Critique of Contemporary Anti-Ecumenist Positions (Comments on an Ecumenist Text)

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | February 2, 2026

 

 

Introduction

At the web address: https://panorthodoxsynod.blogspot.com/2025/12/blog-post_22.html#more, a text by Ioannis Lotsios, Doctor of Theology, postdoctoral researcher, is published with the title: “Is There a Heretical Deviation by the Ecumenical Patriarch?”.

Beginning the critique of the text, we focus on the section titled “Critique of Contemporary Anti-Ecumenist Positions,” which is presented below:

Critique of Contemporary Anti-Ecumenist Positions

Contemporary anti-ecumenism does not constitute a unified theological movement, but a collection of disparate stances. Particular influence is exercised by the text attributed to Fr. Justin Popovich, in which ecumenism is characterized as a “pan-heresy.” This generalized use of the term presents serious theological problems, as it fails to distinguish between theological dialogue, ecclesiological syncretism, and religious relativism—distinctions that are essential in patristic theology. At the same time, walling-off texts that invoke Canon 15 of the First-Second Council often erroneously equate dialogue with heresy. However, this Canon refers explicitly to publicly preached heresy, and not to theological dialogue or pastoral initiatives. The indiscriminate use of terms such as “betrayal” or “apostasy,” without conciliar judgment, stands in contrast to the patristic ethos. Saint Maximus the Confessor, despite his fierce opposition to Monothelitism, grounded his confession in theological argumentation and not in denunciatory rhetoric.

In conclusion, the critical assessment of contemporary anti-ecumenist positions shows that many of them are based on a fragmentary use of patristic and canonical passages. In the light of patristic ecclesiology, dialogue—when conducted within conciliar frameworks and with clear dogmatic self-awareness—does not threaten Orthodoxy, but reveals it as a living and confessional reality.

Comments

A. The attempt to present contemporary ecumenical dialogue as a “patristic continuity” or “living confessional reality” essentially constitutes a dogmatic concession and legitimization of heresy. The Fathers of the Church did not engage in dialogue for the sake of understanding or diplomacy; every conversation with heretics had as its sole purpose the defense of the truth of the faith and the condemnation of delusion. To regard dialogue with Churches that have already altered the faith—through Papal primacy, the Filioque, and other innovations—as “safe” or “discerning” is a violation of confessional responsibility and a theologically baseless claim.

B. The invocation of Canon 15 of the First Council as “misunderstood” is a shameful exploitation of the Conciliar Tradition. The Canon does not merely speak of “teaching” — it speaks of communion. Whoever prays together with a heretic, whoever recognizes as a “Church” the schismatic construct of Rome or the Protestant confessions, has already fallen away from Orthodoxy, even if he holds the Horologion and a Kontakion in his hands. Participation in “theological committees” where Orthodoxy “dialogues” on equal terms with delusion is an acceptance of the equivalence of truth and falsehood — that is, a denial of Jesus as the only Way and Truth.

There is no “neutral” stance. Either you are with Christ and His Saints, or you are with the Antichrist and his offshoots. Silence in the face of heresy is a crime of the gravest betrayal. Any Orthodox bishop, priest, or theologian who participates in “global prayer meetings” with Papists and Protestants is not merely “naïve” — he is a betrayer of Apostolic Succession, an adulterer of the Church, and a legitimizer of pseudo‑ecclesiology.

C. The invocation of Saint Maximus the Confessor as a “model of dialogue” is theologically misleading and dangerous. Maximus fought every heresy with an uncompromising confession of the truth and with theological argumentation—not with handshakes, symbolic associations, or equal negotiations with heretical Churches. Any dialogue that places on equal footing or creates a false sense of “understanding” with Churches that have departed from patristic truth constitutes cooperation with delusion, legitimization of heresy, and an essential apostasy from the confessional ethos of Orthodoxy. Saint Maximus did not “dialogue” with the Monothelites—he crushed them, anathematized them, and preferred the cutting out of his tongue and exile rather than communion with heresy. The comparison of today’s ecumenistic cowardice with the bravery of the Confessor is a slander against his Blood. Saint Maximus did not seek “common ground” with Pyrrhus or Macarius of Antioch; he deposed them, denounced them, and regarded them as alienated from Christ.

D. Orthodox dialogue cannot legitimize or even give the impression of equality with dogmas that violate the apostolic tradition; every such attempt turns economia into an instrument of theological betrayal and undermines the integrity of the faith which the Fathers defended with blood and word.

Contemporary ecumenist practice, when invoking Saint Maximus as a model, slanders the confessional rigor of the Church and confuses theological truth with symbolic or political handshakes, risking the surrender of the body of faith to delusion under the guise of “dialogue.”

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/02/blog-post_2.html