The Paper War Continues: “Ecumenism Has a Face: It Is a Pan-Heresy and Has Specific Proponents”

George Apostolakis | November 3, 2026

 

The statement of the [Official] Holy Metropolis of Piraeus concerning the “Ecumenical Movement” contains sound observations regarding dogmatic relativism, the ambiguities of the dialogues, and the danger of presenting unity as though it had already been achieved.

[See https://imp.gr/%ce%b7-%ce%bf%ce%b9%ce%ba%ce%bf%cf%85%ce%bc%ce%b5%ce%bd%ce%b9%ce%ba%ce%b7-%ce%ba%ce%b9%ce%bd%ce%b7%cf%83%ce%b7-%cf%85%cf%80%ce%bf-%cf%84%ce%bf-%cf%86%cf%89%cf%83-%cf%84%ce%b7%cf%83-%ce%bf%cf%81%ce%b8/]

However, the criticism remains inconclusive so long as it speaks of an impersonal “Movement” without clearly stating what Ecumenism is, who promotes it, and which specific actions of theirs give expression to it.

The so-called “Ecumenical Movement” is modern Ecumenism: the attempt to establish Christian unity through inter-Christian dialogues, common prayers, and symbolic joint activities, while fundamental dogmatic differences remain unresolved. This is not merely a matter of courteous communication or cooperation on social issues. When joint appearances, common prayers, and joint blessings foster the impression that the divisions have been virtually overcome, the clear confession of the Orthodox Faith is placed in jeopardy.

From this perspective, Ecumenism is a pan-heresy: it does not attack merely a single dogma, but undermines the very criterion by which truth is distinguished from error. This is the theological judgment associated with the severe condemnation of Ecumenism by St. Justin Popović, whom the statement of the Metropolis “forgets.” The question addressed to the Metropolis is precisely why, although it describes the dangers of ecumenistic practice, it does not clearly articulate this position.

And, of course, Ecumenism is not impersonal. On the Orthodox side, its principal and publicly active proponent is Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. He himself has described the “dialogue of love and truth” as a path toward rapprochement between the two Churches. Together with Pope Leo XIV, he signed a joint declaration proclaiming their continued progress toward the restoration of full communion. These are public, documented facts—and legitimate subjects of theological criticism.

The joint blessing given by the two Primates after the Divine Liturgy in the Patriarchal Church of St. George on November 30, 2025, both on the solea and from the balcony, encapsulates this practice in an image of powerful public symbolism. When the Orthodox Patriarch and the Pope jointly bless the assembled crowd, what message does the faithful believer receive? The image does not explicitly proclaim that sacramental communion has been restored; nevertheless, it can create the impression that the two sides already possess the same ecclesiastical standing and spiritual authority. This is precisely what constitutes popular Ecumenism.

This is the very issue that the statement of the Metropolis of Piraeus ought to have addressed directly. It is not enough merely to state that unity has not yet been achieved. It is necessary to assess whether such joint actions serve the Orthodox confession of faith or whether, regardless of official explanations, they obscure the differences and prepare public sentiment for a union without prior dogmatic agreement.

For this reason, the statement should have named the proponents of this course of action. Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Leo XIV are not abstract symbols; they are the two Primates who signed the declaration and jointly blessed the assembled crowd. Referring to these individuals and their actions does not constitute a personal attack. It is a necessary prerequisite for making the criticism concrete.

The Metropolis of Piraeus has already referred to a statement made by Patriarch Bartholomew in 2014 and has criticized the Council of Crete. It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that it makes no reference whatsoever to these matters. However, occasional references are one thing, and a clear judgment concerning the present course of action and its specific protagonists is quite another. If Ecumenism is a pan-heresy, this must be stated unequivocally; if these particular actions give expression to that heresy, those who espouse heresy must be identified by name and called to account.

The Orthodox witness cannot remain confined to general warnings about “dangers” and “impasses.” It must clearly state what it considers to be error, which actions give expression to that error, and which ecclesiastical leaders promote them. Silence on these questions is not neutrality; it leaves the faithful to interpret for themselves images and statements that the protagonists themselves present as steps toward unity.

 

Greek source:

https://www.iepomenimera.gr/index.php/el/ekklisia-kai-theologia/georgios-apostolakis-o-oikoumenismos-exei-prosopo-einai-panairesi-kai-exei-sygkekrimenous-foreis