The “Council” of Crete: The Illegitimate Fruit of Extramarital Relations

Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis

Emeritus Professor of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

 

 

1. Constantinople abandons the Orthodox Tradition and recognizes ecclesiality in heretics.

The synodal institution never ceased to function in the life of the Church. Even after the seven councils considered by all to be ecumenical, with the last being the Seventh of Nicaea (787), and after those subsequently considered by many as the Eighth and Ninth — that is, the one under St. Photius in 879 and the one under St. Gregory Palamas in 1341/1351 — many councils convened with broader or narrower composition and with significant synodal work. Even during the Turkish occupation and throughout the 19th century, numerous councils — often with the participation of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, as well as hierarchs from these ancient patriarchates — addressed the emerging issues in the life of the Church, especially the proselytism of Orthodox faithful by Papist and Protestant missionaries. Nevertheless, the Great Church of Constantinople, under conditions of bondage and captivity, did not cease to organize with due sacred dignity the affairs of its administration and worship. Except for Holy and Great Russia, nearly all Orthodox countries were under the Ottoman yoke.

The decline of the Ottomans and the formation of new states, with the granting of autocephaly to the local Churches, reduced the flock of the Church of Constantinople and limited its jurisdiction; nevertheless, they gave new momentum to the new Orthodox states to freely organize the affairs of ecclesiastical life and to glorify the Orthodox faith and life. The rivalries and ethnophyletism among them, which at times even reached the point of armed conflict, hindered the expression of the unity of the autocephalous Churches and gave the image of a divided Church, although there was nothing separating them in dogma, worship, or administration. The stabilization of the political situation after the Balkan Wars and the First World War did not last long, for it was followed by the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia, which subjected the largest and strongest Orthodox country and its Church to a harsh anti-Christian persecution, captive under the communist dictatorship and savagery— a condition which soon extended also to the other Balkan countries, except Greece. Then came the Asia Minor Catastrophe of 1922, with the millions of Greek refugees who abandoned their ancestral homes and stripped of its flock the already weakened — due to the autocephalies — “Church of the Poor of Christ,” which now became even poorer.

In the West, which did not experience Islamic tyranny and dictatorship, Papism, full of pride and self-confidence, convened in 1870 the First Vatican Council as an Ecumenical one, and dogmatized the primacy and infallibility of the pope, while the Protestants, divided and fragmented, organized from the end of the 19th century the Ecumenical Movement, which led to their external at least unity in the so-called "World Council of Churches." In the midst of these global and inter-Christian developments, we Orthodox also wished to be present, so that we would supposedly not be isolated and weakened, but that the entire Christian world, united and strong, might confront the dual threat of atheistic Communism and aggressive Islam. Thus, we abandoned the traditional stance of considering the Westerners as heretics, but also as politically and culturally more dangerous than Islam, and began to flirt with the West through the famous ecumenical encyclical of 1920, which the Ecumenical Patriarchate sent “To all the Churches of Christ everywhere,” naming for the first time in a synodal document the heretical Papists and Protestants as "churches." [1]

Nearly one hundred years have passed since then, and this anti-traditional and ecclesiologically unacceptable deviation of the Church of Constantinople — to transform heresies into “churches,” to grant, through a synodal document, ecclesiality to heretics — is now acquiring pan-Orthodox synodal ratification through the “Council” of Crete, with the problematic document “The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”, which divides and fractures the Church. Now captive to the Ecumenism of the West, the Church of Constantinople seeks to drag along and persuade the other Orthodox local Churches, as the primatial and Mother Church of the more recent autocephalous Churches, that times have changed, that the Patristic Tradition and the Holy Canons — which forbid communion and joint prayer with heretics — must be changed, adapted to the supposedly new needs of the times, whose heralds have but one aim: to cause divisions and schisms in the Body of the Church by denying the exclusivity of salvation in Christ and the ecclesiastical exclusivity of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church — indeed enemies of Christ and of salvation through Him.

2. Meletios Metaxakis, Athenagoras, Bartholomew — the three torchbearers of Ecumenism

Already in 1924, the Calendar Reform, with the Masonic Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis as its chief instigator, imposed in a coup-like manner without a pan-Orthodox decision, wounded and continues to severely wound to this day the festal unity of the Orthodox. [2] Furthermore, the  discussion that began from that time regarding the convocation of an Ecumenical Council — with ecumenistic themes as its core agenda, set by this innovating patriarch — unfortunately laid the groundwork and foundations not for a truly Orthodox Council, but for a pseudo-council of ecumenistic specifications, the primary aim of which was not the resolution of urgent and burning issues, but the legitimization of heresies as churches. It is characteristic that, although many topics were added and removed from the list of issues — some of them indeed critical, such as the Calendar, the granting of autocephaly, and others — the only one that remained constant and which no one dared to touch was the subject “The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World,” that is, “The Relations of the Church with the Heresies and Schisms.” Since these relations are defined and unchangeable according to the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, there is now an attempt to alter them and to cause new schisms and divisions.

The Metaxakis period did not have a good continuation, both due to reactions within the body of the hierarchy in Constantinople and due to the reluctance of the other autocephalous Churches to follow the innovations of Constantinople, as was evident from their reply letters to the patriarchal and synodal encyclicals of Patriarch Joachim III in 1902 and 1904, which sought to probe their intentions. The torch of Ecumenism was passed from Metaxakis to Patriarch Athenagoras, who ascended the patriarchal throne in 1948 after the forceful removal of his predecessor Maximos V — a man trusted by the Americans and known secret societies, of which he himself was a member. I will not proceed with further analysis, for these matters are known to most. What is worth noting is that the unity of the Christian world was pursued by the planners at the expense of the dignity and honor of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church — the Orthodox Church — with Athenagoras as chief architect, through two ecclesiologically unacceptable moves:

1. That all the autocephalous Orthodox Churches gradually become members of the pan-heresy of the Protestant “World Council of Churches” (what kind of “Churches”?), with Constantinople leading the way;

2. And that an approach be initiated with the Papists, who, under the influence of the same circles, had begun to abandon their strict ecclesiological exclusivism and to recognize some elements of ecclesiality in Christians outside the papal fold.

It is particularly characteristic — and has been noted by many — that at the very time when the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) was being prepared and convened, Athenagoras, in line with a similar ecclesiological orientation, was convening the three “Pan-Orthodox Conferences” in Rhodes (1961, 1963, 1964) and the fourth in Chambésy, Geneva (1968). These conferences set forth the first list of topics for the forthcoming Holy and Great Council and led to the “Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Committees” and “Preconciliar Conferences” from 1971 until the convocation of the “Council” of Crete in June 2016. For fifty-five (55) years after the “First Pan-Orthodox Conference” of Rhodes (1961), forty-five (45) years after the “First Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Committee” in Geneva (1971), and forty (40) years after the “First Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference” in Geneva (1976), the much-lauded and long-awaited “Holy and Great Council” of the Orthodox Church was being prepared, cooked, and sifted. And what was the result? The pseudo-council of Crete in June 2016.

Never in the history of the Church was so much time needed to prepare a council, because councils always addressed burning and urgent matters, which did not allow for chronological delays and extensions, but demanded immediate resolution. To what, then, is this delay and inability attributed — this failure to convene a great council of ecumenical standards, one that might rival and stand worthily opposite the Second Vatican Council, which was prepared swiftly, included the participation of 2,500 bishops (as opposed to the 150 of our “great” one in Crete), lasted not a single week but two years, and produced theological documents with which theological research — even Orthodox — is still engaged to this day, and which generally captured worldwide attention for a long period, whereas ours vanished and disappeared while its own brief, several-day life was still ongoing? Why such haste and urgency to close the topics quickly, to not allow sufficient time for discussion, to not permit the participation of all bishops, to deny all a vote, to not have the discussions open not only to journalists, but also to the clergy and the laity, and to have the surrounding area guarded by police forces? Why are we afraid of the body of the Church if our decisions are pleasing to God, evangelical, and patristic?

3. Why did the pre-conciliar process last so long?

The answer is not difficult. From the outset, the aims of the “Council” were not in line with the Orthodox synodal tradition, which fundamentally presupposes that every council follows and respects the decisions of the preceding councils, “following the Holy Fathers”; that it condemns the joint prayers which they forbade, and the heresies which they condemned, as if all councils were sessions of one and the same council. It combats and anathematizes new heresies that have appeared and are troubling the body of the Church, addresses pastoral and administrative problems, and in general ensures that the evangelical and Patristic Tradition is unwaveringly upheld. The Council of Crete did none of these things — on the contrary, it did precisely the opposite. Not only did it fail to reiterate the condemnation of heresies already condemned by previous councils, such as Monophysitism, Papism, and Protestantism, but instead, it named them churches. Instead of condemning the new pan-heresy of Ecumenism, it officially introduced it into the Church by praising the unacceptable documents of the Theological Dialogues and our humiliating participation in the so-called “World Council of Churches” — that is, the Protestant “World Council of Heresies.” It avoided condemning joint prayers with heretics, which have now become the trend and the norm; on the contrary, it ratified them through the joint prayer of heterodox observers during the various services. It did not address — on the contrary, it removed from the agenda — the burning and urgent issue of the Calendar, it did not resolve the issue of the Diaspora nor that of autocephaly, and simply thought it could cover all these gaps with vague theological proclamations in the message and the encyclical it issued.

The Orthodox and traditional approach to all these matters was not desirable to the planners of the “Council.” At every stage of the lengthy preparation, the vigilant conscience of the body of the Church raised objections. Respected Elders and contemporary Saints of the Church, as well as combative bishops of the Church, the entirety of the Holy Mountain, the once-traditional Church of Greece, many professors of the Theological Schools, Christian brotherhoods and associations, and a multitude of faithful opposed the convocation of the Council, [3] because they knew its un-Orthodox aims. We did not have here the infallible and first pope to do as he pleases, as he did with the Second Vatican Council, which — it should be noted — despite its modernizing and Protestantizing decisions, did not touch at all the essential ecclesiological dogmas of Papism. Thus, the cooks of Ecumenism delayed, sifted, and cooked, until the conditions became more favorable for the convocation of their ecumenistic “Council.” This is the reason for the prolonged preparation and the anti-traditional delay. Their ecumenistic “Council” was not coming together — the one that would interrupt the continuity of the Synodal Patristic Tradition.

The sudden hastening of the convocation of the “Council” by the third great torchbearer of Ecumenism, Patriarch Bartholomew — following Meletios Metaxakis and Athenagoras — is due to the assessment that the climate is now favorable. The Church of Greece, which had been traditional and conservative until the time of the late Archbishop Seraphim, has changed course and direction toward Ecumenism; within the Holy Mountain, ecumenist cells have been implanted that divide it and hinder it from expressing itself traditionally; the Theological Schools, with an overwhelming majority of professors, have adopted the ecumenist pseudo-vision, as seen in their support for the establishment of a Department of Islamic Studies, in the transformation of the Orthodox religious education course into a general study of religions, and in a multitude of publications and events. The theologians of “Kairos” and “Post-Patristic Theology” of Volos are being covered and supported by patriarchal, archiepiscopal, and episcopal blessings, while they are tearing up the foundations of Orthodoxy and transforming the salvific “kairos” of the New Testament into a time of ruin, adaptation, and innovation. The ecclesiastical leadership of Great Russia gladly sails in the murky waters of ecumenist deviation, even though it could, by responding to the anti-ecumenist, anti-papal, and anti-Western sentiments of the Russian people, overturn the destructive course. And our own pious Greek people, stunned by the memoranda, taxation, unemployment, and the sudden collapse of their life plans and goals, stand in lines at banks, tax offices, and soup kitchens, trying to secure their daily bread, to survive — and, apart from a few, are indifferent to ecclesiastical and spiritual matters.

4. The “Council” of Crete is not a product of Orthodoxy.

So there it is: the opportune moment, the favorable climate that the mechanisms of the New Age of Ecumenism and Pan-Religion were waiting for, in order to bring to an end the sifting and the cooking that had lasted for nearly a century, and to hastily convene the pseudo-council of Crete. They are deceived, however, if they think that, just as they deceived many ecclesiastical leaders and many bishops — fortunately there are also those who were not deceived — they will also deceive the vigilant conscience of the body of the Church, that they will ultimately deceive God, the Founder and Head of the Church, Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, who leads the Church into all truth and drives away the spirits of delusion and heresies. The “Council” of Crete, as a fruit and offspring of alien spirits, will be rejected and will be erased from the records of ecclesiastical history as an illegitimate offspring of evil and sinful labor pains, of the eros and love of certain primates for the heresies of Papism and Ecumenism. There it was conceived and there it was born; it is not a child and offspring of the Orthodox Church. To Crete it was simply brought to us for recognition, but its DNA is not compatible with the biological characteristics of the Fathers of Orthodoxy. Did Saint Paisios not warn us about the amorous preferences of Athenagoras? It fits perfectly in context: “The Patriarch Athenagoras, as it appears, loved another woman, a modern one, who is called the Papal Church, because our Orthodox Mother does not impress him at all, since she is very modest.” [4]

 

NOTES

1. For this entire shift in Constantinople, see more in Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis, “From Orthodoxy to Ecumenism: The Great Overturning of the 20th Century”, in our recent book: Holy and Great Council: Should We Hope or Be Troubled?, Thessaloniki 2016, “To Palimpseston” Publications, pp. 15–48.

2. For the calendar reform and, more generally, the ecumenistic role of Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis, see more in our study “Old and New Calendar. Why Did the Holy and Great Council Withdraw the Burning Issue?” Theodromia 18 (2016) 264–291, and in the aforementioned book in footnote 1, pp. 179–216, where many negative assessments are cited concerning the recently much-praised meddlesome and innovating patriarch.

3. For all these sound reactions, see the special double issue of Theodromia, January–June 2016.

4. From a letter that Saint Paisios sent to the late Elder Charalambos Vasilopoulos for publication in the Orthodox Press, dated January 23, 1968. For the full text of the letter, see Theodromia 12 (2010) 420–423. For the negative stance of Saint Paisios toward Ecumenism, which is usually silenced, see the tribute issue to him in Theodromia, April–June 2015.

 

Greek source: https://www.theodromia.gr/2D1316FB.el.aspx