The following treatise was sent to us by Savva (Tống Duệ Uyên), an Orthodox layman from Vietnam.
***
The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s pursuit of “Christian unity” through dialogue with non-Orthodox traditions, particularly Roman Catholicism, may appear noble on the surface, but it raises theological and political questions.
Photo: orthodoxianewsagency.gr
The Ecumenical Patriarchate has frequently invoked the “spirit of Christian unity” as a reason to engage in dialogue with heresy—that is, traditions outside of the Orthodox faith, particularly Roman Catholicism. However, in reality, this approach is deeply political, intertwined with the dynamics of ecclesiastical power. It is crucial to distinguish: “unity” does not equate to “organizational uniformity,” nor can it imply erasing the boundary between truth and error. When Constantinople uses the term “unity” without establishing a foundation based on the truth revealed through Sacred Tradition and the Holy Spirit, it ceases to be theology and becomes a political redefinition of the nature of the Church using linguistic tools.
In this framework, “unity” becomes an empty symbol—a term that appears sacred but is detached from its true content in the Orthodox tradition. This is a textbook example of postmodern philosophy applied to religion: where words are redefined to serve power structures, rather than being expressions of truth. “Unity” is no longer a spiritual goal but a mechanism for re-establishing Constantinople’s symbolic power in a fragmented Orthodox world.
Orthodoxy does not reject the desire for unity. But the Church has never defined unity as an organizational alliance with any group that maintains heresy. Once a Church continues to uphold crucial theological errors—such as Filioque, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, or the absolute supremacy of the Pope—any communion that does not rest on conversion is a betrayal of the essence of the Church. This is not a narrow viewpoint, but an intrinsic logical proposition of Orthodox theology itself. The Church is the Body of Christ, not an interfaith organization based on compromise. We cannot walk alongside error without being drawn into it. A Church that unites with heresy without converting that heresy is either a Church that has lost the truth or one that no longer has the consciousness to distinguish truth from falsehood. This is not about “interfaith relations,” but the ontological issue of truth, which no Orthodox tradition can deny if it still upholds theological integrity.
Constantinople has increasingly lost its position in the Orthodox world, especially with Russia, Serbia, and Antioch. To regain symbolic power, it resorts to terms like “ecumenism” and “Christian unity,” attempting to create an image of global spiritual leadership—even though this is not supported by traditional Orthodox theology.
The situation in Ukraine is a vivid example of how the Ecumenical Patriarchate has employed an imperial intervention model, completely contrary to the synodal tradition of Orthodoxy. The recognition of a newly established Ukrainian Church, despite the opposition of the vast majority of other Patriarchates, is not merely a unilateral act—it is the establishment of a new form of “centralized ecclesiastical power,” much like the way the Papacy imposed its authority on Western churches during the Medieval period. When local autonomy (autocephaly) is no longer the result of consensus among Churches, but becomes a privilege granted “from the center,” the very essence of Orthodoxy—which is the free communion of local Churches—is overturned at its foundation. This is not merely an administrative mistake, but a paradigm shift in ecclesiology: from “equal communion” to “hierarchical power.”
Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord. Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the Lord (Jeremiah 23:1-2)
From a political perspective, this is the imposition of the modern nation-state structure on a transcendent body, something that Orthodoxy has always carefully avoided. But Constantinople has not only accepted this model—it has pioneered its implementation, in the name of “ecclesiastical order” but in fact as a power order.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s declaration of jurisdiction in Southeast Asia, despite having no active missionary presence, further illustrates an empty imperial logic. In the Orthodox tradition, jurisdiction is always tied to community, pastoral presence, sacrifice, and practical responsibility. A bishop without a flock has no authority—only nominal status.
Such a declaration in Southeast Asia reflects an ambition to “re-map the global Church” according to a “supervisory” model from Constantinople, regardless of the cultural context, ethnic identity, and practical needs of the local faithful. From a political philosophy standpoint, this is a form of ecclesiastical colonialism—seizing symbols and nominal power without assuming real responsibility, without presence, without listening, and without incarnating into the local life.
Orthodoxy has always emphasized the role of the bishop as the “spiritual father” of the community—someone who lives among the flock, dies with them, and takes responsibility for their salvation. A jurisdiction that exists only in paperwork, without mission, without priests, without pastoral care, is not Orthodoxy. It is political camouflage!
When a bishop or Patriarch abandons the incarnational model—living and being present with the community—and instead relies on letters, resolutions, and “certificates of power,” it is a betrayal of the Church’s Eucharistic essence. Orthodoxy has no Pope. Ecclesiastical power is communion—not centralization. Constantinople today, in its “pseudo-Catholicization” efforts, is building a model similar to the Vatican without daring to admit it.
It’s impossible to discuss the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople without considering the modern political context of Turkey, the secular Islamic state directly controlling its territory. The Patriarchate exists in Turkey as a limited entity, dependent, and with little actual authority over the local community, as the Orthodox population there has drastically diminished since the massacres and expulsions of the early twentieth century. Therefore, in order to maintain international influence and symbolic survival, the Patriarchate must transform spiritual power into diplomatic influence—seeking a “spiritual” global leadership role rather than a local pastoral entity.
This is why the political backing of the United States and the West has become a strategic pillar for the Patriarchate, especially on issues like recognizing the schismatic Ukrainian Church’s independence—an act that undermines the unity of Orthodoxy. While Turkey is not a close ally of the West, they use the Ecumenical Patriarchate as a geopolitical bargaining chip, maintaining control while also ready to allow Western access when needed.
The result is that Constantinople is no longer as free as other Orthodox Sees. As a “historical hostage” to a secular Islamic state, it must operate more as a diplomatic agency than a pastoral Church, and as such, every decision is tinted with geopolitical concerns—no longer purely theological or pastoral. This is the greatest tragedy of a Patriarchate that was once the glorious center of Orthodoxy.
And clearly, unity cannot be achieved through political negotiation. In the Orthodox vision, truth is non-negotiable. When compromising with heretics without their repentance, we are not achieving unity—we are betraying the truth and creating an illusion of unity. One cannot use “understanding” or “shared history” as an excuse for theological ambiguity. Orthodoxy is never called to be a “humanitarian reconciliation forum”; the Church is the Body of Christ—it cannot unite with error without losing itself.
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people (2 Corinthians 6:5–16)
The Ecumenical Patriarchate is currently operating on three mistaken bases:
-
The politicization of theology, using the language of reconciliation to conceal ambitions for global ecclesiastical leadership.
-
The loss of pastoral substance, declaring power without presence, without community—contrary to the incarnational nature of Orthodoxy.
-
Distortion of the doctrine of unity, advocating for “unity” without repentance—creating an illusion rather than the truth.
If Orthodoxy were to accept such a model, it would no longer be the Apostolic Church, but a political system masquerading as the sacred. In the Holy Spirit, communion is never imposed from the outside—it is the fruit of unity in Truth.
Without repentance, there is no truth—and thus, no unity!
For even Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves as the ministers of righteousness (2 Corinthians 11:14–15)
