Archimandrite Pavlos Dimitrakopoulos | June 29, 2026
Exactly ten years ago, as is
known, the pseudo-synod of Crete took place in Kolymbari, Crete, from June 16
to 27, 2016. A preeminently tragic and shocking ecclesiastical event of
worldwide dimensions, with incalculable consequences for the life of the Church.
An event that caused the most painful blow to the body of the Church. An event
that signaled the triumph of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism and filled the Church
Triumphant and the Church Militant of Christ with indescribable sorrow.
Therefore, on the occasion of
this sorrowful anniversary, we considered it necessary to set forth before the
faithful people of God certain truths concerning the pseudo-synod, so that the
older may remember and the younger may be taught.
The pseudo-synod does not
constitute an organic continuation of the ancient great Ecumenical Councils,
because it has nothing in common with them. And this is because:
1. All the Ecumenical Councils
were convened first and foremost in order to condemn the heresies of their
time. The “Council” of Crete did not identify or condemn any heresy, the word
heresy being unknown in its texts, as though the Church had ceased in our time
to be warred against by contemporary heresies, while the sorrowful contemporary
reality bears witness to the exact opposite. On the contrary, indeed, it synodally
secured and legitimized the pan-heresy of Ecumenism and recognized the
heterodox as “Churches.”
2. At the Ecumenical Councils,
each subsequent Council ratified the dogmatic decisions of all the preceding
ones. By contrast, the “Council” of Crete did not consider it its duty to
ratify any of the dogmatic decisions of the preceding Ecumenical and Endemousa
Councils. And this is because, if it had done so, it would have been compelled
to renew the condemnation of the heterodox as heretics, something it did not
want under any circumstances.
3. It trampled upon and annulled
in practice divinely inspired Holy Canons of timeless authority, such as those
which forbid joint prayers, mixed marriages, etc.
4. It invited representatives of
the heretical communities of the Papists, Protestants, and Monophysites as
honored persons, something which is an unprecedented innovation, foreign to our
Synodal Tradition. Never in the history of the Ecumenical and Local Councils
has there been the phenomenon of heretics being invited as honored persons, but
always as those under judgment and as defendants, as guilty of heretical
teachings.
The topics and the decisions
which it made were predetermined and pre-decided. Preconceived decisions, where
the human factor plays the dominant, or even the exclusive, role in the making
of decisions, constitute in essence a mockery of the Holy Spirit and one of the
most characteristic features of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism.
6. This “Council” was convened in
violation of the Regulations for Organization and Operation, which were signed
at the Synaxis of the Primates in January 2016. The said Regulations provided,
among other things, that the Council “is convened by His All-Holiness the
Ecumenical Patriarch, with the agreement also of the Most Blessed Primates of
all the locally Autocephalous Orthodox Churches recognized by all” (art. 1).
However, four Autocephalous Churches, Russia, Bulgaria, Georgia, and Antioch,
requested the postponement of the “Council,” with the aim of studying the
pre-synodal texts anew, because they contained contradictions, ambiguities, and
heterodox formulations. But because their request was rejected by the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, they ultimately did not take part in the “Council.”
Therefore, the “Council” was convened without the condition of unanimity
provided for by the Regulations being fulfilled.
7. It caused an alteration and
distortion of the traditional Synodal System and established for the first time
another Synodal System, which is due chiefly and primarily to the development
of a new ecumenist theory, that of the “first without equals.”
8. It had a most serious deficit
of synodality, both during the period of its preparation and during its
conduct, because:
a) The
pre-synodal texts remained unknown for a long series of years to the
Hierarchies of the local Churches and did not receive synodal study and
processing by the said Hierarchies. They were communicated only in February
2016, a few months before the beginning of the “Council,” and therefore
sufficient time was not given for synodal study and processing.
b) Not all the
bishops of Orthodoxy throughout the Ecumene participated in it, but only
twenty-four from each Local Autocephalous Church. Of the total of approximately
800 Bishops of the Church throughout the world, only 156 participated.
c) In the
synodal decisions, the scheme was adopted: one vote — one Church, something
which constitutes an unprecedented synodal innovation. The bishops called to
participate in the “Council” were merely decorative elements, because they did
not have the right to vote. Only the ten present Primates had a decisive vote,
something which offends the equality of the bishops, because it transforms the
primates from “firsts among equals” into “firsts without equals.”
d) The synodal
role of the rest of the clergy, of monasticism, and of the faithful people of
God was ostentatiously disregarded throughout the whole synodal process, as
though matters of the Faith were a private affair of the hierarchs and the
Primates. This is proven by the fact that the presentations and conclusions of
the Conference held in Piraeus on March 23, 2016, the observations of
distinguished professors of the Theological Schools, as well as other
publications by recognized theologians, clergy, and laymen, were disregarded.
The observations and remarks made before the pseudo-synod by the twenty
Athonite Monasteries, and generally by the whole of Athonite and other
Monasticism collectively, were disregarded.
e) Above all,
the observations and remarks of holy men, such as Saint Justin Popović, Venerable
Philotheos Zervakos, and others, who spoke in the Holy Spirit concerning the
future Council, were disregarded and not taken into account.
f) The
pseudo-synod proclaimed itself as the supreme authority and the final judge in
matters of Faith. Therefore, the fact was overlooked that, according to the
Declaration of the Patriarchs of the East of 1848, the final judge of the
correctness and validity of the decisions of Councils is the fullness of the
Church, the clergy, the monks, and the faithful people of God, who, with their
watchful ecclesiastical and dogmatic conscience, ratify or reject the decisions
of Councils.
The text of dogmatic content
entitled: “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian
World” presents heterodox formulations, contradictions, gaps, and ambiguities.
More specifically:
a) The term
“Church” is used indiscriminately for the Orthodox and for the heterodox
heretics, with the result that Orthodoxy is not clearly demarcated from heresy.
In paragraph 6 it is stated: “Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church accepts the
historical name of other heterodox Christian Churches and Confessions not being
in communion with her, not being in communion with her.” It is impossible for
the term “Church” to be accepted for the heterodox, because they have been
condemned by Orthodox Ecumenical Councils as heretics and have been cut off
from her body. The attempt of the ecumenists to justify the term “heterodox
Churches” as a “technical term” is misguided, because the Church never in the
past, in previous Ecumenical Councils, used “technical terms” in order to
express her dogmatic teaching, but the synodal Fathers always took care to
formulate the dogmatic truths of the Faith with the greatest possible clarity
and precision. Another justification that was put forward is that, with the
phrase “historical name,” the attribution of ecclesiality to the heterodox was
excluded. However, this does not stand, because the phrase “historical name” is
equivalent to the phrase “historical existence,” since we never name something
that does not exist.
b) The Church is
presented as one and indivisible and at the same time as divided. That is,
while in paragraph 6 it is stated: “According to the ontological nature of the
Church, her unity cannot be disturbed,” at the same time the existence of other
“Churches” is stated, with which the Orthodox Church is not in ecclesiastical
communion. However, the absence of ecclesiastical communion with these “other”
“Churches” indicates division and schism. At the same time, while in the text
there is constant reference to the “restoration of Christian unity,” nowhere is
there any mention of the repentance of the heterodox, the renunciation of their
heterodox teachings, and their return to the Orthodox Church, something which
shows that what is being sought is unity despite the existing dogmatic
differences, and not unity in the Orthodox Church of Christ.
A most serious gap is the absence
of an analytical critical evaluation of the course of all the bilateral
theological dialogues with the heterodox up to the present. The necessity of
this evaluation was imperative chiefly for the following reasons:
1. These dialogues have been
conducted for many decades now, and therefore the pseudo-synod had the highest
duty and obligation to proceed with this work, in order to decide on their
future course, or on their cessation.
2. During their conduct, texts
were produced, such as those of Balamand, 1993, Ravenna, 2007, Porto Alegre,
2006, Busan, 2013, and the texts of the Joint Statements of 1989 and 1990 with
the Monophysites, which contain heterodox teachings and therefore should have
been examined and rejected.
Another most serious gap was the
absence of a study and examination of the legality, on the basis of the Holy
Canons, of the entry and remaining of the local Orthodox Churches in the W.C.C.
as equal members.
Yet another gap was the absence
of a critical evaluation, from an Orthodox point of view, of the “Toronto
Statement,” because it was considered “of capital importance for Orthodox
participation in the Council, [WCC].”
The cancer of the pan-heresy of
Ecumenism, my brothers, which began at the start of the 20th century,
unfortunately advanced gradually and spread methodically, so that in the end it
found full synodal legalization instead of condemnation. What is needed now is
for a true Orthodox Council to be convened, which will condemn the decisions of
the pseudo-synod. This joyful event, however, is not going to happen as if by
magic, that is, without the cooperation of the human factor, with Grace, of
course, also cooperating. It is not going to happen without anti-heretical
struggles and sacrifices, and above all without the blessed walling off, which
in the present moment becomes necessary more than ever before.
Greek source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.