The Teaching of the Church on the Mysteries of Heretics, by Metropolitan Meletios (Kalamaras) of Nikopolis (+2012)

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | April 23, 2026

 

 

We present below an excerpt from a theological study by the blessed Metropolitan Meletios of Nikopolis and Preveza on the mysteries performed by heretical priests, from his book The Fifth Ecumenical Council.

The main points of the text are:

A. The Church is not an administrative association, but a unity of Faith and of the Holy Spirit. Only heresy ruptures it.

B. A priest remains a “father” and a “shepherd” only so long as he rightly teaches the truth. If he deviates, he is considered a “wolf” and loses his spiritual status.

C. The heterodoxy of the priest “defiles” (pollutes) the mysteries. Participation in them does not sanctify the believer, but makes him complicit in the delusion.

D. The faithful are obliged to break communion even with those suspected of heresy (for example, the 35-year abstention of the Orthodox during the Acacian schism).

E. Commemoration is the seal of identity in the faith. Erasure from commemoration (e.g. Pope Vigilius) is necessary in order for the Church to remain pure from “impiety.”

In conclusion, what makes a priest Orthodox, and the mysteries he performs valid, is that he possesses APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION and APOSTOLIC FAITH.

***

According to an indisputable ecclesiastical principle, the unity of the Church is not of an administrative-institutional form. The Church is one in the Spirit; it is united in the name of Christ. “One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, Who is over all and through all and in us all.”

This unity is disturbed only by heresies. He who thinks differently, contrary to what he has received, ceases to have the unity of the faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit. For this reason, according to the Fifth [Ecumenical] Council (Act I, §3, 17), the supreme duty of priests, as guardians of the Church, is the safeguarding of the faith. The falling away of priests from the unity of the faith defiles the mysteries performed by them and removes from them the gift of spiritual fatherhood. Instead of shepherds they become wolves, devouring their flock (see Act VI, §15, 10 and Act I, 3, 14).

For this reason, Justinian declares (and the Council confirms this ‘position’ in Act VII, §16, 1–2) that he would never tolerate receiving Holy Communion from priests suspected of heresy. And the Orthodox, throughout the whole period of the Acacian schism, refused to receive the immaculate Mysteries from the hands of those merely suspected. “Why do we remain out of communion for so many (35) years? Why do we not commune?” (A.C.O. 3, p. 72). Priests and fathers are only those who preserve the faith unadulterated (Act I, §3, 14).

[,,,]

Every priest performs the immaculate Mysteries worthily and for sanctification only insofar as he is united with the faith of the Church. As a declaration and safeguard of this unity, the commemoration of the sacred diptychs is made. In the diptychs of the living are inscribed and proclaimed the names of the “in-communion” Orthodox hierarchs and patriarchs. For this reason, our Council also, in order to safeguard the purity of the holy Mysteries, removes from the sacred diptychs the name of the then-reigning Pope Vigilius (see Act VII, §§16–17). In the diptychs of the departed, only the Orthodox fathers and teachers are commemorated. For this reason also, when it was established that Theodore was preaching heterodox teachings, his name was deleted from the diptychs of the Church of Mopsuestia. It is “foreign to Christians to accept impiety (= heresy) on an equal footing with the Orthodox faith” (Act I, §3, 13). All priests must hold one and the same opinion only (Act II, §5, 7).

(The Fifth Ecumenical Council by Meletios (Kalamaras), Metropolitan of Nikopolis, Athens, 1985, pp. 104, 117.)

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/04/2012.html

Lest Ye Be Judged

Michael W. Davis | April 21, 2026

 

 

Christ told us: "Judge not, lest ye be judged" (Matt. 7:1). St. Vitalus of Gaza illustrates the meaning of this counsel more than any man who ever lived—except, of course, for Christ Himself.

“Don’t criticize or judge other people,” Fr. Seraphim Rose said; “regard everyone else as an angel, justify their mistakes and weaknesses, and condemn only yourself as the worst sinner. This is step one in any kind of spiritual life.”

To many of us, this advice is beyond naive. It’s positively dangerous. How can we, as Christians, turn a blind eye to evil? Refraining from judgment is one thing. But to justify a sinner—to make excuses for his sins? Doesn’t that make us the enemy of truth?

To answer that question, we should look to the life of St. Vitalus of Gaza (+625), whose memory we celebrate today.

Vitalus was a monk of the Monastery of St. Seridus near Gaza. In his sixtieth year, around the time when St. John the Merciful was Patriarch of Alexandria, this elderly hermit left the quiet of the desert and traveled to the bustling, vice-ridden port city of Alexandria.

By day, he hired himself out as a common day-laborer, performing exhausting physical work for a meager wage of about twelve copper coins. He ate almost nothing—just a single bean after sunset—to sustain himself. With the rest of his earnings, he went each evening to a different prostitute in the city. As he approached her door, he would sometimes announce his destination loudly enough for passersby to hear, inviting the inevitable scandal.

Yet when he entered the room, he would hand the woman the money and say words to this effect: “I have paid for this night so that you may spend it without sin.” He urged her to rest, to sleep peacefully for once without selling her body. While she slept—or if she was willing, while they talked—he would stand or sit in the corner, keeping vigil. He prayed the Psalms throughout the night, interceding for her soul, reminding her gently of her human dignity as a creature made in the image of God, and speaking of Christ’s mercy for the fallen. 

Many women, moved by his purity, his kindness, and the strange holiness that radiated from this old monk, opened their hearts. He extracted from them a promise not to reveal the true nature of his visits. In time, dozens—perhaps hundreds—left the brothels. Some entered monasteries, others married and became faithful wives and mothers, raising Christian families.

To the Christians of Alexandria, however, the spectacle was intolerable. Here was a monk, supposedly consecrated to God, frequenting the worst quarters of the city night after night. Rumors flew. Accusations of hypocrisy and immorality spread like wildfire. Good churchgoers crossed the street to avoid him. Some spat in his path. Even fellow believers investigated the charges against him, though they found no evidence of wrongdoing. 

Vitalus bore it all in silence. When questioned directly, he would sometimes reply with disarming simplicity: “Have I not a body like everyone else? Are monks not like other men? Mind your own business!” He refused to defend himself publicly or expose the women’s secrets, choosing instead to appear as the worst of sinners for the sake of their salvation.

By allowing himself to be despised, he protected the fragile beginnings of repentance in these women. His “justification” of them was not a denial of sin, but a refusal to reduce them to their worst moments. He saw in each prostitute an immortal soul for whom Christ died—no different, in God’s eyes, from the respectable matron in the pew or the monk in his cell. Sin was real, but so was the possibility of radical transformation through grace.

One fateful night, the misunderstanding reached its tragic climax. A man—accounts vary as to whether he was a pimp enraged by losing business, a client, or even a self-righteous Christian—attacked Vitalus, striking him on the head and stabbing him. The wounded saint dragged himself back to his humble dwelling. 

He was found dead the next day, clutching a scrap of paper on which he had written a verse from St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians: “Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.”

Only at his funeral did the truth emerge. A great crowd of reformed women—former prostitutes now living chaste and honorable lives—came forward. One by one, they testified that they owed their souls, their freedom, and their eternal hope to this despised monk. 

How does the life of St. Vitalus illuminate Fr. Seraphim’s teaching? In two ways.

Firstly, St. Vitalus did not judge the women to whom he ministered. Rather, he justified them. He saw them not as perpetrators but as victims of evil—which, indeed, they were. This allowed him to minister to them without judgment, without reservation.

Second, St. Vitalus intentionally gave the impression that he was giving evil, in order to disguise his own holiness. This was done in radical obedience to Christ’s commandment that we do good works in secret (cf. Mat. 6:1-21); “Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven.”

So, when we seem to encounter evil in others, we should regard them as St. Vitalus regarded the prostitutes—or, indeed, like the people of Alexandria ought to have regarded Vitalus himself. We have no idea what secret battles they are fighting within themselves. We have no idea what circumstances they have faced, which led to their present situation. We have no idea what virtues they possess, but are kept hidden from our view. Indeed, the “evil” we perceive may be an act to conceal their holiness!

Sure, it may seem implausible. Yet remember that St. Vitalus was so good at playing the role of the wicked monk that he was killed for it. Is this a risk that we want to take? Or should we follow Fr. Seraphim’s advice, and assume that we have “entertained angels unawares” (Heb. 13:2)?

 

Source: https://uoj.news/man-and-church/86953-lest-ye-be-judged

On the Necessity of Conciliar Judgment

In the Sacred Canons of the Ecumenical Councils, we encounter various synonymous terminologies which essentially constitute the disciplinary instruction proposed by the Fathers of the Councils for issues that arise. We cite those which we distinguished, with reference to the respective Sacred Canon: [106]

“Let him be subject to a canonical penance” in Chalcedon 14.
“Let him be subject to ecclesiastical penances” in Chalcedon 25.
“Cast out from all ecclesiastical communion and inactive” in Ephesus 1.
“Let him be thrust out as a stranger and let him fall away” in Quinisext 1.
“Unacceptable” in Apostolic Canon 12.
“Excluded from communion” in Apostolic Canons 10, Nicaea 5, Nicaea 16, Constantinople 6, Ephesus 6, Chalcedon 4, Chalcedon 8, Chalcedon 16, Chalcedon 20, Chalcedon 23.
“Let him be anathema” in Quinisext 1 and Nicaea II 1.
“Let him be removed from communion” in Quinisext 80.
“Excluded from the synagogue” in Nicaea 5.
“Penance” in Apostolic Canon 74, Chalcedon 3, Chalcedon 8, Chalcedon 9, Chalcedon 14, Chalcedon 24, Chalcedon 25, Quinisext 44, Quinisext 46, Quinisext 49, Quinisext 53, Quinisext 61, Quinisext 87, Quinisext 91, Quinisext 94, Quinisext 96, Nicaea II 1, Nicaea II 5, Nicaea II 6, Nicaea II 16.
“Let him be punished with excommunication” in Apostolic Canons 73 and 76.
“Let him be excommunicated” in Apostolic Canons 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 36, 43, 45, 48, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 84, Quinisext 4, Quinisext 5, Quinisext 11, Quinisext 13, Quinisext 18, Quinisext 27, Quinisext 33, Quinisext 47, Quinisext 50, Quinisext 51, Quinisext 55, Quinisext 56, Quinisext 58, Quinisext 59, Quinisext 62, Quinisext 64, Quinisext 65, Quinisext 67, Quinisext 68, Quinisext 71, Quinisext 72, Quinisext 73, Quinisext 73, Quinisext 74, Quinisext 76, Quinisext 77, Quinisext 79, Quinisext 81, Quinisext 86, Quinisext 88, Quinisext 94, Quinisext 96, Quinisext 97, Quinisext 99, Quinisext 100, Quinisext 101, Nicaea II 1, Nicaea II 3, Nicaea II 5, Nicaea II 9, Nicaea II 13.
“It is necessary that he be excommunicated” in Apostolic Canon 9.
“Let him come under excommunication” in Apostolic Canon 32.
“To be found excommunicated” in Apostolic Canon 36.
“We prescribe excommunication” in Quinisext 94.

We are then called to discern what the competent body is which exercises and has the jurisdiction to carry out the respective disciplinary instruction and ecclesiastical penalty. Therefore, with reference to a footnote of the interpreters of The Rudder on Apostolic Canon 3, we can better understand the concept of jurisdiction and of the competent body for the imposition of an ecclesiastical penalty. The footnote states:

“We must know that the penalties which the Canons prescribe, that is, let him be deposed, and let him be excommunicated, and let him be anathema, these, according to the art of grammar, are in the third person imperative, the person not being present. In order for this command to be transmitted, it is of necessity required that there be a second person present. I explain it better. The canons command the synod of living bishops to depose priests, or to excommunicate, or to anathematize laymen, who transgress the canons. However, if the synod does not practically carry out the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication, or anathematization of the laymen, these priests and laymen are neither actually deposed, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized. They are, however, liable to judgment: here, to deposition and excommunication or anathematization, and there, to divine judgment… Therefore, those foolish people greatly err who say that in the present times all the clergy ordained contrary to the canons are actually deposed... the command of the Canons, without the practical action of the second person, that is, of the Synod, is incomplete, not operating by itself immediately and before judgment.” [107]

It follows that anyone who falls into an error for which some punishment is imposed, the competent body to impose this punishment upon him is the synod “of living bishops”; it has the right to depose, excommunicate, and anathematize its members. As the interpreters inform us in their commentary, there exists neither automatic deposition, nor automatic excommunication, nor automatic anathemas. The terms “let him be deposed” and “let him be excommunicated,” which the Sacred Canons mention, apply to all other matters except matters of faith. And there, naturally, the second person is also needed, that is, the Synod in the present case, which will impose upon the particular person the penances prescribed by the Sacred Canons. But in the case of those who preach any heresy, there is not the “let him be deposed” and “let him be excommunicated,” but “let him be anathema.”

Dositheos of Jerusalem also defines it excellently: “A heresy which arises, if it spreads, is judged and condemned by the Ecumenical Council,” which is “superior to Local Councils” and “the final tribunal of the Catholic Church.” [108]

 

NOTES

106. For the discovery of the relevant passages, combined use was made of Amilkas Alivizatos, Sacred Canons, ed. Apostoliki Diakonia, Athens 1997, and Pavlos Menevisoglou, Metropolitan of Sweden, Lexicon of the Sacred Canons, ed. Epektasi, Katerini 2013. The recording of the passages was made from Rallis-Potlis, vol. 2, and Joannou P. P., vol. 1.1.

107. The Rudder, footnote 2, pp. 4–5.

108. Dositheos of Jerusalem, Dodecabiblos, Rigopoulos ed., Thessaloniki 1982, Book 3, Chapter 15, §19, p. 171, and Book 4, Chapter 10, §3, pp. 456–457.

 

Source: Η Ποινή του Αφορισμού κατά τους Ιερούς Κανόνες & τις Αποφάσεις των Οικουμενικών Συνόδων [The Penalty of Excommunication According to the Sacred Canons and the Decisions of the Ecumenical Councils], Fr. George Avramidis. Postgraduate diploma thesis, Theological School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 2023-2024, pp. 39-41.

When artificial intelligence is more Orthodox than the natural intelligence of some G.O.C. members.

Nikolaos Mannis | April 23, 2026

 

 

“What position is Orthodox? That of former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos concerning the necessity of a Synodal Judgment, or that of Matthew of Vresthena concerning the automatic severance of transgressors?”

To this question, AI replied:

Orthodox ecclesiology aligns with the view of former Metropolitan of Florina Chrysostomos, holding that the definitive severance of a member or of a local Church requires a synodal decision.

Synodal judgment is considered essential in the Orthodox Church because it is the only safeguard that guarantees unity and objectivity, preventing the overthrow of ecclesiastical order.

The main reasons why the Church insists on the synodal path are:

• Avoidance of Subjectivity: Without a synodal judgment, every believer or cleric could become a “judge” of his own bishop. If severance were automatic, the Church would fragment into countless groups, since each person would regard as heretical anyone who disagreed with him, leading to an extreme “individual zealotry.”

• Avoidance of Arbitrariness: If severance were automatic on the basis of each believer’s or cleric’s personal judgment, the Church would be led into endless fragmentation, since anyone could label another a heretic at will.

• Safeguarding Canonical Order: The Church, as an institutional body, has its own “laws” (the Holy Canons). Deposition or excommunication are judicial acts that require the participation of an assembly of bishops (a Synod), so that the offense may be determined accurately and the accused may be given the opportunity for defense and repentance.

• The Church as the Body of Christ: Orthodox ecclesiology teaches that the truth does not belong to one individual, but to the whole body of the Church. The Synod expresses this collective consciousness and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, discerning error from truth.

• Distinction between “Sin” and “Penalty”: Heresy is a spiritual illness (sin), but “expulsion” from ecclesiastical communion is a penalty (a judicial act). Just as in civil society a crime does not automatically bring imprisonment without a trial, so also in the Church heresy does not bring automatic severance without the Synod’s determining decision.

• Protection of the Flock: Canon 15 of the First-Second Council permits the cessation of commemoration (walling off) as a protective measure so that the faithful may not be infected by false doctrine, but it states clearly that the final condemnation and definitive severance take place only after the “synodal pronouncement.”

Moreover, history has shown that wherever the synodal institution was abolished and arbitrariness prevailed, the Church was led into deep and long-lasting schisms.

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2026/04/blog-post_23.html

 

 

A Warning about ROCOR’s Western Rite Experiment

An excerpt from “ROCOR's Anglican Scandal Continues - and it gets worse (Part 2),” by Simon Dennerly, posted on VirtueOnline.org, “The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism,” on March 28, 2019.

 

 

ROCOR's WR Expansion

The secret behind ROCOR's WRV new expansion is taking Anglican clergy, mainly from the Continuum [i.e., a general term for breakaway groups from the Anglican and Episcopalian churches in response to the modernism in their respective churches since the 1970s], giving them quick ordinations and getting them involved in church planting. From [Fr. Mark] Rowe's account of applying for ROCOR "We then made our applications to the ROCOR Western Rite Vicariate, which were accepted and blessed by Metropolitan Hilarion, and ordination dates were set for the three of us to be received and ordained to the sacred priesthood." I spoke with one Continuing Anglican priest who wanted to leave his church but did not know were he would go, five weeks later he was ordained for ROCOR's WRV and starting a mission parish.

A Facebook post for ROCOR WRV's Holy Cross Parish from 02/010/2018:

"NEW WESTERN RITE ORTHODOX MISSION-PLANTS

Fr Mark Rowe, Vicar General of the Western Rite Communities of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, has just announced that there are now ROCOR Western Rite Missions in formation in the following cities:

CHATTANOOGA, TN
ATLANTA, GA
SAN FRANCISIO, CA
ORLANDO FL

If any of our readers are near these cities and are interested in joining a forming Western Rite mission church please contact FR. Mark Rowe by email at: (address removed-ed)

The ROCOR Western Rite Communities continue to grow and the Western Church continues to be rebuilt, Church history is being written. You can be the first of tomorrow (Western Orthodox) rather than the last of yesterday (Anglican or Roman traditionalists). We love being Orthodox. You will too. Come and see!"

The main issue with this is although the Continuum was formed by and still contains many good clergy who left the Anglican Communion out of conscience, it has a well deserved reputation of having attracted or ordained clergy who are charlatans, and those who 'turn their coats often'- and now Archpriest Mark Rowe, a former Continuum priest who turned coat many a time is recruiting from them. Have you been expelled from a seminary on sex abuse and drug allegations? Not a problem! Or was that a case of "don't ask, don't tell"? Compared with the Catholic Church's Personal Ordinariates which requires a background check and psychological test before even being accepted into a two year priest formation period, while embedded in an Ordinariate community to meet the requirements to be ordained.

Last year in the Global Western Rite Orthodoxy Facebook page a ROCOR WR priest, Fr Michael Wood made the following claims against the first Vicar General of ROCOR's WRV, Bishop Jerome Shaw in a discussion whether there would be a WRO bishop (screen shot seen by editor of Virtue Online):

"Michael Wood: Mark Atkins We had one, he messed up in a big way and got forcible retired.

Michael John: Michael Wood: (emoji -- sad)

Dane Garrett: Michael Wood People were ever looking for an excuse to oust him.

Jim Polyzoidis: Mark Atkins it's called Western-phobia

Michael Wood: Dane Garrett No actually they weren't. He forged documents the synod found out about it and forgery of ordination certificate is a hanging offence no matter who does it."

This would seemingly explain the 2013 decree of the extraordinary Synod which effectively sort to shut down the WRV as it stood down the heads of the WRV, "To halt the ordination of new clergymen for parishes adhering to the Western Rite." And the examination of those who had been ordained WRV clergy, and transition Western Rite parishes into the 'mainstream liturgical practice' of ROCOR i.e. the Eastern Rite. This would suggest ROCOR's WRV has had major issues with integrity, and who they ordain, from the beginning.

Where some believe WRO is Eastern Orthodoxy with a Western mask, ROCOR's version could be described as the worst of the Anglican Continuum with an Orthodox mask. ROCOR has not shown the virtuous behaviour of the "One True Church" they claim to be a part of; indeed they are acting like the non-virtuous women with a thing for bad boys. My deep concern is someone, indeed many someones, will get seriously hurt by ROCOR's lack of standards - but at this stage anyone who gets involved with their Western Rite Vicariate will only have themselves to blame.

 

Source:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190716143613/https://www.virtueonline.org/rocors-anglican-scandal-continues-and-it-gets-worse-part-2

“Give Unto Me of Thy Virtues”: A Poem by St. Nektarios of Pentapolis to the Theotokos

 

Give Unto Me of Thy Virtues

 

All-Blessed Lady, Most Pure Virgin, all-wondrous Paradise, fair garden,

I beseech Thee, All-Immaculate One, to grace my mind, direct my thoughts, enlighten my soul.

Render me, O Maiden, pure, gentle, seemly, brave, serene and comely, upright, holy, divine, tolerant, long-suffering, a vessel of virtues, blameless, beyond reproach, a repository of things excellent.

Give unto me wisdom, prudence and ingenuousness, circumspection and simplicity and lowliness of mind. Give unto me sobriety, an enlightened outlook, a luminous intellect, an intemerate spirit.

Banish from me haughtiness, arrogance, conceit, boastfulness, and presumption, offense, disdain, high-mindedness, a loquacitous tongue, tendentiousness.

Fearful instability, needless wordage, multifarious wickedness, and indecent speech.

Grant unto me, All-Immaculate One, moral courage, boldness, steadfastness, give me perseverance.

Give unto me self-abnegation, non-avariciousness, wise zeal and the forgetfulness of wrongs.

Give to me integrity, nobility of heart, an upright and peaceful spirit, and a spirit of truth.

Put to flight, All-Immaculate One, passions of the heart, every form, O Pure One, of moral pusillanimity. Shameless unmanliness, impudence, cowardice, dreadful faint-heartedness, and despair.

Take from me, O Maiden, anger and all idleness, despondency, wrath, as well as indolence.

Envy, spite, hatred, malice, ire, vengeance, and the remembrance of wrongs.

Trivial disputation, garrulity, awful bloviation, and foul-mouthedness.

Give unto me, O Virgin, tenderness of heart.

Give me increased awareness and scrupulosity.

Give unto me, O Virgin, the joy of the Holy Spirit.

Give me peace of soul, the peace of the Lord.

Give me love, eros divine and intemerate, abundant, fervent, chaste, and sanctified.

Give me vivid faith, active, ardent, pure, and sacred, hope unshakeable, sure and holy.

Take from me, O Virgin, the yoke of sin, negligence, drunkenness, uncharitableness, evil desires, shameful debauchery, lewd laughter and every evil act.

Grant unto me prudence, O Maiden, give me over to self-control, fasting, attentiveness, vigilance, and perfect obedience. Give me heedfulness in all things, keen discretion, decorous silence, and holy patience.

Grant me, O Lady, diligence in my work, and also zeal in achieving the exercise of the virtues.

My soul, my heart, and my mind, All-Holy One, keep in holiness, preserving them in chastity.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXX (2013), No. 1, pp. 3-4.

The Old Calendar Struggle: A Yearning for Love Without Compromise

By Archbishop [Metropolitan] Chrysostomos of Etna (+2019)

This article is a slightly revised version of an essay that appeared in Orthodox Tradition in 1984. We have asked His Eminence’s permission to reprint it here, since, though dated, it nonetheless expresses thoughts that we find as germane, edifying, and beneficial to our readers today as when he originally composed it—the Editors.

 

 

In several past issues of Orthodox Tradition, I attempted to present a fair and objective profile of the Old Calendarist movement in Greece: its excesses and its triumphs; its strengths and its weaknesses; and its struggle to remain a firm witness to all of the traditions of the Church at a time when even the most basic of traditions are being cast aside by many of the national Churches, their Exarchates in diaspora, and, alas, some of the ancient Patriarchates. In my attempts, I have tried to follow a path of moderation, certainly acknowledging the faults and flaws which exist in our traditionalist circles and, at the same time, pointing out that the Church is still one and that many so-called “modernist” Orthodox do, indeed, truly strive for sincere spiritual ends.

My attempts at moderation have been variously successful. A moderate stand is a difficult one, since it slices through the very substance of the extremes that lie on both sides of it. Thus, on the one hand, a very distinguished modernist Orthodox scholar, whom I greatly respect, recently told me that some of my writings are wounding in their insensitivity to the spirituality of others. I have taken his comments to heart and I will carefully search for such instances and avoid possibly wounding rhetoric in the future. On the other hand, another very close friend and spiritual advisor has warned me that my comments in Orthodox Tradition on the Old Calendarists are so conciliatory, at times, that an uncareful reader might think that, in explaining why I am an Old Calendarist, I do not really show sufficient dedication to the movement. I believe, therefore, that I should clarify a few basic points.

I am seriously disquieted by those traditionalists who believe that they alone constitute the Orthodox Church and who dismiss all New Calendarists and “modernists” as un-Orthodox. Such attitudes are crudely fundamentalistic and border on divisive thinking, taking, as they do, the apocalyptic signs of our times so literally as to violate the unity of the Church. Such attitudes, it seems to me, ignore some basic realities. There are New Calendar Churches, such as the Church of Greece, which still produce Saints. My own spiritual Father, Metropolitan Cyprian, is the spiritual son of the blessed Archimandrite Philotheos (Zervakos)—himself the spiritual son of St. Nectarios of Aegina—who remained in the State Church of Greece up to his death (though he followed the Church Calendar in his last days [1]), working for the return of that body to the Church’s proper Festal Calendar and Patristic tradition. And while the Prelates of many New Calendar Churches, in their wild ecumenist excesses, have come close to denying the nature of the Church Herself, other Hierarchs—and a great number of the faithful—remain loyal to the Truth passed down to them by the Fathers. Given this, who would possibly want to alienate our "modernist" brothers with strong rhetoric? Who could possibly desire to believe that Orthodoxy has been reduced to a handful of people who have independently decided that they constitute the “only Church under the sun,” to quote one such group?

At the same time, however, I deplore what has been done to Holy Tradition in the name of modernism, thinking that some abstract essence of Orthodoxy transcends Holy Tradition. A fierce and vulgar disdain for the ethnic heritages of Orthodoxy is also growing among converts in some ‘‘modernist” jurisdictions, such that the daily, tangible ways in which the Church's Truth has reached the faithful for decades—traditional Priestly dress, standing in Church, fasting, respect for the vision of Divine Order in the Orthodox monarchies of the past, modesty in dress, certain modes of behavior—are dismissed as "mere externals." Traditionalist Orthodox are characterized as ‘‘simpletons” preoccupied with ‘‘bells and smells,” and all of this by people who have sadly never really immersed themselves in the Orthodox ‘‘way of life”—orthopraxis and the observance of the Faith—which, as they fail to realize, cannot really be separated from the essence of Orthodoxy: the correct ‘‘way of belief” and the ‘‘true way of worshiping God.”

In the name of missionary expedience and apocalyptic necessity, the vast majority of Orthodox in America—the majority of ‘‘modernists,” that is—are failing to build Orthodox cultures in the New World and, more importantly, failing miserably in rearing children, the future of the Church, in a genuine, traditional, and healthy Orthodoxy. At times embarrassed by the Church’s divergence from the ways of a corrupt world, we have begun to accommodate that which transcends the world, that which is not of the world, to the caprice of our modern age! The humble monastic Bishop is being replaced by the worldly ‘‘corporate man,” too often influenced by the powerful and wealthy and too engaged in the "business" of the Church to fast, to follow the monastic restrictions against eating meat, to dress in traditional garb, to eschew personal possessions, or to refrain from courting “world Orthodoxy.” Moreover, the heresy of the “branch theory” of the Church is preached from the most famous Orthodox pulpits, undermining the indispensability and primacy of our traditions. Our faithful, Shepherds, and children are alienated from Orthodoxy in practice, embracing the Faith only in name.

Our Churches, in the agnostic atmosphere of the New World, have given up the mystical, quiet, and dark atmosphere of Holy Tradition, so conducive to prayer, for the brightly-lit din of the secular theatre. Personal taste, rather than obedience to Holy Tradition, has entered into the Church. Indeed, our holy task as Orthodox Christians—to lift ourselves up, and in this life, to participation in the Divine, to become “sons of God” within the Son of God, has been replaced by the boisterous claims of the “born again,” the “saved,” and the “elect,” many of our Churches being filled with the hyperbole of “televangelical” religion at the cost of the subtle, quiet, and pious holiness which has transformed our forefathers for ages. Soothing “evangelical” Protestant piety, spiced with some Roman Catholic features—a package that admittedly sells well—has replaced the strong wine and the caustic salt of curative Orthodoxy, which demands much of the body and soul.

If I am distressed by fanatic traditionalists, this is not on the basis of personalities; it is simply because I fear both for the souls of those who fall to extremism and for the souls of those who are misled or, as is often the case, put off by their unwise overzealousness. I am concerned with the misrepresentation of the Church to which unwise zeal ineluctably leads. By the same token, if I regret the vagaries of the “modernists,” it is not because of the actions of any single individual, but on account of my dismay at the way in which, little by little, modernist renovationists are removing pieces of the composite mosaic which is the Church. One may argue that the abandonment of one tradition may not mar the face of the Church. I reject this argument, since there is certainly no doubt that every new innovation—every abandonment of traditions dating, in many instances, to Apostolic times—represents a move toward the greater disfigurement of the image of salvation. While certain people and personalities may be tied to certain processes, and thus must be mentioned and cited, it is the process, which has actually made them its victim, which I ultimately deplore and fear.

Keeping firmly in mind all that I have said, any fair person will realize why I am an Old Calendarist and why I am staunch in that stand. I do not concelebrate with New Calendarists or participate in those activities wherein they err by departing from Orthodox traditions. I do not encourage them in their errant views of Holy Tradition; nor am I so spiritually remiss as to fail to point out their mistakes and wrong beliefs. I candidly remind them of the evil consequences of their infractions, as evidenced by the fact that many Old Calendarist zealots in Greece, Romania, and elsewhere have suffered persecution—and even death—at the hands of their brother Orthodox. This must not be forgotten. I remind them that not a few self-serving “modernists,” fearing our true witness to the Faith, have been less than honest and upstanding in speaking of legitimate and moderate Old Calendarists. They have, by virtue of their self-proclaimed “officialdom,” at times stated that we Old Calendarists are self-ordained, have no Bishops, and are illiterate fanatics. This travesty must of necessity be addressed.

But all of these reminders I offer with Christian love. If I truly believe that the destructive forces of modernism, ecumenism, and compromise lead to a disfigurement of the image of the Church, and that strong attempts to preserve Tradition in the most minute detail constitute a means by which I can keep the image of the Church pure, then I must speak, and again out of love, in an uncompromising and uncompromised way to my brothers. I must wall myself off and detach myself from their error, doing all that is necessary not to be touched myself by what assails and ails them. It was in this spirit, fearing the deviant course of the State Church of Greece, that Archimandrite Philotheos (vide supra) blessed Metropolitan Cyprian, then a much-respected clergyman and spiritual Father in the New Calendar Church, to seek refuge from its innovationist and ecumenist excesses by joining the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece, then, save for the ultra-conservative Matthewite faction, united in one jurisdiction. [2] In that same spirit, seeking to protect ourselves from error, we are not judging our brothers in our actions, but are consciously essaying to preserve a standard to which they might return— an action with ample parallels in Church history.

Let me reiterate my earlier words. If I seem to speak harshly about modernist deviations from the Faith, thus somehow giving the impression that my chastisement is one of individuals, rather than of processes and movements, I apologize. If I have perhaps sounded too compromising in speaking against modernist deviations, for fear of hurting individuals, for this, too, I apologize. I would simply ask my readers to understand these faults, understand them as unintentional transgressions, and realize that they do not represent my true goal: i.e., the goal of standing apart from error and, while condemning the error, neither condemning those who fall prey to it nor judging their place within the Church, which is not mine to do. Let me also affirm that, if I am at times seemingly intractable in upholding a standard to which all will eventually be called, when the wicked are separated from the righteous, I have no doubt that the errant who ultimately return to Orthodoxy in its fullness will enjoy greater honor than those of us who have been merely called to preserve it. Theirs is the greater virtue, not ours.

 

1. See Constantine Cavarnos, Blessed Elder Philotheos Zervakos (Belmont, MA: Institute for Byzantine and Modem Greek Studies, 1993), pp. 69-75.

2. See: http://hsir.org/p/wd6

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXIX (2012), Vol. 2, pp. 3-6.

Book Review: “Jesus in the Talmud”

 

Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2007. Pp. 201 + Index.

This book, sent to me by a reader of Orthodox Tradition, was difficult to review. The work of a notable Jewish scholar at Princeton, it is a comprehensive and well-documented study of Christ as He appears in the Talmud, the principal sourcebook of Rabbinical Judaism. While the scholarship was impeccable and a pleasure to read, the unavoidable citations from Talmudic references to Christ, some noxiously anti-Christian, were as personally odious to me as are the contemptible anti-Semitic ideas that abound in the historical witness and the contemporary media—indeed, from the popular press to the Internet—and in widely distributed hate literature of extremist Christian and Islamic provenance.

Revolting though some of the more offensive Talmudic references to Christ may be, the book affords one a framework in which better to understand these portrayals of Christ. Professor Shafer first establishes that references to Christ in the Talmud (and especially in the Babylonian Talmud) are sparse: “a proverbial drop in the yam ha-talmud (‘the ocean of the Talmud’).” Nonetheless, he asserts, they play a vital role in the confrontation of Rabbinical Judaism with Christianity itself. He also acknowledges that the polemical medieval treatise, Toledot Yeshu, or “History of Jesus,” which provoked anti-Jewish Christian sentiments in Spain, especially, may reflect more of the thinking of the Rabbis of late antiquity than has heretofore been admitted.

In essence, in a piece of scholarship that must be read carefully to be appreciated (and this book is accessible to anyone, and not just specialists), the author contrasts the Greek New Testament—in which he confesses to having significant (and undoubtedly less traditional) advice from Princeton’s New Testamental experts, Professors John Gager and Elaine Pagels—with the Talmud (again, drawing heavily on the Babylonian Talmud, which was compiled from earlier oral sources around 500 A.D.), using that term very loosely to encompass the foundational sources of Rabbinical Judaism in general.

In this contrast, he argues not for the usual polemical disconnect between the New Testamental account of Jesus (and Mary and His family) and occasional, largely adventitious Rabbinical references to Christ, but for a deliberate and polemical parodying of the Gospel narrative by Rabbinical scholars, in late antiquity, who had reasonable familiarity with the New Testament and its content (though somewhat differently in Babylonia than in the Palestine). The Talmudic picture of the New Testament narrative, and thus the life of Christ and His family, Professor Shafer argues, was designed to counter, answer, and address, in a carefully crafted literary response, the New Testamental witness.

I will illustrate this approach by recounting the Talmudic version of the Crucifixion of Christ, to which the reader who sent me this book for review quite appropriately directed my attention. The primary source for the author’s discussion of the death of Christ is the Bavli (i.e., the Babylonian Talmud). As he points out, the event is discussed in the context of Halakha, or Jewish law. Christ is described as an individual close to the Roman government (a collaborator), a sorcerer, and a blasphemer who claimed to be the Son of God, thus enticing others into idolatry. On this account, He was subject to stoning and hanging (i.e., the displaying of the corpse by tying it to a tree). According to this narrative, Christ was put to death in conformity with the dictates of Jewish law.

Professor Shafer notes that the Talmudic interpreters were certainly aware that Christ was put to death by Roman soldiers by crucifixion and that He was not stoned and hanged. But they held to their narrative, since it underscored, by contrast to Pilate’s depiction of Him as a pretender to political kingship or sovereignty over the Jews, Christ’s crime of blasphemy (in claiming to be the Son of God) and sorcery (claiming power to destroy the Temple). As a blasphemer and heretic, Christ was treated according to Halakha, a rather direct literary challenge to the New Testamental narrative of His betrayal by His own people.

Does this notion of a Talmudic counter-narrative actually hold water? Indeed, it does. The uncensored manuscripts of the Bavli in fact repeat elements from the Gospel narratives: They say that Christ was hanged on the eve of the Jewish Passover; His corpse was not allowed to hang overnight (before the Sabbath); and He was “close” to the Roman rulers. This latter charge, an obvious attempt to respond to the Gospel accounts of Pilate’s efforts to save Jesus the innocent victim from execution, attests most clearly to Rabbinical familiarity with New Testamental texts and Christian accounts that, according to prevailing scholarship, were supposedly hardly given notice in Rabbinical Judaism.

The importance of Professor’s Shafer’s insights, which are perfectly illustrated by his discussion of the Crucifixion story—one morsel of the rich feast of examples of deliberate parallelism that he cites throughout his book—is that they suggest, if I may take his position a bit beyond what he asserts, that the Talmudic treatments of Jesus are not nasty anti-Christian screeds, but attempts to contradict the New Testamental depiction of the person of Christ in a direct defense of Judaism. They are not simply apologetic in nature, but didactic and interpretive.

In much the same way, many of the early Patristic responses to Judaism, and especially in confronting the Judaizers, were also not a manifestation of raw anti-Semitic rancor, but a conscious attempt to discredit and dismiss the opposing messages of Judaism, to the end of protecting the new practices of the Christian Church. One might, of course, argue that polemical self-protection is also a form of bigotry. If I do not wholly dismiss that thought, I nevertheless consider purposive polemics a matter of thought more than emotion, and thus more likely to succumb to reasonable discourse and yield to mutual understanding.

- Archbishop Chrysostomos [of Etna]

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXVIII (2011), No. 1, pp. 25-27.

 

PDF of Jesus in the Talmud:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MS9X4i0OkT9WGAHFIRwPDzTuISgPofK8/view?usp=sharing

 

 

The Root of the Division of Those in Resistance

Monk Damianos Agiovasileiatis

 

 

We promised that we would return to examine more thoroughly the great issue that did not allow the resisters of 1924 to produce the expected ecclesiological fruits they had promised. The issue is the invalidation of the Holy Mysteries of the prevailing New Calendar Church.

To be clearer, since many readers are unfamiliar with the Canon Law of the Orthodox Eastern Church, it is well first to analyze, within a general framework (as far as space here permits), the two principal ecclesiological deviations usually found among the fullness of the Church and, not surprisingly, chiefly among the highest clergy of the Orthodox Church.

A. The lapse of Orthodox Christians into heresy.

B. Communion of Orthodox Christians with heresy.

Thus, we shall have the opportunity to examine in what way the members of the Church exist within her from an ecclesiological, soteriological, and consequently ontological point of view, when they walk “in piety and righteousness,” and also in what way they exist within her when they deviate into canonical-dogmatic transgressions.

A. We note that the analysis concerns those baptized members of the Church who fall into some heresy, whether one condemned in the past by the Church or a newly arisen one. The lapse of these members renders them accountable before the Canon Law of the Church and liable before its competent synodal body. Consequently, until they are tried, they are regarded as unjudged heretics. And naturally, being unjudged, they too are considered members of the Church. Let us see more closely, however, how this is so.

Some say that the lapse of a believer into a heresy previously condemned by the Church completely alienates him from the Church, and they ask: what purpose is served by the condemnation of an already condemned heresy? By means of this heresy, the Orthodox person who falls away is not unjudged but is considered a judged heretic, and for this reason he goes out voluntarily and automatically (!) from the Church.

To begin with, we answer that indeed an already judged heresy, as a heretical confession (for example, Monophysitism), does not need to be tried again, nor is there any reason for this. Likewise, if a member breaks communion with the Orthodox Church and joins the Monophysite confession, he departs from it of his own accord, and truly any possible deposition or excommunication (according to his rank) by the Church has no meaning and no effect for him, except only a “declaratory character.” (Ecclesiastical Law, A. Christofilopoulou, p. 274.)

But when the judged heresy as a teaching is publicly preached to the fullness of the Church by some member who belongs to the Orthodox Church, then, according to Canon Law (and logic), it is necessary to reaffirm the anathema of the heresy and for the fallen cleric to be deposed, or, if he is a layman, to be excommunicated. The reaffirmed anathematization of the heretical teaching and the deposition or excommunication are carried out by the local Church to which the member belongs. In the case, however, where the entire hierarchy of a local Church falls away, then the heresy and the fallen hierarchy are judged by a greater synod.

That a new condemnation is required is evident from a simple reading of the Acts of the councils of the Church. But Canon 15 of the First-Second Council also points this out: “...for those who, on account of some heresy condemned by the holy Councils or Fathers, separate themselves from communion with their president, that is, when he is publicly preaching the heresy... such men, walling themselves off before synodal adjudication... shall be deemed worthy of the fitting honor.” Clearly the canon speaks of synodal adjudication when the heresy is already judged (condemned); of course, synodal adjudication is required all the more when it has not been judged. Besides, the reason why the Orthodox faithful wall themselves off is the practical denunciation of the heresy and of the heretic by name, so that the convocation of this new synod of bishops may be achieved more quickly, and it is self-evident that the president accused “on account of heresy,” if he remains unrepentant, is deposed by it.

Therefore, even though the accused bishop has fallen into an already judged heresy, so long as he remains under trial before the new synod, he cannot be regarded as a judged heretic but as an unjudged one. And being unjudged, he is considered by the synod as a member of the Church.

But those who “search the Scriptures” solely in order to find support for their erroneous theory (and of course, according to the letter, they find whatever they want) say that, according to the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, “heresy separates every man from the Church.” (Acts of the Councils, S. Milias, vol. 3, p. 733.) Truly, at this point there is a glaring antinomy, though only an apparent one, which we shall immediately clarify. That is, let us see in what sense the unjudged heretic subsists as a member of the Church in relation to the Orthodox believer.

The presence of a member in the Church has a twofold standing. It is first and foremost a spiritual relationship with the invisible Head of the Church. Through this relationship the sanctification of the believer comes about by participation in the holy Mysteries, since the Lord Himself blesses, performs, sanctifies, offers, and is offered, especially in the pre-eminent mystery of the Divine Eucharist. A natural and immediate consequence of this spiritual relationship, therefore, is the possibility of that member’s salvation. Secondly, it is an “ecclesiastical” relationship, [1] which consists in his entry through baptism as a member of the Church. Although it precedes the spiritual relationship and is an indispensable prerequisite for attaining it, we mention it as secondary because, surely, without the spiritual relationship, the “ecclesiastical” one by itself provides no soteriological benefit to the member, except only when the baptized member dies in infancy or suffers from mental illness. Therefore, it is possible for the “ecclesiastical” relationship to exist while the spiritual one has been severed. Cases in which this may occur are: when a member falls into heresy, whether judged or not judged; when a member communes with a heretic while knowing his heresy; and when a member falls into a mortal sin and does not repent.

From the above twofold relationship, it follows that:

– The members who exist spiritually and “ecclesiastically” within the Church constitute the healthy part of her body, that is, the Church as the Body of Christ.

– Members can sever their spiritual relationship with the Church voluntarily, and only voluntarily. In that case they are considered spiritually dead [2] members, and of course they exist only “ecclesiastically” within the Church.

– The “ecclesiastical” relationship of spiritually dead members is severed by the anathema of complete excommunication by a synod of the Church, or voluntarily by their joining heretical confessions, for example Roman Catholicism, or another religion.

In conclusion, then, up to this point one thing is certain: that the president accused “on account of heresy,” through his false doctrine, has lost the grace of the All-Holy Spirit and consequently has fallen from the highest state of being, if indeed he possessed it to begin with. Whether, however, he thereby departs entirely from the Orthodox Catholic Church or does not depart, this does not depend directly on the fact that he himself personally, by his anti-Orthodox confession, has lost the grace of God. Likewise, in the case of the faithful who are unrepentant sinners, it does not depend on a non-Christian mode of life. Many take this as the cause of the now definitive departure of this heretical president from the Church, even grounding their opinion, so as to have some sort of “canonical” support, on the supposedly self-acting (!) penal force of the sacred canons. In essence they return again to the position we mentioned earlier concerning one who has fallen into an already judged heresy, regarding which there already exists a condemning Oros or Canon, and for this reason, they say, he is considered judged. For this reason, they ask whether it is ever possible in the Orthodox Church for heretics, especially clerics, to coexist together with the Orthodox faithful. Although the reference to the twofold relationship of the members is sufficient to dissolve this present “contradictory” coexistence, we shall nevertheless proceed, in answering the question, to a further clarification of the matter.

The question is, at the very least, naive, if it does not express a settled conviction, for the reason that it prejudges the unjudged heretics. We answer that, unless they make the distinction between unjudged and judged heretics, the “veil will never be taken away from their heart” so that they may understand the truth of the matter. By maintaining this error, we “abolish” the judicial authority of the Church’s Synodality. [3] This judicial authority consists in the authentic and definitive determination of a false teaching as heretical, in its anathematization, and in the personal and nominal condemnation of the bearers and leaders of the heretical teaching. But when someone looks only to the results of principles (causes), without paying attention to the causes of those results, or worse, obstinately denies them — that is, the reasons why the results differ — it naturally follows that he falls into an inability to understand the matter, a matter so serious from the standpoint of ecclesiological concern and responsibility, and thus is needlessly thrown into confusion.

The truth is that unjudged and judged heretics do indeed share the common name derived from whatever heresy they may hold, but in essence they differ with respect to the act of judgment. Yet by considering them only under the appellation of “heretic,” without this distinction, they turn homonyms into synonyms, [4] and thus, by identifying things that are not identical, they fall into absurdities, are led astray into unsound ecclesiology, and do not escape even blasphemy. This blasphemy, as we shall see in another section, lies in the fact that unjudged heretics, insofar as they are clerics, are “active” members of the Church and perform valid mysteries through which the Holy Spirit works the salvation of many faithful who repent but are ignorant of the heretical teachings of those clerics.

This distinction between unjudged and judged heretics is illustrated by the wise Saint Nicodemus with a very simple example. Referring to priests under accusation (unjudged) and subject to the penalty of deposition by a synod, he says: “if the synod does not actually carry out the deposition of the priests... these priests are not in act deposed. They are, however, liable — here to deposition... and there to divine judgment. Just as when a king orders his servant to beat another man who had offended him, if the servant who was commanded does not carry out the king’s order, the one who offended the king remains unbeaten, yet is still liable to the beating.” (Pedalion, footnote 2 on Apostolic Canon 3.)

So it is clear that “heresy separates every man from the Church” primarily with respect to man’s spiritual relationship to the invisible Head of the Church. This spiritual relationship certainly constitutes the very quintessence of the presence of the members within the Church. And when it is severed, whether they are unjudged or judged heretics, they become identified [5] in that they are indeed considered outside the saving mission of the Church. From this point of view, the “ecclesiastical” relationship of a member to the Church is utterly secondary and brings him no benefit toward salvation, except only that he is given the possibility of participating in the institutional, liturgical, and administrative framework of the Church. In a second sense, however, “heresy separates from the Church” the accused (unjudged) heretic with respect to his “ecclesiastical” relationship to the Church through baptism, not automatically, but at a later time through synodal condemnation.

In the same way, we may say, for example, that such-and-such a canon deposes such-and-such a cleric, meaning of course not the self-acting deposition of the cleric by the canon itself (that is absurd), but the application by a synod of the canon’s command to depose him. Or, in another and clearer way, we may say that the law of the state imprisons the thief or the murderer, again meaning not the automatic imprisonment of the lawbreaker by the law itself, but the application of the law by the appointed public organs of the state to the thief or the murderer. And again, the exceedingly ingenious Saint Nicodemus, in order to show the necessity of a synodal decision for the deposition of a fallen cleric, leaving no room for any other interpretation, also specifies the time for the convocation of the new synod, saying: “The Canons command the synod of the living Bishops to depose priests, or to excommunicate, or to anathematize laymen who transgress the canons.” (Footnote 2 on Apostolic Canon 3.)

Certainly, the Church as the Body of Christ and a spiritual kingdom is the place where those “who worship God in spirit and in truth” are the ones who constitute the healthy part of the Church. We cannot, however, deny the reality that within the Church there are also members who are spiritually diseased or dead. All Orthodox Christians are called to attain holiness. “Be ye perfect,” says Scripture, “even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Yet this obligation, by reason of that specific command, certainly does not place outside the Church those members who have not yet attained perfection. The Church has never legislated any such thing. If what we have said up to this point applies to spiritually dead members, it applies all the more to those who are diseased.

In the final analysis, there are spiritually dead members, but also diseased members, who are deprived either of the high state of being, or of the right faith, or of both; even those whose activity is judged dangerous to the other members of the Church, until they are expelled from the Church by its competent synodal body, remain, by leniency, even if abusively, as members of the Church. The word abusively refers rather to the negligence in convening the new synod of the living Orthodox bishops, whose specific and imperative judicial authority, when it is not undertaken, burdens them with very grave responsibilities.

There are, however, also other reasons that hinder the formation of the synod; therefore, those members who are accountable and for various reasons evade trial by a synod in the present life are unavoidably referred to the divine judgment, just as are those from among the multitude of the faithful who remain in communion with heretics while knowing their heresy.

 

Notes

1. The term “ecclesiastical” relationship, although it does not appear in patristic literature, at least in connection with our subject matter, is a self-evident and indisputable reality. In contemporary ecclesiastical literature it is also expressed as an institutional relationship.

2. Perhaps in these cases the spiritual severance may not be complete and absolute, insofar as this also depends on the degree of the members’ lapse, on the disposition and inclination of their soul toward the knowledge of the truth, on the loving-kindness of God working secretly in their hearts, and on other such things which take place invisibly. Concerning this, Saint Theodore the Studite agrees admirably, saying: “for one must not make a definitive pronouncement; because one differs from another both in person and in knowledge, and in zeal, and in age.” For this reason, for an easier understanding of the matter, we assume that these members transgress some Oros or dogmatic canon with full conviction.

3. By the term “Synodality” we always mean the convocation of bishops in an ecumenical (pan-Orthodox) or local synod, chiefly for the condemnation of some heretical teaching and of the heretics.

4. The use of the logical terms of dialectic in the polemical writings of the great Fathers of the Church against heretics was customary and necessary. Saint Gregory Palamas used this particular method against Barlaam.

“Synonyms are those whose name is common and whose definition of essence according to the name is the same... Homonyms are those whose name alone is common, but whose definition of essence according to the name is different.” (Epitome of Logic, Nikephoros Blemmydes, P.G. vol. 165, pp. 737, 740.)

5. Here, the identification refers to the soteriological context. However, the non-identification remains with regard to the synodal judgment.

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/06/blog-post_27.html

 

Women and Chanting

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | April 21, 2026

 

 

Introductory remarks

Following the contemporary discussion surrounding the participation of women at the sacred analogion, one observes that it is often conducted in terms of an unjustified exclusion. This approach tends to overlook the historical and essential role of woman in worship; from the Deaconesses of the early Christian Church to the great hymnographers, such as Saint Kassiani, the female presence has always been an organic and inseparable part of ecclesiastical life.

It is necessary to proceed to a clear theological distinction: the Apostle Paul defines ecclesiastical order by restricting the teaching and public preaching of women within the assembly. In no case does he forbid psalmody. Hymnography constitutes the common prayer and confession of faith of the whole body of the faithful. When we expend ourselves on universal prohibitions, we risk losing the essence of the soteriological message: that Christ abolished every ontological division.

“There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

Support for women’s participation in the chanters’ stand is not identical with a demand for entry into the special priesthood. It concerns participation in the general priesthood of the faithful and in the “sacrifice of praise” owed by every baptized soul.

Since Ecclesiastical Music is preeminently the music of worship and not a means of display, the criteria for participation ought to be:

1. Piety and reverence.

2. The ability to offer service to the Body of Christ.

3. A humble mind and spiritual formation.

If we wish to speak of strict observance of order, one reminder is necessary: according to the canons, male chanters ought to be tonsured Readers. In current ecclesiastical practice, however, strictness is often applied selectively to sex rather than to the essential canonical prerequisite.

In the face of a conservative “hyper-Orthodox” position that establishes a new legalism, the Church sets forth the spirit of love and equality. Any attempt to marginalize woman in worship is judged foreign to the ethos of the God-Man, Who made His Church an embrace spacious enough for every person who desires to hymn Him with purity and reverence.

Next, we shall present the main points of Ms. E. Spyrakou’s research entitled: “The Female Presence in the Art of Chanting: The Case of the Urban Churches of the Byzantine Empire.” Evangelia (Eugenia) Spyrakou, a member of the Special Educational Personnel of the Department of Music Science and Art at the University of Macedonia, was the first to analyze systematically the function of the Byzantine choirs, demonstrating that the woman chanter constituted an institutional and organic member of the liturgical system.

Those interested can find the entire study online.

The main points of the study follow, organized for easier understanding:

The Institutional Organization of Women Chanters

Historical research shows that the female chanting presence in Byzantium was not a random phenomenon, but a strictly organized activity. The women who staffed the analogia were divided into specific ranks, each with its own role, social position, and liturgical responsibility.

1. The Asketriai and the Asketeria

The category of the Asketriai is the most frequent reference in the sources and forms the basis of female hymnody. These were semi-monastic sisterhoods that did not live in isolated cenobitic communities, but in special buildings (“asketeria”) located within the precincts of the great churches. They constituted the most numerous body of the women’s choirs. Their presence beside the churches allowed them to participate daily in the liturgical cycle of the secular parishes, bridging monasticism and parish life.

2. The Deaconesses as Leading Figures

Beyond their administrative, charitable, and auxiliary duties (such as the baptism of women), the Deaconesses held a pivotal role in psalmody.

The study documents that they functioned as the heads of the women’s choirs. They were responsible for coordinating the Asketriai, ensuring the harmonious execution of the hymns and the observance of the typikon, a fact that gave them particular standing within the ecclesiastical body.

3. The Graptai and Professional Chanting

A particularly interesting category brought to light by the Typikon of the Monastery of the Pantokrator (12th century) is the Graptai. The term indicates that they were officially enrolled in the registers of the lower clergy. They were salaried employees of the Church, which demonstrates the professional character of the female art of chanting. They participated in specialized services, such as the Office of Intercession, and their position was regarded as equal to that of the deaconesses.

4. The Myrrhbearers of Jerusalem

In the Typikon of Jerusalem, we encounter the order of the Myrrhbearers, a term rich in symbolism that refers to the first women witnesses of the Resurrection. Their activity was centered on the All-Holy Tomb. Their participation in the chanting of that sacred place highlighted the connection of the female voice with the joyful proclamation of the Resurrection, strengthening the theological dimension of their role.

5. The Example of Hagia Sophia and the Monastery of the Pantokrator

Hagia Sophia in Constantinople constituted the model of this organization:

The Legislation of Justinian: It provided for 100 “adousai” (singing women) incorporated into the clergy. They were divided into two groups (“asketeria”) that alternated weekly. They lived in special “skenomata” (dwellings) around the perimeter of the church. This organization made possible a continuous female chanting presence in the daily services, highlighting the grandeur and rich vocal character of the capital.

The development of the institution reaches the 12th century with the order of the Graptai. In the Foundational Typikon of the Monastery of the Pantokrator (1136), four women chanters are explicitly mentioned as holding an official place among the Monastery’s personnel. The designation “Graptai” indicates their formal registration in the payroll records. It is noteworthy that their position was considered equivalent to that of the Deaconesses, a fact that bestowed upon the women chanters particular spiritual and social standing.

6. Liturgical Role and Antiphonal Singing

The women did not chant in isolation, but formed part of a broader choral system: they chanted antiphonally (alternately) with the male chanters, the Readers, or the male Ascetics. They participated especially in the Amomos (Psalm 118), in troparia of Orthros, and in funeral services. They were usually positioned in the women’s gallery, in the narthex, or at specific places to the left of the Holy Altar (for example, near the Prothesis).

7. The “Polyphony” of the Byzantine Choir

One of E. Spyrakou’s most interesting findings concerns the sound color of the period. The Byzantine choir was not only male, but a composite of:

1. Male voices (Chanters).

2. High female frequencies (Asketriai, Deaconesses).

3. High eunuch frequencies (very widespread in Byzantium).

4. Children’s voices (Orphans, Canonarchs).

The female voice accounted for approximately one third of the total vocal volume, creating a rich timbral effect that symbolized the unity of creation (“one voice from different tongues”).

8. Historical Development and Confusion of Terms

With the passage of the centuries (especially after the 12th century), the institution of the Deaconesses declined. This led to a confusion of terms, in which the Asketriai were often improperly called “deaconesses,” while gradually the female chanting presence became restricted chiefly to women’s monasteries, losing its institutional role in the great urban churches.

The study’s answer

The study documents that women chanted systematically and for pay in the secular churches of the Byzantine Empire, though not in the same way that they chant today. Their participation was integrated into a structured choral system with specific conditions and ranks. The study demonstrates that the female chanting presence in secular churches was institutionalized and normatively regulated in the Byzantine Empire. As for the present day, the study does not give a direct answer, but it does historically establish that the Church had recognized and systematically incorporated the female voice into worship — in contrast to current practice, where female participation in the art of chanting in secular churches has to a great extent disappeared.

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/04/blog-post_8.html