Father Angelos Angelakopoulos is a close collaborator of Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus and the Office for Combating Heresies and Sects of the Holy Metropolis of Piraeus. This present text was written with the blessing and intervention of Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus.

Protopresbyter Angelos Angelakopoulos

Piraeus, 10-1-2018, Church of the Entrance of the Mother of God

The most burning, pressing and current topic, which preoccupies the Church news lately and especially after the pseudo-synod of Crete (June 2016) is that of the ecclesiastical, canonical and patristic way of the cessation of commemoration of ecumenist Patriarchs, Archbishops, Metropolitans and Bishops at the holy services and at the Divine Liturgy. In this regard, we would like to point out the following:

1) The cessation of commemoration of ecumenist Bishops should be applied in accordance with the Orthodox interpretation of the Holy Tradition of Church, with the correctly understood practice of the Holy Fathers, and with correctly expounded Apostolic Canon 31 and Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople (861).

One might ask: Why were no specific canons given on this very serious subject, apart from the two above? The answer is very simple. There was no need for such a thing because, from earliest Christian times, severing all ties with anyone who preached heresy was a given. St. Mark Eugenikos, himself a great fighter of the first rank for Orthodoxy, in a wonderful passage of his, makes reference in this regard: “All the teachers of the Church, all the Synods and all the divine writings urge us to flee from those of a heretical mind and distance ourselves from communion with them”. This is the general conscience of our Church, and for this reason the Holy Canons did not specifically deal with it.

2) Apostolic Canon 31 clearly establishes that: “If any presbyter, condemning his own bishop, draws people aside and sets up another altar, without finding anything wrong with the bishop in point of piety [Orthodoxy] and righteousness, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is an office-seeker. For he is a tyrant. Let the rest of clergymen be treated likewise, and all those who join him. But let the laymen be excommunicated. Let these things be done after a first, a second and a third request of the bishop.” [1]

Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite, explaining the above canon, mentions: “Order sustains the coherence of both heavenly things and earthly things, according to St. Gregory the Theologian.  Therefore good order ought to be kept everywhere as helping coherence and preserving the established order, and especially among clergy, who need to know their own standards, and to avoid exceeding the limits and bounds of their own order. But as for presbyters, and deacons, and all clergymen, they ought to submit to their own bishop; the bishops, in turn, to their own metropolitan; the metropolitan, to their own patriarch.
On this account the present Apostolic Canon ordains as follows: Any presbyter that scorns his own bishop, and without knowing that the latter is manifestly at fault either in point of piety [Orthodoxy] or in point of righteousness – that is to say, without knowing him to be manifestly either as heretical or as unjust – proceeds to gather Christians into a distinct group and to build another church, and should hold services therein separately, without the permission and approval of his bishop in so doing, on the ground of him being an office-seeker, he is to be deposed; since like a tyrant with violence and tyranny he is trying to wrest away the authority which belongs to his bishop. But also any other clergymen that agree with him in such apostasy must be deposed from office too just as he must; but as for those who are laymen, let them be excommunicated. These things, however, are to be done after the bishop three times gently and mildly urges those who have separated from him to leave such a movement, and they obstinately refuse to do so. As for those, however, who wall off from their bishop before a synodical investigation because he [the bishop] himself is preaching some misbelief and heresy publicly, not only are not subject to the above penances, but deserve the honour due to Orthodox Christians, according to Canon 15 of the I-II Council (861).”

3) The 15th Holy Canon of the Council held under St. Photios the Great, Patriarch of Constantinople (861 A.D.), precisely stipulates:

“What has been established concerning presbyters, bishops, and metropolitans applies even more so to patriarchs. Therefore, if any presbyter, bishop, or metropolitan dares to sever communion with his own patriarch and fails to commemorate his name as prescribed and ordained in the Divine Liturgy, but before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgement against him, creates a schism, the Holy Council has decreed that such a one shall be entirely deprived of all presbyterly function if he is found guilty of this transgression. And these rulings are firmly established concerning those who, under the pretext of certain accusations, withdraw from their own leaders, create schisms, and tear apart the unity of the Church.

But those who, because of some heresy condemned by the Holy Councils or the Fathers, wall off themselves from communion with their bishop—especially when that bishop publicly proclaims the heresy and teaches it openly in the Church—such persons not only do not fall under canonical censure for cutting themselves off from communion with the so-called bishop before a synodal judgment, but they shall also be deemed worthy of due honor among the Orthodox. For they have not condemned true bishops, but false bishops and false teachers, nor have they divided the unity of the Church by schism, but rather they have sought to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.”

Canon 15 of the I-II Council from the time of Saint Photius the Great, Patriarch of Constantinople (861) precisely stipulates: “The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostasise from the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to commemorate the latter’s name in accordance with duly fixed and ordained custom, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgement against him, creates a schism, the holy Council has decreed that this person shall be alienated from every presbyterly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. And these rulings are firmly established concerning those who, under the pretext of certain accusations, withdraw from their own leaders, create schisms, and tear apart the unity of the Church. But those who, because of some heresy condemned by the Holy Councils or the Fathers, walled off themselves from communion with their bishop—especially when that bishop publicly proclaims heresy and teaches it openly in the Church—such persons not only do not fall under canonical censure for cutting themselves off from communion with the one called bishop before a synodal judgment, but they shall also be deemed worthy of due honor among the Orthodox. For they have not condemned true bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, nor have they divided the unity of the Church by schism, but rather they have sought to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.”[2]

St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, interpreting the aforementioned Holy Canon, states: “What the earlier Canons (13th and 14th) have prescribed concerning bishops and metropolitans, the present Canon applies the same—and even more strictly—to patriarchs. It declares that if any presbyter, bishop, or metropolitan should break communion with his patriarch and cease commemorating his name as customary (the metropolitan alone, for the presbyter commemorates his bishop, and the bishop commemorates his metropolitan) before the charges against their patriarch are examined and condemned by the Synod—all such persons, I say, shall be entirely deposed: the bishops and metropolitans from all hierarchical functions, and the presbyters from all presbyterly duties. However, this applies only if the separation is due to certain accusations—such as fornication, sacrilege, or other crimes—where presbyters withdraw from their bishops, bishops from their metropolitans, and metropolitans from their patriarchs.”

At this point, St. Nikodemos adds a footnote: “The 31st Apostolic Canon likewise considers even the one who walls off guiltless if he knows his superior to be unjust.” The Saint continues: “But if these aforementioned hierarchs are heretics and publicly preach their heresy… (Here, St. Nikodemos adds another footnote: “From this wording of the Canon, it appears that one must not wall off from his bishop—according to Balsamon—if the bishop holds some heresy but keeps it hidden and does not preach it. For perhaps he may later correct himself on his own.”)…and for this reason, their subjects wall off from them even before a synodal judgment concerning heresy, those who wall off are not only not condemned for this schism but are deemed worthy of proper honor as Orthodox, because they have not caused schism in the Church by this separation, but rather have freed the Church from the schism and heresy of their pseudo-bishops.“

The above Canon is also in agreement with other Holy Canons of the Local and Ecumenical Synods, such as Apostolic Canon 31, Canon 6 of the Local Synod of Gangra (340), Canon 5 of the Local Synod of Antioch (341), Canons 10, 11 and 72 of the Local Synod of Carthage (419), Canon 18 of the IV Ecumenical Council (451), Canon 31 and 32 of the VI Ecumenical Council (691) and Canon 12, 13 and 14 of the I-II Council (861).

Canon 15 of the I-II Council is composed of two parts.

The first part begins with the phrase “The rules laid down…” (“Τά ὁρισθέντα…”) and concludes with “…tear apart the unity of the Church.” (“…Ἐκκλησίας διασπώντων”) This part continues the provisions of the two preceding Holy Canons, the 13th and 14th, which prohibit deacons and presbyters from ceasing the commemoration of the name of their bishop, and bishops from ceasing the commemoration of their metropolitan. The 15th Canon addresses the prohibition against metropolitans and bishops ceasing the commemoration of the name of their patriarch. This prohibition applies to “those who distance themselves under the pretext of some accusations from their superiors” and “before the conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgement against him.” That is, the Canon prohibits the cessation of the patriarch’s commemoration for administrative and moral matters prior to his synodal condemnation, because those who cease commemoration create schism and tear apart the Church’s unity.

The second part begins with the phrase “But those who, because of some heresy… ” (“Οἱ γάρ δι’αἵρεσιν…”) and concludes with “…sought to rescue [the Church]” (“…ἐσπούδασαν ρύσασθαι.”)

4)  According to the interpretation of the teacher of the Church, Balsamon, what the aforementioned 13th and 14th Canons established concerning bishops and metropolitans, the present Canon (15th) similarly establishes and even more so regarding patriarchs, stating that any presbyter, bishop or metropolitan who dares to separate from communion with his patriarch and does not commemorate his name as is customary, before the charges against their patriarch are brought before the Synod and he is condemned by the Synod – these, it says, shall all be fully defrocked.

Then one of the Fathers asked: “If for a blessed cause, such as due to heresy, someone ceases the commemoration of his superior before awaiting the synodal decision, why should he be punished with defrocking?” To this, the Fathers responded that all these provisions we established are understood to apply when dealing with some criminal matter, where someone walls off from his superior and thereby ruptures the unity of the Church.

However, if not for criminal reasons but, as we said, for heresy that has been condemned by the Church, someone walls off from his superior by ceasing his commemoration – when this superior shamelessly teaches doctrines foreign to the Orthodox Faith of the Church – in this case it is permitted, if he wishes, to withdraw from communion with his superior even before a decision of synodal condemnation is issued, and certainly after such decision. In this case, not only is he not punished according to the general provision of this Canon, but he shall even be honored, etc.

In brief, therefore, the present Canon states the following:

It is henceforth prohibited, to prevent schisms, for a subordinate to cease the commemoration of his superior before a synodal court is convened and a condemnatory decision is issued against the superior. Whoever dares to violate this provision shall be punished with defrocking.  

Exceptionally, in cases of heresy recognized as such by the Church (condemned by the Holy Councils) which the superior teaches, the subordinate is left free and unpunished to act according to his judgment. If he chooses to cease commemoration without awaiting the Synod’s decision, he is not only not punished but is even deemed worthy of honour.  

The phrase “if he walls off himself from communion with his superior” implies voluntary action—i.e. if he so desires—and not an obligatory cessation of commemoration. Therefore, in cases of heresy, where the decision is left to individual discretion, the one who follows the general rule (i.e. continues commemoration until a Synodal decision is issued) acts rightly, and the one who ceases commemoration without awaiting the Church’s judgment (i.e. before a synodal decision is issued) also acts rightly—indeed, the latter is especially worthy of honour. All this applies only in the exceptional case of a known heresy formally condemned as such by the Church.

The 15th Canon of the I-II Council nowhere establishes prohibitions regarding commemorations or eternal punishment for those who do not cease commemorations. The Canon could not be so unjust as to automatically threaten, upon violation, with defrocking and eternal punishment, nor could it fail to consider the limited theological education of the majority of presbyters – who, lacking proper theological knowledge to discern whether their superior (whom they continue commemorating while awaiting the Church’s judgment) is truly heretical or not. Nowhere in this Canon is there established any prohibition of commemoration or threat of eternal punishment against those who commemorate, even if their superior is heretical, before the Church has issued Her decision. Of course, those who continue commemorating would become accountable if they persisted in commemoration after the Church’s condemnatory decision[3].

We consider it appropriate to mention here what the well-known Serbian canonist Bishop Milaș emphasises in his special study on the above Canon and on this specific point: “If a bishop, metropolitan, or patriarch begins to publicly proclaim in church some heretical teaching opposed to Orthodoxy, then those under his authority possess both the right and the duty to immediately sever ties with him. For not only will they incur no canonical penalty, but they shall even be commended—inasmuch as through this action, they did not rebel against legitimate bishops, but against pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers. Nor did they thereby create schism in the Church; on the contrary, they freed the Church, insofar as they were able, from schism and division.”[4]

5 )  The Holy Fathers of the I-II Council (861), wishing to put an end to the schisms that had troubled the Church during the 8th and 9th centuries, legislated Holy Canons 13, 14 and 15. Through these Canons, they strictly forbade the Orthodox from ceasing the commemoration of their ecclesiastical superiors’ names prior to a synodal judgment against them.

However, lest it be misunderstood that this prohibition removes the right of the Orthodox to cease commemoration before synodal judgment in cases where superiors are preaching heresy, the wise Fathers appended the following clarification at the end of the 15th Holy Canon: “Those who wall off from a bishop preaching heresy prior to synodal judgment are not subject to the penalties of the Holy Canons; on the contrary, they are worthy of honour.”

The essential term “ἀποτείχισις” (apoteíchisis) derives from the verb “ἀποτειχίζω” (apoteichízo), which, according to lexicons—including Liddell and Scott’s A Greek-English Lexicon—means “to fortify, to wall off, to erect a partition.” Consequently, the noun “ἀποτείχισις” signifies “an enclosure by means of a wall, a fortification.” The wall that one raises for defense is called “ἀποτείχισμα” (apotéichisma).

Contrary to the common misconception, walling off (ἀποτείχισις) does not mean “to exit outside the walls” (in this context, the Church). Rather, a clergyman who walls off himself (ἀποτειχίζεται) due to his bishop’s manifest heresy constructs a protective barrier within the Church, separating himself from the heretical bishop until an Orthodox Synod convenes to defrock the heretical bishop, unless he repents.

It is clear that the use of the word “walling off” (ἀποτείχιση) presupposes that there is some danger, some enemy, against which one raises a protective wall. In ecclesiastical language, this concept of walling off is explicitly introduced by the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council under St. Photius the Great (861), where it is perfectly clear – brighter than the sun – what danger necessitates this fortification: it is heresy and heretical bishops.

In this case, therefore, the possibility is given to the clergyman even “before a synodal decision” to wall off himself, to raise a defensive wall, to block heresy, to take a stand. There is, then, no doubt that this fortification is a separation from heresy and not from the Church, from pseudo-bishops and not from true bishops. The cessation of commemoration does not place one outside the Church nor does it lead to schism.

According to the Holy Canons and the unanimous teaching of the Holy Fathers, the cessation of commemoration and ecclesiastical communion with one’s ecclesiastical superiors before a synodal decision is permitted only for doctrinal reasons—that is, when some heresy is being publicly proclaimed “bareheaded,” openly, boldly, shamelessly, and without hesitation in the Church. The Holy Apostles had allowed the ceasing of ecclesiastical communion for reasons of “piety and justice.” The word “justice” could easily be misinterpreted, leading to various schisms over “healable” issues rather than doctrinal matters. Ultimately, the Holy Fathers of the First-Second Council (861) under St. Photius legislated three consecutive canons (13th, 14th, and 15th), strictly prohibiting the cessation of ecclesiastical communion with bishops before a synodal judgment for any “crime” except the proclamation of heresy. In this way, the Fathers interpreted the 31st Apostolic Canon and expressed the Orthodox mindset, which had been proclaimed with full unanimity by the Holy Fathers at various times.

Therefore, the cessation of commemoration of a bishop’s name occurs only when there is heresy—only for doctrinal offenses, not for moral ones (e.g., fornication, sacrilege, etc.). Ceasing ecclesiastical communion without reasons of faith is forbidden. Of course, the 31st Apostolic Canon grants the right for a presbyter to cease commemorating his bishop even for matters of justice. St. Theodore the Studite applied this last canon in the well-known case of the adulterous marriage dispute, and based on it, he stopped commemorating Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople. The saint acted rightly, because in his time, only the 31st Apostolic Canon was in force. St. Theodore was born in 759 and reposed in 826. The First-Second Council had not yet been convened to issue its 15th Canon—it was convened 35 years later, in 861. St. Theodore applied the akribeia of the matter. However, St. Nikephoros, later Patriarch of Constantinople, who was contemporary with St. Theodore, applied the principle of economia and did not cease commemorating Patriarch Joseph but maintained communion with him. Thus, we see that in the matter of ceasing commemoration for reasons of justice, both strictness and economia were applied at that time—the two oars by which the ship of the Church advances. The Church, however, condemned neither of the two nor imposed penalties but proclaimed both as saints. Today, however, the permanent position of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council applies: cessation of commemoration is permitted exclusively and solely for matters of heresy.

It should be said that, strictly speaking, the cessation of commemorating the names of ecumenist bishops should have been a long-standing practice due to their communion with heresy through continuous and increasingly frequent joint prayers and semi-liturgical gatherings. The red line for applying the cessation of commemoration is heresy. However, because of ignorance, lack of knowledge, negligence, unwillingness, and fear, economia has been applied with extreme tolerance until now. The red line that had been set until recently—the drop that would make the cup overflow for the immediate cessation of commemorating the names of ecumenist bishops—was the concelebration and shared chalice between the Pope and the Patriarch, i.e., sacramental inter-communion. Today, however, after the pseudo-council of Crete and its acceptance by many bishops, the red line for ceasing the commemoration of ecumenist bishops has shifted downward and is now the synodal recognition of the ecclesiality of heretics and heterodox—something the pseudo-council of Crete did. The failure to condemn heresies is the crime of the pseudo-council of Crete.

6) According to the respected and excellent canonist, the blessed Archimandrite Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, the 15th Holy Canon of the First-Second Council is potential and not obligatory. That is, it does not necessarily require clergy to stop commemorating a bishop who teaches heresy before his condemnation, but simply provides them with the possibility. If any clergyman, says the Canon, walls off himself from such a bishop “before synodal judgment,” he does not break the law at all, and therefore is not subject to censure, but rather is worthy of praise. If, however, another clergyman does not do this, but without embracing the bishop’s teachings continues his commemoration, awaiting synodal judgment and condemnation, he is not at all condemned by the Holy Canon. The Canon does not legislate an obligation, but simply provides a right. Nowhere does it say that clergy must wall off from such a bishop before his condemnation, nor does it speak of any punishment or even mere reproach against those who do not wall off, although it is common in the Holy Canons to say “let him be defrocked” regarding clergy who do not fully fulfill their obligations. It simply states that those clergy who wall off themselves from such a bishop are not to be condemned. That this is true is also convinced by the fact that, while in the long history of the Church countless bishops have been deposed for heresy, never has any clergyman been deposed or even simply censured for the reason that he did not hasten to wall off immediately from a heretical bishop, but awaited his condemnation by a Synod[5].

7) It is an established ecclesiological principle that the Church is found where the Truth exists, and not where there are heretical bishops and patriarchs, because the Truth is a person, Christ, who said, “I am the Truth, the Way, and the Life” [6]. Therefore, the Truth and even one (a man) in the Church have the decisive vote.

We present only two testimonies from prominent saints, fathers, teachers, and confessors to show where the Church is and who are those who depart from the Church, so that the heretical ecumenists may shut their shameless mouths and cease terrorising the uninformed with the scarecrow of schism, while our own advocates of silence and complacency may reconsider and act more boldly and in a more patristic manner—fearing not isolation from men, but isolation from God and the Saints.  

Saint Maximus the Confessor in the 7th century, a simple monk but, by virtue of his immense education and divine enlightenment, superior and loftier than many patriarchs and bishops [7], bore almost alone the burden of resistance against the heresy of Monothelitism, which had seized all the Patriarchates—even the Church of Rome for a time—just as the all-encompassing heresy of Ecumenism today has seized the majority of local churches with synodal ratification at the pseudo-council of Crete. Even the emperors had been convinced that, for peace and unity to prevail both in the Church and the State, Saint Maximus—whose theological stance was followed by a large part of the ecclesiastical body—had to cease his opposition. They demanded, whether by persuasion or force, that he accept the compromising and diplomatic text of the “Typos”, as the document prepared by the theologians of Emperor Constans II, grandson of Heraclius, in the palace and patriarchal halls was called—just like the diplomatic texts prepared by the pseudo-council of Crete for us to unite, not with one heresy, but collectively with all heretics. The bishops of that diplomatic theology, sent by the Patriarch to the place of Saint Maximus’ imprisonment, tried to intimidate him, saying that by his inflexible and unyielding stance against what all the local churches had decided—by breaking communion—he was putting himself outside the Church, departing from the Church.  

The answer of this great theologian and confessor is exemplary and timelessly instructive:  

“The Church is not where those who administer it are—the patriarchs, the bishops, the synods—but where the saving confession of the faith exists.”  

“Synods are not legitimized by those who convene them or those who are convened, but by “the correctness of the doctrines.”  

We quote his heroic confessional text:  

“Those who had come from the patriarch said to him, ‘To which Church do you belong? Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem? Behold, all of them with their provinces are united. If you, then, belong to the Catholic Church, unite with them, lest by innovating a strange path in life, you suffer what you do not expect.’ To them, the blessed one—how aptly and wisely one might say—replied: ‘The Lord defined the Catholic Church as the right and saving confession of faith, and upon this confession, He also blessed Peter when he rightly confessed.'”[8]  

At another point in his interrogation, when the discussion turned to synods and their canonical or uncanonical convocation, Saint Maximus set forth the essential criterion for a synod to be considered Orthodox:

“The pious rule of the Church recognizes as holy and valid those synods which are characterized by the correctness of doctrines.” [9]  

To the accusation that his stance was causing schism—just as those who reject the pseudo-council of Crete are accused today—he responded with a rhetorical question:  

“If he who says what Holy Scripture and the Fathers teach is splitting the Church, what shall be said of him who abolishes the doctrines of the saints, without which the Church herself cannot exist?” [10]

Following the same path seven centuries later, in the 14th century, the great Hesychast and Confessor, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, Saint Gregory Palamas—the incomparably greatest theologian of the second millennium—walks. With the gravest condemnations, devoid of Western pseudo-courtesies, he denounces as a liar the Patriarch of Antioch Ignatius, who wrote a letter to Patriarch John Kalekas affirming his opposition to Saint Gregory Palamas, filled with inaccuracies and falsehoods.

In his letter, Patriarch Ignatius, departing from Constantinople, wrote that he was returning to his church in Antioch, which he had received as his lot by the Grace of Christ—just as those who occupy episcopal, archiepiscopal, and patriarchal thrones today also claim. He wrote: “Our humility departs for her church, which she has genuinely received as her lot by the Grace of Christ.”

Angered by Patriarch John Kalekas’ support and the baseless, theologically unfounded accusations against him, Saint Gregory first questions what relation, what portion in the Church, what succession and inheritance in the Grace of Christ this “advocate of falsehood” can possibly have—succession in the Church, which is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and remains eternally secure and unshaken, firmly grounded upon that which upholds the Truth.

Aphoristically, he tells the heretical patriarch that he is a stranger to the Church, outside the Church, because “those who belong to Christ’s Church belong to the Truth; and those who are not of the Truth are not of Christ’s Church.” The Church is where the Truth is; those who are not with the Truth are outside the Church. Thus, they deceive themselves, they lie, those who call themselves—and call one another—shepherds and chief shepherds when they do not uphold Orthodoxy. For Christianity does not regard persons, but the Truth and the precision of the Faith: “For we have been taught that Christianity is not characterized by persons, but by Truth and the exactness of Faith.” [11]

Exemplary and instructive is the boldness, the courage, the steadfast and uncompromising stance of a simple monk, Saint Maximus, and of a simple presbyter, Saint Gregory Palamas (before he became Metropolitan of Thessaloniki), in the face of the all-powerful ecclesiastical and political leadership. They had no doubt whatsoever about where the Church is, about who departs from the Church and who causes schisms. They believed that heretics are the ones who leave the Church—which can be expressed, can even be represented by a monk, even by a presbyter, when they express and represent the Truth of Christ.

8) The cessation of commemorating the name of a heretical bishop during the holy services and at the crowning moment of the divine Mysteries—during the Divine Liturgy—can be done only by the presbyter, not by a monk or layperson, because the presbyter possesses sacramental priesthood through ordination. It is the presbyter who performs the services, the Holy Mysteries, and commemorates his own bishop. Therefore, only he can cease the commemoration of his bishop’s name during the holy services and the Divine Liturgies. Likewise, presbyters who do not commemorate (the bishop) are obligated not to concelebrate or pray together with ecumenist bishops and presbyters, not to kiss their hands, not to have ecclesiastical communion with them, but to maintain distance from them. The monk or layperson belongs to the “royal priesthood” [12], yet does not possess sacramental priesthood, does not perform services or Holy Mysteries, and does not perform commemorations; therefore, they cannot cease the commemoration of the bishop’s name. The only thing a monk or layperson can do is to break all ecclesiastical communion with hierarchs, presbyters, monks, and laypeople who are ecumenists. This is done by:

a) not attending churches where pseudo-bishops or like-minded, heresy-leaning, Latin-minded, or ecumenist clergy serve, but instead attending churches where there are sound, right-believing, and true hierarchs and presbyters;

b) not receiving blessings from them, nor kissing their hands;

c) peacefully leaving the holy churches immediately upon the appearance or presence of such hierarchs, presbyters, monks, or laypeople; and, of course, by severely rebuking the ecumenist heretics, both in writing and verbally.

For clear pastoral reasons, the faithful are strongly urged to avoid going to churches where heretical ecumenist bishops and presbyters serve or are commemorated. They should prefer to attend services where Orthodox-minded bishops and presbyters celebrate the Liturgy, even if—for certain reasons—they have not yet ceased commemorating the heretics, doing so out of economia. The best and most commendable option, according to strict canonical exactitude (akribeia), is to attend churches where heretics are not commemorated—meaning where the presbyters have ceased the commemoration.

9) A presbyter cannot cease the commemoration of just any bishop, but only of his own bishop, since he commemorates only him during the holy services and the Divine Liturgy. That is, he cannot cease the commemoration of a bishop to whom he is not ecclesiastically subject, because in reality, he does not commemorate him. A Metropolitan may cease commemorating only the name of the Patriarch or Archbishop or of his own Synod, to which he belongs. A bishop may cease commemorating only the name of his own Metropolitan. A presbyter may cease commemorating only the name of his own Metropolitan or bishop. A Patriarch or Archbishop may cease commemorating the name of another Patriarch or Archbishop by omitting his name from the diptychs.

Archbishops and Metropolitans who are ecclesiastically under the Ecumenical Patriarch and who commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Holy Synod (such as the archdioceses and metropolises in the diaspora and the Church of Crete) may cease commemorating the name of any given Ecumenical Patriarch and of the Holy Synod. Presbyters serving in metropolises that are under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch—where the bishops commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch—may cease the commemoration of their own Metropolitan’s name.

The same principle applies, proportionally, to Metropolitans and presbyters who belong to other Patriarchates, whether ancient or more recent.

As for the Church of Greece, each Archbishop may cease the commemoration of another Patriarch or Archbishop by omitting his name from the diptychs. The metropolises of the so-called “New Lands,” which—as is known—commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, may cease commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Holy Synod. The Metropolitans of the so-called “Old Greece,” who—as is known—commemorate only the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, may cease the commemoration of the Holy Synod. Presbyters of the Archdiocese, who commemorate each Archbishop, may cease the commemoration of his name. Other presbyters may cease commemorating only the name of their own Metropolitan.

10) In the situation where a presbyter ceases the commemoration of his own bishop, he should not begin commemorating another bishop, or the Holy Synod, or Christ, or anyone else. Canon 15 of the First-Second Council does not state anywhere that the one who stops commemorating his bishop must then attach himself to the next bishop he finds. Even more so, it does not say that he should join bishops against whom the holy canons speak so strongly. The cleric who ceases commemorating his own bishop is to remain content with this act, refrains from commemorating anyone else, and waits with a clear conscience for the judgment of the Synod. This, and only this, is the true meaning of the canon. [13]

11) The cessation of the commemoration of one’s own bishop is the final boundary permitted by the holy canons. The cleric who applies this measure must not go any further (such as by accepting the commemoration of other bishops), because that would then amount to joining a schism. As long as he remains within this limit and continues to maintain communion with the Local Church and with all the Local Orthodox Churches, he stands on a firm ecclesiastical foundation. He must only be careful not to take any further steps. As long as he is content with this and does not advance to rejecting his heretical bishop outright—meaning declaring that the bishop has already fallen, has been deposed, has lost grace, no longer performs valid Mysteries, etc.—he cannot be accused of Protestantism. Canon 15 of the First-Second Council allows individuals to cease commemoration prior to a synodal investigation, but it does not give individuals the authority to judge and condemn heretical bishops. That is the role of Synods, not of individuals. [14]

12) During the holy services and the Divine Liturgy, instead of the petition “For our Archbishop…,” one should say: “For all Orthodox bishops, let us pray to the Lord.”

The ekphonesis (liturgical exclamation) of the Divine Liturgy—“Among the first, remember, O Lord, our Archbishop…, whom grant unto Thy holy Churches in peace, safety, honor, health, length of days, and rightly dividing the word of Thy truth”—should be said as follows: “Among the first, remember, O Lord, all Orthodox bishops, who rightly teach the word of Thy truth.”
In this way, “For our Archbishop…” is replaced with “For all Orthodox bishops…”.

This was the manner in which the Holy Services and the Divine Liturgy were celebrated by the Athonite Fathers in the Holy Monasteries, sketes, and cells of Mount Athos, as well as by three blessed and ever-memorable hierarchs from the so-called “New Lands”: Augustine Kantiotis of Florina [15], Pavlos of Paramythia, and Ambrose of Eleftheroupoli. They ceased commemorating the name of Athenagoras—the great ecumenist and Freemason Patriarch—for a period of three years, from 1970 to 1973 [16].

The words “Among the first, remember, O Lord… whom do Thou grant unto Thy holy Churches in peace, whole, honorable, healthy, length of days, and rightly teaching the word of Thy truth,” as the blessed Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos observes, do not imply a confirmation of all these attributes. Rather, they express a supplication—that the Lord may grant the bishop or Patriarch peace, bodily health, honor, spiritual health, longevity, and correctness in teaching the word of the Lord’s truth, that is, Orthodox doctrine in all things.

The word “grant” is in the optative mood (imperative-optative form in Greek), with the ending –αι; we are not stating that he does teach rightly, but praying that God will grant him to teach rightly. We are praying that he may teach rightly the word of truth.

Therefore, we are not presenting the bishop as already teaching rightly the word of truth. Only in two other liturgical situations are bishops presented as right teachers:
a) when the deacon (or presbyter) says at the Great Entrance: “Our Patriarch (name), or the Holy Synod, of those who rightly teach the word of truth”; and
b) when the presbyter says the petition: “For our Archbishop (name)…”

The argument of the Athonite Fathers in the letter they sent to Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos is both astonishing and unassailable. After the false union of Lyons (1273), the emperor pressured them to commemorate the pope’s name during the Liturgy. In response to this demand, they objected:

“How is it possible—when Holy Scripture instructs us not even to greet heretics on the road, nor to receive them into our own homes—that we should introduce them into the churches at the very moment when the Son of God is being offered and slain without bloodshed upon the dread and mystical altar? Only from hell itself could come a voice that would commemorate the pope, the enemy of God. If merely greeting a heretic makes us partakers in their heresy, how much more so does this happen when his name is loudly proclaimed during the celebration of the divine and awe-inspiring Mysteries? And if Christ, who is placed upon the Holy Table, is Himself the Truth, how can the great lie be accepted—that we present the pope as an Orthodox Patriarch alongside the other Orthodox Patriarchs? At the moment of the dreadful Mysteries, shall we play theater and portray what does not exist as though it does—heresy as Orthodoxy? How can the Orthodox soul endure such things and not break communion with those who commemorate him, nor see them as exploiters and profiteers of the divine?” [17]

At this point, the Athonite Fathers also explain why the name of the hierarch is commemorated during the Divine Liturgy. It is not, as some mistakenly believe today, because the Mystery cannot be performed without commemorating the bishop’s name. Rather, it is to express “full communion”—the shared faith between the one who commemorates and the one commemorated. They specifically cite the explanation of the Divine Liturgy by Theodore of Andida, according to whom the celebrant mentions the bishop’s name to show that he is under obedience to his superior, that he shares the same faith with him, and that he is a legitimate successor in the celebration of the divine Mysteries.” [18]

13) According to Canon 15 of the First-Second Council, the presbyter who ceases the commemoration of his own bishop must not be accused of being schismatic or guilty of causing schism in the Church, nor should he be considered outside the Church. On the contrary, he is worthy of praise because he is preserving the Church from schism. Let the ecumenist bishops who accuse those who have rightly ceased the commemoration of their own bishop of being schismatics or schism-causers hear this and take careful note.

14) The presbyter who implements the cessation of the commemoration of his own bishop should not accept sanctions and ecclesiastical penalties (such as dismissal, expulsion from the church, prohibition from celebrating the Divine Liturgy, denial of salary, ecclesiastical or synodal tribunals, or even defrocking), which will most likely—but uncanonically—be imposed by the bishop or synod. Instead, he should continue to celebrate the Divine Liturgy even in a house or hall, if he is forbidden the use of a church.

15) The claim that the Holy Mysteries and the Divine Liturgy are invalid when celebrated by presbyters who have correctly applied the cessation of the commemoration of their own hierarch does not hold up.

16) The standard and source for the cessation of commemorating the names of heretical bishops are our God-bearing and holy Fathers, such as Venerable Maximus the Confessor, Venerable Theodore the Studite, the Athonite Fathers during the time of the latin-minded Ecumenical Patriarch John Bekkos, Saint Gregory Palamas, Venerable Joseph Vriennios, Saint Mark of Ephesus [19], and the Athonite Fathers during the time of the Freemason and great ecumenist Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras. Of all these examples, we will focus on just three: the example of Saint Gregory Palamas, that of Saint Paisios the Athonite, and that of the Athonite Fathers during the time of Athenagoras, along with the three Metropolitans of the Church of Greece—Augustine Kantiotis of Florina, Ambrose of Eleftheroupoli, and Paul of Paramythia.

Saint Gregory Palamas and the Cessation of Commemoration

Saint Gregory Palamas ceased the commemoration of Patriarch John Kalekas before any synodal judgment, due to the Patriarch’s heretical views. We are assured of this by Kalekas himself in the brief text of the Excommunication he issued against Saint Gregory and those of like mind with him, “because they dared to cease commemorating me uncanonically and without a judgment.” The excommunication is signed solely by Kalekas: “John, by the mercy of God Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch.” According to Professor P. Christou, the excommunication “was issued only by the Patriarch, who considered himself authorized to do so by the closed Synods held in 1342 and 1343, which had condemned Palamas’s work, and perhaps also him personally for the presumed persistence in his position.” Later, the excommunication was signed by others as well [20].

It is worth underlining once again—especially in light of today’s ecclesiastical situation—that when Saint Gregory ceased commemorating the Patriarch, the latter had not yet been condemned by a Synod, and Saint Gregory himself was not a bishop, but a simple hieromonk from Mount Athos. Also, highly relevant for today: he did not accept the sanctions imposed by the heretical hierarchy, but continued to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in secret, as shown by the Encyclical that Kalekas sent to the Church’s faithful, informing them of the allegedly blasphemous teachings and the unyielding stance of Saint Gregory:

“Palamas, the leader and promoter of these blasphemies, having chosen the same things by his associations (for he did not yield from his position nor abandon his irrational babblings), is to be cast out of the Church of God and from the priesthood, as noted by the relevant records of the then Patriarch of the imperial city and of the Patriarch of God-guarded Antioch, as well as by the hierarchs of each city present here and those established in their allotted cities. Thus let there be restraint and inactivity, although, disregarding this restraint, they persist in the priesthood, boldly offering the mystical sacrifices in secret.” [21]

Venerable Paisios and the Cessation of Commemoration

Venerable Paisios wrote two epistles together with two other hieromonks while he was living at the Holy Monastery of Stavronikita on Mount Athos. The first was dated November 21, 1968, and the second January 23, 1969.

In the second epistle, Venerable Paisios speaks, among other things, about the disastrous danger of breaking away from the Church and establishing one’s own church because of ecumenistic tendencies—just as the schismatics of the Genuine Orthodox Christians (G.O.C.) did in 1924, zealots of the Old Calendar. Thus, he writes:

“We see in our times that many faithful children of our Church, both monastics and laypeople, have unfortunately broken away from her because of the unionists. In my opinion, it is not at all good to separate from the Church every time the Patriarch makes a mistake, but rather each of us has a duty to struggle in our own way from within, close to the Mother Church. To cease the commemoration of the Patriarch, to break away, to create one’s own Church, and to continue speaking mockingly about the Patriarch—I believe this is absurd. If we separate every time a Patriarch strays once or twice over time—and God forbid!—and we begin forming our own churches, we will surpass even the Protestants. It is easy to separate, but hard to return. Unfortunately, we have many ‘churches’ in our time. Some have been created by large groups, others even by a single individual…”

Venerable Paisios concludes this second epistle with the following:

“Let us pray that God grant His enlightenment to all of us, and to our Patriarch Athenagoras, so that first the unity of the ‘Churches’ may be achieved, peace may be restored within the scandalized body of the Orthodox faithful, peace among the Orthodox Churches of the East—and only after that should reflection be made concerning union with the other ‘Confessions,’ if and to the extent that they sincerely desire to embrace the Orthodox dogma.” [22]

Nevertheless, in the end, Venerable Paisios also called for and imposed the cessation of the commemoration of the Patriarch within the Holy Monastery of Stavronikita. This stance and position were upheld by the Saint, despite the fact that in his earlier epistle, at the beginning of 1969, he did not support the cessation of the Patriarch’s commemoration, but rather advocated for Orthodox struggle within the Church so that the existing zealot schisms would not spread.

At this point, we affirm with certainty that Venerable Paisios never supported the heretical and blasphemous opinion that the Holy Mysteries are supposedly “invalid” without the commemoration of the bishop—especially when the bishop is openly preaching heresy. On the contrary, he understood both the letter and the spirit of the holy canons, such as the 31st Apostolic Canon, and especially the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council during the time of Saint Photius the Great. He was also fully familiar with the teachings, positions, and actions of the great Holy Fathers against heretics.

Venerable Paisios, along with other Athonite Fathers, acted correctly in ceasing the commemoration of Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras for three years, from 1970 to 1973. They were guided by the anti-papal Synods, the Eighth Ecumenical Council during the time of Saint Photius the Great, and the Ninth Ecumenical Council during the time of Saint Gregory Palamas, as well as by the example of many other Fathers.

In addition to the Athonite monks, three Metropolitans of the Church of Greece also ceased commemorating the Patriarch at that time: Augustine of Florina, Ambrose of Eleftheroupoli, and Paul of Paramythia. Importantly, none of those who ceased commemorating Patriarch Athenagoras separated from the Ecumenical Patriarchate or from the Church of Greece, nor did they impose the cessation of commemoration upon other bishops or condemn them as heretics, nor did they break ecclesiastical communion.

The Athonite Fathers and the Cessation of Commemoration

The period in Church history from 1970 to 1973 is well known, during which the Holy Monasteries of Mount Athos, along with various sketes and cells, with the sympathetic and encouraging opinion of the Holy Elder Paisios the Athonite [23], and three Metropolitans from the so-called New Lands—the ever-memorable Augustine Kantiotis of Florina, Paul of Paramythia, and Ambrose of Eleftheroupoli—boldly proceeded to cease the commemoration of the name of Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, a Freemason and major ecumenist.

Patriarch Athenagoras had unlawfully lifted the anathemas in 1965, met with the heresiarch Pope Paul VI in Jerusalem, and maintained an overall pro-papal stance.

During those three years, those who ceased commemorating Athenagoras continued their liturgical life without commemorating his name, instead commemorating only the name of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece.

Ambrose of Eleftheroupoli and the Cessation of Commemoration

Let us look at the historic telegram of Metropolitan Ambrose of Eleftheroupoli regarding the cessation of the commemoration of Patriarch Athenagoras. In it, he writes to the Synod. The Synod did not dare to punish the three hierarchs who ceased commemorating Patriarch Athenagoras and commemorated only the Holy Synod.

We highlight this because today, ecumenists threaten clergy, warning that if they cease commemoration, they will be defrocked, declared schismatics, or cast out. But why were these hierarchs not defrocked back then? Because there is no canonical basis for such actions. They must invent false accusations in order to defrock those who cease commemoration. That is why the three hierarchs and all the Athonite Fathers who ceased commemorating the Patriarch were not punished.

So let us now look at the telegram of His Eminence Ambrose!

“To the Synod,

I have read with sorrow the blasphemous statements of Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, as published in the afternoon newspaper in Athens, through which the very foundations of the Orthodox Christian faith have been shaken. The assault on Orthodoxy has occurred in every form—deliberately and conspiratorially—and precisely during the first week leading up to the Sunday of Orthodoxy, when the multitude of the faithful celebrate the triumph of Orthodoxy over all heresies.

The Phanar, which until just the other day stood as the glorious bulwark of relentless struggles for Orthodoxy—its leaders having fought valiantly and sacrificed for the honor of the Orthodox faith—has now turned against her, striking her a mortal blow through her head, the Ecumenical Patriarch, and through certain like-minded clerics.

How strongly did the high-profile figure—according to the patriarchal expression—Metropolitan Meliton of Chalcedon, the voice of the Phanar (second only to the Patriarch), mobilize himself! The Phanar has none like him, and the Patriarch must surely have been impressed on Cheesefare Sunday when he listened with pleasure to his speech from Athens, speaking of winds and waters, of transforming the Church, of carnival—and (imagine that!) even of hypocrisy.

Yet by what boldness did Metropolitan Meliton dare to denounce hypocrites and hypocrisy, when he himself—even during the hour of the divine service—using countless fine (Attic) vocal affectations, gestures, and various bodily movements, all far from sober and reverent (according to the testimonies of those who saw and heard him), performed in a manner more fitting to actors and mimes than to servants of the Most High? In this way, he succeeded in convincing all that he possesses the remarkable talent and skillful art of hypocrisy.

Thus, when my patience was finally exhausted by the public statements of the Patriarch—through which he clearly and unhesitatingly presents himself as an adherent of heresy—and since there remains no room for further waiting, I have, as of today, CEASED HIS COMMEMORATION, in accordance with Canon 15 of the First-Second Council.

Henceforth, we will commemorate only our Holy Synod, and I will cautiously resume his commemoration as soon as he disavows or retracts his unorthodox statements—statements by which even the satanically inspired heresies of papal primacy and infallibility, which undermine the Orthodox faith, are reduced to mere church customs and insignificant differences.

Today (1970), all of Orthodoxy honors the memory of Saint Gregory Palamas; yesterday, we commemorated the holy memory of the great Saint Photius (February 6); and earlier, we celebrated Saint Mark of Ephesus (January 19).

If we align ourselves with the unorthodox views of Patriarch Athenagoras, then the Church should immediately erase from the Synaxarion of the Orthodox Church not only the names of the departed Saints, but also those of all the Martyrs who struggled and were killed for Orthodoxy throughout the ages.

I am deeply saddened by the rigid stance taken against the serious issue that has arisen.

My episcopal conscience does not allow me to remain silent any longer. The time has come to raise strong and unbreachable barriers against the papist despotism and its expansionist plans—whose humble servant, unfortunately, the Ecumenical Patriarch has become, along with the ecumenists who stand with him, powerless in the face of the Orthodox faith.

We believe that the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece will not only understand my decision—one to which I am compelled by the imperative of my conscience—but will also apply, against the Patriarch who has deviated dogmatically, that which the holy canons recommend and command.”

Augustine of Florina and the Cessation of Commemoration

Metropolitan Augustine Kantiotis of Florina ceased the commemoration of Patriarch Athenagoras after Metropolitan Ambrose of Eleftheroupoli. In some of his conclusions from the relevant statements, he says:

“No sooner had I become a bishop than certain Old Calendarists accused me of not ceasing the commemoration of Patriarch Athenagoras, who does not rightly teach the word of truth, and of not denouncing him as a heretic.
Patriarch Athenagoras engaged in actions that led him far from the Orthodox mindset.
They demanded that I proclaim him a heretic for these things, remove him from the diptychs, and cease his commemoration.
I replied that certain actions of the Patriarch were indeed violations of the holy canons, and if proven true, they carry the penalty of defrocking.
But who has the authority to impose such a penalty? The competent forum for clerics is the Synod, and for the Ecumenical Patriarch, it is the Synod of the Patriarchate.
Unfortunately, he was never brought before such a Synod, and thus he remained in office.

As the ever-memorable former Metropolitan Chrysostomos Kavouridis of Florina, Archbishop of the Old Calendarists, used to say, defrocking (caterisis) and excommunication (aforisis) differ in “potential” and in “effect.” A clergyman who is outside Orthodoxy—until judged by a Synod—may be considered defrocked “in potential”; he is called defrocked “in effect” only after a synodal judgment. This applies to the uncanonical acts of the Patriarch. For his violations of the holy canons, he was considered defrocked “in potential,” but not “in effect.” However, there were also acts of his that touched on the dogmas. And in that case, since he publicly preaches unorthodox teachings— openly, with his head uncovered—a formal decision of defrocking by a competent synodal body is not required beforehand. Defrocking automatically occurs according to Canon 15 of the First-Second Council, which I myself, as a preacher, have cited and called upon the Hierarchs of Northern Greece to apply by breaking communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Response:

I continue to believe what I once believed. However, I have not yet applied this canon—not because I am afraid. I have already risked my episcopal throne in rebellion for the sake of upholding the holy canons. But although I have made the decision to apply it, I tremble and am overwhelmed by the responsibility before God and man for an action that would have the character of a seismic event within the Orthodox Church. I therefore examine the matter and struggle more deeply, awaiting the conviction of my conscience—a firm inner assurance that the hour has come. I follow the unfolding situation with close attention and anxiety. I see that other hierarchs of the Church of Greece are also unsettled and asking themselves: Where are we going? Our times carry something terrifying. I continuously prepare my soul, my flock, and the souls of my beloved readers for the decisive hour of Orthodoxy. May the Lord turn away from us the bitter cup! May the unity of Orthodoxy not be broken. In any case, when and how I will apply this canon will not be dictated to me by irresponsible voices, but by my conscience, which also hears the voice of the people who have struggled alongside me during the harsh days of trial.

Now they ask me: Why is it that, having become a bishop in Northern Greece, you yourself do not apply the canon and cease spiritual relations with the Patriarch?”

In the end, however, I did proceed with the cessation—though a little more slowly, a few months later.

“I applaud (March 1970) the action of Metropolitan Ambrose of Eleftheroupoli, who ceased the commemoration of Patriarch Athenagoras due to his recent statements regarding the common Chalice, primacy, infallibility, and the Filioque. The cessation has been prolonged in any case. Other hierarchs are also preparing to become confessors of the faith. The situation is worsening. The scandal is growing. The prestige of the Patriarch is collapsing. A terrible schism of Orthodox unity is approaching; a spiritual disaster will follow. These are the consequences of the dialogue initiated by the Pope and the Patriarch! The dialogue is a treacherous trap of papism aimed at dissolving Orthodoxy. The Permanent Synod, as others have also observed, is unable to cope with the situation. There is a need for the convocation of the full Synod of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, which, on this critical issue, I am confident will—with admirable unity—denounce the deviations from Orthodox principles and issue a proclamation to the entire Orthodox world, which is disheartened by the uncanonical and unorthodox actions of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Perhaps the Patriarch will come to his senses before the danger of his condemnation by the entire Synod of the Hierarchy.

The Permanent Synod, immediately after the publication of the terrifying statements made by the Patriarch regarding primacy, papal infallibility, and the Filioque, ought to have convened an extraordinary session to ask the Patriarch directly whether these statements are accurate or not, in order to calm the Orthodox faithful.

The hierarchs who have confessed the faith or even ceased commemoration are not only free of blame but are worthy of praise, for they have correctly applied Canon 15 of the First-Second Council. A serious issue of faith and a crisis of Orthodox conscience has been created—one which only the Synod of the Hierarchy can properly address. Anyone who opposes the hierarchs who protest against the voices of unbelievers, atheists, spiritualists, and Freemasons—those who are cold and indifferent, and belong only civilly to the Orthodox Church—should be dismissed, like the barking of little dogs, as taught by the ever-memorable front-line defenders of Orthodoxy. Let us listen to the faithful children of Orthodoxy, who anxiously turn their eyes from every corner of Greece toward their shepherds, seeking a strong defense of the good ancestral faith.”

After the cessation of the commemoration of the Patriarch (February 1973).

“We are accused of not respecting the Patriarchate because we ceased the commemoration of the Patriarch’s name in a supposedly arbitrary manner. No—those who say ‘completely arbitrary’ are unjust to the truth. The truth is entirely the opposite. If you open the Pedalion and study Canon 15 of the First-Second Council, you will see that it was not ‘completely arbitrary’ but completely canonical that we ceased the commemoration of the Patriarch.

We ceased it after his terrifying public declarations—made openly on a global scale—regarding papal primacy and infallibility, the Filioque, and other unorthodox teachings that have been condemned by many Synods.

We, the three Metropolitans of Northern Greece, who with heavy hearts proceeded to cease commemorating the Patriarch, made it clear in a document addressed to the Holy Synod that if the Patriarch were to retract those statements, we would resume commemoration. Unfortunately, he persisted in his deluded views.

And the fact that the Holy Synod, despite the pressures it received, did not impose any sanctions against us shows that, at a deeper level, it recognized the correctness of our action.

In fact, our action did a great service to the Patriarchate, because it placed a brake on the Patriarch, who was recklessly charging forward toward an improper union with the Papists.”

17) The fight against the pan-heresy of Ecumenism is already taking place through the informing of clergy and laity about the great diminishment of the Orthodox faith that occurred at the pseudo-council of Kolymbari, through the writing of anti-ecumenist books, texts, and articles, through strict critique, the refutation of erroneous theories, and through theological conferences and symposiums.”

18) In point 22 of the document “The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” from the pseudo-council of Crete, it is written: “The Orthodox Church considers every schism of the Church’s unity by individuals or groups, under the pretext of preserving or supposedly defending true Orthodoxy, to be condemnable.”

It is clear here that there is an attempt to impose persecutions, depositions, and excommunications upon those who oppose the pseudo-council of Crete by the Primates of the Orthodox Churches.

In this certain case of persecution against those who cease the commemoration of the names of ecumenist bishops by the official administrative Church, it must be made known and clear that the Orthodox Church will be preserved and will truly exist only in those who cease commemorating the names of the ecumenist hierarchs, and not in the official administrative Church, which, through its acceptance of Ecumenism via the pseudo-council of Crete, will have become heretical and ecumenistic.

19) The ecumenist clerics, who have deviated from Orthodoxy, can be considered deposed potentially (in principle) until judged by a Synod. They become deposed in actuality only after a synodal decision. Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite says that the Canons command the Synod of living bishops to depose presbyters or to excommunicate or anathematize laypeople who violate the Canons. If the Synod does not practically carry out the deposition of these presbyters or the excommunication or anathematization of the laypeople, then these presbyters and laypeople are not actually deposed, excommunicated, or anathematized. However, they are liable in this life to deposition and excommunication or anathematization, and in the Final Judgment, they are answerable to Divine Justice.[24]

The fiery and zealous hierarch, Metropolitan of Florina, the ever-memorable Augoustinos Kantiotes[25], who ceased commemorating the name of the great ecumenist and Freemason, Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, during the Divine Liturgy between 1970–1973, added to the above by stating that these things apply only to the uncanonical actions of clerics. That is, for violations of the Holy Canons, they are considered potentially deposed, but not yet actually deposed.

However, there are also actions of clerics that touch upon dogma. In such cases, when a cleric openly and publicly proclaims unorthodox teachings, no prior synodal decision of deposition by a competent ecclesiastical court is required.[26]

20) Those who cease commemoration (of their bishop) cut off only the commemoration and ecclesiastical communion with the bishop who is inclined toward heresy. However, they do not sever ecclesiastical communion with the Local Church to which they belong, much less with the entire Orthodox Catholic Church.

21) The ever-blessed Archimandrite Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos advises: “Let the one who commemorates not despise the one who does not commemorate, and let the one who does not commemorate not judge the one who does.”

That is, the cleric who continues commemoration should not disdain the cleric who has ceased commemoration, and the cleric who has ceased commemoration should not pass judgment on the one who continues it.

22) There must be ecclesiastical communion between those who commemorate and those who do not commemorate, as long as the ones who commemorate are commemorating a bishop who is Orthodox in mind and confession, who stands against the pan-heresy of inter-Christian and inter-religious syncretistic Ecumenism, who opposes the robber, heretical, and ecumenistic pseudo-council of Crete, and who supports the proper application of the sacred canonical right of walling off.

The theory that there should be no communion between commemorators and non-commemorators is mistaken. Communication and fellowship between brothers and fellow strugglers in the faith should not be avoided.

23) The cessation of commemoration is the last resort—the ultimate protest, the final means by which a cleric may resist heresy.

However, it is not an end in itself, nor is it the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal, even of this walling-off, is the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Council that will condemn and renounce the pan-heresy of ecumenism and the pseudo-council of Crete.

24) From all that we have presented so far—Holy Canons, teachings, and examples of saints—one and only one conclusion can be drawn: that it is praiseworthy for any faithful cleric to cease ecclesiastical communion and the commemoration of his bishop when that bishop publicly preaches a heresy or some form of a new religion, as is sadly the case today. And not—as the ecumenists claim—should he wait for condemnation “by the entirety of the bishops of the Church.”

Someone might ask: In that case, what is the purpose of synods in the Church?
We reply: As faithful children of our Church, with everything we have written, we in no way intend to challenge the synodal institution of the Church. Our goal is to demonstrate the right of clergy to cease commemoration and ecclesiastical communion with their Bishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch who publicly preaches teachings contrary to Orthodoxy—and not, we repeat, to call into question the synodal institution. God forbid!

This right is granted only to lower-ranking clerics and nothing more. It is then the responsibility of the episcopal body, assembled in synod, to take appropriate measures against the one who speaks perversely: to summon him to give an account, to admonish him, to allow him time for repentance, to suspend him, to depose him, and to anathematize him—if he does not repent and renounce his erroneous doctrines.

At the same time, the entire body of the Church must be informed, so that the faithful may avoid him “as a heathen and a publican,” according to the command of the Lord, as one who carries a deadly spiritual contagion. All of these actions fall under the responsibility of episcopal synods, and not of lower clergy.

25) The only clerics in Greece who are correctly applying the cessation of commemoration are the emeritus professor of the Theological School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, the Very Reverend Protopresbyter Fr. Theodoros Zisis; the Very Reverend Protopresbyter Fr. Nikolaos Manolis—both clerics of the Holy Metropolis of Thessaloniki; and the Very Reverend Protopresbyter Fr. Photios Vezynias, a cleric of the Holy Metropolis of Langadas, Liti, and Rentini.

26) Regarding the schismatic Zealots–Old Calendarists, what St. Paisios the Athonite said above applies.

They ceased commemoration of the Patriarch, broke away, and created their own “Churches” and factions—surpassing even the Protestants—and they continue to speak arrogantly, insulting everyone, which is entirely unreasonable.

27) The leader of the so-called “walled-offs” (Ἀποτειχισμένων), Fr. Euthymios Trikaminas, was deposed in 2007, under Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens and All Greece, by the Court of Appeals of the Synodal Court of the Church of Greece.

This occurred because he initially broke communion with his local bishop, His Eminence Ignatios, Metropolitan of Larisa and Tyrnavos—not for reasons related to Ecumenism, but due to matters of justice and canonical order. Specifically, he did not recognize or commemorate Metropolitan Ignatios, who had been elected while the canonical and lawful Metropolitan of Larisa, the late Theologos, was still alive. This constituted a case of unlawful occupation of a metropolitan throne.

Though Fr. Euthymios accepted his deposition for many years, in the last 3–4 years, using the Ecumenism of many bishops as a pretext and presenting an anti-ecumenist image, he began to celebrate the Divine Liturgy independently, without his deposition being lifted or receiving canonical permission. He did this in an Old Calendarist monastery of the Annunciation of the Theotokos in Stagiates (Volos), and in the private chapel of St. Mark of Ephesus in Vasilika, Thessaloniki—belonging to another “walled-off,” Mr. Odysseas Tso­logiannis, with whom he has recently broken communion.

In order to have episcopal cover, Fr. Euthymios—though a cleric of the Church of Greece—turned to the unjustly deposed and walled off bishop of the Serbian Church, His Eminence Artemije, former Metropolitan of Raška and Prizren, with whom he concelebrated several times. Metropolitan Artemije, through an official letter, granted him permission to serve and to commemorate “on behalf of every Orthodox diocese.”

Beyond any serious criticism are also Fr. Euthymios’s exhortations to the walled-offs not to commune or receive the Holy Mysteries in the Church of Greece, claiming it is ecumenist and its sacraments invalid.

Thus, while he claims exclusive validity of the Divine Eucharist and Holy Communion only in his own “walled-off” Divine Liturgies and only from his own “walled-off” hands, he still permits his followers to participate in and perform the other sacraments in churches of the Church of Greece. Let us marvel at the canonicity and ecclesiology of the “walled-offs”!

28) Fr. Euthymios has also written: “In any case, it is preferable for one to belong to schisms and factions (provided, of course, that no heretical doctrines are present within them) rather than to heretical bishops, because, according to the Fathers, heresy separates one immediately from God.” [27]

The aforementioned group of so-called “walled-offs” (Ἀποτειχισμένων) holds erroneous views on walling-off and exhibits schismatic, zealot tendencies.

They believe:

a) that Canon 15 of the First-Second Council (Constantinople, 861) is obligatory;

b) in the theory of the communicating vessels;

c) in the theory of the defilement of the mysteries due to commemorating a heretical bishop;

d) that the sacraments performed by those who commemorate are invalid;

e) that the commemorating clergy do not possess grace, priesthood, or sacraments;

f) that the cessation of commemoration is an end in itself;

g) they accuse, judge, and disdain both commemorators and even other non-commemorators who do not follow their own strict version of walling-off;

h) they have cut themselves off from ecclesiastical communion, that is, they are in non-communion with the entire Orthodox Church and with all Orthodox bishops, whom they consider heretical and ecumenists simply for not ceasing commemoration;

i) they consider themselves the sole saviors of the Church, believing that the Church now exists only within their group;

j) they approach zealot Old Calendarists in an effort to unite into a larger faction;

k) they even question recognized saints of the Church who either did not cease commemoration or ceased it and later resumed it;

l) they concelebrate with deposed clergy; and

m) they interpret the current ecclesiastical situation—in which no Pan-Orthodox Council has yet been convened to condemn Ecumenism or the pseudo-council of Crete—by applying criteria that are only appropriate after such a Council has occurred.

One set of criteria applies before the convocation of a Council, and another after it.

Because the above-mentioned group, which wrongly applies walling-off (ἀποτείχιση), has in recent years gained considerable ground, the canonical and legitimate practice of walling-off has, unfortunately, come to be identified with the erroneous form practiced by this group. As a result, many now view walling-off as something negative, repulsive, undesirable, or even schismatic. In part, they are right—because the erroneous form of walling-off indeed involves false theories and schismatic, zealot tendencies. However, as we have clearly demonstrated above, there is a very clear distinction between the correct and the incorrect application of walling-off.

It is absolutely necessary to distinguish between the proper, canonically and patristically grounded cessation of commemoration, carried out under the conditions previously described, and the erroneous zealot form of walling-off, which is undertaken without the necessary canonical prerequisites and is practiced by various groups of clergy. The latter, unfortunately, cannot be accepted, as it undermines and harms the struggle in support of proper canonical walling-off, and it leads to schismatic situations, resulting in the discrediting of walling-off (ἀποτείχιση) and those who apply it rightly and canonically.

Necessary Clarification

If someone were to ask us why we do not proceed to cease the commemoration of His Eminence, Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, we would respond as follows:

We do not cease the commemoration of our local bishop because we believe that, in his case, the necessary reasons and conditions outlined in Canon 15 of the First-Second Synod (Constantinople, 861) for the cessation of commemoration are not present.

These necessary conditions include that the bishop must continuously, unrepentantly, openly (“with uncovered head”), publicly, and shamelessly preach heresy—heresy that has been condemned by the Holy Synods or by the Fathers of the Church. This—thanks be to God—Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus has not done. On the contrary, as is well known, he is Orthodox in mind and confession, not a heretic. He is an outspoken and active opponent of the pan-heresy of inter-Christian and inter-religious syncretistic Ecumenism and of the pseudo-council of Crete, in which he neither participated nor signed its unorthodox texts. Through his actions, words, and writings, he has taken a stand against Freemasonry and the dreadful globalist Zionism. His letters to various figures are monumental and historic: to the heresiarch Pope Francis, to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, to the Monophysite-Coptic pseudo-patriarch Theodore, and to the President of Turkey, Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. He has organized numerous theological and academic conferences and symposiums. As Metropolitan of the Holy Metropolis of Piraeus, which belongs to the Autocephalous Church of Greece (specifically to the so-called “Old Lands”), he does not commemorate any specific individual during the Divine Liturgy, but rather commemorates the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, saying: “…of our Holy Synod…” Therefore, the accusation against him—that he is heretical or spiritually defiled because he supposedly commemorates ecumenists—is completely unfounded. Consequently, at present, there are no grounds for ceasing his commemoration, because to do so would, unfortunately, cause a schism within the Church, which would be blameworthy. If, hypothetically, in the future, His Eminence Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus were to violate the aforementioned conditions and become an open preacher of Ecumenism or some other heresy—God forbid!—then, of course, we would have the canonical right to rightly apply Canon 15.

We would, of course, wish that His Eminence Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus were more cautious in his relations with openly ecumenist bishops, and that, as a member of the Permanent Holy Synod of the Church of Greece during the 2016–2017 period, he had not agreed to the publication of the document “To the People” (January 2017), which accepts and praises the pseudo-council of Crete. This text accepts and praises the false council of Crete, despite calling heretics “heterodox Christians” and heresies “other Christian confessions—heresies” rather than “churches,” and speaks of recognising as Ecumenical, the Councils under St. Photios and St. Gregory Palamas, among others, in a direction contrary to the line of the pseudo-council of Crete.

Nevertheless, repeatedly—both before and after the pseudo-council—through the Office on Heresies and Sects of the Holy Metropolis of Piraeus and in his own writings, he has condemned and rejected the false council of Kolymbari for its crime of failing to condemn the heresies of past and present.

Endnotes

[1] ΟΣΙΟΣ ΝΙΚΟΔΗΜΟΣ ΑΓΙΟΡΕΙΤΗΣ, Πηδάλιον, ἐκδ. Β. Ρηγόπουλος, Θεσ/κη 2003, σσ. 39-40.

[2] Ὅ. π., σ. 358.

[3] Οἱ ἐν Ἁγίῳ Ὄρει μνημονεύοντες καί οἱ Ζηλωταί, ἤτοι πηγή διαφωτιστική περί Μνημοσύνου, ἀποδεικνυομένη διά τῶν Θείων καί Ἱερῶν Κανόνων καί δικαιωμάτων τῆς στρατευομένης Ὀρθοδόξου Ἀνατολικῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησίας, ἐκδ. Ε. Ι. Στουγιαννάκη, Παπαμάρκου 46, Θεσ/κη 1933, σσ. 50-53.

[4] ἐν : PRAVILA PRAVOSLAVNE CZORYES TUMACENJIMA, II, NOVI SAD 189, 66, 290, 291. Σχ. βλ. ΙΕΡΟΜΟΝΑΧΟΣ ΧΡΥΣΑΝΘΟΣ ΑΓΙΟΡΕΙΤΗΣ, Τά σαθρά ἐπιχειρήματα τῶν φιλοοικουμενιστῶν, ἤτοι ἀπαντήσεις εἰς ὅσα λέγουν, διαδίδουν καί γράφουν οἱ Φιλοοικουμενισταί ἐναντίον τῶν σημερινῶν Ὁμολογητῶν, κληρικῶν καί λαϊκῶν τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Πίστεως, Καψάλα Ἁγίου Ὄρους 1995, σ. 13.

[5] ΑΡΧΙΜ. ΕΠΙΦΑΝΙΟΣ ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ, Τά δύο ἄκρα˙ Οἰκουμενισμός καί Ζηλωτισμός, ἔκδ. Ἱερόν Ἠσυχαστήριον Κεχαριτωμένης Θεοτόκου Τροιζήνος, Ἀθήνα 1997, σσ. 75-76.

[6] Ἰω. 14, 6.

[7] Εἰς τὸν βίον καὶ τὴν ἄθλησιν τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ὁμολογητοῦ Μαξίμου, 14, PG 90, 81-84 : «Διὰ τοῦτο παντὶ τρόπῳ ἐκείνους παρέθηγε· συνεκρότει, λόγοις ἤλειφε πρὸς ἀνδρείαν, γενναιοτέρου ἐνεπίπλα φρονήματος. Εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῷ θρόνῳ ὑπερεῖχον, ἀλλὰ τήν γε σοφίαν καὶ σύνεσίν, ἐλάττους ἦσαν καὶ ἀποδέοντες· ἵνα μὴ τὴν ἄλλην ἀρετὴν λέγω καὶ τὴν ἐν ἅπασι τοῦ ἀνδρὸς εὔκλειαν. Ὅθεν καὶ λόγοις τε ἦσαν τοῖς ἐκείνου ὑπείκοντες καὶ παραινέσεσιν ἄλλαις καὶ συμβουλαῖς οὕτω πολὺ τὸ ὠφέλιμον ἐχούσαις, ἀναντιρρήτως πειθόμενοι».

[8] Αὐτόθι, 24, PG 90, 93.

[9] Ἐξήγησις τῆς κινήσεως, γενομένης μεταξὺ τοῦ κυροῦ ἀββᾶ Μαξίμου καὶ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων ἐπὶ σεκρέτου 12, PG 90, 148.

[10] Αὐτόθι 5, PG 90, 117: «Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λέγοντος κράζει ὁ Μηνᾶς· «Ταῦτα λέγων ἔσχισας τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν». Καὶ λέγει πρὸς αὐτόν· «Εἰ ὁ λέγων τὰ τῶν Ἁγίων Γραφῶν καὶ τὰ τῶν Ἁγίων Πατέρων σχίζει τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν, ὁ ἀναιρῶν τὰ τῶν Ἁγίων δόγματα, τὶ δειχθήσεται τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ ποιῶν, ὧν χωρὶς οὐδὲ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, Ἐκκλησίαν εἶναι δυνατόν»;

[11] Ἁγίου Γρηγορίου Παλαμᾶ, Ἀναίρεσις γράμματος Ἰγνατίου Ἀντιοχείας 3, ἐν Π. Χρηστου, Γρηγορίου Παλαμᾶ Συγγράμματα, τόμ. Β´, Θεσσαλονίκη 1966, σ. 627. Αὐτά ἀναπτύσσονται ἐκτενέστερα είς ΠΡΩΤΟΠΡΕΣΒ. ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΥ ΖΗΣΗ, Δέν εἶναι σχίσμα ἡ ἀποτείχιση. Ὀφειλόμενες ἐξηγήσεις, Θεσ/κη 2017, σ. 16 ἐ.

[12] Α΄ Πέτρ. 2, 5, 9.

[13]ΑΡΧΙΜ. ΕΠΙΦΑΝΙΟΣ ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ, ἔνθ’ ἀνωτ., σ. 76.

[14] Ὅ. π., σ. 81.

[15] http://www.augoustinos-kantiotis.gr/?p=36199, http://www.augoustinos-kantiotis.gr/?p=36164

[16] Σχ. βλ. Θεοδρομία ΙΑ΄1 (Ἰανουάριος – Μάρτιος 2009) 75-81.

[17] Ἐπιστολὴ ὁμολογητικὴ τῶν Ἁγιορειτῶν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα Μιχαὴλ Παλαιολόγον, ἐν V. Laurent – J. Darrouzes, Dossier Grec de l’ Union de Lyon 1273-1277, Paris 1976, σσ. 397-399.

[18] Αὐτόθι, σ. 399 : «Ἄνωθεν γὰρ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὀρθόδοξος ἐκκλησία τὴν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδύτων ἀναφορὰν τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ ἀρχιερέως συγκοινωνίαν τελείαν ἐδέξατο τοῦτο· γέγραπται γὰρ ἐν τῇ ἐξηγήσει τῆς θείας λειτουργίας ὅτι ἀναφέρει ὁ ἱερουργῶν τὸ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως ὄνομα, “δεικνύων καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὸ ὑπερέχον ὑποταγὴν καὶ ὅτι κοινωνὸς αὐτοῦ τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῶν θείων μυστηρίων διάδοχος”». Θεοδωρου ἐπισκόπου Ἀνδίδων, Προθεωρία κεφαλαι-ώδης περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Θείᾳ Λειτουργίᾳ γινομένων συμβόλων καὶ μυστηρίων 32, PG 140, 460-461: «Εἶτα ἡ ἐκφώνησις· Ἐν πρώτοις μνήσθητι Κύριε τοῦ ἀρχιεπισκόπου ἡμῶν· ἀφ᾽ ἧς δείκνυται ὑποταγὴ ἡ πρὸς τὸ ὑπερέχον καὶ ὅτι τούτου μνημονευομένου τοῦ ἀρχιερέως κοινωνός ἐστι καὶ ὁ προσφέρων τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς παραδόσεως τῶν μυστηρίων διάδοχος, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ καινὸς τις μύστης ἢ εὑρετὴς τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ προσφερομένων συμβόλων».

[19] Σχ. βλ. Οἱ ἀγῶνες τῶν μοναχῶν ὑπέρ τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας, ἔκδ. Ἱ. Μ. Ὁσίου Γρηγορίου, Ἅγιον Ὄρος 2003.

[20] Σχ. βλ. ΑΓΙΟΣ ΓΡΗΓΟΡΙΟΣ ΠΑΛΑΜΑΣ, Συγγράμματα, τ. Β΄, ἔκδ. Π. Χρήστου, Θεσ/κη 1966, σ. 37. Τό πλῆρες κείμενο τοῦ ἀφορισμοῦ ἔχει ὡς ἑξῆς ἐν PG 150, 863-864 : «Τόν Παλαμᾶν καί τούς ὁμόφρονας αὐτοῦ, καί πάντα τά ἀσεβῆ αὐτῶν δόγματα, οἰκειότερον δέ εἰπεῖν παραληρήματα, τούς τε ἐκδικοῦντας, καί ἐκλαμβάνοντας, καί ἐκδεχομένους τά ἐν τῷ Τόμῳ κατά τήν αὐτῶν ἐξήγησιν, μᾶλλον δέ φλυαρίαν, καί οὐ κατ’ἔννοιαν θεοπρεπῆ, καί ὀρθόδοξον, καί καθῶς οἱ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας φωστῆρες καί διδάσκαλοι, οἷς καί ἡμεῖς ἑπόμενοι καί ἀκολουθοῦντες τά τῶν ἁγίων ῥητά ἐνεγράψαμεν ἐν τῷ Τόμῳ, καί πάντας τούς δι’αὐτό τοῦτο, ἥγουν ὅτι μή παραδεχόμεθα τά τοιαῦτα αὐτῶν παραληρήματα, ὧν τά μέν ἀπεστάλησαν ἡμῖν παρ’αὐτῶν, τά δέ καί παρ’ἑτέρων ἐνεφανίσθησαν, τολμήσαντας ἀκονονίστως καί ἀκρίτως ἀποκόψαι τό μνημόσυνόν μου, τῷ ἀπό τῆς ζωαρχικῆς καί ἁγίας Τριάδος δεσμῷ καθυποβάλλομεν, καί τῷ ἀναθέματι παραπέμπομεν. Ἡ ὑπογραφή˙  Ἰωάννης ἐλέῳ Θεοῦ ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, νέας Ῥώμης και οἰκουμενικός πατριάρχης»

[21] P.G. 150, 880D.

[22] ΑΓΙΟΣ ΠΑΪΣΙΟΣ, Ἁγιορείτης μοναχός, «Ἄγνωστη ἐπιστολή πόνου κατά οἰκουμενιστῶν καί φιλενωτικῶν», Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος (9/16-3-2007) 1,5.

[23] http://www.romfea.gr/diafora/2431-apantiseis-gia-to-fulladio-tou-agiou-pa%CF%8Asiou

[24] ΟΣΙΟΣ ΝΙΚΟΔΗΜΟΣ ΑΓΙΟΡΕΙΤΗΣ, ὅ.π., σσ. 4-5.

[25] ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΣ ΑΥΓΟΥΣΤΙΝΟΣ ΚΑΝΤΙΩΤΗΣ, Περί διακοπῆς μνημοσύνου σε πατριάρχη, Πῶς φθάσαμε στήν διακοπή τοῦ μνημοσύνου τοῦ πατριάρχου Ἀθηναγόρα τό 1970. Ἀπαντήσεις ἐπί ἐκκλησιαστικῶν θεμάτων, Ἀθήναι 1973, σσ. 49-50 http://www.ekklisiaonline.gr/ekklisisiaellados/episkopos-avgoustinos-kantiotis-peri-diakopis-mnimosynou-se-patriarxi/

[26] ΟΣΙΟΣ ΝΙΚΟΔΗΜΟΣ ΑΓΙΟΡΕΙΤΗΣ, ὅ.π, σ. 358.

[27] ΙΕΡΟΜΟΝΑΧΟΣ ΕΥΘΥΜΙΟΣ ΤΡΙΚΑΜΗΝΑΣ, Ἡ διαχρονική συμφωνία τῶν Ἁγίων Πατέρων γιά τό ὑποχρεωτικό τοῦ 15ου Κανόνος τῆς Πρωτοδευτέρας Συνόδου περί διακοπῆς μνημονεύσεως Ἐπισκόπου κηρύσσοντος ἐπ’ Ἐκκλησίας αἵρεσιν, ἐκδ. Degiorgio, Τρίκαλα 2012, σσ. 257-258.