On the Deluded Ultra-Zealots of Athos: “Christ is Risen, Pantelis”

Greek source: Sacred Memories, by Metropolitan Petros of Astoria, Athens, 1990, pp. 58-59.

 

 

Elder Thomas, a kindhearted, gaunt, and very tall monk, lived with his two disciples, Panteleimon and John, on a mountainside near the summit at the Skete of St. Anne. Below their cell ran the narrow, rugged path leading to Katounakia, St. Basil’s, and Karoulia—that is, the desert region of Mount Athos, where holy hermits and ascetics lived and continue to live to this day.

Elder Thomas had a passion for fishing. This was also the handicraft by which his kalyve supported itself. He spent the entire night fishing near Pina, a headland of Mount Athos, and at daybreak Panteleimon, whom the fathers called “Thomas’s Pantelis,” would come down from the cell, collect the fish, and sell them at the Skete.

And life flowed pleasantly in the monastic brotherhood, fragrant with the incense of daily prayers and the scent of the sea that rose from Elder Thomas’s freshly caught fish. Everything went well until the day Panteleimon fell into delusion. He became a Hexagonist. Now I must explain to you what a “Hexagonist” is. Indeed, I shall find this rather difficult, for the matter has “profound theological significance”! In 1935, a monk who was a hermit published a book entitled The Elements of Orthodox Symbolic Signs. Triangles, squares, circles, hexagons, and various other geometric shapes adorned his work. He had also acquired some twenty followers, whom the fathers of Mount Athos called “Hexagonists.”

The customary greeting on Mount Athos, in place of “Good morning,” “Good evening,” “Good night,” “To your health,” and so forth, is “Bless!” [Evlogeite]. The Hexagonists abolished this beautiful greeting. They applied the principle, “Do not even greet heretics.” And in their eyes, all the fathers of Mount Athos who were not Hexagonists were heretics. Among those who had fallen into this delusion was Fr. Panteleimon, also known as “Thomas’s Pantelis.”

It was Bright Week. We happened to meet at the Skete’s watermill.

“Christ is Risen, Father Panteleimon!”

Not a word from him. He pretended not to hear me.

“Father Panteleimon, Christ is Risen!” I said again. He looked at me, smiling beneath his blond mustache, but again gave me no answer.

“What is this, Fr. Panteleimon? Have you become a Jew? I said to you, ‘Christ is Risen!’ Only they deny His Resurrection.”

Then, narrowing his blue eyes, he said to me contemptuously:

“Christ is Risen for me, not for you.”

You see, he was a Hexagonist.

Later, I learned that Thomas’s Pantelis had lost his mind. He went insane, just like the other Panteleimon, the king, whom I told you about on another occasion. A few years later, he died insane.

What a terrible evil pride truly is! How dreadful it is for someone to think so highly of himself and to believe that he is a saint...

 

 

The Moscow Patriarchate on Opposition to Ecumenism (2000)

Source: The Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church toward the Non-Orthodox, adopted by the Council of Bishops in August 2000.

 

 

7.3. The Church condemns those who, by using inauthentic information, deliberately distort the task of the Orthodox Church in her witness before the non-Orthodox world and consciously slander the Church authorities, accusing them of the “betrayal” of Orthodoxy. These people, who sow seeds of temptation among ordinary believers, should be subject to canonical sanctions. In this regard, guidance is given by the decisions of the pan-Orthodox meeting in Thessaloniki in 1998: “The delegates unanimously denounced those groups of schismatics, as well as certain extremist groups within the local Orthodox Churches themselves, that are using the theme of ecumenism in order to criticise the Church leadership and undermine its authority, thus attempting to create divisions and schisms within the Church. They also use non-factual material and misinformation in order to support their unjust criticism. The delegates also emphasised that the Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement has always been based on Orthodox tradition, on the decisions of the Holy Synods of the local Orthodox Churches, and on Pan-Orthodox meetings… The participants are unanimous in their understanding of the necessity for continuing their participation in various forms of inter-Christian activity. We have no right to withdraw from the mission laid upon us by our Lord Jesus Christ, the mission of witnessing the Truth before the non-Orthodox world. We must not interrupt relations with Christians of other confessions who are prepared to work together with us… During Orthodox participation of many decades in the ecumenical movement, Orthodoxy has never been betrayed by any representative of a Local Orthodox Church. On the contrary, these representatives have always been completely faithful and obedient to their respective Church authorities, and acted in complete agreement with the canonical rules, the Teaching of the Ecumenical Councils, the Church Fathers and the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church”. A threat to the Church is also presented by those who participate in inter-Christian contacts, speaking on behalf of the Russian Orthodox Church without the blessing of the Church authorities, as well as by those who bring temptation into the midst of Orthodoxy by entering into canonically inadmissible sacramental communion with non-Orthodox communities.

 

English source: https://old.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/vii/

Original Russian source:

https://mospat.ru/ru/documents/87579-7-vnutrennie-zadachi-v-svyazi-s-dialogom-s-inoslaviem/

Its inclusion in the 2017 proposed Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church: https://patriarchia.ru/article/56023

 

Aristotle Delimbasis: “The Great Responsibility of the Moscow Patriarchate” (1996)

Aristotle Delimbasis (1925–2007) was one of the greatest Greek theologians of our time. He was systematically scorned by the ecclesiastical establishment because he defended the Julian Calendar and opposed the heresy of Ecumenism and the Neo-Papism of the Phanar. What follows is an important text written by him in 1996, on the occasion of the Moscow Patriarchate's rupture of ecclesiastical communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople over the latter's unlawful intrusion into Estonia.

* * *

The Great Responsibility of the Moscow Patriarchate

(Excerpts from an article by Aristotle Delimbasis entitled “Concerning the Predatory Assault on the Russian Church,” published in the journal Voice of the Fathers [Athens, February 1996].)

1) To renounce the heresy and pan-heresy of Ecumenism, or Papal Ecumenism, in accordance with the principle that “every heresy shall be anathematized” (Canon 1 of the Second Ecumenical Council), and to proclaim the Orthodoxy of the Holy Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers of the Orthodox Church, in accordance with the commandment, “Preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15), which the Lord gave to the Holy Apostles and to their successors throughout all ages—the Orthodox and worthy bishops, and especially the Patriarchs.

2) For the Patriarchal Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate to condemn the present Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew, on grounds of faith and righteousness (cf. Apostolic Canon 31). That is, to depose and anathematize him as a heretic and subverter of the sacred foundations of the Orthodox Church, as an Ecumenist and Papal Ecumenist who acknowledges every heresy and transgresses the sacred canons, who preaches the pan-heresy of Ecumenism and Papal Ecumenism, which he seeks to impose upon the Church, while cooperating with everything alien to Her and persecuting Orthodox believers. This must be done on the basis of the centuries-old pious experience of the Orthodox Church and Her Holy Fathers, such as, for example, St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, who, in opposing the Nestorian heresy that arose in his time and its very originator, Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, condemned him through the Patriarchal Synod of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, writing to him as follows:

“Know that thou hast no communion with us, nor any place or standing among the priests and bishops of God. For it is impossible for us to remain negligent when the Churches are so disturbed, the people are scandalized, the right Faith is trampled underfoot, and thou scatterest the flock—thou who oughtest to be its shepherd.” (Letter to Nestorius Concerning Excommunication [a.k.a., Third Letter to Nestorius])

For every primate of the Church, whether bishop or patriarch, must concern himself, in matters of faith and scandalous lawlessness, not only with his own diocese or patriarchate, but also with the entire Church throughout the world. As the worthy Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John Chrysostom, declares:

“It behooves the one who presides over the Church to care not only for the [Church] entrusted to him by the Spirit, but also for every [Church] throughout the world” (PG 50, 602).

3) The Moscow Patriarchate must come to an understanding [νὰ συνεννοηθῇ] with the patriarchs, archbishops, metropolitans, bishops, and other faithful throughout the world who have remained truly Orthodox in their faith, and convene a genuinely Pan-Orthodox, anti-heretical, and therefore anti-Ecumenist Council.

This will be pleasing to God and in accordance with ecclesiastical order, and will serve to strengthen Orthodox Christians in their saving confession of the Orthodox Faith, in accordance with the commandment, “Strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:32). It will also mark the beginning of the purification of ecclesiastical affairs through the “good fight” of the Christian Faith, confessed and victorious (1 Tim. 6:12).

There are no canonical or ecclesiastical impediments whatsoever to anything stated above. The fact that the Patriarch of Moscow ranks fifth in the order of the Orthodox Patriarchs is of no significance, since this does not imply that he is inferior to those who precede him or superior to those who follow him. Nor does it imply subordination or any preeminent authority, as the heterodox and Papists teach, but merely the necessary order of precedence among autocephalous Patriarchs and Patriarchates of equal honor. The Church of Christ has acknowledged that the Patriarch of Moscow “is and is called a brother of the Orthodox Patriarchs,” “equal in rank and sharing the same throne, equal in both rank and dignity,” as indeed are all Orthodox Patriarchs.

Therefore, there is no impediment whatsoever to the Patriarch of Moscow acting on his own initiative [πρωτοβούλως] in the interests of Orthodoxy. On the contrary, it is incumbent upon him to do so, since the Holy Ecumenical Councils themselves were convened through the actions of Patriarchs, without any regard to their place in the order of precedence. Consequently, the initiative and the taking of measures to convene a Pan-Orthodox Council concerning matters of faith and righteousness that have arisen within the Church are not the exclusive prerogative of the Patriarch of Constantinople, especially when he himself is professing heresy and acting in defiance of ecclesiastical order!

 

Greek/Russian source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2024/08/blog-post_10.html

 

The Incident Involving Elder Iakovos Tsalikis (+1991) and Joint Prayers with the Heterodox

With just a few words, the Elder demonstrated so much, offering valuable lessons to today’s shepherds, even though very few of them remember him today.

 

 

Recently, frequent incidents of Orthodox hierarchs engaging in joint prayers with Papists and even Protestants have come pouring in like a torrent…

This is an issue of enormous importance and particular relevance, as the Pan-Orthodox Council of Crete is only a few days away. [This was originally shared on June 5, 2016. The elder was canonized by the EP in 2017. – Blog Admin.] Many accuse those who oppose such practices of being backward and out of touch with modern reality, as though the dogmas of the Faith ought to change with the times.

On this immensely important issue, it is worth learning how it was approached by a truly enlightened Elder, Elder Iakovos Tsalikis, who departed this life a few years ago:

“When a Papist stayed overnight at the Monastery, the Elder treated him with love.

The visitor was well-intentioned and had many questions. The Elder explained things to him with kindness and meekness.

At that time, the Monastery did not have the large refectory it has today, and everyone (monks, clergy, and laypeople) ate together at a small table in a dining room on the ground floor, beside the fountain.

All the others had gone ahead. They sat down at the table and waited for the Elder. When the Elder entered, everyone stood up out of respect, but also so that the customary prayer before the meal might be said.

The Elder sat down, told the others to sit as well, made the sign of the Cross, and began to eat.

The Papist was a devout believer. He spoke up and said to the Elder, ‘Elder, are we not going to say a prayer?’

And the Elder calmly replied, ‘It would be better for us to remain silent.’

And he continued eating his meal.

Let those who insist upon joint prayers with the heterodox understand the spirit of the holy Elder.”

Indeed, with just a few words, the Elder conveyed so much, offering valuable lessons to today’s shepherds, even though very few of them remember him today.

 

Greek source: https://katanixi.gr/to-peristatiko-me-ton-agio-tsaliki-gia/

 

From the Moscow Patriarchate website: How the Greek Old Calendarists Became Radicalized and What the Result Has Been

Athanasios Zoitakis, Ph.D.

 

 

In November 1922, Stylianos Gonatas became the Prime Minister of Greece. A liberal politician, he was a consistent supporter of the modernization and westernization of Greece. In particular, he believed that the renunciation of the Julian calendar would bring Greece closer to Europe, which had long gone over to the new style.

In 1923 the leadership of the Church changed. With the support of the authorities, the renowned scholar Chrysostomos I (Papadopoulos) became the primate of the Greek Church. Many considered his election to be uncanonical with reference to the 30th Apostolic Canon which stated that “if any bishop obtains possession of a church by the aid of the temporal powers, let him be deposed and excommunicated.”

On 27th December 1923 Archbishop Chrysostomos issued a decree on the transfer of the Church of Greece to the new style. He would subsequently regret his decision. He motivated his fatal step by claiming that he had been pressured by the secular authorities and the Patriarch of Constantinople Meletius (Metaxakis): “In vain did I do this… That accursed Meletius had me by the throat!”

Most of the clergy submitted to the innovation, but the people came with processions of the cross out onto the main squares of the cities, calling upon the authorities to cancel this innovation. For this, people were arrested, beaten up and even tortured.

In spite of the repressions, many continued to campaign openly for the retention of the ancient Julian calendar (“old style”), which led to a church schism and the setting up of the so-called “True Orthodox Church (Old Calendarist).”

At first, the Old Calendarist movement was spontaneous from 1924 to 1935, but the number of faithful who remained true to the Julian calendar were few. For the first six months of its existence not a single priest took part in the movement, but then there appeared two such clerics.

The well-known incident of the appearance of the Sign of the Cross in the sky during the All-Night Vigil before the feast of the Exaltation of the Precious Cross (according to the Julian calendar) in 1925 over the small Old Calendarist Church of St. John the Theologian in Athens led to an increase in the number of adherents to the old style. (The Cross could be observed by both the faithful and the police, who had been sent to break up the prayer meeting, for a full hour).

From 1925 to 1935 there were around 800 Old Calendar parishes founded, and periodicals began to be published. In 1931 a parliamentary law temporarily allowed the Old Calendarists to gather freely for liturgical worship. The official Church actively opposed this, and as a result Old Calendar churches were closed and their monks and nuns were expelled from monasteries.

At first, the movement had no bishops of its own, but by 1935 eleven bishops were already sympathetic to the idea of going over to the Old Style. Under pressure from the Greek Church, only three bishops carried their decision into effect, who then began to consecrate other bishops. The movement was headed by the Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos (Kavourides). Initially, the aim of the movement was not to set up a new Church; its participants merely wanted to influence the official Church of Greece through the position they had taken. They originally recognized the sacraments also of the new calendarists.

After the Second World War the influence of the Old Calendarists grew. They enjoyed the support of conservative political circles and well-known monarchist politicians regularly participated in events organized by the “True Orthodox Christians.” The Church of Greece voiced its protest against this and called upon the Greek government to “chop down the Old Calendarist rebellion” at its root. In spite of repression enacted by the state, the schismatics continued to gain popularity among the people.

The Old Calendarists’ reputation suffered greatly when in 1952 reports of torture in one of their monasteries appeared [the Mattewite convent of Mother Mariam in Keratea]. But the main problem for the Old Calendarists were internal conflicts and the radicalization of the movement. In 1937 a group of extremists, headed by Bishop Matthew (Karpathakis), broke away from the synod of metropolitan Chrysostomos. Matthew, in contravention of the holy canons, had consecrated a bishop unilaterally. This group refused to recognize the presence of grace in the sacraments of the official Church as well of other schismatic groups.

After the death of Chrysostomos in 1955, his branch of Old Calendarists were left without a bishop. And then there participated in the consecration of two of its bishops, without the knowledge and permission of the primate and the Synod, two bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. The Synod of the ROCOR recognized these consecrations only in 1969 and declared their liturgical communion with the followers of the Old Style. But this communion was later broken off by the ROCOR and then restored, but this time with another group of Old Calendarists, the “Cyprianites”.

In the period from 1980 to 1990 the Greek Old Calendarist movement endured a time of internal disputes, discord, divisions and the formation of new synods.

The leading role was played by representatives of the radical wing headed by the “Matthewites”, who completely rejected the presence of grace in the Local Orthodox Churches. A more moderate position, but also with a negative attitude towards the presence of grace in the official Church, was that of the synod of Archbishop Auxentios (1964 – 1985; died 1994).

A third group was organized in 1985 by the Metropolitan of Oropos and Fyli Cyprian, and the Metropolitan of Sardis John [Giovanni]. They hold to the opinion that there is, of course, grace present in the official Church of Greece, but her body has been incapacitated by the heresy of ecumenism and modernism. This is why they reject communion with the official Church, but at the same time they do not claim that they are the sole true Church of in the land of Greece. For these views the more radical Old Calendarists call them ecumenists and traitors.

As a result of the very stringent position of the radical groupings among the Greek Old Calendarists, all of the Old Calendarist movement on the whole remains compromised: by its “zeal not according to knowledge” they have laid a foundation for criticizing all opponents of ecumenism. If we classify the Old Calendarists according to groupings, then we observe an interesting peculiarity in that we can ascribe to each of the three groups not one but several synods (at times there have been between ten and twelve).

The Zealot Schism on Mount Athos

The decision to go over to the new style was provoked by the schism on the Holy Mountain of Athos. 

The calendar reform, begun in 1923 by the Patriarch of Constantinople, was supported by only one Athonite monastery, that of Vatopedi, but in time it rejected the reform. The Athonite monasteries took the conciliar decision to retain the old style, while at the same time they did not break communion with Constantinople. This decision did not satisfy the radicals who then formed the Zealot movement. The state authorities began to persecute the rebels: the Zealots were expelled from the Holy Mountain and their cells handed over to new inmates. Nevertheless, there are many on Athos to this day who refuse to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch. In particular, they control the monastery of Esphigmenou.

Orthodox Traditionalists and the Old Calendarists Movement

Why did the Old Calendarist movement fail to become a mass movement? We can answer this question by turning to the legacy of the Greek ascetics of piety who are well-known in Russia. Most of them did not support the transfer to the new style and spoke out against ecumenism, but did not separate from the Church, believing that schism was a far greater calamity.

We can find out about these lesser-known pages of history by turning to the legacy of the abbot of the monastery of Longovardas on the island of Paros, Archimandrite Philotheos (Zervakos) – a renowned Greek father confessor, missionary and theologian. Father Philotheos enjoyed great authority. He corresponded with the Patriarchs of Constantinople Meletius and Athenagoras, the primates of many Local Orthodox Churches, the prime ministers and presidents of Greece and the leaders of the Old Calendarist movement. The documents which we publish in this article have hitherto been unfamiliar to the Russian reader.

Zervakos believed that it was essential to observe firmly and with reverence the decisions of the Councils and Holy Tradition. Any distortions in the sphere of dogma were inadmissible, in the sphere of the canons “economy” was possible, but even here it was preferable to adhere to strictness (‘acribea’). Archimandrite Philotheos recognized the authority of the church authorities and treated the church hierarchy with respect, but critically reacted to any distortion of church tradition, even the most insignificant.

Father Philotheos perceived negatively the change in the church calendar. He supported the position of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, who in 1923 insisted upon the convocation of a Council to settle the calendar issue. At the same time, it has to be noted that the Patriarch of Jerusalem was also principally opposed to changes in the calendar.

Let us take a look at the unpublished letter by Father Philotheos of 11th February 1932 in which he speaks of the steps he will take to defend the old style: “I asked the ever-memorable Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Alexandria, who rejected the calendar innovations, and they said to me: if you are permitted to keep to the old style, that is good; if they threaten or want to dissolve the monastery, then agree to the new calendar, as this is not a question of dogma. The elders of Athos and my spiritual father advised me to do the same.”

Subsequently, Zevarkos did not give up and for many years continued to fight for the return to the old style. On 20th February 1935 he sent a letter to the Greek prime minister Panagiotis Tsaldaris asking him to enable this return to the old style: “It has been ten years now that the Church of Greece has been in a state of division over the liturgical calendar… I ask you as the ruler of our homeland to ensure that this schism does not become irreversible. Unite the Church which has been so divided by folly… Return the Church calendar which has been handed down to us as our legacy by our God-bearing fathers.”

In his letter to the head of state Father Zervakos proposed a compromise: the consecration of an archbishop who would serve on the Old Calendar while at the same time remaining within canonical submission to the Church of Greece. In this way, the Old Calendarists would receive a canonical pastor and their conscience would be pacified.

Archimandrite Philotheos himself continued to serve according to the Old Calendar right up until January of 1976. The straw that broke the camel’s back was when he got hold of a book published by the abbess of the Old Calendarist convent of the Lord’s Ascension in the town of Kozani by the nun Magdalena [Karagatsidou].

Magdalena’s book, entitled Nectarios Kethalas: Iconoclast, Latinist and Ecumenist, contained absurd and base accusations laid against the great Greek saint, Nectarios of Pentapolis.

Philotheos (Zervakos) attempted to call the nun to repentance and published a book refuting her fantasies. He concluded that it was impossible to be reconciled with the radical schismatics. Archimandrite Philotheos no longer wished to serve on the same calendar as those who believed that the Old Calendar is the only way to paradise while the adherents of the new calendar are on the path to eternal destruction: “The Old Calendarists, in order to retain their calendar, have fallen into many errors worse than those of the new calendarists… They have done away with the first and most important commandment of love, they have divided themselves up into numerous groups, they have begun to rebaptize Orthodox Christians, they have introduced new dogmas and began to worship their calendar… The fanatical zealots believe that the sacraments are invalid and that the Holy Spirit does not descend upon the new calendarists… When looking at the terrible errors of the Old Calendarists, many have chosen the lesser evil and have gone over to the new calendar.”

Father Philotheos was obliged to take the decision to go over to the new calendar (it has to be said that this was not an easy decision for him after many months of fervent prayer and fasting) by the constant schisms among the Old Calendarists: they anathematized each other and rebaptized new adherents who came over to them. Moreover, many bishops were self-consecrated (that is, their consecration was canonically invalid).

***

Today, the Church of Greece is not taking any serious measures to heal the schism. This is because any attempt to become closer to the radical schismatics is hardly possible, as they reject the presence of grace in the sacraments of all the Local Orthodox Churches. Whether the return of moderate schismatics to the bosom of the Church will ever happen is a question open to discussion.

Similar precedents have already taken place in Greece, but happened at a time when alienation between the schismatics and the Church had not yet become irreversible. Above all, we should note the example of the monasteries of Mount Athos and their metochia – all of them worship according to the Old Calendar and yet at the same time are in full communion with the adherents of the new style. Especially successful was the example of the Metropolitan of Gortyna Timothy: the bishop initiated negotiations with the Old Calendarists and offered to ordain any priest from the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in order to sustain spiritually their flock – in this way they returned to the bosom of the Church.

The schism may be likened to a gradually widening crack: as the years go by it widens ever more and may become irreversible. Often, the removal of the causes of divisions and disagreements does not lead to restoration of communion: old grievances and pride for the schismatics are more important than church unity. Let us hope that the restoration of the unity of the Orthodox Church is still possible, and at present we are to be guided by the words of St. Paisios the Hagiorite: “We are to love the zealot-schismatics, we are to feel their pain, we must never judge them. Most of all, we are to pray that God should enlighten them, and should any of them ever ask for our help in being well-disposed towards us, we can then tell them what we know.”

English source: https://mospat.ru/en/authors-analytics/87148/

Russian source: https://mospat.ru/ru/authors-analytics/87148/

 

One Non-Commemorator’s Observations: “Walling Off and Orthodox Synodality”

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | November 8, 2026

 

 

During periods of widespread crisis and heresy, when there are no Orthodox bishops locally who have walled themselves off, Orthodox Synodality is neither abolished nor rendered inactive, for it does not depend upon any single local administrative structure, but upon the catholic consciousness of the pleroma of the Church.

According to the teachings of the Holy Fathers (St. Basil the Great and Venerable Theodore the Studite) and Canon Law, synodality is exercised in such circumstances through the following four pillars:

1. Connection with the Universal “Healthy Part” of the Church

When a local Diocese or Synod is ailing doctrinally, the Church is divided into the “ailing part” and the “healthy part.” A clergyman or layperson who has walled himself off, even if there is no bishop in his local area who has likewise walled himself off, maintains both invisible and visible unity with the “healthy part” of the Orthodox bishops, clergy, and laity throughout the inhabited world, who rightly divide the word of Truth.

St. Basil the Great (Epistle 263) points out that the Orthodoxy of a local community is judged by its agreement in faith with the multitude of right-believing bishops throughout the inhabited world.

2. The Laity and Clergy as Guardians of Synodality

As the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848) declares, “The defender of religion is the very body of the Church, that is, the people themselves.”

Synodality is not merely a bureaucratic assembly, but the organic concord of the Body of Christ. When the shepherds remain silent or teach false doctrine, the confession of faith and walling off of the pleroma constitute an act of safeguarding the synodal Tradition.

3. Walling Off as an “Alarm” Pending a Synod

The cessation of commemoration (Canon 15 of the First-Second Synod) constitutes the first defensive bulwark of self-protection against spiritual defilement through communion.

Walling off functions as a spiritual alarm within the Body of the Church. The ultimate aim of the struggle is to prepare the ground for the convocation of an Orthodox or Pan-Orthodox Synod, which will examine the heresy, issue the canonical summonses to answer the charges, and pronounce the definitive sentence of deposition from the priesthood (“καθαιρέσεως ψῆφον”) upon those who remain unrepentant.

4. What Patristic Order Forbids (Avoidance of Autonomy and Parasynagogues)

The absence of bishops who have walled themselves off DOES NOT permit the violation of the Sacred Canons. Those who have walled themselves off remain part of the One Church and do not proclaim themselves an “autonomous Church.” During periods when the convocation of a Synod is delayed owing to adverse circumstances, the faithful steadfastly preserve the purity of the Faith through patience, prayer at home, and recourse to priests who are above reproach, knowing that Divine Grace cannot be compelled through uncanonical initiatives.

* * *

Establishment of Confessional Associations

During periods when heresy is rampant, Orthodox Christians who have walled themselves off (clergy, monastics, and laity) may establish confessional associations, brotherhoods, or leagues for the better coordination of their struggle for the Faith.

Ecclesiastical history confirms that such forms of collective organization have always been valuable instruments for safeguarding the Faith, on the inviolable condition that canonical and ecclesiological boundaries are respected.

1. What Is PERMITTED and BENEFICIAL in Confessional Associations

- Mutual assistance among persecuted believers, spiritual support, the organization of gatherings, the publication of informational and theological materials, and the catechetical edification of the pleroma of the Church.

- The coordinated drafting and submission of protests through joint memoranda, letters, and confessions of faith addressed to the ecclesiastical authorities and the faithful (as the abbots did during the time of Venerable Theodore the Studite in A.D. 815).

- The pleroma of the Church, as the guardian of Tradition, fulfills its moral obligation to denounce false doctrine and to demand the preservation of the true Faith.

2. The INVIOLABLE BOUNDARIES (What Is Not Permitted)

To prevent a confessional association from degenerating into a parasynagogue, schism, or ecclesiological subjectivism, it must respect the following boundaries:

1. A confessional association is an association of persons who are members of the Church (of the “healthy part”). It must not become a parallel “governing authority,” nor may it proclaim itself an autonomous “Church.”

2. The association has no authority to try bishops, formally depose them, or declare episcopal sees vacant.

3. The celebration of the Sacred Mysteries and the liturgical life of the clergy belonging to the association who have walled themselves off must conform to the Sacred Canons (Apostolic Canons 31 and 35), avoiding the arbitrary establishment of parallel jurisdictions.

4. The objective purpose of the association's activities is not permanent autonomous existence, but to prepare the ground for the convocation of an Orthodox Synod, which alone possesses the authority to resolve the ecclesiastical crisis institutionally.

* * *

IS ECCLESIASTICAL COMMUNION AMONG THOSE WHO HAVE WALLED THEMSELVES OFF ESSENTIAL TO SYNODALITY?

Ecclesiastical communion and unity among those who have walled themselves off are essential for the preservation of Orthodox Synodality, and are firmly grounded in the Patristic Tradition and Canon Law.

Walling off (on the basis of Sacred Canon 15 of the First-Second Synod) does not constitute individual isolationism, private “abstention,” or an individualistic initiative, but is a confessional act of the living Body of the Church.

According to the enduring consensus of the Holy Fathers (consensus Patrum), the importance of communion among those who have walled themselves off may be examined under the following headings:

1. The Manifestation of the “Healthy Part” of the Church

- Universal Communion in Faith: As St. Basil the Great teaches, during periods when the ecclesiastical leadership is ailing doctrinally, the Church is divided into the “ailing part” (those who espouse heresy) and the “healthy part” (the Orthodox).

- Sacramental and Spiritual Communion: Clergy, monastics, and laity who have walled themselves off must maintain full liturgical, sacramental, and spiritual communion with one another and with every right-believing part of the Church throughout the inhabited world. This unity demonstrates that the Church of Christ remains visible, living, and synodal.

2. Avoidance of Individualism and Ecclesiological Subjectivism

- Communication and dialogue among those who have walled themselves off safeguard the struggle for Orthodoxy against the pitfall of individual subjectivism, whereby each person would become an “autonomous judge” of all things. Such communion is governed by canonical strictness (acriveia). Those who have walled themselves off maintain communion with those who uphold the Truth, while knowingly abstaining from communion with those who commune with heresy, observing the principle of “communicating vessels.”

3. Walling Off as an “Alarm” for a Future Synod

- Preparation for Synodal Vindication: The cessation of commemoration functions as a spiritual alarm within the Body of the Church.

- Coordination of the Pleroma: Communion among those who have walled themselves off prepares the ground so that, when historical circumstances permit, Orthodox bishops may convene in Synod, examine the heresy, issue the canonical summonses to answer the charges (Apostolic Canon 74), and pronounce the definitive sentence of deposition upon those who remain unrepentant.

4. The Inviolable Canonical Boundaries of Communion

For communion among those who have walled themselves off to remain an authentic expression of Synodality, it must respect the Sacred Canons:

- No Intrusion into Another’s Jurisdiction (Apostolic Canon 35): Walling off does not grant presbyters the authority to act arbitrarily within the jurisdictions of other Metropolises.

- No Parasynagogues (Apostolic Canon 31; Canon 11 of Carthage): The establishment of “autonomous” parallel jurisdictions or the arbitrary celebration of the Sacred Mysteries outside the bounds of ecclesiastical order is not permitted.

As St. Gregory of Nyssa declares:

“For by separating ourselves from heresy, we are continually united to piety; and we behold the garment of the Church as unrent precisely when it is severed from communion with heresy.”

Venerable Theodore the Studite, during the severe persecutions of the Moechian Controversy (A.D. 795–811) and the Second Iconoclasm (A.D. 815–826), established a veritable “constitutional charter” governing the communication, coordination, and pastoral care of monks, clergy, and laity who had walled themselves off.

Through his hundreds of letters, the Venerable Father demonstrated that walling off is not passive isolationism, but a living, coordinated, and organized confession of faith by the Church.

The manner in which the Holy Fathers coordinated this communication may be outlined under five principal headings:

A. An Uninterrupted Network of Correspondence from Exile

Despite strict imprisonment, confinement on the Princes’ Islands, and exile, Venerable Theodore maintained an extensive network of clandestine correspondence with his disciples (such as Venerable Naukratios, Euodios, and Thallelaios), abbots, nuns, lay officials, and bishops abroad.

Through these letters, he encouraged the scattered flock of the Monastery of Stoudios, resolved questions arising in daily life, and provided clear guidance for preserving unity in the Truth.

B. Pastoral Economy for the Preservation of Fraternal Communion

To prevent the fabric of ecclesiastical life from being torn apart by excessive strictness, Venerable Theodore exercised a discerning “therapeutic economy” in relations among the faithful (particularly in Letters 40 and 49 to his disciple Naukratios):

When a priest who was Orthodox in conviction commemorated a bishop who espoused heresy solely “out of fear of persecution” (without concelebrating with heretics or administering the Sacred Mysteries to them), the Venerable Father permitted those who had walled themselves off to associate with him at meals, pray together with him, and receive his blessing.

He strictly prohibited only the reception of Holy Communion from such a priest, in order to avoid the spiritual defilement associated with commemoration, while at the same time allowing the priest the time and encouragement needed to advance gradually toward full canonical strictness (acriveia) in walling himself off.

C. Discerning Examination of the Faith (“To Stephen the Reader”)

The Venerable Father taught that, in times of heresy, the faithful must exercise spiritual vigilance without lapsing into fanaticism. In his letter to Stephen the Reader, he instructs that careful inquiry must be made as to whether an unfamiliar clergyman is Orthodox in conviction and above reproach with respect to the canons. If the priest confessed the true Faith, observed the Sacred Canons, and rejected heresy, the faithful were obliged to maintain full ecclesiastical communion with him, without suspiciously investigating by whom he had originally been ordained.

D. Coordination for a Common Confession of Faith before the Authorities

The Fathers who had walled themselves off acted as a coordinated body in opposition to the arbitrary actions of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. Before the convocation of the Iconoclast Synod of A.D. 815, Venerable Theodore coordinated all the Orthodox abbots of Constantinople, who drafted and signed a joint confessional letter to Emperor Leo V the Armenian, proclaiming their steadfast adherence to the Seventh Ecumenical Council. He coordinated the dispatch of appeals to Pope Leo III of Rome and the Patriarchates of the East, requesting the convocation of an Orthodox Synod for the deposition of the heresiarchs, thereby demonstrating that walling off aims at the synodal vindication of the Church.

E. The Enduring Acceptance of the Studite Approach

This pastoral and canonical approach of Venerable Theodore was historically recognized as the Church’s surest guide. The Athonite Fathers of the 13th century (during the reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos and the patriarchate of John Bekkos) cited passages verbatim from the letters of Venerable Theodore in their appeal to the Emperor, employing them as a confessional foundation for their refusal of communion with the Latin-minded.

In the historic dogmatic letter they addressed to Emperor Michael VIII, the Athonite Fathers established the grounds for their refusal of communion and cessation of commemoration by advancing four principal arguments:

1. They declared that it had been the unwavering position of the Church from the beginning that “from the very outset, the Orthodox Church of God has regarded the commemoration of the name of the hierarch in the sanctuary as constituting full communion with him.” Through commemoration in the Holy of Holies, the one commemorating enters into full communion with the faith of the hierarch.

2. To demonstrate that their position expressed the Patristic Tradition, the Athonite Fathers quoted verbatim the following passage from Venerable Theodore the Studite: “Nevertheless, communion entails defilement merely through commemorating him, even if the one commemorating him is Orthodox.” They thus demonstrated that the commemoration of an uncondemned heretical bishop transmits spiritual defilement to an Orthodox clergyman.

3. Citing Theodore of Andida’s interpretation of the Divine Liturgy, they emphasized that the celebrant who commemorates the name of the hierarch thereby declares his submission to him and manifests that “he is a partaker of his faith and a successor in the Divine Mysteries.”

4. The Fathers connected the Studite teaching with the prophetic words of Ezekiel (“Her priests have violated My law, and have profaned Mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane”), emphasizing that placing Orthodoxy and heresy on an equal footing in worship profanes the Holy Things.

This stance of the Athonite Fathers of the 13th century confirms the enduring consensus of the Fathers (consensus Patrum) from the 5th century through the 9th (Venerable Theodore the Studite) and into the 13th century. It demonstrates that the cessation of commemoration of an uncondemned heretical bishop does not constitute a private overstepping of authority, but a soteriological obligation to avoid defilement through communion in matters of faith.

* * *

CONCELEBRATIONS AMONG THOSE WHO HAVE WALLED THEMSELVES OFF

For concelebrations to take place among clergy who have walled themselves off without constituting the canonical offense of intrusion into another’s jurisdiction (Apostolic Canon 35) or of forming a parasynagogue (Apostolic Canon 31; Canon 11 of Carthage), the Patristic Tradition and Canon Law prescribe very specific conditions:

1. Clear Distinction between “Confessional Concelebration” and “Usurpation of Ecclesiastical Authority”

- What Constitutes Intrusion into Another’s Jurisdiction: Such intrusion occurs when a cleric arbitrarily enters another Metropolis and usurps administrative or episcopal rights.

- How It Is Avoided: Walling off (Canon 15 of the First-Second Synod) constitutes a defensive bulwark against defilement through communion with heresy. A priest who has walled himself off and is invited by another priest who has likewise walled himself off to concelebrate does not exercise administrative authority, but comes solely as a guest for the purpose of making a common confession of the Faith and providing sacramental support to the pleroma who have walled themselves off.

2. Place of Celebration: “Gatherings in Private Homes” and Private Premises

- As prescribed by the Apostolic Constitutions, during periods when the official churches are occupied by those who teach false doctrine:

“If it is not possible to assemble in a church because of the unbelievers, hold gatherings in a private home, O bishop... For it is not the place that sanctifies the man, but the man who sanctifies the place.”

Concelebrations among those who have walled themselves off take place in private chapels, houses of prayer, or outdoor locations. When such a gathering does not attempt the forcible occupation of a public parish church belonging to the local Metropolis, there is no infringement upon the administrative rights of the local bishop.

Fraternal Invitation and Confessional Purpose

- The concelebration takes place upon the express invitation of the local priest who has walled himself off or of the local Orthodox community or association requesting liturgical ministry.

- The visiting priest commemorates at the Proskomedia “for all Orthodox bishops” or the healthy part of the episcopate, thereby demonstrating that his action is synodal and confessional, pending the convocation of an Orthodox Synod, and not an act of individual autonomy.

Under these conditions, as the Holy Fathers (St. Basil the Great and Venerable Theodore the Studite) demonstrated, concelebration among those who have walled themselves off constitutes ecclesiastical solidarity and the safeguarding of the Faith, thereby refuting every accusation of intrusion into another’s jurisdiction.

Venerable Theodore the Studite, during the severe persecutions of Iconoclasm, established a clear pastoral and liturgical rule governing the activities of exiled, persecuted, and itinerant presbyters. His aim was to preserve the purity of the Faith without allowing priests to fall into canonical offenses, such as intrusion into another’s jurisdiction, uncanonical ordination, or the formation of parasynagogues.

The principal provisions laid down by Venerable Theodore may be summarized under the following headings:

1. Scrupulous Examination of the Faith (“Letter to Stephen the Reader”)

When an exiled or itinerant priest arrived in a particular area, the Venerable Father instructed that the faithful must carefully examine his religious convictions. If the priest preserved the Faith and the Sacred Canons intact, did not commemorate a heretical bishop, did not concelebrate with those who taught false doctrine, and did not administer the Holy Mysteries to them, he was to be received into full ecclesiastical communion.

The faithful did not question the canonical legitimacy of his priesthood on account of the circumstances of his exile, provided that his Orthodox convictions remained above reproach.

2. Celebration of the Divine Liturgy in Houses of Prayer and Caves

Because the official churches had been occupied by heretics and were regarded by St. Basil the Great and Venerable Theodore as “common houses” (profaned places from which the guardian Angel had departed), exiled priests and those who had walled themselves off celebrated the Divine Liturgy in private homes, caves, or houses of prayer.

In this way, they avoided the forcible occupation of public churches belonging to the local Metropolis, thereby refuting any accusation of administrative intrusion into another’s jurisdiction or rebellion.

3. Strict Observance of the Boundaries of the Priestly Order

Venerable Theodore emphasized that persecution does not grant any presbyter the right to usurp episcopal prerogatives. Presbyters were strictly forbidden to undertake the ordination of new clergy, an act belonging exclusively to the episcopate.

Itinerant priests did not establish autonomous administrative structures, but served as ministers to the spiritual needs of the pleroma who had walled themselves off.

4. Pastoral Gradation and Economy (Letters 40 and 49 to Naukratios)

To protect the faithful from confusion, the Venerable Father established clear boundaries of ecclesiastical communion:

If a priest commemorated a heretical bishop solely “out of fear of persecution” (φόβῳ διωγμοῦ), without concelebrating with heretics, he could be received for common meals, joint prayer, and the giving of blessings, but receiving Holy Communion from him was strictly forbidden in order to avoid defilement through communion.

If an Orthodox priest commemorated an Orthodox bishop who, however, commemorated a heretical metropolitan under pressure, the Venerable Father applied temporary pastoral economy so that the “weak sheep” would not be spiritually paralyzed, gradually guiding them toward canonical strictness (acriveia).

5. Commemoration of “all Orthodox bishops”

The exiled priests, rather than commemorating the local heretical bishop, commemorated at the Proskomedia “all Orthodox bishops” or the healthy part of the Hierarchy.

Through this commemoration, they proclaimed that they remained organically united with the Catholic Church and celebrated the divine services pending synodal vindication.

 

Greek source:

https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/11/var-wau-wau-wau_01794232428.html

Signs of Compromise and Alignment with the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism in the Once-Militant Office for Heresies of the (Official Church’s) Holy Metropolis of Piraeus

Archimandrite Pavlos Dimitrakopoulos, theologian | November 8, 2026 | Thessaloniki

 

 

The Office for Heresies and Para-Religions of the Holy Metropolis of Piraeus recently published a study entitled: “The Ecumenical Movement in the Light of Orthodox Tradition: Expectations, Impasses, and Theological Concerns—A Brief Assessment of Its Course Thus Far.” [1] In this study, the Office addresses the “Ecumenical Movement” and attempts to evaluate its course thus far in the light of Orthodox Tradition.

Without a doubt, the study contains certain correct positions and observations that reflect the Orthodox Faith and Tradition. However, it also contains inappropriate expressions which, because they are also used by the Ecumenists, are liable to create confusion, misunderstandings, and erroneous impressions among the faithful, particularly among the more simple-minded who lack theological knowledge. Furthermore, its treatment of the subject of inter-Christian dialogues is deficient in several respects, since, in my humble opinion, it contains omissions, failing to draw attention to certain texts jointly accepted with the heterodox that are unacceptable from an Orthodox standpoint. The study is also deficient in another respect, namely, that it makes no reference by name to the present-day leading proponents of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, and above all to its foremost champion today, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, as though the heresy had fallen upon us from heaven, without there being any persons who espouse it.

Since God deemed me worthy to serve as the director of the aforementioned Office for more than twelve years, I considered it my duty to offer certain critical observations on the above publication, in order to draw attention to the new mentality that appears to have begun to prevail in the operation of the Office—a mentality which, in my humble opinion, is nothing other than one of compromise and alignment with the pan-heresy.

The first thing I must comment upon is the inappropriate term “Ecumenical Movement,” which the Office uses extensively. The term is inappropriate because it is the one employed by the Ecumenists when speaking of Ecumenism. They attempt to conceal the heresy beneath the cloak of a movement in order to deceive the unsuspecting. It is a grave mistake for us Orthodox to allow ourselves to be led astray by the deceptive terminology they employ. Rather, we ought to use the designation given to it by St. Justin Popović: “pan-heresy.”

Further on, the study states: “In this light, the contemporary Ecumenical Movement and the theological dialogues conducted for decades with the heterodox Christian confessions must be examined with sobriety, ecclesiastical responsibility, and strictly theological criteria….” The faithful people of God already know that “the theological dialogues being conducted… must be examined with sobriety….” What concerns them at the present juncture is not how the dialogues ought to be conducted, but what results have been achieved by the dialogues conducted thus far, after so many decades. Above all, they wish to know what tragic impasse these dialogues have now reached and what the causes of their complete failure have been. Furthermore, the Office appears to ignore the fact that we Orthodox do not seek the Truth through dialogues. We possess the Truth—Christ Himself—and experience Him as a living reality. Through dialogue, we seek to offer this Truth to the heterodox. Nor is it stated anywhere that the purpose of dialogue must be the return of the heterodox to Orthodoxy, and that when this objective is not achieved, dialogue must be terminated rather than prolonged through endless discussions stretching over decades.

Further on, reference is made to the World Council of Churches (WCC): “In 1948, the so-called World Council of Churches (WCC) was established, in which many Orthodox Churches have participated and continue to participate…. This participation, as well as the manner in which theological dialogues are conducted, raises, from an Orthodox theological standpoint, serious questions concerning the preservation of ecclesiastical self-consciousness and the exactitude of the confession of faith.” Our participation in the WCC does not merely “raise serious questions…” but constitutes something far worse and more tragic. It constitutes “a betrayal of the Faith,” according to the divinely enlightened observation of St. Justin Popović: “Was it really necessary for the Orthodox Church, this most immaculate Divine-human Body and organism of the God-man Christ, to be so monstrously humiliated that her representatives, theologians and even Hierarchs, should seek organic participation and inclusion in the WCC? Alas, an unheard-of betrayal!” [2] Since, therefore, this constitutes a betrayal of the Faith, why do those responsible for the Office and the Metropolitan of Piraeus not distance themselves from the Church of Greece and cease ecclesiastical commemoration? Why do they not rebuke and denounce Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew for the numerous heterodox statements he has made thus far at WCC conferences?

Further on, the study states: “The view expressed to the then ‘Pope’ Francis in 2014 requires further examination: ‘The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church… unfortunately, during her earthly sojourn, was divided in the course of time, owing to the predominance of human weakness and the finite will of the human mind. Thus, various situations and groups arose, each of which claims “authority” and “truth.”’” [3] This is not a mere “view,” but a dreadful heterodox teaching, expressed not by some anonymous individual, but by the heresiarch Bartholomew. This heterodox teaching requires no further examination, for it has already been thoroughly examined in the scholarly study entitled “The New Ecclesiology of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Contemporary Confessional Texts,” compiled by the “Assembly of Clergy and Monastics.” What is needed is the severance of ecclesiastical communion with the heresiarch Bartholomew and with those who remain in communion with him. But this comes at a cost, for it requires the sacrifice of metropolitan sees and entails persecutions which, unfortunately, today's metropolitans and their associates do not appear willing to endure.

Further on, the study states: “Our Office, whose mission is to define the boundaries of the Orthodox Faith and to study and expose heresies and errors, systematically monitors and examines the activities of the Ecumenical Movement and formulates its corresponding conclusions. From an examination of what has been accomplished thus far, we observe that the numerous meetings, the organization of conferences, the protracted discussions, and the publication of theological texts do not, in themselves, constitute evidence of doctrinal convergence, nor do they demonstrate that the original objective of the Ecumenical Movement has been achieved. The essential question is whether the differences separating the Christian confessions have been clearly addressed, whether the theological disagreements have been resolved, and whether the necessary conditions for the restoration of ecclesiastical communion have been established.”

The “essential question” is not “whether the differences separating the Christian confessions have been clearly addressed….” The fact that they have not been “clearly addressed” is the least of our concerns. The essential observation, which is being overlooked, is something else, something far more tragic: namely, that in the dialogues conducted thus far, not only has there been no “evidence of doctrinal convergence,” but, on the contrary, there has been a progressive deterioration and erosion of the Orthodox mind-set among the Orthodox delegations participating in the bilateral dialogues. In other words, we have reached the tragic point where Orthodox representatives and Patriarchs make statements that are contrary to Orthodoxy and blasphemous, and sign joint texts with heretics that are alien to the Tradition and dogmatic teaching of our Church. The late Professor Fr. George Metallinos writes in this regard:

“Instead of Orthodoxy exerting a salvific influence upon the non-Orthodox world, we have reached the point of accepting in practice ‘Baptismal Theology,’ the ‘Theology of Sister Churches’ [cf. the Balamand Agreement of 1993], the ‘common ministry’ of the ‘expanded Church,’ and ‘cultural pluralism,’ as has very rightly been pointed out…. Ecumenism, in all its dimensions and manifestations, has become a veritable Babylonian captivity of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and of all the local leaderships of the Orthodox Church, with very few exceptions, which are nevertheless subjected to unbearable pressure. The boasting and self-admiration of our Ecumenists over a supposedly new era inaugurated by the Ecumenical Patriarchate through the Patriarchal Encyclicals of 1902, 1904, and 1920 are not vindicated, for what has actually been accomplished is that we have legitimized the heresies and schisms of Papism and Protestantism.” [4]

The Office also claims that “it systematically monitors and examines the activities of the Ecumenical Movement and formulates its corresponding conclusions.” However, there can be no systematic study without a critical evaluation of certain joint texts produced by the mixed theological commissions between the Orthodox and the heterodox, which are replete with Papist and Protestant heterodox teachings and have provoked a storm of reactions and severe criticism within Orthodox theological circles. These are the texts of Balamand, Ravenna, Porto Alegre, and Busan, which were accepted without being rejected and condemned by the pseudo-council of Crete. The absence of theological criticism of the aforementioned texts creates a substantial gap that significantly diminishes the value of the study.

Further on, the study states: “Particular criticism has been directed at certain formulations and procedures of the ‘Holy and Great Council’ of Crete, which took place in 2016.” It then presents the arguments of both the critics and the supporters of the pseudo-council. It is deeply regrettable that the Office employs the term “Holy and Great Council,” which is also used by the Ecumenists, to designate the Council of Kolymbari, rather than the term “pseudo-council.” This is not the occasion to present the multitude of irrefutable evidence demonstrating that the Council of Kolymbari was a pseudo-council. Those who seek such evidence in order to be convinced I refer to my study entitled “The ‘Council’ of Crete.” The fact that the author places the phrase “Holy and Great Council” in quotation marks indicates that he probably regards this pseudo-council as something midway between an Orthodox Council and a pseudo-council. In other words, he regards it as a problematic council containing numerous ill-conceived, ambiguous, and problematic formulations that require revision by a future truly Orthodox Council. However, our Orthodox Conciliar Tradition knows of no intermediate category of problematic councils, but only two kinds of councils: Orthodox Councils and pseudo-councils. This is because there is nothing intermediate between truth and falsehood. St. Mark of Ephesus says in this regard: “Never, O man, have ecclesiastical matters been set right through compromise. There is nothing between truth and falsehood. Rather, just as one who has departed from the light must necessarily be in darkness, so also one who has deviated even slightly from the truth may truly be said to have fallen under the dominion of falsehood.”

In closing, I consider it necessary to emphasize once again that the pseudo-council of Crete was an exceptionally tragic and momentous ecclesiastical event of worldwide significance, with incalculable consequences for the life of the Church. It was an event that inflicted the most grievous blow upon the Body of the Church. It was the most tragic event in the history of the Church of Greece, because its ecclesiastical leadership has now officially accepted the Council’s heterodox decisions and incorporated them into its official teaching. This event marks the Church of Greece’s entrapment in, and alignment with, the pan-heresy. For this reason, it makes walling-off from all those bishops who accept the pseudo-council, whether openly or tacitly, more necessary than ever before.

This exceedingly grievous evil was compounded when the same ecclesiastical leadership, two years later (2018), officially and synodically recognized the Ukrainian schismatics under Epiphanius Dumenko through the Ukrainian autocephaly, thereby itself becoming schismatic, according to the Second Sacred Canon of the Council of Antioch: “It shall not be permitted to commune with those who are out of communion, nor to receive into another Church those who do not assemble in their own Church. And if any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or anyone belonging to the clergy should be found communing with those who are out of communion, let him also be excluded from communion, as one who confounds the canonical order of the Church.” Thus, yet another reason for walling-off has now been added, making it even more necessary.

In the present case, walling-off should not be based merely on the 15th Sacred Canon of the First-Second Council, because here we are not dealing with one, two, or several bishops who preach heresy, but with an entire Local Church that accepts heresy. For this reason, it should have a much broader character, namely, the character of the cessation of communion practiced by St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Mark of Ephesus. As is well known, St. Maximus ceased communion with the bishops of all the Patriarchates of his time that had accepted Monothelitism, having in mind not the 15th Sacred Canon of the First-Second Council (which had not yet been formulated), but the entirety of the preceding Patristic Tradition. St. Mark of Ephesus did likewise, ceasing communion not only with the Patriarch of his time, but also with all the bishops who had signed the acts of the pseudo-council of Ferrara–Florence. We, too, are obliged to do likewise, following the example of St. Mark, because the pseudo-council of Crete is nothing other than a repetition of the pseudo-council of Ferrara–Florence.

I am absolutely convinced that, under present circumstances, the safest path to salvation is the path of walling-off. I am certain that if St. Paisios, St. Porphyrios, or St. Iakovos were alive today, they would have ceased communion. Therefore, let all those who care about their salvation and do not wish to let it slip through their fingers take heed of what we have written above and act accordingly.

 

NOTES

1. https://aktines.blogspot.com/2026/11/blog-post_311.html

2. St. Justin Popović, Professor at the University of Belgrade, Theological Opinion Addressed to the Hierarchy of the Church of Serbia, Entitled: Orthodoxy and Ecumenism: An Orthodox Opinion and Testimony. The theological opinion was published, with an introductory note by the then-Hieromonk Irinej Bulović, in the journal Koinonia, vol. 18 (1975), pp. 95–101, translated from Serbian by Marina Skliris.

3. See The New Ecclesiology of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Contemporary Confessional Texts, published by the Assembly of Orthodox Clergy and Monastics, January 2015, p. 9.

4. Protopresbyter George Metallinos, The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ecumenism, in Proceedings of the Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference: Ecumenism—Origins, Expectations, Disappointments, vol. 1, Theodromia Publications, Thessaloniki, 2008, pp. 248–249.

 

Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2026/11/blog-post_390.html