Decision of the ROCOR concerning the cessation of ecclesiastical communion with the Matthewite Synod (1976)

 

On April 29/May 12, 1976, they [i.e., the Synod of Bishops] heard: The resolution of February 20, 1976, printed in the February issue of Herald of the True Orthodox, the organ of the [Matthewite] Greek Old Calendarists, of the Synod headed by Archbishop Andreas, concerning the cessation of ecclesiastical communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, on account of the alleged lack of clarity of its position with regard to the modernists and the New Calendarists.

They resolved: The hierarchy of the True Orthodox Church of Greece headed by Archbishop Andreas appealed in 1971 to the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia for assistance in rectifying its canonical status, which was disputed by many on the grounds that it had originated from a consecration performed out of necessity by a single bishop. After a careful study of this question, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia received into prayerful communion, as representatives of this hierarchy, Their Eminences Metropolitans Kallistos of Corinth and Epiphanius of Kition, and rectified their canonical status by the laying on of hands upon them in the manner indicated in Canon 8 of the First Ecumenical Council, so that they in turn might perform the same act in the same manner over their fellow bishops in Greece. Now, having yielded to suspiciousness, giving credence to malicious rumors, and evidently striving more to find disagreement than to rejoice in like-mindedness in what is principal, namely, the condemnation of modernism and, as a consequence of its introduction, the new calendar, they make no mention of the act of our love which confirmed their canonical existence, but rather direct their gaze toward finding a reason for divergence from us. The position of the Synod of Bishops has never changed. It was the same both before their reception into communion and afterward. Therefore, if they consider the Synod of Bishops un-Orthodox, then logically the very act of their cheirothesia loses its force. Leaving them in this to the judgment of God, and not wishing to deepen the division by verbal disputation, the Synod of Bishops takes the communication of Archbishop Andreas under advisement and forwards it for report to the Council of Bishops.

- Pravoslavnaya zhizn', Nos. 1–6, 1976.

The Ecclesiastical Union of the Orthodox Community in Resistance with the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece: Objections, Concerns, and their Resolution

From the Secretariat of the Holy Synod of the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece

September 4, 2014 (O.S.)

 

 

A. Preface

The God-pleasing Union of the Orthodox Community in Resistance with the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece was brought to fruition, by the Grace of Christ our Savior and by the inter­cessions of the Theotokos and all the Saints, on the Tuesday of the Third Week of Great Lent, March 5/18, 2014, and was officially proclaimed and brought to fruition by a Union Liturgy concelebrated on March 10/23, 2014, on the Sunday of the Veneration of the Cross.

1. This truly historic event, particularly in view of the simultaneous achievement of Union with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania, was a cause of inex­pressible joy and spiritual euphoria for all of the true members of our Church.

• All those who were present at and took part in the Union Liturgy can attest to the exceptional and ineffable spiritual gladness that they felt.

2. There were, however, some who had negative reactions, a small num­ber of clergy and laity, both in Greece and abroad, who in sundry ways voiced their objections and doubts, right from the outset, concerning the genuineness and canonicity of the Union.

3. Our Holy Synod, with spiritual sensitivity and love in Christ, made repeated efforts to explain to our brethren who opposed the Union that their various objections and doubts were groundless, and that it behooved them to trust our Hierarchs and to share with them in the blessed joy of our Union.

4. Up until the meeting of our Holy Synod on July 15/28, 2014, although quite a few of the naysayers had finally been persuaded as to the canon­icity of the Union, there still remained a few who persisted in their objec­tions and doubts, which they expressed at times with tenacity and at times with a meek and suitable theological spirit.

5. At the meeting held on July 15/28, 2014, “following a proposal by His Eminence, Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle,” it was decided that the Holy Synod “should issue a document for the purpose of clarify­ing the positions of the Synod” and of dispelling the doubts of those op­posed for various reasons to the Union, after taking into consideration the different misunderstandings published unofficially, in the meantime, on the Internet.

6. With the prospect of promulgating an official Synodal document, “To­ward a Clarification of [our] Positions,” it would have been necessary to surmount the very weighty issue of replying to an interminable list of drawn-out questions, in many respects scholastic in nature. Had we done so, our clarifications and responses would have constituted, without any pressing reason, a literally voluminous tome.

7. This being so, avoiding a scholastic mode of response and cleaving to the essence of the points in dispute, we hereby set forth expressly and plainly the positions of our Synod on issues relating to the Union, with the aim of somehow comprehensively grouping together the various crit­icisms thereof, as well as the well-intentioned doubts, questions, and con­cerns with regard to it, in order to allay all possible anxieties and to bring peace to the hearts of all.

* * *

B. Synodal Positions

B1. Issues pertaining to the Union process

a1. Reactions toward, and concerns about, the Union arose both from within Greece—and these were expressed by a small group of persons (originally two Priests and nine laymen, and now one Priest and four lay­men)—and from abroad (two or three laymen).

a2. There have also been reactions from external elements, that is, from persons who are not members of the True Orthodox Church of Greece and who in some cases have a hostile attitude toward Her.

a3. Our Hierarchs could have ignored this reaction, since there were no grounds for it and it did not reflect the overall conscience of the mem­bership of our Church. They nonetheless have handled it from the outset with pastoral sensitivity.

* * *

b1. Our Holy Synod is not obligated, on the basis of the Synodal and ca­nonical Tradition of the Orthodox Church, to publish—and immediately, at that—all of the documents and detailed proceedings pertinent to a par­ticular matter that it is addressing.

b2. It is, however, necessary for the Holy Synod to keep its flock informed by way of communiqués, a practice which it has sedulously observed through postings on our Synod website, both during the fourteen-month dialogue for Union and in the wake of every session of the Synod.

b3. Communication of the decisions of our Holy Synod at the meeting held on March 5/18, 2014, at which the Union was brought to fruition, was delayed by reason of the bulk of data that had to be recorded and by reason of the Feasts that intervened both before and after the Holy Pas­cha. Nevertheless, the fact of our rapprochement and the great likelihood of a Union had already been made known and publicized through oth­er avenues and channels, and it was also possible for those so interested to communicate in person with the Shepherds responsible for the Union process.

b4. The argument that our Holy Synod did not make public those pro­ceedings in which detailed descriptions of the Synodal Union process were contained, as supposedly happened in the past, is absurd.

• During the era in which the Holy OEcumenical Synods were con­voked, their proceedings were not made public, but were deposited in the Patriarchates for safekeeping, while the decisions reached by the Holy Fathers were made public immediately, a procedure punctiliously fol­lowed by our Holy Synod in the course of the dialogue in question.

b5. In any case, our Holy Synod did not have, nor does it now have, any­thing to hide in connection with the Union, and certainly does not con­sider everything to have been done in haste. It can, however, register its profound sorrow that, as it discovered, the naysayers desired, and desire, to impose on our Hierarchs their own blueprint, their own exclusive view, concerning the manner of the Union, as though their Shepherds were ig­norant of history and of Synodal and canonical Tradition, or as though there were signs of their undervaluing matters of the Orthodox Faith.

* * *

B2. Issues pertaining to the former Synod in Resistance

a1. The Hierarchs of the former Synod in Resistance, together with our Hierarchs, and also with the Russian and Romanian Hierarchs, signed the official ecclesiological statement, “The True Orthodox Church and the Heresy of Ecumenism: Dogmatic and Canonical Issues” (March 2014).

a2. By way of this document, which constitutes an Orthodox Confession of Faith, the Hierarchs of the former Synod in Resistance set aside their previously formulated ecclesiological views, which they also withdrew from their official website. They have also stated in writing that they will not henceforth employ terms and phrases antithetical to the ecclesiologi­cal basis of the Union document.

a3. The contents of the Union document, which the Hierarchs of the for­mer Synod in Resistance today confess and proclaim with full knowl­edge and sincerity, leave no margin for doubt as to their mind-set, which is in every respect Orthodox.

a4. The Hierarchs of the former Synod in Resistance have, through their Orthodox Confession, and also through their self-sacrificial actions, forcefully emphasized the genuineness of their mind-set and attitudes, in­asmuch as they

• dissolved their distinct Synod;

• relinquished all of their pastoral prerogatives;

• placed their prodigious pastoral and missionary work under the pro­tection of our Synod;

• displayed exceeding humility;

• regretfully accepted any responsibility on their parts for the es­trangement from 1984 onwards and its ramifications.

a5. Our Hierarchs were fully aware, by the Grace of God, of the demands that they were making of the Hierarchs of the former Synod in Resis­tance in joining our Synod, especially after an arduous dialogue of many months’ duration, which was brought to fruition by the Orthodox Confes­sion and action of our brethren.

* * *

b1. There has never existed a heresy with the name of “Cyprianism,” and never did our Holy Synod officially employ this term. The Hierarchs of the former Synod in Resistance not only did not officially and synodally proclaim all that was ascribed to them under the name of “Cyprianism,” such as their alleged conception of the official [New Calendar] Church as the Mother Church, but have also clearly expressed opposition thereto, and in particular throughout the Union process.

• Moreover, the ecclesiological formulations of the Hierarchs of the former Synod in Resistance, which were indeed denounced by our Church, were not in the past put forth tenaciously, dogmatically, or defin­itively—in which case they might indeed have constituted a heresy, and might have been called that—but as “ideas for rumination and discus­sion.”

b2. The most indisputable Orthodox Confession and action of the Hier­archs of the former Synod in Resistance constitute on their part a coura­geous rising above what transpired from 1984 onwards, and also above the exchanges that took place during the unofficial dialogue (2008-2009). In truth, their Confession and action blot out the reasons for separation and estrangement.

b3. Much was written, in an intensely charged atmosphere, especially from 1984 and following, which some people today maliciously and er­roneously invoke in order to provoke new tensions. But we, as responsi­ble Shepherds, now consign them, by the Grace of God, to oblivion, em­ulating the example of the Holy Fathers, such as that of the Holy Patri­archs Ignatios and Photios after their reconciliation.

* * *

c1. The reinstatement of the reposed Metropolitan Cyprian († May 17, 2013 [Old Style]), from which ensued the reading of Hierarchical me­morial prayers over his tomb by His Beatitude, Archbishop Kallinikos (March 7/20, 2014), was a canonical ecclesiastical act, since there were reasons that permitted it, as happened also with the reinstatement of the late Archbishop Auxentios.

c2. We would offer a reminder that in the past there were similar acts in the case of reposed persons, even though there were imposed on them not only depositions but also anathemas—and indeed by a Patriarchal Syn­od—as occurred, for example, in the fourteenth century with Archbishop Joanikije of Serbia and Tsar Stefan Dušan, who were judged guilty (as was the entire Serbian people—a general excommunication) and exoner­ated post mortem, twenty years later, under the Holy Patriarch Philotheos of Constantinople.

c3. The late Metropolitan Cyprian clearly expressed his desire for the res­toration of communion with our Holy Synod. It should be noted that he never worked against our Synod, nor was he minded to supplant it, and that our Synod made decisions against him in 1986, essentially on the grounds that he formed his own Synod, even though—as the Hierarchs of the former Synod in Resistance assure us—this was of a temporary na­ture, with the [eventual] prospect of Union.

c4. Other charges were certainly mentioned in these decisions of our Synod against the ever-memorable Metropolitan Cyprian. They were ex­amined in detail during the dialogues that took place, and the conclusions were as follows:

• The accusation of ecumenism, which was bound up with the al­leged conviction of the late Metropolitan Cyprian concerning the offi­cial Church as the Mother Church, is completely refuted by the following public affirmation of the Hierarchs of the former Synod in Resistance in 2008:

This indeed inexpert expression, which has been employed by one of our Bishops and which has already been withdrawn by him as inapposite, has never been officially proclaimed by our Synod in Resistance, nor has it ever been used in, let alone incorporated into, the basic and foundational docu­ments that express our ecclesiological and anti-ecumenist self-understand­ing.

• The accusation concerning the indiscriminate imparting of Mys­teries by the late Metropolitan Cyprian to laity from the New Calen­dar Church is quite groundless, since the Hierarchs of the former Synod in Resistance, following a Synodal decision from some years ago, which was officially published, “exclude from Divine Communion all who do not belong to the Church of the True Orthodox Christians.”

• The accusation concerning joint prayer between the late Metropol­itan Cyprian and the then Patriarch Nicholas of Alexandria, which is un­thinkingly characterized as a concelebration, is entirely without founda­tion, since eyewitnesses of the unexpected visit of the Patriarch to the Katholikon of the St. Cyprian Monastery testify that the opposite oc­curred: “The late Metropolitan, from the Beautiful Gates, publicly called upon the Patriarch of Alexandria to return to the Traditions of the Fa­thers.”

* * *

B3. Issues pertaining to the Union document

a1. The Union document, which was drawn up by the True Orthodox Churches of Greece and Romania and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (March 2014) does not offer the possibility of a plurality of views on matters of Faith, nor any leeway for such, since it is a product of merg­ing and agreement on issues of Faith.

a2. There has been no agreement to suppress different ecclesiological views, and the suspicions to this effect are due, we suppose, to misunder­standings of statements which, one way or another, were made in a pas­toral context prior to our merging and Union.

* * *

b1. Although the phrase in the Union document that “the True Orthodox Church does not provide assurance concerning [the] validity” of Myster­ies celebrated by the New Calendarists (ch. VI, §6) has been sufficiently clarified in the relevant footnotes of the version of the document in sim­pler Greek, it should be stated here that this is certainly not an innovation, nor does it abrogate the past, since the Encyclicals of 1935, 1950, and 1974, which were local in nature, are now placed in the context of our common inter-Orthodox Confession and interpreted correctly.

b2. It should also be emphasized that in the unitive ecclesiological doc­ument it is clear that the issue of the validity or invalidity of the Myster­ies celebrated by the innovationists in general is not examined directly or specifically in a special chapter, but parenthetically.

• In ch. VI, “The Return to True Orthodoxy” (§6), the following posi­tion is in essence set forth:

Non-celebration of the Mysteries from the beginning, provided their form has been preserved, in the case of those returning from the New Calendar Church, does not ‘provide assurance,’ that is, should not be understood as an affirmation concerning the validity of Mysteries performed in the New Calendar Church.

b3. In the end, we need to realize that the True Orthodox Church ought not to cultivate the mistaken impression that Her unity is founded on our view of the Mysteries of the New Calendarists; on the contrary, Her fidel­ity to Apostolic teaching and Succession should be the focus of Her uni­ty. It is fidelity to our Confession that unites us, and not our view of the Mysteries of the New Calendarists, who are, in any case, fallen away in the Faith and “not in communion [with our Church].”

b4. A striking and Grace-filled contemporary discourse by a now de­ceased Presbyter, from among our Matthewite brethren, renders more ac­cessible the view that we have been articulating:

“When I was younger and lived abroad, some modernist ecumenists asked the following question in order to ensnare me:

“‘Do we have Mysteries or not?’

“I replied: ‘Are you literate?’

“‘Yes, we are literate.’

“‘Do you know the Canons and the Tradition of the Church?’

“‘Yes, we do know them.’

“Then this is what I have to say to you: Although I am a sinner, since the Grace of God has safeguarded me from becoming separated from the Truth of Christ and from deviating to the right or to the left, I know that I have Mysteries. As for you who have changed course, since you are liter­ate, read what the Canons and the Tradition of the Church say about your case and draw your own conclusions.’

“I am of the opinion that it is neither expedient nor prudent for True Orthodox Christians to quarrel among themselves and to be concerned about the Mysteries or non-Mysteries of the New Calendarists. The Apos­tle says: ‘For what have I to do with judging them that are without?... Them that are without God judgeth’ (I Corinthians 5:12-13).

“Since we have commended them to the mercy of God, He knows whether He will show them forbearance, how He will show them forbear­ance, and to what extent He will forbear with them. We are not dispens­ers of God’s mercy. We have an obligation, since we regard every innova­tion as a suggestion of the Devil, not to violate the ‘Faith handed down to us’ in even one jot or tittle.

“Our priority, therefore, is that we continue the good beginning that we have made, that all of us True Orthodox Christians in general be unit­ed under a single Orthodox Confession, with which we will be consistent, following a common course, and that thereafter we convene a Pan-Or­thodox Synod, which will be the official mouthpiece of the Church and will issue official determinations concerning those who have deviated and have become estranged from the Faith of the Fathers.

“Until such a time, however, we cannot have any communion in the Mysteries or in prayer with them, thereby becoming ‘sharers in the sins of others,’ but must confess that we reject and abhor their calendar inno­vation, their ecumenism, and their newfangled form of Baptism, or rath­er, affusion.

“From the little that I know, I think that this is how the Fathers act­ed toward heretics. They immediately broke communion with heretics, awaited the convocation of a competent body, namely an OEcumenical Synod, not in order to learn and decide whether the misbelief was a here­sy, but in order—through the official mouthpiece of the Church—that for­mal clarifications and formulations concerning correct doctrine might be made and the formal condemnation of heretics be pronounced.

“It should be known that such a Synod consists only of Orthodox.”

* * *

c1. The discretion of each Bishop in applying exactitude or oeconomy in the reception of persons from the New Calendar Church certainly does not entail absolute freedom or, consequently, license.

c2. The local Bishop, it says in the Union document, “makes a decision on the basis of synodally determined criteria” (ch. VI, §11); if he is un­able to reach a decision, then “a competent Synod” does so.

* * *

d1. There are no grounds for anxieties about a Major General Synod, since in the Union document (ch. VII), and also in its simpler Greek ver­sion, there are clear answers to dispel them.

d2. Taking part in this Synod will be all of the local True Orthodox Churches, united on the basis of their common and correct Confession of the Faith and their fidelity to Apostolic teaching and Succession.

d3. The Major Synod will ascertain and proclaim the falling away—al­ready a reality—of the ecumenists and Sergianists from the standpoint of a correct Confession and from the Body of Christ, the Church.

• It is well known that a lack of fidelity to Apostolic teaching and Succession is leading innovationists of every stripe outside the boundar­ies of the Truth and the Church, far away from Christ and the Mysteries.

* * *

B4. Other issues

a1. The alleged “statement of Metropolitan Agafangel in the periodical Vestnik” requires no commentary, for the following reasons:

• it is merely an artifact, that is, an unattested, unsubstantiated, and nonexistent “statement”;

• if—as it is rumored—it had been uttered in the 1990s, under Metro­politan Vitaly (†), it would have been dealt with synodally; this, however, never happened;

• in any event, the signing by Metropolitan Agafangel of our Union document (March 2014) henceforth constitutes his Orthodox Confession, which expresses his fidelity to Apostolic teaching and Succession.

• in addition, at the inter-Orthodox deliberation on March 8/21, 2014, after a lengthy discussion, Metropolitan Agafangel gave full assurance of his Orthodox Confession and observance of canonical order regard­ing various issues, to the great exultation of all those participating in the meeting.

a2. The views of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Etna, as expressed be­fore or after the Union, should not arouse such disquiet, for the follow­ing reasons:

• those that he expressed before the Union pertain to the need for up­holding the principles of courtesy and moderation, which he inherited from the ever-memorable Metropolitan Cyprian, and not to any ecclesi­ological positions; consequently, whatever doubts or misunderstandings were provoked by them are annulled by his signing of our Union docu­ment;

• those that he expressed after the Union pertain to the unfathomable mercy and forbearance of God toward the innovationists for as long a time as He judges fit, and were, in any case, unofficial and of private and pastoral nature.

• At any rate, the unfraternal interception and exploitation of private pastoral texts by certain persons with a hostile attitude toward the Metro­politan of Etna, and also towards our Holy Synod, unmask those who ha­bitually seek to undermine our God-pleasing Union.

* * *

C. Epilogue

a. Those opposed in various ways to the God-pleasing Union of our Holy Synod with the Hierarchs of the former Synod in Resistance, who are now our brethren in Christ and in our common Orthodox Confession, should not forget the Apostolic injunction: “Wherefore receive ye one another, even as Christ also received you, to the glory of God” (Romans 15:7).

• “I advise you to receive one another with love, just as Christ also re­ceived all of you and made you His own beloved, that God the Father may be glorified.”

b. The Union, or reunion, is a gift of God; our Hierarchs did not accom­plish anything in the matter under consideration, but simply—through their good intentions and endeavors—permitted our Lord to work His miracle: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (St. James 1:17).

c. Those who oppose the Union will be at peace with it only when they view it through the prism of all that we have written, albeit with humili­ty and love, for “obduracy is not from” Christ “Who calleth us” (cf. Gala­tians 5:8); strong self-opinion, which is not submissive to Truth and Love, leads to divisions and schisms, for which each one of us is answerable to God, the Church, and history.

† The end, and glory and thanks to God! Amen!

 

Greek original:

https://ecclesiagoc.gr/images/stories/ArticlesPDF/SynodikesTheseisAntidrontes.pdf

English translation:

https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2014/10/01/E20141001aSynodikesTheseis-Antidrontes%20Folder/E20141001aSynodikesTheseis-Antidrontes.pdf

Orthodoxy – Papism: Union or Return?

“I struggled to leave Papism and run to the truth, to the Light, to Orthodoxy. And now you want to take me back?”

Formerly a Papist, Now Orthodox and Anti-Papist | September 11, 2026

 

 

I experienced the worst that Papism could offer me. And when I decided to leave, it was not an easy decision. I faced hostility, rejection, and exclusion even from people in my own circle. I lost relationships, paid a price, and was left alone.

But I did not do it because I hated people.

I did it because I wanted the truth.

I no longer wanted to live within what my conscience now regarded as error.

I did not want to continue down a path that I believed did not lead to God. I sought the Church, the faith of the Fathers, the Light I had been seeking for so long.

And when I came to know Orthodoxy, I understood why that entire struggle had been worthwhile.

That is why it pains me today to hear talk of union between Orthodoxy and Papism without genuine agreement in faith having first been reached.

With which Papism do we wish to unite?

With Papism as a teaching, with its dogmatic innovations and its understanding of papal primacy? With everything that continues to divide us theologically?

And even more, how can we ignore the profound crisis we see in aspects of contemporary papal reality, especially when certain positions and practices raise serious moral and ecclesiological questions?

I am not saying that every Papist is a bad person. Far from it. There are sincere, devout, and well-intentioned people. I love them and have nothing personal against them.

But the person is one thing, and the teaching is another.

Love for the person does not mean acceptance of error.

And that is precisely what frightens me today.

I left Papism to come to Orthodoxy. I traveled a difficult and painful road to find the truth. And now I see a union being discussed while fundamental dogmatic differences remain, such as the Filioque, papal primacy, and, worst of all, Papism as a “church” whose head is not Christ but the Pope…

And I wonder: do you want to take me back?

I do not want to go back.

I do not want a union achieved by Orthodoxy retreating from what it has received.

• I want union, but union in truth.

• I want dialogue, but honest dialogue.

• I want love, but love that is not afraid to speak the truth.

Because if Orthodoxy, in its effort to unite with Papism, begins to abandon or downplay those things for which the Saints and the Fathers struggled, then we will not have gained unity.

We will have lost Orthodoxy.

And I cannot accept that.

I traveled a long way to leave that place.

I do not want to go back.

I want to remain in the Light.

I want to remain in the truth.

I want to remain in Orthodoxy.

 

Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2026/09/blog-post_112.html

How do we handle relationships with difficult people?

Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica (+2003)

 

 

A young woman once came to see me. She was a university student, and both her parents were doctors. She told me that she was having a problem with one of her professors, who kept failing her in her exams. I said to her: “Why are you waging war against your professor? You must respect her as if she were your mother. She is teaching you discipline for your own good.”

The young woman would not listen to me. “No, Father!” she said. “The professor is malicious… she is this… she is that… I give all the right answers to her questions, and all she does is tell me to come back next time. She simply refuses to pass me!”

I told the young woman that her professor was evidently irrational, but that she, too, was waging war against her in her mind. I told her that she should pray for her professor, and pray that the Lord would send her, too, an angel of peace to give her the strength to love her professor. Then everything would be resolved.

The young woman looked at me as though I were telling her fairy tales. Another year passed like this, causing her to lose all hope of ever managing to pass the course. Then she began to pray for her professor, and the next time she sat the exam, she passed—and even received a high mark.

 

Greek source: https://imlp.gr/2026/09/10/%cf%84%ce%af-%ce%ba%ce%ac%ce%bd%ce%bf%cf%85%ce%bc%ce%b5-%cf%83%cf%84%e1%bd%b6%cf%82-%cf%83%cf%87%ce%ad%cf%83%ce%b5%ce%b9%cf%82-%ce%bc%e1%bd%b2-%ce%b4%cf%8d%cf%83%ce%ba%ce%bf%ce%bb%ce%bf%cf%85%cf%82/

There are still Orthodox-minded pastors…

 

There is still Orthodoxy on earth, and there are still Orthodox pastors who stand far removed from political labeling and speculation, who view East and West not through their spiritual shortsightedness, but according to the measure of Christ’s love.

One of them was Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Etna.

And as the momentous date of September 11 approaches, I would like to recall part of his address to his flock:

“Sometimes the ontological operating room of God’s Providence opens its doors, and we are allowed to see the interaction between history and the spiritual realm through which the Lord heals the sickness of the world. Its counterpart is the restoration of human perfection in the image of God in man, which is achieved through the ascetic spiritual life. This is what we witnessed in last week’s terrorist attacks. The blood and pain of the operating room are still palpable... The process was unimaginably painful. Many of us even harbored hostility toward the ontological Surgeon who removed this foreign body from our organism [complacency and self-assurance—editor’s note]. In seeking the good, we came to understand that we must not and cannot lose a clear understanding of evil, of what it can cause, and also of why the determined pursuit of good necessarily requires a battle against this evil, replacing our complacency with vigilance and imbuing our joy with a sense of sorrow that sobers us and guards us against inner complacency or frivolity...

A person who understands God with a sense of his own importance, regarding himself as saved and taking pride in being a great man among an elite few “chosen ones,” has made himself into a god—he worships an insignificant caricature of God.

A person who perceives God and the spiritual dimensions on a universal scale and out of love for all humanity is a follower of the true God, Who transcends human understanding and transforms the human soul.

A person who measures his love by what he has given his family has succeeded in selfish love. One who can extend this love beyond his family to society and all humanity has understood true love.

A person who loves his homeland and sacrifices his life for it has attained selfish altruism. One who can sacrifice his life for all humanity—a sacrifice that would make his homeland an ideal for others—is a true altruist.

A person who stands against his evil enemy and, at the cost of self-restraint and self-mortification, meets that evil with kindness and forgiveness acts not only on behalf of his family and homeland, and not only for the sake of his own faith; he participates on behalf of all humanity in the universal battle between good and evil.”

Archbishop Chrysostomos concludes his address with a few lines from the beautiful prayer of Saint Nikolai of Serbia, “Bless My Enemies, O Lord,” saying that in everything we do to oppose and punish evil, this banner must always be before our eyes.

“Bless mine enemies, O Lord.

I too bless them, and curse them not.

Mine enemies have driven me into Thine embrace more than my friends have.

My friends bound me to the earth, but mine enemies tore me away from the earth and destroyed all my hopes in earthly things. They made me a stranger in earthly kingdoms and a useless inhabitant of the earth.

And as a hunted beast findeth a surer refuge than one that is not hunted, so I too, pursued by mine enemies, have found the surest refuge by hiding beneath Thy tabernacle, where neither friends nor enemies can destroy my soul. Bless mine enemies, O Lord. I too bless them, and curse them not.”

Through the prayers of such spiritual pastors, who illumined our path to the Heavenly Jerusalem, may the Lord give us strength to walk this path without malice or vengeance, far from the liberalism and fanaticism of political Orthodoxy.

- Nataliy Borislavova, shared on Facebook (in Bulgarian), September 10, 2026.

The Audible Recitation of the Secret Priestly Prayers of the Divine Liturgy from an Empirical Perspective

A guest article by Pan. Papadimitriou, PhD

[Published on the prominent Roman Catholic liturgical history website, https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/]

 

“Having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret”, Mat. 6:5–6

“While the Secret prayer is being performed” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, 4th c.)

“The first [prayer] silently/secretly”, 19^th Canon, The Council of Laodicea (364 A.D.)

A characteristic feature of the Orthodox is their adherence to Tradition. The observance of Holy Tradition is an apostolic command: “Stand fast, and hold the traditions” (2 Thess. 2, 15). “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14, 40). In ministry within the Orthodox Church, each person does not simply act according to his own will; otherwise, in practice, he would be adopting a Protestant mentality. The Church is “following the Holy Fathers,” not following the personal opinions of each individual.

Why must the Tradition of the Church be observed? Holy Tradition is the secure path of the Church, the path of the Holy Fathers, the secure path of divine worship, prayer, repentance, purification, illumination, and deification.

The Tradition of the Divine Liturgy is as follows: the deacon proclaims aloud (eis epēkoon) the common prayers by way of exhortation, addressing the priest and the faithful; they, in response, pray secretly (inwardly, mentally) and individually—the priest with his own prayers, and the faithful with the silent Kyrie eleison (“Lord, have mercy”) or with their own prayers. The chanter responds aloud as the “guide” of the faithful in their prayerful responses to the deacon’s common prayer.

By the grace of God, all these prayers together ascend to God, not as separate prayers, but as one common and powerful prayer, as one common force. This means that even the smallest prayer of a spiritually negligent member of the faithful in church acquires greater boldness before God than when he prays alone at home—though home prayer must by no means be neglected—because he participates in the common prayer of the Church.

Let us not neglect prayer at home. Prayer at home strengthens our prayer in church, and prayer in church, in turn, strengthens our prayer at home. When repentance, forgiveness, guilelessness, love, and humility are also present, then our prayer acquires even greater power—always by the grace of God.

According to Ioannis Fountoulis, during his lifetime, the overwhelmingly predominant Tradition was the ancient Tradition of the prayers being recited secretly, silently, inwardly (not the modern innovation of their audible recitation): [1]

a) “A tradition extending over many centuries has, however, been formed concerning the secret reading of the prayers, and this today is the generally prevailing order throughout the entire Orthodox Church.”

b) “Quite early there prevailed the practice that the prayers of the Divine Liturgy be said secretly (μυστικῶς). Usually the priest said them at the time when the deacon was saying the synapte, in any case before the ekphonesis.”

c) “Secretly, as is well known, all the prayers of the Divine Liturgy are said today, except for the prayer Behind the Ambo [at the end].”

d) “Secretly are said the prayers which are addressed to God.” [Yet all prayers are addressed to God (!), not to men, but for men, for the world, etc.].

The audible recitation of the prayers in the Divine Liturgy was promoted in Greece mainly during approximately the last eighty years, and with particular intensity, publicity, and widespread diffusion after the repose of the late Archbishop Seraphim of Athens (+1998), by theologians, liturgists, and clergy (including Bishops) who were influenced by the preparatory developments leading up to the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), [2] and who in turn influenced numerous clergy and laypeople, who then influenced many others, down to the present day.

Unfortunately, in our time, many people, at every opportunity, whether appropriate or inappropriate, advocate the innovative practice of priests reciting their prayers aloud during the Divine Liturgy.

They say: “The priest should pray aloud, so that the faithful may hear him.”

Here we shall attempt to respond briefly to this argument, from an empirical point of view.

Response from the Perspective of Holy Tradition

There is no evidence in the Holy Tradition of the Church, with regard to the Divine Liturgy, that the priest recited the prayers audibly for the congregation to hear. On the contrary, their secret recitation is attested, either explicitly or implicitly. [3] Indeed, even the Hieratikon published by the Apostoliki Diakonia prior to 2002/2004 explicitly prescribed that the priestly prayers of the Divine Liturgy be recited secretly.

The Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, moreover, issued not one but three (3) Synodal Encyclicals addressed to those innovators who persisted in disobedience: Prot. No. 499 / 16 February 1951, Prot. No. 1353 / 9 June 1956, and Prot. No. 1137 / 13 March 1974—to ears unwilling either to hear or to understand. [4]

The faithful heard the common prayers proclaimed by the deacon, just as the priests heard them; and, in response, both the priests and the people [5] prayed secretly, inwardly. Only the chanter responded aloud, serving, as it were, as a “guide” for the faithful in their prayerful responses to the deacon’s prayer.

Of the priestly prayers, the faithful heard only the “later” prayer behind the Ambo at the conclusion of the Liturgy. [6] This is also why it was recited aloud in the middle of the church—so that the faithful could hear it, in an age before microphones and loudspeakers—with the priest always facing east, standing before the ambo, which at that time was located in the centre of the church (or “behind the ambo,” opisthambonos, if the ambo is viewed from the direction of the sanctuary).

Likewise, the priests do not hear the secret prayers of the faithful, nor those of the monks in monasteries; nor does any Orthodox Christian pray in church audibly for the person standing beside him to hear. For this reason, when the deacon addresses the assembly, he does not say: “In peace, pray to the Lord, Father! And you, faithful people, listen to the Father as he prays aloud!” Neither does he say: “In peace, you faithful, pray to the Lord!”

What, then, does he proclaim? He proclaims: “In peace, let us pray to the Lord!”

To whom does the deacon address the words “let us pray”? Naturally, to the priest and to the faithful people. [7] [8] [9]

Response from the Perspective of the Faithful (and of Monastics in Monasteries)

The innovators argue that the faithful—and, by extension, the monks in monasteries—should hear the secret prayers of the priest.

Even if we set aside the innovative character of this position, they do not explain what, precisely, the faithful (and the monks) are expected to do while the priest is reading the secret priestly prayer aloud. Are they to listen actively (that is, to reflect upon it intellectually—or how exactly is “actively” to be defined?), passively, or to follow the priestly prayers by reading them from the latest modernist editions of the “Hieratikon for the Faithful”? If their attention wanders for a moment, and they fail to hear or read one, two, or ten sentences of the priest’s prayer—or even the entire prayer—what then becomes of their “participation”?

Can the faithful truly pray while listening to the secret prayers of the priest, or are the faithful transformed into reflective listeners, then perhaps merely hearers, and eventually into indifferent spectators? [10] Prayer is not the hearing, comprehension, or interpretation of prayers, nor is it a form of theatrical observation. The liturgical Holy Tradition of the Church does not require the faithful to be present as hearers or interpreters of the priestly prayers, nor as spectators of the priests, but rather to participate prayerfully in the common prayer of the Church. What is required is that the whole Church pray together, heeding and responding to the common prayers proclaimed by the deacon, while each person prays secretly and inwardly (“the prayers of the multitude” and “the prayers of the priests,” as St John Chrysostom says; see also St Porphyrios). [11]

What power this common prayer possesses! The secret prayers of the priest and of the faithful, are neither competing nor disconnected prayers, but one common ecclesial prayer which, by the grace of God, ascends to God.

When, however, the listening—the recitation—becomes continuous, theologically and conceptually dense, and demanding of sustained attention, it hinders the inward prayer of the faithful and turns the believer into a listening observer. Yet the deacon said, “Let us pray to the Lord,” not “Pray, Father!” The faithful, too, must pray secretly and inwardly; and when the priest prays aloud, he makes that inward prayer more difficult, whether knowingly or unknowingly—especially when microphones are used.

It is for this reason that the great practitioner of prayer, the dispassionate and watchful Saint of our own times, St Joseph the Hesychast, called out to the hieromonk: “Do not shout, Father; say them quietly, just as it is written in the Hieratikon, that they are to be said secretly.” [12] [13]

The same difficulty caused by a priest praying aloud affects not only the faithful, but also concelebrating Presbyters who wish to pray together. In earlier practice, the Tradition of priestly Concelebration was that each priest (and each Bishop) would recite the secret priestly prayers privately, [14] just as each member of the faithful (and each monastic) prays privately, in accordance with the commandment of the Lord: “shut thy door and pray to thy Father.”

Yet, although all pray individually within the Church—priests and faithful alike—responding to the common prayers proclaimed by the deacon, nevertheless one prayer, one spiritual force, ascends to God!

“Let the whole body of the Church, with one accord, offer up the supplication with one voice, the priests being present and presenting the prayers of the common multitude,” Chrysostom [PG 56, 182]; cf. [PG 48, 725]. That is: “the supplication is offered by the multitude of the faithful, by the body of the Church, with one soul, in the presence of the priests, who offer to God the prayers of the congregation.” [15] This also explains the plural forms found in the priestly prayers, which the innovators misinterpret. The plural signifies that the priest also presents the prayers of the faithful; it does not signify that the secret priestly prayers must be made audible to the faithful. [16]

Even if the faithful person wishes, or attempts, to pray while listening to the priest’s secret prayer (where it is recited aloud), his mind is drawn away from his own prayer in order to follow and understand what he is hearing, insofar as he is able to do so and insofar as his theological and spiritual formation permits. Even if the faithful person holds before him the text of the secret priestly prayer, or reads it in a Modern Greek translation, [17] he may still fall into the same—and even greater—distractions: he tries to read, to listen, not to lose his place, to study, to reflect, to comprehend intellectually the theological meanings, to notice any possible errors on the part of the priest or in the text itself, or to assess whether the priest is reading correctly and conveying the meaning properly, while at the same time attempting to … pray. If he is also reading from a mobile phone, the situation is even worse. This, however, is not prayer, but at best auditory or intellectual following. In short, the innovators bind heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders.

What is prayer? “prayer is the ascent of the mind to God, or the asking of fitting things from God,” St John of Damascus [PG 94, 1089C–D, ch. 64]. [18] In the Divine Liturgy, such asking consists in the personal prayerful response directed to God in response to the common prayer proclaimed by the deacon (or in each person’s own private petitions); it does not consist in listening to the priest’s prayer. Likewise, the “ascent of the mind to God” [19] is the mind’s speaking to God, for “prayer is the mind’s speaking to God” (Evagrius/Nilus) [PG 79, 1168C, ch. 3]. There is, of course, also an ascent of the mind to God without verbal speaking. [20]

If, when speaking to a prime minister, a ruler, or someone whom we hold in high esteem, we naturally adopt an appropriate disposition, how much more should this be so in our speaking—our prayer—to God.

Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol says: “In essence, the Saints do not think; they pray. [21] That is, discursive thought is set aside, and prayer remains—prayer which is a question addressed to God and an answer received from God. Such are perfect humans beings, those who are in Christ.” [22]

The faithful person—and especially, as is often the case, the young person—does himself a disservice when he uses a modernist “Hieratikon for the faithful” during the Divine Liturgy. He remains present throughout the service, yet in practice, because of the distractions involved, it becomes difficult for him to pray truly.

By the grace of God, you will understand the Divine Liturgy more deeply and more correctly by participating in it through your secret prayer than by reading about it—although reading is, of course, also very beneficial, provided that the book contains no errors, but this should be done outside the service and outside the church. “prayer enlightens the human person. If a person prays, then he will receive assurance from God.” [23] It is also necessary, however, to cultivate virtue, so that prayer may have power [PG 61, 398].

Of course, the priestly exclamations, blessings, the exhortations that properly belong to the Tradition of the Church—not the modernist “all together”—the readings, the troparia, and so forth, which the Church’s Tradition has wisely incorporated into the order of the Divine Liturgy, and which serve as doxology and catechesis while at the same time, by the grace of God, spiritually strengthening the faithful for more attentive prayer, these are traditionally proclaimed aloud, not secretly.

Response from the Perspective of the Priests

The priest’s audible prayer during the Divine Liturgy is not only contrary to Tradition, [24]  and contrary to the canonical order, [25] nor does it merely distract the praying faithful from their secret (inward) prayer; it also distracts the priest himself. The “[audible] recitation of the prayers for the congregation to hear requires rhetorical projection, modulation of the voice, and often a pompous style and other ‘dramatic’ abilities—elements that stand in sharp contrast to the solemn and compunctious atmosphere required for the celebration of the Mysteries of the Church.” [26]

In this respect, the audible recitation of the secret priestly prayers may transform prayer into a concern with being heard, a rhetorical performance, or a liturgical presentation. The priest runs the risk of ceasing to be a praying celebrant and becoming instead a reader.

As a praying celebrant, however, he approaches “the throne of the grace of God with boldness, with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, speaking to God and conversing alone with Him” [PG 98, 429A]. [27] We have already discussed priestly Concelebration in §B.

A characteristic rubric (instruction) found in the Euchologia states that the priest prays while bowed, [28] or, more specifically, that “the priest, inclining himself, prays,” naturally in secret. [29] This posture is, moreover, also depicted in iconography. This bowed posture of the praying priest, as a bodily expression of restraint and reverence, is not suited to the public delivery of speech before an audience, but rather to secret prayer addressed to God.

This also accords with the patristic interpretation of the Divine Liturgy, and especially of the Holy Anaphora, according to which the priest “alone to the Alone, he speaks mysteries to God, uttering them in mystery [secretly]” [30] and is “conversing alone with Him.” [31]

Thus, the priest who recites the secret priestly prayers of the Divine Liturgy aloud for the express purpose of making them heard by the people does an injustice first of all to himself; he also does an injustice to the faithful, depriving them of true prayer and making them, willingly or unwillingly, hearers of his secret prayers—something that would rightly be regarded as disorderly if the faithful or monastics themselves were to do the same by loudly voicing their own secret prayers. Most importantly, however, he does an injustice to the whole Church by diminishing the power of her prayer. The weakening of the Church’s prayer may be observed on the personal, ecclesiastical, social, national, and global levels.

At the same time, the audible recitation of the priestly prayers of the Divine Liturgy may conceal a form of clericalism. Clericalism does not consist in the secret prayer of the priests—the people also pray secretly—but, on the contrary, in their deliberate, often affected, and contrary-to-Tradition audible prayer, when it is performed for the purpose of drawing the congregation’s attention to the celebrant, with the result that the faithful are hindered from praying truly.

To God be the glory for all things.

For futher reading:

Pan. Papadimitriou, “Let Us Pray to the Lord”: Neither “Pray Thou, Father” nor “Pray Ye, Faithful” (Secret prayers), [PDF], translated from the 3rd Greek edition, 15/5/2026.

Our liturgical articles [in Greek] (available in Ἀναλόγιον [32], and in Academia [33]).

 

NOTES

1. Ioannis M. Fountoulis, Answers to Liturgical Questions, vol. V (2003), nos. 551–553, p. 201; vol. II (1994), no. 235, p. 229; vol. V (2003), nos. 551–553, p. 192; vol. V (2003), no. 558, p. 222.

2. The Second Vatican Council took place between 1962 and 1965. It was, however, based upon the corresponding publications and movements of liturgists that had developed over many years beforehand within the Western-inspired so-called liturgical renewal. It was upon these publications of Western liturgists that Trembelas relied—and by which he was influenced—when he wrote, on p. 61 of his book The Roman Liturgical Movement and the Practice of the East (Athens, 1949):

“For the immediate and active participation of the people in the celebration of the Mysteries, and especially of the Divine Eucharist, and for the restoration of the unity (sic) between the altar and the people, the Roman Catholic liturgical movement advocated, as we have said, that the celebrant should turn toward the congregation during the Anaphora and should read the prayers of the Divine Liturgy in a voice audible to the people.”

The Second Vatican Council was cautious and highly diplomatic on the question of the Prayers—in order to avoid reactions from its own “traditionalists”—and simply condensed all the innovations that had appeared in the West up to that time into the diplomatic expression “active participation” of the people, leaving its “interpretation” to a later stage. Those who came afterwards “interpreted” “active participation” in the same manner as those who had interpreted it before the Second Vatican Council (cf. Trembelas), namely, as requiring the Prayers to be recited aloud. The same term and the same interpretation are also given by our own contemporary so-called liturgical reformers.

More precisely, the Second Vatican Council states verbatim in Sacrosanctum Concilium (4 December 1963), under the heading “II. The Promotion of Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation”: “all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations.”

The Western-inspired liturgical mentality, and our own so-called liturgical reformers who follow it, understand the “active participation” of the people in the Liturgy as an auditory, intellectual, and theatrical participation. Hence the audible prayers; hence also the occasional anti-traditional celebration, even within Orthodoxy, of the Divine Liturgy, Memorial services, Holy Unction, the Blessing of Waters, and other services facing westward—that is, with the priest turned not eastward in prayer, but toward the people; hence also the practice of “everyone together,” and so forth.

Orthodox “active participation,” however, is pre-eminently “participation in prayer.” And prayer is secret, according to the word of the Lord (Matt. 6:5–6).

3. Pan. Papadimitriou, While the Deacon Recites the Prayer, the priest Prays the Prayer, 30 October 2022.

4. The fact that repeated and stringent Synodal interventions were deemed necessary indicates that the innovative practice was not an isolated or accidental phenomenon, but rather a persistent and organized liturgical deviation.

5. “And let all the faithful pray for them secretly (in their minds, inwardly), saying: Lord, have mercy” [PG 1, 1076–1077]. The Holy Apostles: “while all the people stand and pray quietly” [PG 1, 737]. St Clement: “Let us therefore, having gathered together in concord in one place, cry out earnestly to Him in our conscience, as though from one mouth, that we may become partakers of His great and glorious promises” [PG 1, 277]. For further discussion, see our article on Canon XIX of the Council of Laodicea, especially notes 11 and 15, concerning prayer kata dianoian (“in the mind”, secretly).

6. This Prayer was added to the Liturgy on account of certain inquisitive persons who active contended against not knowing what was taking place [St Germanos, Archbishop of Constantinople (640–740), PG 98, 452C], a type of persons that has never entirely disappeared from the life of the Church throughout the centuries. See also Presbyter G. Diamantopoulos, The Theological Basis for the Concealment of What Is Performed in the Sanctuary according to St Niketas Stethatos, paper presented at the conference of the Estia of Patristic Studies, In the Aftermath of Liturgical Renewal: Disturbances in Divine Worship, 11 June 2023.

7. Pan. Papadimitriou, “Let Us Pray to the Lord”: Neither “Pray Thou, Father” nor “Pray Ye, Faithful” (Secret Prayers), [PDF], translated from the 3rd Greek edition, 15/5/2026.

8. St John Chrysostom: “For the expression ‘Let us pray’ is addressed not only to the priests, but also to those who constitute the [faithful] people” [PG 61, 399].

9. “The expression ‘let us pray,’ just like ‘let us stand aright,’ which we hear in the Church, is addressed not only to the priests, but also to the congregation, the people,” Panagiotis G. Stamou, John Chrysostom: Prayer — The All-Powerful Weapon of the Faithful, Athens 1988, p. 34.

10. An anonymous priest wrote in a comment on a post on the Anastasios blog: “Whether the [aloud secret priestly] Prayers help toward an understanding of worship and the participation of the people is clearly shown by the manner in which Christians participate in the Mysteries of Baptism and Marriage, and in funerals, where they hear everything proclaimed aloud. No compunction, no sense of the sacred space.” (accessed 27 May 2026).

11. See Sections §B and §C of the article: Let Us Pray to the Lord: Neither “Pray, Father” nor “You, the Faithful, Pray”, 3rd ed., 15 May 2026.

12. Elder Ephraim of Philotheou, My Elder Joseph the Hesychast and Cave-Dweller (1897–1959), Monastery of St Anthony, Arizona, USA, 9th ed., 2019, p. 160.

13. Pan. Papadimitriou, Contemporary (Saintly) Elders and the Secret Prayers, 8 February 2022; Orthodoxos Typos, 13–27 January 2023, nos. 2431–2433.

14. Pan. Papadimitriou, priestly Concelebration — A Comparison of Rubrics, Hieratika, and Commentary, 21 December 2022.

15. Panagiotis G. Stamou, John Chrysostom: Prayer — The All-Powerful Weapon of the Faithful, Athens, 1988, p. 31.

16. In other words, according to the innovators’ interpretation, if the faithful pray, “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on the priest,” or “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us,” must these prayers also be made audible to the priest and to the faithful standing nearby simply because they are expressed in the plural? Or, in the absence of a microphone for the faithful, should they approach the priest and whisper into his ear that they are now praying for him?

17. The question of rendering the texts into Modern Greek is a separate matter. Even the [Greek] New Testament [in Greece] has not been translated in a single universally accepted form, and there are numerous Modern Greek versions of it—one by Zoe, another by Soter, another by Stavros, another by the Apostoliki Diakonia, and so forth. If one turns to published global English translations and paraphrases—now approaching some 900 in number—there is, even in English, still no single official Orthodox translation.

18. See also: “Prayer is the ascent of the mind to God” (Evagrius/Nilus), [PG 79, 1173, ch. 35].

19. “For the mind is the eye and the purest part of the soul” [PG 95, 144B]. “for just as the eye is to the body, so the mind is to the soul”, [PG 94, 924B].

20. Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agios Vlasios, Empirical Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church, according to the Oral Teachings of Fr John Romanides, vol. I, 2nd ed., 2011, Holy Monastery of the Nativity of the Theotokos, p. 109.

21. “Pray without ceasing. In everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you” (1 Thess. 5:17–18). Pray without ceasing, especially during the Church services.

22. Homily on Prayer, 52:38 (First Series—lectures at the University of Cyprus, Nicosia).

23. Homily on Prayer, 52:29 (First Series—lectures at the University of Cyprus, Nicosia).

24. Ioannis Fountoulis: “A tradition regarding the secret recitation of the Prayers has, however, been established for centuries, and today this is the generally prevailing order throughout the entire Orthodox Church.”

25. Pan. Papadimitriou, Canon XIX of the Council of Laodicea (364) and the Recitation of the Liturgical Prayers, 3 April 2022.

26. Protopresbyter Alexandros K. Karapanagopoulos, The Divine Liturgy (Introduction – Text – Interpretation), Athens, 1975, p. 12.

27. Pan. Papadimitriou, The invisible of the Altar (hidden Sanctuary) …, chs. 53, 65, p. 242.

28. In earlier times, the people too bowed deeply at the reading of the Gospel and at the “Your own of Your own” (Ta Sa ek ton Son).

29. Pan. Papadimitriou, While the Deacon Recites the Prayer, the priest Prays the Prayer, 30 October 2022.

30. [PG 98, 429A]. The invisible of the Altar (hidden Sanctuary) …, chs 53, 65, p. 242.

31. In earlier times, the curtains of the sacred Ciborium over the Holy Altar were closed, with the priest praying within during the Holy Anaphora. See The invisible of the Altar (hidden Sanctuary) …, chs. 11.2, p. 117.

32. analogion.gr/typikon/liturgy-articles.

33. independent.academia.edu/ΠΔΠ/Liturgical.

 

Source: https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2026/09/the-audible-recitation-of-secret.html

 

Does Acceptance of the Council of Crete Today Constitute a Proclamation of Heresy “with bared head,” and How is This Justified?

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | September 9, 2026

 

 

1. The Interpretation of the Phrase “With Bared Head”

The 15th sacred Canon stipulates that walling-off is justified and praised when the bishop teaches false doctrine “publicly... and with bared head in the Church.”

The canonist John Zonaras interprets this phrase as meaning that he “teaches heretical doctrines without reserve and with boldness.” The formal synodal acceptance, signing, and liturgical commemoration of these decisions constitute the most overt, institutional proclamation of false doctrine “with boldness” upon the Holy Table before the flock.

2. Heresy “Condemned by the Holy Councils or Fathers”

Ecumenism—which the Council of Crete accepted—meets the requirement of Canon 15 concerning a heresy already condemned by ancient and modern Councils, by the Holy Fathers, and by Holy Scripture itself.

Consequently, a bishop who accepts and publicly teaches these decisions becomes a “false bishop” and a “false teacher,” and breaking communion with him before his synodal condemnation does not cause a schism but protects the Church from the schism of heresy.

The acceptance and proclamation of the decisions of the Council of Crete constitute a proclamation of heresy “with bared head,” directly meeting the conditions set forth in the 15th sacred Canon of the First-Second Council of Constantinople.

This position is analyzed as follows:

1. The Heretical Ecclesiology of the Decisions of Crete.

The sources emphasize that the Council of Crete (2016) violated the doctrine of the Church and introduced a new heretical ecclesiology. Specifically:

• It regarded and designated heresies as “churches.”

• It synodally ratified the texts of the Theological Dialogues, recognizing valid baptism and apostolic succession among the heterodox (Monophysites, Papists, Protestants).

• It approved institutional participation in the “World Council of Churches,” thereby degrading the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

OBJECTION: YES, BUT TODAY THE DECISIONS ARE NOT TAUGHT FROM THE PULPIT.

ANSWER: This objection is common, but according to patristic sources and the acts of the Councils, the meaning of “preaching publicly and with bared head” is not limited to oral preaching from the pulpit.

Patristic tradition provides the basis for the answer as follows:

1. Preaching “In Deed and Word” (Venerable Theodore the Studite)

When Venerable Theodore the Studite was called upon to answer a similar question—namely, that those inclining toward heresy in his time were not directly teaching the deviation from the pulpit—he explained that heresy is not proclaimed through words alone. It is proclaimed “in deed and word” when a dogmatic or canonical violation is ratified synodally, presented as “saving economy,” and imposed in daily ecclesiastical practice.

2. Institutional and Synodal Acceptance

A synodal decision (such as that of Crete) that has been officially signed by bishops, published, and remains in force as the Church’s official position constitutes continuous and undisguised preaching by the governing hierarchy of the Church. The fact that it is not regularly expounded in Sunday sermons does not negate the fact that it has been formally established and is officially implemented.

3. “With Bared Head” and the Holy Table

The interpreters of the Canons (such as John Zonaras) explain the phrase “with bared head” as teaching “without reserve and with boldness.”

• In the Orthodox liturgical tradition, the “pulpit” par excellence for confessing the faith is the Holy Table.

• The mention of the Bishop’s or Patriarch’s name during the Divine Liturgy constitutes “full communion” and publicly declares participation in the faith of the one commemorated.

• Thus, when the celebrant commemorates a bishop who has accepted or implements these decisions, he publicly proclaims (“in the Church”) and before the altar his participation in them.

• As emerges from the Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, the commemoration of an uncondemned heretical bishop defiles the purity of the holy Mysteries. This defilement does not mean the invalidation or destruction of the substantial reality of the Mysteries (since they are celebrated with substantial reality as long as the cleric has not been synodally deposed), but the loss of sanctification and the forgiveness of sins. Thus, participation in the Divine Eucharist where the source of the heresy is commemorated results, for those who knowingly receive Communion, “in judgment and condemnation.”

Consequently, the cessation of commemoration (walling-off) under Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople constitutes the canonical means of protecting the believer from this chain of shared spiritual defilement.

3. Silence as Consent

As Venerable Theodore the Studite emphasizes, toleration and silence in the face of an already institutionalized false doctrine constitute consent and incur the fearful “judgment for silence.” Consequently, the official adoption, institutional implementation, and liturgical commemoration of the decisions constitute a full and public proclamation (“with bared head”), regardless of whether they are specifically mentioned in oral preaching from the pulpit.

Venerable Theodore the Studite’s Stance toward the “Moechian” Council of AD 809

Venerable Theodore the Studite’s stance toward the “Moechian” Council of 809 provides a fundamental historical example of how an appeal to “economy” develops into heresy.

This development is analyzed as follows:

1. The Difference between Sin and Heresy.

Before the Council of 809, the uncanonical blessing of Emperor Constantine VI’s unlawful marriage by the priest Joseph was regarded by the Venerable Father as an isolated sinful act and a violation of the sacred canons. For this reason, during that period the Venerable Father exercised a temporary economy: although he avoided overt communion with the priest Joseph, the “joiner in adultery,” he maintained ecclesiastical communion with Patriarchs Tarasios and Nikephoros, provided that Joseph had been suspended from priestly service.

2. The Institutionalization of Lawlessness as “Saving Economy”

The fundamental change occurred at the Council of 809, where the bishops did not merely tolerate a sinful act but proceeded to a doctrinal deviation. Specifically:

• They decreed that divine laws do not apply to emperors when they do not wish them to.

• They called the nullification of the Gospel commandments “saving economy.”

• They anathematized those who did not accept this “economy” of the saints.

3. “A Single Utterance Gives Birth to Heresy”

Venerable Theodore discerned that the Council of 809 had given birth to a new heresy—the “Moechian heresy”—because through this synodal decision they proclaimed that the immutable commandments of the Gospel are subject to alteration and change according to circumstances. In this way, the violation of the faith and the canons was elevated to an institutional doctrine.

4. Public Proclamation and Obligatory Walling-Off

Whereas before 809 there was no “openly proclaimed evil doctrine,” the Council of 809 brought the false doctrine openly into public view (“through a council into the open”). This public proclamation immediately brought into effect the obligation to wall off:

• The Venerable Father completely broke communion with the Council and all who aligned themselves with it.

• He emphasized that silence in the face of institutionalized error constitutes consent and incurs the “fearful judgment for silence.”

• He recalled the teaching of Saint John Chrysostom that “the enemies of God are not only heretics, but also those who are in communion with them.”

5. The Limits of True Economy

The Venerable Father emphasized that “no economy constitutes an annulment of divine laws.” When economy is used to legitimize ongoing sin or false doctrine, it ceases to be a therapeutic condescension and becomes unlawful hypocrisy and the destruction of ecclesiastical discipline.

How Venerable Theodore’s distinction (between an isolated transgression and its synodal legitimization as “economy”) applies to the contemporary ecclesiological discussion concerning the decisions of Crete.

The distinction drawn by Venerable Theodore the Studite during the Moechian controversy applies directly to the contemporary ecclesiological assessment of the decisions of the Council of Crete (2016):

1. From an Isolated Transgression to Synodal Institutionalization

• In Venerable Theodore’s time: Before the Council of 809, the uncanonical blessing of the unlawful marriage constituted an isolated sinful act and a violation of the sacred canons. When, however, the Council of 809 ratified this act, it decreed that divine laws are not binding upon emperors and called the nullification of the commandments “saving economy.”

• At the Council of Crete (2016): Similarly, while for decades the various concessions of Ecumenism had been made under the cover of an unrestrained “economy,” these deviations were synodally institutionalized through the Council of Crete. Heterodox confessions were officially designated “churches,” and the texts of the Theological Dialogues that recognize valid baptism and apostolic succession among the heterodox were synodally ratified.

2. The Transformation of “Economy” into Heresy

• Venerable Theodore discerned that the violation of the Gospel commandments in practice, when presented and synodally ratified as “saving economy,” constitutes heresy, declaring in his famous words: “Do not be surprised if a single utterance gives birth to heresy.”

• In the same way, the institutional recognition of heresies as churches at Crete does not constitute a mere administrative condescension, but the introduction of a new heretical ecclesiology that overturns the teaching of the Gospel and the Ecumenical Councils.

3. The Transition to Obligatory Walling-Off

• Before the Council of 809, Venerable Theodore avoided direct communion with the priest who had acted unlawfully, but maintained ecclesiastical communion with the Patriarchs. When, however, the false doctrine became “openly proclaimed” and was institutionalized “through a council into the open,” the Venerable Father immediately broke communion with the Council and all who aligned themselves with it.

• By the same principle, the official synodal ratification of the decisions of Crete made the false doctrine public and institutionalized, transforming the cessation of commemoration (walling-off) from a mere right into an immediate canonical duty and obligation to protect the believer from spiritual defilement.

Comparison of the Moechian Council (809) and the Council of Crete

The comparison between the Moechian Council of 809 and the Council of Crete of 2016, in the light of patristic tradition and Father Eugenios’s study, reveals the profound historical and theological parallel in the transition from an isolated canonical transgression to the synodal institutionalization of heresy.

Cause and Occasion: In the Moechian Council of 809, the cause was the uncanonical blessing of Emperor Constantine VI’s unlawful marriage to Theodote. Correspondingly, at the Council of Crete in 2016, the occasion lay in the institutional ratification of the Theological Dialogues and the overall common course pursued within the World Council of Churches.

Prior Situation: The Moechian Council arose from an isolated violation of the sacred canons, namely, the sin of joining a couple in an adulterous union, during which temporary economy was exercised while the priest involved had already been suspended. In the case of Crete, decades of informal and isolated ecumenist concessions had preceded it, justified in the name of an unrestrained and distorted “economy.”

Doctrinal Deviation: The Moechian Council culminated in the formal establishment of the principle that divine laws need not bind emperors and that the nullification of the commandments may constitute “saving economy.” At Crete, the deviation manifested itself in the introduction of a new heretical ecclesiology through the recognition of the heterodox as “churches” and the acceptance of their baptism.

Characterization of the Deviation and Its Public Proclamation: In 809, the “Moechian heresy” was born through a synodal decision, in accordance with the axiom that “a single utterance gives birth to heresy,” whereby the false doctrine became an “openly proclaimed evil doctrine” and emerged “through a council into the open” (“with bared head”). Correspondingly, in 2016, the doctrine of the Church was violated and the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers were overturned through official synodal signing, institutional publication, and liturgical proclamation through the commemoration of the bishops.

The Nature of Economy and Canonical Duty: In both cases, “economy” is falsely invoked to legitimize the violation of the Gospel, since “no economy constitutes an annulment of divine laws.” As regards the canonical duty of walling-off, whereas in 809 there was an immediate obligation to break communion with the Council and those who consented to it, because silence constitutes consent, in 2016 Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople comes into effect, requiring the cessation of commemoration to avoid shared spiritual defilement.

Main Conclusions of the Comparison:

1. The transformation of sin into heresy: In both cases, heresy arose not from the original violation, but from its synodal legitimization and concealment under the guise of “economy.”

2. The necessity of walling-off: When false doctrine ceases to be hidden and is proclaimed synodally or liturgically (“with bared head”), toleration becomes complicit silence, making the cessation of communion a duty pertaining to salvation.

3. Participation or the commemoration of bishops who accept these synodal deviations transmits spiritual defilement to the flock through the “principle of communicating vessels.”

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/09/a.html