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

 

 

Full Speed Ahead toward Unia?

Nikolaos Mannis, Educator | September 9, 2026

 

 

“Among us, neither Patriarchs nor Synods have ever been able to introduce innovations, for the defender of the Faith is the very body of the Church, that is, the people themselves.” - Encyclical Letter of the Orthodox Patriarchs of the East (1848)

The moment that many of us foresaw is approaching.

Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, in the twilight of his life, has decided to take his great step toward the West—a step following in the footsteps of his idol (Athenagoras), and already planned in the mid-1960s, when he was studying at the “Institute of Oriental Studies in Rome.”

The “Institute” in question, which, as it itself reveals, undertakes “the education and preparation of a new generation of leaders,” since “graduates serve as bishops in both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church,” [1] was founded in 1917 and bears a remarkable resemblance to the renowned “Collegium Graecum,” founded by Pope Gregory XIII in 1577, in the following respects: a) both aimed to educate “schismatics” who would return to their countries as preachers of Unia; [2] and b) both are organically connected with the notorious Jesuit order, whose members administered them (the Institute to this day, and the College until 1897, when it came under Benedictine administration).

The culmination of Patriarch Bartholomew’s course therefore comes as no surprise. Recently (September 4, 2026), he publicly expounded his positions and his plan for the step toward Unia in his address to the 27th International Congress of the Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches, held at the “PHANARION” Center for Orthodox Christian Dialogue in Budapest. [3]

His positions are as follows:

1. He accepts that the Church of Rome holds the Primacy, which he himself understands as “a primacy of loving service, exercised within and never above the communion of the sister Churches.” [4]

2. By writing that “the institution of the Pentarchy—the five great ancient Sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem—constituted, during the first Christian millennium, the very framework within which the unity of the catholic Church found its most visible ecclesial expression,” [5] he essentially accepts two things: that the Pentarchy alone is the framework within which the Church has a more visible expression, and that the Pentarchy was dissolved with the falling away of Rome in 1054.

3. He considers that the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem “stand as unshakable pillars and unbroken foundations of the Apostolic Tradition and, together with the Church of Elder Rome, constituted during the first millennium the five-stringed lyre of the universal Church, participating actively in the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and ‘rightly dividing the word of truth.’” [6]

Continuing, Patriarch Bartholomew sets out his plan, revealing that he sent a letter to the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem inviting them to meet on November 30 in Constantinople to examine the challenges facing the flock that bears Christ’s name, expressing the hope for “the restoration of full communion with the Church of Rome within the one Body of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, so that the Pentarchy may once again be whole and the ‘five-stringed lyre’ of the universal Church may resound once more in the fullness of its ancient harmony”! [7]

In examining the above positions, allow me to offer a few observations:

1. Regarding the Primacy, the issue is not how Patriarch Bartholomew understands it, but, on the one hand, how Pope Leo XIV himself interprets it and, on the other, how the Holy Fathers view it, with whom we must be in agreement if we wish to be called Orthodox.

The former continues to understand the Primacy as authority over all the Churches without synodality (as he demonstrated this past July by excommunicating the well-known “Society of Saint Pius X” [SSPX], acting as an autocrat and without convening a Synod), whereas the Fathers unanimously never accepted any primacy of authority (even disguised as one of “service”) for any Pope or Patriarch, but regarded Jesus Christ as the Head of the Church (both visible and invisible), and the Ecumenical Council as its supreme governing body. [8]

2. Regarding the institution of the Pentarchy, as a product of the Church’s development, it can disappear just as it appeared, or even be modified (including a change in its number) owing to changes in ecclesiastical life. The view that the Church of Christ is less visible without the Pentarchy is unacceptable.

On the contrary, the visible expression of the Church neither increases nor decreases, but remains intact, visible, and complete among those who preserve the Orthodox Faith. Was this not the case during the first three centuries of the Church, when the Pentarchy had not yet been established?

Was this not also the case after vast provinces broke away from her (as in North Africa with the Donatists, or in Egypt and Asia with the anti-Chalcedonians)? Why, then, should the falling away of Rome in 1054 and the dissolution of the Pentarchy signify a diminution of the Church’s visible expression?

All the more so since this dissolution of the Pentarchy after 1054 was temporary, as it was subsequently restored—a fact that Patriarch Bartholomew passes over in silence!

For it is well known to all who study Church History or Canon Law that the Pan-Orthodox Synod held in Constantinople in 1593 (with the participation of Patriarchs Jeremias II Tranos of Constantinople, Saint Meletios Pegas of Alexandria—who also represented Joachim of Antioch—and Sophronios of Jerusalem), on the one hand, through its Canon 8, [9] which renewed Canon 1 of the Council of Antioch, officially cut off from the Body of the Church the Church of Rome, which had violated that Canon only a few years earlier (1582), and, on the other, restored the Pentarchy by granting fifth place to the Church of Russia, having decreed “that the throne of the most pious and Orthodox city of Moscow be and be called a Patriarchate, because this land has been deemed worthy by God of imperial sovereignty; that all Russia and the Northern Regions be subject to the Patriarchal Throne of Moscow and All Russia and the Northern Regions; that its holder have his place after the Most Holy Patriarch of Jerusalem, both in the sacred diptychs and in ecclesiastical assemblies, so that we may preserve unshaken the aforementioned canons of the Holy Fathers; that he take precedence over bishops, metropolitans, and archbishops throughout the entire catholic Church of Christ’s Orthodox faithful, and be and be recognized as the head of that ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Moscow and All Russia and the Northern Regions… and that he be and be called a brother of the Orthodox Patriarchs, bearing this title, of the same rank and sharing the same throne, equal in order and dignity, and that he be styled and sign himself, according to the custom of the Orthodox Patriarchs, ‘Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Northern Regions.’” [10]

Indeed, the Patriarchate of Moscow is the only newer Patriarchate that has the approval of a Pan-Orthodox Synod, unlike all the other new and improperly so-called Patriarchates (Serbia, Bulgaria, etc.).

Of fundamental importance, moreover, is the fact that the decision of 1593 has not been revised by any subsequent Synod.

For Patriarch Bartholomew, therefore, to disregard the Pentarchy already restored by synodal decision (since 1593) and attempt to settle this matter on his own (even with the cooperation of certain Primates) will have the same outcome as it did for the previous Patriarch who acted similarly.

And, for those who do not know, I am referring to Cyril V Karakallos of Constantinople, who, disregarding the Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1484 as well as the majority of hierarchs throughout the world, [11] unilaterally imposed the rebaptism of Latins and Armenians (with the approval of two other Primates, obtained through coercion).

And what was the result? On the one hand, his “Decree” was rejected by the majority of the Orthodox Church; on the other, his fellow bishops accused him of being a petty pope, as the denunciatory texts of the period (in the form of troparia) reveal, from which I select just a few representative but highly illuminating excerpts: “You ought not, Cyril, to have appropriated papal authority and made decisions alone. If you wished, wretched man, to reopen the question of the reception of Armenians and Latins, you should have consulted the Synod and obeyed it as one subject to it. For the Eastern Church recognizes as her head not the patriarch, but her Bridegroom, Christ the Saviour, whom we magnify in hymns. …The decrees and ordinances of the Church were established through holy synods, lawless patriarch, and never were doctrines or ecclesiastical questions decided by one man alone; for it is acknowledged that the All-Holy Spirit speaks through synods. Tell us, then, from where did you receive the authority to reject a synod and decide on your own? But we, rejecting your papal madness, have obeyed the Synod, through which the Lord speaks, being in its midst, He who has great mercy. …Cyril set aside the decrees of the Church, rejecting a synod of godly Fathers and showing himself to be a leader of pope-worship; for, having overthrown the Church’s prerogatives, he seized her authority, and therefore received from her an eternal punishment.” [12]

3. Neither have the Patriarchates always been “pillars and unbroken foundations of the Apostolic Tradition,” nor did the Church of Rome participate actively in the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

The former, on several occasions and for considerable periods, fell into heresies (Arianism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, etc.) and persecuted Orthodoxy, while Rome’s participation was anything but active, since: a) its Bishop did not attend any Ecumenical Council in person; b) it was not even represented at the Second Ecumenical Council; c) at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, the then Pope Vigilius, who was in Constantinople, refused to attend and only accepted its decisions some time later under pressure; and d) it rejected the Quinisext Council in Trullo.

If Rome wishes to return to the Church of Christ (which every Orthodox Christian wholeheartedly desires), then it must, first of all, restore Jesus Christ as its Head in place of the Pope and agree to submit to the supreme ecclesiastical body, which is the Ecumenical Council.

Such a Council, however, should perhaps receive Elder Rome as sixth in rank, not only so that it may do penance for its bloodstained, thousand-year Luciferian apostasy, but also because only then will its Primate be able to demonstrate that the title he uses for himself (“Servus servorum Dei”!) is not hypocritical, an expression of feigned humility, and devoid of substantive meaning… Such an evangelical Primacy of humility [13] would be the only one appropriate in this case.

Otherwise, if the “four ancient patriarchal thrones” insist on following unrepentant Rome in its fall through a possible Unia, the people, as guardians of the Faith, will remain in Orthodoxy, looking forward to a Pan-Orthodox Synod under the remaining authority of the Pentarchy, the Church of Russia.

Of course, we do not know the plans of God, who may interrupt a betrayal of this kind through a sudden death, but we pray for the repentance of those in high office who wish to plunge the Church into chaos, hoping that the words of Saint Porphyrios will be fulfilled: “But it may happen, according to God’s plan, it may happen so that people gain an awareness, so that they see the chaos brightly lit, vividly before them, and say: ‘Hey! We are falling into chaos; we are perishing. Everyone back, everyone back, turn back—we have been led astray.’ And they may return to the path of God, and the Orthodox Faith may shine” [14].

Finally, as for those who have doubts as to whether the path of union proposed by Patriarch Bartholomew might ultimately be the right one, let them open the Synaxaria and Menaia of our Church: there they will not find even a single “unionist” Saint as an example, but, on the contrary, a multitude of Saints opposed to union, such as Photios the Great, Mark Eugenikos, Gregory Palamas, Cyril Loukaris, Saint Nektarios of Pentapolis, and the rest of the company of the Fathers, whom we have hope of meeting in the Kingdom of Heaven only if we are of one mind with them. Amen, may it be so!

 

NOTES

1. https://orientale.it/en

2. The Polish-Latin word Unia means Union, and the Uniates are the ideological descendants of the Byzantine Unionists.

3.https://www.romfea.gr/epikairotita-xronika/78426-oikoumenikos-patriarxis-to-proteio-tis-romis-einai-diakonia-agapis-entos-tis-ekklisias

4. "Α primacy of loving service, exercised within, and never above, the communion of sister Churches" (https://ec-patr.org/05/09/09/12/address-by-his-all-holiness-ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew-to-the-participants-of-the-27th-international-congress-of-the-society-for-the-law-of-the-eastern-churches-at-the-fanarion/ )

5. "The institution of the Pentarchy — the five great ancient Sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem — constituted, during the first Christian millennium, the very framework within which the unity of the universal Church found its most visible ecclesial expression" (ibid.).

6. "Stand as unshaken pillars and unbroken foundations of the Apostolic Tradition, and which, together with the Church of Elder Rome, constituted in the first millennium the five-stringed lyre of the universal Church, actively participating in the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and “rightly dividing the word of truth"." (ibid.).

7. "Τhe restoration of full communion with the Church of Rome within the one Body of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, so that the Pentarchy may once again be whole, and the “five-stringed lyre” of the universal Church may again resound in the fullness of its ancient harmony" (ibid.).

8. I consider it unnecessary to quote here the numerous testimonies of the Fathers concerning the Primacy of the Pope of Rome, since almost the complete works of the Saints are available online for readers to consult.

9. “We wish the determination of the Fathers concerning holy and saving Pascha to remain unshaken, as follows: All who dare to set aside the decrees of the holy and great Ecumenical Council convened at Nicaea in the presence of the most God-beloved and pious Emperor Constantine concerning the holy feast of saving Pascha are to be excommunicated and cast out of the Church if they persist in contentiously opposing what has been rightly decreed. Let this be said concerning the laity. But if any of those who preside over the Church—a bishop, presbyter, or deacon—should dare, after this decree, to act independently and celebrate Pascha with the Jews, to the perversion of the people and the disturbance of the churches, the Holy Synod has judged him, from that moment, to be alien to the Church. In accordance with these provisions, we too, by the grace of God, follow the canon of the Fathers to this day, which the Church of God preserves, just as it preserves the rest” (Dositheos of Jerusalem, Tome of Love, Iași, 1698, p. 547).

10. Ibid., p. 545.

11. Mansi 38, 585–586.

12. Evangelos Skouvaras, Denunciatory Texts of the Eighteenth Century [Against the Rebaptizers], Athens, 1967, pp. 194–195, 204).

13. “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all” (Mark 9:35).

14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCWB2LQd1dY

 

Greek source: https://www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/78513-olotaxos-pros-ounia

Orthodox Confession of Faith: A Systematic Ecclesiological Assessment and Repudiation of the Council of Crete (2016)

[Unattributed author/s and signatories]

Published September 8, 2026

 

 

With full awareness of our responsibility before God and of the historical witness of the Orthodox Church, and safeguarding the sacred deposit of the Holy Fathers, we make this Confession of Faith. Our faith is not a product of human convention, political expediency, or diplomatic compromise, but the living revelation of the Truth, which we are obliged to preserve unadulterated and unaltered.

A. The Dogmatic Foundation of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church

1. We confess with all our soul, heart, and mind our faith “in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” exactly as the sacred Symbol of Faith defines and preserves it. We believe and proclaim that the Church of Christ is ontologically One, unique, indivisible, and intact. There are not many churches, nor can the Body of Christ be fragmented. The unity of the Church is a given and is absolute, for her Head, our Lord Jesus Christ, is one, and His life-giving Body, which is constituted and given life by the Holy Spirit, is one.

2. We faithfully and steadfastly follow the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, the teachings of the God-bearing Fathers, and Holy Tradition.

3. We follow the enduring witness of Saint Cyprian, who proclaimed with canonical clarity that “outside the Church there is no salvation” (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus) and that “he who does not have the Church as his mother cannot have God as his Father.” The Church is the One and Only Mother, and there are no spiritual substitutes or parallel “ecclesiastical” realities.

4. We follow the teaching of Saint John of Damascus, who defines heresy as a voluntary “separation from the Church.” Just as a branch cut from a tree ceases to receive life-giving grace, withers, and dies, so heresy is in no sense “another church,” but an ontological severance and spiritual death.

5. We follow Saint Ignatius the God-bearer, who emphasized the indissoluble bond of ecclesiastical communion, writing: “Where the bishop is, there let the people also be,” reminding us that the bishop does not exist in isolation from his flock, but is an organic member of the local ecclesiastical community.

6. We follow the teaching of Saint Augustine in his controversy with the Donatists, in which he passionately defended the uniqueness and unity of the Church, rejecting any notion that schismatics and heretics can possess valid Mysteries or constitute parallel ecclesiastical structures.

7. We follow the testament of Saint Mark of Ephesus concerning the inviolability of the Symbol of Faith, which was formulated at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils and confirmed by the subsequent councils, accepting it with all our soul: “This sacred exposition and Symbol of Faith... admits no addition, admits no subtraction. It is closed and sealed by the Fathers. Those who dare to introduce innovations into it are cast out, and those who act otherwise will be held accountable.”

8. We follow the Eighth Ecumenical Council, held during the reign of the pious Emperor Basil and the patriarchate of the Most Holy Patriarch Photios, which, in the presence of the legates of Pope John, confirmed the Seventh Ecumenical Council, reinstated Saint Photios, and:

a. “...condemned and anathematized, just as the preceding Councils had done, those who dare to introduce innovations into the aforementioned Symbol of Faith, whether by addition, subtraction, or any alteration whatsoever.”

B. The Repudiation of the Council of Crete and the Nullification of Conciliarity

1. We repudiate the so-called “Holy and Great Council” of Crete (2016) as a gathering lacking pan-Orthodox validity, canonical legitimacy, and a conciliar spirit. This Council is anti-ecclesiastical in its very conception, constitutes a slaughter of the conciliar spirit, and is a rebellion against the pleroma of the Church.

2. The Council was not pan-Orthodox, since four historic Autocephalous Churches were absent: the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Church of Georgia, the Church of Bulgaria, and the Church of Russia.

3. A council held without the participation of so large a part of Orthodoxy lacks universal representation and, consequently, the authority to speak for and bind the body of the Church. Conciliarity presupposes pan-Orthodox consensus in order to produce binding decisions.

4. The Council’s procedures violated the spirit of the 34th Apostolic Canon concerning collective governance, which stipulates that bishops must recognize the first among them and do nothing without him, while the first must likewise do nothing without the consent of the others. The Council of Crete replaced collegiality with a centralized mechanism, in which the voices of dissenting bishops were stifled and decisions were imposed ex cathedra.

5. A bishop represents the Church not as an independent secular figure, but as a member of her, in unbroken communion with his flock. When a bishop ignores the voices of his presbyters, monastics, and faithful, he ceases to represent his Church and represents himself alone. In Crete, we saw bishops signing documents that their Churches had not read, endorsing decisions taken in closed sessions, without regard for the living conscience of the pleroma of the Church.

6. We follow the teaching of Saint John Chrysostom, who boldly confesses that “bishops are not masters of the faith, but its guardians.” The bishop is a shepherd, not the owner of the Church, and the unilateral imposition of decisions without regard for the body constitutes a departure from Orthodox ecclesiology. When shepherds withdraw from spiritual dialogue with their flock, trust is tested, and many faithful believe that the Council of Crete reflected this crisis in the pastoral responsibility of the hierarchy.

7. We proclaim with unwavering courage, in agreement with the confession of Saint Mark of Ephesus, that: “No one has authority over our faith—neither an emperor, nor a bishop, nor a false council, nor anyone else—for God alone handed it down to us, He Himself and His disciples.”

8. The Council adopted a papal model, in which the hierarchs acted as “little popes” who thought they knew better than the tradition and the living memory of the people, imposing their decisions in an authoritarian manner and organizing a mechanism that resembled a political party more than the Church.

C. The Condemnation of Ecclesiological Innovations and Heretical Teaching

1. WE CONDEMN unequivocally the ecclesiological innovations introduced through the official texts of the Council of Crete, specifically through the document “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World.”

2. WE CONDEMN the terminological and dogmatic recognition of heterodox confessions as “churches.” Heresy does not constitute another church, but error, separation from the Truth, and spiritual death.

Papism (with the filioque, papal primacy, infallibility, its transformation into a religious state, and the distortion of the Mysteries).

Protestantism (with its denial of the Mysteries, the Priesthood, the Theotokos, the Saints, and baptismal regeneration).

Monophysitism (with its denial of Christ’s real human nature, a denial that destroys salvation) constitute doctrinal errors that distort the apostolic faith and are entirely devoid of ecclesial existence. Recognizing them as “churches” constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, since it implies that the Holy Spirit dwells in heresies.

• WE CONDEMN the branch theory, which attempts to present the various Christian confessions as branches of equal standing belonging to a single tree of the Church, and to relativize the identity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

• WE CONDEMN dogmatic minimalism, which reduces the salvific content of the faith and Holy Tradition to minimal or flexible elements for the sake of an ostensible and adulterated “unity.”

• WE CONDEMN so-called “baptismal theology,” a modern ecumenist invention that attempts to establish ecclesiastical unity outside the canonical boundaries of Orthodoxy, under the pretext of a shared invocation of the Holy Trinity [6, 26, 32].

• WE FOLLOW the First Canon of Basil the Great, which stipulates that the baptism of heretics lacks validity.

• WE FOLLOW Saint Cyprian, who proclaimed that heretics outside the Church are baptized with mud and not with water.

• WE FOLLOW Saint Athanasius the Great, who characterized the baptism of heretics as “empty” and nonexistent. Recognition of the baptism of the heterodox constitutes a denial of the “one baptism” that we confess in the Symbol of Faith.

• WE CONDEMN the indirect repudiation of the decisions and anathemas of the Holy Ecumenical Councils (from the First through the Seventh). These Councils did not anathematize abstract ideas, but specific heresiarchs (Arius, the Macedonians, Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Origen, the Monothelites, and the Iconoclasts) and their communities, placing them outside the Church. Recognition of these communities as “churches” nullifies the work of the Holy Fathers, undermines dogmatic precision, and constitutes an affront that portrays the Fathers as harsh or extreme.

• WE CONDEMN Ecumenism as a theory and practice of syncretism which, under the pretext of theological dialogue “on equal terms,” undermines the uniqueness of the Orthodox Church, equates Truth with error, diminishes the need for the return and repentance of those in error, and opens the gates of the Church to the Antichrist.

D. The Canonical and Patristic Stance of the Pleroma Bearing Christ’s Name in Times of Heresy

We proclaim that the pleroma of the Church bearing Christ’s name—clergy, monastics, and laity—is not a passive recipient of decisions, but the very living guardian of Orthodox Tradition, with a heightened dogmatic consciousness that perceives and distinguishes truth from error. The Holy Spirit does not dwell exclusively in conference buildings or bureaucratic structures, but dwells in the pleroma of the Church. When the hierarchy or part of it slides into heresy or introduces ecclesiological innovations, the faithful must respond vigorously and with spiritual vigilance, following the patristic tradition:

• We follow the teaching of Basil the Great, who emphasizes that the faith is also preserved through the “unwritten tradition of the Fathers” that lives among the people, making the Orthodox people active participants in safeguarding doctrine.

• We follow Saints Maximus the Confessor and Gregory Palamas, who defended dogmatic truth, relying on the conscience of the Orthodox people and monastics when the official ecclesiastical authorities had compromised with the error of their time.

• We follow the theological legacy of Saint Gregory the Theologian, who recognized “common opinion” and the “mind of the Church” as essential criteria of ecclesiastical truth, which cannot be circumvented by any signature on a synodal protocol.

• We follow the practice of the Holy Fathers, which provides that, when faced with the distortion of the Faith, the pleroma of the Church expresses its dissent through every ecclesiastical means: public protests, encyclicals, prayers, and also the refusal of ecclesiastical communion with those who preach or accept the heretical innovations of the Council of Crete.

• We proclaim that communion with those who accept this false council constitutes communion with error itself. When shepherds turn into wolves, the flock must protect its Faith by abstaining from communion with them, thus safeguarding the purity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

• We stand firm in the Orthodox Faith and the deposit handed down by the Fathers, proclaiming that the decisions of the Council of Crete that distort Orthodox ecclesiology are invalid, devoid of content, and lacking all theological authority.

We faithfully follow the theological and canonical stance of Saint Mark Eugenikos, Metropolitan of Ephesus, who was the unwavering champion of Orthodoxy against the Latins at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, categorically rejecting the Latin innovations—especially the doctrine of the Filioque and the use of unleavened bread—and refusing to sign the falsely named “union,” considering the Latins to be in a state of heresy and schism. Saint Mark preserved the patristic tradition without deviation, teaching that ecclesiastical unity is inconceivable with any compromise of the truth of the faith, and upholding agreement with the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and the teaching of the Holy Fathers as the sole criterion of the Church’s authenticity, free from compromises and expediency.

WE PROCLAIM that the true unity of the Church is not an abstract idea, nor is it built on diplomatic ambiguities, but presupposes absolute dogmatic agreement and precision. “ONE body, one spirit,” as the Apostle Paul proclaims, and upon the rock of the true confession Christ built His Church, against which “the gates of Hades will not prevail.”

We condemn every attempt at a false union, following Saint Mark of Ephesus, who proclaimed: “All the teachers of the Church, all the Councils, and all the divine Scriptures exhort us to avoid the heterodox and to abstain from communion with them. Shall we disregard all this and follow those who command us to unite under the pretext of a false and fabricated peace? Those who adulterated the divine Symbol of Faith and introduce the Son as a second cause of the Holy Spirit?”

We proclaim together with Saint Mark of Ephesus:

“For up to now our faith has lacked nothing, nor do we, who are sons and disciples of the Fathers, need a Council and a doctrinal definition to learn anything new... This is precisely our boast, our faith, the good inheritance of our Fathers. And with this faith we hope to stand before God and receive the forgiveness of our sins.”

“One body, one spirit,” as the Apostle Paul proclaims, and upon the rock of the true confession Christ built His Church, against which “the gates of Hades will not prevail.”

An Appeal for Dogmatic Precision

This confession springs not from a spirit of confrontation or pride, but from love for the Truth and the preservation of dogmatic precision. True Christian unity is built not on diplomatic ambiguities or on equating truth with error, but on full dogmatic agreement within Orthodox Tradition.

We call upon the pleroma of the Church to remain vigilant and steadfast in the faith of the Holy Fathers, proclaiming that every decision that diminishes the uniqueness of the Orthodox Church is devoid of authority and foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology.

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/09/2016_01394926234.html