Previously [*] we saw that according to the praxis of “precision” (akrivia) by our Church, common prayer with heretics or schismatics is entirely impermissible, while the penances that the Holy Canons impose for the offenders are very serious: defrocking for the clergy, excommunication for the laymen.

But: “ecclesiastic matters are viewed in two ways: with precision (akrivia) and with providence (Oekonomia); and when they are not accomplished through precision, then providence is implemented", as stressed by the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheos [1] characteristically, when summarizing the age-old poemantic tradition of our Church.

The question therefore is posed: can common prayer sometimes be allowed “providentially”[2] without violating the Holy Canons and without risking the canonical consequences?

1. Ecclesiastic Oekonomia (Providence) and the prerequisites for its implementation

According to Professor of Canon Law and later Archbishop of Athens Hieronymus (Kotsonis)": “..."Oekonomia" (Providence) is - whether out of necessity, or for the sake of the greater good of certain individuals or the entire Church - the authorized and under specific prerequisites permitted temporary or permanent deviation from "precision" (akrivia), provided piety and the integrity of the dogma remain unharmed.” [3]

In other words, Oekonomia (providence) is an institution of Canon Law that “does not aspire to the abolition of canonical order and the general tradition of the Church, but ultimately to its consolidation” [4].  It is not thus contempt and negation of the canonical order, or a transgression of the Holy Canons and arbitrariness[5], but “the fruit of the pastoral and therapeutic ministry of the Church” [6]. In fact, its implementation is not confined to the limits of Canon Law, as it is quite broad and goes as far back as Apostolic times:  ie., in the entire spectrum of ecclesiastic life (worship, administration, pastoral theology) [7].  The limits to its implementation are found in matters “where piety is not preyed upon" [8] and, according to Eulogios of Alexandria, “when the dogma of piety is in no way impaired;... there can be no allowance for  condescension in the matters of the Orthodox faith… for when it [the dogma] remains unmingled and unexploited, then there is a place for Oekonomia (providence) in matters that are outside it” [9].

Ecclesiastic Oekonomia (providence) stems from the spirit of God's love and mercy for man and is founded on the divine incarnation and the overall salvific opus of our Lord Jesus Christ [10]. In fact, St. Nicholas the Mystic, Patriarch of Constantinople, amplifies the notion of Oekonomia (providence) by saying: “Oekonomia (providence) is the emulation of divine philanthropy” [11].

However, despite its broad use, there are no defined rules for its implementation[12], only a framework within which the one exercising Oekonomia (providence) is obliged to act [13]. This contains an inherently serious danger of very easily transgressing ecclesiastic order out of carelessness or even intentionally, with serious consequences on ecclesiastic life. On this point, professor Amilkas Alivizatos notes: “It not rarely leads to reprehensible abuses that cause many damages to the Church; no-one can doubt that not rarely this abuse leads to the scandalizing and the subsequent uprising of the Christian community” [14].

In summarizing, we can say that in order to implement Oekonomia (providence), amongst other things:

1. there must be an incontestable need, such that, if omitting to implement it, serious spiritual damage will ensue[15]; or, there must be an attempt to acquire benefit for the members or for the entire Church, that would otherwise not have been acquired, given that “when the Church implements Oekonomia (providence), She aspires to a greater spiritual benefit that might come from this implementation” [16].

The Patriarch of Antioch Cyril IV notes: “occasionally, the spiritual heads at times may implement Oekonomia (providence) out of necessity and condescension, wherever piety is not preyed upon, in order to avoid the greater evils and their consequences, which would bring about the spiritual ruin of Christians; and this should be done with precise consideration and only as much as is necessary and justified, so that there will not be a simple and haphazard paralysis and undoing of the written legal decrees and standing ecclesiastic traditions and customs, followed by claims of a stumbling block and a loss” [17].

2. those implementing Oekonomia (providence) are obliged to act “in full awareness that this constitutes a deviation from precision (akrivia) [18]. This means that the use of Oekonomia (providence) should not give rise to a customized canon law that negates the praxis of precision (akrivia)[19]. Consequently, with the implementation of Oekonomia (providence) the validity of the Sacred Canons is not overshadowed; rather, they are empowered even more: “...he who proceeds to implement ecclesiastic Oekonomia (providence), does it while preserving an undiminished respect towards the established ecclesiastic order…This explains the endeavours of those who truly act with Oekonomia (providence), when they hasten to underline that the measures taken by them do not harm the authority of the Sacred Canons and the Patristic Decrees.” [20]  When Oekonomia (providence) is provided in writing, it is customary to mention in the document the Church's praxis of precision (akrivia) and Her teaching, as  well as the reasons that dictated the deviation from it [21]. A consequence of the above is that the one who applies Oekonomia (providence) is obliged to comprehend and to render the due respect to those who desire precision (akrivia). Those seeking precision (akrivia) can by no means be stigmatized with extreme characterisations on account of this reason alone, but, on the contrary, according to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew [22], “the Church as a true mother 'praises greatly (those) who wish to live with so much precision', as noted by St. Cyril of Alexandria” [23].

Conversely, when the aforementioned prerequisite is not fulfilled, but instead, “should one of them believe he can shift something of the God-bearing Fathers, this cannot be called Oekonomia (providence), but a transgression and betrayal of the dogma and irreverence towards the divine”, as St. Cyril of Alexandria categorically says [24].

3. for a deviation from precision (akrivia) to be regarded as ecclesiastic Oekonomia (providence), it must be “provided with much circumspection and prudence” [25], so that it does not create more problems to the Body of the Church than those it is striving to heal [26].

4. finally, it is absolutely necessary that the conscience of the Church accepts the deviation from precision (akrivia) as being done out of Oekonomia (providence). Because the final judge on earth, of all the decisions taken by the ecclesiastic instruments, is “THE COMMON CONSCIENCE OF THE CHURCH” [27] – the clergy and the laity. According to Basil the Great “all cases of ecclesiastic Oekonomia (providence) may be carried out by those who have been entrusted with the protection thereof, however they are ultimately certified by the people."[28]. The words of Patriarch Bartholomew must not escape our attention, namely that this conscience of the Church is “even superior to an Ecumenical Synod” [29]; and it is for this reason that he characterised as "robber" and invalid even those Synods which had satisfied all the criteria and had been convened as Ecumenical (example: Ferrara-Florence): “Above and beyond the authority bestowed by laws and holy canons, there is the moral authority of the entire fold (pleroma) of the Church, which is incorruptible … Stipulations that pertain to the actions of Oekonomia (providence) by the Church … must be in harmony with the catholic (overall) consciousness of the Church, which in this case, being guided by the Holy Spirit, constitutes the supreme criterion as regards “ecclesiastic Oekonomia (providence)” ” [30]. The words of Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios sum up our ecclesiastic tradition: “The final judgment on everything conducted during the dialogues and the final achievements thereof is up to the Churches, as administrative and deciding instruments of divine inspiration, but also up to the faithful people of God. It is they, with the infallible criterion of their faith and with their conscience as co-witness, who accept the decisions reached through God-pleasing means and who reject the fabrications that were produced in an ungodly manner” [31].

The following event that took place during the Patriarchy of Germanos II of Constantinople (AD 1222-1240) is characteristic: the Patriarchal Synod had wished to momentarily appear lenient by "providentially" (=implementing Oekonomia) allowing the Cypriot Hierarchy to conform to certain conditions set down by the Latin conquerors. As soon as the decision became known, outraged crowds of clerics, monks and laypeople stormed into the chamber while the Synod was convening and after declaring that they considered this conformity as a denial of the faith, they demanded that the Patriarch rescind the decision. As its show of respect towards the conscience of the faithful people, the Patriarchal Synod actually rescinded the "providential" decision they had reached! [32].

It is therefore absolutely clear that when the aforementioned prerequisites are not met, we have an “illegitimate” [33], “incongruous” [34], “bad and fake” Oekonomia (providence), which, according to Saint Theodore the Studite, is “no longer an implementation of Oekonomia (providence)  but a payoff of unlawfulness and a transgression of divine canons” [35].

2. Common prayer with heretics and ecclesiastic Oekonomia (providence)

It has already been mentioned that Oekonomia (providence) is not limited to the inner life of the Church only, but, as noted by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “the matter of Oekonomia (providence) is not simply a matter of obedience and order of Canon Law; it also has a theological and in fact an ecclesiastic dimension, which is not at all possible to ignore. It is within the cadre of this ecclesiastic dimension that the implementation of Oekonomia (providence) is endeavoured, with regard to the relations of the Orthodox Church with the Christians who are outside her” [36].

Obviously, it is not possible within the bounds of this essay to fully examine the question of ecclesiastic Oekonomia (providence) in inter-Christian relations (e.g. the recognition of “sacraments” [37], intercommunion, the induction of heretics, the re-unification into one Church, the formulation of dogmas), however, we will strictly confine ourselves to what is permissible or impermissible about common prayer with the heterodox.

When examining the related texts of Church Fathers and reputable canonologists, one can easily discern that they are particularly eager to implement Oekonomia (providence) multiple times when a heretic rejects his fallacy and wishes to return to the Church [38], while on the contrary they are exceptionally hesitant and even entirely opposed to implementing Oekonomia (providence) to the praxis of common prayer with heretics.

In fact they are far more strict and categorical in their prohibition of Orthodox attending a heretics' temple for common prayer with them - under any circumstance or need - while some are rather tolerant and accept the presence of heretics during Orthodox worship, for the sake of Oekonomia (providence). At any rate, never and under no circumstances is the participation of the heretics allowed in the praxis of Worship. This tolerant stance by Orthodox pastors for the sake of Oekonomia (providence), has a purely pastoral perspective: “we propose Oekonomia (providence), in order to not frustrate, but to calmly and gradually win over our brothers, for whom our common Saviour and Master spilled His own blood” [39].

Let us look at a few case studies in more detail:

1.      Could “limited space” perhaps allow for common prayer with heretics on the basis of Oekonomia (providence)?

No!

says Patriarch and “most renowned interpreter of the divine canons” [40] Theodore Balsamon of Antioch. To the question posed by Mark of Alexandria, on account of “limited space” - that is, the shortage of a sufficient number of Orthodox Temples and the plethora of heretics - "can one safely officiate or pray together with heretics…in their church, or not even in ours?”, the Patriarch of Balsamon, after quoting canons 64 of the Holy Apostles and 6, 33 and 34 of the Synod at Laodicea points out: “Therefore, let them be anathema, who would depart to go to them.  For this reason we too vote that not only should excommunication and defrocking be imposed on the laity and the clergy who pray together with heretics in a Church of Orthodox or of heretics or wherever else they might pray hieratically…but that they should be penalized even more, in accordance with the summary of the said canons”; and he concludes that “limited space never altered the integrity of the Orthodox faith” [41].

2.      When there is no Orthodox Temple available, does Oekonomia (providence) make allowance for common prayer?

No!

replies St. Nicephoros the Confessor, Patriarch of Constantinople, proposing an outlet for the problem of non-existence of Orthodox Temples:  he allows the use of a temple that has been consecrated by heretics if there is a need, however this temple should be treated as a “commonplace house”: “The Churches that have been inaugurated by heretics we are urged to  enter and chant in them as though in a commonplace house, out of necessity, but only after placing a Crucifix in their centre; in the sanctum however, we neither enter, nor do we cense, nor perform the blessing, nor light any lamp” [42]. This irrefutably shows that he too does not make any allowance for praying together with heretics, but only for the use of their Temple as an ordinary place for the performing of the Orthodox service. This practice is applied nowadays in the Diaspora, where heterodox places of worship are utilized, but only with the use of a sacred Antimension for the performing of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, the way that an antimension would be used “in a commonplace house, out of necessity”.

3.      Could Oekonomia (providence) be implemented for praying with heterodox, in cases of “pressing urgency”?

No!,

argues Nicephoros Gregoras (14^th century). To a question posed by his student Agathangelos “if it is proper to pray occasionally together with heterodox out of a pressing urgency” he categorically replies: “it is better to offer the hymn to God untainted, outdoors and in the wilderness and the mountains, rather than to frequent the temples of the irreverent, which are adorned with gold and with shining plaques !”[43]

4.      St. John of the Ladder encourages Christians who are “strong, warm and steadfast in the Faith” to be invited by heretics who respect and honour them,  to keep in contact with them for the sake of Oekonomia (providence), even to dine together, with the ulterior motive of benefiting them [44]. However, he mentions nothing in relation to the use of Oekonomia (providence) on the matter of common prayer with heretics.

5.      In what cases however can Oekonomia permit the presence of Orthodox inside the Temples of heretics and participation in their worship?

ii.   St. Nicephoros the Confessor mentions that entry into the “places of repose of the saints” viz. the places of their Martyrdom, is permitted, even if these belong to heretics, for the veneration of Holy Relics - but not to pray together with the heretics: “Except only if there is a need may entry be permitted, but only for the veneration of the relic of the Saint” [46].

iii.  Spiritual Father Gregory (member of the Orthodox delegation at the Synod of Ferrara-Florence) characteristically says: “whenever I enter a temple of the Latins, I do not venerate any of the saints in there, because I do not know any of them. I may perhaps recognize only Christ, but I do not know how He is described, so, I make the sign of the Cross and prostrate myself. Therefore it is the sign of the Cross that I made which I venerate, and not any of the other things that I see there.” [47].

6. However, in which circumstances -for the sake of Oekonomia- is the presence of heretics permitted in our Orthodox worship?

We repeat that whereas the canonical Tradition of our Church is categorically against the participation of the Orthodox in the heretics’ worship, She is nonetheless more lenient towards the entry of heretics in Orthodox temples for reasons of Oekonomia (providence):

i.    As already mentioned above, the praxis of precision (akrivia) by our Church demands the participation of Her members only, and not the unbaptized or heretics. However for reasons of Oekonomia (providence) it has been permitted in the past for heretics or non-Christians to attend Orthodox Worship – even the Divine Liturgy – when they are disposed to acquainting themselves with the worshipping life of our Church. One of the most characteristic examples is the attendance of the Divine Liturgy in the Holy Temple of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople by a delegation of Russian idolaters and the subsequent Christianization of the entire Russian nation.

ii.    Furthermore, the blessed Chrysostom would invite heretics to the Temple where he preached, in the hope that they would return to the truth of the Church: “Here I invite the heretic. He either attends or does not attend. If he does attend, let him be taught by my voice. If he does not attend, let him learn through whatever you have heard” [48].

iii.   On broadening the aforementioned suggestion of St. Nicephoros the Confessor regarding the entry into heretics’ Temples for the purpose of venerating the Holy Relics in there, we can accept that the entry of heterodox in Orthodox Temples is likewise permitted, if they desire to venerate Holy Relics that we safeguard in our Temples and that they too respect. Any prohibition of entry  and veneration of the Holy Relics would naturally be a far cry from the genuine ecclesiastic spirit. And of course in cases where the heterodox “return” Holy Relics to our Church, reasons of hospitality and gratitude will  dictate their presence (for the sake of Oekonomia) in the related ecclesiastic functions, naturally without any active liturgical participation in our Orthodox Worship.

iv.      The Patriarchs of Constantinople Gennadios Scholarios [49], Dositheos [50] of Jerusalem and the Archbishop of Ochrid (Bulgaria) Demetrios Chomatianos [51] when referring to those heretics who come respectfully to attend our Orthodox Worship and ask for our blessing, all recommend that we do not send them away, but on the contrary even offer them antidoron [52] and our holy water. It is characteristic that while Gennadios allows the Orthodox to bless the heretics, he discourages them from asking for the blessing and holy water of the heretics! “It is therefore enough, that you do not ask for their blessing, for they are heterodox, and separate”. Demetrios of Ochrid feels the need to justify this suggestion of his, saying that “this custom has the power to gradually attract them fully towards our holy ethos and dogmas” [53].

v.       Another case where heretics are permitted to participate in an Orthodox Service  by Oekonomia is during the funeral service and burial that is performed by Oekonomia for a heterodox by an Orthodox Priest, when there are no pastors of the dogma of the deceased [54], as well as  during the performance of the Sacrament of Matrimony, when the one member happens to be a heterodox (mixed Marriage) [55].

vi.      Of course today, with the changes in social conditions, an ever-increasing turnout has been observed of heterodox in parishes for Orthodox worship. The thoughts of the ever-memorable fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos constitute the most advisable course of action by the responsible shepherds: “if … a heretic wishes to enter, then of course we will not interrupt the Worship, nor will we call the Police. We will continue our Worship and after it is over we shall approach the heterodox and in a polite manner inform them what the holy canons of the Orthodox Church say on the matter and then point out to them that in future they should treat them with respect. We must never enter into a heterodox Temple during the hour of worship, thus observing the Holy Canons with absolute precision. However, as regards the entry of heterodox in our Temples, a small measure of leniency will not hurt, in the spirit of ecclesiastic Oekonomia (providence) [56]

 

3. Exceptions to the Canonical Tradition

An exception to the unanimous stance of ecclesiastic authors as regards the “precision-based” or “providence-based” prohibition of common prayer with heretics are the Archbishop of Ochrid (Bulgaria) Demetrios Chomatianos (or Chomatinos) and John of Kitros (end of 12^th century). More specifically:

1. According to Demetrios Chomatianos [57]:

a. The ordination of an Orthodox cleric by a heretic Bishop is acceptable: “ordinations...by heretics of the Orthodox, are acceptable, in accordance with the tradition of the Fathers, of either Orthodox who are, or who become so, by those who ordained them” [58]!

b. There is no problem whatsoever for Orthodox clerics or laity to pray in Latins’ Temples and to offer honorary veneration to their Saints:  “In those [Latins’ temples] that ours have entered - whether of the hieratic order or of the laity - they can send up prayers to God and display the appropriate veneration and honour to the saints in there; and they shall not be judged for this at all, that is, for the fact that these temples are under the Latins” [59].

c. The viewpoint that the distribution of Holy Communion to the Latins is prohibited (as supported by Balsamon) is not acceptable, as: “itself is too harsh and thoughtless and it is unbefitting to censure the Latins’ formalities and customs” [60].

d. The Common Chalice is not proposed, because: “it is impossible on both sides to transgress their own customs” [61]. In other words, it is simply a matter of differing customs and nothing more …

The reasoning behind Chomatianos’ stance:

a. Chomatianos is presented as accepting that the sole serious difference with the Latins is: “their innovation in the Symbol of Faith [Creed]”. The remaining differences belong to “the customs…embedded in the western Churches, none of which is able to split us” [62].

b. It is therefore obvious that albeit he is particularly strict regarding the Filioque fallacy, he does not regard the Latins as heretics, [63] because “many of the learned … say that that they were not synodically diagnosed; nor had they -as heretics- become outcasts publicly; in fact they dine together with us  and pray together.”  For Chomatianos, there are only certain nonessential differences in customs, some of which are justified, being attributed to the “unyielding conscience of their nation” [64] or “for having noticed the harsh and overbearing customs of their nation and the many customs that they have in common with barbarians” [65].

c. These views by Chomatianos are the underlying basis for his lenient and tolerant stance towards the Latins [66]. It is however characteristic that he does not justify them according to the canonical and remaing ecclesiastic tradition, but invokes the views of others whom he does not name, with the exception of Theophylactos of Bulgaria [67]: “certain people deal with the issue more philanthropically”, “in which [temples] our own enter”, “many of the learned”, “they claim … they claim”. He himself accepts the views of the “learned” and founds his own reasoning based on them, however, he does not appear to be entirely comfortable with this. That is why he so frequently resorts to “ecclesiastic Oekonomia (providence)” and considers it necessary to justify his view with additional (but ultimately contradictory) argumentation because:

I. if the Latins are not heretics and their customs are acceptable, then why is it that the Bishop (when invited and in fact attends), “it is not decided by the Hierarch, who is entrusted with the appropriate Oekonomia, to implement Oekonomia for those souls”?

II. if the Latins are not heretics, then what is the point of the last phrase with which he completes his related answers: “we propose Oekonomia (providence), in order to not frustrate but to gradually win over our brothers...."?

It is obvious that by invoking Oekonomia (providence) in order to justify his support of worshipful communication with the Latins, he is essentially accepting that the Latins, if not heretics, are at least schismatics; because in the opposite case, there would not be any canonical problem that would require healing through Oekonomia (providence)!

d. Also worth noting is Chomatianos’ observation that “certain Latins are found to be no different at all to our customs - both the dogmatic and the ecclesiastic, and that they are -one could say- in this manner merely wavering in both directions” [68]. He also notes that the Latins who come to the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox asking “to receive the leavened Holy Offering from us, make it obvious that if they did not shun the unleavened (offerings) and if they didn't make a big deal of asking for them, they would not have come to the sacred ritual of the divine sacraments performed by us."[69]. Clearly, according to Chomatianos, during his time (end of 12^th century) there was not a complete interruption in communication between East and West, and the heresy had not yet become fixed in the conscience of the Body of the Catholic Church[70], or at any rate there was some valid hope for a reunification of the separated. In these cases therefore, of "waverers in both directions" and of those who “shunned the unleavened”, Chomatianos proposes Oekonomia (providence) for the offering of Antidoron and the presence of an Orthodox Hierarch in their gatherings. Despite the above suggestions, he naturally feels the need to substantiate the above proposal by saying that “this custom has the power to gradually attract them completely to our holy customs and dogmas” [71]. The aim of this implementation of Oekonomia (providence), which he recommended and was observed by "many of the learned", is for those in whom fallacy and heresy were not fixed and who were waverers in both directions and positively predisposed towards the Orthodox Church, "proposing Oekonomia, in order to not frustrate but to calmly and gradually win over our brothers, for whom our common Saviour and Master spilled His own blood" [72].

In summarizing the stance of the Metropolitan of Ohrid Demetrius Chomatianos, we can say that he is very lenient and tolerant towards the Latins, on the one hand because of his more general leniency "in anticipation of justification, for his somewhat bold interpretations" [73] and on the other hand because of the specific historical period that he lived in, when there was not a complete and explicit dogmatic deviation and ecclesiastic interruption in the communion of the Latin Church with the Eastern Orthodox Church.[74]. His aim during that crucial period was to avoid further distancing and to attract those who had not yet completely severed themselves from the bosom of the Catholic Church.  This pastoral motive also led him to extreme and theologically unfounded perceptions that never acquired a canonical authority in the Church, nor of course did they manage to even slightly be applied in Her way of life (regarding Holy Communion[75], the validity of ordinations of Orthodox by heretic bishops, common prayer with heretics, that the Latins are not heretics etc...)[76].

2. John of Kitrou[77].  To a question posed by Constantine Kavasilas, Archbishop of Dyrrachion, if it is permissible for Orthodox to be buried in Latin temples and the funeral service to be chanted by Orthodox clergy together with Latins, he replied that "it is not therefore improper, nor is piety polluted, when burying Latins in Romaic temples and chanting with Romans and Latins together in funerary services of Latins and Romans", for "neither does the location of the deceased make them outcasts before God, and the Latins' chants over them is not Gentile, but derived from our Holy Scriptures."[78].

The above viewpoint by John of Kitrou is checked as being especially problematic, from a canonical point of view, given that:

1. John of Kitrou is preoccupied mainly by the question of whether the location of burial is of importance for the post-mortem course of man. He categorically responds that it is entirely indifferent, given that the Holy Relics of innumerable Martyrs were "by their executioners dumped in places full of mire, but that the Grace bestowed on the Saints had thenceforth remained unsullied" and reversely, the burial of many irreverent persons inside temples does not exempt them from eternal hell.   

2. On the matter of performing the funeral service of deceased Orthodox by Latins he replies very thoughtlessly that there is absolutely no problem, because "the Latins' chants over them are not Gentile, but derived from our Holy Scriptures"!  For a reputable interpreter of canonical decrees and of ecclesiastic order, is this prerequisite alone enough? What heretic uses "Gentile" prayers?  Aren't the prayers of all heretics "derived from our Holy Scriptures"?

3. It is worth noting that albeit an interpreter of canons, John of Kitrou is entirely ignorant of them; he is not in the least concerned with  - not even as a simple speculation - nor does he mention that the Canons of the Church explicitly forbid common prayer with heretics or schismatics!  He mentions the common performance of a service of "Romans and Latins" as though it were something entirely self-understood and unimpeachable!

4. At the beginning of his reply he notes that the differences between us and the Latins are located only in two areas:  Chiefly in the "Filioque" and slightly less in the unleavened (bread).  All the other things are "common to them and to us"  ("the reading of the Scripture,...and the prayers and the melodies, and the divine Laws, and the prostrations before the Precious Cross and the sacred Icons"). Quite obviously, he does not regard the Latins as not being heretics, but also not even schismatics! That is why the canonical prohibition of "One must not pray together with heretics or schismatics" does not concern him and is not included in his speculation!  

5. We note with specific emphasis that John of Kitrou does not invoke the Church's praxis of Oekonomia (providence) in order to support this reply of his, because he does not sense that there is any prohibition - that would require the observance of akrivia (precision) - in the case of common prayer with Latins!

It is obvious that the aforementioned views by John of Kitrou are not based on the tradition of our Church, and that they lack any kind of canonical backing.  That is why "this praxis does not appear to have generally prevailed, nor is there any related information from elsewhere that can verify the aforementioned, except that which was provided by the inquirer, according to which information "Orthodox Romans were buried in Latin Churches, chanted by both Romans and Latins therein" [79].

3. Unfortunately later on, during the era of the Turkish and the Venetian Occupations, significant deviations were committed by Orthodox pastors; among others:  the commemoration and the acknowledgment of Latin bishops, the acknowledgment of papal primacy, isolated co-liturgies, joint performing of sacraments, bestowing sacraments to heretics, funerals for heretics, studies in heretics' schools, granting permission to papist Capuchins or Protestants to perform confession and to teach. Even Metropolitans or monks would go to Latin confessors!  Moreover, during the mid-17th century, "the monasteries of Athos had repeatedly invited the Jesuits to found a school on Mount Athos, for the spiritual edification of the monks"[80].  As mentioned by the reverend Monk Basil Gregoriates, "the dire circumstances at the time, in conjunction with the tenacious Western propaganda, significantly reduced the resistances of the subjugated Orthodox clergy and populace, who were deep in extreme ignorance and darkness. The events of that period are indicative of the ignorance and the confusion of certain Orthodox with regard to their relations with the heterodox, the distortion of their ecclesiastic conscience and the loss of their Orthodox sensitivity"[81]. 

It is of course unthinkable for one to assert that the aforementioned digressions in times of crisis and decadence are worthy of emulation, or that they can    comprise an alibi for us today!  Besides, as fr.Basil Gregoriates notes, the major Fathers of those times (Pachomios, Rousanos, Dositheos of Jerusalem, Eugenios, Chrysanthos  and Kosmas of Aetolia, Makarios of Patmos, Athanasios of Paros, Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, Maximus the Greek) were all exemplars in their struggle to transmit a spiritual light to the Orthodox populace and to protect it  from the papist propaganda which was rampant in its endeavour "to seduce the simpler ones".  The venerable Nicodemus in fact reproached the "Latin-minded" of his time - or "the unsalaried defenders of the Latin pseudo-baptism" [82] as he used to call them - and was deeply sorrowed by the immense adulteration, corruption and misinterpretation of the sacred canons up until that time, and the "deadly fruit and the culprit for the loss of souls" that was born of them.  Besides, we should not forget that the isolated views or even actions of certain Orthodox (even of the clergy) do not constitute the criterion of the Church's Truth, but as characteristically stressed by fr. George Metallinos, "it is only the actions of the authentic Orthodox - that is, those who have experienced 'theopty' ('sight' of God) that constitute the expression of Orthodox self-awareness."[83]  Saint Theodore the Studite goes even further, saying it is possible for even the decisions of Synods to not express the truth of the Church, because: "Synods, consequently, are not simply the congregating of hierarchs and priests, even if they are many...but (the congregating) in the name of the Lord, in peace and in the guarding of the canons and the binding and unbinding not at random, but as perceived by truth and the canon and the gnomon of precision (akrivia)" [84].

We can in conclusion say that "not only is co-liturgy and co-celebrating forbidden according to akrivia (precision), but even the very entry into heterodox temples for the sake of prayer."  According to the aforementioned canonical decrees, entry into heterodox temples is permitted per oekonomia (providence), for the sake of venerating sacred Relics, but not for praying in there also, and much less for common liturgies or concelebrating therein, together with heterodox "clergymen"[85]. On the contrary, whereas for the participation of the Orthodox in the worship of heretics the canonical Tradition of our Church is categorically negative, it is however more conciliatory - as mentioned previously - in regard to the presence of heretics in Orthodox Worship, for the sake of Oekonomia (providence). Because deep down, it is the same poemantics of condescension towards heretics that the Fathers of the Church had always implemented: "with the consenting nod and the inner voice by the Spirit of God, we have chosen to gently and peacefully act together with the people mentioned (the Donatists)...so that...perhaps by congregating with meekness, all those who believe differently, God might grant them repentance so that they might realize the truth, and so that they who are caught by the devil in his nooses, to do his bidding might escape" [86].

4. Ecclesiastic Oekonomia or a “cunning and nefarious Oekonomia”? [87]

Unfortunately, however, during the last decades not only have common prayers with heretics greatly increased, they have actually tended to become the rule[88].  In fact, the development of an ecumenistic "ecclesiology"[89] through which a "theological" justification of this anti-canonical practice is being attempted - along with methods and practices taken from the sphere of public relations - has led to practices that leave a deeply bitter taste in the People of God.  Characteristic of this attempt are the events that took place during the last visit of the Pope in Constantinople, during the Celebration of the Throne of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the 30-11-2006.  I am not referring to the meetings and events that took place outside the Patriarchal Holy Temple of Saint George (discussions, joint announcement, greeting from the balcony etc.), but to everything that took place inside the Temple, which went way beyond the boundaries of simple common prayer with a heterodox; for example:

- The reception of the Pontiff with the words: "Blessed is the one who comes in the Name of the Lord"         

     Can a heretic leader truly be addressed with an expression that has been linked exclusively to the Person of the Lord?

- Addressing the Pontiff as if a canonical Pope and Bishop of Rome, and a supplication offered for his sake[90].

It is natural that during their meeting, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church would be addressed as "Pope and Bishop of Rome" - characteristics that according to theological akrivia (precision) he otherwise cannot have, since he is a heretic[91].  Thus, both titles ("Pope of Rome" and "Bishop of Rome") are merely used as technical terms  (termini technici) or even as an address of amiability-courtesy towards a guest, and a social manner of expression, without any theological and ecclesiological gravity. It is in the same sense that the heterodox communities are characterized "Churches"; ie., not according to ecclesiological akrivia (precision), given that the Catholic Church was, is, and will be, only One[92].

There also exist in the Tradition of our Church - in parallel to akrivia (precision) - politeness and Oekonomia (providence):  thus, while  Saint Cyril condemns Nestorius with very stern expressions for his fallacies, he also calls him "honorable"[93], “very honest” [94], “a very pious bishop” [95], and he addresses him using the phrase “Your Piousness” [96].

However, it is an entirely different matter, during a Service inside the Patriarchal Temple, to chant hymns and commemorate a heretic as a canonical Pope and Bishop of Rome, in parallel with the Patriarch of Constantinople!  Can this behaviour also be characterized as a mere indication of "courtesy", or is this a case of indirectly recognizing a heresy as a church of Christ, and its leader as a canonical Hierarch?  Isn't a perception such as this entirely alien to the Tradition of the Fathers, and doesn't it overturn Orthodox Ecclesiology overall?

- Going from simple common prayer to a common liturgy

Unfortunately, the common prayer in Constantinople was not limited to a simple supplication, but was extended even further: to a yet un-finalized common liturgy.  During the official Patriarchal and Synodical Divine Liturgy for the celebration of the Throne of the Ecumenical Patriarchate[97], the Pope was granted the reciting of the Lord's Prayer[98]; he was censed, as though a canonical Bishop[99] and above all, he received from the Patriarch - and reciprocated - the liturgical kiss[100] prior to the Holy Anaphora - acts that are ONLY permitted to co-officiating Priests and Hierarchs!

We beg to be allowed to pose certain questions:  

-    When the Ecumenical Patriarch is the liturgical officiator and a clergyman (Priest, Bishop, or even a Primate of an Autocephalous Church) is not officiating but is co-praying at the Holy Bema, will the officiating Ecumenical Patriarch exchange the liturgical kiss with him?  Assuredly not, according to the liturgical provisions, because a liturgical kiss is understood as appropriate for co-liturgists (co-officiators)!  How, then, was a liturgical kiss exchanged with the Pope?  Was the Pope a co-officiator with the Patriarch?

-     Is it permissible to make use of the liturgical kiss - during the crucial moment of displaying unity in Truth and Love - in a manner different to that which has been determined by our liturgical tradition[101] (ie., to demote it to a mere act of social courtesy and socializing, in the sphere of sentiment or of ecclesiastic politics)?

-     Is the liturgical kiss an autonomous act, or is it a prerequisite, in order that "we confess unanimously" the Triadic Dogma - the Theology as formulated by the Symbol of Faith (Creed)? When there is no confession of a common faith - since there is no common Theology - then what is the purpose of the liturgical kiss between an Orthodox Hierarch and a heretic Leader? 

-     Since when can a heretic pray during Worship, as though a canonical Orthodox Christian?

-    Is is ever possible for a heretic - and in fact a heresy leader - to represent the Orthodox people during Divine Worship, by reciting the Lord's Prayer in the name of the corpus of our Church?

-     Shouldn't there be a "unity in faith" when we recite the Lord's Prayer?  Is there such a unity with the Pope?

-     The Lord's Prayer is the principal prayer of preparation by the people for the "daily bread" of the Divine Eucharist[102].  Is it permissible, during the Divine Liturgy performed by Orthodox, for someone (like the Pope) to pray with the words: "....Give us this day..."this "Bread"... when it is explicitly forbidden to impart the Divine Eucharist to him? What is the purpose of such a prayer?

-    Since the Pope was not merely present during the Divine Liturgy, but was actively participating in it, then why did he not receive Holy Communion?  Someone may reply that it is not permitted by the rules of our Church, because he is a heterodox!  I ask you: then what about the other things that he did - were they permitted? What canonical provision, and which Saint of our Church, permits a heretic to recite the Lord's Prayer during the hour of the Divine Liturgy, or be censed  as though he were a liturgical officiator, or exchange the liturgical kiss etc., but only forbids him to receive Holy Communion?

-    How do all the above reconcile with the clear-cut position of our Ecumenical Patriarch, that: "Communion in the sacraments is not acceptable, before succeeding in attaining full unity in the faith... Stepping towards that unity through sacramental communion is a step back...Sacramental communion without the unity in faith resembles banknotes that have no corresponding value in gold" [103]? Or could it be that "communion in the sacraments" is understood to mean the moment of imparting Holy Communion ONLY, and not the entire Divine Liturgy of the faithful?  Is such a partitioning of the Divine Liturgy theologically permissible?

-    And finally, isn't it imperative that the Eminent Liturgical Officiator of that Divine Liturgy be questioned - with all our due respect - as to which ecclesiastic provision permits the practice of ceding to a heretic (with a related, unanimous opinion of Saints and Synods) the opportunity to actively participate in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, when the entire Tradition of our Church, all of the Fathers, all of the local and Ecumenical Synods without exception are absolutely categorical and forbid it explicitly, in fact threatening with severe canonical penalization?

Could all the above perhaps be justified as taking place for the sake of Oekonomia (providence)?  Can Oekonomia (providence) make allowance even for the yet un-finalized co-officiating by Pope and Patriarch?  The answer is categorically NO !  Never, nowhere and by no Saint is it permitted for a recognized heretic - and in fact a heresy leader who persists in his heresy - to actively participate in the Divine Liturgy! 

Furthermore, what imperative need imposed "co-officiation" with the Pontiff?  For the sake of what superior accomplishment [104]  - that could not be accomplished in another manner - was the order of the Church disregarded?  What, ultimately, was the benefit that could be attained for the Church, that could justify common prayer with the Pope?   There is absolutely no prerequisite for implementing Oekonomia (providence) that could justify the active participation of the Pontiff in Orthodox Worship!

Besides, even our Ecumenical Patriarch himself is clear, when referring to the "eucharistic communion" with the heterodox:  "The overall matter is in essence an ecclesiological one; it would therefore be expedient and beneficial to the ecumenical dialogue to outrightly stress...that the eucharistic communion pursued by some between the Orthodox and not (Orthodox) - while the schism still exists - is neither possible, nor can it be accepted by the Orthodox Church for the sake of Oekonomia (providence)"[105].  And of course "eucharistic communion" does not begin at the stage of "...With a fear of God, faith and Love, come forward (to the Chalice)" and concluded at the stage of "...God, save Thy people..." (at the end of imparting Holy Communion).

Consequently, it is not an exaggeration to apply the words of Saint Theodore the Studite in the case of Patriarch and Pope in common prayer: “Know, that it is no longer an implementation of Oekonomia (providence) but a payoff of unlawfulness and a transgression of divine canons”[106], or, to adjust this to today's circumstances, we could repeat together with the Hagiorite monks: "But should we do this for the sake of Oekonomia (providence)? And how will Oekonomia accept something that defiles divine things? And what if something even more damaging comes from this Oekonomia?  This is an obvious communion of theirs, and in one move a degradation and a subversion of every good thing.  For the one who accepts a heretic is subject to his crimes, and he who communes with the unshriven is likewise unshriven, having become one who has confused the canon of the Church [107].”

This kind of concern has not been raised by any "stubborn pseudo-brethren, who comprise a group of fanatic supporters of the supposed "institutions", who are in all the prisoners of a religious faithlessness, or a neo-Manichaic fundamentalism, or a projected metaphysical guilt - an easy task, so that the peddlers of the 'pure faith' can live under the guise of sects"[108]. (How sad it is, to hear such characterizations coming from the mouth of an Orthodox Hierarch in the presence of the Patriarch, the delegations of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches and the heterodox, during the celebrations of the Throne of the Patriarchate, and directed "en masse" against all the faithful who still have some reservations - big or small- about the dialogues!)  On the contrary, the adherents of the inter-Christian dialogues and the Ecumenical movement are worried and denounce such practices, as ones that lack any kind of theological grounds and which ultimately undermine the Theological Dialogue itself.

The Archbishop of Australia Stylianos (Charkianakis) – co-presiding for twenty years over the Official Theological Dialogue with the Roman Catholics – makes reference in his homily on the 10. 5. 1985 to "tragic mistakes" which have been made in this respect: «First of all, an exaggerated friendliness towards Rome was displayed, which was expressed in ways that were irresponsible and not entirely theologically checked... Unfortunately many Hierarchs.....hasten to (liturgically) kiss each other at the most sacred moment of the Divine Eucharist, when we say "let us love each other"... This is the moment during which we express the highest and profoundest unity between the co-officiators only.  The liturgical officiators do not even have the right to kiss the co-believing hierarchs and other clerics that are at the sacred Bema. And yet, there are Orthodox hierarchs - there is no need to mention their names - who well-meaningly (but without an awareness of how serious a theological responsibility they are bearing at that moment) actually liturgically kiss the heterodox clergy, when there is no reciprocal action - when that move is not reciprocated - because they will not be partaking of the same Chalice.  So, why are they kissing them?...

Another mistake, not less tragic, is that in our attempt to be courteous to each other, Orthodox hierarchs quite often -regrettably- address the Pope as "first bishop of Christendom".  Yet another theological lie...  The Pope, in a divided Christendom, is NOT the first among equals; he is not even an equal among equals!  The Pope will come right after the last Orthodox  Bishop, for as long as he is like the one today - in a schism and a heresy.  These things are so self-evident, that it is totally redundant for one to mention them... The Roman See cannot be addressed as the "Primate of Love", according to Orthodox Theology. When words like these are said, they are irresponsible. And unfortunately they create a lot of disturbance, a lot of damage, without securing any benefit whatsoever. That way, we give the impression that we are hastening to achieve an intercommunion - a sacramental communion with the heterodox... By hailing the Pope or Rome with Patristic - as I mentioned - titles, full of familiar contents, we cause only damage and on the contrary, we do not help the Dialogue at all.  Quite simply, it is a lie to ascribe such titles - a theological lie."[109].

5. Abolition of the holy Canons!

When "theological" arguments prove themselves to be inadequate for justifying common prayers with heretics, that is when they resort to the complete denial of the canons and ecclesiastic practice to date, as though they are obsolete and inapplicable in our day.  It is unfortunately forgotten that "the canons that regulate the life of the Church 'in Her terrestrial form' are inseparable from the Christian dogmas.  They are not legalistic regulations per se; they are the applications of the dogmas of the Church, Her revealed tradition in every sector of the practical life of a Christian community" [110].  That is why "constancy towards the Apostolic Tradition, the confession of faith, life and creation, are all protected and governed by the canons... From the moment that the dogma loses its meaning and its significance, we will have reached a complete disregard for the canons.  Have we suddenly "realized" something that the Holy Fathers hadn't: that the canons are nothing more than "human concoctions" and not the application of the dogmas in the life of the Church? "Synods, Canons, all those things, are lapsed."  That which was the privilege of a Synod, ie, that "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us" is nowadays contested by each one of us for himself" [111] according to L.Ouspensky…

A. Metropolitan of Pisidia Methodios (Fougias - formerly Archbishop of Thyateira) mentions that:

«Above the Canons however is the teacher and legislator Church, on the basis of the Holy Bible[112];

«The usage of Ecclesiastic Oekonomia is not dependent on instituted things, but on the particular privilege of the Church: that She is the pillar and the ground of the Truth... the Church is free, under the supervision of the Holy Spirit, with a capacity - for the sake of realizing Her mission inwardly and outwardly - to transgress even dogmatic teaching itself, regardless of the events occurring through Time, totally dependent on the Holy Spirit and not on History. This teaching does not shape the conscience of the Church; it actually comprises Her conscience per se[113].»

«The Church is a tree, which continues to develop and does not cease to develop, for any reason whatsoever. It is for this reason, that it is not proper to ask what the Fathers say on each and every issue, and for us to do just that.» [114].

«The Church is not bound to only those things that we have been taught from the Past, and we should not submit ourselves to this with servility. "Consensus Patrum" does not imply that we must repeat whatever they said or did, every time. Because there are Patristic views on important Theological issues, which now need to be altered.»[115].

«It has become an imperative duty of Orthodox Theologians to delve deeper into the nature of the Church, the way that She appears today, and not the way She was during the time of Saint Cyprian... The ponderings of the ecclesiastic leaders of the Past, regardless how successful they were, do not lie above the Holy Bible.»[116].

«On this matter, the ever-memorable Russian, L. Zander, had written: «It is impossible to resolve the problems pertaining to the relations with the heterodox by basing ourselves on Canons that pertained to situations and heresies which have disappeared from the horizon» [117].

Even though the aforementioned thoughts are indistinct, inadequate, quite vague and require reading many times over, we wonder: doesn't the teaching of our Church identify with Divine Revelation (which is uniform and is expressed in the Holy Bible), the Consensus Patrum, the conditions and the Canons of the Ecumenical Synods? Is it theologically permissible to separate from - and even worse, to make the Holy Bible appear as juxtaposed to - the Canons or the Patristic conscience? Can one consider it possible to distance the Church from that which is Her very expression?

B. Archmandrite Bartholomew Archondonis (currently Ecumenical Patriarch) in his reference to the Canons that prohibit common prayer with heretics noted very succinctly in his doctoral dissertation:  «On the codification of the Sacred Canons and the Canonical Decrees in the Orthodox Church», Thessaloniki 1970, p. 73: «Similarly, the decrees that regulate the relations of Orthodox Christians with the heterodox and other religions cannot possibly be applied today, and should be modified. It is not possible for the Church to have decrees that forbid entry to temples by the heterodox and common prayer with them, at the moment when She, through Her representatives, is praying in common with them for the final union in Faith, in Love, in Hope.  More Love should "irrigate" many of the canonical decrees, for their "animation".  The modification of certain decrees for a more philanthropical and more realistic approach is imperative.  The Church cannot and should not live outside of place and time».

Furthermore, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in an article of his titled «The problem of Oekonomia today» in the magazine Kanon, Issue 6 (1983), of the Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches (Vienna Austria) among other things mentions: «a) as regards the first comprehension, its supporters are interpreting verbatim certain specific sacred canons that pertain to circumstances and heresies that have vanished long since.  Today, there is an ecclesiastic reality around us that cannot be ignored. The Holy Spirit, Who "blows where He wants" (John 3:8) and is not confined to the History of the Past, is also present, even among the heterodox» [118].

Allow us to make certain observations here. (Of course it is redundant to mention that a different approach or even a complete disagreement with certain choices or views does not also signify a lessening of our respect for the Ecumenical Throne, especially when it is about a critique on scientific essays, as is the doctoral dissertation or the article in a scientific magazine):

1.  It is obvious in the Ecumenical Patriarch's dissertation that transgression and disregard for the Canons forbidding common prayer with heretics is not suggested. What is suggested is simply their abolishment in a future codification of the Canonical Law of our Church.  In fact, Canon 2 of the Synod of Trullo is mentioned, which explicitly states: "It is not for anyone to violate the aforementioned canons or to admit other ones, instead of the aforementioned ones.... Should anyone violate any of the said canons by innovating, or by attempting to subvert them, he shall be responsible according to that canon, as it clearly states, and will receive the penance due."  On this, the Ecumenical Patriarch clearly specifies: «it is obvious that these prohibitions refer to individual members of the Church» [119] – regardless if they are laity or clergy.

2.  According to the above essay, no-one - not even a local Synod of an Autocephalous Church - cannot modify or abolish the sacred canons, because «the Church can, only in an ecumenical synod, modify and abolish ancient canons»[120]. Thus, he repeats, «we stress once again that the sacred canons of the ecumenical synods and of the Fathers are not unalterable, but they are irreversible - at least de jure - until their modification or abolishment by a new ecumenical synod[121], given that “the postulate of both the Ecclesiastic and the Legal overall is that a decree can be modified or abolished only by an authority equal or greater than the one that had issued it" [122] and that those sacred canons have been validated by Ecumenical Synods. Consequently, by observing ecclesiastic tradition, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew concludes in his dissertation that, if the canons which forbid common prayer with heretics have been abolished by an ecumenical synod of an Autocephalous Church - but not by any local synod of an Autocephalous Church - then they continue to be valid and absolute respect is compulsory.

3.  Beyond this, however, even the modification suggested in the above dissertation (essentially abolishment, because it states: "the Church cannot have decrees") is defectively being justified , because it is not founded on any ecclesiological or canonical word and argument. The only reason given is that "they cannot be applied today"! But: