Sunday, March 1, 2026

Encomiastic Homily on Saint Meletios (+381), Patriarch of Antioch

by St. John Chrysostomos, Patriarch of Constantinople (+407) [1]

 

 

1. Casting my eyes in every direction upon this sacred company, and seeing the entire city present here, I do not know whom to pronounce blessed first: the holy Meletios, who enjoys such great honor even after death, or your love, because you show such great good will towards your Shepherds even after their decease. For blessed is he, that he was able to bequeath such affection to all of you; [2] blessed are you also, that, after receiving the legacy of his love, you have hitherto persisted in preserving it intact for him who entrusted it to you. The fifth year has already passed since he departed to Jesus, for Whom he yearned, and it is as though having seen him yesterday and the day before that you have drawn near to him today with such ardent love. He is to be envied for this reason, that he begot such sons; you, too, are to be envied, because it fell to your lot to have such a father. The root is noble and admirable, but the fruits of the root are also worthy thereof. For, just as an admirable root, when hidden in the bosom of the earth, while not itself visible, yet displays the strength of its virtue through its fruits, so also the blessed Meletios, who is concealed in this casket, is not himself manifest to us through the eyes of the body, but exhibits the strength of his Grace through you, his fruits. Even if we are silent, the Feast alone and the fervor of your zeal suffice to proclaim more brilliantly than a trumpet the love of the holy Meletios for his children. For he so enkindled your minds to love of him that you feel warmth at his mere name and are aroused at the mention of it.

This is why I now constantly insert this name into my discourses, not casually, but purposefully and in earnest. And, just as someone fashioning a golden crown, who then inserts pearls into it, makes the diadem more splendid through the abundance of precious stones, so I, too, plaiting today a garland of praises for this blessed head, weave into my discourse the constant mention of his name as a profusion of pearls, hoping thereby to render him more beloved and illustrious. For such is the rule, and such is the wont, of those who love, that they embrace the mere names of those whom they love and feel warmth at their very mention; such has also been your experience in the case of this blessed man. When you welcomed him upon his entrance into the city for the first time, each of you called his own son by his name, reckoning, every one of you, that through this appellation you would introduce the Saint into your own home; and mothers, passing over fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors, applied the name of the blessed Meletios to the children that they bore. For the desire for piety overcame nature, and the children born were thenceforth dear to their parents not only from natural affection but also on account of their attitude toward that appellation. Indeed, they reckoned this name to be the adornment of the family, the security of the house, salvation for those who invoked it, and the assuagement of yearning. And just as certain persons sitting in darkness, once a torch has been lit, light many lamps and each brings one into his own home; so also, when that name arose in the city as a kind of light, each person, as though lighting a lamp, then brought the name of that blessed man into his own home, eliciting as it were a treasury of countless good things through this appellation. Indeed, what took place was a lesson in piety. For, being constantly compelled to remember that name and to hold that Saint in their souls, they regarded his name as a means of warding off every irrational passion and thought. Thus did it happen frequently, that this name resounded everywhere—at crossroads, in marketplaces, in fields, and on streets. You were not thus affected only in regard to so great a name, but also in regard to the very form of his body. What you did in the case of names, this you also did in the case of his image. In the bezels of rings, on seals, on drinking-vessels, and on the walls of chambers, and in all kinds of places many people inscribed that sacred image, so that they not only heard that holy name but also saw the form of his body everywhere, receiving a twofold consolation from his banishment.

For when he first entered [the city] he was immediately expelled, being driven out therefrom by the enemies of the truth. God permitted this, wishing to show at the same time both his virtue and your courage. When he entered, like Moses into Egypt, he freed the city from heretical error and excised the rotten and incurable members from the rest of the body, restoring its health intact to the multitude of the Church. But the adversaries of the truth, not enduring this correction, stirred up the emperor at that time and had him ejected from the city, expecting thereby to prevail over the truth and to overturn what he had rectified. There occurred the opposite of that they expected: indeed, rather was your zeal displayed and his expertise as a teacher resplendently demonstrated: the latter, in that in thirty days—and those not in their entirety—he was able to ground you in zeal for the Faith so much that that doctrine remained unshaken even when innumerable [evil] spirits thereafter attacked; and your fervor was shown forth in that in thirty days—and those not in their entirety—you received the seeds that he had sown with such assiduity that your roots reached a depth of understanding and you thenceforth gave in to none of the temptations that assailed you.

2. It is also worth our while not to pass over what happened during this persecution. For while the governor of the city was departing in his chariot through the middle of the marketplace, having made the Saint sit next to him, showers of stones were hurled from all directions at the governor’s head, the people of the city being unable to bear the separation and choosing rather to be deprived of the present life than to see that holy man being dragged away. So what did that blessed man then do? Seeing the volleys of stones, he shielded the governor’s head by throwing his own garments around him, at the same time both shaming his enemies by his exceeding meekness and teaching his disciples how much forbearance they ought to display toward those who wronged them and that it behooved them not only not to do such people any evil but also, should danger come upon them from others, to repel this, too, with all zeal. Who did not shudder then, seeing the ardent [3] love of the people and being awestruck by the extreme self-restraint of their teacher and his forbearance and meekness? The events that occurred at that time defied all expectation. The Shepherd was driven away, and yet the sheep were not scattered; the helmsman was cast out, and yet the ship was not sunk; the husbandman was chased away, and yet the vineyard still yielded fruit. For since you were bound together with one another by the bond of love, neither onsets of temptations, nor uprisings of dangers, nor the length of the journey, nor duration of time, nor anything else was able to separate you from fellowship with your blessed Shepherd. Now, he was expelled, so that he would be far away from his children, but the opposite occurred. Yes indeed, he was bound closely to you by the bonds of love, and he departed to Armenia taking the whole city with him. For although his body was firmly planted in his fatherland, [4] his thoughts and his mind, upborne as it were on the wings of the Grace of the Spirit and ever visiting you, bore this entire populace in his inward parts, as you also have experienced. For, though residing here and being confined by the city, yet taking flight to Armenia each day in a spirit of love and beholding his holy countenance and hearing his most sweet and blessed voice, you thus return again. It is for this reason that God permitted him to be driven at once from the city, that He might, as I just said, exhibit the firmness of your faith to the foes that war against you and his expertise in matters of doctrine.

And this is clear from the fact that when he returned after his first persecution, he stayed here not just for thirty days, but for months, and for a year—one year, two years, and more. For since you gave sufficient proof of your firmness in the Faith, God gave you leave to delight once again in your Father. It was indeed the greatest delight to revel in that holy countenance. For not only when teaching or speaking, but also when simply beheld, was he capable of introducing all manner of instruction concerning virtue into the souls of those who saw him. When he returned to you and the entire citizenry went forth to meet him, some came close to him, grasped his feet, kissed his hands, and heard his voice, while others, impeded by the throng and able to see him only from afar, receiving as it were sufficient blessing from the sight of him and having no less than those close to him, thus went away completely satisfied. And that which happened with the Apostles also happened in his case. For just as, in the case of the Apostles, when their shadows spread and touched those far away, all who were unable to approach or draw near to them drew to themselves the same Grace and went away similarly healed; [5] so also even now, all who were unable to approach, because they sensed a kind of spiritual glory that was emitted from that holy head and which reached those at the furthest remove, went away filled with every blessing from the mere sight of him.

3. Since it seemed good to the common God of all to call him henceforth from the present life and to place him in the choir of the Angels, not even this took place coincidentally, but rather the letter of a king summoned him, God having moved the Emperor thereto. The letter summoned him not to a place close by, but to Thrace itself, so that Galatians, Bithynians, Cilicians, and Cappadocians, and all who dwell near Thrace, might learn of our blessings; [6] so that the Bishops throughout the world, perceiving his holiness as it were in an archetypal image and receiving from him a clear example of ministry according to this principle, might have a sure and most manifest rule by which to administer and govern the Churches. [7] For on account of the size of the city and because the Emperor resided there, many Bishops then streamed thither from many parts of the inhabited earth. All the Bishops of the Churches were summoned thither by imperial letter in order that the Churches, recovering from a long and tempestuous war, might receive a beginning of peace and tranquillity. This man also arrived there at that time. And, just as in the case of the three youths, when they were about to be heralded and crowned, having quenched the power of the fire, having trampled upon the pride of the tyrant, and having confuted every form of impiety, an audience from the whole inhabited earth sat before them (for the satraps, prefects, and governors were summoned from everywhere on earth for another reason, but became spectators of those athletes); so also did it happen that a splendid audience assembled for the blessed Meletios. Though summoned for a different reason, the Bishops who administered the Churches throughout the world arrived and beheld that saintly man. When they saw him and accurately discerned his piety, his wisdom, the zeal of his faith, and all the virtue befitting a Priest made perfect in him, then God called him to Himself.

This happened so that our city might be spared. For if he had given up the ghost here, the weight of the calamity would have been unbearable. Who, indeed, would have been able to endure seeing that blessed man breathing his last? Who could have endured seeing those eyelids being closed and his mouth being shut as it uttered his last wishes? Who, on seeing such things, would not have become distraught at the magnitude of the calamity? Therefore, lest this happen, God provided that he expire in a foreign land, so that, having prepared for the catastrophe beforehand, on seeing his corpse entering the city, we might not be stricken in spirit, our minds being inured to lamentation. This is, in fact, what occurred. For when the city received that holy body, it mourned in this way and lamented greatly; but it swiftly put an end to its mourning, both for the aforementioned reason and for one that I shall mention.

For God, in His love for mankind, taking pity on our grief, promptly appointed for us another Shepherd, one who upheld his traits with great exactitude and preserved the image of every virtue; who, after ascending the throne, forthwith divested us of our mournful raiment and extinguished our sorrow, and rather renewed the memory of the blessed Meletios. [8] Our pain faded away, while our love was kindled more intensely, and our despondency was dispelled. And yet, this is not wont to happen in the loss of those dearest to us. No, when some woman loses a beloved son or an honored husband, as long as she preserves a vivid memory of him, she nurtures grief more acutely in her soul. But when time supervenes and assuages the sorrow, the vigor of the memory is extinguished along with the severity of the anguish. However, in the case of this blessed man the opposite occurred. Despondency was completely banished, and his memory did not depart along with the sorrow, but was increased still more. You are witnesses who, after so long a time, hover like bees around a honeycomb around the body of the blessed Meletios. The cause was not natural love for him, but the reasoning of right judgment. For this reason his memory was not quenched by death or dimmed by time; rather, it is increasing and advancing to a yet greater degree, and not only in you who have seen him, but also in those who have not. The amazing thing is this, that all who were younger during his lifetime are also inflamed with the same longing. You, the elders, have this advantage over those who have not seen him, that you associated with him and enjoyed holy fellowship with him; but those who have not seen him have an advantage over you, that, not having beheld the man, they show no less longing for him than you who have seen him. Let us all pray together, rulers and ruled, women and men, the elderly and the youthful, slaves and freemen, that having acquired the blessed Meletios himself as a partner in this prayer (for his spiritual boldness is now greater and his love for us more fervent), this love may be increased for us and that we may all be vouchsafed that, just as here we are near his casket, so there too we may be close to his eternal tabernacle and obtain the good things laid up for us, to which may we all attain by the Grace and love for mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom and with Whom unto the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory and dominion, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

 

NOTES

1. This homily was translated by Archimandrite Dr. Patapios, Dean of the St. Photios Orthodox Theological Seminary. It appears here for the first time in English and is taken from the Greek original in the Patrologia Grceca, Vol. L, cols. 515-520. St. Gregory of Nyssa delivered a notable oration on St. Meletios on the occasion of his funeral, in which he called the Saint, inter alia, a “new Apostle” (P.G., Vol. XLVI, cols. 852-864; for an English translation, see The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, pp. 513-17).

2. The word that St. John uses to denote affection is “φίλτρον,” which is often used to refer to God’s love for mankind.

3. Μάνικάν: literally “mad,” “manic,” or “frenzied.” My rendition of this word rather inadequately conveys its meaning, that the people’s love for their Archpastor, like God’s love for mankind, though not irrational, is at any rate supra-rational. A bolder word in English might lead to an impious misapprehension of the Greek term.

4. St. Meletios hailed from Melitene in Armenia.

5. “[T]hey brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them” (Acts 5:15).

6. St. John means that the Emperor summoned St. Meletios to Constantinople, which is in fact situated at the easternmost edge of the region of Thrace. The Saint was summoned in 381 to the imperial city for what was to become the Second Ecumenical Synod.

7. The principle to which St. John refers is that of holiness, exemplified by St. Meletios.

8. St. John is referring, here, to Archbishop Flavian, who succeeded St. Meletios on the throne of Antioch in 381 (Theodoretos of Kyros, Ecclesiastical History, Book V, ch. 9). St. John held Archbishop Flavian in profound esteem, as can be seen in several of his homilies (see Archimandrite Cyprian, “The Place of the Bishop in the Orthodox Church,” Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVI, nos. 3-4 [1999], p. 11; also available online at http://hsir.Org/p/eyv).

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXXVI (2019), No. 1, pp. 5-11.


The Church First, All Else After

The following is taken from a sermon by His Grace, Bishop Auxentios of Photiki.

[Now His Eminence, Bishop of Etna and Portland]

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. VIII (1991), No. 4, pp. 1-2.

 

 

We are told in Scripture that, "Though the outward man perish, yet the inner man is renewed day by day" (II Corinthians 4:16). Again we read that, "...Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it" (St. Luke 9:24). We are told that there is no profit if a man should gain the whole world, yet lose his soul (St. Matthew 16:26). St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, summarizing this Scriptural teaching on the worth of the soul, tells us that it is "great ignorance" to adorn the body at the cost of the soul, which ought to have the majority of our attention and care.

In other words, the human soul is so precious that even the loss of the body for the sake of the soul pales before the unthinkable and frightful possibility of losing the soul out of excessive and unwarranted care for things worldly. Indeed, it is the soul which flourishes even as the body dies. The one priority in Christian life, then, that which rises above all other things, is our care for the human soul. And in that care, the Church, which nurtures and protects the human soul, must stand at the core of our human activity. As precious as the human soul and purchased by Divine Blood (Acts 20:28), the Church must become the focus of our worldly chores, since it serves the soul. All else must come after.

An Orthodoxy of minimalism. From all that I have said, it is obvious that we Orthodox, who claim to preserve inviolate the spirit and ethos of the Apostolic Church, cannot live a faith built on minimal commitments. To be Orthodox is to make the priorities of the soul—repentance, ascetic self-transformation, and union with God (θέωσις)— foremost in our lives and to center, focus, and concentrate all of our activities on the Church and Her self-transforming, life-giving, and deifying Mysteries. There is, for the true Christian, no other purpose in human life. All of the beauty, joy, and significance of the earthly realm are centered on and derived from the Church, through which they acquire an eternal quality, thus moving us up and away from the illusory qualities of the untransformed and unrestored world.

I once heard a fellow monastic tell an Orthodox Priest that his priorities in life should be as follows: the Church, his family, and his secular profession. With some astonishment, I saw the Priest object to this formula, maintaining that his Priesthood had to be integrated into these other pursuits. He in fact measured his Priesthood in terms of its minimal demands on his other activities. This Priest is certainly not alone in his misunderstanding of the nature of the Church, if only because it rests on a general misunderstanding of the Christian life.

We work in the world in order to sustain the body, so that it can serve God. If we avail ourselves of the comforts of the world, we do so in order to make more time for the spiritual life and to lift ourselves up above the curse of labor and toil that has befallen us in our imperfect state. If we have families, this is for the purpose of raising up our children for service to the Church. And if we are married and have the physical love of another human being, this love is only ultimately fulfilled when, as a mere image of our union in love with God, it prompts us to seek God and to share such limited and selfish family love with others.

If we have a profession, then this profession should always be understood as service to God. If it provides us with food and shelter, so that we have greater time for the Church, then it is God-pleasing. If our professions have provided us with education and learning, we must not use these gifts to exalt ourselves—indeed, no truly learned man is puffed up with what he knows, but is humbled by the mountain of things which he has come to realize that he does not know—; rather, we must let our education adorn the Church. We must sacrifice it to the Church. And if our earthly work brings us fame, fortune, or prestige, then we must surrender these things to the Church also, using what has come to us to help others come to the Church.

If we can live a life of celibacy, solitude, and sacrifice—even if only after trials and at the cost of our dreams about life and success in the world—, then we are obligated to seek this highest service to the Church: one of angelic purity in the monastic life. If God has, by His Grace, given us a healthy understanding of our own sexuality and has directed the desires of the flesh to serve the inner spiritual yearning of mankind for God, then we must heed the call of God, lay aside the fleeting and illusory priorities of the world, and follow Him. All else must follow after.

Every relationship in life, every responsibility in the world, and even life itself, are secondary to our service to the Church. A layman is bound by this rule, since the Royal Priesthood of believers exists in its exaltation of the new life that God has given us, one which demands that we put aside the life of sin and of the world and give ourselves over wholly to the needs of the soul and God's Church. A Priest is not only bound by this rule, but it is his task to exemplify it. If the household of the Church functions primarily to serve God, the servants of that household, the clergy, forego even the privileges of the household in order to bind themselves to God.

In minimalism, there is no Orthodoxy, as Father Georges Florovsky has so clearly said.

The soul and the Church are priorities which relegate all other things to a secondary or even tertiary place in genuine Christian life.

The practical life of Orthodox maximalism. We see in so-called "official" Orthodoxy—that is, an Orthodoxy which, on account of its deviation from a spirituality of commitment, is recognized by the heterodox and by the world—something which is neither official, nor genuine nor truly Orthodox. We see an Orthodoxy which has set aside fasting. (Indeed, not only do many Orthodox modernists reject the canonical foundations of our fasting traditions, but many so-called "Western Rite" Orthodox—and without reputable historical justification—have wholly dispensed with fasting as something "Eastern.") We see an Orthodoxy reduced to Vespers, Matins, and Liturgy on weekends—if that! We see an Orthodoxy in which worship during Great Week—one week out of the year!—has become too great a burden. Even Pascha, the Feast of Feasts, is made into a folk feast attached to the fewest possible hours of worship.

The modernists would tell us that their jobs, their families, and the "modern world" place demands on them that necessitate this kind of spiritual minimalism. In fact, however, the practical concerns of daily life must be approached from the standpoint of the Orthodox maximalism to which we have referred—from the perspective of a Faith which meets the demands of the soul and the Church, not those of the world.

Thus, if one's job or one's earthly pursuits impede, rather than accommodate and serve, the priorities of the spiritual life, it is the former pursuits which must be put aside, not the latter priorities. One should ideally hold employment which allows attendance at Church not only on weekends, but on major Holy Days. And certainly, one should arrange to have vacation days from work correspond at least to the activities of Great Week and Pascha. Vacations from work should not be seen as occasions for leisure or travel pleasures, but as a time in which one's service to the Church can be increased or when pilgrimages to monasteries and holy places can be arranged. If one's employment precludes this, then he should seek another livelihood. And if this means a decrease in one's standard of living— well, better a life lived in poverty than an eternity spent in spiritual deprivation.

The family must never place its aims and aspirations at odds with spiritual renewal and the life in Christ. It must to the maximum limit seek those things of God, even if it means that children forego worldly success and recognition. For if it profits a man nothing to lose his soul and gain the world, of what profit to any family are successful children who, in bonding themselves to goals and desires of the world, have alienated themselves from God? Of what profit a family which all of mankind admires but God and the eternal hosts lament?

As for the "modern world," let us remember the teachings of Christ about the Christian and this world: "...Ye are not of this world" (St. John 15:19), a world of evil, we are told, to which a Christian must not be conformed (Romans 12:2). And if it is true, as it is, that Jesus Christ is the same "yesterday, today, and unto the ages" (Hebrew 13:8), it is equally true that the evil world of yesteryear is the same evil world in which we live today and which to tomorrow's "modern world" will be yet another yesteryear. Orthodox maximalism places a priority on the needs of the soul and the Church, two eternal things that are far removed from the vicissitudes, whims, or wants of any single age. The practical realization of the faith in its fullness demands of today's man what it did of yesterday's and what it will of tomorrow's.

The one priority. The salvation of the soul, victory over sin, and union with God, we have said, are the goals of human life. In attaining these goals, fasting, prayer, and separation from the world (the good work of God's peculiar people [Titus 2:14])— that is, the life of the Church—must guide us and must be foremost in our minds. If we attend to the soul first and make the center of our activities the ascetic practices of the Church, the world must of necessity come second. The world lies in sin and self-indulgence, whereas the Church teaches self- discipline and ascetic struggle. The world corrupts and stains the soul, while the Church restores it and cleanses it from stain. The union of man with God, the priority of the soul in Christian life, stands on the foundation of commitment to the Church.

This one priority must never be clouded by the priorities of fallen human life. If, in the name of ecumenical love and union with our fellow man, we set aside the exactitude of Church teachings, then we compromise the greater union: the union of man with God. Millions of united men have no significance before a single man united with God. For from united human beings flow forth the imperfect priorities of fallen man. But from one man united to God, there flow forth, in unceasing streams, constant exhortations that humankind return to the likeness of God, to the sinless life of eternal joy, and to the one priority in human life that renders all else meaningless. It is to this truth of the Christian Church, slandered and betrayed, that we owe faith.

 

Holy Hierarch Seraphim the Wonderworker of Sofia

The glorification of Vladyka Seraphim (Sobolev), which took place in the Cathedral Church of the Dormition of the Most-holy Theotokos in Sofia, Bulgaria, was celebrated by His Grace Photii, Bishop [now Metropolitan] of Triaditsa, leader of the Bulgarian Old-Calendar Orthodox Church, on 12/25 and 13/26 February, 2002, the anniversary of the righteous Archpastor’s repose († 1950). The following is a slightly abridged account of the saint’s life.

 

 

Archbishop Seraphim, in the world Nikolai Borisovitch Sobolev, was born in Ryazan.  His mother Maria Nikolaevna was a deeply religious person given to fervent prayer.  She bore eleven children, most of whom died at an early age.  She especially loved her little daughter Vera, an Angel from Heaven. Vera was unlike her peers, and from infancy showed remarkable spiritual potential: she loved God, often prayed, and showed remarkable kindness toward everyone. When she was three years old, her older brother Vasya contracted a fatal disease.  Hearing the news, everyone in the family was grief-stricken. Suddenly and unexpectedly, little Vera said “Mama, give me a little tea to drink.”  After drinking her tea, she turned the little cup over on its saucer and solemnly announced, “Mama, Vasya will get well, but I shall catch the disease and die.”   That is exactly what happened.  When the dying Vera saw her relatives weeping bitterly over her, the little three-year-old gently comforted them, saying, “Why should you be crying?  You should be praying to God.”  Then, like an Angel, she peacefully departed to the Lord.  Her mother's grief was boundless. She fervently implored God to comfort her with another child that would remind her of Vera. And lo, three years later, in 1881, little Kolya was born.  He was endowed by God with a soul unusual for its sensitivity and love for others.

[Like Vera,] Kolya was different from his peers.  Affectionate and sympathetic toward others’ pain, the little boy had a nature serious beyond his years.  After graduating from the religious school in 1900, he enrolled in the Ryazan Seminary; thereafter he continued his religious studies at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy (1904-1908).  Here in 1907, his final year, he was tonsured a monk taking the name Seraphim in honor of the great miracle worker of Sarov.

Fervent, grace-filled love for the Savior animated and inspired the young Nikolai Sobolev from his earliest years, profoundly permeating his being and becoming the moving force for his entire life. Later, Vladyka was to write in his homilies, “The entire purpose of and joy in our life rests in our love for God, in our love for Christ [as shown] by our keeping His Divine Commandments.”

Even before monastic tonsure, Nikolai Sobolev, ever faithful to that love for Christ, strove to avoid giving any manner of offense to the Savior, Who had shed His precious Blood for us. Setting out on his monastic path, the young monk Seraphim intensified his spiritual struggle, [subjecting himself to] strict fasting, and striving in ceaseless prayer.  The Savior’s words “…for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me…” (John 14: 30), profoundly touched his soul, and became the foundation for his constant internal activity. He carefully protected his heart from any sin, no matter how tiny, and daily prayed the words of the Psalmist, “Create in me a clean heart, O God. (Ps: 50:12 [KJV 51:10]); in that spiritual struggle, he would always sense God’s grace-filled help.

Vladyka Seraphim greatly valued the instructions and good examples provided to him by his contemporaries, luminaries of piety of the great Russian land. Before he had accepted monastic tonsure, he visited the famous pastor of Kronstadt, Archpriest Fr. John Sergiev, several times. Especially significant was his visit in the Spring of 1907, when he and a friend were present while Fr. John served in the St. Andrew Cathedral in Kronstadt.  He had already said goodbye to Fr. John, and was walking past the High Place in the principal Altar, when the great righteous one, hurrying from a side-chapel toward him like one moved by some special, grace-filled inspiration, stopped him and, putting his hands crosswise on the head of the future Vladyka, stated, “May God’s blessing rest upon you.”  At those words, it was as if a fiery spark moved through Nikolai’s body, and his entire being was filled with a great incomparable joy that remained with him for the entire day.

Later, after he was assigned assistant inspector of the religious school in Kaluga, he would often go to Optina Hermitage, where he confessed before Elders Joseph and Barsanophius, and where Fr. Anatoly (Potapov), who nourished particular love for him, became his spiritual director.

From his earliest years of education at the seminary, reading of patristic literature and the lives of the saints of God became his favorite activity.  He would call the lives of the saints grace-filled rain that refreshes, encourages, and brings joy to the soul. Vladyka would say, “Reading the lives of the saints, it was as if I found myself in Heaven.”

Eleven times over the course of his life, he read, with undiminished zeal and compunction of heart, the entire 12-volume collection of the Lives of the Saints compiled by Holy Hierarch St. Dimitry of Rostov. Cultivating in the depths of his soul fervent love for the holy saints of God, he would constantly call upon them in prayer.  In his teachings and homilies, he would often cite shining examples from their holy and God-pleasing lives. Vladyka would say to his spiritual children, “When we die, we will come to understand how close to us were the Savior, the Mother of God, and all of the Saints, how they would be tolerant towards us in our weakness, and how they answered our prayers.”

Vladyka Seraphim especially loved the Most-pure Mother of God. He loved to reflect on her exalted virtues, emphasizing that they were all the fruits of Divine grace, poured out abundantly upon her on account of her great spiritual struggles.  He would speak animatedly about the profound humility of the Mother of God, who had marvelously served the Divine order and who had made possible the Incarnation of the Son of God. Vladyka fervently prayed to her daily, asking for her prayerful intercession.

Scattered about his manuscripts one may find a multitude of short prayers to the Lord, to the Heavenly Queen, and to the worthy ones of God.  “O Lord, help!” “O Mother of God, my joy, bless me to successfully begin [this] work. Cause me to rejoice,” “O my Savior, do not abandon me!” Vladyka loved to say “The Lord is near; if you let Him, He will immediately respond.” 

While still a young hieromonk, the Lord made Vladyka, who was always of such a prayerful disposition, worthy to have grace-filled spiritual gifts, something that became evident to those around him.  Thus, in 1909, when Fr. Seraphim was appointed to teach at the Pastoral Theological School in the city of Zhitomir, the school’s director, Archimandrite Gavriil (Voyevodin) – someone later to become a new martyr – perceived the grace-filled fruits of spiritual struggle possessed by the young monk, and affectionately called him “Avvotchka” [an affectionate diminutive for Abba, Father – Ed.].

From early childhood, Vladyka had possessed unusual humility. One of the top students in school, and distinguished in the Seminary and the Academy for his excellent compositions, he always manifested exceptional modesty. Subsequently, his spiritual life developed and improved in him that fundamental Christian virtue. In all his works and endeavors, and with a profound sense of personal unworthiness, he sought God’s help, and he sincerely ascribed all of his successes to God alone.

Thus in the very beginning of the manuscript of his most important work, written to oppose the heresy of Sophianism, a work displaying the full depth of his theological erudition, is Vladyka’s handwritten note, “O Lord, O Mother of God, O My Guardian Angel, O St. Nicholas the Worthy One, O St. Seraphim of Sarov, I do not place my hope in my own powers; I feel that I am a dull-witted person. Help me to thoroughly criticize the teachings of Fr. Bulgakov.  O Lord, fulfill in me Thy words, ‘My strength is made perfect in weaknesses…’”  (II Corinthians 12: 9).

Vladyka loved to talk most of all about humility – in his homilies, his religious talks and in his instructions. He taught, “Humility is the anchor of salvation, the foundation of all Christian virtues.”  When Vladyka would talk in Church about the spiritual life, it was as if his words would lift his listeners up to Heaven, and would light within their hearts the flame of Divine grace.  Once, during a Divine Service at which he was serving, a certain little girl exclaimed, “Vladyka, you smell of Paradise!”  Thus, through the lips of a babe was uttered that which is so difficult to express in words.  And more than once, after his homily on Forgiveness Sunday, before the eyes of the amazed flock, people who had been fighting for years would embrace, and with contrite hearts would ask forgiveness of one another.

What gave this unusual spiritual power to Vladyka’s homily was that it was the fruit of his personal religious experience, based on ascetic works, which Archbishop Seraphim knew so remarkably well.

Vladyka was someone of a gentle, meek disposition. According to his own words, what would distress him most were the distressing words he said to his neighbor, even if they absolutely had to be said.  That good shepherd possessed unusual love for his neighbor.  The most amazing thing was that the more sorrows he had, the greater love he showed forth to others.  That true and sincere love poured forth from his grace-filled heart without any coercion.  He would say to his spiritual children:

“You have to see in your brother an Angel, and you have to look upon his sin as a sickness.”  “You need to distinguish the sinner from the sin.  You can hate the sin, but we must love and take pity on the person.”  “According to the Psalmist, the only ones we can hate are the enemies of God.” (See Psalm 138: 21-22 [KJV Ps. 139: 21-22]).

Archbishop Seraphim poured out his love on everyone equally. He sincerely loved Tsar Boris, the last Tsar of Bulgaria.  Whenever they met, Vladyka would not only bless him, but also would embrace and kiss him.  However, it was with the same love and sincere compassion that he would also kiss the poor before the church, generously sharing with them his extremely meager funds.

And what loftiness of soul he would manifest toward his enemies! After all, despite Vladyka’s angelic manner of life, many bore him ill will. He always replied to their evil toward him with fervent prayer for them and, on commemorating them at the Proskomedia, would take out three particles for each of them.  Even on his deathbed, when Vladyka regained consciousness and saw someone who had pained him all his life, he mustered all of his strength to embrace him, and then again lapsed into unconsciousness. It was something so natural and sincere, that it amazed all who were present.

Vladyka Seraphim’s simple candor would rise up to grace-filled heights. He would teach, “To maintain artlessness, to maintain candor, means to not allow yourself any artificiality in anything, to comport yourself before others as you do before God … To become artless: in that rests a changed life.  That is the ‘change…wrought by the right hand of the Most High…’ (Psalm 76: 11). Then you will not perish, for simple artlessness is humility, and God rests His grace upon the humble, as [He does] upon the Altar Table.”  Vladyka often repeated St. John of Kronstadt’s words, “Less complicated philosophizing, and more simple candor.”

Archbishop Seraphim was not avaricious in any way. He lived primarily on kind people’s offerings.  Until the end of his life, he rented a little, spare, apartment bereft of the most elemental conveniences. He did not have any attachment to material things, and when one of the poor would ask for some clothing, he would give away everything he had at hand.  He would say, “I am burdened by material things; they weigh upon my soul.” 

Vladyka often amazed people by his prescience and perspicacity, but he would keep [that gift] hidden except when necessary for the good of his neighbors’ souls.  Sometimes while confessing members of his flock, he would lead them toward repentance by reminding them of sins they had forgotten.  Frequently, Vladyka answered questions that were on the minds of people with whom he was talking. When they would express their amazement, he would smile and say, “It was a coincidence.”

A year before his end, he often spoke about it, and before his death he accurately foretold the day of his departure into eternity.  Already gravely ill and confined to his bed, before the opening of his Holy Protection Monastery, he would give out instructions about how it was to be set up, describing the exact location of each room.  And when the surprised nuns asked Vladyka how he knew everything without ever having been there, he replied with a smile, “Oh, really?”

Vladyka Seraphim’s grace-filled, radiant person was truly angelic in appearance.  He would always bring in with him unusual peace and quiet.  More than one, his spiritual children saw him bathed in light not of this world.  That was the manner in which he also appeared after his death to one of his spiritual children, a monk who was weeping over him.  Vladyka said to him, “Why are you weeping? After all, I have not died, I am alive!” 

Living a life of spiritual struggle, Vladyka had already, at a young age, achieved angelic chastity and purity.  From his youth, he strove after them: he imposed upon himself a strict fast, eating but once a day, and strictly obeyed all of the patristic rules of spiritual struggle in the battle with nascent thoughts of physical passions. 

While still in Russia, living in unceasing spiritual struggle, and showing restraint in all things, Vladyka contracted tuberculosis, which worsened markedly after his transfer to Bulgaria. Upon learning that his condition was almost hopeless and that he might be near death, his only regret was that he was departing this life without having achieved the dispassion he so desired.  However, in answer to his spiritual struggle, the Lord granted to His chosen one both help and consolation. Once, with child-like frankness, Vladyka poured out his sorrow before the Lord: “O Lord, Jesus Christ, You are already calling me to Yourself, while I have not yet cleansed myself of the passions!” Then he wept bitterly.  Suddenly, he heard an internal voice, as if from Christ Himself, saying “You will never fall away from Me; you will always be faithful to Me.”  After those words, an inexpressible heavenly blessedness filled his entire being. From that moment, he freed himself of the passions, and grew even more firmly strengthened in grace. 

Because of his angelic chastity, Vladyka Seraphim was endowed by the Lord with the gift of spiritual sight, the ability to penetrate into the depths of God-revealed truths.  Vladyka would often say, “Orthodox theology is directly proportional to chastity.”  All of his theological works were the fruit of his grace-endowed sight. 

Vladyka was the last bishop abroad to have been consecrated in Russia, on the eve of the White Army’s departure from Crimea.   His consecration to the episcopate took place on the day of the Protection of the Most-holy Theotokos, 1/14 October 1920, in the Cathedral church in Simferopol. The consecration was performed by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who had known Fr. Seraphim as a student in the Theological Academy and who greatly valued his zealous service to the Church.  It was a source of great comfort to the young bishop that by the unfathomable will of God, a great Russian Holy Icon was present in the church during his consecration: the Miraculous Kursk-Root Icon of the Mother of God, the “Icon of the Sign” that was later to become the Indicator of the Path for the Russian Diaspora. 

In assuming the hierarchical rank, Vladyka Seraphim was profoundly aware of the full responsibility attendant to serving as a bishop, and the archpastor’s duty “to be a grace-filled light for the world and a firm bulwark for all Orthodox Christians.” [Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev). Homilies, Sofia, 1944, p. 3.].  Throughout his life, he was ruled by that sense of duty and responsibility before the Holy Church. Aware of the prevalent apostasy of our times that threatened the Orthodox Faith, he labored a great deal in the field of hierarchical service to preserve the Orthodox Faith in all its purity. Following the dictates of his archpastoral conscience, he unstintingly and without compromise denounced any deviation from Orthodox truth, any transgression in the realm of dogma and Church canons. Thus, his priceless theological works appeared.  Through them, he would answer troubling questions that affected in one way or another not only the Russian Diaspora, but the entire Catholic [Soborny/Conciliar] Orthodox Church. 

Having dedicated his entire life to Christ and the defense of the purity of Holy Orthodoxy, Vladyka Seraphim was always steadfast, straightforward, and courageous. While yet a student of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, during student assemblies he alone protested against revolutionary resolutions made by the students. In Sofia, Vladyka waged a courageous battle with Russian émigré Masonic organizations, whose active members brought him much grief and troubles through their actions and slander. 

At a Conference of Russian scholars held in Sofia in 1930, he publicly condemned those scholars who considered it unnecessary to maintain the Orthodox Faith as the foundation of their scholarly opinions.

In 1935, in his major theological work The New Teaching About Sophia, the Holy Wisdom of God, he zealously served the Holy Orthodox Church by denouncing the Sophianist Heresy, held by Fr. S. Bulgakov and Fr. Pavel Florensky.  In it, he showed himself to possess great knowledge and understanding of patristic teachings and Orthodox tradition. [Publication of Archbishop Seraphim’s books was financed by Stoyan Velichkov, a manufacturer who on more than one occasion had personally experienced the righteous Vladyka’s prayerful assistance.] At a clergy-laity Sobor of the Russian Church Abroad held in 1938, he gave several brilliant talks in defense of Holy Orthodoxy, including one directed against the ecumenical movement.  Attending the Sobor was the young Bishop John of Shanghai, now glorified by the Holy Church; he voted in support of Vladyka’s lecture with both hands. 

(…) In 1943, scrupulously watching for the slightest deviation from Orthodox patristic theology, he published his work Distortion of Orthodox Truth in Russian Theological Thought.  In 1944, some of Vladyka’s homilies were published for the first time. 

Vladyka Seraphim also showed his zealous dedication to and unwillingness to compromise in the defense of, Orthodox truth, at a Moscow Conference in 1948. Taking to heart all of the questions troubling the Holy Church, he prepared three lectures from among the four topics offered for consideration: against the ecumenical movement, about the new and old calendars, and about the Anglican hierarchy. Vladyka Seraphim considered the Conference resolution with respect to the new calendar unsatisfactory, and he expressed his dissatisfaction in a “special opinion” (which unfortunately was not mentioned in the Conference Proceedings). In his talk in opposition to ecumenism, he emphasized the idea that the presence of Orthodox representatives at ecumenical conferences even as observers was a deviation from Holy Orthodoxy.

And like awarding a crown for his uncompromising service to the Holy Orthodox Church, the Lord made Archbishop Seraphim worthy of a righteous repose on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, 13/26 February, 1950.

Over 50 years have passed since the death of the worthy hierarch, and an unending stream of people continues to come to his grave in the Russian Church of St. Nicholas in Sofia.  In faith, they ask his help, and they receive it.  Thus the words of the Lord have been fulfilled in him, “Them that honor me I will honor.” (I Kings 2: 30 [KJV I Samuel 2: 30]).

 

© Women’s Monastery of the Protection of the Most-holy Theotokos — Knyazhevo, Sofia

The Orthodox Ecclesiology of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy and the Ecclesiology of the Council of Crete

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | March 01, 2026

 

 

Brief and necessary elements concerning the ecclesiology of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy

The text of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy is an apologetic and dogmatic confession of the Church. It is not simply a festive celebration, but a clear condemnation of all false knowledge (I Tim. 6:20). The Church characterizes this day as a “due annual thanksgiving to God,” because the victory of the truth was not achieved by military power or human wisdom, but by divine energy, as this was manifested in our Venerable Fathers. As the Apostle Paul teaches: “Stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught” (II Thess. 2:15), so also the Church neither adds nor removes anything, nor introduces innovations, but preserves with exactness that which it received from the Apostles.

The reference to the “prophetic sayings,” the “apostolic exhortations,” and the “evangelical narratives” reveals the unbroken unity of divine Revelation. What the Prophets saw, what the Apostles taught, and what the Church formulated dogmatically in the Ecumenical Councils are one and the same. Saint Basil the Great teaches that the Tradition of the Church is “the living voice of the apostolic teaching,” while Saint Gregory the Theologian emphasizes that the truth has no need of violence, but shines by itself and consumes error.

A central point of the text is the confession of the Incarnation of God the Word. Since “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), the depiction of Christ is not a simple symbol, but a confession of His real incarnation. Saint John of Damascus teaches that “the honor of the icon passes to the prototype,” explaining the distinction between worship, which belongs to God alone, and the honorary veneration rendered to the Saints. This distinction was dogmatically established by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which condemned those who deny the veneration of the Holy Icons.

The phrase “The prophets as they saw, the apostles as they taught, the Church as she received, the teachers as they formulated, the universe as it agreed” expresses the unity of the plan of salvation. Grace was manifested, the truth was proven, and falsehood was abolished. The Church does not create a new faith, but guards the deposit (I Tim. 6:20) which established the universe. As the Apostle Paul confesses: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith” (II Tim. 4:7).

Anathema against the contemporary heresies

The text culminates in the proclamation: “This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Orthodox.” Orthodoxy is not a human ideology, but the living experience of the Holy Spirit, who acts unceasingly within the Church.

In contrast to this faith, the following are anathematized:

First, the Ecumenists, who deny that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. They confuse truth with falsehood, saying that “all religions lead to the same God.” Thus, they deny the unique Savior Jesus Christ, who said: “I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).

Second, the Catholics (Papists), who introduce novelties into the faith by inserting the “Filioque” into the Symbol of Faith. They deny the essence of God with their own teaching concerning “uncreated energies” and accept that the Pope is infallible. This is an insult against the Holy Spirit, who is the only guardian of the truth.

Third, the Protestants, who deny the Tradition of the Church, the Holy Icons, the intercession of the Saints, and the Divine Liturgy. They have “a form of godliness, but deny its power” (II Timothy 3:5). The Council of Crete supported the liturgical theology, which is the heart of the Orthodox tradition.

Fourth, the Monophysites and Monothelites, who deny the perfect humanity of Christ.

Fifth, all the new heresies, which deny the uncreated divine energy, which view God as a metaphysical “being,” and which sever theology from theosis. As Saint Gregory Palamas condemned Barlaam the Calabrian, so also do we.

 

The Orthodox Ecclesiology of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy and the Ecclesiology of the Council of Crete

 

A. The denial of the uniqueness of the Church

The Synodikon of Orthodoxy proclaims: “This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Orthodox.” The Council of Crete, on the contrary, speaks of “churches” in the plural, as if the one Church were divided into “catholic orthodox churches.” They deny the mystery of unity, as the Apostle Paul taught: “One body, one Spirit” (Eph. 4:4).

The Council of Crete replaced the ecclesiology of communion with an ecclesiology of dialogue, as if the Church were not the Body of Christ, but an inter-parliamentary union of religious groups. This is an insult against the Spirit, who unites the Church into one Body.

B. The confusion of truth with falsehood

The Synodikon condemns those who deny the veneration of the Icons, the iconoclasts, as deniers of the Incarnation. The Council of Crete condemned no heresy, but called the Papists, the Protestants, and the Monophysites to “dialogue,” as if falsehood were not deadly, but an opinion open to discussion.

The Council dogmatized: “The Orthodox churches recognize one another as parts of the one Church.” This is falsehood; the Church is not a confederation of parts, but the fullness of Christ. As Saint Maximus the Confessor teaches: “The Church is the full Christ,” not an assembly of autonomous local identities.

C. The denial of the exclusivity of salvation

The Synodikon confesses: “I have fought the good fight, I have kept the faith” (II Tim. 4:7). The Council of Crete refused to confess that “there is no other salvation except that which is in Christ.” The text “The Mission of the Orthodox Church” speaks of an “encounter with other Christian churches,” as if heresies were not cut off from life, but merely “lacking in fullness.”

This is a new heresy, which prepares union with Papism through the denial of uniqueness. As the Seventh Ecumenical Council condemned those who deny veneration, so also we condemn those who deny the uniqueness of salvation within the Church.

D. The texts that were signed at the conferences of Busan (2013), Toronto (2014), Porto Alegre (2015), and Balamand (2016) constitute a preparation for the Council of Crete and deviate from the ecclesiology of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy.

Below we analyze the principal differences.

D.1 The unity of the Church

The Synodikon confesses: “This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Orthodox.” It speaks of one Church, unified and indivisible.

The texts of Busan–Toronto–Porto Alegre–Balamand continually speak of “churches” in the plural. They use terms such as “catholic orthodox churches,” “local churches,” and “autocephalous churches.” This shows that they have lost the sense of the one Church, as though the Church were a confederation of independent groups, and not one Body with one Head, Christ.

At Busan (2013) it is stated that the “Orthodox churches” are “parts of the one Church.” This is incorrect. The Church is not divided into parts. It is the fullness of Christ, as Saint Maximus the Confessor says.

D.2 The relationship with the heresies

The Synodikon clearly condemns the heresies. It anathematizes the iconoclasts, the deniers of the Incarnation. It leaves no room for compromise with falsehood.

The texts of the conferences avoid speaking about heresies. They use courteous terms for the Papists and the Protestants. At Toronto (2014) they speak of “other Christian communities” and “sister churches.” At Porto Alegre (2015) they refer to “common witness” with those who do not possess the Orthodox faith.

This is a betrayal of Tradition. Christ said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). These texts appear to say that there are also other ways.

D.3 The hierarchy and synodality

The Synodikon recognizes the Ecumenical Council as the supreme authority. Its decisions are binding for all.

The texts of the conferences promote a new concept of “synodality.” They state that all “local churches” have equal rights. At Toronto it is mentioned that “no church has the right to impose upon another.” This means that they abolish the common faith. Each “church” may do whatever it wishes.

This is anarchy, not ecclesiastical order. The Church is not a democracy in which truth is decided by vote. Truth is revealed by God, not determined by majorities.

D.4 Salvation

The Synodikon is clear: “I have kept the faith” (II Timothy 4:7). We preserve the faith that was handed down, without additions.

The texts of the conferences open the door to syncretism. At Balamand, they speak of “dialogue with other religions,” as if it does not matter whether someone is Christian or not. At Porto Alegre they refer to “common values” with atheists and idolaters.

This is a denial of Christ. The Apostle Peter said: “There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). These texts appear to say that there are also other names.

E. The World Council of Churches and the Synodikon of Orthodoxy

The World Council of Churches (WCC) was present at the Council of Crete with observers. This in itself is a scandal. The Synodikon of Orthodoxy does not recognize “observers” from heretical groups. It anathematizes heresies; it does not invite them to observe.

The General Secretary of the WCC, Olaf Fykse Tveit, was present at the proceedings. The WCC represents 350 “churches,” including Protestants, Papists, Monophysites, and even heretical groups that do not recognize the Holy Trinity. His presence constituted a profanation of the council.

The Council of Kolymbari (2016) accepted the World Council of Churches (WCC) and its decisions. It included among its topics the relationship of the Orthodox Church with the World Council of Churches. In the text “The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World,” the Council:

• Confirmed the participation of the Orthodox Church in the ecumenical movement and specifically in the WCC, on the basis of the Toronto Statement (1950).

• Warmly welcomed the work of the WCC’s Faith and Order Commission, noting that it “follows with particular interest its theological contribution up to the present day.”

• Recognized the significant participation of Orthodox theologians in the theological texts of the Faith and Order Commission.

E.1 The common ecclesiology of the WCC and the Council of Crete

The WCC is based on a specific ecclesiology: all “churches” are parts of an invisible unity. There is not one true Church, but many “churches” which complement one another.

The Council of Crete adopted this ecclesiology. It speaks of “catholic orthodox churches” in the plural. It states that the “Orthodox churches” recognize one another as “parts of the one Church.” This is the language of the WCC, not of the Synodikon.

The Synodikon says: “This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Orthodox.” One faith, one Church. The WCC and the Council of Crete say: many faiths, many churches, which meet at certain common points.

E.2 The denial of uniqueness

The WCC does not believe that Orthodoxy is the only true Church. It holds that all “churches” possess portions of the truth.

The Council of Crete did not dare to state that Orthodoxy is the only salvation. The text “The Mission of the Orthodox Church” speaks of “dialogue with other Christian churches,” as though the Papists and the Protestants were “churches” having some relationship with Christ.

The Synodikon is clear: those who deny the faith of the Apostles are outside the Church. Christ said: “No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). The WCC and the Council of Crete say: many come to the Father by many ways.

E.3 The replacement of confession with dialogue

The Synodikon is a confession. We confess the faith; we do not negotiate it.

The WCC is based on dialogue. Everything is discussed; nothing is considered given.

The Council of Crete adopted the logic of dialogue. It condemned no heresy. It did not confess the uniqueness of Orthodoxy. On the contrary, it speaks of “common witness,” “common ministry,” and “cooperation” with those who do not believe in Orthodoxy.

This is BETRAYAL. The holy Fathers did not “cooperate” with heretics. They called them to repentance. The Council of Crete calls them to “dialogue,” as though they were equals.

E.4 The secularization of the Church

The WCC is concerned primarily with social issues: poverty, the environment, rights, and peace. These are good, but they are not the work of the Church.

The Council of Crete followed this line. Its texts speak extensively about “social justice,” “protection of creation,” and “interreligious dialogue.”

The Synodikon honors the Holy Icons, worship, and the living Tradition. The Council of Crete, under the influence of the WCC, transformed the Church into a Non-Governmental Organization.

Conclusion

The Council of Crete, according to its critics, synodically introduced the “Pan-heresy of Ecumenism” through the following critical decisions:

Recognition of heresies as Churches, in violation of the article of the Symbol of Faith, “In One … Church.”

Acceptance of Papism without requiring repentance for its dogmatic errors (filioque, primacy).

Recognition of the WCC and of the ecclesiology of the “equality of confessions.”

Alteration of the concept of baptism, through the recognition of the validity of the baptism of heretics.

Condemnation of the anti-ecumenists, targeting those who struggle for the defense of Tradition.

Adoption of post-patristic theology, departing from the ascetical experience of the Holy Fathers.

The Diocese of Raška and Prizren characterizes the Council as a “robber council” and its decisions as “ecumenist and heretical,” which were presented “cordially only to the Roman Catholics.” Professor Kyriakos Kyriakazopoulos characterizes it as a “Pseudo-Council,” which “is not an Orthodox Council, but is subject to annulment.”

The Council of Crete, regardless of the intentions of its participants, appears to constitute a turning point in the history of the Orthodox Church, with its decisions causing profound ecclesiological confusions and threatening the unity of Orthodoxy on a global level.

In contrast to the patristic faith, as confessed in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, we condemn the ecclesiology of the so-called “Holy and Great Council” of Crete (2016), which confuses truth with falsehood and sets aside the fundamental teaching concerning the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

 

GREEK BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE COUNCIL OF CRETE (2016)

1. Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos. The “Holy and Great Council” in Crete: Theological and Ecclesiological Positions

2. Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis: After the “Council” of Crete: The Cessation of Commemoration and My Judicial Prosecution

Title: Holy and Great Council: Should We Hope or Be Concerned?

3. Professor Dimitrios Tselengidis

A Brief Assessment of the “Holy and Great Council” at Kolymbari of Crete (July 2016)

A New Intervention Concerning the Pan-Orthodox Council of Crete

Professor Tselengidis was one of the three figures “through whom the pan-Orthodox ecclesiastical conscience was expressed” at the pan-Orthodox level, together with the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Fr. Theodoros Zisis.

4. Kyriakos Kyriakazopoulos, Jurist–Theologian

Evaluation of the so-called “Holy and Great Council” of Crete (2016)

The Pseudo-Council of Crete Synodically Introduced the Pan-heresy of Ecumenism

Cessation of Commemoration after the Council of Crete

Characteristic is his position: “The Council is neither valid nor automatically invalid, but is subject to annulment; that is, it may be annulled by a truly Orthodox Council.”

5. Archimandrite Pavlos Dimitrakopoulos

Title: The Council of Crete (2016): Preparation – Convocation – Decisions – Consequences, Publication: 2020

6. Journal Theodromia, Issues of 2016 (Double Issue January–June): A special issue containing texts by bishops, clergy, monks, and laypeople concerning the forthcoming Council.

Included are texts of Saint Justin Popović, Elder Daniel of Katounakia, and Fr. Philotheos Zervakos.

Issues of 2016 (Double Issue July–December):

Cover title: “Neither Holy nor Great nor a Council”

Contents in four parts:

a) Texts of Churches

b) Texts of hierarchs

c) Texts of other clergy and monks

d) Texts of laypeople

Total extent: 704 pages (Volume 18 of Theodromia).

BOOKS BY ATHONITE FATHERS AND MONKS

7. Monk Avvakoum the Athonite. Ecumenism and Orthodoxy

8. Monk Michael the Athonite. Ecumenism: The Orthodoxy of the New Age

9. Monk Nikodemos Bilalis. Ecumenism and the Change of the Paschalion

Publications: Theodromia, Thessaloniki, 2024

Preface: Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis

MEMORANDA AND OFFICIAL TEXTS [Trans. note: original numbering skips 10 and 11]

12. Holy Community of Mount Athos

Title: Memorandum Concerning the Participation of the Orthodox Church in the World Council of Churches Publication: Theodromia 10 (2008), pp. 206–272

Characterization: “Unsurpassed in historical and theological argumentation and force.”

13. Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus

Article: “That the Dialogue with the Pope Should Cease and That We Should Withdraw from the World Council of ‘Churches’” Publication: Theodromia 10 (2008), pp. 273–274.

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/03/blog-post_1.html

Encomiastic Homily on Saint Meletios (+381), Patriarch of Antioch

by St. John Chrysostomos, Patriarch of Constantinople (+407) [1]     1. Casting my eyes in every direction upon this sacred company,...