Почетна / English version / The Official Position of the Diocese of Raska-Prizren in Exile on The Robbers’ Council of Crete

The Official Position of the Diocese of Raska-Prizren in Exile on The Robbers’ Council of Crete

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

At a gathering of the Bishop, the Chorbishops and Abbots of the Diocese of Raska and Prizren in Exile of the Church of Serbia at the monastery of St. Justin Popovic in Barajevo on 25th November 2016, his Grace, the Chorbishop of Novo Brdo-Panonija Maxim, gave the following lecture entitled „The Ecumenist ‘Council’ of Crete“. With this opportunity, all those present unanimously accepted the aforementioned lecture as the official position of the entire Diocese on this Robber’s Council.

The Ecumenist ‘Council’ of Crete

The primary attack by the contemporary heresy of Ecumenism and its followers is launched against the Orthodox teaching on the Church, that is, against Orthodox ecclesiology. Such an attack primarily violates Orthodox Conciliarity as one of the essential characteristics of the Church – namely, the unity of the Church in Christ, through unity in the Orthodox Faith.

Supporters of the heresy of Ecumenism do so in the following two ways:

Firstly:  Via their non-Orthodox interpretation of the words of Holy Scripture, especially the Hierarchical prayer of Christ the Saviour: „that all may be one“ (Jn.17:21). Ecumenists interpret these words as an invitation for the unity with all so-called Christians that is, for the unity of Orthodox Christians with all contemporary heretics, without first having called them to repent of and reject their own heresies. None of the Holy Fathers has ever interpreted this passage from the Holy Gospel in such a way.

Secondly: With a bureaucratic understanding and tyrannical implementation of ecclesiastical power by church hierarchs infected with this heresy, via the un-pastoral and non-conciliar imposition of their whims – namely, the imposition of personal Ecumenist aspirations, Ecumenist commitments and Ecumenist attitudes.

When these two principles of Ecumenist activity against the Orthodox Church and Faith are joined together, then phenomena such as the ‘Council’ of Crete inevitably appear.

At the beginning of this lecture, we emphasised that in the context of this Conference in Crete, the word ‘Council’ is used only as a technical term ( terminus technicus ) and even then within quotation marks, as we cannot associate that word (in its fullest Orthodox sense) with the gathering convened in Crete. Because there is too much that is disputable and inconsistent, and there exists a great deal that is non-Conciliar and un-Orthodox, together with a great deal of malice and much frivolity regarding the preparation and the organization of this ‘Council’, that it would be necessary to write an entire book, comprising many volumes to refer to, analyze, and explain all the defects of this event. Indeed, it would be difficult even to find the beginning and the end of this ocean of shifting sand full of heresies, false teachings, delusions and deviations from Orthodoxy, where the ‘Council’ of Crete misled its participants and drew in all of those naïve enough to accept its treacherous decisions.

First of all, it is remarkable that this event was ever announced as being a „Pan-Orthodox Council“ and even as an „Ecumenical Council“ in the first place, while even from the very beginning of this ‘Council’, the euphoria surrounding it began to wane – due to the incomplete participation by representatives of the local Churches. Especially because once the ‘Council’ was over, any remaining euphoria was completely lost. Thus, from the pretentiously entitled „Pan-Orthodox“ and „Ecumenical Council“, only the title „Council of Crete“ remained. The conduct of the participants in the Conference of Crete, from this time perspective, shows that all of them would like this ‘Council’ to be forgotten as quickly as possible, as a failed attempt at enforcing the heresy of Ecumenism and as an even more failed attempt by the vainglorious Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew to implement his papalesque power. However, while it is obvious that the organizers of the ‘Council’ of Crete want to forget the futile organization of this conference, they certainly do not wish to forget the decisions which were taken there.

Although all the preparatory conferences and gatherings from Rhodes in 1961 to Geneva in 2016 indeed served to construct a road leading to the heresy of Ecumenism, the Ecumenistic ‘Council’ of Crete constitutes the peak of this evil act perpetrated by patriarchs and bishops who are enslaved by and servants of the illusion that is Ecumenism.

Our Diocese has published its own traditional Orthodox attitude relating to the ‘Council’ in Crete, in this year’s Conciliar Message of the Prayerful Clergy and Laity’s Congress of the Diocese of Raska-Prizren and Kosovo-Metohija in Exile at Loznica near Cacak, whose main elements may be summarised as follows:

  1. The ‘Council’ in Crete is the culmination of the Ecumenistic orientation imposed throughout the whole Church over many decades, by some Ecumenists (patriarchs, bishops and priests), who have usurped power in the Church.
  2. Ecumenism is the new means by which Orthodox Christians must – in opposition to God’s will – be brought under the yoke of union with the Vatican.
  3. Such an Ecumenistic union is only the first step in the construction of a New World Order of Globalization, within which all religions will be united under a global religion led by „the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition “ (2 Thessalonians 2 : 3).
  4. All documents signed in all previous preparatory conferences – from the regulations concerning organization and operation, to the subject matter and the resulting texts of the so-called ‘Council’ – are not only terminologically and theologically contradictory, but are also in essence and in content, indisputably Ecumenistic.
  5. The subject matter and voting method of this ‘Council’ disregard the Tradition of the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils of the Church. That is, they do not maintain the purity of Orthodoxy, but directly destroy it, while the right to vote was given only to the primates of the Local Churches, and not to all bishops, as required by the aforementioned Holy Tradition of the Church Councils.
  6. All those who do not accept the decisions of the ‘Council’ of Crete, are condemned in advance as schismatics, but even worse as heretics (in the opinion of the Archbishop of Cyprus Chrysostomos), and are from the outset, threatened by unfair means of dismissal, excommunication and punishment. Unfortunately, everything we referred to in the Conciliar Message of Loznica, has become a reality.

From a pastoral and theological perspective, the very procedure of the ‘Council’ of Crete is characterized by the flippancy of its organizers – from the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the other Patriarchs present, especially towards Orthodox Dogma and Holy Tradition, which is wholly inappropriate for such a serious event (as should have been the case with this ‘Council’). This flippancy of the ‘Council’ organizers reflects their frivolous approach to God, to the Church and to the Faithful. Surely due to today’s technological development and the rapid dissemination of information, the organizers must have been aware of how quickly the public would discover that the primary financial support for the organization of the Conference in Crete came from the United States of America, whose Central Intelligence Agency secured the ‘Council’ itself [1]. This clearly demonstrates who is behind the betrayal of Orthodoxy in Crete.

The ‘Council’ itself was the attempt to formulate all that which for many decades, had been persistently imposed upon the Orthodox Church by the leading hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, that central propagator of the Ecumenist heresy, with the consent and assistance of the Ecumenical Patriarch’s own Phanariotes (dominant administrators of the Patriarchate), Ecumenist followers and obedient servants from other Local Churches.

Throughout his holy life, the Blessed St Justin Popovich with his powerful, illuminative and divinely patristic word, criticized and condemned these preparatory conferences and consultations [2], as well as their proposed subject matter, their conclusions and their rules of operation. However, this strong patristic voice of St. Justin Popovich went unheeded by the ‘Council’s’ organizers, because the pre-conciliar conferences that took place after the blessed repose of Father Justin, remain unchanged in their essence, spirit and character, as well as in their preparatory and follow-up issues or processed documents. Thus, all of these in their unmodified entirety were conclusively sealed at the ‘Council’ of Crete.

Therefore, the attempts of some metropolitans – for example, that of His Eminence the Metropolitan Ierotheos of Nafpaktos – to give an Orthodox orientation to this Ecumenist event in Crete, we consider as being commendable but unrealistic, simplistic and practically devoid of any serious intention. Consequently, after the many decades spent in its ecumenist preparation, the ‘Council’ of Crete has clearly displayed its own Ecumenist, liberal and renovationist character. For this reason, it is neither realistic nor serious to believe any claims that such an Ecumenistic Conference – even with some truly Orthodox bishops present – could possess a holy patristic spirit and outcome. It is obvious that some shepherds in the Church of Greece and farther afield, while considering themselves Orthodox and non-Ecumenist, either have no clear understanding of how pernicious the heresy of Ecumenism and its advocates actually are (with regard to the great threat they pose to the Church), or, they do not possess sincere enough intent and courage to deal with this evil appropriately, that is, in a divinely-patristic and confessional manner[3].

The event in Crete meant only the formal acceptance of the earlier decisions made at Chambesy and before Chambesy, with more or less textual elaboration, but without possessing the essence of Orthodox Conciliarity, namely, serious theological analysis and revision throughout the proceedings. That this was the case during the ‘Council’ of Crete is clearly testified to by the inept reaction displayed by the Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa Theodore II, as well as the applause rendered him by likeminded participants.  Upon hearing the aforementioned criticisms of the ‘Council’s’ documents, he declared – to his and the ‘Council’ organizers’ shame – that „the members of this Holy and Great Council are not students requiring lessons in theology“[4]. It is clear then, that the objectives of this ‘Council’s’ participants were not theological, but rather political and economic instead. And these objectives existed purely to meet the goals of globalization pursued by certain financiers of the ‘Council’, a ‘Council’ which itself simply formulated the ecclesiological prerequisites by which these goals are to be achieved. Nonetheless, we cannot deny that despite the lack of seriousness in his declaration, the Patriarch of Alexandria was to a certain extent correct, because at the ‘Council’ of Crete, there really was no theology at all, let alone any Orthodox theology. In response to criticism of the presented documents, the President of this ‘Council’, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, directed his gaze towards the texts’ editor, fellow Ecumenist, renovationist ideologue and patron of contemporary Ecumenism, Metropolitan John Zizioulas, who with arrogance and disdain, avoided responding to anybody criticizing his heretical positions. This detail about the behaviour of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople reveals much, because it shows that with its abuse of the ecclesiastic conciliar tradition, the ‘Council’ in Crete, was in fact, an endeavour exclusively undertaken to impose upon the Church, the spiritually sick, western, eucharistic and ecumenistic, bishop-centred and Papist or rather, the philosophical, sophistic and more existential than theological, but in every case heretical teaching of the controversial and nominal Metropolitan of Pergamon and Phanariot, John Zizioulas.

Participation in the ‘Council’ of Crete was cancelled by the Patriarchates of Moscow, Georgia and Bulgaria. However, we have cause to question the rationale and sincerity of these actions taken by the Patriarchates of Moscow and Georgia.

The reason why the delegation of the Patriarchate of Moscow did not participate in the ‘Council’ of Crete is not dogmatic, but merely technical and administrative. This is also testified by the fact that Moscow’s delegation had already signed what were essentially the same controversial documents in the Pre-Conciliar Conference at Chambesy in 2016 that were subsequently sealed at the ‘Council’ of Crete.

With its stance towards the pre-conciliar conferences, its absence from the ‘Council’ of Crete, and its clear dogmatic reasoning expressed through a number of official statements, the Patriarchate of Georgia gave great hope that at least one Orthodox patriarch would be courageous enough to oppose the Ecumenist heresy whose triumph we witnessed in Crete. However, all hopes disappeared a few weeks prior to our Conciliar Message, when Patriarch Elias II of Georgia personally welcomed Pope Francis of Rome and accompanied him into an Orthodox temple, where they lit candles and prayed together. Therefore, the previous Ecumenist entanglements of this Patriarch [5], created profound consequences for him, whereby sincere repentance for his participation in the Ecumenical movement was absent –  or, if there was any repentance at all, it was lost after his official reception of the Pope.

With its absence from and its rejection of the ‘Council’ of Crete, the Bulgarian Patriarchate also gave us some hope, but this hope also gradually disappears as time passes, because although the Ecumenist betrayal of the Orthodox Faith continues, the Church of Bulgaria remains silent. Any written statement of this Church (or other Local Churches and individuals) against the decisions taken at the ‘Council’ of Crete, will be ridiculed with arrogance and contempt by the Ecumenists. Meanwhile, good-natured but simple believers will be comforted by false hope and will applaud all the beautifully expressed Orthodox slogans, believing that these alone will resolve the advanced problem of the Ecumenist heresy within Church. However in this way, we will not achieve good results, because the timeliness and energy of such a „confession of faith“ will be lost in two weeks, while Ecumenist primates and bishops will continue their own beaten path of union with the Vatican and other heretics, thereby treacherously destroying the Church from within. Every similar piece of writing at such a dramatic moment in which the Church finds Herself is blinkered and vain. This method delivers neither good results nor appropriate action, given how advanced the heretical malady afflicting the ecclesiastical hierarchy actually is. Until the problem of Ecumenism is resolved, the single most clear-sighted action that will provide positive results is the cessation of liturgical and official communion with the Ecumenists (as prescribed by Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople). Furthermore, this cessation of communion should continue until the Ecumenists repent of their heresy. And yet, in an official statement regarding this matter, the Patriarchate of Bulgaria concludes that it will remain in spiritual communion with the Ecumenists who publicly signed the heretical texts in Crete. Accordingly, the Bulgarians say they do not want to cease communion with any of the extreme Ecumenists such as Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. In actuality, this Patriarchate has invalidated and made a mockery of its opposition to the Conference of Crete and the non-Orthodox decisions established there.

While the ‘Council’ of Crete has not succeeded in any officially canonical capacity, the danger lies precisely in the fact that the Ecumenists who organized the Council, needed to establish a superficially formal and quasi-legislational, illusory and conciliar  „acceptance“ of Ecumenism as the primary orientation of all the Local Churches. By doing this, they have absolved Ecumenism of heresy, so as to present it as a „deeply Orthodox“ movement instead. Thus, brandishing the Ecumenist documents produced by the Conference of Crete, the Ecumenists are now able to continue their own Ecumenical activity and the false “dialogue of love”, with even greater boldness and freedom.

Even if we overlook the untraditional manner of organization and voting at the ‘Council’ of Crete, one thing must be clear: even if the ‘Council’ of Crete preserved the entire normal and traditional modus operandi (ecclesiastical and conciliar procedures of organization, operation, work, voting and administration); and even if all the Local Churches together with all of their bishops took part or voted; by the mere fact that in Crete, non-Orthodox decisions were taken, then this ‘Council’ would be still be a Council of Robbers and heretics, and not a true Council in any way whatsoever.

On this occasion, we do not have much time for a detailed theological analysis of the controversial documents signed in Crete. That is why we will only present here in brief, the more seriously false doctrinal claims put forward (some of which we have already referred to in the Conciliar Message of Loznica). Most of these can be found mainly in the most controversial document titled „Relations of the Orthodox Church to the Rest of the Christian World“[6], but also in other texts from the Conference of Crete:

  1. By limiting the number of attending bishops and the voting (which was given only to the primates of the Local Churches), the traditional principle of participation and voting rights of all bishops was abolished.
  2. The ‘Council’ relativized the dogmatically clear definitions of the terms „Christian“ and „Christian world“[7], because Christians and Christianity do not exist without Christ, that is, they do not exist without Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church of Christ.
  3. The ‘Council’ of Crete is not a continuation of the Holy Ecumenical Councils, because it failed to condemn any heresies, and it did not strengthen and maintain Orthodoxy, but on the contrary, it legitimizes and confirms the heretical movement of Ecumenism as well as proclaiming membership in the World Council of Churches[8] as something positive[9], claiming that the Church is broken (according to the Ecumenist ‘Branch Theory’ of the Church), and that the Church must look for its own unity through Ecumenist dialogue.
  4. The ‘Council’ accepts the non-Orthodox position that the Conciliarity of the Church does not proceed from the Orthodox Faith, but that the preservation of the Orthodox Faith automatically proceeds from ecclesiastical Conciliarity as a given. Thus, Conciliarity is artificially separated from its own doctrinal foundation which is the Orthodox Faith[10].
  5. The ‘Council’ created much confusion for understanding what the Church is and who Her true members are, by intermingling the identity of the Church with the heretical communities[11], through the recognition of ecclesiastical identity in these communities. In so doing, the ‘Council’ rejects the truth that the Orthodox Church is the One and only Church of Christ and therefore of Salvation.
  6. The ‘Council’s’ texts do not promote the Holy Fathers of the Church, but rather encourage the meta-patristic, renovationist and heretical „Eucharistic Theology“ of Metropolitan John Zizioulas, thereby providing the theological, philosophical and heretical basis, support and justification for the heresy of Ecumenism, the Ecumenical movement, and its Uniat goals.
  7. The pre-conciliar documents were concealed from the ecclesiastical fullness of the Orthodox Faithful.
  8. The ‘Council’ permits mixed marriages between Orthodox and Heterodox.

Meanwhile, at the Serbian Patriarchate in Belgrade, the grandiose announcement concerning the ‘Council’ in Crete dwindled into absolute silence, with no mention of the ‘Council’ itself. Translation and presentation of the ‘Council’s’ official statements took a month or so more, while the signed texts of the ‘Council’ (in which the betrayal of Orthodoxy is evident), have never been translated into Serbian and absolutely none of these have ever been published. This was done with the intention of concealing the betrayal of Orthodoxy in Crete, as signed by the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenist bishops. When the texts of Crete are translated and when they are presented to the Serbian Orthodox audience, the Orthodox and confessional stance of Bishop Artemije will become even more evident and clear, as will the justification for his struggle against the heresy of Ecumenism, in contrast to the Patriarch’s betrayal of the Orthodox Faith in Crete[12].

These facts alone indicate that trying to discover Orthodox Conciliarity in the ‘Council’ of Crete, is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

It is important to mention the foolhardiness of the Serbian Ecumenist Bishops and of the Renovationists at the ‘Council’ of Crete, where in a completely frivolous manner, they attempted to impose „Conciliarity” on their liturgical reforms, thereby greatly violating the prayerful and liturgical unity in the Serbian Orthodox Church which opens the door for a more disturbing violation of doctrinal unity via the heresy of Ecumenism.

The Ecumenist and heretical decisions from the ‘Council’ of Crete were cordially presented only to the Roman Catholics, while some general lectures were held for the Orthodox in the Serbian Orthodox Church concerning the ‘Council’ of Crete, but without a detailed publication of the decisions taken by the ‘Council’. Apart from the bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Bishops of Serbia (especially Andrei of Austria and Switzerland), officially visited the papal ‘bishops’ to inform them of the results of the Conference of Crete, which from the Ecumenist’s perspective was very positive. The Ecumenist bishops were only then really able to boast before the Roman Catholics that the ‘Council’ of Crete is a great „feat“ and an Orthodox replica of the progressive Second Vatican Council [13], so as to reassure their „western brothers“ that they will not stand in the way of ecclesiastical innovation, but rather, strive to keep up with the Vatican, the Vatican that led modern Europe to secularism and the heretical distortion of the Christian Faith which caused Europe to revert once again to an unprecedented era of idolatry, especially with regard to spirituality and morals.

What more can be said about the ‘Council’ of Crete, when its president Patriarch Bartholomew expressed confidence in the prayers of the Pope, by declaring in one of the ‘Council’s’ original statements that: „at the established hour of noonday prayer, His Holiness the Pope prayed for the success of our work here… wherefore we all express our warmest gratitude.“[14]

It is clear then, that the ‘Council’ of Crete was the source of much rejoicing for the Vatican, as well as encouragement, verve and relief for the Ecumenist bishops. This demonstrates how the ‘Council’ of Ecumenists in Crete is an official and conciliar confirmation of the Ecumenist heresy, and that this ‘Council’ was in fact summoned as a pretext for Ecumenism, as can be seen in the participants’ reckless attempts to emulate the Vatican in innovation and heresy. Furthermore, the ‘Council’ is an attempt made by the Ecumenists to acquire special „conciliar consent“ from the Church, in order to continue the Ecumenistic division of the very Church itself with a „clear conscience“. Of course, all of the above exists only within the Ecumenists’ imagination. In reality however, any Conciliarity bereft of Orthodox substance cannot be called a ‘Council’. Neither can any official conciliar or legislative decision grant permission to bishops to trample upon Orthodox doctrine, or to betray the Faith by imposing heresy throughout the Church. Ecclesiastical history confirms, assures and encourages us that in centuries past, even before the existence of Ecumenists, many heretics attempted the same betrayals in false councils of their own, but failed to accomplish them. If God did not allow for such deceitful intentions to succeed in the past, then neither will He allow the heretical Ecumenists to succeed in the present.

This ‘Council’ of Crete is and will be remembered as a great disgrace in the history of the Orthodox Church. God-willing and one day in the future, this ‘Council’ will be condemned along with the heresy of Ecumenism, in a truly Orthodox Council where the ‘Council of Crete’ will be added to the long list of heretical Robbers’ Councils from the past, and its participants will be described as traitors of Orthodoxy – unless of course, they repent while there is still time. Until then, the documents they signed in Crete will continually bear witness to their shameful betrayal of Orthodoxy. Naturally, the patriarchs and bishops of the Orthodox Church do not speak about this ‘Council’ as a betrayal, because most of them took part in it. And while there are a few exceptions, their opposition was expressed solely via the written or spoken word, but never in decisive action. Accordingly, and as far as the preservation of the Orthodox Faith is concerned, we place our hope in nothing other than God Himself and in our own God-given powers.

On November 25, 2016, at the Holy Monastery of St Justin Popovich in Barajevo at the Gathering of the Bishop, the Chorbishops and Abbots of the Diocese of Raska and Prizren in Exile.

The Reverend Chorbishop of Novo Brdo-Panonija

+ Maxim



(Translated from Marko Pejkovic’s Greek translation by Fr. Dimitrios Taktikos).


[1] In reference to its own sources, the Moscow think tank “Katehon,” claims that U.S. and British intelligence services are trying to influence the decisions of the Council of Crete. According to these reports, both intelligence services use agents who wield influence upon the Ecumenical Patriarchate in order to undermine the power of the Orthodox Church of Russia, by promoting Ecumenist trends and ecclesiastic „reforms“ to weaken Orthodoxy. One of the key figures here is Alexander Karloutsos, a Board member of the ‘Council’. The second most important person responsible for relations between the ‘Council’ of Crete and the U.S. intelligence services is Alex Rondos. According to the same article published on the “Katehon” website, Rondos is the special EU representative for the Horn of Africa, closely linked to U.S. and U.K. intelligence serves, as well as non-governmental organizations promoting globalization. This article also states that Rondos championed the ‘Colour Revolutions’,  helped set up the non-governmental organization „Canvas “ in  Belgrade, and supported independence for Kosovo.  (https://katehon.com/article/man-behind-scenes-crete-council).

[2] See: St. Justin Popovich, “On a Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church”.   Presented to the Holy Synod and Council of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church on May 7, 1977, here: (http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stjustin_council.aspx)

[3] We see that such a principle of „bureaucratic correctness“ involving obedience to any rank within the ecclesiastical hierarchy contaminated with heresy, as well as participation in the ‘Councils’ of this hierarchy, is absolutely futile and produces no good results whatsoever. All those who attempt to protect the Orthodox Faith by adhering to this principle of “bureaucratic purism” are simply put to shame by it. The protection of the Faith at an unorthodox Council – such as the one that took place in Crete, that was organized over many decades with the clear purpose of officially legitimizing the heresy of Ecumenism –  is merely a half-hearted easing of the conscience for those bishops who are aware of the betrayal of the Faith within the Church, but are incapable of fighting boldly and courageously against this betrayal with the traditional and customary means at their disposal.

[4]    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=el&u=https://perivolipanagias.blogspot.com/2016/06/blog-post_978.html&prev=search

[5] „From 1978 to 1983, Patriarch Elias II of Georgia was one of the presidents of the World Council of Churches … „.

(http://www.spc.rs/eng/georgias_catholicospatriarch_ilia_ii_turns_83 )

[6] The references to the document ‘Relations of the Orthodox Church to the Rest of the Christian World’ and all associated quotes in notes 7-11 below, can be found in the official website of the ‘Council’ documents here:  https://www.holycouncil.org/-/rest-of-christian-world

[7]   “The Orthodox Church, as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, in her profound ecclesiastical self-consciousness, believes unflinchingly that she occupies a central place in the matter of the promotion of Christian unity in the world today”. Article 1, Relations of the Orthodox Church to the Rest of the Christian World.

[8] “Remaining faithful to her ecclesiology, to the identity of her internal structure, and to the teaching of the ancient Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church’s participation in the WCC…“ Article 8, Relations of the Orthodox Church to the Rest of the Christian World.

[9] “The contemporary bilateral theological dialogues of the Orthodox Church and her participation in the Ecumenical Movement rest on this self-consciousness of Orthodoxy and her ecumenical spirit, with the aim of seeking the unity of all Christians on the basis of the truth of the faith and tradition of the ancient Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.. The Orthodox Church has a common awareness of the necessity for conducting inter-Christian theological dialogue. It therefore believes that this dialogue should always be accompanied by witness to the world through acts expressing mutual understanding and love…” Articles 5 & 23, Relations of the Orthodox Church to the Rest of the Christian world.

[10] “ As evidenced throughout the life of the Orthodox Church, the preservation of the true Orthodox faith is ensured only through the conciliar system, which has always represented the highest authority in the Church on matters of faith and canonical decrees”. Article 22, Relations of the Orthodox Church to the Rest of the Christian World.

[11] “In spite of this, the Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of other non-Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions that are not in communion with her… „. Article 6, Relations of the Orthodox Church to the Rest of the Christian World.

[12] The reported concealment of the ‘Council’s’ texts from Crete by the Patriarchate in Belgrade, is proof that Patriarch Irenaeus and the Ecumenist Serbian bishops have behaved dishonestly towards the Serbian Orthodox Faithful. In so doing, they will have to admit before God and the Faithful that they have betrayed the Orthodox Faith, because by acknowledging the Papists and other heretics as being Churches, they have renounced Christ Himself, together with St. Sava of Serbia.

[13] The Papist ‘Council’ that began the radical reformation and Ecumenistic reorganization of the Vatican.

[14]    Translated from the original Greek spoken by Patriarch Bartholomew as an impromptu remark in his Opening Address at the ‘Council’ of Crete, from 7:42- 8:18 minutes here:  https://www.holycouncil.org/-/opening-session-holy-and-great-council-his-all-holiness-ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew