Concerning the “Errors” of the Old Calendarists and the “Non-Errors” of Those Who Have Walled Themselves Off

Ioannis N. Paparrigas | July 14, 2026

 

 

I was sent a video in which the speakers are Fr. Theodore Zisis and his son [Monk Seraphim].

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMzZyd8j9do]

Honestly, it is completely unacceptable for people who supposedly possess academic knowledge to appear so ignorant of history in ecclesiastical matters that have not only been answered, but analyzed hundreds of times. They truly disappointed me. I understand that they wish to support their own position. But when this is attempted through historical inaccuracies, then the well-known saying applies: “What is good is not good unless it be done well.”

Fr. Theodore states:

“From the beginning of the walling off, we said that we would not make the mistake made by the Old Calendarists: having bishops of our own.”

And a little further on, note the complete contradiction:

“Unless Orthodox bishops are found who will undertake it. If some Orthodox bishops were found who would undertake the walling off and wall themselves off, the matter would be different.”

But excuse me, what did the Orthodox Bishops who led the struggle of the Old Calendarists do differently? Is it possible that Fr. Theodore is unaware that in 1935, a full eleven years after the unilateral and uncanonical change of the festal calendar in 1924, Orthodox Bishops undertook the struggle of the Old Calendarists?

For a full eleven years, the Old Calendarists had no Bishops. Subsequently, when, with the passage of time, they were once again left without Bishops—some reposed, some lost courage, and others were indeed led into schism—the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) proceeded to ordain new Bishops for them.

Do they perhaps not accept the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia? Of course they do.

What, after all, does Fr. Seraphim Zisis state in the same video?

“They [the New Calendarists] even regarded ROCOR, the Russians of the diaspora, as a schism. My professors at the university taught me that ROCOR, the Russians of the diaspora, was a schism. And from there came Saint John Maximovitch, Elder Seraphim Rose, and Saint Philaret, whose body was found incorrupt. According to them, it is a schism.”

Fr. Theodore continues:

“But now, as presbyters, we do not have the ability to have bishops of our own. We will therefore not make Bishops of our own, so that they may characterize us as a schism. We will remain within the Church and protest, resist, react, and struggle for the Church to return to Orthodoxy.”

But that is self-evident. What presbyter can ordain Bishops?

Either Orthodox bishops will wall themselves off and undertake the struggle, exactly as occurred in the case of the Old Calendarists, or, once they have undertaken it, they themselves will proceed to ordain new Bishops.

I assume, of course, that what Fr. Theodore wishes to say here is that he considers only the first case to be the correct solution, namely, that an already existing Orthodox bishop should wall himself off and lead the struggle. It would be well, however, for him not to be so absolute. For precisely what he now considers self-evident—that Orthodox bishops should wall themselves off and undertake the struggle—was something that, several years ago, they would not even discuss. Today, however, they accept it. Therefore, let them not be so certain and so categorical concerning the next step of history as well.

And he concludes with the celebrated statement:

“We are in Orthodoxy and in the Church; they are outside the Church.”

Who exactly are the “we”? All those who have walled themselves off, or only this particular group?

If he means all those who have walled themselves off, then why is there no ecclesiastical communion with the other groups that have walled themselves off?

Yet another question arises here. Were they not the very ones who, for years, wrote that they did not wish to resemble the Old Calendarists, invoking the existence of factions as their argument?

How, then, is it possible that those who have walled themselves off now have various groups, which moreover are not in ecclesiastical communion with one another—and all this in an era when they have neither the rifle butts (batons) of the gendarmes to face, as the Old Calendarists did, nor the violent persecutions which, as they themselves acknowledge in the video above, the Old Calendarists suffered?

We shall conclude with a well-known saying of our own.

The more they try to prove that they are not “Old Calendarists,” the more they will receive the very same characterizations that for decades were applied to the Old Calendarists, namely, “schismatics,” “outside the Church,” and so many others. And in this, the existence or non-existence of bishops is not to blame......

God does not bless struggles founded upon mutual accusations.

The same, of course, also applies to the Old Calendarists themselves, who have paid dearly for it to this day, reaching the point where churches of different factions stand side by side on the same street. And if one asks each of them separately why this is so, one will almost always receive the same answer:

“It is not our fault; it is the others...”

Let us all therefore take heed, for the history of the Church teaches that when a struggle is accompanied by humility and discernment, it is blessed. But when it is accompanied by mutual accusations, characterizations from both sides, and intransigent attitudes, the outcome rarely vindicates those who believe that they possess the truth exclusively.

P.S. Let our brethren who have walled themselves off study the following article continually:

[English translation: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/06/disciples-at-infallible-school-of-holy.html]

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2026/07/blog-post_14.html

Interview in English: Elder Savvas Lavriotis

The three most significant factions of Neo-Zealot non-commemorators in Greece, which have emerged since the Pseudo-Synod of Crete, are led by Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis, Hieromonk Euthymios Trikaminas, and Elder Savvas of Great Lavra (“Lavriotis”).

Attached is a 2024 interview with Elder Savvas conducted in English. He is the author of the foreword to the classic text on Orthodox ecclesiology in times of heresy, “The Concept of Defilement of the Orthodox from Ecclesiastical Communion with Uncondemned Heretics,” written by Hieromonk Eugenios and published in 2023.

The Light of Bulgaria: An Orthodox Christian Documentary

 

The Apostle Against Ecumenism

A pastoral reflection on the eve of the feast of the Holy Chief Apostles Peter and Paul — on the Holy Apostle Saint Paul, the original anti-ecumenist, and on what he taught the Church in his own words.

Fr. Athanasios Lampropoulos | July 10, 2026

 

 

Many have been asking me about this.

On the 24th of June, 2026, His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem received Sarah Mullally, the first woman to serve as Archbishop of Canterbury, at the Patriarchate in Jerusalem. Together they visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Photographs of the visit have circulated widely. Good Orthodox people, on every calendar, have been troubled by them and have come to me, and to other priests, asking what to make of it.

Already the explanations are circulating. It was hospitality, we are told. A courtesy between neighbours. No prayer was shared. But there is no need for anyone to argue the point, because the visitors have settled it themselves. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s address to the Heads of Churches in Jerusalem, published on her own website, thanks the Patriarch for the welcome at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and calls what took place there “a profound gift” — to have prayed together in that holy place. And the World Council of Churches, the body whose vocation for the better part of a century has been to make such scenes seem ordinary, described the visit in its own reporting as a “joint pilgrimage of prayer and solidarity.” On this one point I am content to take the ecumenical movement entirely at its word. They prayed together. They have said so themselves, in print, with photographs.

As we head into the weekend of the feast of the Holy Chief Apostles Peter and Paul, my thoughts have gone to Saint Paul in particular. Not to what the Fathers wrote about him. Not to what modern theologians say about him. But to what he himself wrote to the young Church, in his own words, in the epistles we still read at Divine Liturgy — because Saint Paul, brothers and sisters in Christ, is the original anti-ecumenist. And what he wrote on this specific question, he wrote plainly, and he wrote often, and it has not been repealed by any council of the Church in the twenty centuries since.

It is no secret that I am a strong Orthodox traditionalist. Anyone who knows me knows where I stand. But I write this reflection not as a partisan, and not from my own opinion. I write it as a priest handing back to his brothers and sisters in Christ what Saint Paul himself taught the Church.

As Saint Ieronymos of Aegina used to say, I am without quarrels. I do not write against persons. I write about what Saint Paul wrote about the specific situation in which teaching contrary to what was received begins to circulate among the faithful — and about what he told the Church, in that situation, to do.

Let us go to the Apostle himself.

To the Christians at Rome, at the close of the epistle in which he laid out the fullest exposition of the gospel we possess, Saint Paul wrote:

Now I urge you, brethren, mark those who cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.

He does not tell the Church to discuss with them. He does not tell her to invite them into fellowship. He does not tell her to co-sign joint declarations with them. He tells her to mark them, and to avoid them.

To the young priest Titus, whom Saint Paul had left in Crete to organise the Church there, the Apostle wrote:

Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.

First warning. Second warning. Then reject. The Apostle does not counsel his priest to enter into a fifty-year theological dialogue. He counsels him to warn twice, and then to break fellowship.

To the Christians at Galatia, who were being visited by teachers proposing a modified gospel, the Apostle wrote what is the most solemn formula in his entire corpus:

Even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

He says it twice. In adjacent sentences. Because he wants it heard. The word is anathema. Not welcomed. Not engaged as a partner in dialogue. Not received as a sister Church. Anathema. And the anathema stands even against an angel from heaven who would bring such a message. There is no earthly hierarch, however exalted his office, who ranks above an angel from heaven.

To the Christians at Thessalonica, Saint Paul wrote in the name of the Lord:

We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.

The tradition. What was received. Not what is being newly negotiated with those outside the Church. Not what is being drafted at joint theological commissions. What was received. And the command, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, is to withdraw from every brother who does not walk according to it.

To the Christians at Corinth, Saint Paul wrote what is perhaps the clearest text in the whole New Testament on the question of shared prayer and shared witness with those outside the received faith:

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?... Therefore come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.

What fellowship. What communion. What accord. Saint Paul asks the questions because he wants the reader to answer them. There is no fellowship between righteousness and lawlessness. There is no communion between light and darkness. There is no accord between Christ and Belial. And in the voice of the Lord Himself, the Apostle delivers the command: come out from among them. Be separate.

To the Christians at Ephesus, the Apostle wrote:

Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

Two commands. First, no fellowship. Second, expose them. It is not enough for the faithful to withhold their own participation. They are commanded to bring into the light what has been done in shadow. What has been done at the Holy Sepulchre is not being exposed by those who did it. It falls to the ordinary priests of the Church, and to the faithful, to bring it into the light.

And to his beloved son Timothy, whom he had ordained to the episcopate, Saint Paul wrote twice, in two separate epistles, the same pastoral counsel:

If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing... from such withdraw thyself.

Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers... having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

From such withdraw thyself. From such turn away. The Apostle repeats himself, in adjacent epistles, to a young bishop, on this exact point. A bishop who does not withdraw from those who teach otherwise cannot preserve for his flock the deposit of faith he was ordained to preserve.

These are not obscure passages. They are not scattered pastoral asides that must be balanced against warmer texts. They are the consistent, repeated, urgent counsel of Saint Paul on how the Church is to respond when teaching contrary to what was received begins to circulate among the faithful. He wrote about it to Rome, to Corinth, to Galatia, to Thessalonica, to Ephesus, to Titus, and to Timothy. He wrote about it in almost every epistle we possess. He said the same thing every time.

Mark them. Warn them once. Warn them a second time. Then withdraw. Be separate. Have no fellowship with the works of darkness, but expose them. Do not receive into your house one who does not bring the received teaching. Turn away.

Saint Paul is the original anti-ecumenist. He wrote against the very posture that dominates the ecclesiastical diplomacy of our day. Shared prayer with those teaching contrary doctrines. Joint declarations of unity across the boundary of the received faith. Mutual recognition between bodies holding incompatible teachings. Saint Paul taught the opposite. Not because he did not love the persons on the other side of the boundary. He wept over them. He prayed for their salvation. But because he understood that shared prayer is a confession of shared faith, and that a Church which blurs the boundary of what she has received will not long possess what she has received.

What Saint Paul warned the Church about is what the ordinary Orthodox reader is now watching happen in his news feed.

And the Church heard him. What Saint Paul wrote in his epistles, the Church wrote into her law. Among the canons of the Holy Apostles, received by the whole Church at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, stands Canon 45:

Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has only prayed with heretics, be excommunicated: but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed.

Who has only prayed. The canon does not wait for concelebration, or intercommunion, or a signed declaration of union. Prayer alone is the threshold. And the Council of Laodicea says the same thing in a single sentence, in its thirty-third canon:

One must not join in prayer with heretics or schismatics.

These canons are not the private severity of zealots. They are the Apostle’s epistles translated into the discipline of the Church, written down by men who had read Galatians and Corinthians and believed that Saint Paul meant what he said. When the ecumenical movement describes shared prayer at the Holy Sepulchre as a gift, the canons of the Church describe it as a matter for excommunication. Both descriptions cannot be true.

This is not only the Apostle’s teaching. It is the teaching the Church has continued to know, even in the most compromised eras of her recent history. Only forty-eight years ago, in July of 1978, the eleven New Calendar Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches sent delegates to a Joint Doctrinal Commission with the Anglicans at Pendeli Monastery near Athens. The Orthodox delegates unanimously signed a document declaring the ordination of women to be, in their own words, “a violation of the apostolic faith and order of the Church.” They declared further that the Orthodox “cannot regard the Anglican proposals to ordain women as a purely internal matter, in which the Orthodox are not concerned.” The document is preserved at prounione.it/dialogues/a-o. What was signed at Pendeli in 1978 was what the Apostle had written to Galatia in the first century. What is now being done at the Holy Sepulchre in 2026 is what the Apostle told the Church, in the same epistle, to anathematise.

Saint Mark of Ephesus, in the fifteenth century, stood alone against a compromising union between his own Ecumenical Patriarchate and Rome at the Council of Ferrara–Florence. Every other Orthodox bishop present signed the union. Mark refused. He is the reason the Church did not lose her identity in that generation. He was doing what Saint Paul had commanded a thousand years before. Mark those who cause divisions contrary to the doctrine you have learned, and avoid them. Even if it be the Emperor. Even if it be the Pope. Even if it be your own Patriarch. Even if it be an angel from heaven.

So when the brothers and sisters in Christ who have been troubled by the recent photographs come to me and ask what to do, I answer as best I know how. I answer from what Saint Paul wrote in seven separate epistles, from what he said twice in Galatians because he wanted it heard, and from what he told Timothy, Titus, and every Church he founded.

Do not panic. Do not shrug. Be vigilant. Hold what was received. Mark those who bring another teaching. Warn them. After the second admonition, turn away. Not with hatred. Not with contempt for persons. But with the calm confidence that the Apostle knew what he was writing about — and that the Church is not free, on any calendar or in any generation, to negotiate away what he handed down to her.

This weekend, as we keep the feast of the Holy Chief Apostles, I ask you to remember whose feast we are keeping. Pray for me. Pray for every priest of every jurisdiction. Pray for the hierarchs of the Church, that God may return to them the courage of the Apostle whose feast they are about to serve. And may Saint Paul, who paid for his fidelity with his life at Rome under Nero, pray for us who are trying, imperfectly, in our own day, to teach what he taught.

Holy Apostle Paul, pray to God for us.

 

Source: https://patristicwitness.com/ArticleDetail?id=6a5165bd4cb733d6cb7731a7

 

The Controversies and Accusations Against Saint Nicodemus

 

The orthodoxy of Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite (1749–1809), one of the most important figures of the Kollyvades revival movement, was vigorously challenged both during his lifetime and afterward. The accusations against him came chiefly from two quarters: from the anti-Kollyvades (the opponents of the Kollyvades movement on the Holy Mountain) and from ecclesiastical circles that accused him of Western/Roman Catholic influence because of the books he translated and adapted.

The first and most immediate challenge came from the monks of the Holy Mountain who opposed the movement. Representatives of this side, such as Theodoret of Ioannina (former Prohegumen of Esphigmenou Monastery), supported the celebration of memorial services on Sunday rather than Saturday. They accused Saint Nicodemus, Saint Makarios Notaras, and Christophoros Papoulakos of being “innovators,” “schismatics,” and “heretics” because they insisted upon the strict observance of tradition (the celebration of memorial services only on Saturdays) and upon frequent Holy Communion. Indeed, Saint Nicodemus’s book Concerning Frequent Communion provoked a storm of reactions, with his opponents accusing him of diminishing the Mystery of Confession.

The Accusation of “Latin-mindedness” and Western Influence

This was perhaps the most serious theological accusation leveled against him, since Saint Nicodemus used Western spiritual writings as the basis for some of his most popular works. The works in question were Unseen Warfare (based on the Combattimento spirituale of the Roman Catholic priest Lorenzo Scupoli) and the Spiritual Exercises (based on the work of the same name by Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits).

His critics accused him of introducing “Western, papal spirituality” into the Orthodox Church. They considered the method of “imagination” and meditation described in the Spiritual Exercises to be foreign to the hesychastic tradition of Orthodoxy, which explicitly rejects the use of the imagination in prayer. Because of these denunciations, Saint Nicodemus suffered persecution. Under pressure from his opponents, the Ecumenical Patriarchate examined his works, and in 1807 Saint Nicodemus was even compelled to write apologetic texts and make corrections in order to demonstrate his Orthodox faith.

The Case of The Rudder and Theodoret

Another major focus of controversy concerned The Rudder (the collection of the Sacred Canons of the Orthodox Church), which Saint Nicodemus compiled together with the monk Agapios. The manuscript was sent to Leipzig for printing, with the monk Theodoret responsible for its publication. Theodoret, however, proceeded to make arbitrary alterations and falsifications, adding notes of his own that expressed extreme positions, such as the complete rejection of the baptism of Roman Catholics [sic], to such a degree that they conflicted with the official position of the Church.

When the book was circulated in its falsified form, Saint Nicodemus was accused both by the Patriarchate (because of the extreme positions that appeared under his name) and by Theodoret himself, who accused him of “innovations” when the Saint attempted to restore the authentic text. Despite the slanders, persecutions, and temporary condemnations he endured during his lifetime, the Orthodox Church fully recognized his work. His official canonization by the Ecumenical Patriarchate took place in 1955, definitively confirming the orthodoxy of his teaching and establishing him as one of the greatest Fathers of the modern Church.

Theology between East and West: The Method of the “Transference” and “Grafting” of Ideas

Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite’s adaptation of Western spiritual writings constitutes a unique chapter in theological literature. Saint Nicodemus did not produce a simple translation, but carried out a profound theological “transfusion” (filtering), cleansing the texts of the scholastic and legalistic influences of the West and grafting onto them the hesychastic and patristic tradition of the East. This process was termed by later theologians the “ecclesiastical grafting” or “expatriation” of the texts, which he accomplished through very specific axes of transformation.

First, he proceeded to replace “Imagination” with “Watchfulness.” In Western spirituality (especially in the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola), the imagination is used as a fundamental instrument of prayer, whereby the faithful person is called to represent mentally and in detail scenes from the life of Christ, Hell, or Paradise, stimulating his senses. In the Orthodox hesychastic tradition (as expressed in the Philokalia), the imagination is regarded as the principal “bridge” through which temptations and delusions enter the mind. Thus, Saint Nicodemus removed all instructions that encouraged fictitious mental representations. In their place, he introduced watchfulness (spiritual vigilance), pure prayer (without forms or images), and the monologistic prayer (“Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me”).

From Legal Justification to the Healing of the Soul and the Life of the Mysteries

Second, Saint Nicodemus shifted the focus from legal justification to the healing of the soul. The Roman Catholic theology of the period viewed salvation in a rather juridical manner (satisfaction of divine justice, guilt, punishments). Saint Nicodemus transferred the center of gravity from the judicial/legal level to the therapeutic. He presented Christ not as an angry judge who must be appeased, but as the “Physician of souls.” In his books, the spiritual life is not described as an effort to accumulate “merits” (as was the case in the West), but as a path of purification of the heart from the passions, illumination of the nous, and, ultimately, theosis.

Third, he proceeded to introduce Patristic passages and material from the Philokalia. In order to ground these texts in Orthodoxy, he provided extremely extensive commentary. He enriched the texts with hundreds of footnotes, citations, and references to Holy Scripture and, above all, to the Eastern Fathers of the Church (such as Basil the Great, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Symeon the New Theologian, and Saint Gregory Palamas). In this way, even when the structure or subject matter of a chapter remained Western, its interpretation and spirit became entirely Patristic and Orthodox.

Fourth, he led the reader from “Individualism” to Ecclesiology and the Holy Mysteries. Western manuals of the spiritual life often possessed a strongly individual-centered character, focusing on the believer’s personal relationship with God in relative isolation from liturgical life. Saint Nicodemus inseparably connected the inward spiritual struggle with the life of the Holy Mysteries of the Church. He emphasized that the “unseen warfare” is not won through individual techniques, but through frequent participation in the Holy Mysteries of Confession and the Divine Eucharist.

The Motive and Cultural Necessity of the Undertaking

Saint Nicodemus consciously chose this method because he saw that, during the period of Ottoman rule, there was an enormous lack of accessible, practical spiritual guides for Orthodox laypeople living in the world. The classical ascetical texts (such as, for example, The Ladder of Saint John) had been written primarily for monks and in language that was particularly difficult for the broader public of that period.

Finding in Western books an excellent, methodical, and practical structure, he chose to “capture” their methodology, cleanse it of doctrinal errors, and offer it to the suffering Orthodox people as a powerful spiritual weapon. As he himself characteristically wrote, he did what the ancient Israelites had done: they took the golden vessels of the Egyptians, cleansed them of foreign admixtures, and used them for the worship of the true God.

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/07/blog-post_14.html

Which Councils Are Not Listed in "The Rudder" of Saint Nicodemus, and Why?

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | July 14, 2026

 

 

The Omission of the Eighth Ecumenical Council (879-880) from The Rudder

The omission of the Eighth Ecumenical Council (the Council of 879–880 under Photios the Great) from The Rudder of Saint Nicodemus constitutes an exceptionally interesting historical and canonical question, since this omission was not due to ignorance or an undervaluing of the Council on the part of Saint Nicodemus—who had boundless respect for Photios the Great—but to specific historical, editorial, and strategic considerations of his time, at the end of the eighteenth century.

1. The Official Ecclesiastical Numbering of the Period

During the period of Ottoman rule, reference to Seven Ecumenical Councils had become established in the Orthodox East (the last being the Seventh, held at Nicaea in 787). Although the Council of 879–880 possessed all the characteristics and authority of an Ecumenical Council (representatives of all the Patriarchates and of Pope John VIII participated in it, while it also confirmed the Seventh Ecumenical Council), the Orthodox Church had not, at that time, proceeded to an official and solemn proclamation of it as the “Eighth” by any subsequent general council. Consequently, Saint Nicodemus, following the traditional structure of the Byzantine Nomocanons upon which he based his work, retained the classical numbering of the Seven Ecumenical Councils so as not to cause confusion or accusations of innovation.

2. The Fear of Western Reaction and Censorship

The Rudder was printed in Leipzig, Germany, in 1800, at a time when the Orthodox Church was under the Ottoman yoke and did not possess its own free printing presses capable of producing such voluminous works. This meant that the explicit proclamation and analysis of an “Orthodox Eighth Ecumenical Council”—which condemned the Filioque and annulled the decisions of the anti-Photian Council of 869–870 (which the Roman Catholic Church recognizes as its own Eighth Ecumenical Council)—in a book printed in the heart of Europe would have provoked a storm of reactions from the Roman Curia and the Western authorities, placing the publication in immediate danger of confiscation, prohibition of circulation, or even refusal to print it.

3. The Indirect Strategy of Saint Nicodemus

Saint Nicodemus chose a more indirect yet substantive course, for instead of provoking controversy by numbering it the “Eighth Ecumenical Council” (something that would have given the enemies of the Church a pretext to block the work), he included and interpreted the three Sacred Canons of this Council (which convened “in the Church of Hagia Sophia”) and indirectly attributed ecumenical authority to it [in the English edition, under the name “Temple of the Holy Wisdom – trans. note], extolling its authority in his interpretations and referring to Photios the Great with the most laudatory titles, thereby implicitly recognizing that its decisions possess the force of an Ecumenical Council, since they were accepted by the entire Church in both East and West.

4. Summary Concerning the Council of 879-880.

The omission of any reference to the Council of 879–880 as the “Eighth Ecumenical Council” in The Rudder was a necessary historical and editorial concession (economy) of the period, so that this monumental work might succeed in being printed in the West and reach safely the hands of the subjugated Orthodox, without, however, diminishing in the slightest the dogmatic and canonical value of the decisions of Photios the Great.

Which Other Councils are Not Included, and Why

In order to understand why many important Councils are absent (such as, for example, the Hesychast/Palamite Councils of the fourteenth century or other local councils), we must clarify that The Rudder is neither a historical book nor a collection of theological decisions, but the “Nomocanonical” book of the Church. Consequently, its contents were selected according to strict criteria concerning the distinction between “Canons” (which regulate administration and order) and “Dogmas” (which define the Faith), since dogmatic decisions (such as those of the Councils of 1341 and 1351 under Saint Gregory Palamas concerning the Uncreated Light) did not produce canonical legislation and therefore had no place in a practical guide.

The Practical Purpose and Consolidation of the Canons

Saint Nicodemus compiled The Rudder as a functional handbook for practical use by spiritual fathers and clergy, avoiding turning it into a vast and difficult-to-understand historical encyclopedia. He based it on the principle that the canonical tradition of the Church had been crystallized in the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils and the important Local Councils of the first millennium, while later councils merely repeated or applied the already existing Canons. He therefore selected the “classical” Canons, which cover 99% of everyday cases.

Why Only Certain Local Councils Were Included

The reason why Local Councils such as those of Carthage or Gangra were included is that they produced very specific and practical Canons (e.g., concerning marriage, monks, and fasting) that were absent from the other texts. This means that the Councils which are absent were not omitted because they are less important, but because they were purely dogmatic, did not produce new Canons governing daily life, and the practical character of the book had to be preserved—as the “Penal Code” of the Church, regulating life, rather than as a historical archive of theological discussions.

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/07/blog-post_916.html

The Principal Differences Between Orthodox Church Law and the Law of the Roman Catholic Church

Milan Petrović,

Faculty of Law, University of Niš, Serbia

 

 

Abstract. When discussing church law one must first bear in mind its complex structure. The central, fundamental part of church law is canon law, which regulates the internal life of the Church, and this primarily means the organization of the Church as a community of priests and laypersons, their mutual rights and obligations, and the activity of the Church within this community: the clerical work; teaching; government and trial. Ecclesiastical law is also a part of church law, and it regulates matters of common interest to the Church and the state. Religious education in state schools in particular requires the coordination of Church and state. The fundamental source of church law in general and canon law in particular is found in divine laws.

The point of departure between Orthodox and Roman Catholic church law is found precisely in the different interpretation of divine laws. The supreme authority of all Church, the Ecumenical Council decides on its own competences. It judges on teachings prominent in the Church and specifically condemns heresy. It regularizes the governance of the Church in general and hierarchical Churches in particular, and also deals with the rights of the Churches in governance. The conciliarity principle is valid for hierarchical Orthodox churches, too – their supreme bodies are regional councils. The Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church are legitimate successors of the Apostolic Council, and are therefore also the institution of divine law. The Orthodox Church recognizes seven Ecumenical Councils, held in the period 325 – 787. That is to say, the Orthodox Church does not accept the position that the Roman popes are his successors. It remains unknown who founded the Roman church. However, this was certainly not the apostle Peter.

 

When discussing church law one must first bear in mind its complex structure.

The central, fundamental part of church law is canon law, which regulates the internal life of the Church, and this primarily means the organization of the Church as a community of priests and laypersons, their mutual rights and obligations, and the activity of the Church within this community: the clerical work; teaching; government and trial. Let us mention that church dogmas, also a subject matter of dogmatics as a philosophy of Christianity, represent a constituent part of canon law, since their breach means a particularly serious guilt according to church law. Due to such an important position of canon law, the discipline dealing with it is called canonistics.

Ecclesiastical law is also a part of church law, and it regulates matters of common interest to the Church and the state. For instance, marriage is a holy sacrament for the church, but marriage and the family also provide the basis for the life of a community – a state or a nation. The church funeral is a holy act, however the legal organization of cemeteries is today inevitably in the jurisdiction of the state and the local government – for cultural, hygienic, and reasons of town planning. Religious education in state schools in particular requires the coordination of Church and state. The temple is a holy place, but it can also be a historic cultural monument protected by the state. And so forth. The view that the Church holds, that the relations between state and Church should be harmonious, is reflected in the position that matters of ecclesiastical law should be ordered through a mutual agreement of the two. This agreement is called a concordat. To be sure, a concordat is usually a formal agreement that the state and the Church conclude as two equal parties, a contract, therefore, made after the model of international treaties. However, this form is not obligatory. There is a concordat also if the state orders the matter single-sidedly, by a legal act, after it has obtained the positive opinion, i.e. consent of the Church.

Finally, there is also the so-called law of religious communities. These are regulations by means of which, in the regime of the separation of Church and state, the state imposes its will on the Church in those matters that the Church believes should be defined by the agreement of the two parties. These regulations, viewed as hostile by the Church, are not a source of church law. However, the science of church law still studies them as they regulate the relations between Church and state.

The fundamental source of church law in general and canon law in particular is found in divine laws. Divine laws are proclaimed mostly in the New Testament. Divine laws from the Old Testament pertaining to the Jewish church and nation are not valid for the Church as a "New Israel". However, divine laws from the Old Testament which are general in nature, primarily the Ten Commandments that God declared to Moses, still hold for the Church.

The point of difference between Orthodox and Roman Catholic church law is found precisely in the different interpretation of divine laws.

In the Orthodox view, the New Testament laid foundations for the episcopal-conciliary governance of the Church. According to the Gospel of Matthew (18, 18), the Lord Jesus, speaking about the Church, said to his students – the apostles: "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Later on, the apostles would transfer their right and duty of supreme governance of the church to their successors, bishops, through ordination, and these would then ordain new bishops; this gave rise to the so-called apostolic succession (successio apostolica), the first principle of legitimate exercise of full church authority. Today this principle is not accepted only by the majority of Protestant Churches: for them, a bishop is not heir to the apostles, but rather a mere church or civil servant. The apostles are, however, equal in rights, and they resolve all issues related to the Church as a whole, the Christian Ecumene, together, in a conciliary way. And this is the second principle of legitimate exercise of full church of authority, the conciliarity principle. As it may be, the Lord Jesus explicitly condemned any idea of a possible hierarchy among the apostles, i.e. of apostolic supremacy. This is what the Gospel says (Matthew, 18, 1-4): "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, verily I say unto you, except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Again, the mother of the apostles Jacob and John, sons of Zebedee, asked Him to allow them to sit with him in the Kingdom of Heaven, one to the right, the other to the left; having heard this, all the other apostles became angry with these two brothers. The Gospel continues (Matthew, 20, 25-27): "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister. And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." Finally, the same question was posed during the Last Supper (Luke, 22, 24-27): "And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But you shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth."

In the narrower sense, the conciliarity principle was first expressed at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, probably held in AD 49. The jurisdiction and decisions of this Council became part of the regulations of the Scriptures, and thus have the power of divine laws. The Apostolic Council resolved that Christian Gentiles were exempted from the duties imposed by the law of Moses, except that they had to abstain from meats offered as a sacrifice to the idols, from blood, from strangled animals, and from fornication – "from which if you keep yourselves, you shall do well." (Acts, 15, 29). It was also allowed that the apostle Paul and Barnabas should continue preaching the Gospels to Gentile brothers. As for the Jews, the Council found that their evangelization should still be carried out by the Church of Jerusalem, primarily by the apostle Peter (Gal, 2, 7-8). The Council still had to pay its debt to the historical situation, prescribing that the Christian Jews, Judeo-Christians, were still to adhere to the Law of Moses (Acts, 15, 21): "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

The Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church are legitimate successors of the Apostolic Council, and are therefore also the institution of divine law. It is desirable, but not necessary, that all hierarchical Churches should be present at the Ecumenical Council. However, it is important that the Council's decisions be accepted by all the Churches, both those whose representatives participated in the Council, and those who had no representatives, nor provided their position on issues to be discussed in the Council in specific epistles. "There have been heretical councils", Nikodim Milaš says (Orthodox Church Law, 3rd Ed, Belgrade 1926, 309), "like the one where the semi-Arian symbol was added, or such, whose acts were signed by numerous bishops, more of them than at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and also such whose resolutions were signed by both patriarchs and emperors. However, all these councils have not been recognized as ecumenical for the simple fact that the faithful people could not accept those decisions as the true voice of the church." The Orthodox Church recognizes seven Ecumenical Councils, held in the period 325 – 787.

The supreme authority of all Church, the Ecumenical Council decides on its own competences. It thus defines the dogmas of faith and presents them in the form of symbols and religious positions (Canon 7 of the Third Ecumenical Council). It judges on teachings prominent in the Church and specifically condemns heresy (Canon 1 of the Second Ecumenical Council). It clarifies and defines rules (canons) adopted at the previous Councils (Canon 1 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council). It regularizes the governance of the Church in general and hierarchical Churches in particular, and also deals with the rights of the Churches in governance (Canons 6 and 7 of the First Ecumenical Council). It orders the ranks and rights of bishops (Canons 4 and 6 of the First Ecumenical Council). Based on the Scriptures, the holy tradition and Christian morality, it exercises judicial power over the bishops, including autocephalous bishops, and also over hierarchical Churches themselves (Canons 12, 13, 32, 33, 55, 56, and 81 of the Fifth and Sixth, Trullan Ecumenical Council).

The conciliarity principle is valid for hierarchical Orthodox churches, too – their supreme bodies are regional councils. However, in the old times, when all metropolitan Churches were autocephalous, according to the Canons 34 and 37 of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the archbishop always had to act with the knowledge of all other bishops from his archibishopry, and there was a council of bishops twice a year, where the bishops discussed with one another the dogmas and resolved church disputes. Jevsevije Popović comments on this (General Church History, I, Srem. Karlovci 1912, 2nd phototype edition, Novi Sad 1995, 293): "The archbishop was merely an individual preserving unity among the bishops. To be true, in his province he had not only a honorary, but also a jurisdictive primacy, however not with monarchic, but only with presidential powers, and not according to divine law, coming from Christ, but according to human law, made by the church after the apostles."

The bishops of Rome, the popes, turned this principle upside down, having established an unlimited, monarchic power over their Church and having expressed thereby their claim to such power over the entire ecumenical Church, i.e. to their sole autocephality. The climax of such apostasy from the fundamental legal principles of original Christianity is found in the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility, declared in the constitution "Pastor Aeternus" by Pius IX on 18 June 1870. This dogma ruined any remnants of a national Roman Catholic Church and introduced a total centralism, a precursor to contemporary globalism.

The Roman popes found legitimacy for this outrageous abuse of law in the statement of the Lord Jesus from the Gospel of Matthew (16, 18-19): "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

However, as we have stated before, Jesus gave this same power to other apostles, too. According to the teaching of Protestant Churches, Jesus gave this so-called "Power of the Keys" (potestas clavium) not to Peter in person, but to the Church as a whole. Moreover, a notable Roman Catholic exegete, bishop of Avila Alphonsus Tostatus (died in 1455), claimed the same, and was never considered a heretic for this. History has showed that the latter interpretation is correct. (See: Richter/Dove/Kahl, Lehrbuch des katholischen und evangelischen Kirchenrechts, I, Neudruck Aalen 1975, 309 sqq.).

Starting from the "power of the keys" proclamation, the Roman popes have constructed the following theories: First, the apostle Peter was the first of the apostles, and thus the head of the Church as a whole. Second, the apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome and died in Rome, crucified head down, in the time of Nero's persecution of Christians, in AD 64 or 67. Therefore, the Roman popes are heirs to the apostle Peter and thus heads of the entire Church. The popes have not only considered themselves Peter's successors, but have also identified with him. They often declare themselves: "I am Peter" (Ego sum Petrus).

A critical examination of the sources reveals that such theories are untenable.

We have already shown that the Lord Jesus did not allow that any supremacy among the apostles should be established; the hierarchy that emerged among the bishops later is an institution of human, and not divine law. However, was there not a factual, indirect supremacy of Peter over other apostles? Not at all. Peter was the oldest and the most eloquent of the apostles. As such, he often mediated their positions, opinions, and feelings to the Lord. However, he also fell into profound weakness. It is at him that the Lord directed, just after the praise ("You are Peter..."), a strict expostulation: "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matthew, 16, 23). He renounced the Lord with an oath, for which he repented bitterly (Matthew, 26, 69-75). It was only the resurrected Lord that forgave him and prepared him for missionary work (John, 21, 15-18). Peter did not chair the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, even though he was present and spoke there. Additionally, he had to justify his appearance with the baptism of the centurion Cornelius (Acts, 11, 1-18). The apostle Paul criticized him in his presence for being double-faced in spreading the Gospel in Antioch (Gal, 2, 14): "If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews." Decisive to the appreciation of Peter's position in the Church of Jerusalem is the testimony of the apostle Paul, who put him to the second position, behind Jacob (Gal, 2, 9): "And when James, Cephas (which means Peter in Aramaic), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

The Protestant Churches hold the position that the apostle Peter was never in Rome. To be true, the Orthodox Church accepts the traditional view that he perished in Rome, but not that he was a Roman bishop. That is to say, the Orthodox Church does not accept the position that the Roman popes are his successors. Even further, more recent Orthodox Church historians question the position that the apostle Paul ever visited Rome; (see, for instance, Jevsevije Popović, op. cit., 195 sqq., 225 sqq.; M. E. Posnov, The History of the Christian Church [История Христианской Церкви], 2002). As it may be, Acts of the Apostles, which the apostle and gospel writer Luke wrote quite some time after Peter's death, perhaps around AD 80, although providing elaborate details on the activities of the apostle Peter, say nothing about his stay in Rome. This text would have to talk about this when describing the arrival of the apostle Paul in Rome (around AD 61), when he was welcomed there by Christian brothers (Acts, 28, 14): "And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us as far as Appii forum, and the three taverns: whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage." However, Peter was not among the brethren. It remains unknown who founded the Roman church. However, this was certainly not the apostle Peter. In his epistles from Rome, the apostle Paul also failed to report that he had met Peter there, although in the Epistle to Galatians he described in detail his encounters with Peter in Jerusalem and Antioch. An exquisite contemporary scholar, the theologian Heussi (Die römische Petrustradition in kritischer Sicht, Tübingen 1955, 1 sqq.), based on the analysis of Paul's Epistle to Galatians (2, 6-9) concluded that, in the time in which it was written, around AD 57, the apostle Peter was no longer alive, i.e. that he had died long before Nero's persecution.

It would be useful here to mention a comment by the world-renowned papal historian, Kühner, even though, as a Roman Catholic believer, he stands on the position of the official tradition of his Church (H. Kühner, Lexikon der Päpste, Wiesbaden 1991, 23): "Peter was the first archbishop of Antioch and, as the first head of the Roman Christian municipality, he may be taken for the first Roman bishop. However, one can discuss papal dignity only beginning with the third decade of the 4th century."

Among numerous forgeries that the Roman popes have used to prove a right of theirs, "The Donation of Constantine" (Constitutum Constantini Imperatoris – Donatio Constantini) was given global historical importance. It is contained in a legal collection, which is otherwise packed with forgeries, "Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals" (Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae), from which, around 1140, it was taken over and incorporated into Gratian's Decretum, the first part of the Body of Canon Law (Corpus iuris canonici), which would remain the principal source of the canon law of the Roman church, even though as early as in the 15th century cardinal Nicholas of Cusa and universal humanist scholar Lorenzo Valla had empirically proved that it was forged. "The Donation of Constantine" is older than Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals; it originated in the forger's workshop of pope Symmacus (ruled from 22 November 498 to 19 July 514), who is also a Roman Catholic saint; (see: Кühner, op. cit., 54 sq.). According to the false "Donation of Constantine", pope Sylvester the First, who in reality never met Constantine the Great, cured this alleged major persecutor of Christians from leprosy and baptized him. In return, having decided to move to the East of the Empire, Constantine granted the popes dominion over Rome and all of Italy with the western provinces, and gave them the imperial insignia, so that, from that point on, the popes were legitimate rulers of the Western Roman Empire. "The Donation of Constantine" was efficiently used by pope Stephen the Second in winter 753/54, who showed it to the King of the Franks Pepin the Third, otherwise a usurper of the throne. Pepin "believed" and granted papal rule over the city of Rome and Central Italy – through this, a church state was made which endured until 20 September 1870. Pepin was rewarded by being recognized as a legitimate ruler and a Patrician of the Romans (Patricius Romanorum), and also "the adopted son" of St. Peter.

However, having proclaimed the dogma of their own infallibility, the Roman popes exceeded the legitimacy of Peter – since the apostle Peter was a man who made mistakes. This is why with this dogma the popes proclaimed themselves gods. Accordingly, this new papal legitimacy can be founded only on apostle Paul's Second Epistle to Thessalonians, which says (2, 4): "Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." It is also suggestive that the Code of Canon Law (Codex iuris canonici) promulgated by Benedict XV in 1917, whose slightly revised 1983 version remains the principal source of law in the Roman Catholic Church, fully cancels the difference between the rules of the Ecumenical Church and later papal legislative additions, so that today's Roman Catholic canon law is only and exclusively papal law. Undoubtedly, signs are present that the end of the Christian eon, and therefore the arrival of Antichrist, is near. However, in the same Second Epistle to Thessalonians, the apostle Paul says that this end, or coming, will not happen until there is the "one who restrains", the "katechon" (2, 6-7). Today, after almost twenty centuries, we know that only the Orthodox Church can be this katechon. For it is only this Church that preserves and maintains as pure the sources of the Christian river, including the memory of the Christian Empire, "The Byzantine Commonwealth". This preservation and memory are also reflected in the resolution of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church of 12/25 May 1939 – standing in sharp contrast to the motorised legislation of the Roman popes and their incessant production of new false miracles and false saints: "That the Krmchya [1] shall remain our official canonical Code until it is replaced by a new one."

 

1. Krmčija, Krmchya (Constitution) – St. Sava's translation of Byzantine Church Code, 13th century (translator's remark).

 

Source: Facta Universitatis, Series: Law and Politics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2008, pp. 1-7.

Archimandrite Alexis (Pobjoy): On the Western Rite

Source: The Shepherd: An Orthodox Pastoral Magazine, Vol. XLV, No. 2, October 2024, pp. 17-20.

 

 

A relative of mine asked me about the Western Rite... Please tell me about who are the Western Rite and what are their significance to our Holy Church. Is there a particular canon of the Ecumenical Councils that mandates exclusive use of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom? Are the Orthodox faithful of the Western Rite parish allowed to receive communion with us and vice-versa? - A.Q., By email.

Regarding the Western Rite, I must start by saying that what I am going to say is only my opinion, and I may well be wrong. I only offer it, because you asked for my opinion. It is true that the ROCOR which has united with Moscow, ROCA-MP, has in the last few years [the period when Metropolitan Hilarion headed their Church] taken in a number of Western Rite clergymen and parishes, and appears to be promoting them. Although, rather strangely, on their official website, little or no mention has been made of this fact. There the emphasis seems to be on Russianness. Perhaps they fear that the two things do not quite marry and are keeping them in separate compartments. His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion appears to have taken all the Western Rite groups under his own omophorion, whatever geographical diocese they happen to fall in. The ROCA, under His Eminence Metropolitan Agafangel, which is our sister Traditionalist Synod, does not have any Western Rite clergy or parishes to the best of my knowledge. Regarding the Rite itself, I believe that there should be great concerns about its implementation, and I believe the fact that it is being sponsored is something that should be of great concern to Orthodox Traditionalists. I will try and explain why I feel this. First of all, there seem to be two types of Western Riters. There are those who use a modified form of relatively modern Roman Catholic or Anglican rites, from which things, which are ostensibly not Orthodox, have been excised, and into which some Orthodox features have been added. Let us call these TYPE A. And there are those who have tried to return to rites which were current in the West, before the Schism of Rome from Orthodoxy. Let us call them TYPE B. I believe that there are dangers in adopting either of these approaches. TYPE A: In this instance, they are using rites, which although they might be able to trace a history back to something authentic, have essentially been shaped and formed by people outside the Church. The modifications, excisions and additions, do not seem to have been thought over long and hard. It seems to me as if they have taken a Ford Escort, added in a couple of features, improved the upholstery and taken off the Escort insignia, and now pretend it is a Lexus. Just recently, I saw a clip of one of these Western Rite services, and they had statues in their church. If such a ‘conversion’ of these rites was to be undertaken, then I would think that it should be done not by one or two hierarchs and not in a short space of time, but by the whole Church acting together - a thing which, given the situation that Orthodoxy finds itself in today, is completely impossible. TYPE B: Here we have the problem of trying to revive something which has been unused in the Church for a thousand years. If I am not mistaken, none of the rites used in the pre-schism West still exist in their entirety, and so those who have adopted this approach, of necessity, have to feed in certain elements from Byzantine usage. I once, many years ago, attended such a Mass, celebrated by Bishop Germain de Saint-Denis, who struck me as a very affable man (I gave him a lift in my car), but, although I am no expert in liturgics, it was obvious that the rite he performed could not have been that of the pre-schism West. If my memory serves me right, he even used the dikiri and trikiri candles, which I am sure were not used in preschism France! Furthermore, with TYPE B, we have the problem of providing for those feasts which are celebrated by the Orthodox today, but were not observed in the pre-schism West. Do services, fitting the Western usage, have to be composed for them or are these feasts simply to be ignored? I think, too, that there is a ‘chicken and egg,’ problem. The West fell away from Orthodoxy, and since that time has added heresy to heresy. One has to ask: were the rites that they were using in some sense deficient, and unable to contain the fullness of Orthodox teaching? If such is the case, there is extreme folly in returning to those rites, especially as we do not possess them in their fulness. But maybe the West fell away from Orthodoxy despite the adequacy of their rites at that time; then there is folly in the TYPE A approach. We are in a twilight zone here, and we need fathers of clear spiritual insight, or, better still, the consensus of the whole Church to guide us before we venture on a path which may be perilous. I am bold enough, and stupid enough, to believe that the adoption of the Western Rite is a path which is extremely perilous, and I will try to explain, in addition to the above, why. First of all, in the Byzantine Rite, we have an immense wealth of liturgical materials, which have been used by the whole Church for centuries. We have a banquet spread before us. Why turn away from it and pick at crumbs which are stale and may be contaminated? Secondly, the vast majority of people involved in the Western Rite movement, if one can call it that, are quite understandably converts to Orthodoxy. They are, perhaps, the people who most need to drink from the living sources, to be nurtured on Orthodox teaching and understanding through the services of the Church. Thirdly, those in the TYPE A situation, who are excising and amending to bring their rites into an Orthodox frame, are often the very people who should not be doing this! They are not, by and large, people who have been formed by Orthodoxy, who have reached spiritual heights, but are the converts themselves, very often converts who, because of their adherence to these rites, have lived as it were on the very outskirts of the Orthodox world, have not integrated with it. How different their approach to that of that beautiful example of a convert, our foremother Ruth - see her confession (chapter 1:15-18) and see her extraordinary obedience (chapter 3:2-5). Can you think for a moment how difficult that obedience must have been for a modest, Eastern woman of that period? And yet her answer was: ‘All that thou sayest unto me, I will do.’ Maybe I judge them, and if I do may I be forgiven, but it seems to me that these people are instead making that most horrible of professions, ‘I will do it my way.’ Lastly, at least for now, from the clip that I saw the other day, my attending Bishop Germain’s Mass, and other things I have seen, it seems to me that the Rite itself fosters an un-Orthodox spirit. There appears to be a strong element of posing (for want of a better word), of striking ‘pious’ poses, which is alien to Orthodoxy. It appears also that the order somehow takes precedence over the spirit. The thing appears to be an elaborate ritual. In a sense, we do not have ritual in Orthodoxy. I remember years ago seeing Father Vladimir serve at Jordanville. One could not say he was performing a ritual (although of course there is an outward ritual form to our services), rather it was clear that he was entering into a dialogue with our Saviour. Perhaps I exaggerate - I was young and impressionable at the time, but it does seem to me that the Western Rite (what I have seen of it) promotes a contrary spirit, - to put it very crudely, a ‘look at me, see how well I am doing this’ ethos. Again, forgive me if I am wrong. This may in any case be a defect of the celebrants I have seen, and not of the rite itself, but it is these same celebrants who are furthering its use. I believe that before ROCA-MP went under Moscow, there was only one Western Rite community, and that was countenanced more as a pastoral condescension to its priest, with whom I had a brief correspondence, than anything else. There was an earlier venture into Western Ritism with the consecration of Bishop Jean-Nectaire of Saint-Denis, but that did not last long. As far as I know there is no canon of the Oecumenical Councils regarding the Western Rite - what rites were being used in the West at that time would have been Orthodox, and the question of assessing them would not have arisen. Regarding whether Western Rite people may receive the Holy Mysteries in Eastern Rite churches: I presume, and only that - I have not looked into it, that in the present ROCA-MP they can, because surely as they are under the same Bishops they are of one mind and one heart with each other, and with their Bishops.

Various Russian Monastic Prayer Rules

The Rule of Florishcheva Hermitage

 

 

In Florishcheva Hermitage, founded in the seventeenth century in Vladimir Governorate by Saint Hilarion, Metropolitan of Suzdal, the following rule was introduced by him, divided according to time into three parts. At Compline the canons to Jesus the Sweetest, to the Mother of God, and to the Guardian Angel were read, as well as the Akathist to the Mother of God. After some time the brethren performed the rule in church. In addition to the seven brief prayers read at the beginning of the rule according to the Psalter, the Saint introduced invocations to various saints and to whole ranks of saints, as well as seven prayers composed by the holy fathers. Then 300 prostrations, 600 Jesus Prayers, and 100 prayers to the Theotokos were performed (which corresponds to the rule in the Psalter) according to the following order: the exclamation, the usual beginning through the “Our Father,” Psalm 50, the Symbol of Faith, 30 full prostrations with the Jesus Prayer (all the brethren together), after which, standing, they read 70 Jesus Prayers in a whisper or with the mind, “Glory, both now,” Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia, “Glory to Thee, O God” (three times, with full prostrations), and again they made 30 full prostrations, and so on, with the reading of “Glory, both now” after each hundred prayers (or hundred. A hundred is 100 noetic prayers performed on the prayer rope.) Then they read the Commemoration Book with prostrations according to the Psalter, “It is truly meet,” the Trisagion, the troparia “Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us,” “Lord, have mercy” (40 times), “More honorable,” “O God, be bountiful unto us,” and the prayer of Saint Ephraim the Syrian, “O Lord and Master of my life,” with full prostrations, “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos” (three times, with prostrations), “More honorable,” and the dismissal. Then came the usual mutual forgiveness of the brethren. After this, in their cells, the brethren read the Psalter. The beginners read 3 kathismas, those in the middle rank 4 kathismas, and the perfect 7 kathismas. Those who could not fulfill this were to read the “Our Father” in their cell 30 and 50 times with prostrations, or more. In addition, they read “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos” with prostrations (the beginners 50 times, those in the middle rank 100 times, and the perfect 150 and more). For the infirm and the young, this cell rule was abolished. Subsequently the rule of Florishcheva Hermitage was borrowed by the Sarov monastery, but in a somewhat abbreviated form. From Sarov Hermitage the cell rule passed to the Novgorod Yuriev Monastery, with the beginning and end of the rule shortened, but with the canons at Compline increased, with the addition of canons to the saints of the week. In different monasteries, the hundreds of noetic prayers were performed in different numbers and at different times of the day: in the morning after sleep, in the evening after supper, or at midnight. The variety in the performance of the cell rule arose because the rule given in the Psalter is difficult for many to fulfill, and is set forth briefly and indefinitely, which gave occasion for different understandings and interpretations. In the Psalter it is indicated that the full rule is not obligatory for all and is shortened for the infirm and beginners. In monasteries, much with regard to the cell rule was left to the will of the abbots, spiritual fathers, and elders guiding the beginners. Therefore, differences in the cell rules of monasteries are permissible.

 

The Rule of the Sarov and Novgorod Yuriev Monasteries

 

 

According to the Sarov rule: after Compline, without leaving the church, the brethren listened to the evening rule with three canons: to Jesus the Sweetest, to the Most Holy Theotokos with the Akathist, and to the Guardian Angel. According to the Yuriev rule: at the end of Compline it is appointed to perform certain canons (in the Psalter with the Order of Services), namely: on Saturday evening, the canon to the Lord Jesus Christ, whose irmos is: “Helper and Protector”; the Paraklesis to the Theotokos, and the canon to the Guardian Angel. Then “It is truly meet,” the Trisagion through the “Our Father,” the customary troparia and the prayer: “O undefiled, untainted one,” “And grant us, O Master,” and the dismissal (hundreds were not appointed on the eve of Sunday). On the other days: on Sunday evening, the same canon to the Lord Jesus, the Paraklesis to the Theotokos, whose irmos is: “Having passed through the water”; and the troparion: “Held fast by many temptations”; the canon to the Archangels, and then the prostrations (that is, the five hundreds, as shown below), and the rest*. On Monday evening, the same canon to the Lord Jesus, the Paraklesis to the Theotokos, the canons to Saint John the Forerunner and to the Guardian Angel, the prostrations, and the rest. On Tuesday evening, the same canon to the Lord Jesus Christ, the canon to the Theotokos Hodegetria and to the Guardian Angel, the prostrations, and the rest. On Wednesday evening, the same canon to the Lord Jesus, the Paraklesis to the Theotokos, to the holy Apostles, and to the Guardian Angel, the prostrations, and the rest. On Thursday evening, the canon to the Life-giving Cross, whose irmos is: “I shall open my mouth,” the Paraklesis to the Theotokos and to the Guardian Angel, the prostrations, and the rest. On Friday evening, the canon to Jesus the Sweetest, whose irmos is: “In the deep of old”; the Akathist to the Theotokos without fail, the canons to the Guardian Angel and to All Saints, the prostrations, and the rest.

The Five-Hundred Cell Rule

O God, be merciful to me, a sinner.

O God, cleanse my sins and have mercy on me.

O Lord Who hast created me, have mercy.

Without number have I sinned, O Lord, forgive me.

O my Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save me, a sinner.

Holy Archangels and Angels and all Saints, pray to God for me, a sinner.

My holy Guardian Angel, preserve me from every evil.

Holy Apostle, or venerable father, or martyr (name), pray to God for me.

Then the hieromonk said the exclamation: “Blessed is our God,” and the reader: “Amen. Glory to Thee, our God, glory to Thee.” “O Heavenly King.” The Trisagion through the “Our Father,” “Lord, have mercy,” 12 times. “Glory, both now.” “Come, let us worship” (three times). Psalm 50. “Have mercy on me, O God.” “I believe in One God.” Then, according to the Sarov rule, the reader (according to the Yuriev rule—the abbot), standing in the middle of the church, began to make 30 full prostrations. Having said aloud the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us,” he made a prostration, and with him all the brethren. Each one read the same prayer with the mind and made the prostrations together with all. The prayer with prostrations was performed unhurriedly and in good order. Each monk first pronounced the prayer, then made the prostration. When the 30 prostrations with the prayer had been completed, after a brief pause, the one presiding pronounced aloud three times the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”; then each one repeated the same prayer in the mind one hundred times. Then the one presiding exclaimed: “Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, both now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen. Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia, glory to Thee, O God” (three times). “Lord, have mercy” (three times). “Glory, both now.” And again he said the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us,” and again made 30 prostrations, and then they performed 100 Jesus Prayers. Then—“Glory, both now,” “Alleluia,” and the rest. Then again the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us,” and with it they made 20 prostrations, and again read 100 prayers (“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”), “Glory, both now,” “Alleluia,” and the rest; then they read the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us,” and with it made 20 prostrations. After this they read aloud the prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos, three times: “O my Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save me, a sinner,” then in the mind they performed the same prayer one hundred times. “Glory, both now,” “Alleluia,” and the rest; then they pronounced the prayer aloud: “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos” (according to Sarov, five times with prostrations; according to Yuriev, once). According to the rule of Florishcheva Hermitage, after the prostrations and noetic prayers they read the Commemoration Book according to the Psalter, with full prostrations. In the Yuriev rule there is no mention of reading the Commemoration Book. After “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos,” the two choirs together sang sweetly “It is truly meet” and made a prostration. Then—the Trisagion through the “Our Father.” The appointed troparia of the canons (according to Sarov and Florishcheva: “Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us”). Then, according to Yuriev, the prayer: “Those who hate us and wrong us” (instead of the Commemoration Book), and 16 prostrations with the prayer of Saint Ephraim the Syrian: “O Lord and Master of my life.” “Glory to Thee, O Christ God, our hope, glory to Thee,” and the dismissal. Then—the usual mutual forgiveness of the abbot and the brethren. According to Florishcheva, after “Open unto us the doors of mercy”—“Lord, have mercy” 40 times, “More honorable than the Cherubim,” “O God, be bountiful unto us,” and the prayer of Saint Ephraim the Syrian: “O Lord and Master of my life,” with full prostrations. “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos” (three times) with full prostrations. “More honorable than the Cherubim,” the dismissal, and the mutual forgiveness of the brethren. According to Sarov, after the fivefold “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos,” there was a reading from the book of Saint Ephraim the Syrian, then: “It is truly meet,” the Trisagion through the “Our Father.” The troparia: “Have mercy on us, O Lord,” and the rest. “Lord, have mercy” 40 times. The prayers: “Thou Who at all times and at every hour...,” “Lord, have mercy” (three times), “Glory, both now,” “More honorable than the Cherubim,” “In the name of the Lord, bless, father,” “Through the prayers of our holy fathers,” “O undefiled, untainted one,” “And grant us, O Master, as we go to sleep.” Then they read the Commemoration Book according to the Psalter. Then, from the prayers before sleep—the prayer of Saint Macarius the Great to God the Father: “O Eternal God and King of all creation,” the prayer of Saint Antiochus to the Lord Jesus Christ: “O Almighty Word of the Father.” The prayer to the Holy Spirit: “O Lord, Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, have compassion.” The prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos: “O good Mother of the good King.” The prayer to the Guardian Angel: “Angel of Christ, my holy guardian.” “To thee, the Champion Leader,” and the rest. “Most glorious Ever-Virgin, Mother of Christ our God,” and the rest, the prayer of Saint Joannicius: “My hope is the Father.” Finally the one presiding made the small dismissal and pronounced the litany. Then—the mutual forgiveness of the brethren. (Nothing is said about the prayer of Saint Ephraim the Syrian.)

 

The Optina Cell Rule

 

 

In addition to the church services—the Liturgy, Matins, and Vespers with Compline, at which all the brethren of the monastery were required to be present—many of them daily read in their cell one chapter from the Gospel in sequence, beginning with the first chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew and continuing to the last chapter of the Gospel according to John, and two chapters from the Apostle likewise in sequence, beginning with the Acts of the Holy Apostles and ending with the last chapter of the Apocalypse of John the Theologian; moreover, the last seven chapters of the Apocalypse were read one per day; then the last of them was read on the same day as the last chapter of the Gospel according to John. Having thus completed the reading of the entire New Testament, they began again from the first chapters a new cycle of reading. From the Psalter they read one kathisma per day, beginning with the first and continuing through the last inclusively. In addition, they performed the so-called five-hundred cell rule in the following order: After the three prostrations usually appointed at the beginning of every prayer rule in church and in the cell, with the prayers: “O God, be merciful to me, a sinner”; “O God, cleanse my sins and have mercy on me”; “O Lord Who hast created me, have mercy! Without number have I sinned, O Lord, forgive me.” In the cell a fourth prostration was also appointed, with the prayer: “O my Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save me, a sinner”3. Then followed the usual beginning: “Through the prayers of our holy fathers, O Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us.” “Glory to Thee, our God, glory to Thee.” “O Heavenly King” and the rest (as shown in the Sarov rule) up to “I believe in One God.” After this they read 100 prayers: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” At the first 10 prayers—one full prostration at each; at the next 20 prayers—one bow from the waist at each; at the last, that is, the hundredth, prayer—a full prostration. Then came the prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos, appointed at the end of the morning prayers and beginning with the words: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos.” At the end of this prayer they made a full prostration4. Then they again performed 100 Jesus Prayers in the indicated order, with 10 full prostrations and 20 bows from the waist, and at the last Jesus Prayer—a full prostration, and again the same prayer: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos,” with a full prostration. The third hundred was performed in the same way as the first and the second. The fourth hundred of prayers was addressed to the Most Holy Theotokos: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos, save me, a sinner”5. Of this hundred, the first ten prayers were likewise performed with full prostrations, and the next 20 with bows from the waist, the remaining 69 without prostrations. The last, hundredth, prayer was with a full prostration, and after it, likewise with a full prostration, the prayer: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos.” Then 50 prayers: “Holy Angel of God, my Guardian, pray to God for me, a sinner”; at the first five prayers—one full prostration at each; at the next ten—one bow from the waist at each; and the remaining 35 prayers without prostrations, only at the last—a full prostration, and again the prayer was read: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos,” with a full prostration. After this, 50 prayers: “All Saints, pray to God for me, a sinner.” At the first five prayers—one full prostration at each; at the next ten—one bow from the waist at each; the last prayer again with a full prostration, after which there was again read: “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos,” with a full prostration. Then: “It is truly meet” and a full prostration. “Glory to Thee, O Christ God,” and the dismissal: “Through the prayers of our holy fathers, O Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us. Amen.” On weekdays they performed all the above-mentioned prostrations. On the days of Pentecost, of polyeleos feasts, of forefeasts and afterfeasts, on days when the Great Doxology is sung at Matins and full prostrations are abolished in church prayer, they were abolished also in the cell rule and replaced by bows from the waist. Likewise, only bows from the waist were always performed on those days when an All-Night Vigil was appointed to be served. In the last two days of Passion Week, throughout all of Bright Week, and beginning from December 24 to January 7 (Old Style), this cell rule was set aside, and also on Sundays, even if an All-Night Vigil was not served. Any change in the composition of this cell rule, whether its reduction or increase, was left to the will and blessing of the elder or spiritual father.

 

The Cell Rule of the Holy Trinity Sergius Riga Monastery

 

 

A chapter of the Gospel and of the Apostle; the canon to Jesus Christ and to the Most Holy Theotokos; the Akathist to the Savior or to the Mother of God, and the canon to the Guardian Angel; three kathismas and five hundreds of prayers on the prayer rope. The beginning of the rule is according to the Psalter with the Order of Services. The beginning of the hundreds: “Through the prayers of our holy fathers,” “Glory to Thee, our God,” and the rest (as before the Sarov and Yuriev rule). After “I believe in One God”—the first hundred: 30 full prostrations with the prayer “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”; 70 noetic prayers, standing, without prostrations (for rest), with the same prayer. “Glory, both now.” “Alleluia” (three times). “Lord, have mercy” (three times). “Glory, both now.” “O my Most Holy Sovereign Lady Theotokos, by Thy holy and all-powerful supplications...” “Amen.” “More honorable than the Cherubim...”8. The beginning of the second hundred: “Through the prayers of our holy fathers.” “Glory to Thee, our God,” through the “Our Father,” and the second hundred: 30 full prostrations with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”; 79 noetic prayers, standing, without prostrations for rest, with the same prayer. “Glory, both now,” and the rest. “More honorable than the Cherubim,” as after the first hundred. The third hundred is read in the same way as the second. The beginning of the fourth hundred: “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos,” and 30 full prostrations with the prayer “Most Holy Lady, Virgin Theotokos, save me, a sinner”; 70 noetic prayers of the same kind. The fifth hundred: 15 full prostrations with the prayer: “All ye heavenly ranks, Archangels and Angels, pray to God for me, a sinner,” and 35 noetic prayers of the same kind. 15 full prostrations with the prayer: “My holy Guardian Angel, preserve me from every evil and pray to God for me, a sinner”; 35 noetic prayers of the same kind. “It is truly meet,” “More honorable than the Cherubim,” “Glory, both now,” “Lord, have mercy” (three times), “Through the prayers of our holy fathers,” “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us.” For the acquisition of benefit for the soul and so as not to damage health, it was advised: at midnight to perform the first hundred alone, then to go to Matins; to perform the second hundred after Matins, and the last three in the evening, before sleep, or however one wishes. On the eves of Sundays and great feasts, from the Nativity of Christ until Theophany and from Palm Week until the Sunday of the Apostle Thomas, the rule was completely set aside, and on the days of polyeleos feasts and on Saturdays it was performed without full prostrations. The Commemoration Book was read at one’s discretion. If there was no time, it was replaced by the prayer: “Those who hate us and wrong us.” Without omission, daily, when going to sleep, the confession of sins was read: “I confess to Thee, the Lord my God and Creator, One in the Holy Trinity.” Then they read the prayers before sleep.

 

The Rule of the Seraphim-Diveyevo Women’s Monastery

 

 

Finding the rule of the Sarov monks beyond their strength and difficult, Saint Seraphim gave a daily rule taught to him by the Theotokos. Upon rising in the morning, one was to read: once “It is truly meet,” three times the “Our Father,” three times “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos,” the Symbol of Faith, then two bows from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner,” a bow from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners”; after this, two bows from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, through the Lady Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, have mercy on me, a sinner,” and likewise a bow from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, through the Lady Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, have mercy on us sinners.” At the conclusion of this rule, standing on bended knee, one must make twelve bows from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us sinners,” and in exactly the same way twelve bows from the waist with the prayer: “O my Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save us sinners.” Then the morning prayers are to be read. For those who labor, this rule may be read even while walking, during work. Until dinner one must constantly read the Jesus Prayer inwardly, and after dinner until night: “O my Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save us.” The evening rule: to read the 12 selected psalms (typical psalms) of the desert fathers, then the Commemoration Book, an instruction, and to make 100 bows from the waist with the prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners,” and one hundred bows from the waist with the prayer: “O our Sovereign Lady, Most Holy Theotokos, save us sinners.” Then the morning rule is to be repeated. At night they must again read this same rule and the prayers before sleep. The Mother of God forbade Father Seraphim to make the reading of the Akathist obligatory, so as thereby not to lay a burden and an additional sin upon anyone’s soul. On Sunday Father Seraphim gave the commandment to serve (in Diveyevo) before the Liturgy, without omission, the Paraklesis to the Mother of God, all of it sung melodiously, according to the musical notation. Then Father Seraphim ordered that, without omission, they confess and commune during all the fasts and, in addition, on the Twelve Great Feasts, without tormenting oneself with the thought that one is unworthy, “since one should not miss the opportunity, whenever possible, to make more frequent use of the grace bestowed by communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ. Striving, as far as possible, to concentrate oneself in the humble consciousness of one’s own entire sinfulness, with hope and firm faith in God’s ineffable mercy, one should approach the Holy Mystery that redeems all things and all men.

 

Russian source: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/molitva/inocheskoe-kelejnoe-pravilo/