† Metropolitan Klemes of Larissa and Platamon | August 8/21, 2026
The Ecumenists, from long ago
until today, have been trying to convince themselves and others, deceiving and
being deceived, that their Ecumenistic views and practices do not constitute a
deviation and do not alter the faith of the Church, but are supposedly in
accord with the Orthodox faith and tradition from as early as Apostolic times!
They claim that it is supposedly their duty and obligation to struggle “for the
restoration of unity and peaceful coexistence among Christians,” something
which supposedly has its roots in the early Christian period! (See Fr.
Augustinos Bairachtaris, “The Nature of the Orthodox Church’s Participation in
the WCC—An Orthodox Historical and Theological Consideration of the Ecumenical
Movement,” in the periodical Theologia, 2/2015, p. 257.)
Indeed, in order to establish
this manifest and unprecedented delusion of theirs, they do not hesitate to
engage in an impermissible confusion of terms, so as to give the
impression that they are neither innovating nor introducing anything
unprecedented, but that they supposedly remain faithful and consistent in the
Orthodox faith and tradition.
For example, the previous
Patriarch of Constantinople, Demetrios—that is, in reality, his shadow, namely,
the then Director of the Private Patriarchal Office, Bartholomew of
Philadelphia, now of Constantinople—stated in writing in response to a relevant
question:
“The Ecumenical
Movement is nothing foreign to Orthodoxy. Ecumenicity belongs to the very
nature of Orthodoxy. This means that Orthodoxy and Ecumenicity are not two
merely parallel realities, but two characteristics which coincide theologically
and historically. Orthodoxy, as the one and only ecumenical truth,
encompasses Ecumenism. And this is precisely what imparts the Ecumenical
dimension to Orthodoxy. But Ecumenism, too, acquires meaning and content
only under the shelter of Orthodox teaching and tradition. For this reason, both
in the old forms of historical Ecumenism and in the contemporary forms of the
Ecumenical Movement, Orthodoxy has stood in the forefront through its presence,
participation, and initiative-taking cooperation with all the other Churches of
Christ which honestly and sincerely aim at the unity of Christianity. This
is the role of the Orthodox within the Ecumenical Movement: to give the
Movement its true dimension and to place it upon its proper foundation, with the
common sources of revealed truth and right doctrine and tradition as its
standard.” (Ekklesia, no. 13, July 1–15, 1986, p. 439.)
In the present case, an evident
confusion of terms and realities may be observed. To be more precise, we say
that Ecumenicity is indeed a fundamental element of the Holy Gospel and of our
Orthodox Christian faith. However, care must be taken not to confuse the
concepts. Just as theosis, which constitutes the fulfillment of the
“according to the likeness,” is one thing, while self-deification, which
constitutes the Devil’s lie to our first parents in order to cast them out of
Paradise, is another, so too Ecumenicity is one thing, signifying
Orthodoxy’s opening toward the world outside her as an invitation—even to
heretics and schismatics—to accept her truth and to unite themselves with her
in repentance, whereas modern Ecumenism is something entirely different,
signifying an attempt to achieve a supposed unity of Christians—that is, of the
Orthodox with heretics—but together with them and in common with them.
This does not lead to their return in repentance to the fullness of the Truth
of the Faith, from which they fell away, but to an impermissible mixing with
them, even though they are governed by different principles in faith and
ethos. Thus, permanent institutional commingling with them—as occurs,
for example, in the “World Council of Churches” (WCC)—is clearly rendered illicit,
impermissible, and to be rejected from an Orthodox standpoint. (See the
text “Accept No Spurious Doctrine under the Pretext of Love,” in Stergios
Sakkos, Love and Orthodoxy, “Christian Hope” Orthodox Brotherhood,
Thessaloniki, 2018, p. 117 ff.)
Throughout her two-thousand-year
history, the Orthodox Church has always called and presented to all those
outside Her the truth of Her doctrine, in order to lead them onto the path of
salvation. So too did our Lord Jesus Christ, Who indeed entered into dialogue
with everyone, with the aim of transforming those who believed in Him
and making them sheep of His flock. With those who obstinately contradicted Him
and rejected or distorted His teaching, He broke off all dialogue (see
John 8:25).
This is because, according to
Holy Scripture, Love is inseparable from saving Truth. There can be no Love
without Truth: “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15), and love “rejoiceth in
the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6).
By contrast, through Ecumenism,
and particularly through the “WCC,” love is overemphasized at the expense of
truth. The continual relations with the heterodox for nearly a century,
inclusion together with them in councils and consultations, exchanges of visits
and gifts, joint prayers and joint declarations, embraces and mutual kisses,
constitute nothing other than an impermissible separation of Love from Truth,
with a complete, or at least partial, disregard for Truth.
The Holy Fathers of the Church
longed for the return of the heterodox with unfeigned love and truth, because
their separation caused pain and anguish within their sensitive souls.
But this in no way meant that they “allied themselves” with them through
Councils of so-called Churches (!), for endless discussions on every
conceivable subject and for joint declarations and activities in the world!
Once it had been ascertained that those who held false doctrines persisted in
their errors, every dialogical process and effort ceased, in accordance with
the Apostolic exhortation: “A man that is an heretic after the first and second
admonition reject” (Titus 3:10). This constituted no “historical Ecumenism”
whatsoever, unless we wish to “play with words” in order to create impressions.
The continual and persistent
rapprochement with people who not only refuse to abandon their errors but even
intensify them and grow worse means nothing other, according to Saint John
Chrysostom, than a continuation of Eve’s destructive dialogue with the
Serpent, the tragic outcome of which we know! (See Homilies on Genesis,
Homily 16, §2, EPE, vol. 2, p. 416.)
Modern fraternization with
the heterodox is therefore a well-laid Ecumenist trap, into which the
Ecumenists and pro-Ecumenists have fallen, together with those who tolerate and
follow them and who, consequently, are swept along in their “free fall”!…
The seemingly reasonable,
fundamentally worldly Ecumenist arguments for pan-Christian or even
pan-religious unification, in the sense of peaceful coexistence,
cooperation, and especially mutual acceptance, constitute a distortion
of the Gospel of Christ and a violation of the Truth of the Faith and Tradition
of the Church (see Fr. George Metallinos, “The Dialogues without a Mask,” Parakatatheke,
no. 25, July–August 2002, p. 7).
Moreover, let us not forget that through
Ecumenism, in practice, the Baptism of all heretics is recognized; a
“common witness” to the faith is given and the “common evangelization” of
mankind is pursued; a joint effort is made to “find the truth”; common action
is undertaken for world peace; there is a commitment to “avoid proselytism”;
conclusions are set forth concerning “common repentance for shortcomings and
excesses,” etc. (see Fr. Augustinos Bairachtaris, op. cit., pp. 261,
263, 267, 268, 285–286, 297–298).
It scarcely needs to be
emphasized that all these things have no connection whatsoever with the
Canonical, Synodal, and Patristic Tradition of the Church of Christ. The
Canon of the Third Local Council of Carthage, for example, states:
“…Among
heretics, where there is no Church, it is impossible to receive forgiveness
of sins.… Nor can a heretic sanctify oil, since he has neither altar nor
Church. Neither can chrism exist at all among heretics.… And how can one
who is not a priest, but a sacrilegious man and a sinner, pray over the
person baptized?… We understand that forgiveness of sins is given through the
Holy Church. But who can give what he himself does not possess?… Everything
performed by them [the heretics], being false and empty, is invalid.… The
enemies of the Lord, who are called antichrists, cannot give the grace of the
Lord.” (See The Sacred Rudder, p. 369.)
The foregoing is in full
agreement with Holy Apostolic Canons 46 and 47, according to which the baptism
of heretics is regarded as “defilement.” For they are “enemies of the
truth,” who bring about “abhorrent pollution and abomination,”
according to Sacred Canon 1 of the Holy Quinisext Council.
But even Sacred Canon 7 of the
Second Ecumenical Council and Sacred Canon 95 of the Quinisext Council,
concerning those “who come over from the heretics and are added to Orthodoxy
and to the portion of those being saved,” which permit in certain cases the
non-repetition of the correct form of baptism received by heretics, do not mean
that they regard that baptism as valid in and of itself, either according to
strictness or according to economy.
What relation does any of this
have to what is found in the contemporary Ecumenical Movement, which is
condemnable in every respect? Where is there room for “Churches of Christ,” for
“Sister Churches,” for de facto recognition of baptisms and other rites,
for “ministries,” joint commissions, and common activities?
Nevertheless, the Ecumenists,
regarding themselves as readily adaptable to the demands of the times and to
the new historical, social, and political conditions, confidently maintain that
they supposedly follow—in their imagination—the Patristic and Traditional model
without violating it (!), but in conformity with the new realities of the
modern age.
This also calls to mind the
tragedy—not to say the blasphemy!—into which the modern destroyers of
the Orthodox Ethos of the Church, both clergy and laity, have fallen:
since most Christians in name only no longer observe the moral requirements of
the Faith concerning purity before the Mystery of Marriage in our age of
pansexualism, they maintain that full sexual relations before Marriage should
be regarded as natural and acceptable, provided that there is mutual love and
not a sordid transaction. And those who continue, on this matter, to adhere to
what has been binding and self-evident in the Faith and Tradition of the Church
for two thousand years supposedly commit an “interpretive error” and bring the
true meaning of the faith into disrepute!
We deliberately use this parallel
because it is well known in our Holy Faith: illicit spiritual relations with
those outside the Church—for isolated incidents occurred in the past as well,
chiefly out of ignorance—are unequivocally called “spiritual fornication and
spiritual adultery”! This is well known from the Church’s Gerontika,
and there is no need to cite examples. In our days, however, these illicit
relations have become entrenched through corrupting Ecumenism, and
anyone who protests against this spiritual licentiousness is regarded as
phobic, an unsophisticated provincial, maladjusted, fanatical, and “out of
place and time”!…
We must know, however, that the
Holy Gospel is immutable and our Holy Orthodox Faith never grows old, so as
to require readjustment and modernization. The “eternal boundaries”
of the Truth of the Faith are immovable, and the Sacred Tradition of the Church
is inviolable (see Saint John of Damascus, “An Exact Exposition of the
Orthodox Faith,” I.1, EPE, vol. 1, p. 56).
Never can the “pretext of love”
justify the utter degradation (“monstrous humiliation,” as Elder Justin Popović
the Confessor called it) involved in Holy Orthodoxy’s participation in
“Councils of Churches” and in inter-Christian and interreligious ceremonies and
gatherings.
For this reason, a former
Protestant and apologist for Orthodoxy in America wrote quite correctly many
years ago that “the Ecumenical Movement, from an Orthodox point of view,
constitutes a failure”; “it is a wretched fiasco”; “another product of the
mania for utopianism that seized the twentieth century.” He also wrote that
“the apostasy of liberal Protestantism and the acceptance of immorality and
perversion by the Protestant denominations have manifestly increased during the
‘ecumenical age.’” (See Frank Schaeffer, Dancing Alone: The Quest for
Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion, Makrygiannis Publications, 2nd
ed., Kozani, 2004, p. 505.)
It is significant that those heterodox
who, both in the past and in our own days, embrace Orthodoxy—especially in
America—do not come because of some supposed “Orthodox witness” at Ecumenist
meetings, but for precisely the opposite reason! Consequently, they are not at
all favorably disposed toward Ecumenism; rather, they regard it as a
disorienting and even a manifestation of apostasy.
The deviations of Western
Christians, especially regarding the acceptance of abortion, same-sex
marriage, the ordination of women, etc., provoke outright revulsion
even among the serious-minded members of their denominations, causing them to
abandon this state of degradation.
Yet does so-called official
Orthodoxy—which unfortunately participates, directly or indirectly, in this corrosive
Ecumenist distortion—truly constitute a safe and suitable refuge for the
disillusioned who are seeking a place of salvation? Does not such a choice
lead, by a circuitous route—not to say directly!—to the same tragic dead end of
tolerating, if not concealing, these manifestations of apostasy?
Did not the majority of the
official Orthodox Churches, ten years ago at the Pseudo-Council of Kolymbari,
Crete, endorse and approve the heretical Ecumenist deviation instead of
condemning it?
We conclude by emphasizing that,
in order to fulfill her saving mission in the world, the Orthodox Church must
cast out and condemn every “spurious doctrine,” every distortion of the
true Faith, and every delusion—such as the prevailing delusion of Ecumenism—as
the immaculate Bride of Christ our God, the King of all.
We shall return, God willing,
shortly to a specific recent event that requires examination and commentary.
Greek
source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.