Summary of an Interview with Bishop Xenophont of the Diocese of Raška-Prizren in Exile

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | April 25, 2026

 

 

INTRODUCTION

We present… the interview of His Grace Bishop Xenophont, head of the Diocese of Raška and Prizren “in Exile.” The interview was published on April 23, 2026, on the official website of the Diocese of “Raška-Prizren in Exile.”

[https://www.eparhija-prizren.org/najlepsi-pozdrav-pod-kapom-nebeskom-hristos-vaskrse-vaskrsnji-intervju-episkopa-rasko-prizrenskog-u-egzilu-g-g-ksenofonta/]

The purpose of this presentation is not to analyze or judge the positions expressed, but to present accurately the basic positions of this particular ecclesiastical structure, as they are expressed by the Bishop himself.

The Diocese of Raška and Prizren “in Exile” constitutes a case of organized walling-off in contemporary Orthodoxy: it is a community of clergy and laity that was formed after the removal of Bishop Artemije from Kosovo in 2010. The late Bishop Artemije refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Serbia, considering that the official ecclesiastical leadership had deviated from Orthodox tradition through Ecumenism and compromise with political authority.

Bishop Xenophont presents his Diocese as a bearer of the continuity of the spiritual legacy of Saint Justin Popović and the late Artemije, insisting on the strict observance of the holy canons and on the refusal of every compromise that harms dogma. The interview covers a broad range of topics: from the internal organization and structure of the Diocese, criticism of the official ecclesiastical leadership and Ecumenism, to national issues, historical memory, and contemporary challenges such as digital control and transhumanism.

The present analysis is organized into thematic sections, following the logic of the questions that were posed, with the aim of giving a complete picture of the spiritual, ecclesiological, and social discourse of the Diocese of Raška and Prizren “in Exile.”

The interview of Bishop Xenophont is a testimony of a “lonely path.” It combines strict dogmatic vigilance with national anguish and spiritual hope. For him and his community, “Exile” is not a punishment, but the price of their freedom to remain what they regard as authentic Orthodoxy.

In the video of his interview, Bishop Xenophont of Raška and Prizren (in Exile) refers to specific patriarchs and ecclesiastical figures in the context of his criticism of Ecumenism, which he characterizes as a “pan-heresy.”

The main points of his references follow:

• Meletakis (Meletios Metaxakis): The Bishop mentions him as the person from whom the “great fall” of the Ecumenical Patriarchate began at the beginning of the twentieth century [15:38]. He accuses him of introducing a series of “innovations” and canonical offenses into the practice of the Greek Church [15:48].

• Athenagoras and Demetrios: They are characterized as continuers of Metaxakis’ line and as “active participants” in the ecumenistic movement after the Second World War [16:41]. The Bishop refers especially to their close relations with the Vatican and to their meetings with the Pope, such as the lifting of the anathemas in 1965 by Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI [16:55].

• Bartholomew: Bishop Xenophont comments on Patriarch Bartholomew’s statement that “Ecumenism is a road of no return” [18:25]. He agrees that it is indeed a road of no return, but in the sense that it leads to the “abyss” and destruction [18:32]. He even maintains that “the God of the Orthodox and the God of the Ecumenists are not the same,” regardless of the vestments they wear [18:59].

• Relationship with the Pope: He comments on Patriarch Bartholomew’s meeting with the Pope as part of a series of events in which the Roman Catholic Church uses a “softer” and “hypocritical” way of approaching the Orthodox, through love and dialogue, in order to attract the Orthodox [19:18].

More generally, Bishop Xenophont uses these examples to argue that his own ecclesiastical structure, in exile, remains the “only free Serbian authority” that preserves the purity of the faith against these ecumenistic tendencies [39:19].

THE MAIN POINTS OF THE INTERVIEW IN SECTIONS

A. THE IDENTITY OF THE DIOCESE IN EXILE

The Bishop emphasizes that their Diocese is a continuation of the spiritual legacy of Saint Justin Popović and the late Bishop Artemije, with the aim of preserving the “pure spring” of Orthodoxy. He describes the Church as a theanthropic organism and a unity of hierarchy and faithful people, and not as a simple worldly institution that must compromise with politics.

The Church is not an organization, like an NGO or a state, but a living organism, the Body of Christ. Its aim is not social welfare or political influence, but the offering of eternal life to man through his union with God.

He stresses that the Church is not only the Bishops. Without the “faithful people,” the pleroma, the hierarchy has no reason for existence. He implies that the people possess the spiritual sense to recognize when the leadership deviates from the truth. As he says, it is faith that defines the Church, and not the “seals” of worldly offices.

“Exile” as a Choice: The use of the term “in Exile” for their Diocese indicates precisely this: that they prefer to be deprived of buildings and official recognition rather than compromise their dogmatic and spiritual beliefs with the current political agenda. It is a position that emphasizes authenticity over legality, maintaining that the true Church is found where the faith is confessed correctly, even if it is under persecution.

The Structure and Functioning

Despite the lack of access to large cathedrals, the Diocese has developed significantly. There is frequent reference to “catacomb churches.” These are small churches or chapels built on private properties, where worship is conducted in the traditional manner, without alterations. He emphasizes that the heart of the Diocese is monasticism. More than 100 monks and nuns who left their monasteries in Kosovo in 2010 remain united under this structure.

The “Parasynagogue” Label

He responds to the accusation that they are a “parasynagogue” or a “sect”:

• He states that the history of the Church is full of periods in which the truth was preserved by a minority in the desert or in exile, referring to Saint Athanasius and Saint Maximus the Confessor.

• For Xenophont, his Diocese is a “free territory” of the Serbian Orthodox Church that is not controlled by political centers.

The Leadership Pyramid

After the repose of Bishop Artemije, the leadership was organized in a way that would ensure continuity. Today there is more than one bishop, such as Xenophont, Chorbishop Nicholas, and others, who share the administrative and spiritual responsibilities. Although there is a hierarchy, the Bishop emphasizes that decisions are made with fidelity to Artemije’s legacy as the guiding criterion.

The “Blessing of Poverty”

The Bishop presents their financial constraints not as a problem, but as a spiritual advantage. He maintains that the lack of wealth makes them free from political blackmail. “When you have no buildings or privileges to lose, you can speak the truth without fear.”

Support from the Faithful

The Bishop emphasizes that the Diocese in Exile survives thanks to the voluntary offerings of the faithful.

• There are no fixed salaries or financial support from the state or the Patriarchate.

• The faithful give from what little they have because they recognize in this structure the spiritual purity they are seeking.

Catacombs and Monasteries

Because of the rupture with the Patriarchate and their removal from the official churches, the Diocese is organized in “catacombs”: these are more than 40 places of worship throughout Serbia, Montenegro, and the diaspora. These churches are often chapels incorporated into homes or independent structures on private plots of land, so that they cannot be confiscated by the official Church.

The Monastic Core

The organization is chiefly monastic-centered:

• Relocation of Brotherhoods: When Artemije was removed in 2010, entire monastic brotherhoods from the monasteries of Crna Reka, Sveti Arhangeli, and others followed him.

• Diaspora: These brotherhoods became the “leaven” for the creation of the new monastic centers in exile, which function as administrative and spiritual centers for the laypeople of each region.

The Connection with the Laity

The organization is based on a very close, almost familial relationship between clergy and people. In each “catacomb,” the faithful participate actively in the maintenance and protection of the place. They use modern means—Internet, videos, and social networks—to preserve the unity of the Diocese, since its members are geographically dispersed.

Legal Status

Because they are not recognized as an “official Church” by the Serbian state, which recognizes only the Patriarchate of Serbia, they are often organized under the legal form of associations or citizens’ unions, so that they can own property and manage their places of worship without legal obstacles.

The Self-Sufficiency of the Monasteries

As he states, the heart of the Diocese is the more than 100 monks and nuns who followed them. The monastic brotherhoods work in agriculture, animal husbandry, and handicrafts in order to cover their basic needs, following the model of Orthodox monasticism, which seeks self-sufficiency. The life of the community is based on common ownership, which allows many people to survive with limited resources.

B. CRITICISM OF THE OFFICIAL ECCLESIASTICAL LEADERSHIP — THE PATRIARCHATE OF SERBIA

He criticizes the official ecclesiastical leadership, the Patriarchate of Serbia, for having become an excessively “worldly institution,” yielding to the pressures of state authority or of international embassies.

The Challenge to the Synod — the “Canonical” versus the “Legal.” He accuses the Synod in Belgrade of functioning as a political body or “corporation,” imposing penalties, such as the deposition of Artemije or the recent case of Bishop Justin, without observing ecclesiastical judicial procedures. He compares the position of his Diocese with that of Saint Maximus the Confessor, who stood alone against all the Patriarchates when they had fallen into the heresy of Monothelitism. The message is clear: “The truth is not necessarily found with the majority or the official throne.”

Their Position toward the Official Church

Xenophont makes clear that:

• It is not a schism: He maintains that they did not create a new Church, but that they temporarily withdrew from communion with the hierarchy of Belgrade for reasons of faith, because of Ecumenism.

• Preservation of the Truth: He presents his Diocese as the “secure harbor” for the faithful who do not accept ecumenistic common prayers and innovations.

Criticism of the Synod regarding Digital IDs

He sharply criticizes the official leadership of the Church of Serbia, which:

• Did not take a clear position against electronic IDs.

• He considers the Synod’s silence to be the result of its compromise with political authority.

C. CRITICISM OF ECUMENISM AND THE CONTEMPORARY HIERARCHY

1. Ecumenism as a “Pan-Heresy”

The term “pan-heresy,” which he uses, comes directly from the teaching of Saint Justin Popović. For the Bishop, Ecumenism is not an attempt at unity, but an attempt to relativize the truth. He considers that the admission that “all Christians are the same” nullifies the uniqueness of Orthodoxy. His statement that it is a “road of no return” implies that those who enter into this dialogue on terms of compromise are ultimately cut off from the tradition of the Holy Fathers.

2. The Rupture: “Another God”

His statement that “the God of the Orthodox and the God of the Ecumenists are not the same” is perhaps the harshest one in the interview.

• He maintains that if you change the dogma, that is, the way you understand God, then you worship a different entity, an “idol” fashioned by diplomacy.

• The criticism of common prayers is based on the Apostolic Canons, which forbid common prayer with heretics. For Xenophont, the violation of these canons by Patriarchs and Bishops is not a simple mistake, but a betrayal.

3. The Challenge to the Synod

Here the Bishop touches upon the issue of authority within the Church of Serbia. He accuses the Synod in Belgrade of functioning as a political body or “corporation,” imposing penalties, such as the deposition of Artemije or the recent case of Bishop Justin, without observing ecclesiastical judicial procedures.

D. NATIONAL ISSUES AND HISTORICAL MEMORY

1. The “Thorn” of Jasenovac and the Revision of History

The Bishop touches upon an extremely sensitive point for the collective memory of the Serbs, criticizing senior hierarchs of the official Church:

• He expresses his sorrow over the fact that official ecclesiastical circles, mentioning in particular Bishop Jovan of Pakrac, seem to adopt lower numbers for the victims in the Jasenovac concentration camp.

• He considers this “statistical revision” not to be scientific, but to be part of a compromise with Croatia and the Vatican, in order to normalize relations within the framework of the European prospect and ecumenical dialogue.

• He recalls the role of Aloysius Stepinac and of the Roman Catholic Church in the forced Roman Catholicization of the Serbs during the NDH, the Independent State of Croatia, emphasizing that forgetfulness of these events is dangerous.

2. The Crisis of Identity and “Serbian Sparta”

The Bishop analyzes the attempt to disconnect regions with a deep Serbian history from their roots:

• Montenegro: He comments with bitterness on how Montenegro, which historically was called “Serbian Sparta,” was led into an artificial crisis of identity. He judges the efforts to create a separate “Montenegrin language” and ethnicity as a severance from the Serbian root.

• “Divide and Rule”: Behind these developments, including autocephaly in FYROM/North Macedonia, he sees an attempt at the “regionalization” of the Serbian Church, in order to weaken the unity of the Serbian nation in the Balkans.

• “Virtual Reality”: He uses the term “virtual reality” to describe the modern world, where people are persuaded to renounce their history and their ancestors for the sake of a new global order.

3. Faith as the Guarantor of Survival

For Bishop Xenophont, the solution is not political but spiritual: “The Serbian people cannot find any other foundation except Christ... If we have betrayed the faith, which is higher than the nation, why should we not also betray the nation?” He maintains that only a return to the authentic Orthodoxy of the ancestors, the “Way of Saint Sava,” can protect the Serbs from national and spiritual assimilation.

Personal Testimonies from Krajina

As someone originating from Krajina, he refers to the events of 1991, defending the right of the Serbs to self-defense against the “revival of Ustašism” in Croatia, and denounces the fact that today the Serbs are presented everywhere as aggressors.

The Case of Bishop Justin

He comments on the recent deposition/removal of Bishop Justin, a former member of the brotherhood of Crna Reka, regarding it as yet another act of revenge by the Synod against anyone who is spiritually connected with the late Artemije.

The Regionalization of the Church

He observes a tendency to remove the term “Serbian” from state institutions, for example, “Army of Serbia,” “Post of Serbia,” instead of “Serbian Army,” and so forth, and fears that the same is being planned for the Church, through the creation of local “Orthodox Churches,” of Montenegro, Bosnia, and so forth, which will divide the Serbian people.

E. PATRIARCH PAVLE AND THE RELATIONSHIP WITH BISHOP ARTEMIJE

1. The Personal Relationship with Bishop Artemije

Xenophont emphasizes that Patriarch Pavle had a “special relationship” with Bishop Artemije. He underlines that as long as Pavle was alive, there was a protective shield around Artemije and the Diocese of Raška and Prizren.

2. Tolerance of Criticism

He mentions an interesting incident/detail: Bishop Artemije was one of the few who publicly criticized Patriarch Pavle for certain public appearances or actions of his.

• Artemije had said to him characteristically: “Your Holiness, in regard to the public appearances of public figures, we must respond publicly.”

• Xenophont notes that Patriarch Pavle, because of his spiritual stature and humility, accepted this criticism without taking it as disobedience or hostility.

3. The Patriarch as an “Obstacle” to the Persecutions

Bishop Xenophont maintains that as long as Patriarch Pavle was alive, even in advanced old age, no one from the “hostile” circles of the Synod dared to move openly against Artemije. He describes the later persecutors as people who shed “crocodile tears” at the Patriarch’s funeral, while immediately after his death, in November 2009, they began the “merciless and frenzied battle” to remove Artemije from Kosovo.

4. Spiritual Kinship

Patriarch Pavle is presented as a man who understood the ascetic and confessional nature of the struggle in Kosovo, in contrast to the “new line” followed after his death, which, according to Xenophont, was more compromising with political authority and Ecumenism.

F. THE POSITION OF PATRIARCH PORFIRIJE

Bishop Xenophont comments on Patriarch Porfirije’s statement about “love for Zagreb,” contrasting it with the situation in Kosovo. He considers such statements often empty of content and serving an ecumenistic agenda, while the Serbian people in Kosovo and Krajina feel abandoned by their spiritual leadership.

G. THE “DIGITAL” REALITY AND TRANSHUMANISM

The Bishop expresses intense concern about the direction of the modern world:

Technology and Man

• He refers to the efforts of the “rulers of the new world order” to upgrade man through technology, speaking of “Homo Deus,” the man-god, and the linking of man with the machine.

Spiritual Danger

• He considers this “improvement” of man to be a delusion aimed at removing him from his natural and God-given state, creating a “virtual reality” that replaces true life.

The Lack of Dialogue in Contemporary Society

• Labeling: He comments with bitterness that today it is very easy to “stick a label” on someone, for example “heretic,” “schismatic,” or “false,” in order to avoid substantive dialogue.

• Social Crisis: He mentions that in Serbia itself there is no dialogue either with the students who are protesting or with those who hold a different opinion, leading to a division that serves political interests.

The Legacy of the Grandfathers versus Communism

• The Damage of Communism: He maintains that Communism “infected” Serbian piety and way of life, introducing a materialistic approach that still afflicts the people.

• Return to the Roots: He urges people not to look to the “educated” people of the West or to NGOs for how they should live, but to turn back to their simple, perhaps even illiterate, great-grandfathers. They, he says, had a deep knowledge of life because they founded it on the Gospel.

The Concept of “One’s Word” and Honesty

• One’s Word as a Bond: He mentions the old popular saying that “the ox is bound by its horns, and man by his word.” He expresses sorrow that in the present age one’s word and promise have lost their value, and suspicion and deceit prevail.

H. DIGITAL CONTROL AND FREEDOM

1. Digital Control and Freedom

• He considers electronic IDs and digital surveillance systems to be tools of a new kind of “soft” totalitarianism. He believes that the concentration of all of a person’s data in one digital medium gives the system the ability to control fully the social and economic life of the individual.

• For the Bishop, the acceptance of these means is not merely a technical issue, but a gradual training of man in obedience without discernment, which ultimately harms the freedom granted to him by God.

2. Connection with Transhumanism

• He connects digital IDs with the attempt to transform man from a “person,” in the image of God, into a “number” or an “element” within a global database.

• He maintains that the digitization of identity is the first step toward the transition into a virtual reality, where man will lose contact with true spiritual life and tradition.

3. The Position of His Diocese

• The Diocese of Raška and Prizren in Exile is known for its cautious, even negative, position toward biometric documents. The Bishop implies that the faithful must be vigilant, since these systems are regarded as forerunners of a global control described in the Church’s prophecies concerning the last times.

• He indirectly criticizes the official Church for not warning the people about these dangers, but instead appearing to compromise with the state’s mandates for digitization.

4. The Spiritual Counterweight

The Bishop emphasizes that the answer to digital control is not only the refusal of documents, but spiritual fortification. If man is inwardly free and united with Christ, then no “electronic prison” can truly enslave him, although the conditions of his life will become more difficult.

Non-Acceptance of Digital IDs

Bishop Xenophont, following the strict line of the late Artemije, does not confine himself to a simple “recommendation,” but places the issue on a clearly spiritual and confessional level, implying that refusal is the consistent stance for a conscious believer.

1. “Spiritual Vigilance” as an Imperative

He does not give a simple administrative directive, but calls for resistance against what he regards as a “digital file.” The position of his Diocese is that accepting documents that contain biometric data or chips constitutes the gradual acceptance of a system that, in the future, will demand the complete submission of conscience.

2. Refusal as an Act of Freedom

• He proposes avoiding them because he considers the digital ID to abolish man’s free will.

• The Diocese in Exile has repeatedly supported faithful who refused to accept the new IDs in Serbia, regarding them as “confessors” of the freedom of the person.

3. The Cost of Refusal

The Bishop is realistic. He does not say that refusal is easy. On the contrary, he implies that:

• Whoever refuses these means consciously chooses a path of marginalization from the official state.

• This “marginalization” is consistent with the title of his Diocese, “in Exile.” Just as they themselves are exiled from the Church’s buildings, so also the faithful person may become an “exile” from the conveniences of the modern digital state in order to preserve his faith.

4. Is It a “Matter of Salvation”?

In Xenophont’s reasoning, this technology is not neutral. It is connected with the preparation of humanity for the age of the Antichrist. Therefore, non-acceptance is proposed as a means of protection from spiritual alteration and as an exercise in readiness for the “last things.”

SUPPLEMENTARY TOPICS

Spiritual Life and Fasting

• He explains that fasting is not simply abstinence from foods, but a spiritual weapon for the purification of the soul and preparation for the encounter with God.

• He emphasizes that the Resurrection of Christ is the only way out of the dead ends of the world and the foundation upon which man must rely.

Fasting as a “Spiritual Weapon”

For the Bishop, fasting is not a formal diet or a religious compulsion, but a conscious battle. He defines it as the means by which man “empties” himself of his egoism and prepares the “vessel” of his soul for the encounter with God.

He emphasizes that abstinence from foods is the first stage; true fasting concerns the tongue, thoughts, and actions. It is a return to the state of Adam before the fall, an exercise in obedience to the will of God.

He connects fasting with almsgiving and humility, reminding us that without love for one’s neighbor, fasting remains “Pharisaic.”

The Resurrection as the “Only Way Out”

In a world that the Bishop describes as full of dead ends, the Resurrection is not a feast of the past, but a present reality. He maintains that if man does not believe in the Resurrection, his life has no meaning. It is the “victory over death” that frees man from fear and despair. The Resurrection is the answer to national defeats, persecutions, and social upheavals. It is the basis of Orthodox optimism, even when everything around them appears to be collapsing.

The “Tower of Truth” and Confession

The Bishop’s conclusion is a statement of self-awareness and endurance:

• He acknowledges that they are given labels such as “schismatics,” “isolated,” or “fanatics.” However, he contrasts this with the “peace of conscience” offered by the preservation of tradition.

• He presents the Diocese in Exile not as a new organization, but as a “tower of truth,” a refuge for those faithful who feel spiritually homeless amid contemporary ecumenistic and globalized tendencies.

• He closes with an invitation to the people not to judge by rumors, but to come and see up close the life of their community, which is based on simplicity and the confession of the faith.

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/04/blog-post_25.html