A pinnacle of ecumenism, modernism, rebellion, apostasy from Christ and the Holy Fathers and destroyer of Orthodox ecclesiology
Brief assessment of the "Holy and Great Council" held in Kolymbari, Crete (June 19-26, 2016) by Professor Dimitrios I. Tselengidis:
The so-called "Holy and Great Council"—from a theological perspective— is not "Holy" in the strictest sense of the word. This is because, in neither the form nor the content of the decisions it adopted, it "followed the Holy Fathers"—that is, it did not adhere to the principle of strict adherence to the decrees and decrees of the Holy Fathers who lived before us, as will be evident from our subsequent explanation. Nor is it "Great" : not only because not all the Autocephalous Churches were present, but even more so because the delegations of the Local Churches consisted of a very limited number of elected bishops. Moreover, if strict theological criteria are applied, this "Council of Bishops" cannot even be characterized as "Local . " It could rather be called something like an expanded “Pre-Council Conference of Bishops” with ten primates or an “Assembly” of ten specific Autocephalous Churches, which were represented by their primates and delegations consisting of no more than 24 elected bishops.
At this Council, or rather, at the "Conference-Assembly," according to the regulations governing its organization and functioning, only the ten primates present had the right to vote . This act is unprecedented in our church history and arbitrary; it is completely inconsistent with the ecclesiological practice of previous Orthodox Councils, which are based on the principle of the divinely inspired equality of all bishops, as manifested in the equality of their votes. Absolutely no bishop—not even the President of the Council—is "first without equal" or superior in authority to other bishops. The voting principle in effect at the current "Conference" bears indirect signs of typical papism, despite the fact that the votes of the primates are collective in nature.
Consequently, the decisions of the aforementioned "Pre-Council Conference" or the aforementioned "Assembly of Bishops" are not binding. This means they have no force not only for the entire Church, but also for the Local Autocephalous Churches, which were represented at this "Assembly of Bishops" in a completely unlawful manner, as the participating bishops did not have the right to vote. The Council's decisions are invalid for another reason: the violation of the principle of unanimity (consensus) due to the absence of four Patriarchates (the Church of Antioch, Russia, Bulgaria, and Georgia).
The decisions of this highly specific Cretan "Council" are not binding on the Church of Greece for another reason. Instead of supporting the unanimous position of the Bishops' Council of our Church regarding the 6th Council document , the Primate of the Church of Greece proposed a different amendment, which was adopted by nine other Autocephalous Churches. In practice, this means that the position of the Bishops' Council of the Church of Greece was not presented, so in accordance with the Rules of Organization and Work of the so-called "Conference," there was no consensus on the 6th Council document. Therefore, this document is invalid.
***
Now let us analyze this specific "Council" from the perspective of its content. First of all, it should be said in general terms that at the so-called "Council" held in Kolymbari, Crete, an attempt was made to spiritually distort the Church's dogmatic teachings, at the level of conciliar decrees. [We say "an attempt was made" because, based on the above, we do not believe that the decisions of the aforementioned "Bishops' Conference" are legally binding.]
In Crete, not only was no deviation from the faith (heresy) condemned, but a horrific attempt was made to officially, at the dogmatic level, distort the faith of the Orthodox Church as formulated at the Ecumenical Councils, and, most importantly, to distort the definitions (orosa) of the Second Ecumenical Council . Specifically, this involved distorting the dogmatic teaching set forth in the Creed , which also speaks of the identity of the Church itself.
In the Creed, we confess that we believe " in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church ." However, at the "Conference of Crete," ten autocephalous Churches, including the Church of Greece, contrary to Orthodox theology, adopted the so-called "baptismal theology" and, indirectly, the "branch theory," recognizing the status of the Church among Roman Catholics, Maronites, Nestorians, Monophysites of the Anthracian Church, and Monothelites—who were condemned for Christological heresy by a number of Ecumenical Councils (from the Third to the Sixth)—as well as among a mixture of Protestant denominations represented in the World Council of so-called "Churches . " The attempt to recognize heretics condemned by the Ecumenical Councils as Churches by adopting a corresponding document at the Council of Crete is, from an Orthodox perspective, madness and represents a revolution in the Orthodox faith. This is pure syncretism and ecumenism in action .
And righteous anger—that special chord of the soul—was not awakened in the conciliar bishops toward the "mental wolves" of the Church! On the contrary, the "wolves" were called "sheep" of the rational flock of Christ, members of the One and Only Church. As a result, we come to the conclusion that the "union" of the conciliar bishops with the Holy Spirit, anticipated by the pious fullness of the Church, did not take place on Crete, and they did not use the "sling" of the Holy Spirit to drive away the "pernicious wolves" —there was no condemnation of the heretics [1] . In particular, if we speak of Roman Catholics, in words we confessed our faith in the definitions of the Second Ecumenical Council [2] , but in fact we renounced this faith, recognizing as "Churches" not only them, but also other Christian communities that are contrary to these definitions because of the filiuque .
As is well known, any addition to the Creed, even if hermeneutically correct, is condemned by all Ecumenical Councils after the Third (inclusive), and those who do so are subject to defrocking and excommunication . Thus, it is perfectly clear that the addition of the filioque is automatically condemned as heresy by the Ecumenical Councils ( even if indirectly and at different times), and, consequently, all who accept it fall away from the Church, in accordance with the decisions of the aforementioned Councils. This is precisely why one can say that the so-called "heterodox" of Roman Catholics, who profess the filioque, and of all Protestants is a heresy already condemned by the Councils.
Moreover, the addition of the filioque was condemned under St. Photius the Great at the Council of 879-880 ( the Seventh Ecumenical Council), in which the delegation of the Roman Church also participated, while other heresies of Roman Catholicism about the identity of essence and energy in the Triune God and about the created nature of Divine grace were condemned at the Councils of 1331 and 1351, and Protestantism was condemned by a number of Councils of the Orthodox East (1638, 1642, 1691).
It seems impossible for a conciliar document of a dogmatic nature to lack theological precision and for non-Orthodox churches to be recognized as "Churches" within it. Such a phenomenon may indicate a deliberate distortion of Church teaching or the use of ambiguous formulations, with all the ensuing consequences.
By voting for Document 6 , which is marked by deliberate ambiguities and, even more so , theological contradictions, the "Bishops' Conference" in Crete formalized ecumenism at the level of church regulations, thereby introducing and further increasing ecclesiological confusion in the minds of believers. In particular, I would like to remind you of point 16, which states the following: "One of the main organs in the history of the ecumenical movement has become the World Council of Churches (WCC). As an established inter-Christian body, the WCC, like other inter-Christian organizations and regional bodies such as the Conference of European Churches (CEC), the Council of Middle East Churches and the All-African Council of Churches, despite not including all non-Orthodox Christian churches and confessions, fulfills an important task in promoting the unity of the Christian world” [3] .
In paragraphs 19 and 21 of the same document, the term "Church" is repeatedly used to refer to non-Orthodox Christians, particularly Protestants. This formulation means that we, the Orthodox Church, agree that heretical non-Orthodox Christians make a significant contribution to the advancement of unity in the Christian world! This statement demonstrates that those who voted and signed this document certainly did not understand that "ecumenism contains an evil spirit and is under the control of unclean spirits," according to the spiritual experience of the ever-memorable Elder Ephraim of Katounakia. The fundamental position of ecumenism is dogmatic pluralism. In practice, this means the coexistence of beliefs with different dogmas, legitimized at the dogmatic level. And those who challenge this dogmatic pluralism are considered fanatics and fundamentalists. At the same time, ecumenists do not allow value judgments about the correctness of various religions or whether they are superior or, conversely, inferior to Orthodoxy. Ecumenism has a place for everyone, and the diversity and multiplicity of beliefs and teachings does not hinder ecumenical unity. However, such a phenomenon is ecclesiologically unacceptable from the perspective of the Orthodox faith.
As a dogmatologist of the Orthodox Church, I am deeply convinced that ecumenism is the greatest ecclesiological heresy, as well as the most dangerous heresy ever to appear in the history of the Church . This is because, due to its syncretic nature, ecumenism most insidiously challenges and questions the faith of our Church and leads to a serious substitution of its concepts. Ecumenism unacceptably dulls the dogmatic awareness of the fullness of the Church and creates confusion around the identity of our faith. Ecumenism cunningly deprives the Church's saving faith of its purity, which has pernicious soteriological consequences. Its tactic consists of viewing all religious beliefs as soteriologically legitimate and insisting that all heterodox religions and confessions are paths that "equally lead to salvation."
The numerous ecclesiological contradictions in the 6th document create the impression of a dismissive attitude toward heterodox Christians. They are sometimes referred to as "heterodox Churches" (effectively recognizing them as heretical communities), sometimes simply as "Churches," which seems disingenuous. We should not underestimate the intelligence of our interlocutors: they are well aware of the lack of sincerity in such rhetoric. Such ambiguity does not contribute to their salvation, since we avoid calling them to repentance and the renunciation of dogmatic errors for the sake of reunification with the One and Only True Church, which is the Orthodox Church. It is gratifying that many bishops refused to sign this document, guided by dogmatic considerations.
Regarding the document " The Sacrament of Marriage and Its Impediments ," I will not repeat everything I wrote on this subject in my first Letter to the Holy Synod of February 3, 2016, so as not to bore you. I will only add that Canon 72 of the Fifth-Sixth Ecumenical Council, or the Council in Trullo, establishes the ecclesiological and dogmatic conditions that must be observed for the celebration of the Sacrament of Marriage in the Church. The decision of the "Bishops' Conference" in Kolymbari, Crete — completely uncanonical and incompetent — allows the Local Autocephalous Churches to deviate from the Church's dogmatic teaching on the Sacraments. This includes not only the proposal to introduce mixed marriages through oikonomia, which is contrary to the Sacred Canons, but also the illegal and absurd decision that the fulfillment of a Canon of an Ecumenical Council (in this case, Canon 72 of the Council in Trullo) can be deemed non-binding for the "Council" of secondary importance that considered the matter. Such a decision completely contradicts Orthodox theology and is unacceptable from an ecclesiological perspective. Furthermore, Canon 72 strictly recommends the annulment and dissolution of such a marriage, as cohabitation is illegal from the Church's perspective. A detailed theological analysis of this canon leaves no room for any kind of oikonomia. " For it is not fitting to mix what cannot be mixed ," the canon states, " nor to unite a wolf with a sheep, nor the lot of sinners with the portion of Christ. But if anyone transgresses what we have determined, let him be excommunicated . " That is, Canon 72 does not introduce oikonomia, but rather draws attention to a most serious violation. Deviation from this canon constitutes a grave canonical violation and "false oikonomia," which also has grave ecclesiological consequences, since it confuses the "unmixable" and, through the Church, "unites" the "sheep" with the "wolf," and the "portion" of Christ with the "lot" of sinners. From an ecclesiological perspective, such a conflation is unacceptable and unthinkable, both from a theological and spiritual perspective.
The document " The Mission of the Orthodox Church in the Modern World " creates the impression that Orthodox and non-Orthodox, and even representatives of other religions, are gathered together. This becomes apparent when everything pertaining to peace, which in the Orthodox Church is the fruit of the Holy Spirit, is groundlessly transferred to those outside the Church's fold. This approach deprives the incarnation of God the Word and the existence of the Church itself of meaning, since it allows for the implication that heretics, non-believers, and people of "good will," including atheists, can attain and acquire the peace of Christ, His uncreated energy, outside the Orthodox Church. Not only is this not a testimony to the Orthodox faith, but it also leads to confusion among believers about the identity of the Church and the "upper peace" bestowed within it.
As for the question of the Orthodox Diaspora , we believe that at the above-mentioned “Bishops’ Conference” a non-canonical – albeit temporary – decision was made to preserve the Episcopal Assemblies, which not only do not eradicate, but also perpetuate the ethnophyletism already condemned at the Council (1872).
Following the Cretan "Council," the "Encyclical Letter of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church" (Crete, 2016) was published, containing theological contradictions that we will briefly examine. Specifically, the second paragraph states the following: "The Holy and Great Council of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is the authentic witness of faith in the God-Man Christ..." This legitimately raises the theological question: how can "the Holy and Great Council of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church be the authentic witness of faith in the God-Man Christ" when it recognizes the Nestorians, Monophysites, Anti-Chalcedonians, and Monothelites as Churches, even though they are condemned by the Christology of the Ecumenical Councils?
The third point mentions councils with universal authority, such as the councils convened under St. Photius the Great and St. Gregory Palamas, the Council of 1484 that refuted the Uniate Council of Florence , and the councils that refuted Protestant beliefs. How does all this fit with the recognition of Roman Catholics and Protestants by the Churches?
Paragraph 20 notes the following: "Inter-Christian dialogues have functioned, enabling Orthodoxy to demonstrate reverence for the teachings of the authoritative Fathers and to bear reliable witness to the authentic tradition of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The dialogues conducted by the Orthodox Church have never meant, do not mean, and will not mean any compromise in matters of faith. These dialogues are a witness to Orthodoxy..." But this statement is refuted by documents jointly signed by Orthodox and non-Orthodox believers in Balamand, Porto Alegre, Ravenna, and Busan. The encyclical letter concludes as follows: "We address these words in council to the children of the Most Holy Orthodox Church throughout the world and to the entire universe, following the Holy Fathers and the conciliar decrees for the preservation of the faith inherited from the Fathers." However, the Orthodox Church, “following the Holy Fathers and the decrees of the Councils,” never recognized in the past the status of the Church among heretics, as the aforementioned “Assembly of Bishops on Crete” attempted to do.
As for the " Message of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church ," or more precisely, the "Conference of Bishops," it summarizes the decisions made and simultaneously challenges the intellect of those believers who are aware of the real state of affairs. Specifically, the first point of the "Message" states the following: "The main priority of the Holy and Great Council was the proclamation of the unity of the Orthodox Church. Based on the Divine Eucharist and the apostolic succession of bishops, the existing unity must be strengthened and bear new fruit." Readers of the "Message" reasonably ask: "How can the unity of the Orthodox Church be proclaimed with such triumph when it is known that four Patriarchates , comprising significantly more believers than those represented at the Council by the ten participating Primates, were not present at this "Assembly" ? "Why is the Divine Eucharist so readily invoked as the basis for unity, while communion in the Sacraments has been interrupted between the two Patriarchates, members of the ancient Pentarchy: Jerusalem and Antioch?" In the same paragraph it is noted: "Conciliarity determines the organization, decision-making, and the choice of one's path" [4] . But are there any examples in the history of Councils of the Orthodox Church where decisions were made only by the primates, without taking into account the votes of the bishops participating in the Council?
The third paragraph discusses theological dialogues with non-Orthodox believers. It characteristically notes the following: "The dialogues conducted by the Orthodox Church never imply compromises in matters of faith." Here, we would like to recall, as illustrative examples, the documents signed in Balamand, Porto Alegre, Ravenna, and Busan, which contain serious ecclesiological heresies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What was the Council supposed to do?
By Protopresbyter Angelos Angelakopoulos:
Thus, if the false council that took place in Crete really wanted to be an Orthodox Council, then it should have made the following four important decisions:
1) Recognize as Ecumenical the two Councils of the ninth and fourteenth centuries, which are considered as such by all Orthodox. Specifically, recognize as Ecumenical the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879, held under St. Photius the Great, and the Ninth Ecumenical Council of 1351, held under St. Gregory Palamas, for these Councils primarily condemned as heresies: the first condemned the Filioque and the primacy of the Pope, and the second condemned the heresy of "created grace" (and, consequently, papism itself as a heresy).
Despite the fact that the Encyclical Letter of the false council [6] mentions the great Councils (879), convened under St. Photius the Great and St. Gregory Palamas (1351), which possessed "ecumenical authority", as well as subsequent councils that refuted the decisions of the robber Council of Ferrara-Florence and publicly condemned Protestant confessions, they have not yet been recognized as ecumenical. In particular, it is written: "Conciliar activity continues uninterruptedly in history in subsequent councils possessing ecumenical authority, among which were the following: the Great Council (879-880), convened under Photius the Great, Patriarch of Constantinople; "The Great Councils convened under Saint Gregory Palamas (1341, 1351, 1368), through which the truth of faith was confirmed, concerning above all the procession of the Holy Spirit and the communion of man with the uncreated divine energies; then the Holy and Great Councils of Constantinople - 1484, which refuted the Uniate Council of Florence, 1438-1439 and 1638, 1642, 1672, 1691, which refuted Protestant beliefs, as well as the Council of 1872, which condemned ethnophyletism as an ecclesiological heresy."
2) elect, ordain, and enthrone a new Orthodox Pope within the pre-existing and world-renowned Roman Patriarchate; refrain from recognizing and dethroning the current criminal leader of the Western Patriarchate and heretic, Francis. In this way, the issues of papism, union, and Protestantism would be resolved.
3) to create Autocephalous Churches and thereby resolve the issue with the Orthodox Diaspora, and also
4) Follow the patristic path of preaching the Gospel throughout the universe; to this end, develop a digital platform for Orthodox witness in 100 languages. In this way, the worldwide preaching of the Word of God and the patristic writings would disarm all heresies, glorify the name of God, and protect humanity.
The convocation of this council could be considered justified only if the following conditions were met:
1) condemnation of the syncretic pan-heresy of ecumenism, as Saint Justin Popovich called it;
2) condemnation of the presence and participation of Local Orthodox Churches in the so-called “World Council of Churches” (or rather heresies) and
3) condemnation of the post-patristic and anti-patristic “new ecclesiology”, which rejects the charismatic, dogmatic and canonical boundaries of the Church.
After all of the above, we consider it extremely necessary that the Local Orthodox Churches, including those who did not take part in the false council (the Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria, Georgia, Russia, Antioch), convene a new Pan-Orthodox Council in order to:
a) to condemn the so-called Cretan “Council” as robber, heretical and ecumenical;
b) reject the documents he accepted as heretical, especially the document on relations with the heterodox;
c) condemn the organizers, main actors, participants who signed and accepted its heretical documents;
d) condemn inter-Christian and inter-religious syncretic ecumenism as a pan-heresy;
d) to make a decision on the withdrawal of all Local Orthodox Churches from the so-called “World Council of Churches”, or more precisely “heresies”;
e) stop all prayerful communication between Orthodox Christians and non-believers and heretics;
g) to withdraw from the fruitless dialogue between the Orthodox and heretics of all stripes.
May the Holy Triune God grant us to live to see the pan-Orthodox conciliar condemnation of the Cretan false council!