The Three Historical Ways of Removing a Heretic Patriarch

ΕΑΝ ΠΡΟΤΙΜΑΤΕ ΤΑ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ ΠΑΤΗΣΤΕ ΤΗΝ ΣΗΜΑΙΑ ΣΤΟ ΚΑΤΩ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΟΘΟΝΗΣ

By Helleniscope’s Editorial Team

Orthodoxy’s core governance is conciliar (synodical), not papal. Authority is exercised “with one another,” not over one another—an ethos captured by Apostolic Canon 34: the first (primate) does nothing without the bishops, and the bishops do nothing without the first. Across history, the Orthodox Church has preserved democratic correctives against errant leadership.

Unlike Papism, where power is centralized in one man, Orthodoxy has preserved a system where even the highest hierarch remains accountable to bishops, clergy, and the faithful people of God. Three primary methods have consistently arisen throughout history:

1. Synodal Deposition (the Bishops’ Act)

In Orthodoxy, the Holy Synod functions as the highest canonical court. When a patriarch gravely violates the faith or canons, the Synod (local or Ecumenical) can investigate, try, vote, and depose.

How it unfolds:
Investigation → formal synodal hearing → vote → proclamation of deposition. Appeals are rare and are typically moral rather than juridical.

Modern examples:

• Patriarch Irenaios of Jerusalem (2001–2005) was formally deposed after the East Jerusalem property scandal when the Synod voted him out and elected a successor.

• Closer to home, Archbishop Spyridon of America (1999) and Metropolitan Evangelos of NJ (2022) were both removed through a synodal process (although in the case of Archbishop Spyridon, even though he technically resigned, the other Metropolitans [the Synod] had already stated their opposition to him and a vote was forthcoming anyway).

This method represents the bishops acting together as guardians of ecclesiastical doctrine and order.

2. Financial Pressure from Below (the Parishes & Metropolises Act)

Because parishes and metropolises in the Diaspora materially sustain the central Church, widespread withholding of funds functions as a potent bottom-up check.

Case in point: In the late 1990s, opposition to Archbishop Spyridon of America included parishes (and prominent lay leaders such as Archons) cutting off funding to Archdiocesan headquarters (and ultimately to the Patriarchate). This widespread financial rebellion accelerated his resignation and led to his replacement.

Why this matters: In a conciliar system, money follows trust. When clergy–laity confidence collapses, financial pressure often precipitates synodal action.

But a caution: This method is not only a modern-day consequence, stemming from a Church Organization that has adapted to massive budgets, but it is also a double-edged sword. If misused, financial strangulation could be weaponized by lukewarm or heretical factions to undermine a traditional leader simply for being traditional. It should only be deployed when a hierarch is a proven betrayer of the Faith or violator of Canons, and refuses to repent or resign

IMAGE ABOVE: Benozzo Gozzoli’s 1459 Journey of the Magi is assumed to portray John VIII Palaiologos at the front and center riding his horse, likely during the pseudo-council of Ferrara-Florence.

3. The Rising of the Faithful (Popular Reception or Non-Reception)

Perhaps the most powerful and ancient corrective in Orthodoxy is the principle of acceptance: the people of God (laos) “accept” or “reject” a spiritual leader and his teachings.

Case Study: Constantinople’s Port, 1440s — The Non-Acceptance of the Union of Florence

In 1439, the Council of Florence proclaimed union with Rome (Laetentur Caeli). When Emperor John VIII Palaiologos and the “Orthodox” delegation returned to Constantinople in 1440, the populace met them with bitterness, rejecting the false union as a betrayal of Orthodoxy.

• St. Mark of Ephesus, the only bishop who refused to sign at the Council of Florence, became the rallying figure of the resistance.

• Unionist bishops were heckled at the docks; Isidore of Kiev was jailed in Moscow for trying to promulgate the decree.

• Popular rejection was so strong that the Union was never accepted by the people, despite imperial support.

This event proved the doctrine of “reception”: that Orthodoxy is preserved not by decrees alone but by the living faith of clergy and laity together.

Scriptural & Canonical Roots legitimizing the faithful’s opinion on who should and should not lead them:

• Acts 6:3: “Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom…”

• Exodus 18:21: “Select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain…”

• The Canons even stipulate that if the faithful cry “Anaxios!” (Unworthy) during an ordination, the ceremony must halt pending investigation.

Thus, the rejection of the false union at the port of Constantinople was not merely political—it was deeply canonical and traditional. It also serves as a model that can always be followed in times when the faithful are steadfast and commonly united in their displeasure of any ranking member of the clergy.

Why This Differs from Papism

Roman Catholicism centers on papal universal jurisdiction and the authority of unilateral acts. The bishops of the West were tricked long ago into submitting and surrendering their Synodal powers to a “supreme bishop”, and even declaring him to be “infallible”.  Orthodoxy, by contrast, binds patriarchal authority within the framework of synodality and reception, despite modern attempts from Constantinople to distort the Synodal tradition with “inaccurate marketing terms” such as  “the spiritual leader of 300 million Orthodox” or the scandalous “primus sine paribus” that was sadly published by archbishop Elpidophoros years before he was made an archbishop. In direct contrast to these outrageous “marketing” slogans, modern dialogues (Ravenna 2007, Chieti 2016) underline this difference: in Orthodoxy, no patriarch may unilaterally change doctrine or impose union.

Contemporary Relevance: Is “Union” Being Pursued Again?

Critics of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew argue that his ecumenical gestures with Rome echo the path to Florence. Indeed, the Patriarch has signed joint statements with popes about “journeying towards unity in legitimate diversity.” Scandalizing videos abound with members of the Synod of Constantinople (and others) bowing down to kiss the hand of the Pope, in direct violation of Canons, and much more. In light of these images, the faithful always remember the Lord’s words in Matt 5-28, and effortlessly recognize the “guilty ones” that have already accepted False Union (committed spiritual adultery) in their hearts.

But Orthodoxy’s system ensures that any official union would require:

• Synodal approval,

• Material support and cooperation from the faithful, and

• Reception by the laos.

Without these, as the 1440s emphatically proved, such efforts cannot stand.

The Present Danger: Bartholomew and Elpidophoros

Patriarch Bartholomew, along with Archbishop Elpidophoros of America, has repeatedly promoted ideas and practices that are alien to the Orthodox Tradition. Chief among these (because the rest of them primarily rely on this one being “accepted”) is the heretical (Papist) claim of “primus sine paribus”—“a first without equals”—which would elevate the Ecumenical Patriarch to a papal role, in direct contradiction to Apostolic Canon 34 and the conciliar ethos of Orthodoxy.

Moreover, both hierarchs have openly aligned themselves with secular ideologies antithetical to the faith (including denial of the Faith with the famous quote “there are many paths to the top of the mountain”, multiple “common prayer” events with heretics), promoting forms of woke activism and even giving tacit blessing to homosexuality—positions consistently condemned by the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers. The Church has never recognized same-sex unions or sexual relations outside sacramental marriage as anything but sin. Yet, Bartholomew and Elpidophoros attempt to cloak such practices in the language of “inclusion” and “diversity,” thereby blessing what God Himself has condemned.

Finally, their unilateral and uncanonical recognition of the schismatic Ukrainian “autocephaly” has fractured Orthodoxy, leading to one more schism and disrupting communion with entire Local Churches. In pursuing political agendas over ecclesiastical unity, they have not only betrayed the conciliar foundation of the Church but also repeated the errors of Florence: seeking union or innovation without reception.

The lesson of history is clear. Whenever patriarchs or archbishops attempt to impose heresy—whether through papal pretensions, political compromise, or moral laxity—the faithful retain the right and duty to resist, to withhold support, and to proclaim “Anaxios!”

August 29, 2025, n.stamatakis@aol.com   www.helleniscope.com

DISCLAIMER: The views and statements expressed in this article constitute constitutionally protected opinions of this author.

TO SUPPORT HELLENISCOPE OR BECOME A SUBSCRIBER, LINK HERE!!

===================

Citations

• Apostolic Canons, esp. Canon 34.

• OrthodoxWiki — “Patriarch Irenaios of Jerusalem.”

• Al Jazeera — “Greek Orthodox Patriarch sacked.”

• The Christian Century — reporting on Patriarch Irenaios.

• Los Angeles Times — “Greek Orthodox Archbishop Ousted Amid Disputes.”

• National Catholic Reporter (1999) — coverage of Spyridon’s resignation.

• Tampa Bay Times — “Church votes to oust Spyridon.”

• ArchbishopSpyridon.gr — archival reflections.

• Encyclopedia Britannica — “Council of Florence.”

• Orthodox Church in America — “St. Mark of Ephesus.”

• New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia — “Council of Florence.”

• EWTN — background on Florence.

• Assembly of Bishops — “Conciliarity and Primacy.”

• Vatican archives — joint declarations with Patriarch Bartholomew.

• el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Μητροφάνης_Β΄ — on Patriarch Metrophanes II.