessiveness through poverty in Christ, non-acquisitiveness, sacrificial love for the sheep of our Christ, tenderness, and compassion;

c. He struggled against Love of Pleasure through asceticism in Christ, temperance, austerity, and suffering;

d. Finally, he struggled—on behalf of Orthodoxy and Her Traditions—against Death many times, in prisons, in persecutions, and in isolation, entrusting himself with complete confidence
into the hands of God, through the Theotokos and all the Saints.

***

In this way, then, our Holy Father Glicherie became an Imitator of Christ; and he exhorts us—and will continually exhort us—to imitate Him, by struggling throughout our life against Vainglory, Love of Money, Love of Pleasure, and Death, for the sake of our Holy Faith.

Essentially, however, our entire life is a ceaseless struggle against Death and for Life: against the death brought by manifold sin, which besieges us on all sides, and for the Life which we draw from our participation in the Passion and Resurrection of our Christ, from communion in the Immaculate Mysteries, and from the keeping of the divine Commandments.

***

Christ our Savior proclaimed that He is the Truth and the Life.

Our Holy Father Glicherie was a true bearer of the Truth of our Christ, but also of the Life of our Christ.

Let us imitate him, just as he became an Imitator of Christ. Let us persist in remaining faithful to the Truth of Orthodoxy and far from Innovations, but with Love, Compassion, Meekness, and Brotherly Love.

Let us strive continually for the Life of our Christ to become our own life, casting out Vainglory, Love of Money, Love of Pleasure, and the Death of manifold sin.

In this way, we shall become true imitators of our Holy Father Glicherie and shall show that we are his true children.

Then Christ will live within our hearts, and we in our Christ, so that through us the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit may be glorified, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen!

 

Source: Ορθοδοξος Ενστασις και Μαρτυρία, Vol. III, Issue No. 5, December 2011, pp. 38-39.

On the Pseudo-Council of Kolymbari: Refutation of the Article “7 Things About the Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016”

 

On June 17, 2021, the Basilica News Agency published the article “7 things about the Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016,” [1] in which the following points are enumerated:

1. It did not formulate new dogmas, new canons, or liturgical changes.

2. None of the hierarchs who did not sign the documents stated that the reason for not signing was some heresy.

3. The essential unity of the Orthodox Church was affirmed, as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

4. It reiterated the fact that the Orthodox Church does not accept that its members enter into civil partnerships or any other form of cohabitation different from marriage.

5. It did not legitimize other genders than the “female” and “male” ones (gender theory).

6. It did not reduce the periods of fasting.

7. Ecumenism was not proclaimed as a new dogma of the Church.

We will go through each point individually and will refute it or comment on it, depending on the situation.

1. It did not formulate new dogmas, new canons, or liturgical changes.

a) Refutation:

“The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016” formulated new dogmas.

Argument:

According to Professor Dimitrios Tselenghidis, emeritus professor of dogmatics at the Faculty of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, the Church is a truth of faith. [2] When one speaks about the Church, one speaks about Her in a dogmatic manner.

The document The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World introduces a modification of Orthodox ecclesiology that is related to the identity and uniqueness of the Orthodox Church. This change is determined by paragraph 19, which enshrines the Toronto Statement (1950) [3] as a constitutional reference document, which makes the text no longer able to be treated independently.

“19. The member Orthodox Churches […] have the profound conviction that the ecclesiological premises of the Toronto Statement (1950), entitled ‘The Church, the Churches and the World Council of Churches,’ are of capital importance for Orthodox participation in this Council.” [4]

By analyzing the two documents together, it is observed how the Orthodox Church acquires a different meaning compared to how She is confessed by the Holy Fathers in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith, She not identifying Herself (in either of the two documents) as the Unique Body of Christ. [5] Instead, a distinction appears between the term “Church” and the term “Orthodox Church.”

On the one hand, the term “Church” has the meaning of the Church of Christ, but which does not refer to the Orthodox Church, but to an unseen universal Church that includes all Christian confessions that have as a point of departure the faith that Christ is God and Savior, a church under construction whose unity would have been lost and must be restored, or a church which God builds, gathering His children. [6]

On the other hand, the Orthodox Church does not have a perfect identity with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of the Creed, but becomes one of the many Christian confessions included in this universal Church. According to the ecclesiological premises of the Toronto Statement, the Orthodox Church thus identifies itself as follows: one of the “children” whom God gathers in order to build His Church, it does not possess the full truth, it claims to be the Church of Christ without fully identifying with it, although separated from the other confessions, it can give a common witness together with them, it has certain elements of the true Church and does not have clear boundaries, being included in the “true Church of Christ.” [7]

The premises adopted through this Synod, foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology, detailed and explained in the work A Historical Approach to the Context of the Dialogue with the Heterodox. The Toronto Statement, [8] are the following: “ecclesia extra ecclesiam” (Church outside the Church), [9] the mutual recognition of Baptism by the members of the so-called World Council of Churches, dogmatic minimalism, the “theory of incomplete churches” and the doctrine of “vestigia ecclesiae,” [10] the theory of the “lost unity of the Church,” [11] ecclesiological neutrality, [12] and the concept of “unity in diversity of evangelical expression.” [13]

These premises affect the manner in which the Orthodox Church relates to heresies, without clearly establishing the boundaries of the Church and who are those outside Her. Thus, in the documents of the “Council of Crete,” the terms “heresy” and “heretic” do not appear at all, being implicitly amnestied; contrary to the previous Councils which condemned heresies and heretics, this synod recognizes the “historical designation” of other “churches and heterodox confessions” [14] (pars. 6 and 16) and, through the adoption of the Toronto Statement, even attributes to them an ecclesial status, being called “elements” and “traces” of the true Church or “powerful means through which God works.”

Likewise, the wording of paragraph 4, which states that the Orthodox Church (and not the Church of Christ) “has always cultivated dialogue with those who have separated themselves from her,” some being “closer” and others “farther away,” [15] reflects the theory of “incomplete churches,” foreign to Orthodox patristic thought.

All these premises that were adopted, and the new manner in which the Orthodox Church relates to heresies and heretics, cumulatively represent ecclesiological heresies. In conclusion, the new dogma is the new ecclesiology formulated in the two documents: the document The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World and the Toronto Statement, which stand in antithesis to the ecclesiology of the Holy Fathers—which affirms the identity, uniqueness, and fullness of the Orthodox Church.

b) Refutation:

“The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016” formulated new canons.

Argument:

Paragraph 22: “The Orthodox Church condemns every attempt to disrupt the unity of the Church by individual persons or groups, under the pretext of preserving or of a supposed defense of authentic Orthodoxy. As the entire life of the Orthodox Church bears witness, the preservation of authentic Orthodox faith is ensured only through the synodal system, which has always constituted, within the Church, the highest authority in matters of faith and canonical rules (canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council).” [16]

This paragraph becomes a source of ecclesiastical law for every autocephalous Church that accepted it, having the value of a Canon. As a result of it, clerics who publicly criticized the so-called Council of Crete were subjected to canonical investigation and deposition. [17] Therefore, “the Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016” formulated a new Canon which punishes Orthodox Christians who do not hold the same official position as that adopted within this Council.

c) “The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016” did not formulate liturgical modifications

There are no observations related to this point.

2. None of the hierarchs who did not sign the documents stated that the reason for not signing was some heresy.

Refutation:

The hierarchs who did not sign the documents stated that the reason for the non-signing is the fact that the texts do not reflect the Orthodox faith.

Argument:

His Eminence Ierótheos Vlachos, Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Saint Vlasios, published in Greek the book entitled “The Holy and Great Council” of Crete, Theological and Ecclesiological Positions, [18] in which he explains the reasons for the non-signing, the interventions of His Eminence within the Council, and the grounds for the heretical character of the texts adopted by this Council. Among the chapters that are eloquent for this subject are: Heresy: “the ontology of the person,” The duality of theological discourse, ambiguity and confusion, Essential issues related to the “Holy and Great Council,” Ecclesiological issues, Unfounded arguments regarding the use of the term “Church” for heterodox groups, The non-Orthodox theory of “heterodox Churches,” The “technical term” used as a substantial term. His Eminence also mentions the fact that to call heresies “churches” is a heresy in itself, according to the Synod of Jerusalem of March 16, 1672.

Even if other hierarchs with dogmatic conscience who did not sign the documents of this synod, through a diplomatic language, avoided using the term heresy, nevertheless their public statements expressed exactly this.

Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol, who likewise did not sign the texts of the “Council of Crete,” stated: “My conscience would not have allowed me to sign.” [19]

Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou declared the following: “Dogmatic clarity is required when we speak about what the Church is and what heterodox Christians are. We humbly maintain that the above text suffers from intentional theological ambiguity.” [20]

Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro and the Littoral did not sign, saying that the Document itself had not been prepared properly, as the Serbian delegation had underlined at the previous preparatory meetings in Crete. [21]

In support of the assertion that the documents of the “Council of Crete” contain heretical texts, we also bring into consideration the fact that four Local Autocephalous Churches did not participate in this “Council”: the Church of Georgia, the Church of Bulgaria, the Church of Antioch, and the Russian Church. These did not adopt the decisions taken at the “Council of Crete,” rejected the designation “Holy and Great,” and the Georgian Synod even condemned the texts of the so-called Council.

1. According to the official website of the Bulgarian Patriarchate: “1. Following a careful study of the texts adopted by the Council of Crete, the Holy Synod reached the conclusion that they contain deviations from Orthodox Tradition, from the dogmatic and canonical tradition of the Church, as well as from the spirit and the letter of the Ecumenical and Local Councils.” (Synodal Session of November 15, 2016) [22]

2. The Georgian Orthodox Church declared that “The documents from Crete must reflect the teaching of the Orthodox Church; which is not the case with the present set of texts” (Synodal Decision of December 22, 2016) [23]

3. The Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church considered the formulations of the “Council of Crete” problematic and does not receive it as Ecumenical, nor its decisions as binding (Resolution of 29 November – December 2, 2017) [24]

4. The Patriarchate of Antioch considered that its documents [the meeting in Crete] are not final, but remain open for debate and theological revision with a view to the convocation of the Great Pan-Orthodox Council, with the participation of all Autocephalous Orthodox Churches (Declaration of June 27, 2016) [25]

Likewise, within the framework of the round-table discussion that took place in Chișinău, [26] in the capital of the Republic of Moldova, on June 29, 2016, Fr. Prof. Univ. Theodoros Zisis and Prof. Univ. Dimitrios Tselenghidis made an Orthodox evaluation of the Council of Crete, concluding that a heretical ecclesiology was formulated and that its acceptance leads to the penetration of the pan-heresy of ecumenism directly into the Church.

Moreover, there are also bishops who did not participate in the Council of Crete, theologians and Fathers of the Church who criticized this council and considered it heretical, as can be observed in the information centralized on Orthodox theology websites. [27]

3. The essential unity of the Orthodox Church was affirmed, as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Refutation:

On the contrary, the essential unity of the Orthodox Church was not affirmed anywhere.

Argument:

If the essential unity of the Orthodox Church had been affirmed, there would have existed in the text categorical statements related to the fact that: the Orthodox Church is one in its very essence, is the Body of Christ, and identifies itself with the One Church of the Creed.

However, by going through the text in its entirety, no such statements exist; on the contrary, a clear difference of meaning is observed between the term “Church,” which has the sense of the invisible Protestant Church (as it is misunderstood in the Toronto Statement of 1950), and the term “Orthodox Church,” between which there is no relationship of identity.

By the use of these terms which are not in a relationship of identity, and by the fact that it is not clearly affirmed in a categorical statement that only the Orthodox Church and only She is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of the Creed, the Orthodox Church loses her identity and uniqueness. Not even the first paragraph of the document The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World affirms this identity, according to grammatical and logical analysis. [28] The text lacks specificity, limitation, and restrictiveness, leaving room for multiple interpretations and ambiguities, which is impermissible in a theological text.

Even when the term unity is mentioned, according to the text “6. According to the ontological nature of the Church, her unity cannot be disturbed. The Orthodox Church accepts …”, [29] it is observed that unity in this case refers to the unity of the Church of Christ (the unseen Church that includes Christian confessions according to the Protestant model) and not to the unity of the Orthodox Church.

4. It reiterated the fact that the Orthodox Church does not accept that its members enter into civil partnerships or any other form of cohabitation different from marriage.

Observation:

Canon 72 of the Trullan–Quinisext Council states that it is not permitted for an Orthodox Christian to marry a heretical woman. Similarly, an Orthodox woman cannot be married to a heretical man. [30]

Through the document The Sacrament of Marriage and its Impediments, [31] point 5 ii, mixed marriages are approved through a false economia, thus relativizing Canon 72 of the Trullan–Quinisext Council.

5. It did not legitimize other genders than the “female” and “male” ones (gender theory).

There are no observations regarding this point.

6. It did not reduce the periods of fasting.

Observation:

The fasts ordained according to the canons [32] are the Wednesday and Friday fasts throughout the year and the Fast of Lent; the rest are fasts of piety. Fr. Professor Patrick Ramsey [33] says that to institute other fasts besides the canonical ones is an abusive imposition of the Eastern tradition, a tradition which in the Western part did not exist over time.

7. Ecumenism was not proclaimed as a new dogma of the Church.

Refutation:

On the contrary, ecumenism was proclaimed, called dialogue on the Protestant platform “World Council of Churches” (WCC).

Argument:

According to the professor of dogmatics Dimitrios Tselenghidis, emeritus professor of the Faculty of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, the “Council of Crete” institutionally consolidated ecumenism, thus introducing and promoting ecclesiological confusion in the consciousness of the faithful. [34]

Ecumenism, defined as the movement that seeks the rapprochement and union of all “Christian churches,” is promoted through the document The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World, [35] which regulates dialogue with heretical groups on the WCC platform. Contrary to patristic teaching, the dialogue is conducted on the basis of dogmatic minimalism, and in this context the term “heresies” is replaced with the phrase “theological differences,” [36] and the term “heretical groups” is replaced with “heterodox confessions.”

The purpose of these dialogues through participation in the WCC is not to bring heretics into the Orthodox Church through the renunciation of their heresies, but to promote the unity of Christians, as is mentioned already in the first paragraph of the document, that is, the unity of Orthodox with heretics. According to the principle of “unity in diversity,” by which none of the members of the WCC is obliged to relativize its own ecclesiology, [37] even if the Orthodox confession were that the Orthodox Church is the possessor of the Truth, the only and Unique Church, with dogmas and boundaries established by the Ecumenical Councils, this has no chance of becoming the official doctrine of all of Christianity. [38]

The institutional consolidation of ecumenism is achieved both through the excessive and meticulous regulation of the procedures of dialogue (paragraphs 9 to 15) [39] and through the mention of bodies that promote “Christian unity,” such as the World Council of Churches (WCC) and other similar ones. [40]

Although the term “ecumenism” is not used directly, the references to the Ecumenical Movement, the theological dialogues, the common witness that the Orthodox Church would give together with the other heresies [41] on the basis of dogmatic minimalism, and participation in the WCC are clear indications of the manifestation of ecumenism.

 

End notes

[1] https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2855931977964997&id=1611918709033003&_rdr, accessed on November 30, 2025.

[2] Conference in the great hall of the House of Culture in Constanța, June 1, 2010, The Importance of Dogma in Dialogues with the Heterodox, https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2023/11/09/profesor-dimitrios-tselenghidis-importanta-dogmei-in-dialogurile-cu-eterodocsii/, accessed on Nov 30, 2025.

[3] The Toronto Statement 1950, ratified through paragraph 19 of the document The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World.

[4] The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World (Official document), paragraph 19, https://basilica.ro/sfantul-si-marele-sinod-relatiile-bisericii-ortodoxe-cu-ansamblul-lumii-crestine-document-oficial/, accessed on Nov 30, 2025.

[5] Ephesians 1:22–23, Ephesians 4:15–16, Colossians 1:18, Colossians 1:24, Romans 12:4–5, the article The full (uncensored) version of the interview given by Professor Dimitrios Tselenghidis after the “Council” of Crete, the response of Prof. Tselenghidis to the question “But to return to the dogmatic area, I would ask you what you believe to be today the most dangerous heresy? What today is contested par excellence is the Church Itself as the unique Body of Christ.” https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2019/01/11/profesorul-ortodox-dimitrios-tselenghidis-despre-sinodul-din-creta/, accessed on Nov 30, 2025.

[6] The Toronto Statement 1950, Premise IV, paragraphs 5, 7, 8.

[7] Conference Analysis from the point of view of logical principles of the texts of the Document “The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” adopted within the Council of Crete (2016) and of the Toronto Document (1950), Raluca-Mihaela Serdaru.

[8] Conference The Readings of Saint John at the old Church of Saint George (Rotunda) in Sofia, 9–10 June 2017, Fr. Matei Vulcănescu, A Historical Approach to the Context of the Dialogue with the Heterodox. The Toronto Statement, https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2017/11/29/o-abordare-istorica-a-contextului-dialogului-cu-eterodocsii-declaratia-de-la-toronto/, accessed on November 30, 2025.

[9] Ibid., “All Christian Churches, including the Church of Rome, maintain that there is not a complete identity between belonging to the Universal Church and belonging to their own Church. They acknowledge that there are members of the Church extra muros, that these belong aliquo modo to the Church, or even that there exists an ecclesia extra ecclesiam.”

[10] Ibid., This concept, which was adopted by the Second Vatican Council as a direction of ecclesiological thinking, is termed in theological language “the theory of incomplete churches.” It was taken from the Protestant theological thought of Jean Calvin, who spoke about the “remnants of the true Church” (vestigia ecclesiae).

[11] The Toronto Statement 1950, Premise III.2.

[12] Ibid., Premise III.3.

[13] Ibid., Premises III.4, III.5.

[14] Conference The Readings of Saint John at the old Church of Saint George (Rotunda) in Sofia, 9–10 June 2017, Fr. Matei Vulcănescu, A Historical Approach to the Context of the Dialogue with the Heterodox. The Toronto Statement.

[15] The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World (Official document), paragraph 4, https://basilica.ro/sfantul-si-marele-sinod-relatiile-bisericii-ortodoxe-cu-ansamblul-lumii-crestine-document-oficial/, accessed on November 30, 2025.

[16] Ibid., paragraph 22.

[17] https://www.pazaortodoxiei.ro/2024/12/16/parinti-care-au-fost-caterisiti-pentru-contrazicerea-pozitiei-oficiale-a-bor-in-legatura-cu-sfantul-si-marele-sinod-creta-2016/, accessed on November 30, 2025.

[18] By Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Saint Vlasios Ierotheos, The “Holy and Great Council” in Crete: Theological and Ecclesiological Positions, Publications: Holy Monastery of the Nativity of the Theotokos, First Edition 2018.

[19] https://www.romfea.gr/epikairotita-xronika/9162-lemesou-athanasios-gia-logous-suneidiseos-den-to-upegrapsa, accessed on Dec 1, 2025

[20] https://www.cuvantul-ortodox.ro/recomandari/marturisirea-mitropolitului-neofit-de-morfou-care-a-refuzat-semnarea-documentului-panortodox-relatiile-bisericii-ortodoxe-cu-ansamblul-lumii-crestine-intemeiata-pe-marturiile-sfintilor-contempor/, accessed on Dec 1, 2025.

[21] https://orthochristian.com/95154.html, accessed on Dec 1, 2025.

[22] Synodal Meeting of Nov. 15, 2016, https://orthodoxie.com/le-saint-synode-de-leglise-orthodoxe-de-bulgarie-a-pris-position-sur-le-concile-de-crete-et-le-texte-les-relations-de-leglise-orthodoxe-avec-le-reste-du-monde-chretien/, accessed on Dec 19, 2024.

[23] Synodal Decision of 22 December 2016, https://www.orthodoxethos.com/post/final-decision-of-the-church-of-georgia-on-the-council-of-crete-summary, accessed on December 19, 2024.

[24] https://mospat.ru/en/news/47917/, accessed on Nov 20, 2025.

[25] Declaration of June 27, 2016, https://www.antiochpatriarchate.org/en/page/statement-of-the-secretariat-of-the-holy-synod-of-antioch-balamand-27-june-2016/1448/, accessed on Oct 28, 2023.

[26] The Chișinău Declaration, Moldova, 29 June 2016, https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2016/07/22/evaluare-ortodoxa-a-sinodului-din-creta-declaratia-de-la-chisinau/, accessed on Dec 1, 2025.

[27] Condemnation of the Council of Crete 2016 by Local Synods, Fathers, Synaxes, theologians, https://www.pazaortodoxiei.ro/condamnarea-sinodului-din-creta/, accessed on Dec 1, 2025.

[28] Conference Analysis from the point of view of logical principles of the texts of the Document “The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” adopted within the Council of Crete (2016) and of the Toronto Document (1950), Raluca-Mihaela Serdaru.

[29] The document The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World, paragraph 6.

[30] Canon 72, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm, accessed on Dec 1, 2025.

[31] https://basilica.ro/sfanta-taina-a-cununiei-si-impedimentele-la-aceasta-document-oficial/, accessed on November 30, 2025.

[32] Apostolic Canon 69, Pidalion 1841, PDF version, p. 88

[33] Live broadcast ROC TV dated Sep 16, 2023, with Fr. Matei Vulcănescu and Fr. Professor Patrick Ramsey, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ICygEI0DF4

[34] Letter of Mr. Dimitrios Tselenghidis, Professor of the Faculty of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, addressed to the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece and published on Romfea.gr, https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2016/08/08/dimitrios-tselenghidis-scurta-evaluare-a-sfantului-si-marelui-sinod-2/, accessed on Nov 30, 2025.

[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism, accessed on Nov 13, 2025.

[36] The document The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World, paragraph 11.

[37] The Toronto Statement, 1950, premises III.4, III.5.

[38] Conference “The Readings of Saint John” at the old Church of Saint George (Rotunda) in Sofia, 9–10 June 2017, Fr. Matei Vulcănescu, A Historical Approach to the Context of the Dialogue with the Heterodox. The Toronto Statement,

https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2017/11/29/o-abordare-istorica-a-contextului-dialogului-cu-eterodocsii-declaratia-de-la-toronto/, accessed on November 30, 2025

[39] Session of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Bulgaria, 15 November 2016, https://orthodoxie.com/le-saint-synode-de-leglise-orthodoxe-de-bulgarie-a-pris-position-sur-le-concile-de-crete-et-le-texte-les-relations-de-leglise-orthodoxe-avec-le-reste-du-monde-chretien/, accessed on Dec 19, 2024.

[40] The document The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World, paragraph 16, “Conference of European Churches,” “Middle East Council of Churches,” and “All Africa Conference of Churches.”

[41] Ibid., paragraphs 6, 19, 23, 24 The Toronto Statement 1950, “the churches […] despite their division, […] to give one and the same witness […] thus to be able to manifest something of unity.”

 

Romanian source: https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2025/12/07/combaterea-articolului-7-lucruri-despre-sfantul-si-marele-sinod-din-creta-2016/

“The one and the Truth constitute the majority”

 

On matters of faith and Spirit-bearing ecclesiastical organization, decisions taken by majority vote—or even unanimously—have no value or significance if they come into opposition and conflict with the dogmas and canons of the Church. In such cases, the principle applies absolutely: “The one and the Truth constitute the majority.” On the basis of this principle, Orthodoxy has been preserved throughout the ages, and heresies and schisms have been crushed. It is enough to recall what occurred during the decades-long dominance of the Arians in the fourth century, when the majority or even unanimity of numerous councils—proven to be robber councils or false synods—took the side of Arius’s heresy and stood against Orthodoxy. The Great Fathers of the Church not only did not submit to the decisions of these false synods, but raised their stature upon the ramparts of Orthodoxy, like Saint Athanasius the Great. Perhaps the most striking case in Church history, it confirmed in the most triumphant way that “the one and the Truth constitute the majority.” If Saint Athanasius the Great had conformed to the principle of majority rule and had submitted to its uncanonical and unorthodox decisions, he would have betrayed his office as a true Orthodox Hierarch and Bishop, whose highest mission is the defense—even unto death—of the Sacred Deposit entrusted to every true bishop, revealed by the Crucified God of Love and Truth. And then, instead of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, what would be celebrated would be the triumph of heresy—and in place of Saint Athanasius the Great, Arius would be glorified!

 

Greek source: Η μεγάλη προδοσία, 1973-1993, του αρχιεπισκόπου Σεραφείμ, by Professor Konstantinos Dor. Mouratidis, Orthodoxos Typos, Athens, 1993.

Selections from the book “The Concept of Defilement of the Orthodox from Ecclesiastical Communion with Uncondemned Heretics.”

PART A

(The excerpts published are from the book of the same name by Hieromonk Eugenios in simplified language. Text editing: Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou.)

 

Introduction

There is spiritual defilement for the Orthodox when they commune with heretics who have been cut off from the Church. This arises from passages in the Prophet Ezekiel, as interpreted by the Holy Fathers, as well as from testimonies of the Holy Apostles, the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and generally the Fathers of the Church. The same is taught by Saint Basil the Great.

Just as:

• the Third Ecumenical Council dealt with Nestorius,
• the Fourth with Dioscorus,
• the Sixth with Macarius,
• the Seventh with the Iconoclast bishops who returned,
• and the Ninth with John Kalekas and Gregory Akindynos,

so also, from the official texts and decisions of these Councils it appears clearly that all these individuals had real and canonical priesthood until the moment they were deposed. Only then did they lose it.

They had priesthood even when they were in unrepentant heresy (which is why they were deposed), or – in the case of the Seventh Ecumenical Council – before they repented.

Although in various eras the heretics prevailed in local Churches, even officially and for many years, and although they taught heresies already condemned in the past and revived them synodically, while the Orthodox avoided communion with them, the very existence of their priesthood had not been destroyed. This is clearly seen at least from the Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils.

Deposition, as explained precisely by the Ecumenical Councils, is not merely an announcement that the priesthood had already been lost, but its removal. That is, the grace of the priesthood is removed by a specific synodical act, at a specific time, by God and the Synod of bishops.

Therefore, the idea that defilement means automatic deposition or that the Mysteries become automatically invalid is not supported by the acts of the Ecumenical Councils. This holds true even when a heresy has been synodally recognized, as also happened at the Council of Crete in 2016.

***

What is Defilement and How It Operates

1. The root and cause of defilement is heresy, which the devil sows into the heart of man. A person becomes a heretic because he accepts heresy.

2. Heresy first defiles the heretic himself, because it separates him from God. This is the first and fundamental effect and is confirmed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council and by testimonies of Saints, such as Abba Agathon. Up to this point, the defilement concerns only the person of the heretic.

3. Heresy causes schism [that is, a division – trans. note.] within the Church. The unity of the faithful takes place through Holy Communion. The heretic who has not yet been synodally condemned breaks this unity, because he has already been cut off from God. This is confirmed by the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and by the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, which vindicates those who break communion before synodal condemnation.

4. The Mysteries are defiled, both those of the heretic and of those who knowingly commune with him. This is clearly shown in the Fifth Ecumenical Council, where the name of Pope Vigilius was removed from the diptychs so that the Mysteries of the Orthodox bishops would not be defiled.

We avoid the deposed or heretical priest not only because he no longer performs valid Mysteries, but also because of his mindset, for from that the defilement begins.

5. The defilement of the Mysteries signifies judgment and condemnation, both for the priest and for those who knowingly commune with him. Just as someone who receives Holy Communion while in grave sin without repentance does so to his judgment and condemnation, so too in this case does Holy Communion become unto judgment and condemnation.

6. Defilement also means:

– participation in heresy,

– divine condemnation of the heretic,

– and ultimately, removal from the grace of God.

Communion with a heretic, according to the Fathers, means:

– commemoration or concelebration (for clergy),

– receiving Holy Communion from him (for laity),

– common prayer or even close association.

***

Important Clarification

A decisive role is played by whether something occurs “knowingly.” That is, whether someone is aware that the other is a heretic and nonetheless communes with him. For those who do not know or do not fully understand, the responsibility belongs to the judgment of God, who knows the hearts and intentions of each person.

As Saint Theodore the Studite says, we cannot pass absolute judgment on everyone, because people differ in knowledge, intention, age, and zeal.

Our duty is to follow what the Fathers have handed down to us, so that we do not go astray. The greater the knowledge, the greater also the responsibility, as the Holy Scriptures and the Gospel teach.

This is what the texts say.

The principle “he who communes with the excommunicated shall himself be excommunicated” does not apply only to heretics who have already been condemned synodally, but also to heretics who have not yet been officially condemned, according to the teaching of the Holy Apostles, the Fifth Ecumenical Council, the Holy Canons, and the Holy Fathers.

The Holy Canons (the 2nd and 10th Apostolic Canons) impose non-communion not as a punishment, but to avoid spiritual defilement. Just as non-communion is imposed on someone who communes with a condemned heretic in order not to be spiritually defiled, the same applies when someone communes with a heretic who has not yet been condemned.

Defilement does not stop with the first person. It is transmitted:

– from the heretic,

– to the one who communes with him knowingly,

– and even further, to a third person who communes with the second.

It is like communicating vessels: participation in the schism of the heretic occurs either directly or indirectly when there is conscious communion.

In simple terms:

Since defilement is transmitted from the uncondemned heretic to the Orthodox person who communes with him, it is also transmitted to whoever communes with them. That is, there is both direct and indirect participation in the schism.

***

Economy and Its Limits

Ecclesiastical “oikonomia” does not nullify these conclusions but confirms them. Precisely because defilement exists and because the Holy Canons impose separation from heretics, the Church—in exceptional cases and synodally—may temporarily allow something that is normally strictly forbidden.

This is done only:

– when there is a most serious reason (e.g. the salvation of souls),

– and when it is accepted by the fullness [plērōma] of the Church.

Oikonomia does not abolish the defilement:

– neither in the heretic himself,

– nor in those who commemorate him or commune with him,

when the heresy is openly taught within the Church.

Exceptions exist only in cases of extreme necessity (e.g. threat of mass slaughter of the faithful), or in cases of spiritual infirmity, where oikonomia is applied gradually, with the aim of slowly leading the person to the full observance of akribeia (precise canonical rigor).

Oikonomia is temporary and ceases when the believer reaches the full application of the Holy Canons.

This form of oikonomia was also applied by Saint Theodore the Studite. It can be applied only if specific conditions are met:

For Orthodox clergy:

– not to commemorate a heretical bishop,

– not to concelebrate with a heretical clergyman,

– not to administer Mysteries to a heretic.

For Orthodox laity:

– not to receive Holy Communion from the chalice of a heretic who has not been deposed.

Therefore, oikonomia proves that the Holy Canons are obligatory, not optional. If they were optional, oikonomia would not be necessary.

***

Testimony from the Fifth Ecumenical Council

The unity of the Church is disrupted only by heresies. Whoever thinks differently from what the Church has received:

– loses the unity of the faith,

– and the communion of the Holy Spirit.

For this reason, the Fifth Ecumenical Council considers it the highest duty of priests to safeguard the unity of the faith.

When a priest departs from the Orthodox faith:

– he defiles the Mysteries he performs,

– he loses the grace of spiritual fatherhood,

– and from being a shepherd he becomes a wolf that destroys the flock.

That is why the name of Pope Vigilius was removed from the Diptychs—to preserve the purity of the Mysteries.

In the Diptychs:

– only Orthodox are commemorated,

– and heretics are removed,

whether living or departed.

For it is not Christian to equate heresy with the Orthodox faith. All priests must have one mind, one conviction, one faith: the Orthodox truth.

***

Final Conclusion (In Simple Terms)

The priest who consciously teaches heresy:

– loses the grace of the Holy Spirit,

– causes schism,

– defiles the Mysteries—not because he ceases to be a priest, but because they are performed unto judgment and condemnation, both for himself and for those who knowingly commune with him.

For this reason:

– we avoid communion with heretics,

– we do not commemorate those who are not in the Orthodox faith,

– we safeguard the unity of the Church and the purity of the Mysteries.

All priests are obliged to hold one faith: the Orthodox—the Truth.

***

And now let us be permitted to include a text which we retrieve from the introduction of the book The Fifth Ecumenical Council, by Metropolitan Meletios:

“...This unity is disturbed only by heterodoxies. Whoever thinks differently from what was handed down ceases to have the unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, according to the Fifth Council (Act I, § 3.17), the supreme duty of the priests, the guardians of the Church, is the safeguarding and the securing of the unity of the faith.

The fall of priests from the unity of the faith defiles the Mysteries performed by them and removes from them the gift of spiritual fatherhood. Instead of shepherds, they become wolves, devouring their flock (see Act VI § 15.10 and Act I § 3.14).

For this reason, Justinian declares (and the Council confirms this position [in Act VII § 16.1–2]) that he would never tolerate receiving Holy Communion from priests suspected of heresy.

And the Orthodox, throughout the entire duration of the Acacian Schism, refused to receive the spotless Mysteries from the hands of those merely suspected. “Why have we remained out of communion for so many (35) years? Why do we not commune?” (ACO 3, p. 72).

Priests and fathers are only those who keep the faith unadulterated (Act I § 3.14).

Every priest performs the spotless Mysteries worthily and unto sanctification only so long as he is united with the faith of the Church. The commemoration in the holy Diptychs takes place precisely for the declaration and safeguarding of this unity.

In the Diptychs of the living, the names of the “in communion” Orthodox hierarchs and patriarchs are inscribed and proclaimed. For this reason, our Council, in order to guard the purity of the holy Mysteries, removed the name of the then-reigning Pope Vigilius from the holy Diptychs (see Act VII § 16–17).

In the Diptychs of the departed, only the Orthodox Fathers and teachers are commemorated. Therefore, when it was established that Theodore was teaching heterodox doctrines, his name was removed from the holy Diptychs of the Church in Mopsuestia.

“It is foreign to Christians for heretics to be commemorated in the holy Diptychs,” our Council emphasizes (Act VII § 16.3), for “it is foreign to Christians to accept impiety (= heresy) on equal terms with the Orthodox faith” (Act I § 3.13).

All priests must have one and only one opinion (Act II § 5.7); one mindset; the right faith; the Truth.”

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/12/blog-post_44.html

The Life, Character, and Outlook of Saint Chrysostomos of Florina - A Public Lecture

A bishop of the UOC requests a statement regarding the boundaries of Ecumenism (“following the example of the decisions of ROCOR in 1983 on ecumenism.”)

 

Introduction

Metropolitan Luke of Zaporizhzhia and Melitopol (UOC – Synod of [Metropolitan] Onufriy [of Kiev and All Ukraine]), at a conference organized in Belgrade under the auspices of the Center for Geostrategic Studies, called for a Pan-Orthodox Council with the aim of condemning “Eastern Papism” and the geopolitical interventions of the Vatican and the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the life of Orthodoxy.

In his keynote address titled “The Ecumenical Offensive as an Instrument of Geopolitics: Media, Finances, and the Diplomacy of the Vatican and the Phanar,” he analyzed in detail the mechanisms of external influence employed through Ecumenism, international media, financial support, and diplomatic activity. He emphasized the dangers to the spiritual and canonical integrity of Orthodoxy, highlighting the need for unity and collective action among the Local Churches.

The conference gathered leading theologians, Church representatives, journalists, and international analysts from Greece, Italy, Serbia, Poland, Mount Athos, and the United States. The participants discussed critical issues such as the crisis in Orthodox ecclesiology, the consequences of Ecumenism, the protection of spiritual heritage, and strategies for safeguarding canonical unity.

The address of Metropolitan Luke clearly presents the necessity for a systematic response to ecclesiastical and geopolitical pressure, combining spiritual, theological, social, and pan-Orthodox measures.

The text adopts a clearly critical stance toward the Ecumenism of the Vatican and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It maintains that the ecumenical initiatives:

1. They exceed theological dialogue and are transformed into instruments of geopolitical influence, affecting the Church through media, financial resources, and diplomacy.

2. They create dangers for Orthodoxy, such as dogmatic distortion, polarization among the Local Churches, the instrumentalization of religion by states, and the loss of the faithful’s trust.

3. They present Ukraine as an example, where the OCU was portrayed by pro-Phanariot and Western media as “the only canonical Church,” thereby reinforcing its political dimension at the expense of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

4. He analyzes the diplomatic and humanitarian activity of the Vatican, noting that humanitarian aid, international meetings, and participation in forums are used for political and ecclesiastical influence.

5. He proposes specific countermeasures.

Overall, the Metropolitan perceives Ecumenism as a threat to Orthodoxy, emphasizes its geopolitical and communicative dimensions, and highlights the need for a strategic response that combines spiritual, theological, social, and legal means.

…

Fr. D.A. [Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou, a walled-off clergyman in Greece – trans. note]

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/12/uoc.html

 

***

 

LUKE (Kovalenko),
Metropolitan of Zaporizhzhia and Melitopol
Ukrainian Orthodox Church

 

The Ecumenical Offensive as an Instrument of Geopolitics: Media, Finances, and the Diplomacy of the Vatican and the Phanar

 

Introduction

Contemporary geopolitical struggle goes far beyond the limits of economics and military security, actively intruding into the spiritual sphere. It affects the life of the Church, distorts the understanding of canonical order and the true state of affairs. In this context, a special role is played by the ecumenical initiatives of the Vatican and the Ecumenical Patriarchate (the Phanar), which are rapidly being transformed from platforms for inter-Christian dialogue into instruments of “soft power.” Through media channels, material support, and direct participation in diplomatic processes, these centers influence the sympathies of elites, legitimize new ecclesiastical (and quasi-ecclesiastical) structures, and alter the balance of power in entire regions, as clearly demonstrated by the example of Ukraine. [1]

The task of this report is to analyze how ecumenical projects shape the international agenda, which media resources and financial mechanisms are employed, and what consequences this leads to for the Orthodox world. On the basis of this analysis, specific steps are proposed for the protection of the spiritual and canonical integrity of Orthodoxy.

1. Ecumenical Projects as Instruments of Political Influence

1.1. The Change in the Nature of Ecumenism

Contemporary ecumenism, initiated by the Vatican and the Phanar, often goes beyond the bounds of theological dialogue, turning into a means for the formation of geopolitical alliances, the exertion of pressure on the Local Orthodox Churches, the introduction of a liberal social agenda, and the justification of the legitimacy of secular states’ interference in internal ecclesiastical processes. Thus, the form of “dialogue” is used as a diplomatic platform for the advancement of influence.

2. Media as an Instrument of Pressure and Legitimation

The Phanar actively uses a number of English-language and Greek-language information channels, such as Orthodox Times, Ecumenical Patriarchate News, Greek Reporter, and resources connected with the diaspora. [2] These media perform key functions in shaping an interpretation of events favorable to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, attempting to present and confer legal force and generally recognized significance upon its controversial canonical acts.

This can be traced very clearly in the media support of the “Ukrainian project — the OCU.” During the period 2018–2020, pro-Phanariot news resources disseminated a narrative in which the OCU was presented as “the only canonical Church of Ukraine,” and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as a “Russian structure not connected with the Ukrainian people.” The decisions of the Phanar were presented as obligatory for the entire Orthodox world, [3] and informational pressure was exerted on those Local Churches that expressed doubts and disagreement with its actions.

This interpretation was synchronized with Western media, which presented the granting of the Tomos to the “OCU” as a “victory of democracy and sovereignty,” which demonstrates close media-political coordination. [4] Studies and publications show that the Phanar (as well as the Vatican) work carefully with society through their own information platforms and partner media, and this makes a religious initiative also an information operation within a broader political game.

3. Financing and the Role of External Actors

Open sources indicate systematic external financial and political support for the Phanar’s projects by structures of the Greek diaspora in the United States, American diplomatic foundations, and transnational non-governmental organizations oriented toward the promotion of “religious freedom.”

The Lantos Foundation included Patriarch Bartholomew in projects for the “promotion of freedom of conscience.” This narrative then returns in Church media as “international support for church reforms.” In the “Archons”—an organization connected with the Patriarchate of Constantinople—it was stated that at the International Religious Freedom Summit (IRF Summit) Patriarch Bartholomew was mentioned as a “bridge-builder.” [9]

4. The International Policy of the Vatican and Its Connection with Ecumenical Initiatives

4.1. The Vatican as a Diplomatic Power

The Vatican demonstrates considerable experience in constructing interconfessional dialogue, humanitarian initiatives, and political diplomacy, creating for itself the image of a “peacemaker.” [7] Ecumenical dialogue is used by it as a channel for forming special relations with influential states, exerting influence on religious processes in Eastern Europe, and promoting the social doctrine of Catholicism as a global norm.

4.2. Synergy of Instruments: Media, Finances, and Diplomacy

Media (official channels such as Vatican News), financing (through Caritas, Catholic Relief Services), and diplomacy operate in close coordination. [8] Public campaigns create a favorable background for political decisions, humanitarian assistance ensures a presence “on the ground,” and official diplomacy consolidates the results at the symbolic and formal levels. [9]

5. Concrete Examples and Illustrations

• The Tomos of autocephaly of the OCU (2019) — the ecclesiastical act of Constantinople was publicly and politically supported by Ukrainian state leaders, which strengthened its perception as an element of pro-Ukrainian diplomacy rather than an intra-ecclesiastical matter. [10]

• The participation of the Phanar in international summits on Ukraine (2024–2025) — speeches and the signing of final documents by Patriarch Bartholomew at diplomatic venues demonstrate the integration of the ecclesiastical institution into political processes and make it possible to transmit its position through international formats. [11]

• Vatican diplomacy around the “Russia–Ukraine” conflict — calls for peace and large-scale humanitarian assistance through Caritas were combined with formulations that critics regarded as neutral toward the Russian Federation, which was used in information wars. [12]

• The meeting of Pope Francis with [OCU “Metropolitan of Kyiv”] Epiphany Dumenko is a continuation of the process of recognizing the “OCU” in the religious world and a support of the non-canonical actions of the Phanar. [13]

• Humanitarian support through Catholic structures — large volumes of funds and projects of CRS / Caritas strengthen not only the social but also the socio-political influence of Catholic structures in the regions. [14]

6. The risks and consequences of this activity for Orthodoxy are seen in:

• Doctrinal dilution and institutional subordination to the Vatican.

• Polarization within the Orthodox world, since there exists a threat of division into supporters of different centers.

• The instrumentalization of religion by secular states through the support of particular ecclesiastical actors.

• Loss of trust among the faithful, who may begin to perceive the Church as a political project.

• Escalation of inter-Orthodox conflicts through the use of information campaigns and sanctions.

7. Our proposals for the protection of spiritual and canonical integrity

To counter these risks and threats, a systematic, multi-year strategy is necessary, which may include the following components, presented here for discussion:

1. Media counter-narrative and information security

o The launch of a multilingual media platform of Orthodox unity (an analogue of Orthodox Faith, but with a budget and a professional editorial team).

o The preparation and dissemination of short educational series (videos 3–5 minutes, infographics, podcasts) on the topics: “What is canonical territory,” “Why ecumenism contradicts Holy Patristic Tradition,” “How to distinguish humanitarian aid from an instrument of influence.”

2. Strengthening one’s own social and humanitarian programs

o The creation or significant expansion of existing charitable services, so that external assistance is not perceived as the sole source of support.

o The introduction of a system of “Orthodox crowdfunding” — a unified platform for raising funds for social projects within the Local Churches.

3. Education and catechesis of the new generation

o The introduction of a mandatory course “Contemporary Challenges to Orthodoxy: ecumenism, globalization, geopolitics,” both in theological seminaries and academies and for the laity.

o The holding of annual inter-Orthodox forums for clergy and laity.

4. Inter-Orthodox unity without the Phanar and external pressure

o Against the background of geopolitical upheavals and divisions in the Orthodox world, to consider the Patriarchate of Jerusalem as a potential center capable of uniting the Local Churches, since, unlike the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which is deeply involved in provoking disagreements, the Church of Jerusalem actively works toward strengthening unity.

o The holding of regular meetings of the Primates and Synodal commissions of the Local Churches that preserve Eucharistic communion (the ROC, Serbian, Antiochian, Georgian, Bulgarian, Polish, Czech Lands and Slovakia, and others).

o The drafting and adoption of a joint document “On the boundaries of ecumenical dialogue and the preservation of canonical purity.”

o The establishment of a permanent Secretariat of Orthodox unity (as I have previously proposed, using the Amman model).

5. Legal and international protection

o Support for the existing international legal group of Orthodox hierarchs and lawyers to represent the interests of persecuted communities in the ECHR, the UN, the OSCE, and others.

o The submission of collective appeals to international organizations for each instance of discrimination against the canonical Church (seizure of a church, arrest of a priest, prohibitive laws).

o In the event that sanctions are imposed against any hierarch — within 72 hours, a joint statement by all participating Local Churches.

6. Spiritual and theological measures

o An increase in the number of conciliar anathemas and public condemnations of contemporary forms of ecumenism and “Eastern papism” (following the example of the [anathema] decisions of ROCOR in 1983 on ecumenism).

o The universal revival of the practice of the public reading of the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy” on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, with the addition of contemporary threats.

o Periodic services of supplication for the admonition of those who have fallen away (in the diocese entrusted to my administration, I commemorate “those who inflict afflictions upon us” at the Great Entrance during the transfer of the Gifts).

7. Monitoring and early warning

o The creation of an additional analytical center to track ecumenical and geopolitical threats (on the basis of existing structures—for example, at the Center for Geostrategic Studies in Belgrade).

8. Transparency of financing and external ties

The introduction of mandatory annual publication of reports on foreign grants and donations. The establishment of an Inter-Orthodox Commission for monitoring financing under the aegis of canonically responsible Local Churches, which will publish “black lists” of donors found to be involved in anti-canonical activity.

9. Long-term strategy

o The preparation and convening of a Pan-Orthodox Council of the Local Churches (possibly without Constantinople) for the final condemnation of “Eastern papism,” contemporary ecumenical errors, and the formulation of clear canonical norms for the 21st century.

The establishment of a permanent Inter-Orthodox court for canonical violations.

Conclusion

The ecumenical initiatives of the Vatican and the Phanar in the 21st century have turned into a full-scale geopolitical project, using media, finances, and diplomacy to alter the canonical landscape of Orthodoxy. The response can only be firm standing in the Truth, reinforced by a mature strategy, systematic defense, inter-church solidarity, and one’s own informational agency. Possessing the Holy Patristic Tradition and the ability for its creative re-actualization, the Orthodox world has everything necessary to turn the current crisis into an opportunity for purification and strengthening. We have millions of faithful children. All that remains is to act decisively and in a coordinated manner. Then the present “ecumenical offensive” will become not a threat, but an occasion for a new flourishing of Orthodoxy.

 

Notes [numbering jumps from 4 to 7 in the original Russian – trans. note.]

1. Religious Information Service of Ukraine (RISU) — a portal that regularly publishes analysis of the role of religious institutions in conflicts, including on the example of Ukraine. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://risu.ua/ (official RISU website; search by keywords “hybrid conflicts,” “religion and war,” etc.).

2. Orthodox Times — an information resource close to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://orthodoxtimes.com/ (official website).

3. Official website of the Permanent Representation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the World Council of Churches (news and documents of the Patriarchate). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.ecupatria.org/ (previously the domain ecupatria.org was used as the Patriarchate’s news portal).

4. Reuters, 5 January 2019: “Ecumenical Patriarch signs decree granting Ukraine church independence.” [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1OZ0AP/ (archival Reuters article; related materials on the topic are available at https://www.reuters.com/)

7. Vatican News — the official information portal of the Holy See (analysis of Vatican diplomacy). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.vaticannews.va/

8. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) — official website, section on projects in Ukraine. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.crs.org/our-work-overseas/where-we-work/ukraine

9. Order of St. Andrew the Apostle, Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate — official website (mentions of Patriarch Bartholomew as a “bridge-builder” at the IRF Summit and others). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://archons.org/ (see also materials on the IRF Summit)

10. Reuters, 5 January 2019 (the same article as in note ⁴). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1OZ0AP/

11. Order of St. Andrew the Apostle, Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (materials on international summits and the diplomacy of Patriarch Bartholomew). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://archons.org/

12. Vatican News — official portal (humanitarian initiatives of the Vatican in Ukraine). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.vaticannews.va/

13. Religious Information Service of Ukraine (RISU) — a portal that regularly publishes analysis of the role of religious institutions in conflicts, including on the example of Ukraine. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://risu.ua/ru/predstoyatel-pcu-epifanij-vstretilsya-s-papoj-franciskom_n152837

14. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) — projects in Ukraine. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.crs.org/our-work-overseas/where-we-work/ukraine

 

Russian source:

https://hramzp.ua/news/217130-v-belgrade-prosla-mezdunarodnaia-konferenciia-raspiatie-pravoslaviia-v-xxi-veke-duxovnye-voiny-ekumeniceskaia-ofanziva-i-globalnaia-politika