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