Brief assessment of an online dialogue

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | January 11, 2026

 

 

In a previous post, we had issued an open invitation to the readers of the blog to explore the following topic:

"To what extent is it necessary to make a clear and conscious distinction, in the anti-ecumenist texts that are published, between the theological refutation of heresy and the condemnation of persons who have not been synodally judged, but who publicly and without concealment teach the heresy of Ecumenism?"

(https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/01/blog-post_84.html)

Making a brief assessment of all the comments that were published—including in the previous post at the electronic address: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/01/m.html—we publish the following conclusions, after evaluating 32 comments. We thank the readers who participated in this dialogue, which, of course, did not exhaust the subject under investigation, because the participation of all anti-ecumenist groups is required. For us, it is a beginning, and that is what matters.

Conclusions

A. The comments that were published express an intense confessional zeal and a deep desire to defend the Orthodox faith. The fundamental observation that Ecumenism constitutes an ecclesiological deviation is not merely an opinion, but a dogmatically substantiated judgment, which is fully aligned with traditional patristic and synodal experience. The recognition of the objective difference between Orthodox doctrine and heresy is a foundation of the Church, for faith cannot be defended without a clear distinction.

B. In contemporary discourse, an ecclesiological disagreement is often observed in the handling of crises. Synodality—that is, the process of judgment and manifestation of faith through the Synod—is being diminished, while individual or collective certainty is preferred instead. In other words, the Synod ceases to be regarded as the principal organ for securing the faith, and the ecclesiological crisis is transformed into a personal or limited matter, detached from the life of the Church as a body that lives “in the Holy Spirit.”

C. The practice of walling off [ἀποτείχιση] is often theologically overloaded, acquiring a content that exceeds its proper function. Normally, walling off is an act of breaking ecclesiastical communion with bearers of heresy for personal soteriological reasons, but also a means of creating conditions that will lead to the convocation of an Orthodox Synod for the condemnation of heretics (regardless of whether or when it will take place). Walling off is not a definitive condemnation; however, when it is turned into a means of “private condemnation,” it substitutes the synodal process and alters the nature of the Church. This does not mean that we cease to judge the heretical practices of individuals, but our critique must remain within the Orthodox ecclesiastical ethos, without insults or personal characterizations.

D. Confessional zeal, without ecclesiological discernment between heresy and heretics who have not been condemned, risks ending up in a private ecclesiology which, despite the use of strict patristic phraseology, does not express the living life of the Church. The defense of the Orthodox faith cannot be confined to fragmentary measures or personal certainties; what is required is the complete integration of three elements: doctrine, confessional zeal, and synodality. Only through this synthesis does the Church truly bear witness to her faith and live the fullness of Christian life in the Holy Spirit.

E. The problem that remains and must be examined is how Synodality will function today, so that an Orthodox Synod may be convened for the condemnation of the heretics. The fragmented groups of those who have walled themselves off, it appears, are not concerned with this matter.

Comment by Dimitris Hatzinikolaou, January 11, 2026:

It is at the very least unjust for those who use harsh language against the Ecumenist (=Theosophists/Satanists) pseudo-bishops to be accused of allegedly issuing “private condemnations” of persons and supposedly being indifferent to the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Council that would provide solutions to today's impasses. From what I understand, the model being recommended is that of lukewarm reactions, of the type: “Your All-Holiness, you have gone too far…” (that is, the exercise of polite and well-reasoned criticism). However, this has been done ad nauseam over the past 7–8 decades, when there were still bishops with Orthodox mindsets, and not only did it produce no results, but it also demonstrated that the Ecumenists are not in the least concerned! For on the one hand, those who truly protested (the walled-off adherents of the Patristic Calendar) were relentlessly persecuted both by the system and by the so-called “discreet conservatives” of the type of Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos; and on the other hand, such (spineless and largely hypocritical) reaction proved that the Ecumenist pseudo-bishops (in the sense of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council) are being recognized as canonical, while the walled-off (the “healthy” part of the Church, according to the Holy Fathers) are being treated as schismatics! An upside-down world!!! The facts, therefore, show that the aforementioned model has utterly failed, as should have been expected, because it is not even Orthodox—since the pseudo-bishops are recognized as canonical and the “healthy” part of the Church as schismatic! What must be done, then, today, when, as far as I know, there is not a single Orthodox bishop in Greece? Should we continue to recognize the pseudo-bishops as canonical bishops and to exercise “criticism” of their “errors,” hoping thereby they will call for the convocation of a “pan-Orthodox council,” at which they themselves will, of course, preside—since they are considered “canonical”? May God protect us from new Kolymbaris! Therefore, the only Orthodox language is that which the Lord Himself and His Saints (the true ones, that is, and not the love-talkers who go along with the Ecumenists and praise them) have used—perhaps in this way the uncatechized people will cease to regard them as canonical, thereby provoking the intervention of God, if we are not already in the last days!

Reply by Fr. Dimitrios Athanasiou, January 11, 2026:

It appears that there has been a misinterpretation of the relevant articles. It is recalled that the issue was initially raised on the occasion of an open letter by Ms. V.O. to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

[https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/01/open-letter-to-ecumenical-arch.html]

The concern does not pertain to the entirety of the letter, but exclusively to its second part, which clearly deviated from all theological and ecclesiological propriety, adopting an abusive and uncanonical tone. In this way, any positive element that may have existed in the first part was nullified.

The ensuing discussion neither had nor has the character of personal targeting. The conclusions expressed do not level accusations against individuals but are confined to the formulation of a fundamental ecclesiological question, which is systematically overlooked: What is the purpose of walling off according to the canonical tradition of the Church? Is it a means of ecclesiastical activism or a temporary canonical measure aimed at restoring both the proper functioning of the synodal system and the right preaching of the word of truth by bishops?

The Orthodox Church is essentially characterized by conciliarity, which constitutes a fundamental ecclesiological principle and not merely an administrative practice. Its proper functioning presupposes Synods composed of bishops who are Orthodox in faith, who act within the patristic tradition and operate according to the consensus patrum. Without this condition, neither canonical judgment nor ecclesiastical restoration is possible.

The present ecclesiastical situation is particularly problematic and, in many cases, exceeds the boundaries of Orthodox ecclesiology. Nevertheless, walling off, as defined by the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, does not constitute a condemnation of persons nor a schism, but rather a preventive suspension of ecclesiastical communion with bishops who preach heresy “with bare head.” These bishops remain uncondemned heretics, insofar as no Orthodox Synod has been convened to judge them canonically.

It is emphatically stressed that only an Orthodox and canonically constituted Synod has the authority to depose bishops. Such deposition cannot be substituted for nor expedited through abusive language, public denunciations, or forms of ecclesiastical activism which lack canonical precedent and ecclesiological legitimacy. This, of course, does not imply silence or tolerance; unorthodox practices must be subject to scrutiny through theologically substantiated and ecclesiastically responsible discourse.

Furthermore, given that the Orthodox Church is catholic and not ethnophyletic, those who are walled off are not justified in limiting themselves exclusively to national ecclesiastical frameworks (e.g., that of Greece). They are obliged to seek ecclesiastical communion with Orthodox hierarchs of other Local Churches (such as those of Romania, Bulgaria, etc.) who uphold the Orthodox faith and canonical order in their entirety.

Whether and when a condemnatory Synod will be convened is a matter of divine providence. Ecclesiastical history, however, is clear: the Saints who practiced walling off, such as Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint Mark of Ephesus, never resorted to practices of ecclesiastical activism. On the contrary, they remained within the canonical ethos of the Church, with speech that was sober, precise, and courteous—even under persecution.

Finally, the absence of ecclesiastical communion between the walled-off and Orthodox bishops (without this implying integration into Synods) creates a serious ecclesiological problem. Walling off cannot remain in a deadlock, for then the canonical ordination of priests becomes impossible—a fact which objectively serves the Ecumenists and not the Church.

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/01/blog-post_11.html