A Popular Presentation of the Toronto Statement (1950)

(Deciphering the Synod of Crete)

The Relationship of the Synod of Crete to the Texts of the WCC

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | May 22, 2026

 

 

Necessary elements.

Two years after the formation of the WCC in Amsterdam, the Central Committee convened in Toronto, Canada (July 8–15, 1950), in order to answer a critical question: What exactly is the WCC ecclesiologically? The Council’s critics accused it of seeking to become a “super-Church” that would replace the local Churches. The Orthodox Church, which had already joined the Council, faced internal pressures to clarify its relationship with an organization that included heterodox communities.

* * *

NOTE:

The delegations of the Church of Greece and of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that participated in the Central Committee of the WCC in Toronto and contributed to the formation and acceptance of the statement consisted of leading theological and ecclesiastical figures of the time.

Ecumenical Patriarchate

The Ecumenical Patriarchate was represented by hierarchs and professors who laid the foundations for the later Orthodox presence in the Council:

• Metropolitan Germanos (Strinopoulos) of Thyateira: He was one of the most central figures of the Ecumenical Movement and one of the Presidents of the WCC.

• Metropolitan Chrysostomos (Konstantinidis) of Ephesus: At that time a young theologian (later Metropolitan of Myra and then of Ephesus), who played a decisive role in the drafting of the text.

• Professor Amilkas Alivizatos: Although a professor at the University of Athens, he also participated actively in the work of the patriarchal delegation because of his international prestige in Canon Law.

Church of Greece

The Church of Greece was represented mainly by distinguished professors of the Theological School of the University of Athens, who had been appointed as official delegates:

• Professor Amilkas Alivizatos: Professor of Canon Law and Pastoral Theology, one of the leading Greek theologians, with an enormous contribution during the first decades of the WCC.

• Professor Ioannis Karmiris: Professor of Dogmatics, who closely monitored the theological texts in order to ensure that the Statement would make clear that the WCC is not a “super-Church” (something that was ultimately incorporated into the final text).

• Professor Vasileios Ioannidis: Professor of New Testament Interpretation, with a systematic presence in the international theological fora of the time.

* * *

Basic Principles of the TORONTO STATEMENT

 

The Toronto Statement, entitled “The Church, the Churches and the World Council of Churches,” began with five decisive negations that defined what the WCC is not:

First, “the WCC is not and must never become a super-Church.” This declaration excluded any possibility that the Council would acquire ecclesiastical authority over its members. The WCC is not a Church, but an instrument of the Churches.

Second, its purpose is not to negotiate unions between Churches — something that belongs exclusively to the Churches themselves — but to bring the Churches into living contact and to promote the study and discussion of issues of ecclesiastical unity.

Third, the WCC “cannot and should not be based on any one particular conception of the Church.” It does not prejudge the ecclesiological problem. This meant that membership in the Council did not require any Church to accept the ecclesiology of another.

Fourth, membership does not imply that a Church treats its own conception of the Church as merely relative.

Fifth, membership does not imply acceptance of any particular teaching concerning the nature of ecclesiastical unity.

The Toronto Statement (1950) was an attempt by the World Council of Churches to find a way for the Orthodox Church to participate together with Protestants and other Christians, without having to say that these are “Churches” in the full sense of the term. This “solution” created an organization called a “Council of Churches” but which does not know what “Church” means. As though we were to create a “Council of Doctors” in which those who have read medical books but are not doctors also participate — and then say, “there is no need for us to regard one another as doctors in the full sense.”

For the Orthodox Church this means: We participate in an organization where the word “Church” loses its meaning. We accept that unity can exist without communion in the truth. Our faith that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is transformed from dogmatic certainty into a “personal conviction that we respect”

The Synod of Crete and the TORONTO STATEMENT

In the official text of the Synod entitled: “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World,” paragraph 19 states the following:

“The Orthodox member Churches consider as an indispensable condition of their participation in the WCC the fundamental provision of its Constitution, according to which its members may only be those who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior, according to the Scriptures, and confess the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, according to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

“It is their deep conviction that the ecclesiological presuppositions of the Toronto Statement (1950), ‘The Church, the Churches and the World Council of Churches,’ are of capital importance for Orthodox participation in the Council.”

With this reference, the Synod of Crete essentially defends the participation of the Orthodox in the WCC, using the Toronto Statement as a “shield.”

Therefore, the Synod of Crete invoked Toronto in order to emphasize that the Orthodox Church participates in inter-Christian dialogue without making concessions in her faith that she constitutes the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”

Why did it provoke reactions?

Despite the above clarification, the explicit reference to the Toronto Statement provoked intense theological discussions and reactions, both before and during the Synod. Indeed, certain Local Churches, such as those of Russia, Bulgaria, Georgia, and Antioch, ultimately did not attend the Synod.

The critics of the reference argued that:

• The indirect or direct acceptance of WCC texts introduces a “new ecclesiology.”

• The use of the term “Churches” for the heterodox communities, even within the framework of Toronto, weakens Orthodox exclusivity.

By contrast, the supporters of the Synod emphasized that the reference was necessary in order to make clear that Orthodoxy does not isolate herself, but converses with the rest of the world under very specific, strict, and already agreed-upon terms.

Popular Critique of the TORONTO Statement

The greatest and deepest trap of the Toronto Statement lies in the ecclesiological relativization of the Truth through diplomatic language.

If we had to isolate it in one phrase, the trap is this: The Statement allowed the members of the WCC to coexist, recognizing in one another the right to call themselves “Church,” without requiring common agreement on what the word “Church” actually means.

This central trap is analyzed on three specific levels, which explain why many Orthodox theologians speak of “theological anesthesia”:

A. The text says that no member is obliged to recognize the other members as “Churches in the true and full sense.” While this sounds like protection for Orthodoxy, so that it would not recognize the Protestants as a true Church, in reality it creates a space in which the very reality of the Church is degraded. If you sit at the same table of an organization called a “Council of Churches,” but accept that those next to you may not even be a Church, or that they may regard you simply as a “part” of the Church, then you accept the use of the word “Church” as a mere sociological title and not as the unique, salvific ark.

B. In Orthodox theology, the Truth is absolute, historically revealed, and experienced as pleroma. Toronto created a pluralistic model in which all views are equal. When the Orthodox Church bears her witness that “I am the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” within the environment of Toronto this statement is not treated as objective truth, but as the “idiosyncrasy” or “subjective conviction” of the Orthodox. Thus, dogmatic certainty is downgraded into a “religious opinion” among dozens of others.

C. The greatest trap is that Toronto legitimized division by presenting it as something almost normal. By promising a “safe space” where no one would pressure anyone to change faith, the WCC removed the motive for the true purpose of dialogue: return to the common, undivided faith of the first centuries. When everyone is “safe” and no one is reproved for his heresies or theological deviations, dialogue ceases to seek the Truth and is transformed into a perpetual diplomatic forum (an ecclesiological agnosticism), where peaceful coexistence became more important than dogmatic exactness.

The trap of Toronto was that it gave Orthodoxy a “certificate” that her faith is not endangered within the Council, but the price of this certificate was the acceptance of an environment where the very concept of the one and only Truth had already been set aside.

A Fantastical Story

In order to understand the magnitude of the trap, let us look at a fictional story concerning an inheritance.

There is a genuine, true will that a father (Christ) left to his children. This will says who inherits the house. You (Orthodoxy) hold in your hands the authentic document, sealed and signed.

Suddenly, ten other people appear (the heterodox/heresies). Each one is holding a photocopy: one has erased a few lines. Another has added his own words. A third has completely changed the meaning.

You all gather together in an office (the WCC) to resolve the matter. But because everyone is shouting, the lawyer of the office brings you a paper to sign (the Toronto Statement) which says: “Sign here so that we may have peace and quiet. This paper says that you are not obliged to admit that their papers are true. You may believe that only yours is genuine.”

You sign, sit in your chair, and calm down. Where is the enormous trap?

The trap is that, with this paper, you accepted 3 things without realizing it:

1. By sitting in the same office and signing common papers, you accept that the falsified wills of the others have the right to be examined alongside yours. The authenticity of your own paper loses its force, since it is treated as “one of many versions.”

2. Inside this office, if you stand up and say: “This is the only true document; yours are forged,” the lawyer and the others will say to you: “How rude you are! Here we agreed to respect one another’s opinion. Keep your opinion to yourself and do not offend us.” Thus, the truth is downgraded into simple stubbornness.

3. Your purpose when you went there was to show them the genuine document, so that they would understand their error and be saved. With Toronto, however, everyone became comfortable. The others feel secure with their forged papers, since no one reproves them, and you feel secure with your own. The search for the one truth stopped, and you simply drink coffee together.

The trap of Toronto was that it exchanged Truth for Politeness. It allowed you to say that you are right, provided that you do not disturb those who are wrong.

Epilogue

The acceptance of the presuppositions of the “Toronto Statement (1950)” in the text on relations with the rest of the Christian world (para. 19) constitutes a direct insult to the timeless Patristic Tradition.

By adopting Toronto, the Synod accepted the position that there are “elements of the true Church” outside the boundaries of Orthodoxy. For Orthodox dogmatics, this constitutes an absurdity: the Church is One and Indivisible; she is not divided into pieces and scattered. Heresy is not the Church, and the attribution of this term to heterodox communities constitutes dogmatic capitulation and the introduction of a double language.

At the same time, the text indirectly legitimizes the Western “Branch Theory” and the ecclesiology of deficient Churches. Instead of presenting Orthodoxy as the unique and complete ark of salvation, the Protestant conception was accepted that the Church of Christ is an invisible space and that the individual confessions merely possess parts of the truth that must be reunited.

The excuse that Toronto prevents the World Council of Churches (WCC) from becoming a “super-Church” is refuted by practice. The WCC functions as such, equating the mysteries and promoting the slide from dogmatic uniqueness into syncretistic inclusivity. Instead of dialogue aiming at the return of those in delusion to the Truth, Crete clothed the logic of simple coexistence with synodal authority, blunting the dogmatic senses.

The Synod of Crete failed in the most basic work of a true Synod: to delimit Truth from Delusion. In trying to reconcile the irreconcilable, it did not solve the problem of relations with the heterodox, but transferred the crisis and division into the interior of Orthodoxy itself.

DETAILED PRESENTATION:

https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2019/02/06/20190206aDilosiToronto.pdf

[English translation: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/06/on-10th-anniversary-of-crete-toronto.html]

 

Bibliography

Orthodox Critiques and Analyses

Saint Philaret (Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York)

• St. Philaret of New York, Epistle on the Participation of the Orthodox Church in the World Council of Churches (1960s–1970s). Texts and homilies of Saint Philaret that questioned the compatibility of Orthodox ecclesiology with the Toronto Statement. Available in collections such as:

- The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement: Collected Works. Edition of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR).

Christodoulos Paraskevaidis (Later Archbishop of Athens)

• Paraskevaidis, Christodoulos, The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism. Athens, 1970s–1990s. Important analyses concerning the ecclesiological ambiguity of the WCC.

Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos

• Vlachos, Hierotheos, Church and Ecclesiology. Athens: Apostoliki Diakonia, 1992.

• Vlachos, Hierotheos, Orthodox Theology and Ecumenism. Nafpaktos: Holy Metropolis of Nafpaktos, 1998.

Archimandrite George Kapsanis

• Kapsanis, George, Orthodox Theology and Heresy. Edition of the Holy Monastery of Gregoriou, Mount Athos, 1990s. Critical analysis of ecclesiological compromises.

Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky

• Florovsky, Georges, The Collected Works, volume 14: Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal Approach. Vaduz: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989.

• Florovsky, Georges, The Collected Works, volume 15: Ecumenism II: A Historical Approach. Vaduz, 1989.

Florovsky, although he participated in the early stages of the ecumenical movement, developed a critique of the “ecclesiological absence” of the ecumenical discussions.

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

• Zizioulas, John D., Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop during the First Three Centuries. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001.

Although Zizioulas participated positively in Ecumenism, his ecclesiology offers criteria for the evaluation of the Toronto Statement.

Critical Analyses by Orthodox Theologians

Archimandrite Epiphanios Theodoropoulos

• Theodoropoulos, Epiphanios, Ecumenism and Orthodoxy. Athens, 1970s–1980s. Strict critique of the ecclesiology of the WCC.

Monk Sarantis Sarantos

• Sarantos, Sarantis, The Mystery of the Church and Ecumenism. Edition of the Holy Monastery of Parakletos, 1990s.

Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis

• Zisis, Theodore, Ecumenism and the Orthodox Church. Thessaloniki: Orthodoxos Kypseli, 1990s–2000s. Extensive critical analysis.

Synod of Crete (2016)

Official Texts

• Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church, Encyclical and Messages. Crete, 2016. Especially the text Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World.

Critiques of the Synod

• Nikolaos Loudovikos, The Synod of Crete: A Theological Evaluation. Athens, 2016–2017.

• Protopresbyter Petros Cheilas (and others), Critical Analyses of the Synod of Crete. Various editions, 2016–2018.

Greek Publications and Periodicals

• Theologia (journal of the Church of Greece). Many articles on Ecumenism and the Toronto Statement, 1950–2020.

• Parataxis (journal of the Holy Monastery of Parakletos). Critical analyses.

• Orthodoxos Typos, Ecclesiastikos Agon (newspapers). Frequent critical analyses of ecumenical developments.

 

Greek source:

https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/05/1950.html