Ecumenism and Orthodoxy: Who, in the end, is inside and who is outside the Church?

George Epiphaniou, Professor of Theology

June 10, 2026

 

 

A response to the recent statements of the Archbishop of Cyprus [George III] concerning those who are “placed outside the Church,” and an examination of the patristic teaching on heresy, walling off, and the boundaries of the Orthodox Church, on the occasion of the case of Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos.

The recent statements of the Archbishop of Cyprus, according to which those who react against Ecumenism and adopt anti-ecumenist or walling-off positions are “placed outside the Church,” have opened anew a discussion that does not simply concern administrative issues or personal conflicts. It touches the core of Orthodox self-consciousness and poses a fundamental question: who, in the end, is distancing himself from the faith of the Holy Fathers? The one who resists Ecumenism, or the one who considers it a permissible and necessary expression of ecclesiastical life?

This question is not new. It has occupied the Orthodox Church for decades and has caused intense controversies in many Local Churches. However, the recent developments in the Church of Cyprus, and especially the case of Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos, have given new intensity to a discussion that many considered to have remained confined to theological circles.

What is Ecumenism?

For its supporters, Ecumenism constitutes an effort at dialogue among the Christian confessions, with the aim of rapprochement and the restoration of unity. For its critics, however, modern Ecumenism has gone far beyond the limits of a simple dialogue.

According to the anti-ecumenist theological approach, the problem does not lie in discussion with the heterodox. The Church always discussed with heretics and those in error. The problem appears when Orthodoxy ceases to be presented as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and begins to be treated as one ecclesiastical reality among many others.

The critics of Ecumenism consider that many modern ecumenical practices lead to the indirect [and direct! – trans. note] acceptance of the so-called “branch theory,” according to which no Christian community possesses the full truth by itself and all constitute parts of the one Church. Such a perception, they maintain, is in direct conflict with traditional Orthodox ecclesiology.

Why was it called a “pan-heresy”?

Saint Justin Popović was perhaps the most important figure who connected the term “pan-heresy” with Ecumenism. For the great Serbian theologian and saint, Ecumenism was not simply yet another heresy. It was a system of thought that attempted to justify and synthesize all previous heresies under one common ecclesiological umbrella.

According to this view, when truth is equated with error, and when heresies are treated as equal paths to Christ, then the very foundation of the Orthodox faith is undermined.

It is not accidental that a multitude of traditional theologians, monks, and spiritual figures of the 20th century expressed strong reservations about the course of the ecumenical movement. These concerns were not limited to secondary issues, but concerned the very identity of the Church.

The testimony of the Holy Fathers

The history of the Church shows that the great confessors of the faith often found themselves opposed to powerful ecclesiastical majorities.

Saint Athanasius the Great was exiled repeatedly. Saint Maximus the Confessor was harshly persecuted. Saint Mark Eugenikos remained almost alone against the false union of Florence.

None of them appealed to administrative power or to majorities. They appealed to the faith which they had received from the Fathers.

For this reason, many anti-ecumenists wonder: if resistance to what are regarded as ecclesiological deviations constitutes a reason for departure from the Church, then how is the stance of all these Saints to be interpreted? Did they not also resist powerful ecclesiastical tendencies of their time?

The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council

The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council occupies a special place in the discussion.

The supporters of the anti-ecumenist position consider that this canon provides for the possibility of breaking ecclesiastical communion with a bishop who publicly and openly preaches teaching that is regarded as heretical.

According to their interpretation, walling off does not constitute schism, but an act of protecting the Church from error.

Precisely for this reason, they consider problematic any general statement that those who react against Ecumenism are automatically placed outside the Church. They maintain that such an approach ignores a long canonical and patristic tradition.

The statements of the Archbishop and the questions that are raised

The statements of the Archbishop provoked strong reactions, not only because of their content, but also because of the message that many faithful consider them to convey.

For if those who react against Ecumenism are characterized as people who place themselves outside the Church, then a critical question arises: what place do the Saints and Elders who warned for decades about the dangers of Ecumenism hold in the ecclesiastical consciousness?

Can the theology of Saint Justin Popović be considered marginal? Can the confessional stance of Saint Mark Eugenikos be treated as an exaggeration? Can the patristic warnings be replaced by a new ecclesiological language that systematically avoids dogmatic distinctions?

These questions cannot be dismissed with characterizations. They require theological answers.

The Tychikos case

For many faithful, the case of Metropolitan Tychikos is not simply an administrative dispute. They perceive that behind it lies a deeper conflict between two different approaches.

On the one hand, there is the view that emphasizes the need for obedience and cohesion in ecclesiastical administration.

On the other hand, there is the understanding that confession of the faith takes precedence over every administrative expediency, and that the history of the Church has repeatedly vindicated those who resisted when they considered the truth to be in danger.

For many supporters of Tychikos, their stance is not an act of rebellion, but an attempt to defend patristic tradition.

The real issue at stake

The issue, in the end, is not who holds offices, nor who possesses greater administrative power.

The real question is whether modern ecumenist practice remains within the boundaries traced by the Holy Fathers, or whether it constitutes a new ecclesiological perception foreign to the Orthodox tradition.

The critics of Ecumenism insist that the Church is not saved by diplomatic balances nor by vague appeals for unity. It is saved by the truth. And the truth, as the patristic tradition teaches, is not the result of compromise, but of faithfulness to the apostolic faith.

History has shown many times that those who were initially characterized as extremists, disobedient, or troublemakers were later recognized as confessors and saints. For this reason, every age is called to examine events not according to the criterion of circumstance, but according to the criterion of the faith which “was once delivered unto the saints.”

The question therefore remains open and requires a serious theological answer: when Ecumenism is condemned as a pan-heresy, is this a deviation from Orthodoxy or a continuation of the patristic confession? And when those who express this concern are accused of placing themselves outside the Church, perhaps the discussion must return not to characterizations, but to the patristic teaching itself and the canonical tradition of the Church?

 

Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2026/06/blog-post_367.html