Does Acceptance of the Council of Crete Today Constitute a Proclamation of Heresy “with bared head,” and How is This Justified?

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | September 9, 2026

 

 

1. The Interpretation of the Phrase “With Bared Head”

The 15th sacred Canon stipulates that walling-off is justified and praised when the bishop teaches false doctrine “publicly... and with bared head in the Church.”

The canonist John Zonaras interprets this phrase as meaning that he “teaches heretical doctrines without reserve and with boldness.” The formal synodal acceptance, signing, and liturgical commemoration of these decisions constitute the most overt, institutional proclamation of false doctrine “with boldness” upon the Holy Table before the flock.

2. Heresy “Condemned by the Holy Councils or Fathers”

Ecumenism—which the Council of Crete accepted—meets the requirement of Canon 15 concerning a heresy already condemned by ancient and modern Councils, by the Holy Fathers, and by Holy Scripture itself.

Consequently, a bishop who accepts and publicly teaches these decisions becomes a “false bishop” and a “false teacher,” and breaking communion with him before his synodal condemnation does not cause a schism but protects the Church from the schism of heresy.

The acceptance and proclamation of the decisions of the Council of Crete constitute a proclamation of heresy “with bared head,” directly meeting the conditions set forth in the 15th sacred Canon of the First-Second Council of Constantinople.

This position is analyzed as follows:

1. The Heretical Ecclesiology of the Decisions of Crete.

The sources emphasize that the Council of Crete (2016) violated the doctrine of the Church and introduced a new heretical ecclesiology. Specifically:

• It regarded and designated heresies as “churches.”

• It synodally ratified the texts of the Theological Dialogues, recognizing valid baptism and apostolic succession among the heterodox (Monophysites, Papists, Protestants).

• It approved institutional participation in the “World Council of Churches,” thereby degrading the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

OBJECTION: YES, BUT TODAY THE DECISIONS ARE NOT TAUGHT FROM THE PULPIT.

ANSWER: This objection is common, but according to patristic sources and the acts of the Councils, the meaning of “preaching publicly and with bared head” is not limited to oral preaching from the pulpit.

Patristic tradition provides the basis for the answer as follows:

1. Preaching “In Deed and Word” (Venerable Theodore the Studite)

When Venerable Theodore the Studite was called upon to answer a similar question—namely, that those inclining toward heresy in his time were not directly teaching the deviation from the pulpit—he explained that heresy is not proclaimed through words alone. It is proclaimed “in deed and word” when a dogmatic or canonical violation is ratified synodally, presented as “saving economy,” and imposed in daily ecclesiastical practice.

2. Institutional and Synodal Acceptance

A synodal decision (such as that of Crete) that has been officially signed by bishops, published, and remains in force as the Church’s official position constitutes continuous and undisguised preaching by the governing hierarchy of the Church. The fact that it is not regularly expounded in Sunday sermons does not negate the fact that it has been formally established and is officially implemented.

3. “With Bared Head” and the Holy Table

The interpreters of the Canons (such as John Zonaras) explain the phrase “with bared head” as teaching “without reserve and with boldness.”

• In the Orthodox liturgical tradition, the “pulpit” par excellence for confessing the faith is the Holy Table.

• The mention of the Bishop’s or Patriarch’s name during the Divine Liturgy constitutes “full communion” and publicly declares participation in the faith of the one commemorated.

• Thus, when the celebrant commemorates a bishop who has accepted or implements these decisions, he publicly proclaims (“in the Church”) and before the altar his participation in them.

• As emerges from the Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, the commemoration of an uncondemned heretical bishop defiles the purity of the holy Mysteries. This defilement does not mean the invalidation or destruction of the substantial reality of the Mysteries (since they are celebrated with substantial reality as long as the cleric has not been synodally deposed), but the loss of sanctification and the forgiveness of sins. Thus, participation in the Divine Eucharist where the source of the heresy is commemorated results, for those who knowingly receive Communion, “in judgment and condemnation.”

Consequently, the cessation of commemoration (walling-off) under Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople constitutes the canonical means of protecting the believer from this chain of shared spiritual defilement.

3. Silence as Consent

As Venerable Theodore the Studite emphasizes, toleration and silence in the face of an already institutionalized false doctrine constitute consent and incur the fearful “judgment for silence.” Consequently, the official adoption, institutional implementation, and liturgical commemoration of the decisions constitute a full and public proclamation (“with bared head”), regardless of whether they are specifically mentioned in oral preaching from the pulpit.

Venerable Theodore the Studite’s Stance toward the “Moechian” Council of AD 809

Venerable Theodore the Studite’s stance toward the “Moechian” Council of 809 provides a fundamental historical example of how an appeal to “economy” develops into heresy.

This development is analyzed as follows:

1. The Difference between Sin and Heresy.

Before the Council of 809, the uncanonical blessing of Emperor Constantine VI’s unlawful marriage by the priest Joseph was regarded by the Venerable Father as an isolated sinful act and a violation of the sacred canons. For this reason, during that period the Venerable Father exercised a temporary economy: although he avoided overt communion with the priest Joseph, the “joiner in adultery,” he maintained ecclesiastical communion with Patriarchs Tarasios and Nikephoros, provided that Joseph had been suspended from priestly service.

2. The Institutionalization of Lawlessness as “Saving Economy”

The fundamental change occurred at the Council of 809, where the bishops did not merely tolerate a sinful act but proceeded to a doctrinal deviation. Specifically:

• They decreed that divine laws do not apply to emperors when they do not wish them to.

• They called the nullification of the Gospel commandments “saving economy.”

• They anathematized those who did not accept this “economy” of the saints.

3. “A Single Utterance Gives Birth to Heresy”

Venerable Theodore discerned that the Council of 809 had given birth to a new heresy—the “Moechian heresy”—because through this synodal decision they proclaimed that the immutable commandments of the Gospel are subject to alteration and change according to circumstances. In this way, the violation of the faith and the canons was elevated to an institutional doctrine.

4. Public Proclamation and Obligatory Walling-Off

Whereas before 809 there was no “openly proclaimed evil doctrine,” the Council of 809 brought the false doctrine openly into public view (“through a council into the open”). This public proclamation immediately brought into effect the obligation to wall off:

• The Venerable Father completely broke communion with the Council and all who aligned themselves with it.

• He emphasized that silence in the face of institutionalized error constitutes consent and incurs the “fearful judgment for silence.”

• He recalled the teaching of Saint John Chrysostom that “the enemies of God are not only heretics, but also those who are in communion with them.”

5. The Limits of True Economy

The Venerable Father emphasized that “no economy constitutes an annulment of divine laws.” When economy is used to legitimize ongoing sin or false doctrine, it ceases to be a therapeutic condescension and becomes unlawful hypocrisy and the destruction of ecclesiastical discipline.

How Venerable Theodore’s distinction (between an isolated transgression and its synodal legitimization as “economy”) applies to the contemporary ecclesiological discussion concerning the decisions of Crete.

The distinction drawn by Venerable Theodore the Studite during the Moechian controversy applies directly to the contemporary ecclesiological assessment of the decisions of the Council of Crete (2016):

1. From an Isolated Transgression to Synodal Institutionalization

• In Venerable Theodore’s time: Before the Council of 809, the uncanonical blessing of the unlawful marriage constituted an isolated sinful act and a violation of the sacred canons. When, however, the Council of 809 ratified this act, it decreed that divine laws are not binding upon emperors and called the nullification of the commandments “saving economy.”

• At the Council of Crete (2016): Similarly, while for decades the various concessions of Ecumenism had been made under the cover of an unrestrained “economy,” these deviations were synodally institutionalized through the Council of Crete. Heterodox confessions were officially designated “churches,” and the texts of the Theological Dialogues that recognize valid baptism and apostolic succession among the heterodox were synodally ratified.

2. The Transformation of “Economy” into Heresy

• Venerable Theodore discerned that the violation of the Gospel commandments in practice, when presented and synodally ratified as “saving economy,” constitutes heresy, declaring in his famous words: “Do not be surprised if a single utterance gives birth to heresy.”

• In the same way, the institutional recognition of heresies as churches at Crete does not constitute a mere administrative condescension, but the introduction of a new heretical ecclesiology that overturns the teaching of the Gospel and the Ecumenical Councils.

3. The Transition to Obligatory Walling-Off

• Before the Council of 809, Venerable Theodore avoided direct communion with the priest who had acted unlawfully, but maintained ecclesiastical communion with the Patriarchs. When, however, the false doctrine became “openly proclaimed” and was institutionalized “through a council into the open,” the Venerable Father immediately broke communion with the Council and all who aligned themselves with it.

• By the same principle, the official synodal ratification of the decisions of Crete made the false doctrine public and institutionalized, transforming the cessation of commemoration (walling-off) from a mere right into an immediate canonical duty and obligation to protect the believer from spiritual defilement.

Comparison of the Moechian Council (809) and the Council of Crete

The comparison between the Moechian Council of 809 and the Council of Crete of 2016, in the light of patristic tradition and Father Eugenios’s study, reveals the profound historical and theological parallel in the transition from an isolated canonical transgression to the synodal institutionalization of heresy.

Cause and Occasion: In the Moechian Council of 809, the cause was the uncanonical blessing of Emperor Constantine VI’s unlawful marriage to Theodote. Correspondingly, at the Council of Crete in 2016, the occasion lay in the institutional ratification of the Theological Dialogues and the overall common course pursued within the World Council of Churches.

Prior Situation: The Moechian Council arose from an isolated violation of the sacred canons, namely, the sin of joining a couple in an adulterous union, during which temporary economy was exercised while the priest involved had already been suspended. In the case of Crete, decades of informal and isolated ecumenist concessions had preceded it, justified in the name of an unrestrained and distorted “economy.”

Doctrinal Deviation: The Moechian Council culminated in the formal establishment of the principle that divine laws need not bind emperors and that the nullification of the commandments may constitute “saving economy.” At Crete, the deviation manifested itself in the introduction of a new heretical ecclesiology through the recognition of the heterodox as “churches” and the acceptance of their baptism.

Characterization of the Deviation and Its Public Proclamation: In 809, the “Moechian heresy” was born through a synodal decision, in accordance with the axiom that “a single utterance gives birth to heresy,” whereby the false doctrine became an “openly proclaimed evil doctrine” and emerged “through a council into the open” (“with bared head”). Correspondingly, in 2016, the doctrine of the Church was violated and the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers were overturned through official synodal signing, institutional publication, and liturgical proclamation through the commemoration of the bishops.

The Nature of Economy and Canonical Duty: In both cases, “economy” is falsely invoked to legitimize the violation of the Gospel, since “no economy constitutes an annulment of divine laws.” As regards the canonical duty of walling-off, whereas in 809 there was an immediate obligation to break communion with the Council and those who consented to it, because silence constitutes consent, in 2016 Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople comes into effect, requiring the cessation of commemoration to avoid shared spiritual defilement.

Main Conclusions of the Comparison:

1. The transformation of sin into heresy: In both cases, heresy arose not from the original violation, but from its synodal legitimization and concealment under the guise of “economy.”

2. The necessity of walling-off: When false doctrine ceases to be hidden and is proclaimed synodally or liturgically (“with bared head”), toleration becomes complicit silence, making the cessation of communion a duty pertaining to salvation.

3. Participation or the commemoration of bishops who accept these synodal deviations transmits spiritual defilement to the flock through the “principle of communicating vessels.”

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/09/a.html

 

 

Full Speed Ahead toward Unia?

Nikolaos Mannis, Educator | September 9, 2026

 

 

“Among us, neither Patriarchs nor Synods have ever been able to introduce innovations, for the defender of the Faith is the very body of the Church, that is, the people themselves.” - Encyclical Letter of the Orthodox Patriarchs of the East (1848)

The moment that many of us foresaw is approaching.

Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, in the twilight of his life, has decided to take his great step toward the West—a step following in the footsteps of his idol (Athenagoras), and already planned in the mid-1960s, when he was studying at the “Institute of Oriental Studies in Rome.”

The “Institute” in question, which, as it itself reveals, undertakes “the education and preparation of a new generation of leaders,” since “graduates serve as bishops in both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church,” [1] was founded in 1917 and bears a remarkable resemblance to the renowned “Collegium Graecum,” founded by Pope Gregory XIII in 1577, in the following respects: a) both aimed to educate “schismatics” who would return to their countries as preachers of Unia; [2] and b) both are organically connected with the notorious Jesuit order, whose members administered them (the Institute to this day, and the College until 1897, when it came under Benedictine administration).

The culmination of Patriarch Bartholomew’s course therefore comes as no surprise. Recently (September 4, 2026), he publicly expounded his positions and his plan for the step toward Unia in his address to the 27th International Congress of the Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches, held at the “PHANARION” Center for Orthodox Christian Dialogue in Budapest. [3]

His positions are as follows:

1. He accepts that the Church of Rome holds the Primacy, which he himself understands as “a primacy of loving service, exercised within and never above the communion of the sister Churches.” [4]

2. By writing that “the institution of the Pentarchy—the five great ancient Sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem—constituted, during the first Christian millennium, the very framework within which the unity of the catholic Church found its most visible ecclesial expression,” [5] he essentially accepts two things: that the Pentarchy alone is the framework within which the Church has a more visible expression, and that the Pentarchy was dissolved with the falling away of Rome in 1054.

3. He considers that the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem “stand as unshakable pillars and unbroken foundations of the Apostolic Tradition and, together with the Church of Elder Rome, constituted during the first millennium the five-stringed lyre of the universal Church, participating actively in the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and ‘rightly dividing the word of truth.’” [6]

Continuing, Patriarch Bartholomew sets out his plan, revealing that he sent a letter to the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem inviting them to meet on November 30 in Constantinople to examine the challenges facing the flock that bears Christ’s name, expressing the hope for “the restoration of full communion with the Church of Rome within the one Body of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, so that the Pentarchy may once again be whole and the ‘five-stringed lyre’ of the universal Church may resound once more in the fullness of its ancient harmony”! [7]

In examining the above positions, allow me to offer a few observations:

1. Regarding the Primacy, the issue is not how Patriarch Bartholomew understands it, but, on the one hand, how Pope Leo XIV himself interprets it and, on the other, how the Holy Fathers view it, with whom we must be in agreement if we wish to be called Orthodox.

The former continues to understand the Primacy as authority over all the Churches without synodality (as he demonstrated this past July by excommunicating the well-known “Society of Saint Pius X” [SSPX], acting as an autocrat and without convening a Synod), whereas the Fathers unanimously never accepted any primacy of authority (even disguised as one of “service”) for any Pope or Patriarch, but regarded Jesus Christ as the Head of the Church (both visible and invisible), and the Ecumenical Council as its supreme governing body. [8]

2. Regarding the institution of the Pentarchy, as a product of the Church’s development, it can disappear just as it appeared, or even be modified (including a change in its number) owing to changes in ecclesiastical life. The view that the Church of Christ is less visible without the Pentarchy is unacceptable.

On the contrary, the visible expression of the Church neither increases nor decreases, but remains intact, visible, and complete among those who preserve the Orthodox Faith. Was this not the case during the first three centuries of the Church, when the Pentarchy had not yet been established?

Was this not also the case after vast provinces broke away from her (as in North Africa with the Donatists, or in Egypt and Asia with the anti-Chalcedonians)? Why, then, should the falling away of Rome in 1054 and the dissolution of the Pentarchy signify a diminution of the Church’s visible expression?

All the more so since this dissolution of the Pentarchy after 1054 was temporary, as it was subsequently restored—a fact that Patriarch Bartholomew passes over in silence!

For it is well known to all who study Church History or Canon Law that the Pan-Orthodox Synod held in Constantinople in 1593 (with the participation of Patriarchs Jeremias II Tranos of Constantinople, Saint Meletios Pegas of Alexandria—who also represented Joachim of Antioch—and Sophronios of Jerusalem), on the one hand, through its Canon 8, [9] which renewed Canon 1 of the Council of Antioch, officially cut off from the Body of the Church the Church of Rome, which had violated that Canon only a few years earlier (1582), and, on the other, restored the Pentarchy by granting fifth place to the Church of Russia, having decreed “that the throne of the most pious and Orthodox city of Moscow be and be called a Patriarchate, because this land has been deemed worthy by God of imperial sovereignty; that all Russia and the Northern Regions be subject to the Patriarchal Throne of Moscow and All Russia and the Northern Regions; that its holder have his place after the Most Holy Patriarch of Jerusalem, both in the sacred diptychs and in ecclesiastical assemblies, so that we may preserve unshaken the aforementioned canons of the Holy Fathers; that he take precedence over bishops, metropolitans, and archbishops throughout the entire catholic Church of Christ’s Orthodox faithful, and be and be recognized as the head of that ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Moscow and All Russia and the Northern Regions… and that he be and be called a brother of the Orthodox Patriarchs, bearing this title, of the same rank and sharing the same throne, equal in order and dignity, and that he be styled and sign himself, according to the custom of the Orthodox Patriarchs, ‘Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Northern Regions.’” [10]

Indeed, the Patriarchate of Moscow is the only newer Patriarchate that has the approval of a Pan-Orthodox Synod, unlike all the other new and improperly so-called Patriarchates (Serbia, Bulgaria, etc.).

Of fundamental importance, moreover, is the fact that the decision of 1593 has not been revised by any subsequent Synod.

For Patriarch Bartholomew, therefore, to disregard the Pentarchy already restored by synodal decision (since 1593) and attempt to settle this matter on his own (even with the cooperation of certain Primates) will have the same outcome as it did for the previous Patriarch who acted similarly.

And, for those who do not know, I am referring to Cyril V Karakallos of Constantinople, who, disregarding the Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1484 as well as the majority of hierarchs throughout the world, [11] unilaterally imposed the rebaptism of Latins and Armenians (with the approval of two other Primates, obtained through coercion).

And what was the result? On the one hand, his “Decree” was rejected by the majority of the Orthodox Church; on the other, his fellow bishops accused him of being a petty pope, as the denunciatory texts of the period (in the form of troparia) reveal, from which I select just a few representative but highly illuminating excerpts: “You ought not, Cyril, to have appropriated papal authority and made decisions alone. If you wished, wretched man, to reopen the question of the reception of Armenians and Latins, you should have consulted the Synod and obeyed it as one subject to it. For the Eastern Church recognizes as her head not the patriarch, but her Bridegroom, Christ the Saviour, whom we magnify in hymns. …The decrees and ordinances of the Church were established through holy synods, lawless patriarch, and never were doctrines or ecclesiastical questions decided by one man alone; for it is acknowledged that the All-Holy Spirit speaks through synods. Tell us, then, from where did you receive the authority to reject a synod and decide on your own? But we, rejecting your papal madness, have obeyed the Synod, through which the Lord speaks, being in its midst, He who has great mercy. …Cyril set aside the decrees of the Church, rejecting a synod of godly Fathers and showing himself to be a leader of pope-worship; for, having overthrown the Church’s prerogatives, he seized her authority, and therefore received from her an eternal punishment.” [12]

3. Neither have the Patriarchates always been “pillars and unbroken foundations of the Apostolic Tradition,” nor did the Church of Rome participate actively in the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

The former, on several occasions and for considerable periods, fell into heresies (Arianism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, etc.) and persecuted Orthodoxy, while Rome’s participation was anything but active, since: a) its Bishop did not attend any Ecumenical Council in person; b) it was not even represented at the Second Ecumenical Council; c) at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, the then Pope Vigilius, who was in Constantinople, refused to attend and only accepted its decisions some time later under pressure; and d) it rejected the Quinisext Council in Trullo.

If Rome wishes to return to the Church of Christ (which every Orthodox Christian wholeheartedly desires), then it must, first of all, restore Jesus Christ as its Head in place of the Pope and agree to submit to the supreme ecclesiastical body, which is the Ecumenical Council.

Such a Council, however, should perhaps receive Elder Rome as sixth in rank, not only so that it may do penance for its bloodstained, thousand-year Luciferian apostasy, but also because only then will its Primate be able to demonstrate that the title he uses for himself (“Servus servorum Dei”!) is not hypocritical, an expression of feigned humility, and devoid of substantive meaning… Such an evangelical Primacy of humility [13] would be the only one appropriate in this case.

Otherwise, if the “four ancient patriarchal thrones” insist on following unrepentant Rome in its fall through a possible Unia, the people, as guardians of the Faith, will remain in Orthodoxy, looking forward to a Pan-Orthodox Synod under the remaining authority of the Pentarchy, the Church of Russia.

Of course, we do not know the plans of God, who may interrupt a betrayal of this kind through a sudden death, but we pray for the repentance of those in high office who wish to plunge the Church into chaos, hoping that the words of Saint Porphyrios will be fulfilled: “But it may happen, according to God’s plan, it may happen so that people gain an awareness, so that they see the chaos brightly lit, vividly before them, and say: ‘Hey! We are falling into chaos; we are perishing. Everyone back, everyone back, turn back—we have been led astray.’ And they may return to the path of God, and the Orthodox Faith may shine” [14].

Finally, as for those who have doubts as to whether the path of union proposed by Patriarch Bartholomew might ultimately be the right one, let them open the Synaxaria and Menaia of our Church: there they will not find even a single “unionist” Saint as an example, but, on the contrary, a multitude of Saints opposed to union, such as Photios the Great, Mark Eugenikos, Gregory Palamas, Cyril Loukaris, Saint Nektarios of Pentapolis, and the rest of the company of the Fathers, whom we have hope of meeting in the Kingdom of Heaven only if we are of one mind with them. Amen, may it be so!

 

NOTES

1. https://orientale.it/en

2. The Polish-Latin word Unia means Union, and the Uniates are the ideological descendants of the Byzantine Unionists.

3.https://www.romfea.gr/epikairotita-xronika/78426-oikoumenikos-patriarxis-to-proteio-tis-romis-einai-diakonia-agapis-entos-tis-ekklisias

4. "Α primacy of loving service, exercised within, and never above, the communion of sister Churches" (https://ec-patr.org/05/09/09/12/address-by-his-all-holiness-ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew-to-the-participants-of-the-27th-international-congress-of-the-society-for-the-law-of-the-eastern-churches-at-the-fanarion/ )

5. "The institution of the Pentarchy — the five great ancient Sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem — constituted, during the first Christian millennium, the very framework within which the unity of the universal Church found its most visible ecclesial expression" (ibid.).

6. "Stand as unshaken pillars and unbroken foundations of the Apostolic Tradition, and which, together with the Church of Elder Rome, constituted in the first millennium the five-stringed lyre of the universal Church, actively participating in the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and “rightly dividing the word of truth"." (ibid.).

7. "Τhe restoration of full communion with the Church of Rome within the one Body of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, so that the Pentarchy may once again be whole, and the “five-stringed lyre” of the universal Church may again resound in the fullness of its ancient harmony" (ibid.).

8. I consider it unnecessary to quote here the numerous testimonies of the Fathers concerning the Primacy of the Pope of Rome, since almost the complete works of the Saints are available online for readers to consult.

9. “We wish the determination of the Fathers concerning holy and saving Pascha to remain unshaken, as follows: All who dare to set aside the decrees of the holy and great Ecumenical Council convened at Nicaea in the presence of the most God-beloved and pious Emperor Constantine concerning the holy feast of saving Pascha are to be excommunicated and cast out of the Church if they persist in contentiously opposing what has been rightly decreed. Let this be said concerning the laity. But if any of those who preside over the Church—a bishop, presbyter, or deacon—should dare, after this decree, to act independently and celebrate Pascha with the Jews, to the perversion of the people and the disturbance of the churches, the Holy Synod has judged him, from that moment, to be alien to the Church. In accordance with these provisions, we too, by the grace of God, follow the canon of the Fathers to this day, which the Church of God preserves, just as it preserves the rest” (Dositheos of Jerusalem, Tome of Love, Iași, 1698, p. 547).

10. Ibid., p. 545.

11. Mansi 38, 585–586.

12. Evangelos Skouvaras, Denunciatory Texts of the Eighteenth Century [Against the Rebaptizers], Athens, 1967, pp. 194–195, 204).

13. “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all” (Mark 9:35).

14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCWB2LQd1dY

 

Greek source: https://www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/78513-olotaxos-pros-ounia

Orthodox Confession of Faith: A Systematic Ecclesiological Assessment and Repudiation of the Council of Crete (2016)

[Unattributed author/s and signatories]

Published September 8, 2026

 

 

With full awareness of our responsibility before God and of the historical witness of the Orthodox Church, and safeguarding the sacred deposit of the Holy Fathers, we make this Confession of Faith. Our faith is not a product of human convention, political expediency, or diplomatic compromise, but the living revelation of the Truth, which we are obliged to preserve unadulterated and unaltered.

A. The Dogmatic Foundation of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church

1. We confess with all our soul, heart, and mind our faith “in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” exactly as the sacred Symbol of Faith defines and preserves it. We believe and proclaim that the Church of Christ is ontologically One, unique, indivisible, and intact. There are not many churches, nor can the Body of Christ be fragmented. The unity of the Church is a given and is absolute, for her Head, our Lord Jesus Christ, is one, and His life-giving Body, which is constituted and given life by the Holy Spirit, is one.

2. We faithfully and steadfastly follow the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, the teachings of the God-bearing Fathers, and Holy Tradition.

3. We follow the enduring witness of Saint Cyprian, who proclaimed with canonical clarity that “outside the Church there is no salvation” (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus) and that “he who does not have the Church as his mother cannot have God as his Father.” The Church is the One and Only Mother, and there are no spiritual substitutes or parallel “ecclesiastical” realities.

4. We follow the teaching of Saint John of Damascus, who defines heresy as a voluntary “separation from the Church.” Just as a branch cut from a tree ceases to receive life-giving grace, withers, and dies, so heresy is in no sense “another church,” but an ontological severance and spiritual death.

5. We follow Saint Ignatius the God-bearer, who emphasized the indissoluble bond of ecclesiastical communion, writing: “Where the bishop is, there let the people also be,” reminding us that the bishop does not exist in isolation from his flock, but is an organic member of the local ecclesiastical community.

6. We follow the teaching of Saint Augustine in his controversy with the Donatists, in which he passionately defended the uniqueness and unity of the Church, rejecting any notion that schismatics and heretics can possess valid Mysteries or constitute parallel ecclesiastical structures.

7. We follow the testament of Saint Mark of Ephesus concerning the inviolability of the Symbol of Faith, which was formulated at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils and confirmed by the subsequent councils, accepting it with all our soul: “This sacred exposition and Symbol of Faith... admits no addition, admits no subtraction. It is closed and sealed by the Fathers. Those who dare to introduce innovations into it are cast out, and those who act otherwise will be held accountable.”

8. We follow the Eighth Ecumenical Council, held during the reign of the pious Emperor Basil and the patriarchate of the Most Holy Patriarch Photios, which, in the presence of the legates of Pope John, confirmed the Seventh Ecumenical Council, reinstated Saint Photios, and:

a. “...condemned and anathematized, just as the preceding Councils had done, those who dare to introduce innovations into the aforementioned Symbol of Faith, whether by addition, subtraction, or any alteration whatsoever.”

B. The Repudiation of the Council of Crete and the Nullification of Conciliarity

1. We repudiate the so-called “Holy and Great Council” of Crete (2016) as a gathering lacking pan-Orthodox validity, canonical legitimacy, and a conciliar spirit. This Council is anti-ecclesiastical in its very conception, constitutes a slaughter of the conciliar spirit, and is a rebellion against the pleroma of the Church.

2. The Council was not pan-Orthodox, since four historic Autocephalous Churches were absent: the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Church of Georgia, the Church of Bulgaria, and the Church of Russia.

3. A council held without the participation of so large a part of Orthodoxy lacks universal representation and, consequently, the authority to speak for and bind the body of the Church. Conciliarity presupposes pan-Orthodox consensus in order to produce binding decisions.

4. The Council’s procedures violated the spirit of the 34th Apostolic Canon concerning collective governance, which stipulates that bishops must recognize the first among them and do nothing without him, while the first must likewise do nothing without the consent of the others. The Council of Crete replaced collegiality with a centralized mechanism, in which the voices of dissenting bishops were stifled and decisions were imposed ex cathedra.

5. A bishop represents the Church not as an independent secular figure, but as a member of her, in unbroken communion with his flock. When a bishop ignores the voices of his presbyters, monastics, and faithful, he ceases to represent his Church and represents himself alone. In Crete, we saw bishops signing documents that their Churches had not read, endorsing decisions taken in closed sessions, without regard for the living conscience of the pleroma of the Church.

6. We follow the teaching of Saint John Chrysostom, who boldly confesses that “bishops are not masters of the faith, but its guardians.” The bishop is a shepherd, not the owner of the Church, and the unilateral imposition of decisions without regard for the body constitutes a departure from Orthodox ecclesiology. When shepherds withdraw from spiritual dialogue with their flock, trust is tested, and many faithful believe that the Council of Crete reflected this crisis in the pastoral responsibility of the hierarchy.

7. We proclaim with unwavering courage, in agreement with the confession of Saint Mark of Ephesus, that: “No one has authority over our faith—neither an emperor, nor a bishop, nor a false council, nor anyone else—for God alone handed it down to us, He Himself and His disciples.”

8. The Council adopted a papal model, in which the hierarchs acted as “little popes” who thought they knew better than the tradition and the living memory of the people, imposing their decisions in an authoritarian manner and organizing a mechanism that resembled a political party more than the Church.

C. The Condemnation of Ecclesiological Innovations and Heretical Teaching

1. WE CONDEMN unequivocally the ecclesiological innovations introduced through the official texts of the Council of Crete, specifically through the document “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World.”

2. WE CONDEMN the terminological and dogmatic recognition of heterodox confessions as “churches.” Heresy does not constitute another church, but error, separation from the Truth, and spiritual death.

Papism (with the filioque, papal primacy, infallibility, its transformation into a religious state, and the distortion of the Mysteries).

Protestantism (with its denial of the Mysteries, the Priesthood, the Theotokos, the Saints, and baptismal regeneration).

Monophysitism (with its denial of Christ’s real human nature, a denial that destroys salvation) constitute doctrinal errors that distort the apostolic faith and are entirely devoid of ecclesial existence. Recognizing them as “churches” constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, since it implies that the Holy Spirit dwells in heresies.

• WE CONDEMN the branch theory, which attempts to present the various Christian confessions as branches of equal standing belonging to a single tree of the Church, and to relativize the identity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

• WE CONDEMN dogmatic minimalism, which reduces the salvific content of the faith and Holy Tradition to minimal or flexible elements for the sake of an ostensible and adulterated “unity.”

• WE CONDEMN so-called “baptismal theology,” a modern ecumenist invention that attempts to establish ecclesiastical unity outside the canonical boundaries of Orthodoxy, under the pretext of a shared invocation of the Holy Trinity [6, 26, 32].

• WE FOLLOW the First Canon of Basil the Great, which stipulates that the baptism of heretics lacks validity.

• WE FOLLOW Saint Cyprian, who proclaimed that heretics outside the Church are baptized with mud and not with water.

• WE FOLLOW Saint Athanasius the Great, who characterized the baptism of heretics as “empty” and nonexistent. Recognition of the baptism of the heterodox constitutes a denial of the “one baptism” that we confess in the Symbol of Faith.

• WE CONDEMN the indirect repudiation of the decisions and anathemas of the Holy Ecumenical Councils (from the First through the Seventh). These Councils did not anathematize abstract ideas, but specific heresiarchs (Arius, the Macedonians, Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Origen, the Monothelites, and the Iconoclasts) and their communities, placing them outside the Church. Recognition of these communities as “churches” nullifies the work of the Holy Fathers, undermines dogmatic precision, and constitutes an affront that portrays the Fathers as harsh or extreme.

• WE CONDEMN Ecumenism as a theory and practice of syncretism which, under the pretext of theological dialogue “on equal terms,” undermines the uniqueness of the Orthodox Church, equates Truth with error, diminishes the need for the return and repentance of those in error, and opens the gates of the Church to the Antichrist.

D. The Canonical and Patristic Stance of the Pleroma Bearing Christ’s Name in Times of Heresy

We proclaim that the pleroma of the Church bearing Christ’s name—clergy, monastics, and laity—is not a passive recipient of decisions, but the very living guardian of Orthodox Tradition, with a heightened dogmatic consciousness that perceives and distinguishes truth from error. The Holy Spirit does not dwell exclusively in conference buildings or bureaucratic structures, but dwells in the pleroma of the Church. When the hierarchy or part of it slides into heresy or introduces ecclesiological innovations, the faithful must respond vigorously and with spiritual vigilance, following the patristic tradition:

• We follow the teaching of Basil the Great, who emphasizes that the faith is also preserved through the “unwritten tradition of the Fathers” that lives among the people, making the Orthodox people active participants in safeguarding doctrine.

• We follow Saints Maximus the Confessor and Gregory Palamas, who defended dogmatic truth, relying on the conscience of the Orthodox people and monastics when the official ecclesiastical authorities had compromised with the error of their time.

• We follow the theological legacy of Saint Gregory the Theologian, who recognized “common opinion” and the “mind of the Church” as essential criteria of ecclesiastical truth, which cannot be circumvented by any signature on a synodal protocol.

• We follow the practice of the Holy Fathers, which provides that, when faced with the distortion of the Faith, the pleroma of the Church expresses its dissent through every ecclesiastical means: public protests, encyclicals, prayers, and also the refusal of ecclesiastical communion with those who preach or accept the heretical innovations of the Council of Crete.

• We proclaim that communion with those who accept this false council constitutes communion with error itself. When shepherds turn into wolves, the flock must protect its Faith by abstaining from communion with them, thus safeguarding the purity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

• We stand firm in the Orthodox Faith and the deposit handed down by the Fathers, proclaiming that the decisions of the Council of Crete that distort Orthodox ecclesiology are invalid, devoid of content, and lacking all theological authority.

We faithfully follow the theological and canonical stance of Saint Mark Eugenikos, Metropolitan of Ephesus, who was the unwavering champion of Orthodoxy against the Latins at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, categorically rejecting the Latin innovations—especially the doctrine of the Filioque and the use of unleavened bread—and refusing to sign the falsely named “union,” considering the Latins to be in a state of heresy and schism. Saint Mark preserved the patristic tradition without deviation, teaching that ecclesiastical unity is inconceivable with any compromise of the truth of the faith, and upholding agreement with the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and the teaching of the Holy Fathers as the sole criterion of the Church’s authenticity, free from compromises and expediency.

WE PROCLAIM that the true unity of the Church is not an abstract idea, nor is it built on diplomatic ambiguities, but presupposes absolute dogmatic agreement and precision. “ONE body, one spirit,” as the Apostle Paul proclaims, and upon the rock of the true confession Christ built His Church, against which “the gates of Hades will not prevail.”

We condemn every attempt at a false union, following Saint Mark of Ephesus, who proclaimed: “All the teachers of the Church, all the Councils, and all the divine Scriptures exhort us to avoid the heterodox and to abstain from communion with them. Shall we disregard all this and follow those who command us to unite under the pretext of a false and fabricated peace? Those who adulterated the divine Symbol of Faith and introduce the Son as a second cause of the Holy Spirit?”

We proclaim together with Saint Mark of Ephesus:

“For up to now our faith has lacked nothing, nor do we, who are sons and disciples of the Fathers, need a Council and a doctrinal definition to learn anything new... This is precisely our boast, our faith, the good inheritance of our Fathers. And with this faith we hope to stand before God and receive the forgiveness of our sins.”

“One body, one spirit,” as the Apostle Paul proclaims, and upon the rock of the true confession Christ built His Church, against which “the gates of Hades will not prevail.”

An Appeal for Dogmatic Precision

This confession springs not from a spirit of confrontation or pride, but from love for the Truth and the preservation of dogmatic precision. True Christian unity is built not on diplomatic ambiguities or on equating truth with error, but on full dogmatic agreement within Orthodox Tradition.

We call upon the pleroma of the Church to remain vigilant and steadfast in the faith of the Holy Fathers, proclaiming that every decision that diminishes the uniqueness of the Orthodox Church is devoid of authority and foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology.

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/09/2016_01394926234.html

An Ecumenical Visit to Kiev, Ukraine – An Orthodox Assessment

 Metropolitan Klemes of Larissa | August 26 / September 8, 2026

 

 

a. Ecumenical Solidarity and Brotherhood

Recently, from July 14 to 17, 2026, a “solidarity mission” of the “World Council of Churches” (WCC) took place in Kiev, Ukraine. Participants included the WCC General Secretary, Pastor Rev. Dr. Jerry Pillay, the Moderator of the WCC Central Committee, and others, as well as the General Secretary of the “Conference of European Churches (CEC).” It was, therefore, an expanded ecumenical delegation.

Also participating was Metropolitan Gabriel of Nea Ionia and Philadelphia, “representative of the Church of Greece,” according to the relevant announcement on his Metropolis’s website (for an unabridged republication, see Parapolitika.gr, July 20, 2026). More precisely, however, he participated in his capacity “as a member of the WCC Central Committee and as a representative of the WCC Commission of the Churches on International Affairs,” according to a news item published on the WCC website on July 17, 2026.

The purpose of this ecumenical visit was “to give practical expression to the solidarity of the Churches and Christian Confessions with the suffering Ukrainian people, to inform the delegation about the consequences of the ongoing war, and to strengthen cooperation with the country’s Churches and institutions for the promotion of peace, religious freedom, and humanitarian service” (see Parapolitika.gr, July 20, 2026).

On July 15, the ecumenical delegation met in Kiev (at the Theological Academy) with Mr. Epiphanius, regarded as Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine, “in his capacity as Chairman of the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations (UCCRO),” and with representatives of this Ukrainian ecumenical council from heterodox Christianity as well as the country’s other religions. During the meeting, Mr. Epiphanius informed the members of the ecumenical delegation about the “tragic consequences of Russian aggression” and the “extensive destruction of churches and religious buildings.” He also thanked the WCC “for its continued solidarity and clear support for the Ukrainian people. Special mention was also made of the thirtieth anniversary of the founding of the ‘All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations (UCCRO),’ which constitutes a model of inter-Christian and interreligious cooperation” (ibid.).

“Metropolitan Gabriel conveyed… the fraternal good wishes of His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens and the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, while also expressing the sincere solidarity and support of the Church of Greece for the suffering Ukrainian people…” (ibid.).

As for the position of this representative from Greece, who constituted what was regarded as the “Orthodox presence” within the ecumenical delegation, he made a more revealing statement to an ecumenical media outlet concerning the trip to Ukraine, following the ecumenists’ favored practice of adapting to their audience:

“We had a very profound spiritual experience… I saw the true fellowship of our churches not in theory but in practice. I am grateful to God for this experience and to the WCC General Secretary for this opportunity to strengthen us in Christ’s mission of love, compassion, and understanding” (see WCC-News, July 17, 2026).

b. Interreligious Event with Jews in Athens

Opening a parenthesis here, we refer to this same individual’s recent participation in an interreligious event in the heart of Athens, to bring into clearer focus the image of the contemporary ecumenist hierarch, whose experience enables him to participate in such events and ceremonies “that unite voices, religions, and cultures”!

Specifically, on Sunday, June 7, 2026, the Jewish Community of Athens hosted “the second gathering of the European Polyverse project—the first interreligious choir in Europe to unite voices, religions, and cultures! This is an exceptionally important and pioneering initiative that demonstrates in practice how art can transcend borders and doctrinal differences, building meaningful bridges of peace in Europe… In an atmosphere of respect and mutual understanding at Beth Shalom Synagogue, representatives of religious traditions shared words intended as a lasting legacy” (referring to the remarks of the President of the Jewish Community of Athens, Metropolitan Gabriel of Nea Ionia as the representative of the Archbishop of Athens, the Rabbi of Athens, the “Reverend [female] Pastor of the Evangelical Parish,” etc.). Metropolitan George of Guinea, of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, can also be seen in photographs of the event.

The Rabbi of Athens stressed that “interreligious dialogue is a duty for the well-being of humanity in the service of God. Jews, Christians, and Muslims can and must work together.”

“A special moment was the first performance in Greece of the original work ‘Polyverse Echoes,’ which masterfully interwove melodies and texts from the traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam” (see the website of the Jewish Community of Athens, June 12, 2026: “Music as a Bridge of Dialogue, Art, and Coexistence”).

We understand that someone initiated into the colorful ecumenical puzzle of our age, in which the most disparate things can be interwoven, not for union and transformation according to God, but for worldly prosperity and coexistence, can carry out missions such as the one to Ukraine within his field of expertise. This, it seems, is how the much-vaunted “Orthodox witness” is understood today: it constitutes not rebirth in Christ, but mutual accommodation through compromise within an ecumenist perspective!

c. The “WCC” Unmasked

Returning to the meeting in Kiev on July 15, we come to the most revealing point from an ecclesiastical and theological standpoint: Sviatoslav Shevchuk, the Primate of the Uniates (“Greek Catholics”) of Ukraine, who attended that meeting along with the other representatives from across the Christian and religious spectrum, formally called upon the WCC to admit into its fold the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine under Epiphanius, regarded as Metropolitan of Kiev! (See “Romfea,” July 17, 2026: “Uniate Archbishop: The Autocephalous Church of Ukraine Should Become a Member of the WCC.”)

Shevchuk maintained that this “constitutes a necessary practical step in support of the country,” because it “will ensure a permanent institutional presence for the Ukrainian voice in the international ecumenical community, allowing the reality of Ukraine to be heard without intermediaries.” He also expressed gratitude to the WCC for its solidarity, criticized Moscow for “instrumentalizing religion,” and “made it clear that freedom of conscience is fully protected in free Ukraine, unlike in the occupied territories, where Russia systematically suppresses it” (ibid.).

This astonishing news, about which the lengthy account issued by the Metropolis of Nea Ionia and Philadelphia says absolutely nothing, raises a reasonable question: could the so-called Autocephalous Church of Ukraine not submit this request directly to the WCC itself, according to the prescribed procedure, without needing a mouthpiece—that is, the assistance and intervention of its “Greek Catholic” (Uniate) “sister”? Even more astonishing is that the Uniates of Ukraine, like those of every other geographical region, although they themselves, being subject to the Vatican, are not members of the WCC in accordance with papal principles, nevertheless ask that the supposedly Orthodox autocephalists of their country become members of the WCC! How contradictory and inconsistent is this?

Perhaps not so much, if we consider that, from its very establishment by the Phanar in 2019, the Autocephalous Church of Ukraine immediately hastened to develop with its Uniate “brothers” in Ukraine a “road map for cooperation and a concrete course toward unification”! This is why, ever since then, clergy of both bodies have even gone so far as full liturgical concelebration (!) on various occasions (see the revealing video: “OCU and OGCC: 7 Steps Toward a New Unia”). Thus, they regard it as self-evident that they walk together and speak for one another, identifying with each other! Ecumenism in practice, and the adoption of Uniatism as a lived reality…

 

 

At this point, however, we should be permitted to take the opportunity to UNMASK the WCC through the writings of its ecumenist champions from Orthodox backgrounds!

The most serious question that arises is: What, after all, is this much-vaunted WCC, into which the Uniates of Ukraine are asking that the Uniatizing autocephalists of Ukraine be admitted?

An international ecumenical body for presenting and pursuing geopolitical goals and objectives, yes. It is indeed such a thing!

Its champions, however, although they present an idealized version of it, according to their wishes—or, rather, their imagination—openly admit that within the WCC, among other things, so-called “ecumenical theology” is cultivated, the “ecumenical spirit” prevails, and the so-called “international order” is shaped concerning peace, justice, Christian ethics, respect for creation, etc. (See Fr. Augoustinos Bairaktaris, “The Nature of the Orthodox Church’s Participation in the WCC—An Orthodox Historical and Theological View of the Ecumenical Movement,” in the journal Theologia, 2/2015, p. 261.)

On the basis of what principles? And toward what ultimate purpose? They tell us: ecclesial unity! Yet they themselves admit that within the WCC they have not arrived at a commonly accepted “model of coexistence and unity”! (Ibid., pp. 268–269.) In practice, as the WCC’s official texts clearly demonstrate, what prevails and is promoted is the basic Protestant idea that unity among them essentially exists already, and that it is manifested and becomes visible through their joint participation and action!

But what is most paradoxical and irrational? That, fundamentally, the WCC has no clearly formulated understanding of the “Mystery of the Church,” of WHAT THE CHURCH IS! And, consequently, of what the boundaries of the Church are and who is included within it! (Ibid., pp. 275, 283.) They call this as yet unresolved matter “the ecclesiological question” (ibid., p. 289)!…

Moreover, it has been documented for decades that it remains unclear and undefined who, ultimately, is speaking through the WCC’s texts. The WCC itself, which supposedly has no ecclesiological standing? The “Member Churches”? Some supposed “World Church”? (Ibid., p. 279.) In other words, WHOM does the WCC ultimately speak for? Who speaks through it? God? Such a claim would be not merely excessive but even blasphemous! Confused and divided human beings? This is indeed what happens, but it makes the WCC a vehicle not of the Spirit of God, but of the spirit of Babel, of manifest confusion! If, however, it is not the Lord who speaks, but Babel that prevails, we can understand very well which evil one lurks behind it and deceives everyone with his WCC-falsehood!

For example, exactly fifty years after the WCC’s founding in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in 1948—that is, in 1998—ecumenists from Orthodox backgrounds at an “Inter-Orthodox Conference” in Thessaloniki decided to abstain from many WCC activities ahead of its Eighth General Assembly, pending a RADICAL RESTRUCTURING that would supposedly allow for more effective Orthodox participation (ibid., p. 279, footnote 67). To what extent anything of the kind has occurred in the nearly three decades since then remains a mystery, since manifestly NOTHING substantial has been done in this regard! Thus, they admitted and continue to admit that the WCC neither represents their views nor meets their requirements, and they struggle to make it somehow “accessible” to their participation! Yet they achieve virtually nothing significant in this regard! Why, then, do they support it with such frenzy and foolish zeal?

And not only this: on the contrary, ecumenists from Orthodox backgrounds, in their spiritual blindness, acknowledge that

● they “respect the ecclesiological integrity of the other members” (ibid., p. 277), although they do not accept the full meaning of the term Church as applicable to them;

● they are moving “toward recognizing the ecclesial nature of the other Christian churches and communities” (ibid., p. 287);

● they accept and recognize the reality of the existence of many Churches that cannot be ignored (ibid., p. 290), because the divisions and separations occurred WITHIN the one Church (ibid., p. 290), and thus an “ecclesiological pluralism” actually exists (ibid., p. 291). Moreover, the Third Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Conference at Chambésy, Geneva, in 1986

● had accepted “the ontological recognition of all Christian Churches and Confessions,” namely, the Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, and Oriental Orthodox (ibid., p. 297).

At this point, we should recall that in 1975, the then Archbishop of Thyateira and Great Britain, Athenagoras (Kokkinakis), published an official text in the form of a bilingual book (Greek and English) entitled “The Thyateira Confession,” prefaced by the laudatory and unreserved APPROVAL of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. On the basis of the “new disposition prevailing today among Christians,” as well as the “signs of the times,” it establishes the NEW DOGMA of catering to the times through the dreadful error of ecumenism. For it holds that the Church has boundaries, which, however, are continually expanding! It has a door, but no walls! Thus, it recognizes ecclesial standing and grace in all heretics, whom it includes in the Body of the Church, and urges joint prayer as well as sacramental intercommunion with them! (See our work, Saint Philaret of the Russian Diaspora—A Contemporary Ascetic and Confessor Hierarch [1903–1985], Phyle, Attica, 2015, pp. 85 and 199–209.)

Thus, what was summarized on this subject at the Pseudo-Council of Kolymbari, Crete, in 2016 was neither sudden nor unprecedented. It had been taking shape and being cultivated for decades within the murky and corrupting ecumenist process.

In essence, it is this tragic state of affairs that the members of the WCC serve, and into which the Uniatizing autocephalous Ukrainians are hastening to enter, at the proposal of the Uniate Primate Shevchuk, in order, among other things, to serve their national interests more effectively. This is their principal and ardent desire…

If all the revealing points set out above with the utmost brevity constitute a “Witness to Orthodoxy” in the contemporary world, as the deceitful ecumenists claim at every opportunity, then words and terms have indeed lost their meaning. It is clear that the innovators and ecumenists do not serve the Truth and Righteousness of God, but stubbornly persist in their fallen state as those “estranged from God” (St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 36, PG 99, 1033), dwelling in “a distant country.”

At the end of the Book of Revelation, among those who will not be deemed worthy to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, into the ineffable beauties of divine Paradise, will be “everyone who loves and practices falsehood” (22:15)! This category includes not only those who tell lies, but also those who live and move within falsehood. Heretics of every kind “practice falsehood,” as victims of the devil, the father of lies (John 8:44). So too do those who fail to help them return to the Truth, but instead reassure them in the falsehood of their delusion. Thus, the ecumenists, sadly, carry out the work of the evil one in the service of the falsehood that leads to perdition!…

d. Is There Religious Freedom in Ukraine?

However, there is another major and serious issue that we must address.

The WCC’s ecumenical mission to Kiev met with Mr. Viktor Yelensky, Head of Ukraine’s State Service “for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience (DESS),” and Ms. Olena Kovalska, Deputy Head of the Office of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, receiving assurances concerning “the protection of the constitutional order and religious freedom” in Ukraine! (See Parapolitika.gr, July 20, 2026.)

Is this really so? Has none of them heard of the Ukrainian government’s widely known frenzy of persecution against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev, attested by incontrovertible evidence and systematically pursued for years?

The ecumenical delegation wished to appear to have heard this side as well, and therefore also met with its representatives to be informed about the effects of the war and—as the Metropolis of Nea Ionia and Philadelphia “masterfully” puts it—“also about the difficulties and pressures facing the Church in today’s particularly complex environment. At the same time, the Church’s positions were presented concerning the complete severance of all administrative dependence on the Moscow Patriarchate, as well as Metropolitan Onuphry’s decision to withdraw from the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. The [ecumenical] delegation’s meetings with both major Orthodox ecclesial communities in Ukraine demonstrate the WCC’s steadfast commitment to maintaining open channels of communication with all sides, serving dialogue, reconciliation, and peace…” (See Parapolitika.gr, July 20, 2026.)

Do the WCC and Mr. Gabriel really believe that, with these generalities—which do not even make a simple reference, however indirect, to the persecution faced by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church at the hands of the Zelensky regime for its unyielding stance toward the Phanar’s Autocephalous Church of Ukraine—they are presenting and serving the truth? Far from it!

This is why a careful and fair-minded analyst quite rightly wrote the following: Did the WCC, which supposedly heard both sides, “act as a genuine mediator or as an institutional endorser of the dominant side?” The latter, of course!

“It is not enough to hear the persecuted. You must investigate what they report and publicly defend their rights. Otherwise, a ‘balanced hearing’ becomes a procedural alibi for a political conclusion already reached… Can [the WCC] speak of reconciliation without making public even a single complaint from the persecuted community? Can it defend religious freedom while being content with the assurances of those accused of restricting it? Can it rightly condemn Moscow’s instrumentalization of the Church, yet overlook Kiev’s instrumentalization of religion? Christian truth does not change according to which geopolitical side violates the rights of the faithful” (see Georgios Apostolakis, “When the ‘Ecumenical’ Mission Becomes a Geopolitical Delegation,” “The Next Day,” July 18, 2026).

As for the stance of Metropolitan Gabriel of Nea Ionia, about which the analyst raises a question, the analyst himself provides the answer with the phrase “he accepted the final conclusion without publicly distancing himself from it”—namely, that under Ukraine’s new legislation there is supposedly “respect for religious freedom and conscience,” according to the assurances of those in power. This is something the innovating Church of Greece evidently accepts, since on this issue it aligns itself with the Phanar’s position, notwithstanding a few isolated instances of individual dissent.

The analyst’s final conclusion is clear: “The WCC presented the [Ukrainian] government’s positions and the meeting with Epiphanius in detail, but left the testimony of the other side almost invisible. It condemned Russia’s war, but did not condemn coercion in domestic church affairs with comparable clarity. This is not equal concern; it is selective sensitivity” (ibid.).

But how could it have been otherwise? Since the WCC reflects the main currents of the contemporary Western narrative, what else was it expected to do? The role of the innovating Church of Greece in this blatant collusion is likewise to serve the interests of the powers of this world, rather than the Truth of the Church or the just cause of those who are wronged and persecuted—and indeed to do so through the WCC, by way of Metropolitan Gabriel of Nea Ionia, as though it could not act on this particular issue independently, on its own initiative, without ties to and dependence on the WCC!

In the immediate aftermath of this ecumenical visit to Kiev, a torrent of events contradicted—and continues to contradict—the claims of “religious freedom” in Ukraine, conclusively confirming before the whole world the painful truth that the persecution extends even to killings and injuries! We evidently have New Martyrs, but woe to those who collaborate with and shield the executioners!

We quote an excerpt from a recent interview with Metropolitan Theodosius of Cherkasy, who is among those who have suffered persecution and harassment at the risk of their very lives, so that we may understand exactly what is happening and how much responsibility lies with those who either conceal the truth or deliberately distort it:

“The situation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church today is the most difficult in its modern history. We are witnessing an unprecedented combination of legislative, judicial, administrative, physical, and moral pressure being brought to bear on the Church and its faithful. Criminal cases have now been opened in Ukraine against a number of bishops, priests, and laypeople of our Church… We are also witnessing attempts to strip the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of its legal status… At the local level, the situation is equally alarming. Cathedrals, parishes, and monasteries are being seized throughout the country. Members of our Church are being beaten and intimidated. Elderly people, women, and priests are suffering serious injuries… Politicians and the media in Ukraine have stirred up hatred of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church within civil society to such a degree that merely being a member of it, and all the more a cleric or monk, now endangers your life. A recent example is the brutal murder of the monk Barsanuphius in broad daylight within the Sviatogorsk Lavra itself. A group of individuals in military gear disfigured the monk’s face with a knife and then shot him in the head. At the same time, they stabbed two other residents of the Lavra, the monk George and the novice Andrew, and threw them into a ravine, thinking they were dead… Summing up the above, one can say without exaggeration that a planned and brutal act of GENOCIDE is now being perpetrated against Ukraine’s largest religious denomination… A real genocide of millions of faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is taking place in Ukraine at this very moment. For anyone in Ukraine, only a blind person could fail to see this, and only a scoundrel could deny it”! (See “Romfea,” September 7, 2026.)

We bow before the persecuted faithful of Ukraine and turn away in revulsion from the blind and unscrupulous members of the WCC’s ecumenist delegation to Kiev, who chose to pass by the bloodied victim solely to serve extraneous interests dictated by geopolitical calculations. Their deplorable degradation has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity!…

e. Concluding Remarks

The contemporary, alienated way of thinking of this world, which is far from the true God, is self-serving and wholly worldly.

The way of thinking of the various religions may seem tinged with a measure of “spirituality,” but, deprived of the Truth embodied in the Person of the God-man, our Lord Jesus Christ, it is rooted in man and unredeemed.

The way of thinking and acting of heterodox Christians, which predominates in ecumenical organizations such as the WCC, appears to be inspired to a greater or lesser degree by the Holy Gospel, yet remains within a man-centered framework, because the fullness of the Truth, Christ in His fullness, is absent. Unredeemed humanism prevails in all its expressions and ultimate consequences.

 

 

When the so-called Orthodox of today, instead of acting as “light” and “salt” in this world of suffering and injustice, align themselves with the coalition of the heterodox and those who hold false doctrines, supposedly to “strengthen” their voice and witness, they may appear to gain certain worldly benefits, but in essence they have lost the prophetic and revelatory power of their mission in defense of Truth and Justice. This conformity is not pleasing to God and brings no beneficial results in resolving the problems of Ukraine or of any other region of this world.

Pleasing the Lord in truth at any cost and guarding ourselves against the coalition of the lawless is the proper stance, which saves and draws down divine Mercy upon us individually and collectively. This is what the word of God proclaims and what we must always keep before us, so that we do not fall into inexcusable errors, but carry out whatever humble ministry and mission we have in a manner pleasing to God and with brotherly love:

“Thy mercy, O Lord, is before mine eyes, and I have been well-pleasing in Thy truth. I have not sat with the council of vanity, neither will I enter in with transgressors. I have hated the assembly of evildoers, and will not sit with the ungodly” (Psalm 25:3–5).

“The Lord is the strength of His people, and the defender of the salvation of His anointed. Save Thy people, and shepherd them, and lift them up for ever” (Psalm 27:8–9). Amen!

 

Greek source (with extensive photographs):

https://imlp.gr/2026/09/08/%ce%bf%e1%bc%b0%ce%ba%ce%bf%cf%85%ce%bc%ce%b5%ce%bd%ce%b9%ce%ba%e1%bd%b4-%e1%bc%90%cf%80%ce%af%cf%83%ce%ba%ce%b5%cf%88%ce%b7-%cf%83%cf%84%e1%bd%b8-%ce%ba%ce%af%ce%b5%ce%b2%ce%bf-%cf%84%e1%bf%86%cf%82/