The
Decisive Contribution of the Official Church in Greece to the Foundation and
Development of the Ecumenical Movement
Metropolitan
Kyprianos [II] of Oropos and Phyle | March 4/17, 2019
A. “Captivity” or
“Disease”: Is Ecumenism One or the Other?
B. Causal
Connection Between Ecumenism and the Calendar Issue.
C. The Reformer of
1924: A Forerunner of Ecumenism.
D. Crete: “The
Ultimate Fall.”
Your Beatitude, our First-Hierarch and Father;
Most Reverend and God-beloved Brother Hierarchs;
Fellow Presbyters and Fellow Deacons, Fathers;
Most Reverend Monks and Nuns;
Beloved Brothers and Sisters in Christ;
I greet you with the Lenten greeting: “The Light of
Christ Illumines All!”...
I humbly and sincerely invoke the
help of your prayers and supplications, in order to respond, according to my
ability, to the obedience given by our Holy Synod and to utter a good word on
this great and radiant day of our Church.
● “O Lord, through the
Theotokos and all Your Saints, open my lips, and my mouth shall proclaim Your
praise!”...
A. Is Ecumenism a
“Captivity” or a “Disease”?
In the year 2003, the following
opinion was expressed by a well-known university professor and anti-ecumenist
clergyman:
“The Great
Church of Constantinople, confined within the Phanar and heroic, has now, for a
century, been in a new captivity following that of the Turkish
occupation—namely, in the captivity of Ecumenism.” [1]
This view has since been
reiterated by the same professor, notably also in the previous year, 2018:
“Constantinople,
captive to Ecumenism”; “the Church of Constantinople, captive to
the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, that is, of syncretism—both inter-Christian and
inter-religious”; “the mutated Constantinople of the Ecumenists must be
freed from the captivity of Ecumenism.” [2]
This opinion—concerning a
supposed captivity and that the Church of Constantinople is allegedly captive—raises
reasonable concern among those who attentively and soberly observe the
background, the origin, and the development of the Ecumenical Movement
within our Orthodox East.
From a purely etymological
standpoint, it is known that “captive” (αἰχμάλωτος) is one who has been
seized under the threat of the point of a sword or spear: aichmē
(spear) + alōtos (taken), from the verb haliskomai, that is, to
be captured, to be conquered.
And the question arises: from
what enemy, indeed, was Constantinople threatened, seized, and ultimately
enslaved?
Of course, the work of the great
Byzantinist Steven Runciman († 2000) is well known: The Great Church in
Captivity, [3] but there the phrase is used literally, insofar as
Constantinople, after the Fall, was indeed in captivity—yet even then,
only externally.
Let us therefore be sincere...
The truly painful reality, as it
is historically documented, is that the Church of Constantinople is not a
captive of Ecumenism, but is gravely diseased, because—as the late Professor
Andreas Theodorou († 2004) stated:
“Ecumenism
in the sacred realm of Orthodoxy is a disease unto death!” [4]
Captivity—especially involuntary
captivity—is one thing; and disease—especially voluntary disease—is another.
The Phanar was not taken
captive against its will by Ecumenism; the Phanar voluntarily
contracted the gravest disease of syncretistic Ecumenism.
***
a. First of all, then, let
us document—on the basis of Orthodox Patristic Medicine—that syncretistic
Inter-Christian and Inter-Religious Ecumenism is a deadly disease, truly a “disease
unto death.” [4]
Saint Gregory Palamas, full of
Light and Grace, very aptly highlights the destructive consequences on a
spiritual level from direct or indirect communion with heresy.
The Ecumenists from among the
Orthodox, for an entire century, “in communion with heretics,”
give “room for boldness” against the Truth to the “newly-arrived
professors who falsify the pious dogmas” of Ecumenism; and
at the same time, they become increasingly “faint-hearted,” that is,
they are counted among those “who do not firmly uphold the truth
according to piety.” [5]
“It is no small thing to be
in communion with the advocates of darkness,” says the Preacher of
Grace, “it is no small thing for someone again to give them room for
boldness” against the Light of Orthodoxy. [6]
The late Professor of Dogmatics
and anti-ecumenist Andreas Theodorou describes the symptomatology of the
disease of syncretistic Ecumenism as follows:
Ecumenism, “like
a modern epidemic ecclesiological disease, mercilessly strikes many
regions of Orthodoxy,” and the “physical features of this
disease” contribute to the “gradual exhaustion and weakening of the
immune system of the Orthodox ecclesiastical organism” and “constitute
a real danger and a deadly embrace for our holy Orthodoxy, a fact which we must
never lose from our field of vision.” [7]
It is very noteworthy in this
case to refer to the diagnostic medicine of the Holy Fathers of the
Seventh Holy Ecumenical Council, who declare in the Holy Spirit that the fall
from the Truth and the adoption of heresy is due to the illness of the darkening
of the mind, to the absence of the Light of the Comforter:
“The fall
from the truth of mind and intellect is blindness”; “For having departed from
the truth [the Iconoclasts], their mind and intellect were blinded.” [8]
In the Dogmatic Definition of the
same Holy Council, the God-bearing Fathers proclaim that the Iconoclasts,
“being
stirred up by the deceitful enemy [strengthened and beguiled], departed from
right reason, and opposing the Tradition of the Catholic Church, they
missed the understanding of the truth [they erred, they failed].” [9]
Nevertheless, the Professor who
supported the theory of the captivity of the Phanar, in a self-contradictory
manner, admits that through the
“virus of
heresy, of Syncretism and Ecumenism,” “the spiritual atmosphere of the
Orthodox Church has indeed been dangerously infected; the ecclesiastical
climate has changed; mutated spiritual products are circulating, even
within the realm of Orthodox monasticism. These constitute the true ecological
problem, with which the ecclesiastical leaders ought to be concerned. Instead
of urgent measures being taken against this spiritual infection and
destruction, which bears consequences for salvation, the infection is
being strengthened and the ecumenist course is being encouraged, under the
pseudo-argument of witnessing to the Orthodox Faith and of love toward the
heterodox.” [10]
***
b. Furthermore, we must
document—always on the basis of historical testimonies—that the sickness
of the Phanar was not an involuntary imposition of the “modern
epidemic ecclesiological disease” [6] of Ecumenism.
The Syncretists of
Constantinople do not conceal their self-awareness and do not
cease to proclaim that they themselves are supposedly [11] the pioneers of the Ecumenical
Movement and are steadily and boldly realizing the “Steps Toward the
Stabilization of a Common Christian Mindset,” [12] based on the “Eleven”
[13] “Points” [13] of the “Plan” [13] as foreseen
by the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920, in “common journeying of the Orthodox
with the rest of the Christian world.” [12]
A prominent Ecumenist of
the Phanar, a historian and deep connoisseur of Constantinople’s opening
toward the West, observes that
“the
successive ecumenical initiatives undertaken by Constantinople at the beginning
of our century [20th century]” “were not an innovation, a reckless act, or
even an externally driven action.” [14]
On the contrary:
“the
pioneering actions of Constantinople at the beginning of our century [20th
century] were the natural continuation of a reality experienced
throughout the long history of the Church, and which was recently acknowledged,
without circumlocution, on a pan-Orthodox level. That is, Orthodox
participation in the Ecumenical Movement is by no means foreign to the nature and
history of the Orthodox Church.” [15]
From the beginning, the
Ecumenical Patriarchate consciously worked
“for the
dissemination of the ecumenical idea, the birth of the modern Ecumenical
Movement, and, later, the creation of the World Council of Churches, which
constitutes the institutional expression of this Movement.” [16]
Two more, among the countless,
testimonies will entirely refute the theory of the supposedly involuntary
captivity of the Phanar to the syncretistic heresy of Ecumenism.
In 2002, the Ecumenists of
Constantinople, “on the occasion of the centenary of the issuance of
the Patriarchal and Synodal Encyclical of the year 1902 by Ecumenical Patriarch
Joachim III,” extolled—through a special “Scientific Symposium” (Chambésy,
Geneva, 15–16 November 2002)—the pioneering and
“decisive
contribution of the Patriarchal and Synodal Encyclicals (1902, 1904, 1920)” “to
the birth of the modern Ecumenical Movement,”
and emphatically underlined that
the 1902 Encyclical in particular
“was the founding
charter of the modern Ecumenical Movement for the unity of Christians” and
“inspired the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920, which is rightly
considered the official Orthodox proposal for the Ecumenical Movement.”
[17]
Moreover, it is well known that
the distinguished Papist Ecumenist Fr. Le Guillou (1920–1990) had very rightly
observed that
“The entry
[of the Eastern Churches] into the Ecumenical Movement [through the Encyclical
of 1920] appeared neither as the result of chance, nor as a consequence of
external pressure: the Ecumenical Movement simply came to meet a calling
that had arisen from within the very interior of the Orthodox world itself.”
[18]
B. Causal
Connection Between Ecumenism and the Calendar Issue
Years ago, a well-known learned
and pro-Patriarchal Athonite monk had claimed that supposedly
“the
crisis of Ecumenism passed away together with the unfortunate Patriarch
Athenagoras” (1972); [19]
he had also written that
Ecumenism supposedly consists of
“social-type
relations and meetings,” as well as “certain courtesies and
compliments with the heterodox.” [19]
He further stated that supposedly
“there is
nothing improper in the leap of 13 days, except for the misguided approach,”
and that the Church simply “named one day from the 10th as the 23rd.”
[19]
And finally, he launched the
fiercest attacks against the anti-ecumenists of the Patristic Calendar,
labeling them supposedly
“as
simple-minded brainless schismatics,” forming the “Old
Calendarist inhumane schism.” [19]
■ During this period, another
well-known and prolific theologian maintained that what the anti-ecumenists
of the Patristic Calendar proclaim—regarding the direct connection between
Ecumenism and the Calendar Issue—allegedly constitutes “a misleading
of the people of God” and “an invalid and foolish pretext,”
“recently invented and retroactively constructed.” [20]
● Therefore, a brief refutation
of these opinions is required—particularly in the context of this Study—as
they are marked by an inexcusable superficiality, as well as by an evident
ignorance or neglect of the historical-theological framework in which the 1924
Reform was born and developed.
***
a. First and foremost, we
remind our severe critics that at the First Pan-Orthodox Conference of
Rhodes (1961), it was decided by the Innovators:
“the
presence and participation of the Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement in
the spirit of the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920.” [21]
The syncretistic Encyclical of
1920 openly nullified the ecclesiological exclusiveness of Orthodoxy
and inaugurated an anti-patristic ecumenistic inclusiveness within our
Eastern tradition.
Through this Encyclical,
the Phanar proposes the establishment of a “Fellowship of Churches”
for the benefit “of the whole body of the Church,” within which “body”
both Orthodox and heterodox are included, guided by a “plan of practical
implementation” “composed of eleven points.” [22]
These “Eleven” Points
were adopted, fully implemented throughout the course of the Ecumenical
Movement, and expanded to sixteen, as follows:
1. “Creation
of a common calendar”
2. “More
intensive communication through correspondence”
3. “Closer
association of the representatives of the Churches”
4. “Communication
and ‘fraternal association’ of Theological Schools”
5. “Promotion
of ecumenical studies”
6. “Ecumenical
spirit in the entirety of education”
7. “Theological
dialogues and conferences”
8. “Ecumenical
education of the faithful of all confessions”
9. “‘Fraternal
association’ of Bishops and Metropolises of various confessions”
10. “Joint
celebration of patronal feasts and local saints”
11. “Resolution
of dogmatic problems”
12. “Mutual
respect for customs and traditions”
13. “Avoidance
of creating new problems”
14. “Provision
of chapels”
15. “Mixed
marriages”
16. “Cooperation
on the broadest possible level in addressing contemporary issues.” [23]
It is evident that the first “point”
or “step” of the unifying process, namely:
“the
adoption of a unified calendar for the simultaneous celebration of the great
Christian feasts by all the Churches,” [24]
● acquires ecclesiological
dimensions; that is, it is not a simple “leap of 13 days,”
but a means for cultivating festal syncretism.
Nor should we forget that the
so-called Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923 regarded the adoption of the
so-called New Calendar as
“the first
stone for the edifice of the union of all the Churches of God.” [25]
Therefore, the matter of the 1924
Reform is, on a direct practical level, inextricably linked and constitutes
the cornerstone of syncretistic Ecumenism from 1920 onward.
***
b. Let us now attempt to
refute more thoroughly the second allegation—that what the anti-ecumenists
of the Patristic Calendar assert about the causal relationship between
Ecumenism and the Calendar Issue is supposedly a recent “invention,”
a “pretext” “constructed after the fact.” [26]
Although what has already been
mentioned is sufficient to refute this position, yet one more undeniable
historical testimony directly and fully abolishes this entirely baseless
allegation.
■ Let us recall that the 1924
Reform was not opposed solely by those of the Patristic Calendar,
but also by many eminently recognized figures, who with complete clarity
directly connected the Reform with a series of further innovations,
exactly as had been planned by the ecumenistic Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923,
which was unquestionably based on the Encyclical of 1920.
Some of the most well-known,
official, and reliable among them were the following:
● Elder Daniel of Katounakia
(1843–1929).
See his memorandum: “A Voice
from the Holy Mountain Concerning the Forthcoming Ecumenical Council” (6/19
May 1925).
● Archimandrite Philotheos
Zervakos (1884–1980).
See his article: “The
Pre-Synod on the Holy Mountain, a Refutation of its Program” (1926).
● Metropolitan of Kassandreia
Irenaeus (1864–1945).
See his work: “Memorandum to
the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy of Greece” (1929).
● Bishop of Ohrid Nicholas
Velimirovich (1880–1956).
See his statements to the
Inter-Orthodox Preliminary Committee (Holy Mountain, 1930).
● Metropolitan of
Eleftheroupolis Sophronios (1875–1960).
See his statements both at the
14th Hierarchy (1931) and at the 15th Hierarchy (1933).
● Archbishop Seraphim Sobolev
of Bogucharsk (1881–1950).
See his presentation “On the
New and Old Calendar” at the Moscow Conference (8–18 July 1948).
Therefore, the causal
connection between Ecumenism and the Calendar Issue is indisputable
and historically documented—and not an “invention,” nor a “pretext”
of the anti-ecumenists of the Patristic Calendar.
C. The Reformer of
1924: A Forerunner of Ecumenism
In the title of our Presentation
there are two elements which certainly were not included by chance: “1919”
and “the official Church in Greece.”
I am therefore obliged to explain
my reference to these two elements.
***
a. The year 1919, as
historical sources testify, [27] is considered the beginning of the
syncretistic Ecumenical Movement—through Constantinople—in our Eastern
tradition.
What exactly happened in that
year?
In April of 1919, a delegation
from the then-forming ecumenical movement “Faith and Order” visited
Constantinople—a movement which would later become one of the two powerful
pillars of the World Council of Churches.
This delegation,
consisting of Episcopalian [28] clergy, held consultations with Synodal
Hierarchs of the Phanar and submitted a lengthy Report, requesting “the
wholehearted support of the holy Orthodox Eastern Church, the mother of the
Churches,” as well as Her participation in the planned World
Inter-Christian Conference.
The Synod of the Patriarchate,
then presided over by the acting locum tenens, Nicholas of Caesarea,
responded to the Episcopalian Delegation with Synodal Letter no.
2672/April 10, 1919, assuring them that it would send representatives to
the Conference,
“thus
extending a hand of cooperation to those laboring in the same field and in the
vineyard of the Lord.” [27]
Through this response, the faith
in the ecumenistic theology of the so-called Broad Church is synodally
expressed, insofar as Orthodox and Episcopalians are allegedly cooperating within
the same and one Vineyard.
I repeat, this is the first
clear synodal expression from Orthodox Ecumenists of the
anti-Orthodox theology of the Broad Church, which speaks of
“the
Church in the broadest sense”; of “the Church of Christ in its
entirety” and “not of Orthodoxy alone”; of “a
church outside the Church,” “outside the walls,” “outside
the canonical boundaries” and “ecclesiastical limits” of
Orthodoxy. [29]
What is especially noteworthy in
this Synodal Decision–Letter of the Phanar to the Episcopalian clergy is that
“the first
official document of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that speaks of establishing a
Fellowship of Churches is not the well-known Encyclical of 1920,” [30]
but this very Response.
In the Synodal Document of
1919, there is also a most explicit reference to the preparation of the Encyclical
of 1920:
Our Church, it is written,
“has already
proceeded to the study of the matter concerning the Fellowship of the
several Churches and of their possible mutual approach with a view, in the
course of time, to … their union. A special Committee having studied the matter
has its conclusion ready, which, after being submitted to the Holy
Synod, we wish to make known to the sister Churches in the faith in Christ.”
[31]
The well-known Encyclical of
1920 would follow, whose essential presuppositions are both the ecumenistic
theology of the Broad Church and the other ecumenistic Baptismal Theology.
Baptismal Theology
maintains that
baptism—whether
Orthodox or heterodox—allegedly defines the boundaries of the Church, creating
the so-called “baptismal boundaries” of the Church, and thus supposedly
includes both Orthodox and heterodox, who are said to be united through
the so-called “baptismal unity” of the Church. [32]
We must never forget that the World
Council of Churches is founded upon Baptismal Theology.
***
b. Let us now refer to the
second element of the title of our Presentation: the decisive
contribution of the official Church in Greece to the aforementioned ecumenistic
developments.
The direct and inseparable
connection between Ecumenism and the Calendar Issue was fully known to
the Reformer of 1924, namely the Archbishop of Athens, Chrysostomos
Papadopoulos (†1938), who also knew the presupposition of the Reform—clearly,
the Encyclical of 1920—and who consciously and consistently
worked within its framework, as is demonstrated by the following.
While still an Archimandrite and
University Professor, Chrysostomos Papadopoulos participated—together with the Ecumenist
Amilkas Alivizatos—as a representative of the Churches of Greece and Cyprus at
the Preliminary Assembly of the Pan-Christian Conference “Faith and
Order” (Geneva, August 12-20, 1920). [33]
The Orthodox representatives at
that Conference
“proceeded
to draw up, on the basis of the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920, a working
program for the conference.” [34]
According to Nicolas Zernov,
“This
enthusiastic participation of the Orthodox” in that Conference “was
not unrelated to the Encyclical issued a few months earlier by the Ecumenical
Patriarchate [January 1920].” [35]
At that Conference,
Amilkas Alivizatos “presented the Orthodox program,” stating among other
indicative things the following:
“The
submitted program now aims at the creation of a Fellowship of Churches in the
manner of the League of Nations, which will pave the way for the final goal of
their union in faith and administration.” [34]
This is precisely what the Encyclical
of 1920 envisioned and was realized in 1948 with the founding of the World
Council of Churches. Thus, Chrysostomos Papadopoulos may rightly be
regarded not only as the principal agent of the 1924 Reform, but
also as a forerunner of Ecumenism and as one of the founders of that
pan-confessional Organization in Geneva.
It is extremely important and
noteworthy that the historically significant Program for the Ecumenical
Movement—prepared at the Preliminary Assembly of 1920—
“was drawn
up,” “after careful study, by the delegation of the Church of Greece,”
that is, by Chrysostomos Papadopoulos and Amilkas Alivizatos, “and was
accepted also by the other Orthodox delegations.” And from “the
prepared Program, it is evident to all that its basic principles correspond to
the spirit of the Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of 1920.”
[36]
Moreover, the decisively
important contribution of Chrysostomos Papadopoulos to this much-discussed Program—which
unequivocally testifies to his ecumenistic self-awareness and to the
syncretistic presuppositions of the 1924 Reform—is also recorded in the Report
of proceedings, composed by Papadopoulos and Alivizatos and submitted to
the Holy Synod, which—note well—was presided over by Meletios Metaxakis.
The highly interesting “Report
concerning the Preparatory Conference of the Pan-Christian Congress, held in
Geneva (30 July – 8 August 1920),”
■ where the Program is also
included, comprising two sections: “1. Fellowship of the Churches”
(§§a–f) and “2. Organization of the Fellowship of the Churches”
(§§a–e),
informed the Synod that
“it was
acknowledged both at the Conference and within the Preliminary Committee of the
Congress, that the Program of the Orthodox Church’s delegation was the most
positive and significant point of action at the Conference.” [37]
***
However, it would be a great
omission not to mention an event of truly historical significance, which is
extremely indicative of the decisive contribution of the official Church in
Greece to the advancement of Inter-Christian and Inter-Religious
Ecumenism.
On November 1, 1958, the regular
session of the innovative Hierarchy of Greece (25th Hierarchy) was
convened under the presidency of Theokletos II of Athens, which, as the eighth
item on its agenda, addressed the issue of “The Relations of the
Church of Greece with the Orthodox and Heterodox Churches and with the World
Council of Churches.” [38]
Following three presentations
by Metropolitans Chrysostomos of Philippi, Irenaeus of Samos; and Panteleimon of
Thessaloniki—an extended discussion took place, including repeated laudatory
references to the syncretistic Encyclical of 1920. In the end, it was
resolved “unanimously by acclamation” that “the Church of
Greece participate in the World Council of Churches.” [38]
This great fall was consummated
with the Synodal declaration of positions that were profoundly
unorthodox, such as the following:
“It is to
the honor and rightful boast in Christ of the Orthodox Catholic Church of
Christ, that She, in a timely manner, decades ago, through Her First and
Apostolic Ecumenical Throne, perceived the necessity and introduced the idea
that the entire Christian world, as a unified whole, in sacred alliance in the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, should raise aloft in the world the banner of
the Cross of Christ,” forming a “Pan-Christian alignment”
and a “unified Christian Front,” establishing a “Fellowship
of Churches,” “in imitation of the then newly established ‘League of Nations,’”
“in opposition to the contemporary anti-Christian currents and assaults,” since
moreover “no religion would deny cooperation and assistance in forming a
common front of all religions against atheism.” [38]
The undeniably ecumenistic
basis of this proposed “Unified Christian Front,” this “Pan-Christian
Alignment,” clearly referred to the syncretistic foundations of “manifestly
heretical” Ecumenism—both Inter-Christian and Inter-Religious—and
indeed to the Encyclical of 1920, since it was expressly and
openly maintained during that Synod that
“even
without unity of faith and without one—strictly speaking, canonically
precise—faith, unity of spirit is possible in the same faith regarding the
fundamental dogmas of Christianity.” [39]
D. Crete: “The
Ultimate Fall”
In conclusion...
In the year 2016, in Crete, the
self-styled “Holy and Great Council” of the innovative Ecumenists ratified
the anti-Orthodox course of one hundred years.
In its text, “Relations of the
Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World,” there is extensive
reference to the World Council of Churches.
In six paragraphs in total, §§16–21,
the Council of Crete expresses itself unreservedly in favor of the Ecumenical
Movement and evaluates positively the overall “theological
contribution” of the “Council,” and especially the anti-Orthodox “Toronto
Statement,” 1950. [40]
It was the ultimate point of
the collective–synodal downfall and collapse of the Ecumenists among the
Orthodox.
Then, in 2016, in Crete, the “wall”
was definitively raised, which from that point onward would clearly and
indisputably separate the Genuine Orthodoxy of the Apostles, the
Fathers, and the Councils from the syncretistic pseudo-orthodoxy of the
fallen Ecumenists.
The adoption and proclamation of
heresy—especially on a synodal level—is truly, according to Saint
Gregory of Nyssa, “the ultimate fall.” [41]
May the enlightened counsel of
the God-bearing Saint Ignatius be our sure guide:
“Everyone
who speaks contrary to what has been ordained—even if he be trustworthy, even
if he fasts, even if he is celibate, even if he works signs, even if he
prophesies—let him appear to you as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, working the
destruction of the sheep.” [42]
Glory and
Thanksgiving be to God!
This study was delivered as a Presentation (80 minutes) at
the Synodal Event on March 4/17, 2019, Sunday of Orthodoxy, in Athens, in the
Hall of the Philological Society “Parnassos.”
On this occasion, a related film (20 minutes) was presented,
under the general title: “The Syncretistic Heresy of Ecumenism – Ecumenical
Movement and ‘World Council of Churches’,” which included the following
three Parts:
A. 1948–2018: “World Council of Churches” - The Sealing of an
Ecumenistic Covenant.
B. Syncretism, Inter-Religious Ecumenism: Towards a “World
Council of Religions”?
C. The “wall” was now definitively raised between Genuine and
false Orthodoxy.
NOTES
1. Protopresbyter
Theodoros Zisis, “Worrying Developments. New Openings to the Vatican and to
the Protestants. The Phanar and Athens: Opponents and Fellow Travelers,”
journal Theodromia, April–June 2003, pp. 284 and 288.
2. By the
Same, “The Constantinople of the Ecumenists Creates Schisms – After the
Calendar Comes the Ukrainian Issue,” journal Theodromia,
July–September 2018, pp. 379 and 385.
3. Steven
Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity (1968).
4. Andreas
Theodorou (†2004), “Orthodoxy Yesterday and Today,” p. 21, publ. Orthodoxos
Typos, Athens 1973.
5. Saint
Gregory Palamas, Against Akindynos, First Refutation, Chapter 12, §61. ●
“Au”; meaning once again, moreover.
6. See
footnote 5.
7. Andreas
Theodorou (†2004), letter to the newspaper Ecclesiastical Truth of
Athens, 16 December 1988, p. 7.
8. Seventh
Holy Ecumenical Council, Mansi vol. 13, col. 349E, col. 356A; S.M.P.S.
vol. II, pp. 866 and 867, Act VI.
9. By the
Same, Mansi vol. 13, col. 376A; S.M.P.S. vol. II, p. 873, Act
VII.
10. Protopresbyter
Theodoros Zisis, “Worrying Developments…”, journal Theodromia,
April–June 2003, pp. 275, 277–278.
11. We write
“supposedly,” because serious research, based on the sources, testifies to the
contrary. ● See indicatively: Presbyter Peter Alban Heers, “The Missionary
Origins of Modern Ecumenism – Milestones in its Pre-1920 Course,” journal Theodromia,
April–June 2005, pp. 227–252.
12. Grigorios
Larentzakis, “Basic Principles for the Preservation and Restoration of
Christian Unity – Orthodox Views,” in E.P.E.Th.Ch., vol. I, pp.
351–365, Chapter III, Athens 1987.
13. Vasileios
Th. Stavridis – Evangelia A. Varella, History of the Ecumenical Movement,
Encyclical of 1920, (pp. 332–336), pp. 54 and 55. ● The Encyclical presented a
“plan for the practical implementation of the principles” it proposed,
“composed of eleven points.”
14. Grand
Protopresbyter Georgios Tsetsis, The Contribution of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate to the Founding of the World Council of Churches, p. 21, publ.
Tertios, Katerini 1988.
15. Ibid.,
p. 22.
16. Ibid.,
p. 193.
17. Journal Episkepsis,
no. 615/30.11.2002, pp. 7–15: “Scientific Symposium on the Occasion of the
Centenary of the Issuance of the Patriarchal and Synodal Encyclical of the Year
1902 by Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III.”
18. Vasileios
Th. Stavridis – Evangelia A. Varella, op. cit., p. 57.
19. Elder
Theokletos of Dionysiou (†), three articles: newspaper Orthodoxos Typos,
no. 1494/28.2.2003, p. 3; newspaper Christianiki, no. 658
(971)/15.5.2003, p. 8 and no. 659 (972)/29.5.2003, p. 10; newspaper Christianiki,
no. 663 (976)/24.7.2003, pp. 9–10.
20. Alexandros
S. Korakidis (Dr. Th.), Orthodoxy and Life – Misleadings, p. 212, Athens
2004.
21. Vasileios
Th. Stavridis – Evangelia A. Varella, History of the Ecumenical Movement,
pp. 366–367, publ. “P.I.P.M.,” Analekta Vlatadon – 47, Thessaloniki
1996.
22. Ibid.,
pp. 332–336; p. 55.
23. Grigorios
Larentzakis, “Basic Principles of Maintaining and Restoring Christian Unity –
Orthodox Views,” in E.P.E.Th.Ch., vol. A, p. 351, Chap. III, Athens
1987.
24. See
footnote 22.
25. Dionysios
M. Batistatos (ed.), Proceedings and Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress
in Constantinople (10.5–8.6.1923), p. 189, Athens 1982.
26. See
footnote 20.
27. Archpriest
George Tsetsis, The Contribution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the
Founding of the World Council of Churches, pp. 53–64 and pp. 236–250, publ.
“Tertios,” Katerini 1988.
● By the
same author, Ecumenical Throne and Oikoumene – Official Patriarchal Texts,
pp. 47–51, publ. “Tertios,” Katerini 1989.
28.
“Episcopalian or Episcopal Church; the American (U.S.A.) branch of the
Protestant Anglicans of Great Britain.”
29. Principal
exponents, apart from its two synodal expressions (1919, 1920), are Fr. Sergius
Bulgakov, Ioannis Karmiris, and the Metropolitans Damaskinos of Switzerland (†)
and John of Pergamon.
● Cf. G.A.
Galitis, “The Church and the Churches,” periodical Gregory Palamas, no.
755/November–December 1994, pp. 537 and 543; periodical Episkepseis, no.
523/31.10.1995, p. 13, no. 260/15.10.1981, pp. 13–14, no. 517/30.4.1995, p. 10,
and no. 518/31.5.1995, p. 16; periodical Ekklēsia, no. 7/1.5.1988, p.
267a; Archimandrite Kyprianos of Holy Kyprianos, Orthodoxy and the
Ecumenical Movement, Series B‑2, pp. 20–22, Athens 1997.
30. Archpriest
George Tsetsis, Ecumenical Throne..., op. cit., p. 48.
31. Ibid.,
p. 49.
32.
Principal exponents: Ioannis Karmiris and Metropolitan John of Pergamon.
● Cf.
Ioannis Karmiris, Dogmatics, Section Eʹ, Orthodox Ecclesiology, pp. 241,
242, and 243, Athens 1973; Professor John Zizioulas, “Orthodox Ecclesiology and
the Ecumenical Movement,” periodical Sourozh, No. 21/August 1985, pp.
16–27;
■ The
“Baptismal Theology” has as its foundation the “World Council of Churches”; it
was proclaimed by Pope John Paul II in 1995; it had been proclaimed by
Patriarch Demetrios in an Encyclical in 1974; it has also been most officially
proclaimed both by Patriarch Bartholomew in 1995 and by Patriarch Ignatius of
Antioch in 1987.
● Cf.
Georgios N. Laimopoulos (ed.), The 7th General Assembly of the World Council
of Churches, Canberra – February 1991 / Chronicle, Texts, Evaluations,
publ. “Tertios,” p. 136 (“Final Report”), Katerini 1992; Encyclical Ut Unum
Sint, 25.5.1995, § 66; periodical Episkepseis, special
issue/14.4.1974; periodical Episkepseis, no. 520/31.7.1995, p. 20;
periodical Episkepseis, no. 370/15.1.1987, pp. 8–13.
33. Vasileios
Th. Stavridis – Evangelia A. Varella, History of the Ecumenical Movement,
pp. 91–95, publ. “P.I.P.M.”, Analekta Vlatadon – 47, Thessaloniki 1996.
34. Ibid.,
p. 93.
35. Protopresbyter
Georges Tsetsis, The Contribution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate…, op.
cit., p. 96.
36. Antonios
M. Papadopoulos, The Position of the Church of Greece towards the Relations
of the Orthodox Church with the Heterodox, in: Witness and Ministry of
Orthodoxy Today, vol. II, pp. 86–87, publ. “Adelphon Kyriakidi,”
Thessaloniki 1998.
37. Archimandrite
Theokletos A. Strangas, History of the Church of Greece, from Infallible
Sources (1817–1967), vol. II, p. 903, Athens 1970. ● The “Report”: pp.
901–917.
■
Additionally, the ecumenistic outlook of Chrysostomos Papadopoulos is evident
both in his Enthronement Address (March 1923), as well as in the Funeral
Oration delivered by a hierarch upon his repose (23.10.1938), and also from
what he himself wrote as a historian.
● Cf. Monk
Pavlos of Cyprus, New Calendarism – Ecumenism, p. 60, publ. “K.G.O.”,
Athens 1982; periodical Ekklēsia, nos. 43–44/29.10.1938, p. 355;
Archbishop Chrysostomos A. Papadopoulos, The Orthodox Eastern Church, p.
192, publ. “A.D.E.,” Athens 1954.
38.
Archimandrite Theokletos A. Strangas, op. cit., vol. IV, pp. 2817 and
2823, Athens 1972; vol. V, pp. 3148–3200, 3199, 3170, 3171, 3178, 3172, 3182,
Athens 1974.
39. See
footnote 38.
40. See “Relations
of the Orthodox Church to the Rest of the Christian World”, Official
Documents of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, https://www.holycouncil.org/-/rest-of-christian-world;
●
Protopresbyter Anastasios Gkotsopoulos, “The Council of Crete and the World
Council of Churches”, journal Theodromia, July–December 2016, pp.
557–565;
● Alexandros
Tsvetkov (Theologian), “The Toronto Statement and the Council of Kolymbari”,
journal Theodromia, October–December 2017, pp. 597–611;
●
Mihai-Silviu Chirila (Theologian), “Ecclesiological Consequences of the
Ratification of the Heretical Text ‘The Toronto Statement’ by the
Pseudo-Council of Crete”, journal Theodromia, April–June 2018, pp.
323–357.
41. St.
Gregory of Nyssa, PG vol. 44, col. 504A, On the Inscription of the Psalms,
Second Book, Chapter V.
42. Saint
Ignatius the God-bearer, PG vol. 5, col. 912AB, To Hero the Deacon of
Antioch, § II.
Greek
source:
https://ecclesiagoc.gr/images/stories/Voices/Omilia+MhtropolKyrOrthod19-1.pdf
