The Influence of the Assemblies of the World Council of Churches on the Ecclesiology of the Council of Crete (2016)

(A Concise Presentation)

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | August 12, 2026

 

 

“Was it really necessary for the Orthodox Church, this most ancient Theanthropic Body and organism of the God-man Christ, to be humiliated so monstrously that Her representative theologians, and even hierarchs, should seek ‘organic’ participation and inclusion in the World Council of Churches, which in this way becomes a new ecclesiastical ‘organization,’ a ‘new Church’ above the churches, of which the Orthodox and non-Orthodox churches constitute merely ‘members,’ ‘organically’ connected with one another? Alas, an unheard-of betrayal!”

(Saint Justin Popović, Opinion, November 13, 1974)

 

The Council of the Orthodox Church (Crete, 2016) was not simply the product of a decades-long bureaucratic process, but the systematic and inexcusable betrayal of the conciliar nature of Orthodoxy. The General Assemblies of the World Council of Churches (WCC) played a significant role in shaping its concerns, topics, and theological language.

The Ecclesiological Deviation: From the WCC to Crete

The assemblies of the so-called “World Council of Churches” (WCC) were not innocent or merely historical gatherings. They constituted the laboratory in which a spurious, degenerate, and dangerous “new ecclesiology” was conceived and systematically cultivated, which ultimately crept into and was institutionally imposed upon the so-called “Holy and Great Council” of Crete.

This alienated ecclesiology constitutes a direct denial of the Tradition of the Holy Fathers, resting on the following pillars:

• Recognition of “Ecclesiality” in Heresy: It dares to attribute “ecclesial elements,” “ecclesiality,” or even the title of “Church” to heterodox groupings outside the One Church, thereby falsifying the boundaries of Salvation.

• Ambiguous and Compromising Language: It deliberately employs vague, “diplomatic,” and ambiguous language, designed to conceal dogmatic differences, to equate Truth with falsehood, and to mock the discernment of the faithful people.

• Institutionalization of “Consensus” with the Heterodox: It subjects the Orthodox witness to the procedures and compromises of “consensus” with heretics, as though the Truth of the Faith were a matter for negotiation or democratic vote.

• Culpable Silence Regarding the “Branch Theory”: It systematically and cowardly avoids unequivocally condemning the heterodox “Branch Theory,” tolerating the error that the One Church has been fragmented into imperfect parts.

• Slide into Interreligious Syncretism: It extends the ecumenist descent into “dialogues” with non-Christian religious traditions, renouncing the unique and exclusive salvific message of the Crucified and Risen Christ.

• Denial of the Uniqueness of Orthodoxy: It tragically fails to confess with boldness, clarity, and patristic fortitude that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ, outside of which there is neither the fullness of Grace nor Truth.

Concise presentation of the influence of each WCC Assembly on the Council of Crete.

1. Amsterdam (1948): Institutional Involvement

The Amsterdam Assembly marked the beginning of the Orthodox presence in the WCC and laid the foundations for the need for internal consultation among the Orthodox Churches. According to the assembly message, Amsterdam (1948) inaugurated institutional involvement in inter-Christian dialogue, while Crete (2016) provided the synodal “legitimization” of this practice. In other words, what began as institutional participation in 1948 was transformed by the Council of Crete into an official synodal decision.

2. Toronto (1950): The “Statement of Cardinal Importance”

The Toronto Statement (1950) was drawn up under the title “The Church, the Churches and the World Council of Churches” in order to resolve the misunderstandings that had arisen after the establishment of the WCC. The principal points of the Toronto Statement considered to promote Ecumenism are:

• The recognition of ecclesiality outside Orthodoxy.

• The relativization of the “One” Church.

• The support of baptismal theology, whereby the boundaries of the Church are identified with the boundaries of baptism.

• The introduction of the concept of “spiritual relationships” in order to “build up the Body of Christ.”

The text notes that the Toronto Statement was characterized as being of “cardinal importance” for Orthodox participation in the WCC, and that the Council of Crete (2016) gave it synodal ratification, expressly referring to the ecclesiological presuppositions of that text as determinative for Orthodoxy’s attitude toward the rest of the Christian world.

3. Evanston (1954): The Continuation of the Dialogue

The Evanston Assembly was the second in sequence, with the participation of 161 member Churches from 48 countries. Its general theme was “Christ—the Hope of the World.” The Orthodox, refusing to vote in favor of the central text because it expressed primarily Protestant theology, submitted their own “Special Orthodox Statement,” emphasizing that the full unity of the Church already exists in the Orthodox Church as the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” This Assembly highlighted the immediate need to formulate a common Pan-Orthodox position, a development that accelerated the process leading to the convening of the Pan-Orthodox Conferences of Rhodes.

4. New Delhi (1961): The Cornerstone of the Council of Crete

The New Delhi Assembly (1961) constitutes a historic milestone, since it marked the official entry of the Moscow Patriarchate and other Churches from the Eastern Bloc into the WCC. This development made the need to convene Pan-Orthodox Conferences imperative.

The New Delhi Assembly (1961) was the cornerstone of the Council of Crete (2016). It provided the impetus for the beginning of the pre-conciliar process, shaped the theological framework for representation in the WCC, and contributed to the formulation of the crucial articles (16–21) that determined the stance of contemporary Orthodoxy. What was tacitly or practically agreed upon at New Delhi in 1961 was transformed by the Council of Crete into an official synodal text in 2016 (articles 16–21), providing an ecclesiological “alibi” for Orthodoxy’s participation in the WCC.

5. Uppsala (1968): The Imprint of the Mindset

The 4th General Assembly of the WCC at Uppsala (1968) is considered one of the most decisive assemblies, since it marked the WCC’s turn toward the sociopolitical issues of the time. The Crete document “RELATIONS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WITH THE REST OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD” bears the full imprint of the Uppsala mindset, as shown below:

• At Uppsala, the idea became firmly established that the Protestant confessions constitute parts of the same Christianity. The text on “Relations” at Crete (paragraphs 6 and 16) spoke of “heterodox Churches” and “historical designations of Churches.” Crete adopted the Uppsala line, downgrading Orthodoxy from the One and Only Church to “one among many Churches.”

• After 1968, the WCC became the principal mechanism for promoting inter-Christian syncretism. In paragraph 17, the Council of Crete characterized Orthodoxy’s participation in the WCC as an “essential parameter” of its relations with the Christian world, effectively giving a “synodal seal of approval” to an institution that arose and took shape at Uppsala on Protestant foundations.

• The patristic demand for the return of heretics to Orthodoxy through repentance was replaced by the concept of “mutual understanding” and “common service.” The Crete text focuses on the “restoration of unity” through bilateral dialogues, without explicitly requiring the renunciation of errors, recalling the horizontal approach of Uppsala.

6. Nairobi (1975): “Conciliar Fellowship” and Politicization

The Fifth General Assembly of the WCC (Nairobi, 1975), with the central theme “Jesus Christ Frees and Unites,” continued the spirit of Uppsala. The text identifies significant similarities between Nairobi and Crete, particularly regarding the concepts of conciliarity, fellowship, dialogue, and Christian unity.

The most characteristic feature of Nairobi is the concept of “conciliar fellowship”, according to which “the one Church is to be understood as a conciliar fellowship of local Churches.” This approach presents unity as a fellowship of various local Churches called to live and bear witness together—an understanding far removed from the classical Orthodox position that the Church is already ONE.

At Nairobi, conciliar fellowship is presented as a means of expressing the unity of the Christian Churches, whereas at Crete conciliarity is presented primarily as an element in the life of the already existing Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, in both texts conciliarity is closely connected with unity and ecclesiastical life, shifting the ecclesiological priority from the unity of the One Church to a procedural, dialogical synthesis.

* * *

First Conclusions: The Synodal Legitimation of Apostasy

From this concise overview, the truth is laid completely bare: the so-called “Council of Crete” (2016) was in no way an autonomous or divinely inspired theological initiative. On the contrary, it constituted the institutional submission, synodal sealing, and undisguised incorporation of all the heterodox decisions that had preceded it in the “kitchens” of the General Assemblies of the heretical WCC:

• Amsterdam: Provided the institutional starting point for the involvement of the Orthodox in the ecumenist labyrinth.

• Toronto: Established the uncanonical ecclesiological presuppositions, which Crete then came shamelessly to ratify.

• New Delhi: Constituted the “cornerstone” of the deviation, transforming tacit conventions and theological compromises into a purportedly synodal text.

• Uppsala: Instilled the poison of leveling syncretism, reducing integral Orthodoxy to the level of “just another church” among the dozens of heresies.

• Nairobi: Introduced the deceptive “conciliar fellowship” as a spurious, externally driven alternative model of unity, foreign to patristic teaching.

Consequently:

The “new ecclesiology” of the Council of Crete does not in any way constitute an organic continuation of Orthodox Tradition, but rather the official, institutional introduction of ecumenist syncretism into the body of the Church. It is an unprecedented attempt to legitimize a course of deviation that was shaped entirely outside the Sacred Canons and the boundaries of Orthodox Ecclesiology.

* * *

7. Lima (1982) and Vancouver (1983): “Convergence” and “Baptismal Theology”

• Lima: The BEM text (Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry) introduced the concept of theological convergence and the mutual recognition of baptism among the various confessions. The Crete document “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” took serious account of the language and assumptions of Lima, recognizing the “historical existence” of other Christian Churches and Confessions.

• Vancouver: It largely adopted the conclusions of Lima, promoting the so-called “baptismal theology”—that is, the idea that all baptized members of the various confessions already share a fundamental, though imperfect, Christian unity. According to the text, this development determined the framework for Orthodox participation and influenced the Council of Crete in two ways: the continuation of participation in the WCC was affirmed, while at the same time it was clarified that this does not entail acceptance of the “Branch Theory” or the equating of Orthodoxy with the other confessions.

8. Canberra (1991): The Syncretistic Deviation and Ambiguous Language

• The Canberra Assembly is regarded in the text as the definitive confirmation that the WCC had been transformed into a pan-religious organization, chiefly because of the address by Chung Hyun Kyung, who equated the Holy Spirit with “spirits of the earth.”

• The influence on Crete is discernible: instead of confessing the uniqueness of the Orthodox Church, the Council adopted ambiguous and compromising language reminiscent of the spirit of Canberra. Characteristic examples cited are the use of the term “ecclesial communities” instead of “heresies” and the acceptance of the term “churches” for confessions that do not preserve the Orthodox faith, something the text characterizes as a theological retreat traceable to the presuppositions established by the WCC since the time of Canberra.

9. Harare (1998): “Consensus” as a Method and the Legitimation of Continued Participation

• At Harare, the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC was established. It decided to abolish voting and adopt consensus as the method of decision-making, as well as to redefine the WCC as a forum for encounter rather than as a “Super-Church.”

• According to the text, the Council of Crete ratified the criteria of the Harare Special Commission and “consensus” as a method of decision-making. From the critical perspective of the text, however, consensus within a body in which both Orthodox and heterodox participate means reducing truth to the level of compromise.

10. Porto Alegre (2006): The “Branch Theory” and the Recognition of Heresies as “Churches”

• The Porto Alegre Assembly is regarded as the most serious theological error, since it adopted the so-called “Branch Theory”: “Each church is the catholic Church and not simply a part of it... Without one another we are incomplete.”

• The text argues that the Council of Crete constituted the synodal ratification of the course that had been charted at Porto Alegre:

• It did not condemn the “Branch Theory.”

• It did not reject the term “churches” for heretical confessions.

• It did not proclaim that the Orthodox Church is the only true Church.

• It ratified participation in ecumenical dialogue without making the return of heretics to Orthodoxy a prerequisite.

11. Busan (2013): The “Ecclesiology of Life” and Interreligious Dialogue

• The text “Together towards Life” advanced a broad ecclesiological conception, extending the notion of the “Church” beyond the boundaries of historical Orthodoxy and strongly incorporating interreligious dialogue, particularly with Buddhism and Hinduism.

• According to the text, the decisions of Busan appear to have strengthened the pro-ecumenist wing within Orthodoxy prior to the Council of Crete.

• Through the text “The Church: Towards a Common Vision” (TCTCV), an attempt was made to broaden ecclesiological horizons. At Busan, “baptismal theology” and the “Branch Theory” were strongly promoted, with Orthodox representatives co-signing texts that equate the Orthodox Church with other Christian traditions.

• The Council reformulated the boundaries of Orthodox ecclesiology ambiguously, while its emphasis on “dialogue” and “coexistence” with Islam and Judaism—without the necessary confession of the exclusive salvific role of the Orthodox Church—reflects the spiritual legacy of Busan.

Final Conclusions

The text argues that the assemblies of the WCC were not merely historical proto-ecumenical events, but gradually shaped a “new ecclesiology” that was incorporated into the Council of Crete. This ecclesiology is characterized by:

• recognition of “ecclesial elements” outside Orthodoxy,

• the use of compromising and ambiguous language,

• adoption of “consensus” with the heterodox,

• failure to condemn the “Branch Theory,”

• extension of dialogue to other religions,

• and, ultimately, failure to confess clearly that the Orthodox Church is the only full and integral Church of Christ.

 

Supplementary Bibliographical Sources

1. Archimandrite Maximos S. Mitraras, The Contribution of the Church of Greece to Inter-Orthodox Relations during the Twentieth Century.

2. Georgios I. Boras, Ecumenism and the Theology of the Person.

3. Vasiliki I. Stathokosta, Relations of the Church of Greece with the World Council of Churches, 1948–1961 (Based on the Archival Material of the WCC).

4. Nikolaos F. Dimitriadis, A Theological and Religious-Studies Examination of Interreligious Dialogue in Contemporary Mission.

5. Georgios Tsetsis (Grand Protopresbyter), The Contribution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the Establishment of the World Council of Churches.

6. World Council of Churches, “Message of the 10th General Assembly of the WCC: Together on the Pilgrimage for Peace and Justice” (Translation: D. Koukoura).

7. Maria K. Karanatsiou, 10th General Assembly of the WCC, Busan 2013: Transformative Theology for the Life of the Whole World.

8. Kristina Al. Mantasasvili, Anthropological Models: From the Post-Palamite Philokalia to Ecumenical Dialogue (WCC).

9. Theodora I. Mavridou, The WCC Study “Wealth – Poverty – Ecology: Their Relationship”: An Orthodox Approach.

10. Synod in Resistance, All Books with Anti-Ecumenist Titles.

11. Orthodox Witness magazine, no. 112/2017.

12. Anastasia P. Vasileiadou, Orthodox Participation in the WCC in Light of the Decisions of the Special Commission: The History and Thematic Scope of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC.

 

Greek source:

https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/08/2016_02122874432.html

 

The Russian Church Abroad and the Catacomb Church in Soviet Russia

Professor I. M. Andreyev (+1976)

 

 

The notorious executioner of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USSR, E. A. Tuchkov, during the final year of the life of Patriarch St. Tikhon, conceived the idea of forcing the Supreme Church Authority to issue a special “Declaration,” which was intended to transform the Russian Orthodox Church into a “Soviet Church,” serving the anti-Christian plans of the Satanocratic Soviet state.

His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, who had made a whole series of concessions to the Soviet authorities in order to alleviate the unbearable situation of the Church, categorically refused to issue such a “Declaration,” and paid for this with his life. According to the testimony of the physician and friend of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, Professor Dr. M. A. Zhizhilenko, who was executed by shooting in 1930—and who, while serving as chief physician of Moscow’s Taganka Prison, became in 1927 the first Catacomb Bishop, Maxim, for which he was exiled to Solovki and subsequently shot—His Holiness was undoubtedly poisoned.

The “Testament” of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, according to the authoritative opinion of A. A. Zhizhilenko, Professor of Criminal Law at Petrograd University and the brother of Bishop Maxim, was undoubtedly a forgery.

After the Patriarch’s death, the lawful Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter, became the head of the Church and proved to be truly a “rock” in the preservation of the Church’s spiritual freedom. Metropolitan Peter categorically refused to sign the “Tuchkov Declaration,” for which he was arrested, exiled, and tortured to death in exile.

The most outstanding hierarchs—confessors and martyrs, the highest both in rank and in moral stature—also refused to sign this “Declaration”: Metropolitan Cyril, Metropolitan Agathangel, Metropolitan Joseph, Archbishop Seraphim of Uglich, and others.

The “Deputy Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne,” Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), became the head of the Church. The nomination of Metropolitan Sergius to the position of “Deputy Locum Tenens” was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Peter. Metropolitan Sergius should under no circumstances have been allowed to become head of the Church, if only because, during the arrest of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, he betrayed Orthodoxy and became a Renovationist. After Patriarch Tikhon’s unexpected release, Metropolitan Sergius “repented,” but, as Elder Nectarius of Optina said of him, “the poison remained in him.”

Metropolitan Sergius proved to be the Judas who betrayed the Russian Orthodox Church. He betrayed her into the hands of her enemies and signed the “Tuchkov Declaration,” which appeared on July 16 (29), 1927, in the name of the “Deputy Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne,” although the “Deputy” had no right to issue such a momentous act.

As is well known, in this “Declaration,” the “joys” and “sorrows” of the Soviet authorities were acknowledged as the “joys” and “sorrows” of the Orthodox Church, and it was proposed that “nationwide gratitude” be expressed to the anti-Christian authorities for their “care for Orthodoxy.” It was morally utterly impossible for truly Orthodox people to accept this “Declaration.” A schism occurred. The most brutal mass persecutions, executions, and tortures that descended upon those who “did not accept the Declaration,” whom the Soviet authorities began to identify with the help of the “Soviet Church,” defy description. Therefore, the true Russian Orthodox Church, that pure and undefiled Bride of Christ, was compelled to go into the catacombs, where she remains to this day. Information concerning the Catacomb Church in the Soviet Union is not subject to disclosure. From time to time, and only sparingly, brief tidings concerning the life of this much-suffering Church are communicated to certain former Catacomb Christians, invariably bearing the epigraph: “Neither will I tell the mystery to Thine enemies.”

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, founded and headed until 1935 by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), and after 1935 until 1964 headed by Metropolitan Anastasy, and now headed by Metropolitan Philaret, immediately understood, after the schism in the Church in Soviet Russia in 1927, all the tragic consequences of Metropolitan Sergius’s “Declaration” and refused to have any communion whatsoever with him. In this way, the Church Abroad rendered enormous spiritual and moral support to the Catacomb Church.

Metropolitan Sergius, as is well known, became the “Soviet Patriarch” on September 8, 1943; after his death, on May 15, 1944, Alexy (Simansky) became the “Soviet Patriarch.” Throughout the entire existence of the “Soviet Church” and of the “Soviet Patriarchs”—Sergius and Alexy—only the Russian Church Abroad never recognized, does not recognize, and can never recognize this “Church of the wicked” with its false patriarchs. All the other Orthodox Churches, both the Autocephalous Churches and those that had broken away from the Church Abroad—the “Paris Exarchate” and the “American Metropolia”—recognized the “Soviet Church,” depending on the favorable political situation, and maintained canonical communion with it.

Therefore, the Secret Catacomb Church in Soviet Russia recognizes the Russian Church Abroad as her “own sister” and blesses all Russian Orthodox church people abroad to enter the fold of this Church alone.

 

Russian source: Луч света: В защиту православной веры, в обличение атеизма и в опровержение доктрин неверия: В 2-х частях, Archimandrite Panteleimon [Nizhnik], Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, 1970.

Russian source online:

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Panteleimon_Nizhnik/luch-sveta-uchenie-v-zashhitu-pravoslavnoj-very-v-oblichenie-ateizma-i-v-oproverzhenie-doktrin-neverija/16

The Destiny of Man

Protopresbyter Dionysios Tatsis | August 12, 2026

 

 

Worldly people strive in their lives to secure material goods, to satisfy their desires, and to stabilize their “happiness.” All their strength and all their capabilities are directed toward these things. The unceasing cares, which have no end, wear them down, and they remain indifferent to their spiritual advancement, the cultivation of character, and service to their fellow men. They do not have open horizons. They are shut up within themselves and within their narrow family circle. Nothing beyond that. Their social relationships may be many, but they are marked by formality and hypocritical behavior. They are always fragile, because their motive is not pure love, but they are based on some acquaintance they happened to make in the past, on some obligation or professional collaboration, and sometimes on an acquaintance made during vacations, etc. All these, of course, are events that do not create experiences useful for life. They rarely acquire stability and duration. Usually they become memories that quickly fade and are forgotten.

The conscientious Christian, however, makes different choices in his life. He strives to keep his worldly cares as few as possible and remains steadfast in his principles. He does not follow the pace of life of worldly people. His goal is not “happiness,” which is never attained, but spiritual achievements that lay the foundation for true happiness, which has substance and remains unaffected by the adverse conditions of the present life.

The satisfaction that comes from keeping God’s commandments, the consolation he receives from Christ through faith, and the hope of eternal life are the hidden nourishment that spiritually cultivates man and secures for him states that are not easily described, nor can they be compared with worldly “happiness,” whose ultimate result is misery.

Worldly people are unaware of the spiritual reality we have mentioned, despite all the disappointments in their lives. Unfortunately, they lack the relevant experience needed to appreciate the great sweetness that comes from keeping God’s commandments and acquiring the virtues, which form a character that surpasses the “gifts” of many worldly people. They live without spiritual concern, following an orientation of their own, dictated by their many desires, which are continually changing for the worse.

Saint John of Kronstadt, in a single phrase, gives an answer to all those who remain without a proper orientation in their lives and lose themselves in transient things, which destroy their interest in maintaining a steady course in life. Our Saint says: “Man’s highest destiny is to become pleasing to God, to save his soul.” And he adds: “When we yield to the demands of the flesh, we become our own worst enemies.”

The common experience of the virtuous testifies that becoming firmly established in a spiritual orientation makes life in Christ easier and enriches man with abundant feelings, most sweet experiences, and a fervent hope that the Lord will lead him to salvation.

 

Greek source: https://orthodoxostypos.gr/%e1%bd%81-%cf%80%cf%81%ce%bf%ce%bf%cf%81%ce%b9%cf%83%ce%bc%cf%8c%cf%82-%cf%84%ce%bf%e1%bf%a6-%e1%bc%80%ce%bd%ce%b8%cf%81%cf%8e%cf%80%ce%bf%cf%85/

 

 

 

Conform, or Be Removed

Orthodox clergy and monastics who object to ecumenism are counselled to remain and contend from within. Thirty-four years of records show what remaining has actually cost.

Patristic Witness | August 9, 2026

 

 

There is a building in Karyes, the administrative capital of the Holy Mountain, and within eight months it received two visitors.

On the tenth of October 2025 the head of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine arrived there. He was received at the Representation of the New Esphigmenou Monastery by its abbot, Archimandrite Bartholomew, in the presence of a Metropolitan of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and of the Civil Governor of Mount Athos. In his welcoming remarks the abbot expressed support for the Ukrainian body and called the granting of its Tomos of autocephaly a "bold and prophetic step." He drew a parallel between the war in Ukraine and the situation of his own monastery, whose main buildings, he said, had been held for many years by fundamentalists, and declared a spiritual kinship between the two struggles.

On the twenty-seventh of May 2026 the Archbishop of America arrived at the same building, accompanied by an auxiliary bishop, by the same Civil Governor, and by a group of graduating seniors from the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. According to Orthodox Times he stressed the implementation of law and of ecclesiastical order, referred to the responsibility of the State to uphold legality, noted the longstanding support of the United States for religious freedom and institutional order, and described the prolonged occupation as "a disgrace."

The fundamentalists holding the main buildings are the monks of Esphigmenou, who withheld the commemoration of the Ecumenical Patriarch after the lifting of the anathemas and have been under eviction ever since. The brotherhood in the konaki at Karyes is the one created in 2005 to replace them.

Eight months, one room, two receptions. The men who objected to ecumenism were removed from their monastery. The brotherhood installed in their place spent an afternoon hosting the primate of a body whose recognition is itself among the objections, and called that recognition prophetic. Seven months later a visiting Archbishop stood in the same room and applied the word disgrace to the resistance rather than to the thing resisted.

None of that is hypocrisy. It is coherent, and it is what replacement is for.

Esphigmenou is the most visible case in this file and the least representative one. That brotherhood did not merely withhold the commemoration. It broke communion and joined a Genuine Orthodox jurisdiction, which allows everything done to it to be explained as the ordinary consequence of departure.

What follows is therefore mostly not about Esphigmenou. It concerns a parish priest in Thessaloniki who never left and invoked a canon in his defence. It concerns roughly a hundred monastics who joined nothing and severed nothing and were told to quit their cells. It concerns a Russian brotherhood given a quarter of an hour to pack. It concerns the governing body of the Holy Mountain itself, twice, acting unanimously and in writing. And it concerns an abbot in Bulgaria disciplined six weeks ago for deviating in the opposite direction entirely.

Esphigmenou demonstrates what the machinery is capable of. The others establish whom it is available against.

The question, stated precisely

That ecumenism constitutes a departure from the faith is not a marginal opinion, and it did not originate outside the World Orthodox jurisdictions.

The fullest statement of the case was made by Saint Justin Popović of Ćelije in The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism, published at Thessaloniki in 1974. He treats the movement as the common name of the pseudo-Christianity and pseudo-churches of the West, holds that these amount collectively to a succession of heresies, and concludes that "their common evangelical name is pan-heresy." The term is not rhetorical inflation, and his reasoning for it is the part most often omitted. Earlier heresies denied or deformed some particular aspect of the God-man; this one displaces Him altogether and installs European man in His place. The claim is therefore about kind and not degree, which is why he treats ecumenism as an ecclesiological heresy rather than as one doctrinal error among others.

In his memorandum to the Serbian Holy Synod of 13 and 26 November 1974 he set out the practical consequence. He objected to organic participation in the World Council of Churches on the ground that it constitutes that Council as an ecclesial body standing above the churches, within which the Orthodox Church becomes one member among others, and he distinguished theological dialogue conducted in the truth, which he permitted, from common prayer, which he refused.

Saint Philaret of New York had pressed substantially the same case upon the primates of the Orthodox Churches in the Sorrowful Epistles of the preceding years.

Two facts about these two men bear on everything that follows. Each made his objection from within the jurisdiction he was addressing, and neither was ever answered by a council. Both were subsequently canonised by the very bodies to which the objection had been made.

A great many Orthodox Christians who hold that judgement nevertheless remain within the World Orthodox jurisdictions, and are counselled to do so. The counsel is serious, it is given by serious men, and it deserves to be examined seriously rather than caricatured. In its strongest form it runs as follows. The Church is not purified by departure. Withdrawal removes the objector and leaves the error in possession. The confessor's place is inside, where his witness is felt, and where he retains the standing to be heard. Where conscience forbids the commemoration of a bishop, the canons themselves provide a remedy short of rupture. And history vindicates this: the men the Church honours as confessors against innovation did not leave. They stayed and they contended, and in time they were proved right.

This publication takes no position here on the theological merits of that counsel, and readers should understand at the outset what is and is not being argued.

It is not argued that departure is obligatory, nor that those who remain lack sincerity, nor that any particular case has been rightly decided. It is not argued that a resister is right merely because he is punished, which would be a poor argument that proves too much and would equally vindicate every disciplined cleric of every persuasion.

What is examined here is narrower and entirely factual. The counsel to remain and resist contains an empirical premise about how institutions behave. It assumes that resistance from within is a position a man can occupy, and that occupying it keeps open a route by which his objection may eventually be heard and answered. That premise is testable. There is now a documentary record spanning thirty-four years, several jurisdictions and four court systems, and the record can be read.

What made the confessors succeed

The historical argument for remaining is the strongest card its defenders hold, and it is worth playing at full strength before it is examined.

Saint Maximus the Confessor did not depart. He contended against the imperial and patriarchal monothelitism of his day from within the body of the Church, was tried, condemned, mutilated and exiled, and died in exile. Saint Mark of Ephesus travelled to Ferrara and Florence as a member of the Greek delegation, remained within it throughout, and alone among the Greek bishops refused to sign the decree of union proclaimed on the sixth of July 1439. He did not leave the delegation. He outlasted it.

Both were vindicated. The Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned the heresy Saint Maximus had resisted. The union of Florence collapsed, was nullified by the synodal acts under Gennadios Scholarios, and was formally annulled by the Synod of Constantinople of 1484, attended by representatives of Alexandria and Jerusalem, which declared the Florentine definitions alien and its decrees void.

The defenders of remaining are entitled to say that this is precisely their case, and that a man who had departed in 1439 could not have done what Saint Mark did.

The examination begins by asking what mechanism actually produced those vindications.

In each instance the doctrinal question was eventually placed before a council, examined on its substance, and decided. Saint Maximus was not vindicated because he endured, and Saint Mark was not vindicated because he was stubborn. They were vindicated because a forum existed which took up the question they had raised and answered it. Their resistance was not the remedy. Their resistance was the input to a conciliar process which was the remedy.

That observation converts the whole dispute into a single answerable question. Resistance from within is efficacious where a forum exists to receive it. So the counsel to remain stands or falls on whether such a forum is available now.

The remainder of this article addresses that question, and only that question.

The terms of residence on the Holy Mountain

The Athonite case is the one where the mechanism can be read most exactly, because it is written down in civil law.

Under Article 105, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Greek Constitution, read with the Legislative Decree of 10 and 16 September 1926, persons falling under the statutory terms "heterodox" and "schismatic" are forbidden not merely to visit the Holy Mountain but to settle there. Where the Holy Community finds such a person resident, it issues a decision of expulsion, and the Civil Governor executes it, with police available to him.

The provision has been uncontroversial for a century, because everyone assumes they know whom the words describe.

The legislation does not define them. According to the standard legal digest of the Athonite constitutional regime, their interpretation is treated as a matter of the internal law of the Orthodox Church, and in case of doubt the question is referred to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In 2005 the Greek Council of State closed the door behind that arrangement, holding in decision 736 of that year that the classification of a monk under those terms is "not subject to review" and cannot be examined under the regulation.

The consequence is structural rather than rhetorical. The party whose conduct is the subject of the protest is the party empowered to classify the protester. The classification, once made, is insulated from judicial examination. The State does not weigh it; the State enforces it. The monks of Esphigmenou pursued civil remedies to the highest court in Athens and were turned away at every level.

This is not an arrangement in which a resister loses his case. It is an arrangement in which the question of whether the classification is theologically correct is never a justiciable question at all. Whatever forum received Saint Mark's objection in the fifteenth century, it has no counterpart here. What the regime offers is conformity, and what it holds in reserve against the alternative is removal.

Enforcement tracks vulnerability, not offence

The Skete of the Prophet Elias, founded in 1759 as a dependency of the Pantokrator Monastery, was Russian for most of its history. By the 1980s its brotherhood had dwindled to a handful of fathers faithful to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, and they did not commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch. They seized nothing and attacked no one. They kept the buildings in repair, kept the services, and were legally registered, their names entered in the Monachologion of their ruling monastery.

The fullest account is the report compiled in 1992 by the Karyes representative of the Saint Panteleimon Monastery, Priest-monk Nikolay (Generalov), for the Patriarch of Moscow and the Russian Synod, published in Pravoslavnaya Rus the following year and reassessed in the scholarly literature since. According to that report the fathers had been warned informally that they would be "expelled from Athos if they persisted" in withholding the commemoration. Warned informally: not charged, not summoned, not answered.

There was no official notice of the exarchal visit. The Holy Community received a telegram indicating an arrival on the twelfth of May. On the evening of the fourth, the Protos received a telephone call from the Phanar informing him that the exarchate would arrive the following day. Accounts from those who knew the community describe a quarter of an hour to gather belongings, a boat, and Ouranopolis.

Within the year the skete was reoccupied by a Greek brotherhood under a new dikaios, and the Athonite institutional histories record 1992 as the beginning of a period of "sound administration and spiritual flourishing" at the Prophet Elias.

The decisive detail in the Generalov report is that at the moment of the expulsion a very large share of the Athonite community was also withholding the commemoration. The removal was not the enforcement of an intolerable rule, since the same conduct was being tolerated across the peninsula in the same year. It was the enforcement of a rule against those positioned to be reached by it.

This matters for the argument in a specific way. If enforcement tracked the gravity of the offence, the man who remains might reasonably calculate his risk by measuring his own conduct. It does not, and he cannot. What determines outcome is not what he does but what can be done to him.

What the machinery is capable of

The Esphigmenou record is the longest continuous demonstration available of what an institution does with resistance that will not move, and its order is its meaning.

After the lifting of the anathemas the brotherhood withheld the commemoration of the Ecumenical Patriarch and of his successors. For three decades matters rested here. In 2002 the Ecumenical Patriarchate applied the word to them, attaching the classification that cannot be reviewed, and in 2005 the Patriarch called for their removal and established the replacement brotherhood at Karyes. From that point the monastery had two brotherhoods: the one living in it and the one recognised.

On the twenty-ninth of July 2013 court bailiffs arrived at the Esphigmenou administrative offices in Karyes to execute an eviction and were met with three Molotov cocktails and an explosive device. This was a grave act, it was rightly prosecuted, and the file would look materially different without it. The following year Greek police cleared an apartment in central Thessaloniki used as a hostel by the brotherhood, following a court ruling, with riot police cordoning off the surrounding blocks.

In January 2017 the Abbot and one monk were sentenced in absentia to twenty years, with six others receiving ten years and four months as accessories. Counsel for the defence told the court that the dispute was one of religious dogma and should not "under any circumstances" be settled there. In fifty-four years that is the only occasion on which the doctrinal question was formally put before any tribunal. The tribunal declined the invitation and proceeded to sentence.

In April 2019 monks living in the monastery buildings were convicted of fraud against the Greek State and given six months, suspended for three years. The mechanism repays attention. Athonite monks are exempt from value added tax; these monks are not officially considered Athonites, by reason of the word applied to them in 2002; their claim of the exemption was therefore fraud. The classification does not merely end a man's residence. It reaches backward and reconstitutes his ordinary daily existence as a criminal offence. Days later an appeals court reduced the 2013 sentences to seventeen years and to nine years and five months.

On the seventeenth of June 2020 the Thessaloniki Court of Appeals ordered the brotherhood to surrender all occupied properties on and off the Holy Mountain to the replacement brotherhood. On the eighth of July the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and the matter became final. On the twenty-third, police forced the monks out of the dependencies at Ierissos and Nea Roda. In 2021 the sentences were reduced again, to five and a half years and to two years and nine months. In July 2024 Greek police submitted a document to the Holy Epistasia requesting authorisation for a large-scale operation, with significant forces and vehicles, against the monks remaining.

Bailiffs, riot police, a tax fraud conviction, sentences in the double digits, a Supreme Court, and a visiting Archbishop with a word about the duty of the State to enforce. In fifty-four years, no conciliar answer, no synodal examination, no refutation, and no hearing.

Whom it is available against

The obvious reply is that Esphigmenou is not a test of the counsel at all. That brotherhood did more than withhold the commemoration; it broke communion outright and joined a Genuine Orthodox jurisdiction. Whatever its case proves, it proves nothing about the man who stays.

The reply is fair, and it directs the examination to the men who stayed.

On the fifth of March 2017, the Sunday of Orthodoxy, one of the most respected anti-ecumenist theologians in Greece, a Professor Emeritus of the Theological School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, announced from the ambo of his own church that he was withdrawing the commemoration of his ruling Metropolitan on account of the Cretan Council. He rested his action explicitly on Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of 861, presided over by Saint Photios the Great, which provides that where a bishop preaches a heresy already condemned by the fathers or by a council, the priests under him may withdraw the commemoration and are to incur no canonical penalty for doing so.

He was suspended from his priestly duties the following day. He and a second Thessaloniki priest who had taken the same step were summoned before a spiritual court, facing the possibility of being defrocked.

This is the cleanest instance in the record, because everything the counsel recommends was done correctly. The canonical remedy short of rupture was invoked by name, in the proper form, by a man qualified beyond argument to invoke it, from his own ambo, on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. The canon states in terms that no penalty is to follow.

The penalty followed within a day, and it did not come from a body examining whether the canon applied. It came by administrative act.

The monastic version of the same season took the same course. In July 2016 more than sixty Athonite hieromonks and monks, led by a disciple of Saint Paisios the Athonite, submitted an open letter to the Sacred Community setting out twelve points of divergence between the Cretan texts and Orthodox Tradition and calling for the Council to be condemned, failing which they would be obliged to withhold the commemoration. That November the Sacred Community produced a document concluding that the Cretan texts required revision and faulting them for a one-sidedness arising from the neglect of the theological tradition, while holding in the same document that withholding the commemoration was "unjustified for now."

The body examined the texts, found the confession defective, and ruled the corresponding action premature. For now is not a theological category. It is a scheduling category, and it is what an institution says when it has conceded the substance and does not intend to act on it.

By early 2017 more than fifty cells and kalyves had withheld the commemoration, involving roughly one hundred monastics. These men had broken communion with no one and joined nothing. They had done exactly what the counsel prescribes, in the manner most carefully engineered to avoid giving the administration the word it needed.

They were notified that they must leave their cells. Many declined to go.

The distinction between withholding the commemoration and breaking communion is a distinction the resisters maintain with great care. It is not a distinction the administration is obliged to maintain, and the record indicates it does not. A position calibrated over years to remain inside is read by the other party in a single glance at the diptych.

The institutional test

It might still be said that all of this concerns individuals, who have always been vulnerable, and that the corporate institutions of the Holy Mountain retain a real voice and a real veto. Last October tested that proposition directly.

In September 2025 a proposed visit to Athos by the head of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine came before the Sacred Community on the strength of a letter of recommendation from the Ecumenical Patriarch. The reaction within the Community was strongly negative, given the position of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Onuphry at that moment. The Holy Community declined to receive him officially, as would be customary for a primate. Most monasteries did not wish to receive him at all. At one of the great houses the brotherhood stated that they would leave the monastery if he were received there.

The visit proceeded on the tenth of October, lasted four days, and included receptions at six of the twenty ruling monasteries. According to the Athonite fathers who afterwards protested it, Karyes itself was sealed off by security services during the visit, out of concern that monks would come and demonstrate.

The administrative capital of the Holy Mountain was closed to the monks of the Holy Mountain, so that they could not object to something their own governing body had declined to authorise.

A group of monks representing the cells subsequently issued an open letter calling the visit a fall, holding that those who greeted and served with him bore responsibility for bringing a "spiritual contamination" to the place, and calling for them to be cut off from concelebration until they repented. No consequence followed.

The significance is not that the Holy Community was overruled on a question of hospitality. It is that the corporate body which the counsel to remain identifies as the forum of eventual redress was, on this occasion, simply routed around.

The same body had reached the same discovery two years earlier, in a matter with no Ukrainian dimension at all. In early January 2024 the abbots and representatives of all twenty ruling monasteries wrote jointly, under their common seal, to the Ecumenical Patriarch concerning the forthcoming visit of the Archbishop of America. Their stated concern was the photographic material published after the baptism of the children of a same-sex couple at the Church of Panagia Faneromeni in Vouliagmeni in the summer of 2022, which in their judgement had created an impression regarding the Church's teaching on marriage contrary to her doctrine. The Sacred Community then resolved unanimously that the customary reception of a visiting hierarch would not be offered, leaving each monastery to act by its own judgement, and it published that decision in an announcement dated 23 January 2024.

Twenty monasteries, unanimous, in writing, addressed to their canonical bishop. It is difficult to conceive of resistance from within expressed in a more orderly, more corporate or more canonically unimpeachable form.

Nothing followed from it. The visit proceeded, four monasteries received him, and in May 2026 he returned to the Holy Mountain, was formally welcomed at the Administration by the Civil Governor, and applied the word disgrace to the brotherhood of Esphigmenou.

That comparison is the finding of this article in miniature. In January 2024 the highest corporate body of the Holy Mountain withheld an honour from a hierarch and suffered no consequence whatever. Since the early 1970s the monks of Esphigmenou have withheld a commemoration and have been answered with bailiffs, prosecutions, a Supreme Court and a standing order of eviction. Both were acts of withholding. What separates them is not the gravity of the thing withheld but the direction in which it was withheld.

A control case

One serious objection remains. Perhaps none of this describes a mechanism. Perhaps it is the Church correcting error, and it presents itself as machinery only to those in error.

That objection is testable, and it was tested six weeks ago in a case with no anti-ecumenist content whatever.

On the twenty-eighth of July, by Order No. 134, the Patriarch of Bulgaria, who is also Metropolitan of Sofia, placed Archimandrite Nikanor Mishkov, abbot of the Tsarnogorski Monastery of Saints Cosmas and Damian near Gigintsi, under argos, a complete prohibition from priestly ministry, for fifteen days from the twenty-ninth. Ecclesiastical Disciplinary Case No. 2 of 2026 was opened before the Sofia Diocesan Court. Articles 95(19) and 139(2) of the Statute were cited for the suspension, the case itself opened under Articles 81 and 95(18) and Article 12 of the rules of procedure. The grounds were conduct incompatible with the priestly office and with the monastic vow of obedience, and conduct held to "undermine the authority of the Church."

The underlying conduct was the opposite of resistance. According to the reporting, the archimandrite had concelebrated with the head of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine in Kyiv on the fourteenth and fifteenth of July, and had earlier, in May 2024, concelebrated with clergy of that body at his own monastery without any decision of the Bulgarian Synod, publicly announcing Eucharistic communion with it. He was disciplined for moving ahead of his Synod rather than behind it.

The two charge sheets are nearly interchangeable. Against those who withhold the commemoration: disobedience, disruption of canonical order, failure to observe the Statutes. Against the archimandrite: disobedience, breach of the vow of obedience, undermining the authority of the Church. Opposite directions, opposite doctrinal content, administrative articles cited in both instances and doctrinal articles in neither.

The instrument does not measure doctrine. It measures compliance, and it is indifferent to the direction of the deviation. What it requires of a man is not that he believe rightly but that he conform, and the sanction it holds against him if he does not is removal from his place.

This is the point at which the counsel to remain encounters its real difficulty. It presumes a doctrinal contest, to be decided in time on the merits of the faith. What the record discloses is a disciplinary proceeding about obedience, in which the merits of the faith are not a category the proceeding recognises. A man cannot prevail in an argument the other party is not conducting.

What the record does not contain

Across fifty-four years of Esphigmenou proceedings, the expulsion at the Prophet Elias in 1992, the suspension of two Thessaloniki priests in 2017, the notices served on the cells that same year, the overriding of the Sacred Community in October 2025, and the Bulgarian case of last month, this publication has been unable to locate a single synodal adjudication of the doctrinal objection raised, a single conciliar finding for or against on the substance of the question at issue, a single judicial examination of whether the classification triggering removal was correctly applied, or a single proceeding of any kind in which a resister's confession of faith was placed before a competent body and answered.

The file contains bailiffs, statutes, cadastral schedules, value added tax, appellate reductions, articles of an administrative code, security services closing a road, a foreign policy remark about religious freedom, and the word disgrace.

Three objections to that finding deserve direct answers.

The first is survivorship. Many who withhold the commemoration are never troubled at all, and the Holy Mountain has long contained fathers of a strict persuasion who are left in peace. This is true, and it is the counsel's best practical argument. It is also the finding of the 1992 case restated. Toleration is real, but toleration is not a right; it is a discretion exercised by the party being resisted, and the record shows it withdrawn without notice, without proceedings, and without correlation to the gravity of the conduct. That a man has not yet been reached is not evidence that he holds a position. It is evidence that he has not yet been reached.

The second is that the Athonite regime is peculiar, a quirk of Greek constitutional law with no application to a parish priest in another country. The Thessaloniki case answers this. That priest held no Athonite residence, was subject to no Legislative Decree of 1926, and was suspended within a day by ordinary diocesan act. The Bulgarian case answers it again, in another country under another statute. The Athonite regime supplies the clearest documentation, not the only instance.

The third is that a Synod may yet take up these questions, and that the absence of adjudication to date proves nothing about what a competent body will eventually determine. What some future body may do is not the subject of this article and nothing here forecloses it. The subject is the sixty years that have already elapsed, during which every objection recorded here was met by administrative process and none by conciliar examination. The counsel to remain is offered to living men who must decide now, and it is fairly assessed against the record now available.

The word

"Our way or the highway" has never been the slogan of those who left. It is the operating practice of the bodies they left, expressed not in encyclicals but in decisions of expulsion, orders of eviction, replacement brotherhoods, spiritual courts, police requests, and a quarter of an hour to gather belongings.

The counsel to remain and resist is not dishonourable and it is not insincere. It is, on the evidence assembled here, founded on a premise that the record does not support. It presumes that resistance from within is a position held. The documents indicate it is a permission granted, revocable at the discretion of the party resisted, terminated by a classification that party alone assigns, unreviewable in the civil courts and unexamined in the ecclesiastical ones. The permission lasts precisely as long as the objection costs nobody anything. What is offered is not a place from which to contend. It is a choice between conformity and removal, and the party setting the terms is the party being objected to.

Saint Mark of Ephesus was answered by a council in 1484. The Sixth Ecumenical Council answered the question for which Saint Maximus was mutilated. The men in this file were answered by bailiffs.

To every cleric, monastic and layman now being counselled to remain and reform from within, one question is put, and it is not a theological question but a question about the record. It is not the case of a man who remained and was left alone, which establishes only that he was tolerable and that his objection was costing nobody anything. It is the case in which resistance from within, once formally charged, produced a hearing on the doctrine and a correction of the error. One case, any jurisdiction, within living memory.

This publication has not found it, and will publish any correction that arrives with a citation.

On Sunday the ninth of August 2026, at the dependency of the Holy Monastery of Saint Panteleimon in Galata, the Ecumenical Patriarch presided from the throne at the Divine Liturgy for the feast of Saint Panteleimon according to the Julian calendar, before a largely Russian-speaking congregation. He spoke of the place of monasticism in the life of the Church. He said that the Holy Mountain stands under the spiritual jurisdiction and care of the Mother Church of Constantinople, described it as a place of prayer in which Greeks, Russians, Serbs, Bulgarians and Romanians dwell together as brothers in Christ, and called it "a jewel in the mitre of the Ecumenical Patriarch."

That was the day before this article was completed. As it goes to press a final order of the Supreme Court stands against the brotherhood of Esphigmenou, the eviction remains outstanding, the police request of July 2024 has not been withdrawn, and the fathers notified in 2017 to quit their cells have had no further hearing. The Russian brotherhood of the Prophet Elias, whose successors were among those addressed in Galata, was removed from the Holy Mountain in 1992 and has never returned.

The metaphor repays attention, because it is exact rather than decorative. A jewel in a mitre is a possession and an ornament. It does not belong to itself. Whether its coexistence is peaceful depends on what is asked of it, and whether it remains in the setting is not a question the jewel is competent to decide.

In Karyes this May the word disgrace was applied to men who withheld a commemoration, in a room granted to the brotherhood installed to replace them, in the presence of the officer of the State who would carry out their eviction. Canon 15 provides that no penalty shall follow.

Readers may judge for themselves which of the two is the disgrace.

 

Source: https://patristicwitness.com/ArticleDetail?id=6a79fe757db1342d95746b97

 

On the Occasion of His Nameday: An Address of His Beatitude, Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens

At the Inter-Orthodox Consultation of the Genuine Orthodox Christians in View of the So-Called Great Synod of the Ecumenists, Acharnai, Attica, May 13, 2016 (Old Style)

 

 

Your Eminence, Metropolitan Agafangel;

Your Eminences, Your Graces;

Holy Brothers and Fathers, dear children in the Lord;

Representatives of our Sister Orthodox Churches, as well as Their Respective Bishops, from Russia, Romania, Europe, America, Africa, Asia, and Australia,

I embrace all of you together and each individually with the salvific salutation of joy for the world: Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!

With ineffable Evangelic joy and emotion, I welcome you, on behalf of our Holy Synod, to the land of Greece, trodden by the Apostles, and the progenitor of Saints.

I thank you for responding to our fraternal invitation to come and to participate in two truly historic events of our Genuine Orthodox Church.

Τhe first is the Inter-Orthodox Conference, for which we are gathered here today.

Τhe second is the Proclamation of the Sanctity of the ever-memorable former Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, which—in God’s pleasure—will take place this coming Satur­day.

We find ourselves at a critical turning-point in history, since after almost a century of martyric struggles in confessing the Faith, the Genuine Orthodox Church has shown Herself justi­fied for its tenacious resistance to the whirlwind of anti-eccle­siastical Ecumenism and its kindred reprehensible calendar in­novation.

Worthy of honor, praise, and encomia are our holy forefathers in Greece, Romania, Russia, and elsewhere, who with inerrant foresight perceived, having been informed by our Lord, where the so-called effort to unite Christians was leading and where it would end up; an effort known as the Ecumenical Movement and which, from the very beginning, was without salubrious ecclesiastical foundations.

Τhe rotten bedrock of the so-called Ecumenical Movement was a clear and explicit proclamation by the Patriarchate in Constan­tinople, which has been, unfortunately, endorsed by all of the “official” Orthodox Churches over the years.

What was this proclamation?

That all of the heterodox Christian communities, Eastern and Western, were “venerable Christian Churches”; that they were “constituent Churches of the entire body of Christians,” “of the whole body of the Church”; and that these “Churches” were henceforth no longer to consider “one another as foreign and alien, but as kith and kin in Christ and ‘as fellow heirs and fel­low members of the body, [and partakers of] the promise of God in Christ’” (“Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920”).

Since then, all of the fallen ecumenists have had a common goal: that the supposed existence of this invisible unity among the heterodox communities should be made visible in various ways: by way of a common calendar, common worship, a com­mon ministry to the world, diverse joint activities, the recogni­tion of each other’s Baptism and Priestly orders, and many other such things, and, indeed, specifically in the framework of the wholly Protestant “World Council of Churches.”

Thus, the so-called Ecumenical Movement took root, was cul­tivated, and became entrenched, such that it has, today, eaten away at all of the would-be “official” local Orthodox Churches, which, in approximately three weeks, will convene in Crete, with the purpose of ratifying, institutionalizing, and formalizing this most novel “ecclesiastical” identity of theirs, their anti-Or­thodox ecumenical consciousness, that is, their total departure and falling-away from the sole and singular Truth of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Fathers, and the Holy Synods of Orthodoxy.

Regardless of the decisions of the so-called Great Synod of the ecumenists, it should be understood solely from the fact that firstly, no issue of heresy will be submitted for examination; sec­ondly, the Bishops who will be participating in it are knowing and active ecumenists, that is, false teachers and false bishops; thirdly, issues for discussion have been set forth from the outset “in conformity with the demands of the contemporary era”; and finally, that it has a patently ecumenist orientation, based on the cacodox Encyclical of 1920—solely from these given points, I reiterate, the Synod of the ecumenists will in any event be a pseudo-synod, not an Orthodox Synod, a synod in favor of ecu­menism and at odds with the Genuine Orthodox Church, a veri­table anti-synod.

The authentic Patristic Tradition concerning Orthodox Syn­ods, as expressed, for example, by St. Athanasios the Great of Alexandria, envisions the following pellucid criteria:

a. It is not possible for those who are impious with regard to the Faith to take part in an Orthodox Synod: “For it is not pos­sible to count in a Synod those who are of impious belief.”

b. The examination of extraneous business must not be giv­en precedence; salient issues of Faith are to be examined first, and then other issues: “Nor is it proper that the scrutiny of any matter take precedence over the examination of matters of the Faith.”

c. Any disagreement concerning the Faith must be removed from consideration first, and then the remaining matters are to be investigated: “All disagreement concerning the Faith ought first to be removed from consideration, and only then may in­quiry be made into other matters.” (Patrologia Græca, Vol. XXV, col. 736B)

The so-called Great Synod of the ecumenists is unaccept­able a priori, because—as it has emerged from the prepara­tory process—it remains incognizant that the Orthodox flock everywhere is threatened by the major heresies of Papism, of Protestantism, by the ecumenism that encompasses them, by Sergianism, and by other anti-Christian currents, ideologies, and pseudo-theologies, which are syncretistic in nature and possessed of a “wisdom that is demonic” (cf. St. James 3:15).

These things notwithstanding, we have gathered today to con­fer, not as a full and canonical Orthodox Synod, but in order to confer and prepare the ground for such a Synod, one that will condemn ecumenism.

For the present, and keeping in mind the pseudo-synod of the ecumenists, we can proclaim collectively our Orthodox Faith, which is in every way genuine, by way of two fundamental doc­uments, with which you are already familiar, and which will be the object of our consultation, in a spirit of love, mutual respect, and prayer.

I conclude these humble introductory thoughts, ideas, and clarifications with the heartfelt prayer that the Most Holy The­otokos and the Holy Fathers may protect and guide us, both today and at all times, to teach aright the word of truth and sal­vation, unto the glory of the Holy Trinity.

I thank you!

St. Nikolai Velimirović on the Global Crisis (very relevant today!)

Letter 8. To Priest K.

 

 

You ask me, man of God, about the cause and meaning of the crisis that has come upon us. Who am I that you should ask me about this great mystery? “Speak, if you have something greater than silence,” said St. Gregory the Theologian. And although I find that, at present, silence is higher than every word, yet out of love for you I shall write what I think about this question.

“Crisis” is a Greek word; translated, it means “judgment.”

In Holy Scripture the word “judgment” is used many times. Thus we read from the Psalmist: “Therefore the ungodly shall not rise in the judgment” (Ps. 1:5). Further on again: “I will sing of mercy and judgment unto Thee, O Lord” (Ps. 100:1). The wise King Solomon writes that judgment comes from the Lord to everyone (cf. Prov. 29:26). The Savior Himself said: “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son” (John 5:22). And the Apostle Peter writes: “The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God” (1 Pet. 4:17).

Replace the word “judgment” with the word “crisis” and read: “I will sing of mercy and crisis,” “from the Lord comes crisis to everyone,” “the Father has committed all crisis unto the Son,” “the time is come that crisis must begin at the house of God.”

Formerly, when some misfortune befell Europeans, they used the word “judgment” instead of the word “crisis.” Now the word “judgment” has been replaced by the word “crisis,” a comprehensible word by a less comprehensible one. A drought would come, and they would say: “God’s judgment!” A flood—“God’s judgment!” A war or an epidemic would begin—“God’s judgment!” Earthquakes, locusts, other calamities—always the same: “God’s judgment!” Thus, a crisis because of drought, a crisis because of flooding, because of wars and epidemics. And the people regard the present financial and economic catastrophe as a judgment of God, but call it not “judgment,” but “crisis.” So that the calamity might be increased by lack of understanding! For as long as the comprehensible word “judgment” was spoken, the cause that had brought about the calamity was also understood; the Judge Who had permitted the calamity was known, as was the purpose for which the calamity had been permitted. After the substitution of the word “judgment” with the word “crisis,” which is little understood by the majority, no one can explain either what it comes from, from whom it comes, or for what purpose. Only in this does the present crisis differ from a crisis caused by drought and flooding, war or epidemic, locusts or some other affliction.

You ask about the cause of the present crisis, or of God’s judgment?

The cause is always the same. The cause of all droughts, floods, epidemics, and other calamities is the same as that of the present crisis—apostasy from God. The sin of apostasy brought about this crisis as well, and the Lord permitted it in order to awaken people, to sober them, so that they might come to their senses and return to Him. As the sins, so the crisis. Indeed, the Lord used modern means to bring modern people to their senses: He struck the banks, the stock exchanges, the entire financial system. He overturned the tables of the money changers throughout the whole world, just as He once did in the Temple at Jerusalem. He caused an unprecedented panic among merchants and money changers.

He disturbed, overthrew, confounded, threw into confusion, and instilled fear. And all this so that the proud European and American wise men might awaken, come to their senses, and remember God. So that they, having established themselves in the harbor of material prosperity, might remember their souls, acknowledge their iniquities, and worship God Most High, the living God.

How long will the crisis last? Until the proud culprits acknowledge the victory of the Almighty. Until people think to translate the incomprehensible word “crisis” into their native language and, with a sigh of repentance, cry out: “God’s judgment!”

You too, reverend Father, call the “crisis” “God’s judgment,” and everything will be clear to you.

Greetings to you, and peace from the Lord!

 

Russian source: Миссионерские письма [Missionary Letters], published by Moscow Representation of the Holy Trinity–St. Sergius Lavra, 2005.