One Non-Commemorator’s Observations: “Walling Off and Orthodox Synodality”

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | November 8, 2026

 

 

During periods of widespread crisis and heresy, when there are no Orthodox bishops locally who have walled themselves off, Orthodox Synodality is neither abolished nor rendered inactive, for it does not depend upon any single local administrative structure, but upon the catholic consciousness of the pleroma of the Church.

According to the teachings of the Holy Fathers (St. Basil the Great and Venerable Theodore the Studite) and Canon Law, synodality is exercised in such circumstances through the following four pillars:

1. Connection with the Universal “Healthy Part” of the Church

When a local Diocese or Synod is ailing doctrinally, the Church is divided into the “ailing part” and the “healthy part.” A clergyman or layperson who has walled himself off, even if there is no bishop in his local area who has likewise walled himself off, maintains both invisible and visible unity with the “healthy part” of the Orthodox bishops, clergy, and laity throughout the inhabited world, who rightly divide the word of Truth.

St. Basil the Great (Epistle 263) points out that the Orthodoxy of a local community is judged by its agreement in faith with the multitude of right-believing bishops throughout the inhabited world.

2. The Laity and Clergy as Guardians of Synodality

As the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848) declares, “The defender of religion is the very body of the Church, that is, the people themselves.”

Synodality is not merely a bureaucratic assembly, but the organic concord of the Body of Christ. When the shepherds remain silent or teach false doctrine, the confession of faith and walling off of the pleroma constitute an act of safeguarding the synodal Tradition.

3. Walling Off as an “Alarm” Pending a Synod

The cessation of commemoration (Canon 15 of the First-Second Synod) constitutes the first defensive bulwark of self-protection against spiritual defilement through communion.

Walling off functions as a spiritual alarm within the Body of the Church. The ultimate aim of the struggle is to prepare the ground for the convocation of an Orthodox or Pan-Orthodox Synod, which will examine the heresy, issue the canonical summonses to answer the charges, and pronounce the definitive sentence of deposition from the priesthood (“καθαιρέσεως ψῆφον”) upon those who remain unrepentant.

4. What Patristic Order Forbids (Avoidance of Autonomy and Parasynagogues)

The absence of bishops who have walled themselves off DOES NOT permit the violation of the Sacred Canons. Those who have walled themselves off remain part of the One Church and do not proclaim themselves an “autonomous Church.” During periods when the convocation of a Synod is delayed owing to adverse circumstances, the faithful steadfastly preserve the purity of the Faith through patience, prayer at home, and recourse to priests who are above reproach, knowing that Divine Grace cannot be compelled through uncanonical initiatives.

* * *

Establishment of Confessional Associations

During periods when heresy is rampant, Orthodox Christians who have walled themselves off (clergy, monastics, and laity) may establish confessional associations, brotherhoods, or leagues for the better coordination of their struggle for the Faith.

Ecclesiastical history confirms that such forms of collective organization have always been valuable instruments for safeguarding the Faith, on the inviolable condition that canonical and ecclesiological boundaries are respected.

1. What Is PERMITTED and BENEFICIAL in Confessional Associations

- Mutual assistance among persecuted believers, spiritual support, the organization of gatherings, the publication of informational and theological materials, and the catechetical edification of the pleroma of the Church.

- The coordinated drafting and submission of protests through joint memoranda, letters, and confessions of faith addressed to the ecclesiastical authorities and the faithful (as the abbots did during the time of Venerable Theodore the Studite in A.D. 815).

- The pleroma of the Church, as the guardian of Tradition, fulfills its moral obligation to denounce false doctrine and to demand the preservation of the true Faith.

2. The INVIOLABLE BOUNDARIES (What Is Not Permitted)

To prevent a confessional association from degenerating into a parasynagogue, schism, or ecclesiological subjectivism, it must respect the following boundaries:

1. A confessional association is an association of persons who are members of the Church (of the “healthy part”). It must not become a parallel “governing authority,” nor may it proclaim itself an autonomous “Church.”

2. The association has no authority to try bishops, formally depose them, or declare episcopal sees vacant.

3. The celebration of the Sacred Mysteries and the liturgical life of the clergy belonging to the association who have walled themselves off must conform to the Sacred Canons (Apostolic Canons 31 and 35), avoiding the arbitrary establishment of parallel jurisdictions.

4. The objective purpose of the association's activities is not permanent autonomous existence, but to prepare the ground for the convocation of an Orthodox Synod, which alone possesses the authority to resolve the ecclesiastical crisis institutionally.

* * *

IS ECCLESIASTICAL COMMUNION AMONG THOSE WHO HAVE WALLED THEMSELVES OFF ESSENTIAL TO SYNODALITY?

Ecclesiastical communion and unity among those who have walled themselves off are essential for the preservation of Orthodox Synodality, and are firmly grounded in the Patristic Tradition and Canon Law.

Walling off (on the basis of Sacred Canon 15 of the First-Second Synod) does not constitute individual isolationism, private “abstention,” or an individualistic initiative, but is a confessional act of the living Body of the Church.

According to the enduring consensus of the Holy Fathers (consensus Patrum), the importance of communion among those who have walled themselves off may be examined under the following headings:

1. The Manifestation of the “Healthy Part” of the Church

- Universal Communion in Faith: As St. Basil the Great teaches, during periods when the ecclesiastical leadership is ailing doctrinally, the Church is divided into the “ailing part” (those who espouse heresy) and the “healthy part” (the Orthodox).

- Sacramental and Spiritual Communion: Clergy, monastics, and laity who have walled themselves off must maintain full liturgical, sacramental, and spiritual communion with one another and with every right-believing part of the Church throughout the inhabited world. This unity demonstrates that the Church of Christ remains visible, living, and synodal.

2. Avoidance of Individualism and Ecclesiological Subjectivism

- Communication and dialogue among those who have walled themselves off safeguard the struggle for Orthodoxy against the pitfall of individual subjectivism, whereby each person would become an “autonomous judge” of all things. Such communion is governed by canonical strictness (acriveia). Those who have walled themselves off maintain communion with those who uphold the Truth, while knowingly abstaining from communion with those who commune with heresy, observing the principle of “communicating vessels.”

3. Walling Off as an “Alarm” for a Future Synod

- Preparation for Synodal Vindication: The cessation of commemoration functions as a spiritual alarm within the Body of the Church.

- Coordination of the Pleroma: Communion among those who have walled themselves off prepares the ground so that, when historical circumstances permit, Orthodox bishops may convene in Synod, examine the heresy, issue the canonical summonses to answer the charges (Apostolic Canon 74), and pronounce the definitive sentence of deposition upon those who remain unrepentant.

4. The Inviolable Canonical Boundaries of Communion

For communion among those who have walled themselves off to remain an authentic expression of Synodality, it must respect the Sacred Canons:

- No Intrusion into Another’s Jurisdiction (Apostolic Canon 35): Walling off does not grant presbyters the authority to act arbitrarily within the jurisdictions of other Metropolises.

- No Parasynagogues (Apostolic Canon 31; Canon 11 of Carthage): The establishment of “autonomous” parallel jurisdictions or the arbitrary celebration of the Sacred Mysteries outside the bounds of ecclesiastical order is not permitted.

As St. Gregory of Nyssa declares:

“For by separating ourselves from heresy, we are continually united to piety; and we behold the garment of the Church as unrent precisely when it is severed from communion with heresy.”

Venerable Theodore the Studite, during the severe persecutions of the Moechian Controversy (A.D. 795–811) and the Second Iconoclasm (A.D. 815–826), established a veritable “constitutional charter” governing the communication, coordination, and pastoral care of monks, clergy, and laity who had walled themselves off.

Through his hundreds of letters, the Venerable Father demonstrated that walling off is not passive isolationism, but a living, coordinated, and organized confession of faith by the Church.

The manner in which the Holy Fathers coordinated this communication may be outlined under five principal headings:

A. An Uninterrupted Network of Correspondence from Exile

Despite strict imprisonment, confinement on the Princes’ Islands, and exile, Venerable Theodore maintained an extensive network of clandestine correspondence with his disciples (such as Venerable Naukratios, Euodios, and Thallelaios), abbots, nuns, lay officials, and bishops abroad.

Through these letters, he encouraged the scattered flock of the Monastery of Stoudios, resolved questions arising in daily life, and provided clear guidance for preserving unity in the Truth.

B. Pastoral Economy for the Preservation of Fraternal Communion

To prevent the fabric of ecclesiastical life from being torn apart by excessive strictness, Venerable Theodore exercised a discerning “therapeutic economy” in relations among the faithful (particularly in Letters 40 and 49 to his disciple Naukratios):

When a priest who was Orthodox in conviction commemorated a bishop who espoused heresy solely “out of fear of persecution” (without concelebrating with heretics or administering the Sacred Mysteries to them), the Venerable Father permitted those who had walled themselves off to associate with him at meals, pray together with him, and receive his blessing.

He strictly prohibited only the reception of Holy Communion from such a priest, in order to avoid the spiritual defilement associated with commemoration, while at the same time allowing the priest the time and encouragement needed to advance gradually toward full canonical strictness (acriveia) in walling himself off.

C. Discerning Examination of the Faith (“To Stephen the Reader”)

The Venerable Father taught that, in times of heresy, the faithful must exercise spiritual vigilance without lapsing into fanaticism. In his letter to Stephen the Reader, he instructs that careful inquiry must be made as to whether an unfamiliar clergyman is Orthodox in conviction and above reproach with respect to the canons. If the priest confessed the true Faith, observed the Sacred Canons, and rejected heresy, the faithful were obliged to maintain full ecclesiastical communion with him, without suspiciously investigating by whom he had originally been ordained.

D. Coordination for a Common Confession of Faith before the Authorities

The Fathers who had walled themselves off acted as a coordinated body in opposition to the arbitrary actions of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. Before the convocation of the Iconoclast Synod of A.D. 815, Venerable Theodore coordinated all the Orthodox abbots of Constantinople, who drafted and signed a joint confessional letter to Emperor Leo V the Armenian, proclaiming their steadfast adherence to the Seventh Ecumenical Council. He coordinated the dispatch of appeals to Pope Leo III of Rome and the Patriarchates of the East, requesting the convocation of an Orthodox Synod for the deposition of the heresiarchs, thereby demonstrating that walling off aims at the synodal vindication of the Church.

E. The Enduring Acceptance of the Studite Approach

This pastoral and canonical approach of Venerable Theodore was historically recognized as the Church’s surest guide. The Athonite Fathers of the 13th century (during the reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos and the patriarchate of John Bekkos) cited passages verbatim from the letters of Venerable Theodore in their appeal to the Emperor, employing them as a confessional foundation for their refusal of communion with the Latin-minded.

In the historic dogmatic letter they addressed to Emperor Michael VIII, the Athonite Fathers established the grounds for their refusal of communion and cessation of commemoration by advancing four principal arguments:

1. They declared that it had been the unwavering position of the Church from the beginning that “from the very outset, the Orthodox Church of God has regarded the commemoration of the name of the hierarch in the sanctuary as constituting full communion with him.” Through commemoration in the Holy of Holies, the one commemorating enters into full communion with the faith of the hierarch.

2. To demonstrate that their position expressed the Patristic Tradition, the Athonite Fathers quoted verbatim the following passage from Venerable Theodore the Studite: “Nevertheless, communion entails defilement merely through commemorating him, even if the one commemorating him is Orthodox.” They thus demonstrated that the commemoration of an uncondemned heretical bishop transmits spiritual defilement to an Orthodox clergyman.

3. Citing Theodore of Andida’s interpretation of the Divine Liturgy, they emphasized that the celebrant who commemorates the name of the hierarch thereby declares his submission to him and manifests that “he is a partaker of his faith and a successor in the Divine Mysteries.”

4. The Fathers connected the Studite teaching with the prophetic words of Ezekiel (“Her priests have violated My law, and have profaned Mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane”), emphasizing that placing Orthodoxy and heresy on an equal footing in worship profanes the Holy Things.

This stance of the Athonite Fathers of the 13th century confirms the enduring consensus of the Fathers (consensus Patrum) from the 5th century through the 9th (Venerable Theodore the Studite) and into the 13th century. It demonstrates that the cessation of commemoration of an uncondemned heretical bishop does not constitute a private overstepping of authority, but a soteriological obligation to avoid defilement through communion in matters of faith.

* * *

CONCELEBRATIONS AMONG THOSE WHO HAVE WALLED THEMSELVES OFF

For concelebrations to take place among clergy who have walled themselves off without constituting the canonical offense of intrusion into another’s jurisdiction (Apostolic Canon 35) or of forming a parasynagogue (Apostolic Canon 31; Canon 11 of Carthage), the Patristic Tradition and Canon Law prescribe very specific conditions:

1. Clear Distinction between “Confessional Concelebration” and “Usurpation of Ecclesiastical Authority”

- What Constitutes Intrusion into Another’s Jurisdiction: Such intrusion occurs when a cleric arbitrarily enters another Metropolis and usurps administrative or episcopal rights.

- How It Is Avoided: Walling off (Canon 15 of the First-Second Synod) constitutes a defensive bulwark against defilement through communion with heresy. A priest who has walled himself off and is invited by another priest who has likewise walled himself off to concelebrate does not exercise administrative authority, but comes solely as a guest for the purpose of making a common confession of the Faith and providing sacramental support to the pleroma who have walled themselves off.

2. Place of Celebration: “Gatherings in Private Homes” and Private Premises

- As prescribed by the Apostolic Constitutions, during periods when the official churches are occupied by those who teach false doctrine:

“If it is not possible to assemble in a church because of the unbelievers, hold gatherings in a private home, O bishop... For it is not the place that sanctifies the man, but the man who sanctifies the place.”

Concelebrations among those who have walled themselves off take place in private chapels, houses of prayer, or outdoor locations. When such a gathering does not attempt the forcible occupation of a public parish church belonging to the local Metropolis, there is no infringement upon the administrative rights of the local bishop.

Fraternal Invitation and Confessional Purpose

- The concelebration takes place upon the express invitation of the local priest who has walled himself off or of the local Orthodox community or association requesting liturgical ministry.

- The visiting priest commemorates at the Proskomedia “for all Orthodox bishops” or the healthy part of the episcopate, thereby demonstrating that his action is synodal and confessional, pending the convocation of an Orthodox Synod, and not an act of individual autonomy.

Under these conditions, as the Holy Fathers (St. Basil the Great and Venerable Theodore the Studite) demonstrated, concelebration among those who have walled themselves off constitutes ecclesiastical solidarity and the safeguarding of the Faith, thereby refuting every accusation of intrusion into another’s jurisdiction.

Venerable Theodore the Studite, during the severe persecutions of Iconoclasm, established a clear pastoral and liturgical rule governing the activities of exiled, persecuted, and itinerant presbyters. His aim was to preserve the purity of the Faith without allowing priests to fall into canonical offenses, such as intrusion into another’s jurisdiction, uncanonical ordination, or the formation of parasynagogues.

The principal provisions laid down by Venerable Theodore may be summarized under the following headings:

1. Scrupulous Examination of the Faith (“Letter to Stephen the Reader”)

When an exiled or itinerant priest arrived in a particular area, the Venerable Father instructed that the faithful must carefully examine his religious convictions. If the priest preserved the Faith and the Sacred Canons intact, did not commemorate a heretical bishop, did not concelebrate with those who taught false doctrine, and did not administer the Holy Mysteries to them, he was to be received into full ecclesiastical communion.

The faithful did not question the canonical legitimacy of his priesthood on account of the circumstances of his exile, provided that his Orthodox convictions remained above reproach.

2. Celebration of the Divine Liturgy in Houses of Prayer and Caves

Because the official churches had been occupied by heretics and were regarded by St. Basil the Great and Venerable Theodore as “common houses” (profaned places from which the guardian Angel had departed), exiled priests and those who had walled themselves off celebrated the Divine Liturgy in private homes, caves, or houses of prayer.

In this way, they avoided the forcible occupation of public churches belonging to the local Metropolis, thereby refuting any accusation of administrative intrusion into another’s jurisdiction or rebellion.

3. Strict Observance of the Boundaries of the Priestly Order

Venerable Theodore emphasized that persecution does not grant any presbyter the right to usurp episcopal prerogatives. Presbyters were strictly forbidden to undertake the ordination of new clergy, an act belonging exclusively to the episcopate.

Itinerant priests did not establish autonomous administrative structures, but served as ministers to the spiritual needs of the pleroma who had walled themselves off.

4. Pastoral Gradation and Economy (Letters 40 and 49 to Naukratios)

To protect the faithful from confusion, the Venerable Father established clear boundaries of ecclesiastical communion:

If a priest commemorated a heretical bishop solely “out of fear of persecution” (φόβῳ διωγμοῦ), without concelebrating with heretics, he could be received for common meals, joint prayer, and the giving of blessings, but receiving Holy Communion from him was strictly forbidden in order to avoid defilement through communion.

If an Orthodox priest commemorated an Orthodox bishop who, however, commemorated a heretical metropolitan under pressure, the Venerable Father applied temporary pastoral economy so that the “weak sheep” would not be spiritually paralyzed, gradually guiding them toward canonical strictness (acriveia).

5. Commemoration of “all Orthodox bishops”

The exiled priests, rather than commemorating the local heretical bishop, commemorated at the Proskomedia “all Orthodox bishops” or the healthy part of the Hierarchy.

Through this commemoration, they proclaimed that they remained organically united with the Catholic Church and celebrated the divine services pending synodal vindication.

 

Greek source:

https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/11/var-wau-wau-wau_01794232428.html

Signs of Compromise and Alignment with the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism in the Once-Militant Office for Heresies of the (Official Church’s) Holy Metropolis of Piraeus

Archimandrite Pavlos Dimitrakopoulos, theologian | November 8, 2026 | Thessaloniki

 

 

The Office for Heresies and Para-Religions of the Holy Metropolis of Piraeus recently published a study entitled: “The Ecumenical Movement in the Light of Orthodox Tradition: Expectations, Impasses, and Theological Concerns—A Brief Assessment of Its Course Thus Far.” [1] In this study, the Office addresses the “Ecumenical Movement” and attempts to evaluate its course thus far in the light of Orthodox Tradition.

Without a doubt, the study contains certain correct positions and observations that reflect the Orthodox Faith and Tradition. However, it also contains inappropriate expressions which, because they are also used by the Ecumenists, are liable to create confusion, misunderstandings, and erroneous impressions among the faithful, particularly among the more simple-minded who lack theological knowledge. Furthermore, its treatment of the subject of inter-Christian dialogues is deficient in several respects, since, in my humble opinion, it contains omissions, failing to draw attention to certain texts jointly accepted with the heterodox that are unacceptable from an Orthodox standpoint. The study is also deficient in another respect, namely, that it makes no reference by name to the present-day leading proponents of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, and above all to its foremost champion today, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, as though the heresy had fallen upon us from heaven, without there being any persons who espouse it.

Since God deemed me worthy to serve as the director of the aforementioned Office for more than twelve years, I considered it my duty to offer certain critical observations on the above publication, in order to draw attention to the new mentality that appears to have begun to prevail in the operation of the Office—a mentality which, in my humble opinion, is nothing other than one of compromise and alignment with the pan-heresy.

The first thing I must comment upon is the inappropriate term “Ecumenical Movement,” which the Office uses extensively. The term is inappropriate because it is the one employed by the Ecumenists when speaking of Ecumenism. They attempt to conceal the heresy beneath the cloak of a movement in order to deceive the unsuspecting. It is a grave mistake for us Orthodox to allow ourselves to be led astray by the deceptive terminology they employ. Rather, we ought to use the designation given to it by St. Justin Popović: “pan-heresy.”

Further on, the study states: “In this light, the contemporary Ecumenical Movement and the theological dialogues conducted for decades with the heterodox Christian confessions must be examined with sobriety, ecclesiastical responsibility, and strictly theological criteria….” The faithful people of God already know that “the theological dialogues being conducted… must be examined with sobriety….” What concerns them at the present juncture is not how the dialogues ought to be conducted, but what results have been achieved by the dialogues conducted thus far, after so many decades. Above all, they wish to know what tragic impasse these dialogues have now reached and what the causes of their complete failure have been. Furthermore, the Office appears to ignore the fact that we Orthodox do not seek the Truth through dialogues. We possess the Truth—Christ Himself—and experience Him as a living reality. Through dialogue, we seek to offer this Truth to the heterodox. Nor is it stated anywhere that the purpose of dialogue must be the return of the heterodox to Orthodoxy, and that when this objective is not achieved, dialogue must be terminated rather than prolonged through endless discussions stretching over decades.

Further on, reference is made to the World Council of Churches (WCC): “In 1948, the so-called World Council of Churches (WCC) was established, in which many Orthodox Churches have participated and continue to participate…. This participation, as well as the manner in which theological dialogues are conducted, raises, from an Orthodox theological standpoint, serious questions concerning the preservation of ecclesiastical self-consciousness and the exactitude of the confession of faith.” Our participation in the WCC does not merely “raise serious questions…” but constitutes something far worse and more tragic. It constitutes “a betrayal of the Faith,” according to the divinely enlightened observation of St. Justin Popović: “Was it really necessary for the Orthodox Church, this most immaculate Divine-human Body and organism of the God-man Christ, to be so monstrously humiliated that her representatives, theologians and even Hierarchs, should seek organic participation and inclusion in the WCC? Alas, an unheard-of betrayal!” [2] Since, therefore, this constitutes a betrayal of the Faith, why do those responsible for the Office and the Metropolitan of Piraeus not distance themselves from the Church of Greece and cease ecclesiastical commemoration? Why do they not rebuke and denounce Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew for the numerous heterodox statements he has made thus far at WCC conferences?

Further on, the study states: “The view expressed to the then ‘Pope’ Francis in 2014 requires further examination: ‘The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church… unfortunately, during her earthly sojourn, was divided in the course of time, owing to the predominance of human weakness and the finite will of the human mind. Thus, various situations and groups arose, each of which claims “authority” and “truth.”’” [3] This is not a mere “view,” but a dreadful heterodox teaching, expressed not by some anonymous individual, but by the heresiarch Bartholomew. This heterodox teaching requires no further examination, for it has already been thoroughly examined in the scholarly study entitled “The New Ecclesiology of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Contemporary Confessional Texts,” compiled by the “Assembly of Clergy and Monastics.” What is needed is the severance of ecclesiastical communion with the heresiarch Bartholomew and with those who remain in communion with him. But this comes at a cost, for it requires the sacrifice of metropolitan sees and entails persecutions which, unfortunately, today's metropolitans and their associates do not appear willing to endure.

Further on, the study states: “Our Office, whose mission is to define the boundaries of the Orthodox Faith and to study and expose heresies and errors, systematically monitors and examines the activities of the Ecumenical Movement and formulates its corresponding conclusions. From an examination of what has been accomplished thus far, we observe that the numerous meetings, the organization of conferences, the protracted discussions, and the publication of theological texts do not, in themselves, constitute evidence of doctrinal convergence, nor do they demonstrate that the original objective of the Ecumenical Movement has been achieved. The essential question is whether the differences separating the Christian confessions have been clearly addressed, whether the theological disagreements have been resolved, and whether the necessary conditions for the restoration of ecclesiastical communion have been established.”

The “essential question” is not “whether the differences separating the Christian confessions have been clearly addressed….” The fact that they have not been “clearly addressed” is the least of our concerns. The essential observation, which is being overlooked, is something else, something far more tragic: namely, that in the dialogues conducted thus far, not only has there been no “evidence of doctrinal convergence,” but, on the contrary, there has been a progressive deterioration and erosion of the Orthodox mind-set among the Orthodox delegations participating in the bilateral dialogues. In other words, we have reached the tragic point where Orthodox representatives and Patriarchs make statements that are contrary to Orthodoxy and blasphemous, and sign joint texts with heretics that are alien to the Tradition and dogmatic teaching of our Church. The late Professor Fr. George Metallinos writes in this regard:

“Instead of Orthodoxy exerting a salvific influence upon the non-Orthodox world, we have reached the point of accepting in practice ‘Baptismal Theology,’ the ‘Theology of Sister Churches’ [cf. the Balamand Agreement of 1993], the ‘common ministry’ of the ‘expanded Church,’ and ‘cultural pluralism,’ as has very rightly been pointed out…. Ecumenism, in all its dimensions and manifestations, has become a veritable Babylonian captivity of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and of all the local leaderships of the Orthodox Church, with very few exceptions, which are nevertheless subjected to unbearable pressure. The boasting and self-admiration of our Ecumenists over a supposedly new era inaugurated by the Ecumenical Patriarchate through the Patriarchal Encyclicals of 1902, 1904, and 1920 are not vindicated, for what has actually been accomplished is that we have legitimized the heresies and schisms of Papism and Protestantism.” [4]

The Office also claims that “it systematically monitors and examines the activities of the Ecumenical Movement and formulates its corresponding conclusions.” However, there can be no systematic study without a critical evaluation of certain joint texts produced by the mixed theological commissions between the Orthodox and the heterodox, which are replete with Papist and Protestant heterodox teachings and have provoked a storm of reactions and severe criticism within Orthodox theological circles. These are the texts of Balamand, Ravenna, Porto Alegre, and Busan, which were accepted without being rejected and condemned by the pseudo-council of Crete. The absence of theological criticism of the aforementioned texts creates a substantial gap that significantly diminishes the value of the study.

Further on, the study states: “Particular criticism has been directed at certain formulations and procedures of the ‘Holy and Great Council’ of Crete, which took place in 2016.” It then presents the arguments of both the critics and the supporters of the pseudo-council. It is deeply regrettable that the Office employs the term “Holy and Great Council,” which is also used by the Ecumenists, to designate the Council of Kolymbari, rather than the term “pseudo-council.” This is not the occasion to present the multitude of irrefutable evidence demonstrating that the Council of Kolymbari was a pseudo-council. Those who seek such evidence in order to be convinced I refer to my study entitled “The ‘Council’ of Crete.” The fact that the author places the phrase “Holy and Great Council” in quotation marks indicates that he probably regards this pseudo-council as something midway between an Orthodox Council and a pseudo-council. In other words, he regards it as a problematic council containing numerous ill-conceived, ambiguous, and problematic formulations that require revision by a future truly Orthodox Council. However, our Orthodox Conciliar Tradition knows of no intermediate category of problematic councils, but only two kinds of councils: Orthodox Councils and pseudo-councils. This is because there is nothing intermediate between truth and falsehood. St. Mark of Ephesus says in this regard: “Never, O man, have ecclesiastical matters been set right through compromise. There is nothing between truth and falsehood. Rather, just as one who has departed from the light must necessarily be in darkness, so also one who has deviated even slightly from the truth may truly be said to have fallen under the dominion of falsehood.”

In closing, I consider it necessary to emphasize once again that the pseudo-council of Crete was an exceptionally tragic and momentous ecclesiastical event of worldwide significance, with incalculable consequences for the life of the Church. It was an event that inflicted the most grievous blow upon the Body of the Church. It was the most tragic event in the history of the Church of Greece, because its ecclesiastical leadership has now officially accepted the Council’s heterodox decisions and incorporated them into its official teaching. This event marks the Church of Greece’s entrapment in, and alignment with, the pan-heresy. For this reason, it makes walling-off from all those bishops who accept the pseudo-council, whether openly or tacitly, more necessary than ever before.

This exceedingly grievous evil was compounded when the same ecclesiastical leadership, two years later (2018), officially and synodically recognized the Ukrainian schismatics under Epiphanius Dumenko through the Ukrainian autocephaly, thereby itself becoming schismatic, according to the Second Sacred Canon of the Council of Antioch: “It shall not be permitted to commune with those who are out of communion, nor to receive into another Church those who do not assemble in their own Church. And if any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or anyone belonging to the clergy should be found communing with those who are out of communion, let him also be excluded from communion, as one who confounds the canonical order of the Church.” Thus, yet another reason for walling-off has now been added, making it even more necessary.

In the present case, walling-off should not be based merely on the 15th Sacred Canon of the First-Second Council, because here we are not dealing with one, two, or several bishops who preach heresy, but with an entire Local Church that accepts heresy. For this reason, it should have a much broader character, namely, the character of the cessation of communion practiced by St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Mark of Ephesus. As is well known, St. Maximus ceased communion with the bishops of all the Patriarchates of his time that had accepted Monothelitism, having in mind not the 15th Sacred Canon of the First-Second Council (which had not yet been formulated), but the entirety of the preceding Patristic Tradition. St. Mark of Ephesus did likewise, ceasing communion not only with the Patriarch of his time, but also with all the bishops who had signed the acts of the pseudo-council of Ferrara–Florence. We, too, are obliged to do likewise, following the example of St. Mark, because the pseudo-council of Crete is nothing other than a repetition of the pseudo-council of Ferrara–Florence.

I am absolutely convinced that, under present circumstances, the safest path to salvation is the path of walling-off. I am certain that if St. Paisios, St. Porphyrios, or St. Iakovos were alive today, they would have ceased communion. Therefore, let all those who care about their salvation and do not wish to let it slip through their fingers take heed of what we have written above and act accordingly.

 

NOTES

1. https://aktines.blogspot.com/2026/11/blog-post_311.html

2. St. Justin Popović, Professor at the University of Belgrade, Theological Opinion Addressed to the Hierarchy of the Church of Serbia, Entitled: Orthodoxy and Ecumenism: An Orthodox Opinion and Testimony. The theological opinion was published, with an introductory note by the then-Hieromonk Irinej Bulović, in the journal Koinonia, vol. 18 (1975), pp. 95–101, translated from Serbian by Marina Skliris.

3. See The New Ecclesiology of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Contemporary Confessional Texts, published by the Assembly of Orthodox Clergy and Monastics, January 2015, p. 9.

4. Protopresbyter George Metallinos, The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ecumenism, in Proceedings of the Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference: Ecumenism—Origins, Expectations, Disappointments, vol. 1, Theodromia Publications, Thessaloniki, 2008, pp. 248–249.

 

Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2026/11/blog-post_390.html

Outline, Summary, and Critical Analysis: “Apoteichisis: Heavenly Communion”

143-page theological and canonical treatise · Anonymous Orthodox lay authors · September 2026

Source: https://apoteichisis.com/book/?lang=en

 

 

I. Executive summary

The central thesis of this book is that legitimate apoteichisis (cessation of commemoration) preserves communion with the Orthodox Church rather than breaking it, provided that it is undertaken in response to openly preached, previously condemned heresy, without establishing a rival ecclesiastical structure or usurping synodal authority.

The authors construct their argument around two equally serious ecclesiological dangers:

1. False communion: Maintaining ecclesiastical communion in circumstances where doing so entails accepting or publicly endorsing heresy.
2. False separation: Breaking ecclesiastical communion under the pretext of defending Orthodoxy, but subsequently establishing independent hierarchies, declaring others graceless, or identifying one's own faction exclusively with the Church.

The book presents Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople (861) as the canonical safeguard against both errors.

It explicitly distinguishes the right to cease commemorating an uncondemned bishop who publicly preaches heresy from the authority to depose him, invalidate his Mysteries, or establish a replacement hierarchy.

Its treatment of modern Orthodox ecclesiastical history is particularly significant. Although the authors condemn ecumenism as a panheresy, they also criticize the Greek Old Calendarist movement, arguing that its establishment of separate hierarchies transformed resistance to an ecclesiastical innovation into schism.

Preliminary assessment

The book has a serious and recognizable canonical framework. Its emphasis on synodal judgment, the continuing ecclesiastical status of uncondemned bishops, and the distinction between resistance and separatism is particularly important.

However, its argument depends on several propositions that require critical examination, especially the assertion that continued liturgical commemoration necessarily constitutes personal acceptance of everything a bishop publicly teaches, and the conclusion that the organization of separate episcopal structures is intrinsically incompatible with legitimate resistance.

The book is strongest when explaining the limits of Canon 15 and weakest when it turns complex historical and ecclesiological questions into categorical judgments.

II. Detailed outline of the book

The work consists of an introduction, sixteen chapters arranged in five parts, two appendices, and a glossary.

Part One — The Church and Her Communion (pp. 14–43)

Chapter 1. The Pillar and Ground of the Truth (pp. 14–19)

The authors establish the ecclesiological foundations of their argument. The Church is the Body of Christ, not merely an organization, and her apostolic succession requires both canonical ordination and fidelity to the apostolic faith.

Their principal sources include St. Hilarion (Troitsky), St. Cyprian of Carthage, and Scripture.

Chapter 2. One Bread, One Cup, One Altar (pp. 20–25)

The Eucharist is presented as the constitutive expression of ecclesiastical unity. Although there are thousands of individual Orthodox altars, their communion in the same Christ and the same faith makes them one altar.

The authors draw upon St. Paul, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Cyprian.

Their principal conclusion is that Eucharistic communion cannot be separated from ecclesiastical confession.

Chapter 3. True Communion and False (pp. 26–32)

The authors distinguish three kinds of ecclesiastical disorder, following St. Basil the Great:

• Heresy: departure from the faith itself.
• Schism: separation over questions capable of ecclesiastical resolution.
• Parasynagogue: an unlawful assembly established in opposition to ecclesiastical order.

They argue that maintaining outward unity in the presence of incompatible confessions can constitute false communion.

Chapter 4. Love, the Foundation of All (pp. 33–36)

Correct doctrine without charity does not constitute authentic Orthodox confession.

The authors emphasize the need to oppose heresy without hatred, arrogance, or the presumption of judging another person's salvation.

Chapter 5. Where Is the Church? (pp. 37–43)

This chapter answers the question of how the Church can be identified during periods of widespread episcopal error.

The authors insist upon two complementary principles: the Church is found where the true faith is confessed, but she must also retain her visible apostolic and sacramental continuity.

They reject both an exclusively institutional ecclesiology and the notion that the Church is wherever an isolated individual believes himself to possess the truth.

Part Two — The Canon of the Wall (pp. 44–63)

Chapter 6. Come Out of Her, My People (pp. 44–48)

The authors collect scriptural injunctions to avoid false teachers and participation in error, including passages from Revelation, Romans, Titus, and the Epistles of St. John.

Their argument is that Canon 15 does not create the obligation to reject heresy but provides a canonical means of fulfilling an already existing Christian duty.

Chapter 7. Apoteichisis and the Fifteenth Canon (pp. 49–56)

This is the canonical centerpiece.

The authors explain Canons 13–15 of the First-Second Council as a unified framework regulating separation from ecclesiastical superiors.

They identify three conditions protecting cessation of commemoration:

1. The bishop must preach heresy, not merely commit personal or administrative offenses.
2. The heresy must already have been condemned by Synods or Fathers.
3. The teaching must be publicly and openly proclaimed.

They then emphasize the distinction between recognizing a publicly manifested ecclesiastical offense and possessing the authority to impose deposition.

Chapter 8. The Name in the Liturgy (pp. 57–63)

The authors develop their theology of liturgical commemoration.

Naming the bishop is presented as a confession of unity with his faith, rather than a mere acknowledgment of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

They appeal particularly to St. Theodore the Studite and the Athonite Fathers who resisted the Union of Lyons.

Part Three — The True Wall and the False (pp. 64–117)

Chapter 9. The Fathers Who Resisted (pp. 64–75)

The authors examine six principal historical examples:

• St. Athanasius and resistance to Arianism.
• St. Maximus the Confessor and Monothelitism.
• St. Theodore the Studite and ecclesiastical compromise.
• The Athonite confessors against the Union of Lyons.
• St. Gregory Palamas and the hesychast controversies.
• St. Mark of Ephesus and the Union of Florence.

The common lesson is that fidelity to Orthodoxy sometimes requires withdrawing from communion with powerful hierarchs, even when the latter command considerable institutional support.

Chapter 10. The Counterfeit Wall (pp. 76–94)

This chapter supplies the opposing historical examples:

• Novatianism.
• The Meletian schism in Egypt.
• Donatism.
• The Russian Old Believer schism.
• Phyletism and ecclesiastical nationalism.

The authors distinguish these movements from legitimate resistance by examining the grounds of separation, their treatment of ecclesiastical authority, their sacramental theology, and their tendency to establish parallel hierarchies.

They also introduce the concept of counterfeit blood: factional loyalty, family ties, ethnicity, or shared persecution replacing unity in the true faith as the actual bond of a religious community.

Chapter 11. Ecumenism, the Panheresy of Our Age (pp. 95–102)

The authors define ecumenism as an ecclesiological error which treats the one Church as divided among mutually recognizable Christian confessions.

They examine the 1920 Patriarchal Encyclical, the ecumenical movement, the events of 1965, the Council of Crete, and the ROCOR anathema of 1983.

Their central contention is that ecumenism's doctrinal components have already been condemned by earlier Orthodox councils and Fathers, even though ecumenism as a named movement has not been condemned by an Ecumenical Council.

Chapter 12. Walling Off Without Becoming Schismatic (pp. 103–117)

This is the most important chapter for interpreting the book's historical and practical conclusions.

The authors argue that resistance becomes unlawful when it develops into independent ecclesiastical authority.

Their principal modern example is the Greek Old Calendarist movement, which they regard as having moved from legitimate protest in 1924 to schism through its episcopal consecrations in 1935.

As a counterexample, they present the Athonite cessation of commemoration of Patriarch Athenagoras during the ecumenical controversies of the twentieth century.

Part Four — The Life Behind the Wall (pp. 118–127)

Chapter 13. Am I Still Orthodox? (pp. 118–123)

The authors address practical concerns about identity, sacraments, and spiritual life following cessation of commemoration.

They insist that a Christian who legitimately walls himself off remains a member of the Orthodox Church, but they also recommend enduring temporary deprivation of the Mysteries rather than receiving communion in circumstances understood to entail false confession.

A separate discussion concerns reverence for the Eucharist and fears of infection during epidemic conditions.

Chapter 14. Priests, Bishops, and the Hidden Faithful (pp. 124–127)

This chapter proposes that a priest who ceases commemorating his bishop may continue to acknowledge the Orthodox episcopate generally rather than joining a separate jurisdiction.

The authors depict the Church as a network of sacramental and hierarchical communion and argue that breaking a compromised link does not necessarily remove a believer from the rest of that communion.

Part Five — The Return and the Banquet (pp. 128–133)

Chapter 15. The Path of Return (pp. 128–131)

Legitimate walling off is inherently provisional. It ends when the offending hierarch repents or when conciliar action restores ecclesiastical order.

The authors discuss the reception of those returning from heresy or schism, emphasizing akribeia, economia, and pastoral mercy.

Chapter 16. The Marriage Supper of the Lamb (pp. 132–133)

The final chapter places the entire subject within an eschatological framework.

The ultimate purpose of preserving Orthodox communion is not ecclesiastical separation but eternal communion with Christ.

III. Analysis of the principal theological arguments

1. The distinction between potential and actual ecclesiastical consequences

Pages 51–53

One of the most substantial arguments appears in the authors' treatment of St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite's commentary on the Third Apostolic Canon.

They explain that a canonical violation does not automatically execute its prescribed penalty. A person may have incurred liability to deposition without having been actually deposed.

This creates a distinction between:

 

Before synodal judgment	After synodal judgment
A hierarch may publicly preach heresy.	His offense is formally adjudicated.
The faithful may cease communion under Canon 15.	The competent ecclesiastical authority imposes a sentence.
The hierarch has not thereby been formally deprived of office.	Deposition or another penalty takes canonical effect.
The faithful do not acquire authority to declare his Mysteries void.	The Church determines the disciplinary and sacramental consequences.

 

The authors explicitly reject the proposition that a bishop automatically loses his priesthood or sacramental grace at the moment he publicly teaches heresy.

This argument is particularly significant because it prevents the designation pseudo-bishop in Canon 15 from being interpreted as an automatic declaration of sacramental nullity.

Assessment: This is among the book's strongest arguments. It correctly identifies an important distinction between the canonical guilt of an offender and the actual imposition of ecclesiastical penalties.

Nevertheless, the authors occasionally use language implying that false teaching has already severed a bishop from Christ and the Church in a more absolute sense than their theory of continuing canonical office would suggest.

For example, the assertion that a bishop preaching falsehood has already broken the bond connecting him to the Church requires further qualification. There is a difference between a bishop's doctrinal deviation and his actual removal from ecclesiastical communion.

The authors recognize this distinction juridically but do not always preserve it in their theological rhetoric.

2. Is Canon 15 obligatory or permissive?

Pages 54–55

The book acknowledges an important textual fact:

Its grammar, as anyone can see, protects and honours; it does not say, in so many words, thou shalt withdraw.

This admission is significant.

The authors then argue that the obligation to withdraw comes from Scripture and the general duty to reject heresy, while Canon 15 supplies canonical protection for those fulfilling that duty.

Their resulting position is that rejecting heresy is obligatory, but the precise moment and manner of withdrawal require pastoral discernment.

Assessment: The distinction between the obligation to preserve the faith and the canonical permission to cease commemoration is defensible.

However, the authors do not sufficiently demonstrate that the general obligation to reject heresy necessarily entails the immediate obligation to terminate ecclesiastical communion in every instance meeting Canon 15's conditions.

The following propositions are not logically equivalent:

• A Christian must not accept or confess heresy.
• A Christian may legitimately cease commemorating a bishop who publicly preaches condemned heresy.
• Every Christian must cease ecclesiastical communion with such a bishop.

Canon 15 explicitly establishes the second proposition. The book's scriptural argument supports the first. The third requires an additional argument.

The authors' claim that a permissive interpretation would force Christians to obey a subsequent robber council also does not follow. One may acknowledge that cessation of commemoration is permitted before judgment while simultaneously maintaining that obedience to a council endorsing heresy is forbidden.

Thus, the authors have established a strong case for the legitimacy of apoteichisis, but a less conclusive case for its universal obligatory character.

3. Does commemoration necessarily imply personal agreement with a bishop's heresy?

Pages 57–62 and 124–125

The book maintains that liturgical commemoration expresses unity in faith and that knowingly continuing communion with a bishop preaching condemned heresy involves the communicant in that false confession.

It reinforces this argument through an analogy of interconnected ecclesiastical relationships.

 

Bishop — public doctrinal confession

↓

Priest — liturgical commemoration and antimension

↓

Faithful — participation at the Eucharistic altar

 

Conceptual reconstruction of the book's argument concerning ecclesiastical communion, not an independently established rule of automatic spiritual defilement.

The central difficulty is the extent to which liturgical communion necessarily incorporates every participant into every doctrinal position publicly associated with the hierarchy.

There is a distinction between three situations:

1. A believer knowingly approves a heretical teaching.
2. A believer knowingly participates in worship explicitly expressing or promoting that teaching.
3. A believer remains in sacramental communion with an Orthodox priest who rejects the teaching but commemorates an uncondemned bishop who has publicly promoted it.

The book tends to treat the third situation as though its confessional implications were necessarily equivalent to the first two.

Yet that equivalence is precisely what must be demonstrated.

Patristic warnings against communion with heretics are certainly relevant. Nevertheless, they do not automatically establish an undifferentiated doctrine of spiritual defilement through every indirect link in an ecclesiastical communion network.

This is especially important when examining the historical coexistence of resistance, continued communion, ecclesiastical economy, and varying degrees of knowledge.

My assessment: The authors establish that commemoration has genuine ecclesiological significance. They do not conclusively establish that every continued commemoration of an uncondemned bishop necessarily amounts to personal endorsement of his error.

Their treatment would be considerably stronger if it distinguished direct doctrinal agreement, deliberate complicity, continued canonical communion, and indirect sacramental association.

4. The ecclesiastical status of uncondemned bishops

The book's position has two components that must be held together.

First, it argues that the public preaching of condemned heresy can justify withdrawing communion before the bishop's condemnation.

Second, it insists that the same bishop has not thereby automatically been deprived of his office or rendered incapable of celebrating valid Mysteries.

These propositions can coexist.

The tension appears when the authors argue that a bishop's public error has already separated him from the true Church, while simultaneously explaining that his canonical position remains intact.

A fuller treatment would distinguish the bishop's status doctrinally, canonically, and sacramentally.

It would also ask whether the Orthodox faithful who remain in communion with him necessarily share his deviation or whether their continued communion may exist under ecclesiastical economy without constituting acceptance of heresy.

The authors partly recognize this latter possibility when they decline to condemn faithful who have not yet withdrawn.

That concession is valuable, but it deserves much greater theological development.

IV. Critical analysis of the historical argument

1. The treatment of the Greek Old Calendarists is too categorical

Pages 103–115

The authors present the history of the Greek Old Calendarists as a progression from legitimate resistance to unlawful schism.

Their decisive historical contention is that the consecrations of 1935 constituted the establishment of a rival ecclesiastical hierarchy over a nondogmatic calendar dispute.

This is a legitimate line of canonical criticism, but the historical case is more complicated than the book acknowledges.

The three metropolitans who joined the movement in 1935 had themselves belonged to the established hierarchy of the Church of Greece. Their action was not simply the creation of a religious organization by persons lacking previous ecclesiastical authority.

Moreover, the movement's own understanding was that these hierarchs were undertaking the pastoral care of the Old Calendar faithful as a Synod of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of the Church of Greece. This is documented in the historical account published by ROCOR Studies.

(https://www.rocorstudies.org/2025/11/28/the-old-calendar-movement-in-greece-an-historical-survey/)

That self-understanding does not automatically vindicate their conduct, but it matters when assessing whether they intended to establish a replacement church or to exercise continuing ecclesiastical authority in extraordinary circumstances.

The proper historical assessment requires several additional questions:

• Did the metropolitans claim that the entire official hierarchy had already lost ecclesiastical authority?
• Did they consider their consecrations a permanent replacement of the Church of Greece or a provisional measure?
• Were the consecrations primarily a response to the calendar change itself, to the treatment of the resisting faithful, or to a broader assessment of ecclesiastical innovation?
• How did their understanding of the official Church's continuing sacramental status develop between 1935 and 1937?

The last question is especially important because Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina's distinction between potential and actual schism complicates the book's account.

The historical survey cited above confirms that he refused to treat the official Church as already in actual schism, and that this disagreement contributed to the rupture with Bishop Matthew in 1937.

The book acknowledges this disagreement, but it interprets the entire movement's canonical character largely through the subsequent development of its more rigorist branches.

That is methodologically problematic. Later developments can illuminate the consequences of earlier decisions; they do not establish that all participants originally possessed the ecclesiology that subsequently emerged.

The authors have identified a real canonical problem with the consecrations of 1935, but they have not demonstrated that every possible defense of those consecrations is invalid.

2. An internal inconsistency concerning the calendar controversy

There is also a direct tension within the book's argument.

On pages 50–51, it requires previously condemned heresy as an essential condition for legitimate walling off.

On page 104, it categorically denies that the calendar alteration of 1924 constituted heresy.

Yet on page 107, it describes the Old Calendarist resistance before 1935, including instances of cessation of commemoration, as legitimate walling off within canonical bounds.

This raises an obvious question:

If the calendar alteration was not heresy, under what canonical provision was the cessation of commemoration before 1935 justified?

A possible answer would be Apostolic Canon 31, or an argument concerning manifest ecclesiastical injustice. But the authors do not develop that answer.

Instead, they seem to grant legitimacy to earlier separation while condemning its later organizational development.

Their historical distinction may still be defensible, but it cannot rest exclusively upon their threefold interpretation of Canon 15.

3. Apostolic Canon 31 is treated too narrowly

This is an important canonical omission.

The book repeatedly invokes Apostolic Canon 31 against the establishment of rival altars. But that canon specifically addresses a presbyter who separates without having grounds to accuse his bishop in matters of religion or justice.

Its qualification is essential. The canon does not simply say that every separate assembly is schismatic without consideration of its cause.

The text, including the qualification concerning religion and justice, is preserved in the canonical collection and commentary of Nikodim Milaš.

(https://royalarchives.org/nikodim_milas/rules_of_the_orthodox_church_volume_1/canons_of_the_holy_apostles_2959/)

This does not mean that Apostolic Canon 31 authorizes independent episcopal jurisdictions whenever a clergyman believes himself justified.

It does mean that the canonical examination cannot end with the observation that a separate altar exists.

The grounds, circumstances, jurisdiction, admonitions, and ecclesiastical consequences must all be examined.

The authors' absolute opposition to every extraordinary episcopal consecration is stronger than what their principal canonical evidence establishes.

Indeed, their own chapter on St. Theodore the Studite acknowledges extraordinary ordinations across diocesan boundaries during times of heresy (p. 69). The implications of that precedent for prolonged ecclesiastical emergencies are insufficiently explored.

4. The historical examples are sometimes made to fit a single pattern

The book repeatedly presents the confessing saints as men who withdrew, established nothing, exercised no extraordinary authority, and waited for the Church to vindicate them.

That picture captures an important feature of several examples, especially St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Mark of Ephesus.

But it is too uniform to function as a comprehensive account of Orthodox resistance.

The Arian, Meletian, iconoclast, and later Russian controversies involved complicated questions of episcopal jurisdiction, competing claims to legitimate authority, emergency ordinations, and varying forms of ecclesiastical organization.

Even the authors' own citation of St. Theodore concerning extraordinary ordinations demonstrates that their simple model does not exhaust historical possibilities.

The better principle would be that extraordinary measures must be justified by ecclesiastical necessity and cannot automatically be legitimated by an appeal to resistance.

That is materially different from maintaining that all extraordinary measures necessarily establish schism.

5. A significant contextual error involving St. Theodore the Studite

The book's presentation of St. Theodore also deserves correction.

On pages 68–69, it introduces Theodore's letters under the history of resistance to iconoclasm, quoting Epistle I.39 to Abbot Theophilos concerning communion and commemoration.

Yet its own footnote 48 acknowledges that the letter was written in connection with the Moechian controversy in 809.

This is independently confirmed by the Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire, which identifies the addressee and the subject of Theodore's letter.

(https://pbe.kcl.ac.uk/data/D80/F59.htm)

This matters because Theodore's resistance in the Moechian controversy involved questions of marriage, ecclesiastical discipline, and complicity in an unlawful act, with their associated theological implications.

The letter remains relevant to the discussion of ecclesiastical communion. But placing it within a narrative of iconoclastic persecution obscures its original circumstances.

Furthermore, the controversy complicates the authors' assertion that legitimate resistance concerns exclusively a previously condemned doctrinal heresy and never an ecclesiastical offense.

6. A straightforward chronological mistake

On page 53, the authors write that the withdrawal of Constantinopolitan clergy from Nestorius occurred thirty years before the Council of Ephesus.

That is impossible as stated.

Nestorius became Archbishop of Constantinople in 428, and the Council of Ephesus condemned him in 431.

The interval was approximately three years, not thirty.

This is probably an editorial error rather than a substantive theological mistake, but it illustrates the need to verify the historical details independently.

V. The treatment of ecumenism

The authors' presentation of ecumenism is more carefully qualified than their treatment of Old Calendarism.

They distinguish between legitimate dialogue with heterodox Christians and an ecclesiology in which mutually contradictory Christian confessions are understood as branches of one divided Church.

They also concede that some contemporary ecumenical statements are ambiguous and capable of an Orthodox interpretation.

This is an important qualification, because the three conditions of Canon 15 cannot be satisfied merely by establishing that a hierarch uses language associated with the ecumenical movement.

Nevertheless, there is a potential inconsistency.

On pages 98–100, the authors state that some official uses of the term churches are ambiguous. Yet they also suggest that the naming of heterodox bodies as churches in official documents may itself constitute publicly preached, previously condemned heresy.

Those claims require reconciliation.

The theological classification of a heterodox community is not established solely by the presence or absence of the word church. Historical usage, the doctrinal content of the statement, and the intended ecclesiological implications all matter.

Similarly, the distinction between recognizing the existence of sacramental practices outside canonical Orthodox communion and formally endorsing an ecclesiology of mutually legitimate, equally authoritative churches must be carefully maintained.

The book is right to insist that a new doctrinal system can reproduce ancient errors without using their historical names. But identifying the components of ecumenism with previously condemned errors does not eliminate the need to demonstrate that a particular hierarch is actually teaching those errors.

That is the step between an ecclesiological critique of ecumenism and a canonical judgment that Canon 15 applies to a particular situation.

VI. Other strengths and limitations

 

Subject	Assessment
The Church as visible and sacramental	Strong ecclesiological foundation
Canon 15 read with Canons 13–14	Sound interpretive method
Formal deposition versus canonical liability	Particularly strong
Avoidance of private judgments about grace	Important and defensible
Pastoral warnings against spiritual pride	Valuable
Commemoration as endorsement of heresy	Overgeneralized
Mandatory cessation of communion	Not fully demonstrated
Apostolic Canon 31	Insufficiently examined
Greek Old Calendarist history	Selective and too categorical
Extraordinary episcopal consecrations	Insufficient historical distinction
Application to modern ecumenism	Plausible in defined cases, but dependent on proving the specific teaching
Practical life without an Orthodox bishop	Important unresolved difficulties

 

There are two additional matters worth mentioning.

First, chapter 14 proposes that noncommemorating priests can continue functioning under the general commemoration of the Orthodox episcopate. But the canonical and liturgical conditions for celebrating under a particular bishop's antimension while refusing his commemoration deserve a separate, much more technical treatment. Canon 15's protection does not by itself settle every jurisdictional question.

Second, the discussion of epidemic disease and Holy Communion on pages 121–122 moves from sacramental theology toward claims about physical infection. Reverence for the Eucharistic Gifts does not, by itself, establish a scientific conclusion about transmission through shared liturgical implements. The theological and empirical questions should be distinguished rather than presented as interchangeable.

VII. The book's underlying ecclesiological position

Its essential ecclesiology can be summarized as follows:

Question	Position of the book
Can an Orthodox bishop publicly teach heresy before condemnation?	Yes
Does he thereby automatically lose his office?	No
Are his Mysteries automatically rendered invalid?	The authors reject that conclusion
May the faithful withdraw before his condemnation?	Yes, under Canon 15's conditions
Is such withdrawal always immediately compulsory?	The authors affirm the duty in principle but allow pastoral discernment
May the faithful declare all commemorators heretics?	No
May a noncommemorating group establish a new hierarchy?	No, according to the book
May ecclesiastical economy justify the acceptance of heresy?	No
May there be Orthodox faithful who have not yet ceased commemoration?	Yes
What is the ultimate goal?	Restoration of full communion in the Orthodox faith

 

This is neither a straightforward rigorist Old Calendarist ecclesiology nor an ecclesiology of unconditional obedience to the existing hierarchy.

It attempts to combine a strict rejection of heresy with the continuing sacramental and canonical status of the uncondemned hierarchy.

The central distinction is therefore between withdrawal from a particular bishop's communion and the establishment of a separate ecclesiastical body claiming independent authority.

The problem is that the authors sometimes move from this valid distinction to a broader assumption that any enduring independent hierarchy is necessarily a schismatic innovation. That conclusion requires more than Canon 15 itself establishes.

VIII. Overall conclusion

The book represents an interesting attempt to articulate an anti-ecumenical ecclesiology that rejects both automatic sacramental invalidity and the creation of competing ecclesiastical jurisdictions.

It is particularly valuable for its insistence that Canon 15 does not empower individuals to deprive bishops of their offices, pronounce judgments upon the grace of Mysteries, or claim exclusive possession of the Orthodox Church.

Its account of the relationship between legitimate resistance and schism is also morally serious. The authors recognize that real ecclesiastical errors can provoke justified resistance, while warning that resistance may become distorted by factional loyalty, presumption, and hostility toward the rest of the Church.

However, the authors do not consistently distinguish a canonical permission to cease communion from an obligation to do so; nor do they adequately distinguish an emergency episcopal organization from the establishment of a rival church.

Both omissions materially affect their historical conclusions.

Their treatment of the Old Calendarist movement is especially vulnerable because they use its subsequent fragmentation as evidence for the inherent illegitimacy of its original episcopal organization, without sufficiently examining the distinct ecclesiological positions that existed within that movement.

The strongest defensible formulation of their argument would be this:

Canon 15 protects the faithful who withdraw from the open preaching of condemned heresy before synodal judgment, without thereby authorizing them to pronounce deposition, invalidate Mysteries, or claim independent ecclesiastical supremacy. Any extraordinary ecclesiastical measures undertaken during such a crisis must be justified according to the broader canonical tradition and ultimately remain answerable to the judgment of the Church.

That formulation preserves the book's principal canonical insight without prejudging all possible historical applications.

Final assessment: Apoteichisis: Heavenly Communion is a substantial and often perceptive theological defense of canonical resistance, but it is not a definitive or consistently rigorous treatment of the subject. Its strongest contribution is its distinction between legitimate resistance and private ecclesiastical judgment. Its principal weakness is that it sometimes elevates its preferred historical model of resistance into an exclusive canonical rule.

I would regard it as a useful contribution to the discussion of apoteichisis, but one requiring significant historical correction and further canonical qualification before its conclusions—particularly concerning 1935 and the Greek Old Calendarists—can be accepted as established.

 

Independently generated by ChatGPT-6.0 on November 7, 2026.