Outline and Summary of “New Calendarist Propaganda” (Νεοημερολογιτικαί Προπαγάνδες)

 

Author: Panagiotis Makris (Παναγιώτης Μακρής)
Date: August 5, 2015
Length: 26 pages [previously shared on the blog https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/)

Subject: Old Calendarism, modern Orthodox saints and ascetics, cessation of commemoration, ecclesiastical communion, and the controversy surrounding the 1950 encyclical of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina.

I. General Overview

New Calendarist Propaganda is a polemical defense of the Greek Genuine Orthodox Christians (G.O.C.) against accusations circulated by defenders of the New Calendar and opponents of the Old Calendarist movement.

Makris concentrates particularly on the accusation that Old Calendarists lack modern saints and therefore attempt to appropriate saints and ascetics belonging to the official Orthodox Churches.

His principal argument is that a considerable number of modern Orthodox ascetics, including individuals honored by the New Calendarist Churches, either followed the Old Calendarist movement, ceased commemorating bishops, or maintained ecclesiastical and spiritual relationships with Old Calendarist clergy.

Consequently, Makris argues, it is historically inconsistent to venerate these figures while simultaneously condemning Old Calendarists and non-commemorators as schismatics outside the Church.

The work also advances several related arguments:

• Historical misrepresentation: New Calendarist writers allegedly suppress or distort the ecclesiastical affiliations of modern ascetics.
• Cessation of commemoration: Non-commemoration of bishops associated with innovation or Ecumenism is presented as an Orthodox confession rather than proof of schism.
• Ecclesiastical communion: The historical relationships between the G.O.C., the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), and various Athonite ascetics allegedly undermine simplistic accusations of schism.
• Sacramental grace: Makris disputes the assertion that the entire Old Calendarist movement officially teaches that the New Calendarist Churches automatically lost sacramental grace in 1924.
• The 1950 encyclical: He attempts to explain Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina's declaration concerning the invalidity of New Calendarist Mysteries as a defensive or conciliatory measure rather than a definitive expression of his ecclesiology.

The work is particularly noteworthy for its discussion of Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Ephraim of Katounakia, Elder Ephraim of Philotheou, St. Nicholas Planas, Venerable Sophia of Kleisoura, and the ecclesiastical position of Metropolitan Vitaly of ROCOR.

Its fundamental contention may be summarized as follows:

If the Church acknowledges the sanctity of men and women who resisted ecclesiastical innovation or discontinued episcopal commemoration, it cannot consistently maintain that the same resistance necessarily places someone outside the Orthodox Church.

This is an outline of Makris's own argumentation, not an independent verification of every historical allegation contained in the article.

II. Detailed Outline of the Work

1. Introduction: The Nature of Propaganda (pp. 1–2)

Makris begins by defining propaganda as the deliberate manipulation of public opinion through selective information, repetition, and the suppression of alternative interpretations.

He argues that the official Orthodox Churches enjoy significant advantages over the G.O.C. in the dissemination of information, including larger congregations, institutional resources, and greater access to communications media.

He identifies four principal areas in which he believes New Calendarist propaganda operates: the validity of Old Calendarist ordinations, the calendar controversy itself, the history of the Old Calendarist movement, and the ecclesiastical affiliations of modern saints.

His immediate concern is the last of these.

2. Modern Saints and Ascetics Associated with the Old Calendar (pp. 2–11)

This is the first major section and constitutes a collection of historical and biographical case studies.

A. Venerable Ieronymos of Aegina (1883–1966)

Makris maintains that Elder Ieronymos followed the Old Calendar, a circumstance sometimes omitted from New Calendarist accounts of his life.

He cites Sotiria Noussi's biography of the Elder as evidence that his Old Calendarist affiliation was acknowledged even by writers belonging to the New Calendar.

The case is introduced as an example of how an ascetic may be revered across ecclesiastical divisions despite his adherence to the traditional calendar.

B. Venerable John the Romanian of Chozeba (1913–1960)

Makris disputes the claim that Venerable John remained in ecclesiastical communion with the official Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Romania until his repose.

He contrasts two biographical sources:

• The 1984 Greek publication of his life and poems, translated by monks of Gregoriou Monastery on Mount Athos.
• The fuller biography published in 1987 by his disciple, Monk Ioannikios.

According to Makris, the second publication preserves information about the Elder's confession of faith that the earlier edition omitted.

He argues that after withdrawing into the wilderness in 1952, Venerable John did not concelebrate with New Calendarist clergy or with Old Calendarists who maintained communion with them.

Consequently, he regards John's subsequent recognition by the Romanian and Jerusalem Patriarchates as an example of a saint being honored by ecclesiastical authorities with whom he had not maintained communion.

C. Venerable Myrtidiotissa (Sophia) of Kleisoura (1886–1974)

Pages 3–8

This is one of the most extensive individual case studies.

Makris contends that the ascetic commonly known as St. Sophia of Kleisoura had received the monastic name Myrtidiotissa through Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle, associated with the Old Calendarist Synod of Resisters.

His principal arguments are:

1. Old Calendarists published a biography of her in 1998.
2. A chapel dedicated to her was erected at the Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina in 2001.
3. She maintained spiritual relationships with Metropolitan Cyprian and other Old Calendarist figures.
4. Makris asserts that she received the Mysteries through the Old Calendarist parish priest of Ptolemaida.
5. Her official recognition in 2011 allegedly minimized or omitted her monastic identity and Old Calendarist associations.

He also discusses competing testimonies from New Calendarist clergy and laypeople who maintained that she belonged to the official Church and received the Mysteries from its priests.

Makris rejects these testimonies as insufficient, contrasting them with the earlier Old Calendarist publications and devotional recognition.

He particularly disputes allegations that Metropolitan Cyprian attempted to abduct the ascetic or that a vision of the Theotokos instructed her to follow the New Calendar.

An important element of his argument is the distinction between living within a monastery belonging to the official Church and actually receiving the Mysteries from its clergy.

The section concludes that the Old Calendarist association with Myrtidiotissa substantially preceded her official canonization and therefore cannot reasonably be dismissed as a later appropriation.

D. Venerable Gennadios of Akoumia, Crete

Makris argues that Elder Gennadios remained an Old Calendarist until his repose.

He cites the New Calendarist theologian Stylianos Papadogiannakis, who recorded information about the Elder's life, including his wish that his funeral be served by Hieromonk Kallinikos, a priest of the Matthewite Old Calendarists.

Makris adds that the Elder received his final confession and Holy Communion from this priest and was buried according to Old Calendarist rites.

Particularly noteworthy is the Elder's reported teaching:

"How many people following the New Calendar will be found in Paradise, and how many following the Old Calendar will be found in Hell! The Old Calendar is undoubtedly correct, but the calendar alone will not save us."

The quotation continues by emphasizing Christian conduct and, above all, God's love for mankind.

This passage introduces an important qualification: adherence to the traditional calendar does not, by itself, guarantee salvation, nor does adherence to the New Calendar necessarily preclude it.

E. Other Athonite Zealot Ascetics

Makris reproduces an account of three Athonite elders whose rejection of the calendar innovation was allegedly omitted from published biographies:

• Elder Joachim of St. Anne's.
• Elder Kallinikos the Hesychast.
• Elder Ignatios the Spiritual Father.

The text emphasizes their attachment to the traditional calendar and opposition to the commemoration of ecclesiastical authorities associated with innovation.

Makris regards these cases as further examples of selective biography, whereby the ascetic virtues of these figures are celebrated while their ecclesiastical positions are minimized.

F. St. Nicholas Planas (1851–1932)

Pages 9–11

Makris challenges the assumption that St. Nicholas Planas can be presented as an opponent of the Old Calendarist movement.

He quotes the Saint's reported statement:

"By conviction, the Old; by obligation, the New."

Drawing upon the biography written by Nun Martha, he describes occasions when St. Nicholas served according to the traditional calendar, ministered to persecuted Old Calendarist Christians, and experienced harassment from ecclesiastical authorities.

The author emphasizes that during the earliest period following the 1924 reform, Old Calendarist Christians had not universally broken communion with the Church of Greece.

Thus, they could receive pastoral assistance from priests who continued in the official ecclesiastical structure but personally supported the traditional calendar.

Makris concludes that St. Nicholas should be understood as having participated in the early Old Calendarist movement, at least informally, rather than as a straightforward defender of the reform.

3. Elder Joseph the Hesychast and the Question of Commemoration (pp. 11–20)

This is the longest and arguably most important section of the entire work.

Makris examines the claim that Elder Joseph the Hesychast abandoned the Athonite Zealots in 1950 because he rejected the encyclical issued by Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina declaring New Calendarist Mysteries devoid of sanctifying grace.

A. Two conflicting accounts of Elder Joseph's change of position

Makris compares two publications:

Publication	Account presented
Spiritual Experiences of Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Karakallou Monastery, 2005	Joseph experiences a vision involving an unstable section of Mount Athos and subsequently hears a divine voice directing him toward the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Elder Ephraim of Philotheou, My Elder Joseph the Hesychast and Cave-Dweller, St. Anthony's Monastery, Arizona, 2008	Joseph reacts against the 1950 encyclical, undertakes fasting and prayer with his brotherhood, and receives a vision involving a luminous church and Christians disputing with one another.

Makris identifies differences concerning the vision itself, the participation of Joseph's disciples in his decision, and the experience of Elder Ephraim of Katounakia.

He specifically contrasts the assertion that Ephraim of Katounakia experienced spiritual liberation after the return to commemoration with Elder Ephraim of Philotheou's account that the Katounakia elder initially warned Joseph against the change.

His conclusion is that these accounts cannot simply be accepted without further examination.

B. Elder Ephraim of Katounakia

Makris challenges the assertion that Elder Ephraim of Katounakia permanently followed Joseph in restoring episcopal commemoration.

He cites testimony that Ephraim continued to serve without commemorating a bishop well into the 1970s and 1980s.

From this evidence, he concludes that Ephraim of Katounakia may never have resumed commemoration at all.

The argument draws upon testimony reported by Hieromonk Euthymios Trikaminas concerning services at Katounakia and Bourazeri.

C. Elder Ephraim of Philotheou and the Monastery of Panagia Hodegetria

Makris introduces testimony from the proceedings against the Athonite Zealot Monk Theoklitos Germanos, published in 1973–1974.

According to the quoted testimony, Elder Ephraim of Philotheou had previously encouraged monks to cease commemorating Patriarch Athenagoras because of his relations with Rome.

The testimony also alleges that while spiritually directing the Monastery of Panagia Hodegetria near Volos, Ephraim commemorated Archbishop Auxentios of the G.O.C., whereas on Mount Athos he commemorated Patriarch Demetrios.

Makris presents this as evidence that Ephraim had maintained practical relationships with both the Old Calendarist hierarchy and the official ecclesiastical authorities.

He also reproduces an account attributed to Elder Alypios of Kapsala concerning contradictory instructions allegedly received by Ephraim about discontinuing and then restoring commemoration.

Makris regards these accounts as evidence of inconsistency in the ecclesiastical positions attributed to the Elder.

D. Did Elder Joseph resume commemoration permanently?

The author advances several possibilities:

• Joseph may never actually have resumed commemorating the Patriarch.
• If he did resume in 1950, the change might have been temporary.
• He might subsequently have returned to non-commemoration as Ecumenism became more pronounced.

He also emphasizes testimony that certain disciples of Joseph continued not to commemorate bishops until they entered established Athonite monasteries.

Makris therefore regards the conventional narrative of a definitive, permanent return to commemoration in 1950 as inadequately demonstrated.

E. The theological problem presented by Elder Joseph's sanctity

Makris then raises what he considers a decisive question.

Elder Joseph's ascetic life, spiritual experiences, and reputation for holiness developed during decades in which he belonged to the Zealot movement and did not commemorate the Patriarch.

If this position necessarily placed him outside the Church, Makris asks, how can his extraordinary spiritual life during that period be explained?

Conversely, if Joseph was genuinely holy during his years of non-commemoration, how can the same practice be condemned as intrinsically schismatic?

This leads to the section's central conclusion: the sanctity of Elder Joseph and his disciples cannot be used as an argument against non-commemoration without first addressing their own history of non-commemoration.

4. The Invisible Ascetics of Mount Athos (pp. 20–21)

Makris discusses the tradition concerning the invisible, or naked, ascetics of Mount Athos.

His principal source is Monk Vlasios of Vigla's The Invisible Hermits of Athos (2006).

According to the account he reproduces, twelve anonymous Athonite hermits confessed to Hieromonk Leontios the Cave-Dweller.

Makris asserts that Leontios was an Old Calendarist priest who received spiritual guidance concerning his subsequent ministry on Samos.

He therefore argues that these mysterious ascetics maintained a sacramental relationship with a non-commemorating Old Calendarist priest.

For Makris, this constitutes another challenge to the accusation that cessation of commemoration necessarily signifies separation from the Church.

5. Saints and Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (pp. 21–23)

Makris expands his argument beyond Greece by examining ROCOR.

He mentions figures such as Archbishop John Maximovitch, Metropolitan Philaret, and Bishop Constantine (Essensky).

His complaint is that New Calendarists honor prominent ROCOR figures while condemning Greek Old Calendarists as schismatics, despite ROCOR's historical opposition to Ecumenism and its formal relationships with Old Calendarist jurisdictions.

He highlights two periods of ecclesiastical relations:

• 1969–1978: ROCOR's communion with the Greek Old Calendarist Synod under Archbishop Auxentios.
• 1992–2002: Relations under Metropolitan Vitaly with the Synod of Resisters headed by Metropolitan Cyprian.

Makris additionally maintains that ROCOR preserved limited relations with the Serbian Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem for historical and pastoral reasons.

He interprets these relationships as examples of economia under exceptional circumstances, rather than evidence that ROCOR accepted the ecclesiastical positions of the official Churches generally.

The author also draws a parallel between the persecution of Orthodox Christians under Soviet Communism and the persecution of Greek Old Calendarists following the 1924 reform.

Although acknowledging that the Soviet persecution was more severe, he insists that both circumstances involved genuine ecclesiastical persecution.

His conclusion is that it is inconsistent to justify ROCOR's separation from Moscow while condemning the Greek Old Calendarists for withdrawing from the ecclesiastical authorities responsible for the calendar innovation.

6. Metropolitan Vitaly and the 2007 Reconciliation with Moscow (pp. 23–24)

Makris rejects the suggestion that ROCOR's reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007 disproves its earlier anti-Ecumenist positions.

He emphasizes that Metropolitan Vitaly had reposed in 2006, before the Act of Canonical Communion.

The author strongly criticizes Metropolitan Laurus and other hierarchs associated with the reconciliation.

He alleges that Vitaly had been subjected to pressure to resign, mistreatment, and attempts to discredit his mental competence.

He further maintains that those who remained separated from Moscow were the authentic continuators of the anti-Ecumenist witness of Metropolitans Philaret and Vitaly.

The section also contains allegations concerning the final days of Metropolitan Laurus and supposed expressions of repentance by prominent participants in the calendar reform.

These are serious historical allegations, and the article does not furnish sufficient independent documentation to establish them. They should be treated as claims made by Makris rather than established facts.

7. The Question of Sacramental Grace (pp. 24–25)

Here the argument moves from biography and ecclesiastical history to a more explicit ecclesiological issue.

Makris addresses the accusation that the Old Calendarists teach that the adoption of the New Calendar in 1924 immediately deprived the official Orthodox Churches of sanctifying grace.

He denies that this represents the universal or official position of the Old Calendarist movement.

He then argues that declarations denying sacramental grace to particular ecclesiastical bodies were not unique to the Greek G.O.C.

He refers to the Russian Catacomb Church and sections of ROCOR that questioned or denied the validity of Mysteries celebrated by clergy associated with Sergianism or Ecumenism.

He also cites Metropolitan Philaret's personal ecclesiological judgments and the position attributed to Bishop Gregory of Florida.

Makris argues that critics apply inconsistent standards by vigorously condemning Old Calendarist declarations of gracelessness while being more tolerant of Ecumenist statements recognizing the Mysteries of heterodox communities.

This is a central theological distinction in the work: the author defends resistance to Ecumenism without accepting that every Old Calendarist declaration regarding the absence of grace must represent the binding ecclesiology of all Old Calendarists.

8. The 1950 Encyclical of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina (pp. 24–25)

This final substantive section is particularly important for understanding Makris's ecclesiological position.

The 1950 encyclical issued under Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina declared the official Church of Greece schismatic in actuality (ἐνεργείᾳ) and its Mysteries devoid of sanctifying grace.

Makris attempts to defend the Metropolitan against criticism of this declaration.

A. Comparison with St. Mark of Ephesus

He observes that St. Mark of Ephesus employed expressions of ecclesiastical courtesy toward the Pope and the Latins, including terminology that could appear to recognize Rome as a sister Church.

Makris argues that such language did not necessarily express St. Mark's definitive theological convictions.

He therefore suggests that similarly problematic expressions in Metropolitan Chrysostomos's encyclical should be interpreted in light of his broader ecclesiastical position.

B. The encyclical as a defensive measure

Makris advances the interpretation that Metropolitan Chrysostomos adopted the uncompromising language of the 1950 encyclical for defensive reasons and in an effort to reestablish unity among divided Old Calendarists.

He suggests that the Metropolitan did not personally believe the New Calendarist Mysteries to be entirely devoid of grace.

The author presents the encyclical as a concession to the stricter ecclesiological position associated with the Matthewite division.

C. The alleged repudiation of the encyclical's position

Makris appeals to statements attributed to Metropolitan Chrysostomos in December 1950, published in Voice of Orthodoxy and Vradyni, in which the Metropolitan reportedly explained that he had signed the encyclical in self-defense.

Makris interprets these statements, together with the Metropolitan's subsequent practice, as evidence that the position expressed in the encyclical did not represent his definitive ecclesiological convictions.

An important qualification is necessary here. The text supplies Makris's interpretation of the December statements, but it does not reproduce a formal synodal revocation of the encyclical.

Thus, the claim that the Metropolitan effectively rejected its ecclesiological propositions remains an interpretive conclusion rather than a demonstrated formal rescission.

9. Epilogue (pp. 25–26)

Makris acknowledges that his article addresses only a small selection of the accusations directed against the G.O.C.

He identifies the appropriation of modern saints as one of the most serious issues and hopes his discussion will strengthen Old Calendarist Christians in their ecclesiastical struggle.

III. Principal Theological and Ecclesiological Conclusions

Beyond its biographical discussions, the work advances several identifiable ecclesiological propositions.

1. Non-commemoration does not necessarily constitute schism.

The repeated examples of revered ascetics who discontinued episcopal commemoration are intended to establish that non-commemoration can be an expression of fidelity to Orthodoxy.

Although the author does not develop a systematic canonical exposition of Canon 15 of the First-Second Council, the underlying principle corresponds to its defense of separation from hierarchs publicly preaching heresy.

2. Ecclesiastical communion must be examined historically rather than assumed.

Makris repeatedly distinguishes personal calendar observance, institutional jurisdiction, sacramental communion, and episcopal commemoration.

These distinctions are especially important in his discussions of St. Nicholas Planas, Venerable Myrtidiotissa, the early Old Calendarist movement, and Athonite monasticism.

3. Personal sanctity cannot be reduced to ecclesiastical affiliation.

The examples of Elder Joseph the Hesychast and Venerable Gennadios are particularly significant.

Makris maintains that personal holiness cannot be disproved simply because an individual followed the Old Calendar or ceased commemorating a bishop.

At the same time, the testimony attributed to Venerable Gennadios explicitly acknowledges the possibility of salvation among New Calendarist Christians.

4. Ecclesiastical economia has historical precedents.

Makris recognizes that ROCOR sometimes maintained limited communion with ecclesiastical bodies from which it otherwise remained separated.

He explains these exceptions through historical necessity and economia rather than treating every instance of communion as an absolute endorsement of the ecclesiastical position of the other body.

5. Declarations concerning sacramental gracelessness require careful interpretation.

The defense of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina suggests that Makris distinguishes between an ecclesiastical body's compromised or schismatic condition and a definitive judgment that all its Mysteries lack sanctifying grace.

This is one of the work's most consequential positions.

It also reveals a tension in the author's argument: he strongly condemns the official Churches as compromised by heresy while questioning the claim that the adoption of the New Calendar necessarily resulted in the immediate disappearance of sacramental grace.

IV. Evaluation of the Author's Argument

The work has several important strengths as a historical polemic, but its evidentiary limitations should also be recognized.

Strongest contributions

The recovery of overlooked biographical material. Makris brings together accounts concerning the ecclesiastical positions of modern ascetics that are sometimes neglected in popular biographies.

The comparison of published accounts of Elder Joseph. His examination of the Karakallou and Arizona publications raises legitimate questions about differences in the presentation of the Elder's experiences and decisions. Those differences merit careful examination of the original sources, even though they do not necessarily prove deliberate falsification.

The recognition of ecclesiastical complexity. The discussion of St. Nicholas Planas and the early Old Calendarists provides an important reminder that the relationships between calendar observance, commemoration, and ecclesiastical communion were not always identical.

The discussion of Metropolitan Chrysostomos's ecclesiology. Makris recognizes that the 1950 encyclical cannot be adequately understood without considering the Metropolitan's earlier and later statements and the divisions within the Old Calendarist movement.

Significant limitations

Several arguments depend upon inference rather than conclusive documentary evidence.

For example, evidence that an ascetic did not commemorate a bishop does not, by itself, establish membership in a particular Old Calendarist jurisdiction. Likewise, differences between two accounts of a vision do not necessarily demonstrate that either account was intentionally fabricated.

The section concerning Venerable Myrtidiotissa presents substantial evidence of early Old Calendarist devotion, but prior veneration alone does not settle every question concerning her monastic tonsure or sacramental relationships.

Makris also occasionally moves from demonstrating an individual's past association with the Zealots to suggesting that this association continued until death, without supplying documentation sufficient to establish the complete chronology.

The treatment of Metropolitan Vitaly contains particularly serious accusations that require independent archival and historical verification.

Finally, the explanation of the 1950 encyclical as a deliberate defensive concession is historically consequential but insufficiently demonstrated by the material reproduced in the article.

V. Overall Summary

Panagiotis Makris's New Calendarist Propaganda is primarily an apologetic defense of the Old Calendarist movement against the accusation that its ecclesiastical separation has deprived it of authentic Orthodox sanctity.

His argument proceeds through the lives of modern ascetics, the history of Athonite non-commemoration, ROCOR's relationships with the Greek Old Calendarists, and the controversy surrounding the 1950 encyclical.

The article is especially concerned with demonstrating that individuals now honored as saints by the official Orthodox Churches were sometimes themselves opponents of the calendar reform, associated with Old Calendarist clergy, or separated from bishops on account of Ecumenism.

Its most significant theological implication is that cessation of commemoration cannot be condemned as intrinsically schismatic without also confronting the lives and ecclesiastical practices of ascetics whose holiness is widely acknowledged.

At the same time, Makris does not present a uniformly rigorist ecclesiology. His treatment of Venerable Gennadios, ROCOR's limited ecclesiastical relationships, and Metropolitan Chrysostomos's 1950 encyclical suggests an effort to distinguish opposition to innovation and heresy from the automatic denial of grace to everyone remaining in the official Churches.

The most valuable portions for further historical and ecclesiological study are the material concerning Elder Joseph and his disciples (pp. 11–20), ROCOR's communion with the Greek Old Calendarists (pp. 21–23), and the interpretation of Metropolitan Chrysostomos's 1950 encyclical (pp. 24–25).

These sections bear directly on the distinction between separation from heresy, formal ecclesiastical schism, the exercise of economia, and the question of whether a compromised ecclesiastical body may retain sacramental grace prior to definitive ecclesiastical judgment.

 

Generated by ChatGPT-6.0 on October 29, 2026.

Original Greek essay:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZkrnqvgVlroIaVDMeMV_ywE7VhZ8bq7v/view?usp=sharing

Outline and Summary of “In Defense of the Conciliar Structure of the Orthodox Church: The Theory of the Primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople and Its Critique”

 

Russian title: В защиту соборного устройства Православной Церкви: теория первенства Константинопольского патриарха и её критика
Author: Abbot Dionisy (Shlyonov), Игумен Дионисий (Шлёнов)
Institution: Moscow Theological Academy
Date: Moscow, 2026
Nature of work: Doctoral dissertation in Theology
Length: 1,672 pages, comprising an introduction, seven main parts containing 17 chapters, an eighth synthetic part, conclusion, bibliography, and indexes.

I. General Overview

This dissertation is an exceptionally extensive defense of Orthodox conciliar ecclesiology (соборная экклесиология) against contemporary theories assigning the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople universal jurisdictional, judicial, and administrative prerogatives over the other Autocephalous Orthodox Churches.

Its immediate historical context is the growing disagreement between the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow, particularly following Constantinople's intervention in Ukraine in 2018 and its granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine in January 2019.

However, the dissertation is substantially broader than the Ukrainian controversy. It investigates the historical development of Constantinople's primacy from the early Byzantine period through the Ottoman era and into the twenty-first century, examining whether its contemporary claims are supported by the sacred canons, Patristic ecclesiology, Byzantine jurisprudence, and historical precedent.

Central thesis

The author argues that Constantinople possesses a legitimate primacy of honor and precedence among the Orthodox Patriarchates, but not a universal primacy of jurisdiction that would permit it to govern other Autocephalous Churches, intervene in their internal affairs, adjudicate appeals without their consent, or unilaterally establish new autocephalies.

For Abbot Dionisy, the Orthodox Church is a communion of mutually independent and equally authoritative Local Churches, united through the Orthodox faith, the Holy Mysteries, and conciliar agreement.

No individual patriarch possesses the judicial or administrative authority of a universal head of the Church.

Only Christ is Head of the Church in the ultimate theological sense.

The author maintains that contemporary supporters of Constantinople's expanded prerogatives have developed an ecclesiological theory that substantially departs from this traditional conciliar model.

He identifies several defects in the theory:

• It confuses primacy of honor with primacy of authority.
• It interprets local or regional canonical prerogatives as universal jurisdictional rights.
• It elevates isolated historical precedents into permanently binding canonical principles.
• It sometimes interprets ancient canonical texts through categories developed many centuries after their composition.
• It applies the concept of the Mother Church in ways that compromise the full independence of daughter Churches.
• It employs ecclesiastical economia to justify interventions that the author considers contrary to the sacred canons.
• It undermines the equality of Orthodox bishops and Autocephalous Churches.

The dissertation argues that these developments resemble certain features of Roman Catholic papal ecclesiology, even though Constantinople's defenders commonly reject direct comparisons with papal supremacy.

The author's six formal propositions

In the section entitled Propositions Submitted for Defense (pp. 182–183), Abbot Dionisy explicitly states that:

1. The contemporary theory of Constantinopolitan primacy fundamentally contradicts traditional Orthodox conciliar ecclesiology.
2. Its foundations include arbitrary interpretations of theological texts, canonical terminology, and historical precedents.
3. Constantinople's extraterritorial application of economia in Ukraine has contributed to ecclesiastical division and, according to the author, persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
4. Accusations of ethnophyletism and the alleged heresy of the Russian World against Moscow serve, in his assessment, to justify Constantinople's interventions.
5. The theory of primacy has become a major cause of the present ecclesiastical division.
6. The Russian Orthodox Church's defense of conciliar ecclesiology is necessary for the preservation of Orthodox ecclesiastical unity.

These propositions establish both the academic scope and the confessional position of the dissertation. Its historical research is undertaken from an explicitly Moscow-oriented ecclesiological standpoint, rather than from a position of institutional neutrality.

II. Detailed Outline of the Work

The dissertation is divided into eight parts, the first seven containing 17 chapters. The eighth summarizes and systematically refutes the eight principal claims of contemporary Constantinopolitan primacy theory.

Part I. The Law of Councils and Customary Law (pp. 222–335)

Право Соборов и право по обычаю

Chapter 1. Critique of Primacy Theory from the Perspective of Orthodox Ecclesiology (pp. 222–273)

Dionisy begins by distinguishing two forms of ecclesiastical law:

Conciliar canonical law: The binding principles expressed in the canons of the Ecumenical and Local Councils.

Customary or precedent-based law: Ecclesiastical practices and privileges that developed under particular historical circumstances without necessarily acquiring universally binding canonical force.

He contends that defenders of Constantinople's primacy frequently treat historically contingent privileges as though they possessed the authority of universal conciliar legislation.

The chapter examines the first-millennium primacy of Rome, the pentarchy, and the terminology of the first throne (πρωτόθρονος).

Particular attention is given to Patriarch Dositheos II of Jerusalem, whom Dionisy identifies as an important defender of the canonical equality of the Patriarchates.

He also examines Metropolitan Gregory Papathomas's theory of hierarchical relationships among the Local Churches.

The author argues that rank in the diptychs cannot establish a superior degree of episcopal authority over other Autocephalous Churches.

He concludes by surveying historical instances of what he considers unilateral action by Constantinople, culminating in the policies of Patriarch Bartholomew.

Chapter 2. The Primacy of Constantinople in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine History (pp. 274–335)

This chapter investigates the original canonical foundations of Constantinople's ecclesiastical precedence.

The principal texts examined include:

Canon or source	Central question
Apostolic Canon 34	Does the relationship between the first bishop and his fellow bishops establish universal primacy?
Apostolic Canon 35	What limits apply to episcopal jurisdiction?
First Ecumenical Council, Canons 6–7	What rights belong to the ancient episcopal sees?
Council of Sardica, Canons 3–5	What is the significance of Rome's appellate privileges?
Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 3	What does Constantinople's precedence after Rome entail?
Chalcedon, Canons 9 and 17	Within what jurisdiction may Constantinople hear appeals?
Chalcedon, Canon 28	What territory and privileges were assigned to Constantinople?

Dionisy examines the legal significance of the Eisagoge (Εἰσαγωγή), an important Byzantine legal compilation associated with the ninth century.

He also considers the interplay between imperial legislation and ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

The author acknowledges that Constantinople exercised extensive ecclesiastical influence during the Byzantine period.

However, he argues that this influence was closely associated with its position as the imperial capital and cannot automatically establish permanent universal jurisdiction.

Principal conclusion of Part I: The canonical precedence of Constantinople is genuine, but the historical extension of its influence must not be confused with a universally binding right to govern the other Patriarchates.

Part II. The Conciliar Structure of the Orthodox Church and Its Distortions (pp. 336–533)

Соборное устройство Православной Церкви и его искажения

Chapter 3. Who Is the Head of the Church? (pp. 336–383)

This chapter establishes the theological foundations of Dionisy's ecclesiology.

He maintains that Jesus Christ alone is Head of the Universal Church and that no patriarch may be identified with Christ's universal headship.

He examines Apostolic Canon 34 through the interpretations of Zonaras, Balsamon, Aristenos, and Matthew Blastares.

Dionisy argues that the canon concerns the relationship between bishops and their ecclesiastical superior within a defined regional structure.

He rejects its application to the whole Orthodox Church as though the Ecumenical Patriarch were the universal first bishop possessing authority over every other primate.

He also examines historical descriptions of ecclesiastical hierarchy and the nature of episcopal equality.

The distinction is between different episcopal responsibilities and different degrees of episcopal authority.

Two bishops may occupy sees with different historical precedence while possessing the same sacramental fullness of the episcopal office.

Chapter 4. The Mother Church in Patristic Tradition (pp. 384–450)

This chapter is particularly important for the controversy concerning the independence of Autocephalous Churches.

Dionisy traces the concept of the Mother Church (Μήτηρ Ἐκκλησία) through early Christian, Cappadocian, and Byzantine sources.

He examines the writings of St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Cyril of Alexandria.

His central contention is that the expression originally described the Church herself as the spiritual mother of believers.

Only secondarily was it applied to a particular ecclesiastical see in relation to a Church established through its missionary or administrative activity.

Dionisy argues that this historical relationship does not grant a Mother Church permanent jurisdiction over an Autocephalous daughter Church.

He also examines Constantinople's relationship with the Churches of Greece and Bulgaria during the nineteenth century.

A substantial section concerns the authority to convene councils.

The author maintains that the Byzantine emperors historically exercised the right to summon Ecumenical Councils and that this authority did not automatically pass to Constantinople after the fall of the Empire.

Chapter 5. The Granting of Autocephaly in Ecclesiastical Tradition (pp. 451–533)

This chapter systematically examines the history of Orthodox autocephaly.

The author first investigates the meaning of the Greek term αὐτοκέφαλος and its historical development.

He then surveys the establishment and recognition of numerous Autocephalous Churches.

The principal case studies include:

• The Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Albanian, and Bulgarian Churches.
• The Polish, Finnish, and Estonian Churches.
• The Orthodox Church of Ukraine.
• The Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.
• The Macedonian and Georgian Churches.

Dionisy contends that autocephaly means genuine ecclesiastical independence, not a limited autonomy permanently subject to the Patriarchate that granted it.

He argues that historical autocephalies developed through various procedures, frequently involving negotiations, conciliar recognition, and the consent of the relevant Mother Church.

Consequently, he rejects the assertion that Constantinople alone possesses an exclusive, universally applicable right to grant autocephaly.

Principal conclusion of Part II: The Orthodox Church is composed of genuinely independent Local Churches, whose unity depends upon a common faith and conciliar agreement rather than subordination to a single ecclesiastical center.

Part III. Primacy and Hierarchical Relationships Among the Primates (pp. 534–612)

Chapter 6. Can There Be a Hierarchy Among the Primates of Local Churches? (pp. 534–581)

Dionisy investigates the meaning of hierarchy (ἱεραρχία) in Byzantine theology.

He examines the Areopagitic corpus, St. Niketas Stethatos, and other Patristic sources.

He argues that hierarchy refers to sacred order, ministry, and spiritual responsibilities, not necessarily to a chain of superior and subordinate jurisdictional authorities.

His concern is the contemporary application of hierarchy to the relationship among the primates of Autocephalous Churches.

Dionisy rejects the proposition that the Ecumenical Patriarch occupies a higher hierarchical degree than the other Orthodox primates.

He examines historical occasions when Constantinople itself fell into heresy, invoking St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Theodore the Studite, and St. Photios.

These examples are used to demonstrate that the canonical precedence of an ecclesiastical see cannot guarantee its permanent doctrinal correctness.

Chapter 7. The Title “Ecumenical” and the Legislation of Justinian (pp. 582–612)

This chapter investigates the historical meaning of the title Ecumenical Patriarch (Οἰκουμενικὸς Πατριάρχης).

Dionisy examines the use of οἰκουμενικός in Greek literature, ecclesiastical documents, and imperial legislation.

Particular attention is given to the reign of Justinian and the development of patriarchal titulature during the sixth century.

He argues that ecumenical originally reflected the patriarch's status within the imperial oikoumene rather than an unlimited jurisdiction over the entire Christian world.

He also reviews the controversy surrounding the title in the late sixth century.

The author concludes that the historical title cannot establish universal administrative or judicial prerogatives.

Principal conclusion of Part III: Differences of title, honor, and ceremonial precedence do not establish unequal degrees of episcopal authority among the primates of Autocephalous Churches.

Part IV. Appeals and the Orthodox Diaspora (pp. 613–771)

Апелляция и диаспора

Chapter 8. Patriarch Dositheos II of Jerusalem Against Extraterritorial Appeals (pp. 613–647)

This chapter examines the interpretation of Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon.

Dionisy emphasizes the distinction between an appellate tribunal operating within a recognized jurisdiction and a universal appellate tribunal possessing authority over every Orthodox Church.

He gives particular attention to Patriarch Dositheos II of Jerusalem, whose writings he interprets as rejecting Constantinople's right to intervene judicially beyond its canonical territory.

He maintains that the highest ecclesiastical judicial authority belongs to a competent Synod rather than to a single patriarch.

The author criticizes interpretations of Byzantine historical precedents that portray Constantinople as possessing the equivalent of a universal supreme court.

Chapter 9. The Meaning of “Among the Barbarians” in Canon 28 of Chalcedon (pp. 648–731)

This is one of the dissertation's most extensive exercises in historical canonical exegesis.

The disputed Greek phrase is:

ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς

Commonly rendered “among the barbarians” or “in the barbarian territories.”

Dionisy examines how the phrase was understood by Byzantine canonists, particularly Zonaras, Balsamon, and Aristenos.

He also considers interpretations identifying the relevant peoples with the Goths, Alans, and other populations near the Byzantine Empire.

His argument is that the phrase referred to particular territories or populations connected with the ecclesiastical administration contemplated by Chalcedon.

He strongly rejects the interpretation that it grants Constantinople jurisdiction over all Orthodox Christians living outside the historically established territories of Autocephalous Churches.

The author attributes the expansion of this interpretation particularly to Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis and developments beginning in 1923.

Chapter 10. The Orthodox Diaspora in Conciliar Ecclesiology (pp. 732–771)

Dionisy turns to the practical jurisdictional problem of the Orthodox diaspora.

He examines the history of Greek Orthodox parishes in North America, including their relationship with the Church of Greece between 1908 and 1921 and their subsequent subordination to Constantinople.

He also discusses Orthodox episcopal assemblies, the preparations for the Pan-Orthodox Council, and the decisions of the Council of Crete in 2016.

The author argues that the participation of multiple Autocephalous Churches in ministering to their diaspora cannot be resolved by asserting an exclusive worldwide jurisdiction of Constantinople.

He favors arrangements based upon agreement among the Local Churches.

Principal conclusion of Part IV: Neither the appellate canons of Chalcedon nor Canon 28 establishes the universal extraterritorial authority claimed by Constantinople's contemporary defenders.

Part V. Accusations Against Russia and the Russian World (pp. 772–876)

Chapter 11. The Moscow Patriarchate, the Documents of 1590, and the Transfer of Kiev in 1686 (pp. 772–826)

This chapter examines two historical controversies.

The first concerns the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate and the significance of a document issued in 1590.

Dionisy analyzes the expression describing the Constantinopolitan Patriarch as the head and beginning of the other ecclesiastical primates.

He argues that the relevant Greek manuscript passage is damaged and was subsequently restored by another hand, making its precise original wording uncertain.

He therefore rejects interpretations that treat the phrase as indisputable proof of Constantinople's superior jurisdiction.

The second controversy concerns the transfer of the Kievan Metropolis to the jurisdiction of Moscow in 1686.

Dionisy examines the correspondence of Patriarch Dositheos II of Jerusalem and competing versions of a letter dated April 1686.

He argues that Dositheos's position must be understood in its complete historical context rather than through selected quotations.

His principal conclusion is that Constantinople cannot legitimately treat the transfer of 1686 as a temporary arrangement revocable unilaterally centuries later.

Chapter 12. The Condemnation of Phyletism at the Council of Constantinople in 1872 (pp. 827–876)

This chapter examines the ecclesiastical controversy surrounding the Bulgarian Exarchate.

Dionisy reproduces and comments upon the Greek text of the conciliar Oros issued on September 16, 1872.

He investigates the meaning of phyletism (φυλετισμός), distinguishing it from the later terminology of ethnophyletism (ἐθνοφυλετισμός).

A particularly important conclusion is that the Council's final formulation was, in his interpretation, more restrained than some of the preceding accusations against the Bulgarians.

He acknowledges that the document condemned phyletism and the schismatic ecclesiastical arrangements associated with it.

However, he disputes the assertion that its wording establishes a comprehensive and unambiguous dogmatic definition of ethnophyletism as a heresy applicable to every subsequent national ecclesiastical controversy.

He argues that contemporary accusations against the Russian Orthodox Church fail to account adequately for the historical particularities of the Bulgarian controversy.

Principal conclusion of Part V: Dionisy maintains that arguments drawn from the documents of 1590, 1686, and 1872 are frequently employed without sufficient attention to their textual condition, historical context, or original canonical scope.

Part VI. The Establishment of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (pp. 877–1034)

The author identifies this as the most consequential practical manifestation of Constantinopolitan primacy theory.

Chapter 13. The Question of Autocephaly During Preparations for a Pan-Orthodox Council (pp. 877–929)

Dionisy traces negotiations concerning the granting of autocephaly throughout the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.

He examines the Moscow Pan-Orthodox Conference of 1948, the Rhodes meetings beginning in 1961, and subsequent preparatory commissions in Geneva.

Particular attention is given to discussions in 1990, 1993, 2009, and 2011.

He contends that the Orthodox Churches had not reached a universally accepted agreement granting Constantinople the exclusive right to proclaim autocephaly.

The author also discusses the Moscow Patriarchate's granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in America in 1970–1971, using this as an example of the disputed but historically exercised right of a Mother Church to grant independence.

He concludes that the Ukrainian intervention occurred despite the absence of the necessary Pan-Orthodox consensus.

Chapter 14. Constantinople's Actions in 2018 and Their Reception in Greece (pp. 930–980)

Dionisy examines Constantinople's presentation of its historical claims in the publication The Documents Speak (Μιλούν τὰ Κείμενα).

He considers the documents concerning the Kievan Metropolis, the jurisdiction of Moscow, and the commemoration of ecclesiastical primates.

He argues that their interpretation was designed to support Constantinople's unilateral intervention.

The chapter also examines the Church of Greece's decision of October 12, 2019, and the subsequent recognition of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine by Greek hierarchs.

Dionisy questions the procedure and canonical legitimacy of this recognition.

Chapter 15. Excessive Economia Toward the Ukrainian Schismatic Hierarchy (pp. 981–1034)

This chapter is especially important for the dissertation's sacramental ecclesiology.

Dionisy distinguishes between acrivia and economia in the reception of heretics and schismatics.

He argues that economia must operate within genuine canonical and sacramental possibilities.

It cannot, in his understanding, simply create an episcopal ordination where no valid episcopal consecration ever existed.

Two cases receive particular attention.

Filaret Denisenko: Dionisy disputes Constantinople's authority to overturn the canonical penalties imposed upon Filaret by Moscow and to restore him to episcopal standing without the consent of the Church that had imposed those penalties.

Makary Maletych: The author examines the episcopal succession underlying Makary's consecration, questioning the validity of particular links in that succession and the implications of consecrations involving only one bishop.

He also reviews the reception of former Iconoclast bishops at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

His objection is that precedents for receiving clergy from heresy cannot be applied indiscriminately to every irregular episcopal consecration.

The author regards Constantinople's Ukrainian policy as an illegitimate extension of economia beyond its canonical limits.

Principal conclusion of Part VI: The Ukrainian intervention is presented as the practical consequence of Constantinople's claim to universal appellate and jurisdictional authority, with particularly serious implications for episcopal ordinations, the reception of schismatics, and Orthodox unity.

Part VII. Supporters and Critics of Primacy Theory in Greek Orthodoxy (pp. 1035–1266)

Chapter 16. Supporters of Constantinopolitan Primacy (pp. 1035–1198)

Dionisy critically examines prominent Greek hierarchs, theologians, and canonists who have defended the expanded prerogatives of Constantinople.

Among the principal figures discussed are:

Figure	Principal subject
Metropolitan John Zizioulas	Eucharistic ecclesiology, theological primacy, Trinitarian analogies, and Apostolic Canon 34
Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos	Autocephaly, economia, and interpretations of the Ukrainian controversy
Metropolitan Gregory Papathomas	Hierarchical relationships among the Churches and universal Constantinopolitan prerogatives
Metropolitan Cyril Katerelos	Judicial appeals and the canonical interpretation of Chalcedon
Archbishop Makarios of Australia	Historical defense of Constantinopolitan primacy and appellate jurisdiction
Metropolitan Emmanuel Adamakis	Ecclesiastical authority and Constantinople's international role
Metropolitan Andrew Nanakis	Historical arguments supporting Constantinople's position

He also examines several other clergy and lay scholars, including Vlasios Feidas and A. Vavouskos.

The most substantial discussion concerns Zizioulas.

Dionisy criticizes the use of analogies between the monarchy of God the Father within the Holy Trinity and the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch among the Orthodox primates.

He argues that Trinitarian theology cannot legitimately be employed to establish a single universal ecclesiastical ruler.

He also disputes the application of Eucharistic ecclesiology to justify a universal Constantinopolitan primacy.

Chapter 17. Defenders of Conciliar Ecclesiology After 2016 (pp. 1199–1266)

Dionisy then examines Greek and other Orthodox figures who have opposed Constantinople's Ukrainian intervention.

He discusses hierarchs of the Church of Greece and Cyprus, together with Archbishop Anastasios of Albania.

He also examines:

• Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis.
• Protopresbyter Angelos Angelakopoulos.
• Protopresbyter Ioannis Diotis.
• Protopresbyter Anastasios Gotsopoulos.
• Athonite monks and theologians.
• Monk Seraphim Zisis.

Two figures receive especially extensive treatment.

Protopresbyter Anastasios Gotsopoulos is discussed in connection with his canonical criticism of Ukrainian autocephaly.

Monk Seraphim Zisis is examined particularly for his criticism of the theological analogy between the monarchy of the Father and the supposed universal primacy of Constantinople.

Dionisy presents these figures as evidence that opposition to Constantinople's expanded jurisdictional claims is not confined to Russian theologians.

Principal conclusion of Part VII: The controversy is presented not simply as a dispute between Greeks and Russians but as an ecclesiological disagreement within contemporary Orthodoxy, including among Greek theologians and hierarchs themselves.

Part VIII. Eight Principal Claims of Constantinopolitan Primacy and Their Critique (pp. 1267–1301)

This is the most concise systematic presentation of the dissertation's argument.

Claim attributed to primacy theory	Dionisy's response
1. Constantinople possesses a universal character.	Its historical title and precedence do not establish worldwide jurisdiction.
2. Constantinople inherited Rome's supreme judicial and administrative powers.	No Ecumenical Council transferred universal papal prerogatives to Constantinople.
3. The Ecumenical Patriarch is the supreme court of appeal.	The relevant canons concern jurisdictionally limited appeals, not appeals from every Autocephalous Church.
4. Only Constantinople may grant autocephaly.	Autocephaly must respect the rights of the relevant Mother Church and the conciliar agreement of the Churches.
5. Constantinople alone possesses jurisdiction over the worldwide Orthodox diaspora.	Canon 28 of Chalcedon cannot establish such universal jurisdiction.
6. Only the Ecumenical Patriarch can convene an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox Council.	The historical right of convocation cannot be transformed into an exclusive permanent privilege.
7. Constantinople remains the head or Mother Church of its former daughter Churches.	Genuine autocephaly establishes ecclesiastical independence and equality.
8. The institution of primacy is indispensable to the unity of the Church.	Unity belongs to the whole Church through Christ, common faith, and conciliarity, not through the superior jurisdiction of one patriarch.

Dionisy concludes that these eight propositions collectively constitute a substantially new ecclesiological system.

He regards their application as a transformation of Constantinople's traditional primacy of honor into a universal primacy of authority.

III. Overall Theological and Ecclesiological Conclusions

Several fundamental conclusions emerge from the dissertation.

1. Orthodox ecclesiology is fundamentally conciliar

Dionisy maintains that the Orthodox Church is not governed by a universal patriarch possessing authority over all other bishops.

Its unity is expressed through common faith, sacramental communion, and the conciliar agreement of the Local Churches.

2. Primacy of honor must be distinguished from primacy of jurisdiction

The author acknowledges Constantinople's historical precedence.

However, he rejects the inference that its place in the diptychs grants it authority to administer or judge the other Autocephalous Churches.

This distinction forms the center of his argument.

3. The interpretation of the sacred canons must respect their historical context

Dionisy repeatedly criticizes the use of individual historical precedents detached from their original circumstances.

He argues that the interpretation of Apostolic Canon 34, Chalcedon's appellate provisions, and Canon 28 requires consideration of their geographical and institutional setting.

4. Autocephaly entails genuine independence

A Church that has received autocephaly is not permanently subordinate to the Church from which it originated.

The author regards this principle as indispensable to the equality of the Local Orthodox Churches.

5. The authority of a Mother Church is not universal and perpetual

Dionisy maintains that the title Mother Church cannot be converted into a claim of superior jurisdiction over historically dependent Churches after they have become autocephalous.

6. Economia cannot replace canonical legitimacy

The author insists that ecclesiastical economia must not become a justification for disregarding the conditions governing episcopal ordination, canonical deposition, or jurisdiction.

This principle is central to his criticism of Constantinople's reception of the Ukrainian schismatic hierarchy.

7. Historical precedence does not guarantee doctrinal or canonical infallibility

Dionisy emphasizes that Constantinopolitan patriarchs have at various times been implicated in heresy or ecclesiastical disorder.

Consequently, the Patriarchate's historical dignity cannot provide unconditional legitimacy to all its decisions.

8. Ecclesiastical reconciliation requires genuine conciliar judgment

The dissertation concludes by advocating a conciliar settlement of the Ukrainian controversy.

Dionisy favors an assembly of the primates or an appropriately constituted Pan-Orthodox council in which the concerns of all directly affected Churches, including Moscow, would be considered.

IV. Critical Evaluation of the Work

The dissertation's value and limitations should be distinguished.

Principal strengths

1. Extensive engagement with Greek primary sources. The author employs a large corpus of Greek Patristic writings, Byzantine canonical commentaries, historical documents, and contemporary theological literature.

2. Detailed distinction between canonical law and historical precedent. This is perhaps the most important methodological contribution. The author correctly identifies the danger of treating every historical instance of ecclesiastical intervention as proof of a universal canonical prerogative.

3. Attention to the original context of Canon 28 of Chalcedon. The examination of the phrase ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς is especially extensive and provides substantial material for further philological and canonical investigation.

4. Reassessment of major historical documents. The analysis of the 1590 documents, the correspondence surrounding 1686, and the 1872 Council raises concrete textual and historical questions that can be investigated independently.

5. Detailed study of contemporary Greek theologians. The dissertation provides a useful bibliography of the modern theological debate, including supporters of Constantinopolitan primacy and Greek critics of its expansion.

Significant limitations

1. The work is explicitly polemical and institutionally aligned with Moscow. Its interpretations consistently support the ecclesiological position of the Russian Orthodox Church. This does not invalidate its historical evidence, but it is important when evaluating the selection and interpretation of sources.

2. Constantinople's historical prerogatives were not always merely ceremonial. Any comprehensive analysis must account for instances in which Constantinople exercised substantial administrative, judicial, or coordinating authority. The disputed question is whether such authority was geographically limited, granted by consent, exceptional, or genuinely universal.

3. The author's treatment of the Ukrainian controversy is strongly one-sided. He consistently characterizes the Orthodox Church of Ukraine as schismatic and Constantinople's interventions as uncanonical. His discussion does not constitute a neutral adjudication of the competing canonical claims.

4. His criticism of the reception of Ukrainian clergy depends upon contested ecclesiological and sacramental premises. The treatment of ordinations, deposition, and economia must be examined alongside the relevant Ecumenical Councils and the historical diversity of Orthodox reception practices.

5. The condemnation of ethnophyletism in 1872 remains a disputed interpretative question. Dionisy raises legitimate historical questions about the context and formulation of the Oros, but his restrictive interpretation should not be presented as the universally accepted meaning of the Council's decision.

6. Contemporary allegations about persecution and the political consequences of Constantinople's actions require independent verification. The dissertation attributes substantial responsibility to Patriarch Bartholomew for developments in Ukraine. Its causal assertions should be distinguished from independently documented events and the positions of the parties involved.

V. The Most Important Sections for Further Research

Pages	Subject	Particular value
182–185	Formal propositions submitted for defense	Direct statement of the author's central theses
286–317	Apostolic and conciliar canons	Canonical foundations of primacy and jurisdiction
336–383	Who is Head of the Church?	Theological distinction between Christ's headship and patriarchal primacy
384–450	The Mother Church	Historical and Patristic analysis of an important jurisdictional claim
451–533	Granting autocephaly	Historical comparison of the procedures used to establish Autocephalous Churches
613–647	Patriarch Dositheos and appeals	Criticism of extraterritorial appellate jurisdiction
648–731	Canon 28 of Chalcedon	Extensive philological and historical analysis of ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς
772–826	Moscow in 1590 and Kiev in 1686	Textual and historical analysis of disputed documents
827–876	Council of Constantinople, 1872	Reassessment of the condemnation of phyletism
930–1034	Ukraine and ecclesiastical economia	Detailed criticism of Constantinople's Ukrainian intervention and reception of clergy
1035–1198	Greek defenders of primacy	Modern theological arguments supporting Constantinople
1199–1266	Defenders of conciliar ecclesiology	Greek and other Orthodox opposition to expanded Constantinopolitan prerogatives
1267–1301	Eight principal claims and their refutation	Best systematic synopsis of the entire dissertation
1302–1337	Conclusion	Author's final ecclesiological judgments and proposals

VI. Final Synthesis

Abbot Dionisy's In Defense of the Conciliar Structure of the Orthodox Church is a monumental attempt to demonstrate that contemporary Constantinopolitan primacy theory represents a departure from the traditional canonical and theological structure of Orthodoxy.

The author does not deny Constantinople's historical importance or its legitimate primacy of honor. Instead, he argues that this primacy has been progressively transformed into claims of universal jurisdiction, exclusive appellate authority, control over the diaspora, and the unilateral right to establish new Autocephalous Churches.

He contends that these claims arose through the reinterpretation of canonical texts and the elevation of particular historical privileges into universal principles.

The dissertation's principal historical investigations concern Apostolic Canon 34, the canons of Chalcedon, the Byzantine concept of ecclesiastical hierarchy, the historical meaning of Ecumenical Patriarch, the development of autocephaly, and the administrative relationships among the Orthodox Churches.

Its principal contemporary application is the Ukrainian ecclesiastical controversy.

Dionisy regards Constantinople's intervention in Ukraine as the practical culmination of the theory he criticizes and as a major cause of the present rupture in Orthodox communion.

His proposed solution is a return to conciliar ecclesiology and an authoritative Pan-Orthodox resolution that respects the equality and jurisdictional integrity of the Local Churches.

The fundamental ecclesiological proposition of the dissertation is that the unity of the Orthodox Church is not guaranteed by the superior authority of one patriarch, but by the common faith and conciliar agreement of all the Autocephalous Churches under Christ, their one Head.

For the most efficient engagement with this exceptionally large work, pp. 182–185, 286–317, 613–731, 981–1034, and 1267–1337 provide the strongest foundation for understanding its canonical reasoning, theological premises, principal controversies, and final conclusions.

 

Generated by ChatGPT-6.0 on October 29, 2026.

Full Russian dissertation: https://mpda.ru/news/zashhita-dissertaczii-igumena-dionisiya-shlenova/