1919–2019: One Hundred Years of an Anti-Orthodox Course

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