On the Pseudo-Council of Kolymbari: Refutation of the Article “7 Things About the Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016”

 

On June 17, 2021, the Basilica News Agency published the article “7 things about the Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016,” [1] in which the following points are enumerated:

1. It did not formulate new dogmas, new canons, or liturgical changes.

2. None of the hierarchs who did not sign the documents stated that the reason for not signing was some heresy.

3. The essential unity of the Orthodox Church was affirmed, as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

4. It reiterated the fact that the Orthodox Church does not accept that its members enter into civil partnerships or any other form of cohabitation different from marriage.

5. It did not legitimize other genders than the “female” and “male” ones (gender theory).

6. It did not reduce the periods of fasting.

7. Ecumenism was not proclaimed as a new dogma of the Church.

We will go through each point individually and will refute it or comment on it, depending on the situation.

1. It did not formulate new dogmas, new canons, or liturgical changes.

a) Refutation:

“The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016” formulated new dogmas.

Argument:

According to Professor Dimitrios Tselenghidis, emeritus professor of dogmatics at the Faculty of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, the Church is a truth of faith. [2] When one speaks about the Church, one speaks about Her in a dogmatic manner.

The document The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World introduces a modification of Orthodox ecclesiology that is related to the identity and uniqueness of the Orthodox Church. This change is determined by paragraph 19, which enshrines the Toronto Statement (1950) [3] as a constitutional reference document, which makes the text no longer able to be treated independently.

“19. The member Orthodox Churches […] have the profound conviction that the ecclesiological premises of the Toronto Statement (1950), entitled ‘The Church, the Churches and the World Council of Churches,’ are of capital importance for Orthodox participation in this Council.” [4]

By analyzing the two documents together, it is observed how the Orthodox Church acquires a different meaning compared to how She is confessed by the Holy Fathers in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith, She not identifying Herself (in either of the two documents) as the Unique Body of Christ. [5] Instead, a distinction appears between the term “Church” and the term “Orthodox Church.”

On the one hand, the term “Church” has the meaning of the Church of Christ, but which does not refer to the Orthodox Church, but to an unseen universal Church that includes all Christian confessions that have as a point of departure the faith that Christ is God and Savior, a church under construction whose unity would have been lost and must be restored, or a church which God builds, gathering His children. [6]

On the other hand, the Orthodox Church does not have a perfect identity with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of the Creed, but becomes one of the many Christian confessions included in this universal Church. According to the ecclesiological premises of the Toronto Statement, the Orthodox Church thus identifies itself as follows: one of the “children” whom God gathers in order to build His Church, it does not possess the full truth, it claims to be the Church of Christ without fully identifying with it, although separated from the other confessions, it can give a common witness together with them, it has certain elements of the true Church and does not have clear boundaries, being included in the “true Church of Christ.” [7]

The premises adopted through this Synod, foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology, detailed and explained in the work A Historical Approach to the Context of the Dialogue with the Heterodox. The Toronto Statement, [8] are the following: “ecclesia extra ecclesiam” (Church outside the Church), [9] the mutual recognition of Baptism by the members of the so-called World Council of Churches, dogmatic minimalism, the “theory of incomplete churches” and the doctrine of “vestigia ecclesiae,” [10] the theory of the “lost unity of the Church,” [11] ecclesiological neutrality, [12] and the concept of “unity in diversity of evangelical expression.” [13]

These premises affect the manner in which the Orthodox Church relates to heresies, without clearly establishing the boundaries of the Church and who are those outside Her. Thus, in the documents of the “Council of Crete,” the terms “heresy” and “heretic” do not appear at all, being implicitly amnestied; contrary to the previous Councils which condemned heresies and heretics, this synod recognizes the “historical designation” of other “churches and heterodox confessions” [14] (pars. 6 and 16) and, through the adoption of the Toronto Statement, even attributes to them an ecclesial status, being called “elements” and “traces” of the true Church or “powerful means through which God works.”

Likewise, the wording of paragraph 4, which states that the Orthodox Church (and not the Church of Christ) “has always cultivated dialogue with those who have separated themselves from her,” some being “closer” and others “farther away,” [15] reflects the theory of “incomplete churches,” foreign to Orthodox patristic thought.

All these premises that were adopted, and the new manner in which the Orthodox Church relates to heresies and heretics, cumulatively represent ecclesiological heresies. In conclusion, the new dogma is the new ecclesiology formulated in the two documents: the document The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World and the Toronto Statement, which stand in antithesis to the ecclesiology of the Holy Fathers—which affirms the identity, uniqueness, and fullness of the Orthodox Church.

b) Refutation:

“The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016” formulated new canons.

Argument:

Paragraph 22: “The Orthodox Church condemns every attempt to disrupt the unity of the Church by individual persons or groups, under the pretext of preserving or of a supposed defense of authentic Orthodoxy. As the entire life of the Orthodox Church bears witness, the preservation of authentic Orthodox faith is ensured only through the synodal system, which has always constituted, within the Church, the highest authority in matters of faith and canonical rules (canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council).” [16]

This paragraph becomes a source of ecclesiastical law for every autocephalous Church that accepted it, having the value of a Canon. As a result of it, clerics who publicly criticized the so-called Council of Crete were subjected to canonical investigation and deposition. [17] Therefore, “the Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016” formulated a new Canon which punishes Orthodox Christians who do not hold the same official position as that adopted within this Council.

c) “The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016” did not formulate liturgical modifications

There are no observations related to this point.

2. None of the hierarchs who did not sign the documents stated that the reason for not signing was some heresy.

Refutation:

The hierarchs who did not sign the documents stated that the reason for the non-signing is the fact that the texts do not reflect the Orthodox faith.

Argument:

His Eminence Ierótheos Vlachos, Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Saint Vlasios, published in Greek the book entitled “The Holy and Great Council” of Crete, Theological and Ecclesiological Positions, [18] in which he explains the reasons for the non-signing, the interventions of His Eminence within the Council, and the grounds for the heretical character of the texts adopted by this Council. Among the chapters that are eloquent for this subject are: Heresy: “the ontology of the person,” The duality of theological discourse, ambiguity and confusion, Essential issues related to the “Holy and Great Council,” Ecclesiological issues, Unfounded arguments regarding the use of the term “Church” for heterodox groups, The non-Orthodox theory of “heterodox Churches,” The “technical term” used as a substantial term. His Eminence also mentions the fact that to call heresies “churches” is a heresy in itself, according to the Synod of Jerusalem of March 16, 1672.

Even if other hierarchs with dogmatic conscience who did not sign the documents of this synod, through a diplomatic language, avoided using the term heresy, nevertheless their public statements expressed exactly this.

Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol, who likewise did not sign the texts of the “Council of Crete,” stated: “My conscience would not have allowed me to sign.” [19]

Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou declared the following: “Dogmatic clarity is required when we speak about what the Church is and what heterodox Christians are. We humbly maintain that the above text suffers from intentional theological ambiguity.” [20]

Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro and the Littoral did not sign, saying that the Document itself had not been prepared properly, as the Serbian delegation had underlined at the previous preparatory meetings in Crete. [21]

In support of the assertion that the documents of the “Council of Crete” contain heretical texts, we also bring into consideration the fact that four Local Autocephalous Churches did not participate in this “Council”: the Church of Georgia, the Church of Bulgaria, the Church of Antioch, and the Russian Church. These did not adopt the decisions taken at the “Council of Crete,” rejected the designation “Holy and Great,” and the Georgian Synod even condemned the texts of the so-called Council.

1. According to the official website of the Bulgarian Patriarchate: “1. Following a careful study of the texts adopted by the Council of Crete, the Holy Synod reached the conclusion that they contain deviations from Orthodox Tradition, from the dogmatic and canonical tradition of the Church, as well as from the spirit and the letter of the Ecumenical and Local Councils.” (Synodal Session of November 15, 2016) [22]

2. The Georgian Orthodox Church declared that “The documents from Crete must reflect the teaching of the Orthodox Church; which is not the case with the present set of texts” (Synodal Decision of December 22, 2016) [23]

3. The Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church considered the formulations of the “Council of Crete” problematic and does not receive it as Ecumenical, nor its decisions as binding (Resolution of 29 November – December 2, 2017) [24]

4. The Patriarchate of Antioch considered that its documents [the meeting in Crete] are not final, but remain open for debate and theological revision with a view to the convocation of the Great Pan-Orthodox Council, with the participation of all Autocephalous Orthodox Churches (Declaration of June 27, 2016) [25]

Likewise, within the framework of the round-table discussion that took place in Chișinău, [26] in the capital of the Republic of Moldova, on June 29, 2016, Fr. Prof. Univ. Theodoros Zisis and Prof. Univ. Dimitrios Tselenghidis made an Orthodox evaluation of the Council of Crete, concluding that a heretical ecclesiology was formulated and that its acceptance leads to the penetration of the pan-heresy of ecumenism directly into the Church.

Moreover, there are also bishops who did not participate in the Council of Crete, theologians and Fathers of the Church who criticized this council and considered it heretical, as can be observed in the information centralized on Orthodox theology websites. [27]

3. The essential unity of the Orthodox Church was affirmed, as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Refutation:

On the contrary, the essential unity of the Orthodox Church was not affirmed anywhere.

Argument:

If the essential unity of the Orthodox Church had been affirmed, there would have existed in the text categorical statements related to the fact that: the Orthodox Church is one in its very essence, is the Body of Christ, and identifies itself with the One Church of the Creed.

However, by going through the text in its entirety, no such statements exist; on the contrary, a clear difference of meaning is observed between the term “Church,” which has the sense of the invisible Protestant Church (as it is misunderstood in the Toronto Statement of 1950), and the term “Orthodox Church,” between which there is no relationship of identity.

By the use of these terms which are not in a relationship of identity, and by the fact that it is not clearly affirmed in a categorical statement that only the Orthodox Church and only She is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of the Creed, the Orthodox Church loses her identity and uniqueness. Not even the first paragraph of the document The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World affirms this identity, according to grammatical and logical analysis. [28] The text lacks specificity, limitation, and restrictiveness, leaving room for multiple interpretations and ambiguities, which is impermissible in a theological text.

Even when the term unity is mentioned, according to the text “6. According to the ontological nature of the Church, her unity cannot be disturbed. The Orthodox Church accepts …”, [29] it is observed that unity in this case refers to the unity of the Church of Christ (the unseen Church that includes Christian confessions according to the Protestant model) and not to the unity of the Orthodox Church.

4. It reiterated the fact that the Orthodox Church does not accept that its members enter into civil partnerships or any other form of cohabitation different from marriage.

Observation:

Canon 72 of the Trullan–Quinisext Council states that it is not permitted for an Orthodox Christian to marry a heretical woman. Similarly, an Orthodox woman cannot be married to a heretical man. [30]

Through the document The Sacrament of Marriage and its Impediments, [31] point 5 ii, mixed marriages are approved through a false economia, thus relativizing Canon 72 of the Trullan–Quinisext Council.

5. It did not legitimize other genders than the “female” and “male” ones (gender theory).

There are no observations regarding this point.

6. It did not reduce the periods of fasting.

Observation:

The fasts ordained according to the canons [32] are the Wednesday and Friday fasts throughout the year and the Fast of Lent; the rest are fasts of piety. Fr. Professor Patrick Ramsey [33] says that to institute other fasts besides the canonical ones is an abusive imposition of the Eastern tradition, a tradition which in the Western part did not exist over time.

7. Ecumenism was not proclaimed as a new dogma of the Church.

Refutation:

On the contrary, ecumenism was proclaimed, called dialogue on the Protestant platform “World Council of Churches” (WCC).

Argument:

According to the professor of dogmatics Dimitrios Tselenghidis, emeritus professor of the Faculty of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, the “Council of Crete” institutionally consolidated ecumenism, thus introducing and promoting ecclesiological confusion in the consciousness of the faithful. [34]

Ecumenism, defined as the movement that seeks the rapprochement and union of all “Christian churches,” is promoted through the document The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World, [35] which regulates dialogue with heretical groups on the WCC platform. Contrary to patristic teaching, the dialogue is conducted on the basis of dogmatic minimalism, and in this context the term “heresies” is replaced with the phrase “theological differences,” [36] and the term “heretical groups” is replaced with “heterodox confessions.”

The purpose of these dialogues through participation in the WCC is not to bring heretics into the Orthodox Church through the renunciation of their heresies, but to promote the unity of Christians, as is mentioned already in the first paragraph of the document, that is, the unity of Orthodox with heretics. According to the principle of “unity in diversity,” by which none of the members of the WCC is obliged to relativize its own ecclesiology, [37] even if the Orthodox confession were that the Orthodox Church is the possessor of the Truth, the only and Unique Church, with dogmas and boundaries established by the Ecumenical Councils, this has no chance of becoming the official doctrine of all of Christianity. [38]

The institutional consolidation of ecumenism is achieved both through the excessive and meticulous regulation of the procedures of dialogue (paragraphs 9 to 15) [39] and through the mention of bodies that promote “Christian unity,” such as the World Council of Churches (WCC) and other similar ones. [40]

Although the term “ecumenism” is not used directly, the references to the Ecumenical Movement, the theological dialogues, the common witness that the Orthodox Church would give together with the other heresies [41] on the basis of dogmatic minimalism, and participation in the WCC are clear indications of the manifestation of ecumenism.

 

End notes

[1] https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2855931977964997&id=1611918709033003&_rdr, accessed on November 30, 2025.

[2] Conference in the great hall of the House of Culture in Constanța, June 1, 2010, The Importance of Dogma in Dialogues with the Heterodox, https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2023/11/09/profesor-dimitrios-tselenghidis-importanta-dogmei-in-dialogurile-cu-eterodocsii/, accessed on Nov 30, 2025.

[3] The Toronto Statement 1950, ratified through paragraph 19 of the document The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World.

[4] The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World (Official document), paragraph 19, https://basilica.ro/sfantul-si-marele-sinod-relatiile-bisericii-ortodoxe-cu-ansamblul-lumii-crestine-document-oficial/, accessed on Nov 30, 2025.

[5] Ephesians 1:22–23, Ephesians 4:15–16, Colossians 1:18, Colossians 1:24, Romans 12:4–5, the article The full (uncensored) version of the interview given by Professor Dimitrios Tselenghidis after the “Council” of Crete, the response of Prof. Tselenghidis to the question “But to return to the dogmatic area, I would ask you what you believe to be today the most dangerous heresy? What today is contested par excellence is the Church Itself as the unique Body of Christ.” https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2019/01/11/profesorul-ortodox-dimitrios-tselenghidis-despre-sinodul-din-creta/, accessed on Nov 30, 2025.

[6] The Toronto Statement 1950, Premise IV, paragraphs 5, 7, 8.

[7] Conference Analysis from the point of view of logical principles of the texts of the Document “The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” adopted within the Council of Crete (2016) and of the Toronto Document (1950), Raluca-Mihaela Serdaru.

[8] Conference The Readings of Saint John at the old Church of Saint George (Rotunda) in Sofia, 9–10 June 2017, Fr. Matei Vulcănescu, A Historical Approach to the Context of the Dialogue with the Heterodox. The Toronto Statement, https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2017/11/29/o-abordare-istorica-a-contextului-dialogului-cu-eterodocsii-declaratia-de-la-toronto/, accessed on November 30, 2025.

[9] Ibid., “All Christian Churches, including the Church of Rome, maintain that there is not a complete identity between belonging to the Universal Church and belonging to their own Church. They acknowledge that there are members of the Church extra muros, that these belong aliquo modo to the Church, or even that there exists an ecclesia extra ecclesiam.”

[10] Ibid., This concept, which was adopted by the Second Vatican Council as a direction of ecclesiological thinking, is termed in theological language “the theory of incomplete churches.” It was taken from the Protestant theological thought of Jean Calvin, who spoke about the “remnants of the true Church” (vestigia ecclesiae).

[11] The Toronto Statement 1950, Premise III.2.

[12] Ibid., Premise III.3.

[13] Ibid., Premises III.4, III.5.

[14] Conference The Readings of Saint John at the old Church of Saint George (Rotunda) in Sofia, 9–10 June 2017, Fr. Matei Vulcănescu, A Historical Approach to the Context of the Dialogue with the Heterodox. The Toronto Statement.

[15] The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World (Official document), paragraph 4, https://basilica.ro/sfantul-si-marele-sinod-relatiile-bisericii-ortodoxe-cu-ansamblul-lumii-crestine-document-oficial/, accessed on November 30, 2025.

[16] Ibid., paragraph 22.

[17] https://www.pazaortodoxiei.ro/2024/12/16/parinti-care-au-fost-caterisiti-pentru-contrazicerea-pozitiei-oficiale-a-bor-in-legatura-cu-sfantul-si-marele-sinod-creta-2016/, accessed on November 30, 2025.

[18] By Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Saint Vlasios Ierotheos, The “Holy and Great Council” in Crete: Theological and Ecclesiological Positions, Publications: Holy Monastery of the Nativity of the Theotokos, First Edition 2018.

[19] https://www.romfea.gr/epikairotita-xronika/9162-lemesou-athanasios-gia-logous-suneidiseos-den-to-upegrapsa, accessed on Dec 1, 2025

[20] https://www.cuvantul-ortodox.ro/recomandari/marturisirea-mitropolitului-neofit-de-morfou-care-a-refuzat-semnarea-documentului-panortodox-relatiile-bisericii-ortodoxe-cu-ansamblul-lumii-crestine-intemeiata-pe-marturiile-sfintilor-contempor/, accessed on Dec 1, 2025.

[21] https://orthochristian.com/95154.html, accessed on Dec 1, 2025.

[22] Synodal Meeting of Nov. 15, 2016, https://orthodoxie.com/le-saint-synode-de-leglise-orthodoxe-de-bulgarie-a-pris-position-sur-le-concile-de-crete-et-le-texte-les-relations-de-leglise-orthodoxe-avec-le-reste-du-monde-chretien/, accessed on Dec 19, 2024.

[23] Synodal Decision of 22 December 2016, https://www.orthodoxethos.com/post/final-decision-of-the-church-of-georgia-on-the-council-of-crete-summary, accessed on December 19, 2024.

[24] https://mospat.ru/en/news/47917/, accessed on Nov 20, 2025.

[25] Declaration of June 27, 2016, https://www.antiochpatriarchate.org/en/page/statement-of-the-secretariat-of-the-holy-synod-of-antioch-balamand-27-june-2016/1448/, accessed on Oct 28, 2023.

[26] The Chișinău Declaration, Moldova, 29 June 2016, https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2016/07/22/evaluare-ortodoxa-a-sinodului-din-creta-declaratia-de-la-chisinau/, accessed on Dec 1, 2025.

[27] Condemnation of the Council of Crete 2016 by Local Synods, Fathers, Synaxes, theologians, https://www.pazaortodoxiei.ro/condamnarea-sinodului-din-creta/, accessed on Dec 1, 2025.

[28] Conference Analysis from the point of view of logical principles of the texts of the Document “The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” adopted within the Council of Crete (2016) and of the Toronto Document (1950), Raluca-Mihaela Serdaru.

[29] The document The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World, paragraph 6.

[30] Canon 72, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm, accessed on Dec 1, 2025.

[31] https://basilica.ro/sfanta-taina-a-cununiei-si-impedimentele-la-aceasta-document-oficial/, accessed on November 30, 2025.

[32] Apostolic Canon 69, Pidalion 1841, PDF version, p. 88

[33] Live broadcast ROC TV dated Sep 16, 2023, with Fr. Matei Vulcănescu and Fr. Professor Patrick Ramsey, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ICygEI0DF4

[34] Letter of Mr. Dimitrios Tselenghidis, Professor of the Faculty of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, addressed to the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece and published on Romfea.gr, https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2016/08/08/dimitrios-tselenghidis-scurta-evaluare-a-sfantului-si-marelui-sinod-2/, accessed on Nov 30, 2025.

[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism, accessed on Nov 13, 2025.

[36] The document The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World, paragraph 11.

[37] The Toronto Statement, 1950, premises III.4, III.5.

[38] Conference “The Readings of Saint John” at the old Church of Saint George (Rotunda) in Sofia, 9–10 June 2017, Fr. Matei Vulcănescu, A Historical Approach to the Context of the Dialogue with the Heterodox. The Toronto Statement,

https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2017/11/29/o-abordare-istorica-a-contextului-dialogului-cu-eterodocsii-declaratia-de-la-toronto/, accessed on November 30, 2025

[39] Session of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Bulgaria, 15 November 2016, https://orthodoxie.com/le-saint-synode-de-leglise-orthodoxe-de-bulgarie-a-pris-position-sur-le-concile-de-crete-et-le-texte-les-relations-de-leglise-orthodoxe-avec-le-reste-du-monde-chretien/, accessed on Dec 19, 2024.

[40] The document The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World, paragraph 16, “Conference of European Churches,” “Middle East Council of Churches,” and “All Africa Conference of Churches.”

[41] Ibid., paragraphs 6, 19, 23, 24 The Toronto Statement 1950, “the churches […] despite their division, […] to give one and the same witness […] thus to be able to manifest something of unity.”

 

Romanian source: https://ortodoxiacatholica.com/blog/2025/12/07/combaterea-articolului-7-lucruri-despre-sfantul-si-marele-sinod-din-creta-2016/