So many divisions…

“The more I learn about the Orthodox Church, the more I seem to find it seems divided, yet is it? The Greece Orthodox Church, The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, The Moscow Patriarchate, The Orthodox Church of Bulgaria, and the Western Rite, I expect there are more divisions. Are they just names for the Orthodox Church in different parts of the world?” - Rev’d M.C, Devon [UK].

Oh yes, many more divisions! I am reminded of an occasion way back when I lived in London. I used to go to a shop run by a Muslim couple, and one day the wife told me that Muslims were divided into two groups, Sunni and Shiite, and she added with evident pride: “Our part is divided into 72 different sects!” The thought went through my mind then that perhaps we Orthodox ought to adopt the same technique rather than always being so apologetic about our divisions.

But more seriously, the apparent divisions within Orthodoxy have various causes and consequently some are more serious than others. First of all, after the schism of Rome from Orthodoxy, there were four Patriarchates left, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, and some smaller autocephalous Churches, Cyprus, Georgia, etc. Then, with the spread of Orthodoxy into regions hitherto not evangelized, new territories were added.

For centuries now, in these new territories, the Orthodox Church has been administered very largely with separate, autocephalous, hierarchies for each nation state. Thus there was a Russian Church, a Greek Church, a Bulgarian Church, a Serbian Church, a Romanian Church, and so on. This is in fact very similar to the situation within the Anglican Communion. Naturally, over the centuries, with various political changes, the borders of these National (or, as they are properly called, Local) Churches varied and indeed for periods some of them disappear. All these Churches shared the same Faith and, with the exception of some local and temporary difficulties, were in full communion with each other. Their divisions were purely administrative.

With the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the consequent enslavement of the administration of the Church in what is by far the largest of the Orthodox Local Churches, a second and much more serious type of division occurred. Metropolitan (later Patriarch) Sergius subjected the Church administration to the Soviet and atheistic rulers of the state, and thus compromised her integrity. Within Russia, many clergy and lay people did not accept this compromise and went underground, forming a Catacomb Church. Outside Russia, the clergy and laity divided. The Russian Church Abroad was formed which stood in resistance to the Sergianist compromise until it largely capitulated in 2007. Sadly two other jurisdictions were also formed. One in Western Europe placed itself under the Patriarchate of Constantinople; and in the United States the American Metropolia followed an independent course, for a time rejoining the Church Abroad, and then separating again, and in the 1970s receiving an irregular recognition from Moscow as the Orthodox Church in America. The original divisions in this sad history, the separation of the Church Abroad administratively from Moscow and the separation of the Catacomb Church were soundly based acts of resistance to the enslavement of the Church to a theomachist state.

A third set of divisions has occurred over the past decades as a reaction to the espousal by the official Local Churches of the heresy of ecumenism, the adoption of the new calendar, and the concurrent abandonment of traditional Orthodox piety and the encroachment of modernism. (In many of the Local Churches, in the first instance this move was in fact imposed upon them by their Soviet rulers, as it suited their purposes.) So in Greece, Romania and Bulgaria in particular, old calendarist Synods have been established. Sadly, particularly in Greece, this movement has fragmented into a number of Synods of varying authenticity, some holding extremist views and some striving to follow the consensus of the Fathers. I suppose, from your point of view, that to an extent one may liken this last set of divisions to the break-away traditionalist manifestation in the Roman Catholic confession.

The Western Rite as such is not a “division,” because it is practiced only in the Antiochian Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad-Moscow Patriarchate (ROCA-MP), and is fully and wholly within their jurisdictions. However, it seems to me that though the idea of it might have stemmed from good intentions it is a flawed concept, but that is a much wider question, although I think I do not stray far from a fair assessment of the facts if I say that the history of this experiment within Orthodoxy bears out my opinion.

I think that it is fair to say that there has hardly been a time in history when the Orthodox Church has been is a worse state than it is now. Perhaps at other times it has been weaker, but always there seem to have been spiritual giants who remained faithful. Quite obviously there are such today, or the promise of our Saviour would have proved false, which is unthinkable, but it is perhaps for history to judge, and not for us to boast who they are in any other way than by adhering to them and to their confession. However, I believe that we can unnecessarily depress ourselves by regarding the Church only in administrative terms and thus concentrating on all these divisions and contentions. This can lead to distraction, both internally and externally. Our part is rather to remain faithful, and to have a regard for the inner integrity and faithfulness of the Church.

I remember one of our parishioners asking St Philaret the New Confessor, when he visited England in, I believe, the late seventies, how in this day and age one can remain faithful to Orthodoxy. He replied that we should be like a little child fearful of losing its mother in a crowd and holding tightly to her skirt. That is why we placed ourselves under the omophorion of Metropolitan Cyprian.

 

Source: The Shepherd: An Orthodox Christian Pastoral Magazine, St. Edward Brotherhood, June 2013, pp. 14-17.

The Orthodox Remnant in Medieval Rome

Nectarius Alton | August 4, 2026

 

 

St. Anthony the Roman belonged to an “Orthodox underground” that survived in the Latin Church follow the events of the so-called Great Schism.

Venerable Anthony the Roman, founder of the Antoniev Monastery in Novgorod, is commemorated in the Orthodox Church on August 3 (and also January 17 and the first Friday after the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul). According to his hagiography, he was born in Rome around 1067 to wealthy parents who remained faithful to the Orthodox confession of the Eastern Churches in the years immediately following the Great Schism of 1054.

The issues dividing East and West were many: the unilateral Western addition of the filioque to the Creed, the pope's claim to universal jurisdiction, and certain liturgical and disciplinary differences. Anthony’s family adhered to the faith of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Church Fathers rather than the innovations of the Latin Church. They secretly instilled this same piety within their son, hiding their true faith because—as Archpriest Gregory Dyachenko put it—Rome persecuted those who “deviated from the Western Church.”

Orphaned at about age 17, Anthony studied the Holy Scriptures in both Latin and Greek and continued to immerse himself in the writings of the Church Fathers. He distributed part of his inheritance to the poor before receiving monastic tonsure at a wilderness skete where he lived in asceticism for some twenty years.

A persecution of the Latins against the Orthodox forced the brethren to disperse. Anthony wandered until he settled on a large rock by the seashore, living there a year in fasting and prayer. On September 5, 1105 (or 1106 in some accounts), a storm tore the rock from the shore. By divine providence it floated across the sea and rivers, arriving near Novgorod on the banks of the Volkhov River on the Feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos.

Unable at first to speak the local tongue, he was aided by Greek- and Latin-speaking merchants. Soon he met Bp. Nikita of Novgorod and received permission to found a monastery at the landing site. Miraculously, a barrel containing church, later washed ashore miraculously as well. He sold the treasure to buy land for the monastery and placed the church vessels in the chapel.

He built a wooden church, which was later replaced by a stone cathedral named in honor of the Nativity of the Theotokos. Anthony was appointed igumen by St. Niphon of Novgorod in 1131. Known for care of the poor, orphans, and widows, he reposed on August 3, 1147, and was buried by Niphon. He was formally glorified in 1597.

The vita presents Anthony’s family and monastic companions as part of a small circle of Orthodox-leaning Christians in post-Schism Rome who recognized that the Eastern Churches preserved the faith more faithfully. Historical sources confirm a continuing Greek/Byzantine presence and monastic communities in Rome—especially southern Italy into the 11th–12th centuries. Little is known, however, about the “Orthodox underground” to which Anthony belonged.

The hagiography states that when discovered, such monks were pressured to submit to Roman authority and forced to disperse; Anthony’s path led him eastward to Rus. A later parallel figure, Saint Macarius the Roman of Novgorod (15th–16th century), also left Rome for Orthodoxy in Russia.

May Sts. Anthony and Macarius, the "Romans of Novogorod," intercede with Christ on behalf of those who seek to rekindle the flame of Orthodoxy here in the West!

 

Source: https://uoj.news/history-and-culture/the-orthodox-remnant-in-medieval-rome/

 

Counting the “fragments” of ROCOR...

Alexey Rodionov | updated June 19, 2026

[A brief survey of the unfortunate landscape left behind by ROCOR’s 2007 union with the Moscow Patriarchate by an MP observer. It should be noted, according to this academic study (https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/06/a-brief-overview-of-largest-modern.html), the largest "fragment" is that of Metropolitan Agafangel. – Blog Admin.]

 

 

I decided to undertake a count of the number of ROCOR “fragments.” Although I have been studying these “fragments” for a long time, I nevertheless did not know how many there were in total. But before counting them, it is necessary to determine what exactly constitutes a “fragment.”

By a “fragment,” I will mean an independent jurisdiction claiming to preserve the authentic confession of the doctrine and liturgical rites that existed in ROCOR during the tenure of Metropolitans Philaret (Voznesensky) and Vitaly (Ustinov), and founded by clergy and laity who served in ROCOR during that period, or deriving from such a jurisdiction and not having substantially altered those views and practices.

The list includes only currently existing “fragments” that have at least one bishop. Full self-designations are given only for those “fragments” whose names differ from the standard “Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.”

 

ROAC line:

1. Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC; in practice, the word “Autonomous” is often omitted). The Primate is Metropolitan Theodore (Gineevsky); the Primate’s residence is in Suzdal (Russia). It was formed in 1993–1995 from a portion of the “Russian parishes” of ROCOR.

2. Latvian Orthodox Autonomous Church (originally the Latvian Free Orthodox Church). The Primate’s residence is in Daugavpils (Latvia). It was formed in 1994 as part of the ROAC and remained so until 2011, when it proclaimed itself part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and began commemorating Patriarch Bartholomew at the divine services. In view of this, its classification among the “fragments” is highly questionable, but for the time being let it remain here.

3. Genuine Orthodox Church of America (GOCA). The Primate is Archbishop Gregory (Abu-Assal); the Primate’s residence is in Buena Vista, Colorado (USA). It was formed in 2005, following the expulsion of Archbishop Gregory (Abu-Assal) from the ROAC hierarchy.

 

4. ROAC Bishops’ Conference (BC ROAC, “Luryeites”). The Primate is Bishop Gregory (Lurye); the Primate’s residence is in St. Petersburg (Russia). It was formed in 2007, after separating from the ROAC. It is in partial communion with the Boston Synod.

 

5. Ukrainian Autonomous True Orthodox Church (UATOC). The Primate is Bishop Job (Konovalyuk); the Primate’s residence is in Rivne (Ukraine). It separated from the Boston Synod in 2012, after Job (Konovalyuk) received episcopal consecration from the Luryeites. They conduct services in Ukrainian.

 

“Panteleimonite” line:

6. Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA; sometimes called the Boston Synod). The Primate is Metropolitan Gregory (Babunashvili); the Primate’s residence is in Brookline, Massachusetts (USA). In 1986–1987, they separated from ROCOR, and for some time, were part of the Auxentian Synod, but in 1997 they became independent. They are in partial communion with the Luryeites.

 

ROCOR(V) line:

7. ROCOR(V-V). The Primate is Archbishop Vladimir (Tselishchev); the Primate’s residence is in Mansonville (Canada). It was formed in 2007–2008 from the remnants of ROCOR(V).

8. PRC-ROCOR (formerly ROCOR(V-F) or ROCOR(V-V-F)). The Primate is Metropolitan Philaret (Rozhnov); the Primate’s residence is in the village of Amosovka, Medvensky District, Kursk Region (Russia). It was formed in 2015 after separating from ROCOR(V-V).

9. PRC-ROCOR of Philaret (Semovskikh). The Primate is Metropolitan Philaret (Semovskikh); the Primate’s residence is in Brisbane (Australia). It was formed in 2020 after separating from PRC-ROCOR. It includes the pro-Ukrainian and, accordingly, sharply anti-Russian Cossack Orthodox Church of the ROCOR hierarchy / Kyiv-Galicia Metropolia (also known as the True Orthodox Church of Ukraine — Kyiv-Galicia Metropolia; abbreviated TOCU-KGM).

10. ROCOR(V-A) / TOCM / ROCOR(M) / ROCOR(V-Zh) (the name True Orthodox Church of Moldova [Biserica Adevărat-Ortodoxă din Moldova], under which it is officially registered, is not used in everyday practice). The Primate is Archbishop Anthony (Rudei); the Primate’s residence is in the village of Bilicenii Vechi (Moldova). It was formed in 2007–2008 from the remnants of ROCOR(V).

11. Russian Orthodox Church (RosOC(A)). The Primate is Metropolitan Stefan (Babaev); the Primate’s residence is in Syktyvkar (Russia) (?). It was formed in 2008 following the split of the RosOC into RosOC(A) and RosOC(D).

12. Russian Orthodox Church (RosOC(V)). The Primate is Archbishop Victor (Pivovarov); the Primate’s residence is in Slavyansk-na-Kubani (Russia). It was formed in 2009 by separating from RosOC(A).

13. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Vasily (Kirillov), with the Primate’s residence in Penza (Russia). It was formed in 2024–2025 through the union of Metropolitan Vasily (Kirillov) (formerly of RosOC(D)) and the independent Archbishop Martin (Lapkovsky) (formerly of PRC-ROCOR).

14. Russian Orthodox Church (RosOC(S)). The Primate is Archbishop Stefan (Usachyov); the Primate’s residence is in Penza Region. It was formed in 2021 in connection with the breakup of RosOC(D).

15. Jurisdiction (name unknown) of Bishop Ambrose (Dvornichenko), with the Primate’s residence in Denver, Colorado (USA). It was formed in 2020 after Bishop Ambrose refused to recognize his suspension and deposition from the episcopate by ROCOR(V-V).

 

RTOC line:

16. Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC). The Primate is Archbishop Tikhon (Pasechnik); the Primate’s residence is in Omsk (Russia). It was formed in 2001 after separating from ROCOR.

17. Serbian True Orthodox Church (STOC). The Primate is Archbishop Akakije (Stanković); the Primate’s residence is in Despotovac (Serbia). It is in communion with the “Foreign District” and Archbishop Sophrony (Musienko).

18. Jurisdiction (name unknown) of Bishop Savvaty (Bezkorovainy), with the Primate’s residence in Vinnytsia (Ukraine). It was formed in December 2024 following Bishop Savvaty’s separation from the RTOC.

 

ROCOR(A) line:

19. ROCOR(A). The Primate is Metropolitan Agafangel (Pashkovsky); the Primate’s residence is in Odesa (Ukraine). It was formed in 2007, separating from ROCOR immediately after the signing of the “Act of Canonical Communion.”

20. Foreign District. It has no Primate. Its sole hierarch is Bishop Andrei (Erastov), who lives in Australia. It is in communion with Sophrony (Musienko) and the STOC.

21. Jurisdiction of Archbishop Sophrony (Musienko). The Primate’s residence is in the village of Naverezhye, Dedovichsky District, Pskov Region (Russia). It is in communion with the “Foreign District” and the STOC.

 

At present, I also have no information regarding Dionysius (Alferov) and Nicholas (Modebadze), who may likewise head their own “fragments.”

 

Russian source: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/223984.html

Metropolitan Vitaly: A Letter to Young People in Russia (1989)

 

In your letters you constantly write that you expect from me some guidance, that you listen to me, that you would like to know what I think about all that is happening now in Russia. From the sidelines perhaps I do have a somewhat more objective view, and my position helps me here, offering me, simply because of my responsibilities, a broader perspective. But believe me, this is a matter for God’s Providence over Russia, and therefore you are asking for the gift of prophecy, which is beyond me.

You are right, judging from a purely human, earthly, logical point of view, everything appears extremely dark. I would even say that, with clouds on all sides, God’s light is not visible. If Russia does not get out of these suffocating slums, then in all likelihood we are going – the whole world is going – to the End, and then we can say with the Apostle, Come, Lord Jesus. However, all of our Russian religious literature, our elders, our saints, God-inspired writers and simple enlightened people of Russia, have more or less foretold both the calamities and the rebirth of our land.

I see two obstacles to this rebirth. First, the un-repentance of our people and the onslaught of severe trials in the form of immorality, shamelessness, drunkenness, drug addiction. At one youth gathering I said that Russia would come to a spiritual collapse not from the debauchery of Bolshevism, but when it will elect prostitutes and give them the names of our sacred cities, glorified by our great hierarchs and saints, when it will choose “Miss Moscow”, “Miss Kiev”, “Miss Kazan”, “Miss Novgorod”, etc. You may say that this is already happening. But you are wrong. True, such “misses” have been elected, but this is still a simple imitation of the West; it is not something organic, and for this reason it is not yet an expression of deep moral rot. The society of pre-Revolutionary Russia was profoundly rotten, and on account of this organic corruption God allowed the Revolution, that bloody font in which many hopelessly defiled people cleansed themselves and somehow saved their souls. Similarly, in the Great Flood many people were saved, because God’s punishment always conceals within itself mercy, if only one accepts this with one’s heart.

In all probability there have occurred in the history of humanity such cases of abysmal defilement, such evil distortions, that for the sake of possible salvation it was necessary to allow shakeups, even cataclysmic all according to the invisible mercy of God. One can repent of any sin, no matter how terrible. But just try to repent of one’s entire sinful world view which you have gradually developed for yourself, day by day, year after year. It’s obvious: you grew up with it, it’s become part of you, and according to the laws of human nature you will certainly live by this worldview. Here there is no room for repentance because a person doesn’t see of what, concretely, he must repent. He must, of course, repent of everything, from head to toe… But this is not repentance; it is a complete rebirth; it is that which the Saviour spoke about to Nikodemos: one must be born again. The Lord has countless ways to bring about this rebirth: the miraculous appearance to Saul, the future Apostle Paul; the miraculous conversion of St. Mary of Egypt, illness, calamities, and other means unknown and invisible to us which serve for the transformation of a hopeless fallen creature into a saint.

But let us return to the subject of Russia. [Missing from original English translation: Today many of our young men and women visit Russia, its holy places and monasteries, and they convey their impressions to me with remarkable sensitivity. One young woman wrote me a remarkable letter in which she says: “I left one abbot as though fleeing from a snake”; of another, who lays claim to being an elder, she writes: “I left him frozen, empty.” Another young man writes to me: “How wondrous is our Russian people, the believing, simple people. Among them there are genuine fools-for-Christ, righteous people, modest and humble souls. How many of those Russian eyes I saw—prayerful eyes, silent, deep.”]

There is another danger, whose character is purely deliberate, calculated. Evil forces have labored so hard to destroy Orthodox Russian that for them, the rebirth of Russia is a nightmare with a cold, icy future. One representative or senator here in the West said cynically, “We won’t allow such a thing.”

What does this mean?

All powers, billions of dollars will be used just to extinguish the flame of Russia’s rebirth. And they will be more thorough than Napoleon or Hitler. But if God is with us, what have we to fear? Everything depends on this, and on nothing else. And so, I should like to remind all Russians of the words of St. Seraphim of Sarov: “Save your own souls, and a thousand around you will be saved.” In our activities we often resemble the man in the Gospel who desired to gain the whole world and in so doing destroyed his soul.

We should leave the world in peace and in the most serious way occupy ourselves with the salvation of our souls. Then, and only then, will we see around us many wondrous, new, unexpected and joyous things. Let’s not be like senseless people who beat the air with sticks. There’s a mass of energy, movement, effects, but ultimately–emptiness, nothing’s accomplished. Our eternal foe, the devil, is cunning. He leads us by the nose, making us do useless things, making us think that it’s so important and at the same time filling us with exalted feelings, enthusiasm, emotionalism and a kind of nervous joy (I so dislike all these words beginning with “e”–ecumenism, evolution, emancipation…).

In our spiritual immaturity and naivete, we accept these feelings as being God’s grace, we get caught on the hook and with yet greater zeal we sink into the worldly vanity of society. Here we could bring to mind our Dostoevsky, how a young society lady came to Elder Zosima and told him that she had come to love all of humanity. You already know how the elder answered her. We should not be like Dostoevsky’s young lady, but rather turn to God with all our heart, to His Most Pure Mother and cry out: “God, forgive my sins and my transgressions, cleanse me, enlighten me…” Let us say this from all our heart, from all our soul, putting into these words our entire being-body and soul, so that not a single cell of our spiritual-physical being is missing from this cry of the soul.

And you think the Lord will not answer such a cry from your soul?

Absolutely! He will answer in such a way that you won’t feel your legs under you, and what you ask will be fulfilled. The word of God will come from the throne of the Most Holy Trinity: “Let it be…”, and from this word the entire creation will tremble, the entire universe, and all the powers of heaven will strive to fulfill this word, and the earth will bend before the will of God. And there where there was a mountain will be a ravine, while there where there was a ravine will be a mountain. All peoples will look with holy awe at the sight of Holy Russia rising out of a sea of blood, cleansed, forgiven.

You might say that I am falling into phantasmagoria, that I am taking the apocalyptic tone of a diviner. But after all, we are living on the verge of this Revelation, perhaps we have already entered the last phase of the history of the earthly part of Christ’s Church, which the last book of Holy Scripture speaks to us about.

And can one speak differently, when so much blood has been shed by confessors of Jesus Christ? (In Greek our word “martyr” comes from martyrios which means “witness;” this gives deeper meaning to this podvig.) Our Orthodox Russian Church has provided so many martyrs that one could fill up all twelve volumes of the Menaia, every day, with the names of the New Martyrs alone. Every year we celebrate the memory of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, but somewhere in the taiga in Siberia we have a pit in which fell, one by one, priests, shot in the temple after answering affirmatively to the question, “Does God exist?” There were sixty of them.

Is it even possible to enumerate all the kinds of tortures to which hundreds of thousands of Orthodox were subjected?

Now, glory to God, there is some talk about Christ’s Church, but it’s still unclear, as if it’s about some institution or even department. People still do not have the sense that it is the heart, the very reason for everything, the beginning and the end, the focus of the entire universe. Its voice is not yet clearly heard among all the various currents. It’s very difficult to sort out all these ideas, theories, endless recipes for renaissance, for renewal. But the day will come when the Church will arise in all her beauty and glory, and the whole world will see the Truth. Our Church will be given the power to meet her implacable foe, Antichrist. And you, young people, do not despond. Do you not see how the grace of the Holy Spirit is clearing a way for His Church? All of Russia is restless, the whole world is restless. And it may be that in your lifetime you will see this triumph.

So, I have conversed with you. I call God’s grace upon all of you.

Your sincere well-wisher,

Metropolitan Vitaly

 

(Translated from Tserkovni Vestnik, June/July 1989, publication of the Diocese of New York and Canada)

English source: Orthodox America, Issue 101, Vol. XI, No. 1, July 1990. Typos corrected.

On Bearing No Malice

From the Gerontikon

 

 

A Christian went to seek the counsel of Abba Silouan.

— I have a mortal enemy, Father, he confessed to him. The evils this man has caused me are countless. Some time ago, by fraud, he gained a large portion of my field. He slanders me wherever he goes and speaks ill both of me and of my family. He has made my life unbearable. Lately, he has even been plotting against my life. A few days ago, I learned that he attempted to poison me. This cannot go on any longer. I am determined to hand him over to justice.

— Do as you wish, Abba Silouan said to him indifferently.

— Do you not think, Father, that when he is punished—and severely, as he deserves—his soul will be saved? asked the man, who now began to concern himself with the spiritual benefit of his enemy as well.

— Do whatever gives you peace, the Saint continued to say in the same manner.

— Then I am going straight to the judge, said the Christian, and rose to leave.

— Do not be in such a hurry, the Saint said to him calmly. Let us first pray that God may prosper your undertaking.

He began the “Our Father.”

— “And forgive us not our debts, as neither do we forgive our debtors,” the Saint was heard to say aloud when he came to that verse.

— That is wrong, Abba; the Lord’s Prayer does not say that, the Christian hastened to correct him.

— But that is how it is, replied the Elder with complete dispassion. Since you have decided to hand your brother over to the judge, Silouan offers no other prayer for you.

 

Greek source:

https://imlp.gr/2026/08/15/%ce%b3%ce%b9%ce%b1-%cf%84%ce%b7%ce%bd-%ce%b1%ce%bd%ce%b5%ce%be%ce%b9%ce%ba%ce%b1%ce%ba%ce%af%ce%b1/

 

A Brief Comment on a Divisive and False Assertion of Fr. Steven Allen

 

In “Our Struggle, Class 6” of Fr. Steven Allen’s discussion [1] of an article on the history of relations between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, [2] Fr. Steven contends that the unification of ROCOR with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007 was enabled (“intentionally or unintentionally”) when ROCOR entered into official communion with the Holy Synod in Resistance in 1994, because it introduced the concept of recognizing the validity of the Mysteries of the Moscow Patriarchate into ROCOR.

This argument is valid only if it can be shown that ROCOR, prior to 1994, had a policy of denying the validity of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Mysteries.

The issue of ROCOR’s recognition or denial of the MP’s Mysteries has been extensively researched in English and Russian. A denial of their validity, at an official level, has been proven [3] to only exist in the self-justifying ideologies of separatists such as V. Moss, the Panteleimonites, and Gregory of Colorado.

ROCOR has consistently stated that they did not deny the existence of sanctifying grace in the MP’s Mysteries, as only a Pan-Orthodox body could issue such a categorical statement on an entire Autocephalous Church. The issue was discussed at the 1971 Council of Bishops in Montreal, [4] as well as the 1974 Third All-Diaspora Council, where this official stance was determined and publicly stated under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Philaret, in the context of the old calendarist/new calendarist division. [5]

This stance was communicated to the factions of the GOC in Greece at the time, and ultimately led to the “Matthewite” faction severing relations with ROCOR in 1975. [6] It likewise was the cause of the dismissal of Bishop Petros of Astoria from the Holy Synod of the GOC, on account of his fidelity to ROCOR’s understanding. [7]

This position was also reaffirmed by Metropolitan Vitaly multiple times: in his testimony as Archbishop of Montreal at the 1976 Council of Bishops [8] and his published article on the 1983 anathema, [9] as well as his Nativity Encyclical of 1986/1987. [10]

It is true that some bishops – most notably Metropolitans Philaret and Vitaly themselves – personally believed the MP lacked sacramental grace, and advocated for such a stance. [11] However, they also correctly recognized these were opinions that were not (and could not) be binding canonical determinations in the absence of a competent conciliar ruling on the matter.

Other bishops – including St. John of San Francisco – disagreed with this assessment, [12] as did many ROCOR bishops, judging from the minutes of the 1974 Council and its final decision. [13] But as it was a matter of theologoumenon and not dogma, it produced no division.

Such an understanding was also shared by the first bishop of the Free Russian Orthodox Church, Lazarus of Tambov, [14] and was held by his successor in the “True Russian Orthodox Church” up until 2007. [15]

A far more plausible (and logical) theory on what enabled the merger of the ROCOR and the MP, intentionally or unintentionally: the mass migration of over 2 dozen ROCOR parishes in 1986-1987 to a faction of Greek old calendar bishops, in defense of Fr. Panteleimon Metropoulos of ill-repute, and in support of his red herring accusation of ROCOR being Ecumenist at the time. With this course of action, the ROCOR was deprived of the majority of its English-speaking congregations in the United States, and some of the most eloquent spokesmen struggling against the innovations of Sergianism and Ecumenism.

And by these parishes (led by Holy Transfiguration Monastery) aggressively pursuing an anti-ROCOR line for the next couple decades, they weakened and discredited - as previously said, intentionally or unintentionally - the witness of the remaining anti-Sergianist and anti-Ecumenist forces left in ROCOR.

 

REFERENCES

1. https://stevenallen.substack.com/p/our-struggle-class-6?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2, dated August 31, 2023.

2.https://www.orthodoxtraditionalist.com/post/the-russian-orthodox-church-abroad-the-genuine-orthodox-christians-of-greece-a-history

3. See, for example, https://periodical.pstgu.ru/ru/pdf/article/7418 and https://www.rocorstudies.org/2011/10/28/looking-toward-unity-how-the-russian-church-abroad-viewed-the-patriarchate-of-moscow-1927-2007-andrei-psarev/

4. https://sinod.ruschurchabroad.org/Arh%20Sobor%201971%20Prot.htm

5. https://sinod.ruschurchabroad.org/Arh%20Sobor%201974%20Rezol.htm

6. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y8WKncg7kc53Tf6HSVtl9IOrHkPLpl4-/view?usp=sharing

7. https://web.archive.org/web/20230314054913/https://www.theorthodoxarchive.org/post/letter-of-metropolitan-petros-of-astoria-concerning-his-loyalty-to-russian-church-abroad

8. https://sinod.ruschurchabroad.org/Arh%20Sobor%201976-Prot.htm, Protocol #7.

9. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j8fmWaW_kV6dF1SR8R-3rHna5ZSYRBAT/view?usp=sharing

10. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_b-p1W1po27Do9yKBuHg-lAqx0sRJrHB/view?usp=sharing

11. See https://goctoronto.org/letter-to-a-priest-of-the-church-abroad-concerning-fr-dimitry-dudko-and-the-moscow-patriarchate-1980/ and http://www.monasterypress.com/priest.html

12.http://www.roacusa.org/htdocs/1.DoFRotSoBotROCoRNewsletter/1979/DoFR19791026.PDF

13. https://sinod.ruschurchabroad.org/Arh%20Sobor%201974%203%20vsezarub%20prot.htm

14. https://roca.org/oa/volume-x/issue-100/out-from-the-catacombs/

15.https://web.archive.org/web/20131017205944/http://catacomb.org.ua/modules.php?name=Pages&go=page&pid=1461

 

 

 

St. Nikolai of Japan on the Gregorian Calendar

 

Already in 1883, he [St. Nikolai] wrote that he was ‘disgusted’ by the adoption of the Gregorian calendar in Japan in place of the traditional [Julian] equivalent, observing that the government is ‘aping Western Europe.’ [453]

<…>

Nikolai harboured doubts about the success of Protestantism in Japan because he believed that it was based on the principle of ‘believe whatever you want’ and not on true faith. ‘The Protestants fear dogma almost as much as the devil fears incense,’ Nikolai wrote in December 1907:

…but in the same way that the devil does not prevent the incense from ascending to God, neither does the Protestant prevent the dogma from standing and shining. This means that their successes are ephemeral, will soon pass, and must eventually give way to other successes, if the Japanese are worthy before the court of God to accept the true teachings of Christ about the Holy Trinity, God the Saviour, the miraculous signs of the redeeming Power of God, and so on.

According to Nikolai, ‘if the gates to the Orthodox Church were opened just as wide,’ many extra people would wander in and later leave, as would happen with Protestantism. [621]

Of course, even in Orthodox Churches, certain elements of indigenisation can be used in rituals and services but even with this attribute, Orthodoxy adopts a much stricter line than many other religions. Nikolai understood that a certain degree of indigenisation is possible and in this, he acted in line with the tradition of Orthodox missionary work. This kind of adaptation occurred, for example, when the Bible and liturgical texts were translated into Japanese, in the clothing and conduct of the clergy and the faithful during church services, in the style of icon-painting, and the type of calendar used. In 1880, Nikolai considered asking the Synod for permission to celebrate fixed religious holidays in the Japanese Church according to the Gregorian calendar, which had been used in Japan since 1873 but was not used by the ROC, because according to the Gregorian calendar, the New Year holiday would otherwise fall during a fasting period, which most believers would not observe. [622] This was not a dogmatic problem and later, several Orthodox churches switched to a Revised Julian calendar that aligns its dates with the Gregorian calendar until February 28, 2800.

 

FOOTNOTES

453. Dnevniki svjatitelja Nikolaya Yaponskogo 5 (1904–1912), pp. 830–31. 

621. Dnevniki svjatitelja Nikolaya Yaponskogo 5 (1904–1912), p. 340. 

622. Dnevniki svjatitelja Nikolaya Yaponskogo 1 (1870–1880), p. 216. 

 

Source: “Nikolai Yaponsky and the Russian Orthodox Mission to Japan during the Meiji Period: Encounters and Tensions between Russia, Japan and the West,” by Olga Puzanova, Ph.D. dissertation, Oxford University, 2020, page 143, and pages 191-192, respectively.

Prayer to Hieroconfessor Vitaly of New York (+2006), First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad

 

O most glorious holy hierarch of Christ Vitaly, today, fervently offering unto thee hymns of praise, we trust that thy love toward us hath not grown faint. For in thy life, thou didst show thyself to be a true shepherd, laying down thy soul for thy flock. Wherefore we fall down before thee and beseech thee: have mercy on thy spiritual children and preserve them from the snares of the evil one.

O our good shepherd, deliver the faithful from eternal perdition; fence the Church of Christ about from soul-destroying wolves; destroy the wicked intrigues of the apostates. Quell apostasy and schisms in the Church; strengthen bishops and priests to walk in the path of truth. Grant thy speedy help unto all the faithful: heal the sick, comfort the sorrowful, and help those in distress.

We beseech thee, O saint of God, leave us not to perish amid the raging waves of sin, but show unto us thy pastoral mercy and guide us to walk in the way of salvation, that, having pleased the Lord, together with thee we may hymn the Holy Trinity: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

 

Russian source: excerpted from Канон священноисповеднику Виталию, Митрополиту Нью-Йоркскому, Первоиерарху Русской Православной Церкви.

Prayer to Saint Anthony of Kiev (+1936), First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad

 

O most wondrous holy hierarch Anthony, our fervent guide and good intercessor before the Lord for all who honor thy memory and flee unto thee with faith! Look down even now with a merciful eye upon the scattered sheep of thy flock, for truly thou art the first founder of the Russian Church exiled from its fatherland among many nations. Grant holiness unto the pastors, reverence unto the monastics, and unto all of us the gift of understanding, that our storm-tossed Church may be strengthened in truth and humility. Above all, impart unto us of the oil of thy mercy and compassion, that we may learn to bear one another’s burdens, and not to please ourselves, but to please God and our neighbor for his good unto edification. While there is yet time to acquire and to labor, we flee unto thee, who art rich in mercy: grant us of thine oil, for our lamps are going out, that we may not be numbered with the foolish virgins in the dread hour, but together with thee may glorify the Lord Jesus Christ, Who suffered for us and had compassion upon us, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, unto the ages. Amen.

 

Russian source: Канон Святителю Антонию Киевскому, Первоначальнику Русския Зарубежныя Церкве [Canon to Saint Anthony of Kiev, First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad], composed by the Russian True Orthodox Church.

Online:

https://www.ripc.info/en/documents/doc/kanon-svjatitelju-antoniju-kievskomu-pervonachalniku-russkija-zarubezhnyja-cerkve/

Testimony Concerning the Incorruption of the Relics of St. Anastasy of New York (+1965)

 

Protodeacon Andrei Psarev published a note in the Facebook group Historical Studies of the Russian Church Abroad for July 12, recalling that on this day (June 29/July 12) in 1906, the episcopal consecration of Metropolitan Anastasy took place. Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko commented on this note:

“According to the account of Stefan Sabelnik, a disciple of the iconographer Archimandrite Cyprian (Pyzhov), when they began installing the marble slab over the grave of Metropolitan Anastasy, Fathers Cyprian and Stefan opened his coffin and examined the remains—and were astonished to see that the holy relics of the Metropolitan were completely incorrupt and intact. These holy relics await their time to be revealed to the Orthodox world.”

Holy Hierarch Father Anastasy, pray to God for us!

Russian source: http://internetsobor.org/index.php/novosti/rptsz/rptsz-svidetelstvo-o-netlenii-moshchej-svt-anastasiya

St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite: Do not be silent…

I am not amazed so much by the Spiritual Fathers, but by the good hierarchs and shepherds who did not immediately sound the horn with the God-inspired trumpets of truth, in order to castigate the evil sower of that weed and uproot from the Church that dead plant. For they have the authority by the grace of the Holy Spirit to sustain that which is good and to correct whatever is in need of correction.

Perhaps the hierarchs make the excuse that, since they are under the yoke of the Ottomans and caught up in many concerns, they entrust these things to the teachers and preachers. These blessed hierarchs, one not wanting to lose his quietude, and another making other excuses - all of them together abdicate their responsibility and throw the burden one upon the other. So they bury the word of God and the truth as if in a tomb. And by their silence they show that they acquiesce to all the things which are happening, as the divine Meletios the Confessor says:

He who possesses knowledge of the truth,
And, in whatever way, deliberately hides it,
Not openly preaching it or speaking it with boldness,
And does not uphold the divine and august Canons,
Or the laws presided over by the Fathers,
Is justly punished no less than the transgressors of these.
He who is silent about the truth hides Christ in a tomb,
As one Father has said, and another, again, says.
He who is silent about the faith is in grave danger
Of eternal punishment and of the pit of perdition.
It is not just, lawful, or right for the faithful to be silent
When the laws of of God are being violated,
And the evil seek to support their deception.
When someone is in danger of being separated from God,
Said one of the great Fathers,
And when evils are attributed to God,
What faithful Christian can be silent? Who can be at peace?
For silence means consent and betrayal,
As was clearly shown by the Lord's Forerunner
And the brave Maccabees together with him,
Who, on account of the smallest commandment, were in danger unto death,
And did not even betray the smallest part of the Law.
War is many times known to be praiseworthy,
And battle appears better than soul-destroying peace.
For it is better to stand against those who do not believe correctly,
Than it is to follow them and be of one mind with them,
Thus being united with them and separated from God. [176]

And the divine Chrysostom says, "If it is not good for a man to be silent when he is wronged, how will one who remains silent and indifferent when the divine laws are insulted not be worthy of punishment?" [177]

 

176. Alphabetalphabetos, Hypothesis 10 (Thessaloniki: 1923).

177. De Sancta Babyla, Contra Julianum et Gentiles 9, PG 50, 547.

 

- Concerning Frequent Communion, translated by Fr. George Dokos, Uncut Mountain Press, 2006, pp. 171-173.

"The most prized ornament of the Sacred Struggle"

“The most prized ornament and the most precious treasure of our Sacred Struggle, Archimandrite Eugenios Lemonis [1875-1961]. He lives a simple, unassuming, ascetic life, devoting himself entirely to the Struggle and monastic perfection in Christ, serving as a guiding light. For many years he served as parish priest of the Holy Church of the Life-Giving Spring in Piraeus. He is among the finest father-confessors, bringing relief to many and setting them aright, and having endured many persecutions and hardships.”

 

For more information, see:

https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/01/archimandrite-eugenios-limonis-18751961.html

Blessed Averky of Jordanville: The Lie of Private Religion

 

The most pernicious lie of our time is the idea, vigorously propagated by many, that “religion is the private affair of each individual,” and that the social and governmental life of people should proceed apart from religion, should be “separated” from it. And no one wishes to notice the absurdity of such an assertion. For this is the same as saying: a person’s private life is one thing in itself, while his social and governmental life is another. The source from which this and similar kinds of falsehood flow, skillfully concealed under various plausible appearances, is clear to us. To whom, if not the enemy of man’s salvation, is it important to deprive the social and governmental life of people of God, so as thereby to create conditions favorable to depriving each individual human person of God as well?

And is this not precisely what we observe in the modern world?

For the whole history of mankind is nothing other than the persistent and cruel struggle of the devil against God for human souls. The Church of Christ is God’s stronghold in this struggle for believers. That is why the enemy’s chief blows are directed against the Church. The enemy strives to destroy the Church, or at least to enslave her, and thereby deprive her of her grace-filled power and influence upon the faithful. The whole history of the Church of Christ on earth is, in essence, a struggle for spiritual freedom—a struggle for truth against the demonic falsehood that seeks to enslave the Church. When the enemy of human salvation is unable to strike the Church from without, by means of external persecutions, he attempts to strike her from within, by means of falsehood—by substituting falsehood for truth. Thus, after the terrible bloody persecutions of the Church in the first centuries of Christianity, there arose heresies—false teachings whose purpose was to blow up the Church of Christ from within.

We see the same thing now. This is the source of the great multitude of different “Christian confessions,” whereas Christ the Savior founded only one Church. All this is the work of the enemy of human salvation, acting according to the principle: “Divide and rule!”

 

Russian source: “К предстоящему Архиерейскому Собору. Путь Русской Зарубежной Церкви – путь духовной свободы”, written on the occasion of the 1956 ROCOR Council of Bishops. Published in Volume 1 of Современность в свете Слова Божия [The Modern World in the Light of the Word of God], Institute of Russian Civilization, Moscow, 2012.

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

(A Concise Presentation)

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | August 12, 2026

 

 

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

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

 

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

The Ecclesiological Deviation: From the WCC to Crete

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Amsterdam (1948): Institutional Involvement

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

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

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

• The recognition of ecclesiality outside Orthodoxy.

• The relativization of the “One” Church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

First Conclusions: The Synodal Legitimation of Apostasy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequently:

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It did not condemn the “Branch Theory.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Conclusions

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

• recognition of “ecclesial elements” outside Orthodoxy,

• the use of compromising and ambiguous language,

• adoption of “consensus” with the heterodox,

• failure to condemn the “Branch Theory,”

• extension of dialogue to other religions,

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

 

Supplementary Bibliographical Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Greek source:

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