Orthodox Reflections

Author: Fr. Jonathan H. Cholcher, Saint Mark Orthodox Church (OCA), Bradenton, FL

October 2023

 Abstract: The Church’s episcopal reaction to the 2020 SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) epidemic assumed two basic and related concepts of Church life: the nature of obedience to bishops’ mandates, and the acceptance of penances for spiritual health.  The mandates to restrict Church life predicated on subordination to public-civil health authority (Titus 3:1; e.g., lockdowns, social distancing, contact tracing, masking, virtual services, etc.) simultaneously suspended the faithful from normal gathering for Holy Communion and participation in the mysteries (sacraments) of the Church.  Must the people of God unconditionally obey the mandates of bishops, especially when these mandates penalize the otherwise faithful for fulfilling the very norms of their calling?  The nature of obedience to bishops does not restrict the ability of the Church to practice its essential activities; rather, obedience to bishops should encourage that activity.

1. The Nature of Obedience to Bishops

According to Orthodox canons, “Let not the presbyters (priests) or deacons do anything without the sanction of the bishop; for he it is who is entrusted with the people of the Lord, and of whom will be required the account of their souls.”  “Let no one arrogantly cast off the rule of his own bishop.”[1]  This is the typical language of the canons.

The authority and respect of the bishop resides in the bishop’s relationship to the Church.  The bishop is entrusted by God with the rule of the Church which belongs to God.  Therefore the bishop is a steward in the household of God answerable ultimately to the owner of the house who is God.  The bishop manages the Church according to the will of God to which he himself is beholden.

“Therefore let no one boast in men.  For all things are yours: whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come – all are yours.  And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.  Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.  Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.”  “I have been entrusted with a stewardship” (Gk., oikonomia; 1 Cor. 3:21-4:2; 9:17; see Eph. 3:2; Col. 1:25; Lk. 12:42-48).

Another way of stating this relationship is the manner of the shepherd (pastor) with his flock.  “The presbyters[2] who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow presbyter and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as bishops[3], not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away” (1 Pet. 5:1-4).  Like a steward, a shepherd manages the flock belonging to Another, that is, God.

Importantly, as a steward and shepherd, the bishop rules not by force, but in those who willingly want to follow, leading as an example (Gk., typos) of what he wants the flock to do.  “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1).  Therefore obedience as a voluntary action is very different than mere compliance which assumes coercion and a surrender of freedom.[4]  Two chapters earlier, the Apostle Peter writes: “For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:25), that is, the crucified Lord Jesus Christ.  As with the Lord Jesus, the rule of the bishop is characterized by love (cf. John 10:1-18).[5]

The bishop rules by always remembering he himself is one of the sheep following Christ, and the bishop never enjoins on the flock what he himself does not first want to practice, namely, the direction of Christ, the Bishop of the bishop and the Church.  Obedience to the bishop is a mutual endeavor of both the bishop and Church in obedience to Christ.  In this respect the bishop must be willing to be obedient to the Church in which he rules not by force, but by humility and mutual love, recognizing the fulness of the Faith resides not in himself, but the Church of which he is a part.[6]

Addressing the presbyters of the Church of Ephesus, the Apostle Paul speaks likewise: “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.  For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.  Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:28-30).

Notice first, the Holy Spirit makes bishops, this same Holy Spirit gathering the Church “in one place” and filling it with grace and the Word of God in faith (Acts 2:1; 4:31; 13:2; etc.), “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).  We read about the Jerusalem Council dealing with the controversy of Judaism: “Then it pleased the apostles and presbyters, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company…’For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things’” (Acts 15:22, 28).

Second, division of the household and flock of the Church will be caused by bishops (presbyters) drawing the disciples away after themselves, their own opinions contrary to “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) already delivered to the Church.  Despite the inevitable attempts of erring bishops, perversion of the truth will always be instantly recognizable so that the flock need not be led astray, if the Church remains vigilant.

The Apostle Peter warns of the deceptive nature of error catching the heedless unaware.  “There will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.  And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.  By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words” (2 Pet. 2:1-3).  Our Lord calls such false prophets wolves in sheep’s clothing; however, “You will know them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:15-16).

Unconditional, undiscerning obedience to the directives of a bishop, simply because he has the title and position of bishop, can in fact facilitate destructive error in the Church.  Saint John Chrysostom explains.  “There is also a third evil (besides anarchy and disobedience), when the ruler is bad…For it is better to be led by no one, than to be led by one who is evil…How then does Paul say, ‘Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive’ (Heb. 13:17)…What then (you say), when he is wicked should we obey?…If indeed in regard to Faith, flee and avoid him; not only if he be a man, but even if he be an angel come down from heaven (cf. Gal. 1:8)…For hear Christ saying, ‘The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.  Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do’ (Matt. 23:2-3).  They have (He means) the dignity of office, but are of unclean life.”[7]

Previously in the same chapter of the Letter to the Hebrews, the Apostle writes: “Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.  Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:7-8).  A bishop’s legitimate rule, and the obedience commensurate with that rule, has a two-fold basis: teaching the word of God according to the pattern of sound words, sound doctrine (i.e., Orthodox Tradition; see 1 Tim. 4:12-16; 2 Tim. 1:13-14; Titus 1:9); and the practical conduct among the faithful demonstrating that doctrine.[8]  Once again, the bishop is an example to the flock of faith and life in the unchanging Christ, and in the exercise of that faith and life in the Church he is due complete obedience.

The final aspect of the nature of obedience to bishops accords with their primary function within the Church as bishops: pastors presiding at the Divine Liturgy which is the very definition, the manifestation or revelation, of the Church in its entirety.  “The task of the Bishop was from the beginning principally liturgical consisting in the offering of the Divine Eucharist.”[9]

Saint Ignatius of Antioch (+107), among the first generation of bishops after the Apostles, writes: “See that you all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as if it were the Apostles.  And reverence the deacons as the command of God.  Let no one do any of the things appertaining to the Church without the bishop.  Let that be considered a valid (or, sure) Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints.  Wherever the bishop appears let the congregation be present; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church.  It is not lawful either to baptize or to hold an agape (lit., ‘love-feast/meal’; see Jude 12) without the bishop; but whatever he approve, this is also pleasing to God, that everything which you do may be secure and valid.”[10]  Bishop Ignatius is simply elucidating what the Apostle Paul writes: “when you come together as a church” (1 Cor. 11:18); that is, the church is precisely the assembly of the faithful gathered for Divine Liturgy (the Eucharist, Holy Communion), the bishop presiding at this assembly.

Bishop Clement of Rome (end of the first century), exhorts the faithful to recognize and remain within whatever rank the Lord has appointed for them in the Church: the High Priest (bishop), priests (presbyters), Levites (deacons), and laity (the people), “not transgressing the appointed rules of his ministration, with all reverence.”  He writes of the Apostles who received their ministry from Christ: “They preached from district to district, and from city to city, and they appointed their first converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of the future believers (cf. Acts 6:1-6; 13:1-3; 14:23; 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:1-4).  And this was no new method, for many years before had bishops and deacons been written of; for the Scripture says thus in one place, ‘I will establish their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith’ (Isa. 60:17).”  Concerning their chief liturgical function, he writes in this typical language: “For our sin is not small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily offered its sacrifices.”[11]

This prayer of consecration of a bishop from the early third century expresses the primary duty of the bishop within his eucharistic, liturgical context: “Father who knowest the hearts of all, grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest, that he may minister blamelessly by night and day, that he may unceasingly behold and propitiate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church.  And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins according to Thy command (Jn. 20:23), to assign lots according to Thy bidding (Acts 1:26), to loose every bond according to the authority Thou gavest to the Apostles (Isa. 58:6; Matt. 10:1), and that he may please Thee in meekness and a pure heart, offering to Thee a sweet-smelling savor (Eph. 5:2).”[12]

The authority of the bishop, and the obedience due him, come directly from God the Holy Trinity residing in the Church gathered about God to do His will manifested in the Divine Liturgy.  The bishop therefore works in complete harmony with the presbyters, deacons, and people thus assembled, each in their proper place, to shepherd the Church toward salvation.  The work of the bishop begins in the Liturgy (baptism, ordination, marriage[13], communion), extends out from the Liturgy into the personal lives of the faithful (teaching, confession, use of offerings, blessing of homes, care of the sick), and leads back to the Liturgy (fasting, vigil, prayer, non-entanglement in secular and political business).

The bishop and people under his authority are to be singularly focused on what happens at the Divine Liturgy because “it is the whole scheme of the work of redemption…the Divine plan, that by looking upon it our souls may be sanctified, and thus we may be made fit to receive these sacred gifts…Filled with these ideas, and with their memory fresh within us, we receive Communion.  In this way, adding sanctification to sanctification, that of the sacred rite to that of the meditations, ‘We are changed from glory to glory’ (2 Cor. 3:18), that is to say, from the lesser to that which is greatest of all.”[14]

“Every sacred initiating operation (i.e., the mysteries, or sacraments) draws our fragmented lives together into a one-like divinization.  It forges a divine unity out of the divisions within us.  It grants us communion and union with the One.  But I submit that the perfection of the other hierarchical symbols (i.e., done by a hierarch, or bishop) is only achieved by way of the divine perfecting gifts of Communion.  For scarcely any of the hierarchic sacraments can be performed without the divine Eucharist as the high point of each rite, divinely bringing about a spiritual gathering to the One for him who receive the sacrament, granting him as a gift from God its mysterious perfecting capacities, perfecting in fact his communion with God…The sacred leader (i.e., the bishop) first of all participates in the abundance of the holy gifts which God has commanded him to give to others and in this way he goes on to impart them to others.  The same applies to the rules governing a truly divine mode of life.  Whoever wrongfully dares to teach holiness to others before he has regularly practiced it himself is unholy and is a stranger to sacred norms.”[15]

The duties of a bishop according to the canons of the Church center on his liturgical responsibilities conducted in an Orthodox manner within the context of the Orthodox confession of the Faith.  These include: ordaining priests and deacons; godly maintenance of the goods, property, and funds of the Church providing for the place of worship and care of the poor and needy; being supported from the funds of the Church; settling disputes among the clergy; catechizing and baptizing; not engaging in worldly business; attending to his own jurisdiction (his own local church); not participating in the services of heretics, schismatics, unbelievers, or the excommunicated; teaching his flock, especially during the Sunday Liturgy; reducing or extending penances, and pardoning the repentant (thereby restoring to Communion).[16]

2. Parameters of Episcopal Obedience and Penance

In his Second Letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul establishes his and his co-ministers’ (Timothy, Silvanus, Titus) credentials of leadership as “ministers (diakonous) of the new covenant…the ministry of reconciliation…O Corinthians! We have spoken openly to you, our heart is wide open.  You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections” (2 Cor. 3:6; 5:18; 6:11-12).  “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled” (2 Cor. 10:4-6).

Saint Paul goes on to write: “For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves.  But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.  We, however, will not boast beyond measure, but within the limits of the sphere (to metron tou kanonos – ‘the measure of the standard’) which God appointed us – a sphere which especially includes you.  For we are not overextending ourselves as though not reaching to you, for it was to you that we came with the gospel of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:12-14).

The apostolic ministry of the new covenant had been “committed to Paul for the uncircumcised (Gentiles), as to Peter for the circumcised (Jews)” (Gal. 2:7).  These were their “spheres,” the standards, or rules, of their ministry in the Gospel.  The “authority” the apostles possessed within their respective spheres of ministry was predicated on the power of the Resurrection of Christ “for edification” (2 Cor. 13:3-4, 10; 1 Pet. 1:1-5).  Obedience to the preaching and teaching of the apostles within their spheres is, in fact, captivity of every notion (pan noema – ‘every movement of the mind [nous]’; 2 Cor. 10:5) to the obedience of Christ.

This same apostolic ministry of the new covenant with its authority and expectation of obedience has been passed on to the bishops (presbyters) where they exercise this ministry in their local sphere of influence, the local assembly (church) of the faithful.  “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint presbyters in every city as I commanded you…For a bishop must be blameless” (Titus 1:5, 7; cf. Acts 14:23).

Though in the language of the New Testament the terms bishop and presbyter are synonymous referring to pastors, “the episkopos par excellence is God, Whose place in the eucharistic assembly was now occupied by the Bishop who presided over it,” as evidenced in the vision of the Revelation (4-5).[17]  Bishops are first and foremost icons of Jesus Christ, the High Priest, the Liturgist of the Liturgy, the New Covenant (Heb. 8).

From the beginning of the Church, the authority of the bishop was defined as extending over the local church under his spiritual rule applying especially to the local eucharistic assembly of which he presided along with the presbyters and deacons.  This principle of episcopal jurisdiction eventually encompassed more than just the one local gathering typically in a city or larger town.

One, the bishop maintained jurisdiction over more than one eucharistic gathering in the same city or town, appointing a presbyter to preside at another Eucharist besides that of the bishop.  Two, the bishop in a city maintained jurisdiction over the eucharistic gathering in the countryside attached to a city or town where a “country-bishop” (chorepiskopos) presided.  “Country-bishops” were eventually supplanted entirely by presbyters who presided at these country-churches connected to the larger city or town.[18]  Three, the jurisdictions of bishops expanded by identifying with administrative patterns of Roman government and society, adopting the structures of nation, diocese, province, and ruling cities (e.g., metropolis, capital, etc.).  Parallel to this expansion of jurisdiction was the use of corresponding episcopal titles: Archbishop, Metropolitan, Patriarch, etc.[19]

The prestige and influence of bishops of territorial units larger than the one local community naturally grew, and the bishops of smaller jurisdictions were canonically bound to yield to the consent of the bishop with greater jurisdiction as having precedence.  But this precedence depended on the mutual consent of all the bishops regardless of rank and title thus maintaining the essential principle of episcopal governance founded on the catholicity (hence, equality) of each local eucharistic assembly defining the nature of the Church and its bishop’s sphere of authority.[20]  “The body of the Church has no other hypostasis, whether legal or administrative, apart from the eucharistic assembly.  The eucharistic synaxis constitutes, realizes, and manifests the Church…The only way in which the eucharistic body can be represented is through a natural person, the person of the father of the synaxis who is the bishop, ‘as type and in place of Christ’…The bishop embodies and sums up the life of the Church, her personal mode of existence, the fact of personal communion and relationship which constitutes the Church.”[21]

The parameters of episcopal obedience coincide with a bishop’s canonical boundaries, always involving overlapping jurisdictional concerns requiring consent of all the bishops[22], yet defined primarily by the conditions necessary for the “decent and orderly” (1 Cor. 14:40) exercise of the Eucharist with the people of God.  As referenced above, the exercise of the Eucharist necessarily entails all the other essential mysteries (sacraments, ministries) of the Church fulfilled and pertaining to the Eucharist.  Thus the presiding bishop oversees and directs this eucharistic activity of the Church under two broad categories: Faith and morals, that is, maintenance of Orthodoxy and Church discipline.

“I promise to visit the flock entrusted to me, after the manner of the Apostles, and watch over it, whether they remain faithful to the Faith, and in the exercise of good works, but, especially, the Priests; and to inspect with diligence, to instruct and prohibit, that no schisms, superstitions, and heresies are increased, and that no customs contrary to Christian piety and a good character may bring harm to a Christian way of life.”[23]

Orthodoxy exists as positive statements of doctrine and practice, but the ultimate test of Orthodoxy in the Church has always been the Eucharist.  “But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion.”[24]  The initiatory mysteries of Baptism and Chrismation, and importantly Ordination, with their corresponding catechetical preparation and confession of faith (the Creed), are conferred with the goal of the Eucharist in mind, not as ends of themselves.  “[T]he inclusion of the symbol of faith (the Creed) in the order of the liturgy, which became universal relatively quickly (beginning of the sixth century), was nothing more than the confirmation of the originally obvious, organic and inalienable link between the unity of faith and the Church and her self-fulfillment in the eucharist.”[25]

Whether interrogatory or declaratory, the use of creeds in the early Church attached fundamentally to the preparation for and performance of Baptism and Chrismation[26], always leading the newly illumined to participation in Holy Communion.  The same dynamic applies to acceptance and confession of the dogmatic definitions of Church Councils with their corresponding canons: The content of the Divine Liturgy provided the proper context for a correct (i.e., Orthodox) understanding of the meaning of the Creed as expressed in the ancient maxim: lex orandi lex est credendi (the rule of praying is the rule of believing).

The bishop leads the praying as the bishop leads the believing, vice versa.  Before the standardization of the Anaphora prayers in the Liturgies of St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom, these great prayers outlining God’s plan of salvation in Christ Jesus, we have early directions concerning the bishop’s place within the Liturgy.  “[W]hen our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president (i.e., bishop) in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability”; likewise, “And the bishop shall give thanks according to the aforesaid (models)…Only let his prayer be correct and right (orthodoxos).”[27]

Episcopal maintenance of Orthodoxy in the Church: the proper confession of the Faith, using Orthodox definitions and meanings of words, and the resulting practices conveying those words in a godly manner, manifests itself primarily in maintaining the integrity of the Eucharist.  The Eucharist is the supreme confession of the divine life of the Holy Trinity made accessible to us as taught by the incarnate Lord Jesus Himself.  “[D]o this in remembrance of Me…And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Lk. 22:19, 29-30).

In the case of schism and heresy, the bishop properly exercises his authority in Orthodoxy by not con-celebrating with divisive and heretical persons and groups.  Also, the bishop presiding in the Church either admits or prohibits persons to receive Holy Communion as the act of Orthodoxy.  “Divisions can be of various kinds.  In the case of heresy it is a confessional division.  The extending or refusing of Eucharistic fellowship is then always a confessional act of the whole congregation.  In the case of personal divisions there would also be injury of the integrity of the koinonia.  For this reason the formularies of the early church require that all such divisions be put right before partaking of the Lord’s Supper.”[28]  Conversely, a bishop at the Divine Liturgy not himself partaking of Holy Communion without reasonable cause is to be excommunicated (requiring reconciliation) as causing offence and division within the Church.[29]

Prohibiting persons from receiving Holy Communion (excommunication[30]) is the most serious exercise of a bishop’s authority.  Excommunication shows that one has severed their union with God and the Church due to persistent doctrinal and/or moral sin and is in danger of eternal damnation.  Obedience to this bishop’s directive demonstrates a recognition of sin, the desire to be reconciled with God and the Church, and the acceptance of this measure as proof of genuine repentance resulting in eventual restoration to Communion (eternal salvation, the very heart of Orthodoxy).  The measure of excommunication includes its duration and corresponding penitential rule of activities analogous to the sin committed and confessed (epitimia, or penances).

“One who received from God the power to loose and to bind (Matt. 16:19; John 20:23) should carefully consider the sin and the disposition of the sinner and give him or her such penances (epitimia) as will heal the wounds and bring him or her swiftly and surely to the truth (Quinisext, 102).  A clergyman giving penances should be careful that ‘neither gentleness fall into license nor severity into harshness’ (Quinisext, 3).  A bishop has the right to extend or reduce the penances (epitimia); he also has the right to pardon penitents who have sincerely repented of their sins…A bishop should not misuse his power of excommunication; in case of misuse, the provincial synod may act as a court of appeal (Nicea I, 5)….Those excommunicated in one diocese may not be received in another.”[31]

The essential aspect of the episcopal duty of being a steward, or shepherd, is the work of being a spiritual healer.  The rule of a bishop is marked by paternal care (1 Cor. 4:15-16), compassion (2 Cor. 2:5-11), gentleness (1 Thes. 2:6-8), and the imposition of discipline sometimes stern but known truly to heal.  “Now no discipline (paideia) seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (Heb. 12:11).  “[D]eliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5).  The faithful are called to obey their bishop because his directions, particularly in the case of penances for the sickness of sin, bring about healing and health not only to the individual sinner but to the entire community necessarily joined in the Eucharist.[32]

The right of excommunication, including its duration and assignment of penance, is never an episcopal tool of arbitrary control.  Generally speaking, excommunication is imposed on erring clergy and laity alike for egregious (i.e., mortal[33]) sins resulting in the destruction of communion with God and the Church because eucharistic unity is: selfishly appropriated (e.g., meddling in another’s jurisdiction, obtaining office through temporal power, nepotism, simony); broken by prideful lust or hate (e.g., apostasy, mocking other clergy, civil authorities, or the infirm, refusing to attend Liturgy or receive Communion); or contradicted by a false and immoral lifestyle (e.g., idolatry, murder, adultery, theft).

The penances associated with these egregious sins contain degrees of restoration publicly witnessed: the excommunication itself; weepers (who stood outside asking for the prayers of the faithful entering the Church); hearers (admitted to the Narthex, or vestibule, of the Church); kneelers or prostrators (who stood with the faithful in the Nave, or main part, of the Church, and were dismissed with the catechumens with prayer while prostrating); and finally, co-standers (who remained for the entire Liturgy without communing).  Each degree includes a specified length of time in that condition.[34]  Offending clergy are suspended or deposed from their duties.

3. The Covid-19 Test for Episcopal Obedience and Penance

The nature of obedience to bishops and the parameters of that obedience especially pertaining to penance were put to the test under the threat of the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) epidemic.  “The Church is the mystical body of Christ.  Nothing can affect or change this sacred mystery.  Furthermore, nothing that is done in all reverence, piety, and fear of God in response to this virus should be construed as anything other than a prudent pastoral and temporary response to a situation that has the possibility of severe consequences…As with other local Orthodox Churches, in response to the challenges posed by this virus, and ever mindful that we must do our part to contain its spread, we nevertheless do not permit changes to the practice of giving Holy Communion…

“The outbreak of COVID-19 requires our dioceses, our parish communities, and their faithful to be vigilant in keeping our parishes safe.  Careful, precautionary, and temporary steps taken now can prevent extreme spread of this virus.  Churches and institutions should adopt common-sense measures as advised by the CDC [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/organizations/index.html[35]].

“In cities and communities where the effect of this virus is severe, the diocesan bishop must be consulted for the blessing to  adopt further limited measures to prevent the spread of the disease in the context of liturgical gatherings, which could include a temporary alteration of normal liturgical life…If parishes of the Orthodox Church in America are directed to do the same (i.e., close down because of emergency orders of the civil authorities), they should a) alert their diocesan bishop immediately, and b) seek to comply with the directions of civil authorities.

“We seek in these measures to follow the principles enumerated by His Eminence Metropolitan Nicholas of Mesogeia of the Church of Greece who said, ‘All measures that undermine faith and hope in God, anything that doubts the efficacy of Holy Communion and the mysteries is to be rejected.  Anything that honors the community of the faithful and our fellow man is an expression of love for them and for God.’”[36]

Four days later, the Holy Synod issued another statement on the Coronavirus Outbreak having received “expert reports” and “question[ed] professionals in the areas of concern relating to the virus, including medical doctors.”  “Therefore, Diocesan Bishops may allow for the churches within their dioceses to serve the Divine Services with limited participation…to designate a limited number of Churches in their dioceses to serve a limited number of services with only a few people present or to be closed altogether for the time being…in keeping with said government directives.”[37]

This same statement was reiterated on March 30, 2020, extending it to the end of the next April, with the accompanying Synodal Directives.  “All monasteries, parishes, missions, and mission stations must seek a specific blessing from their bishop to perform any Divine Service whatsoever during this period…All other in-person gatherings and in-person activities of any kind continue to be forbidden.

“The authority to interpret the civil authority’s directives resides with the bishop.  All Divine Services performed in a local community must be in accord with all local, state/provincial, and federal civil directives regarding the prevention of the spread of Covid-19.  All parish priests…must ensure that the Divine Services of their parish or mission community are in compliance with all such civil directives.  If anyone among the clergy of if any member of a parish, mission, or mission station holds any sort of church service or gathering in direct opposition to the local civil authorities’ Covid-19 preventative directives, such an action may result in severe canonical sanctions.”[38]

These same Directives limited Divine Services to a limited same crew of servers behind locked doors posted with a warning statement, excluding by definition anyone who had contact with a Covid-19 patient within 15 days and health-care providers to persons in the at-risk population.  Live-streaming of services should be provided.  Persons excluded from the Divine Services according to the previous definitions were given a blessing not to receive Holy Communion.  The Sacrament of Confession was only to be available in-person to the limited crew of servers and singers; instead Confession could take place by phone or video communication, but anyone uncomfortable with this phone arrangement was not bound to confess.  Holy Unction was only available to the limited crew of singers and servers.

By May 1, 2020, the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America issued a letter and directives outlining the rationale and process for “the possible opening of parishes.”  “This preparatory work will be difficult as we make our way through the spiritual, emotional, and psychological effects of isolation and quarantine…[W]e note that there is much to cause anxiety in the current circumstances, from political debates to scientific quarrels and the pitting of experts against other experts.  We remind the clergy and the faithful that this current pandemic is unprecedented (italics mine) and that even the experts, faithfully following the scientific method, must have time to gather and analyze data.  In such a fast-moving situation, even these studies are provisional and subject to correction.  This is the nature of the scientific model.”[39]

One year later, at the beginning of Great Lent, the bishops marked the one-year anniversary of the global outbreak of the coronavirus.  “The pandemic placed a heavy burden on us…The preliminary work that the Holy Synod called for last year has been accomplished with great success, and it is evident that our parishes and institutions have adapted to the difficulties while maintaining fidelity to the fundamental and necessary liturgical and pastoral activities of the Church…Our initial restrictions may have seemed overly strict; however, the intent of those restrictions was not to dimmish the glory of the Church or to ‘shut things down,’ but rather to pave the way for an orderly re-opening and the full restoration of Church life.”[40]

By quoting extensively from these directives of the bishops addressing the Covid crisis, three points become key.  One, the bishops issued mandates suspending the normal eucharistic activity of the Church based on the reason that this crisis was so dangerous that it necessitated unprecedented, that is, extraordinary (emergency) use of authority.  Two, subordination to the bishops’ directives was identified with subordination to the directives of the civil authorities, effectively making obedience to the bishops compliance with civil authority despite the ecclesiastical consequences.  Three, the bishops imposed measures prohibiting the faithful from receiving the mysteries under penalty of strict canonical sanction, thereby modifying the penitential system of the Church away from its essential design.

Scroll Down to Continue

4. Unprecedented Directives and Obedience

First, episcopal obedience was enjoined on the basis of the assumed unprecedented severity of the Covid-19 virus, that normal eucharistic activity must be suspended to safeguard the health and well-being of those who would otherwise gather with others and inevitably get sick and die.[41]  This assumption was quickly justified by data and projections accepted from public health authorities, and bishops’ directives moved from estimates of temporary and limited measures to a permanent closure of the churches forbidding eucharistic gatherings and administration of the mysteries to all but a very select few, an order admittedly unprecedented (“overly strict”) in its scope in the history of the Church.[42]

From the prevailing public health authorities guiding civil policy and directives, the claim of the unprecedented severity of the novel coronavirus (Covid-19) eventually led to the Emergency Use Authorization and mandated administration of the untested, experimental mRNA inoculations as the only solution to this declared pandemic public health crisis.  Emergency Use Authorization was predicated on the assumption that no conventional treatment existed for Covid-19 prevention and infection, a claim that was false and known to government officials at least as early as April 2020, and that the mortality rate from infection was unusually high so as to extraordinarily endanger persons and society, another claim known to be false.[43]  All the initial mandated Covid-19 protocols: lockdowns, masking, social distancing, removal and disinfection of shared objects, were promulgated on claims of efficacy known to be false by public health authorities.[44]

The conditions of the pandemic were not unprecedented.  Our Lord predicted: “For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.  And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places.  All these are the beginning of sorrows” (Matt. 24:8).  Pestilence, plagues, and epidemics characterize the end-times in which we live, as illustrated graphically in the Book of Revelation.  Yet the response of the Church to epidemics is to gather as the Church in Holy Communion (letters to the seven churches; Rev. 2-3).  “Then he said to me, ‘Write: “Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!’” (Rev. 19:9).  “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches…And the Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’  And let him who hears say, ‘Come!’  And let him who thirsts come.  Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely”…Amen.  Even so, come, Lord Jesus!  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.  Amen” (Rev. 22:16, 17, 20-21).[45]

Bishop Cyprian of Carthage exhorted his flock during the time of a plague: “For he who wars for God, dearest brethren, ought to acknowledge himself as one who, placed in the heavenly camp, already hopes for divine things, so that we may have no trembling at the storms and whirlwinds of the world, and no disturbance, since the Lord had foretold that these would come…It disturbs some that this mortality is common to us with others; and yet what is there in this world which is not common to us and others, so long as this flesh of our still remains, according to the law of our first birth, common to us with them?…Let not these things be offences to you, but battles: nor let them weaken nor break the Christian’s faith, but rather show forth his strength in the struggle, since all the injury inflicted by present troubles is to be despised in the assurance of future blessings.”[46]

Later during this same pestilence, just before Pascha in the year 263, Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to his flock: “First, [the non-Christians] drove us out; and when alone, and persecuted, and put to death by all, even then we kept the feast.  And every place of affliction was to us a place of festival: field, desert, ship, inn, prison; but the perfected martyrs kept the most joyous festival of all, feasting in heaven…[47]

“Truly the best of our brethren departed from life in this manner (visiting the sick fearlessly, and ministering to them continually, serving them in Christ), including some presbyters and deacons and those of the people who had the highest reputation; so that this form of death, through the great piety and strong faith it exhibited, seemed to lack nothing of martyrdom…And after a little they received like treatment themselves, for the survivors were continually following those who had gone before them.  But with the heathen everything was quite otherwise.  They deserted those who began to be sick, and fled from their dearest friends…They shunned any participation or fellowship with death; which yet, with all their precautions, it was not easy for them to escape.”[48]

More recently, “A huge amount of controversy has arisen over the way Christians receive Holy Communion, particularly in the wake of what some are calling the ‘H1N1 pandemic’…Metropolitan Nikolaos (Hadjinikolaou, Harvard and MIT educated, founder of the bioethics institute in Athens, quoted above in the March13, 2020, statement of the Holy Synod of the OCA) stressed the point that today’s society is militantly anti-Christian and, throughout Europe and in the United States, is using the H1N1 scare to further undermine the faith and traditional liturgical practices of the Church.  Do not let 2000 years of experience, he urged, be put into question by ‘the rationalism and superficiality’ of the present times…the real problem is not the virus H1N1, nor is it world-wide panic; it is rather ‘the virus of impiety and a lack of faith,’ for which the best remedy is precisely frequent communion.”[49]

The Preacher Solomon wrote: “There is nothing new under the sun.  Who will speak and say, ‘See, this is new’?  For it has already been in the ages that have passed before us” (Eccl. 1:9, 10).  Certainly from the perspective of the Church, the threat of Covid-19 was not unprecedented[50], and it did not warrant the unprecedented measure of the suspension of all eucharistic mysteries for the vast majority of the faithful.  The acceptance of the rationalism of the public health authorities – “expert medical professionals…the science” – nullifying and precluding the conventional wisdom and practice of the Church was the truly unprecedented aspect enacted during the Covid-19 crisis.[51]

5. Obedience as Compliance

Second, addressing the Covid-19 crisis, because “the authority to interpret the civil authority’s directives resides with the bishop,” the bishops defined their mandates as compliance with civil directives under threat of “severe canonical sanctions.”  Submitting to the rationale of civil health authorities, the bishops narrowed the definition of health in the Church to safe-guarding the physical health of its members, and thus accepted civil health directives as the necessary means of securing that physical health to the exclusion of the regular means of overall health given in the Church, i.e., the mysteries (sacraments).

From the beginning of compliance to civil health directives, namely, social distancing and the banning of public gatherings, the encouragement of virtual services and isolation of parishioners at home, the Church’s existence to provide for the overall health of its members through personal administration and reception of the mysteries (sacraments) stood out in stark contrast by their absence.  “[B]y far the greatest need for help is in finding new ways for offering personal spiritual support and nourishment to individual parishioners while being physically remote from them…Figuratively speaking, ‘laying on hands,’ has been and remains central to the pastoral calling.  Compared with many other faith communities, this is, perhaps, especially true for the Orthodox Church which places great importance on the Sacraments of Confession, Holy Unction, and Holy Communion.”[52]

Compliance to civil directives concerning just physical well-being brought out in relief the many other aspects of health which suffered by neglect: spiritual, mental, emotional, socializing, formational/educational (especially in children and young people), and economic.  Civil directives sorting businesses and organizations into categories of “essential” and “non-essential,” and compliance to classifying churches as “non-essential” thereby closing them to normal operations, divided many parishioners skeptical of the restrictions.  “The church should be considered essential and remain open (like grocery stores), not reduced to the sphere of leisure and entertainment (like bars and theaters).”[53]  As closures loosened, continued mandates of masking and social distancing (eventually, pressure to receive the Covid-19 inoculation) only served further to divide members of the Church not only from each other but from Holy Communion itself depending on the perceived compliance of both clergy and parishioners.[54]

“Faith is very deeply rooted in the hearts of believers.  It is more necessary than our breath.  The measures that are imposed without hearing our breath or cry are deadly for our existence.  We cannot stand it.  The need for the Church and its Sacraments is an existential need…Was there a spread of the pandemic in the churches, where there were fewer people than in the supermarkets and stores anyways?  And if some clergymen or monastics got sick, what does that mean?  That they got infected in church?  And why did the clergy get sick and not the faithful?  Did Ministers and MPs (members of Parliament) get sick in their offices?…The implemented measures have thrown us into the ICU…Closed churches threaten the faithful.”[55]

At the heart of Orthodox piety is the command of Christ: “Take, eat; this is My body…Drink from it, all of you.  For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:26-28; 1 Cor. 11:17-26).  “Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.  Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.  And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching” (Heb. 10:19-25).

Compliance to civil directives per episcopal mandates based on secular scientific method and models enjoined disobedience to Christ’s command and apostolic practice and forbade the genuine therapeutic work of the Church taking place in the eucharistic assembly.  This eucharistic care of souls (thus entire persons) the Fathers call “the art of arts and science of sciences.”[56]  While forbidding in-person gatherings for the vast majority of the faithful, the bishops encouraged virtual participation via electronic media justifying such measures as though the liturgical performance of a select few represented all without the majority actually receiving Holy Communion, a practice not unknown in the history of Christendom, but certainly not Orthodox.[57]

Lastly on this subject, equating obedience with compliance erodes the very nature of obedience leading to true fruits of faith and love necessary for the genuine maintenance of the spiritual life in the Church.  Compliance implies submission to force (through fear or persuasion), or the surrender of choice (to a higher authority); both are the abdication of mutual responsibility in the love of God which is characteristic of true obedience.[58]

Saint Basil the Great gives the classic definition of true obedience.  “To sum up, I note the following three kinds of disposition which necessarily compel our obedience: we avoid evil through fear of punishment and take the attitude of a slave; or, seeking to obtain the reward, we observe the commandments for our own advantage and in this we are like hirelings; or else, for the sake of the virtuous act itself and out of love for Him who gave us the law, we rejoice to be deemed worthy to serve a God so good and so glorious and we are thus in the dispositions of sons.”[59]  Our Lord says, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (Jn. 14:15).  And the Apostle: “For the love of Christ compels us” (2 Cor. 5:14).

Relating this to obedience to bishops, Saint Gregory Nazianzen says, “[N]or is there any more useful or safer course than that willing rulers should rule willing subjects: since it is our practice not to lead by force, or by compulsion, but by good will.  For this would not hold together even another form of government, since that which is held in by force is wont, when opportunity offers, to strike for freedom: but freedom of will more than anything else it is, which holds together our – I will not call it rule, but – tutorship.  For the mystery of godliness (1 Tim. 3:16) belongs to those who are willing, not to those who are overpowered.”[60]

It is one thing to demand compliance, and another to comply.  The psychological conditions afforded by the Covid-19 crisis enabled the bishops to promote compliance to civil health authorities as an exercise of obedience to their own authority.  This was possible because of the overwhelming danger assured by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, and in light of such personal uncertainty and fear, people were willing to give up their own freedoms, especially the freedom of their own deliberation, to those who claimed to know the solution to this dilemma stated in authoritative regulations.

“A free agent is forced to struggle with the complexities and ambiguities of his life and to come to a judgment about what matters – and bears responsibility for both struggle and judgment.  This is a heavy burden that many people are simply too afraid to shoulder.  Instead, they demand that the State be an engine of order and certainty in their worlds, much like a parent is in their child’s, and that it make and impose these judgments upon them.  Parental socialists want to be told what matters by the State, told what is safe and right and what is risky and wrong, not given the freedom to deliberate themselves…Though the pandemic-management policies themselves were unprecedented and shocking, the role they gave to the State in our lives was not entirely, and thus may help explain why we accepted them so readily.”[61]

With the Covid-19 mandates, State officials and Church bishops became co-parents to children, simulateously citizens and parishioners, primed to take orders, readied to comply.  Accepting the Covid-19 crisis in the extraordinary terms of the official scientific model, both civil authority and bishops of the Church overstepped the order[62] of their mutual relationship for the true well-being of the persons under their jurisdiction.  In classifying churches as “non-essential,” the civil authorities prohibited the very eucharistic activities necessary for the ultimate good of the nation and its citizens.[63]  By mandating compliance with civil directives prohibiting the Church’s most-essential eucharistic activities, the bishops failed “to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29; also Matt. 22:21), thus calling into question the highest allegiance belonging to God “in the assembly (church) of the saints” (Ps. 88:6; 81).

6. A Novel Penitential System

Third, in using the phrase “severe canonical sanctions,” the bishops framed their directives during the Covid-19 crisis within the penitential system of the Church, as the purpose of the canons is “for the cure of souls and the healing of disorders”[64] always related primarily to the performance and reception of Holy Communion in the Eucharist and its related mysteries of the Church.  Canonical sanctions affecting clergy consist of suspension both from Communion and performance of sacramental duties (services), and deposition from office.  Canonical sanctions affecting the laity consist mainly of suspension from Communion, but also permanent expulsion from the Church.  These sanctions are also called penances.[65]

By imposing civil directives on the Church: masking and social distancing; isolation and quarantine; disinfection (sanitizing) of surfaces and prohibition of touching and kissing Crosses, icons, and other people; especially prevention of gathering for the reception of Holy Communion, Confession, and Holy Unction, the bishops were imposing a novel penitential system on the Church, suspending people from Communion and dividing them into grades of approach to the mysteries.

Justification of this novel penitential system was predicated on the voluntary, or involuntary, transgression of infection with Covid-19 inevitably resulting in the passing of this contagion to another who would most likely get sick with a high probability of dying from the virus, in other words, a mortal sin.  This transgression was defined as a selfish lack of love toward one’s neighbor to which acceptance of the Covid-19 mandates served as a genuine sign of repentance and eventual reconciliation with the Church.  “We must continue to adhere to the civil guidelines…Civil authorities have largely been reluctant to impose restrictions on the churches, but our communities are expected to respond in a way that is consonant with the public welfare.  The Holy Synod, concerned for the health and well-being of all, intends to follow in the spirit in which those guidelines are given.”[66]

Metropolitan Joseph wrote: “Our world was confronted by a novel virus to which no one had yet been exposed and no doctor had yet learned to treat.  In addition to those factors, the virus could be spread before the onset of symptoms by people unaware they were sick.  We were asked to join our local communities in slowing the spread of the virus by not gathering in crowds.  This was to prevent an overwhelming of the healthcare system, allowing the doctors and nurses to give adequate care to the sick and thus avoid unnecessary deaths.”  “In the midst of a global pandemic, compassionate concern for others has required new and unprecedented sacrifices…Since the Eucharist manifests believers’ communion with Christ, insistence on celebrating religious services without regard for the health and well-being of the sick surely contradicts the demands of discipleship.”[67]

As the pandemic progressed into its second year, the penitential rationale applied to the initial mandates was expressed again regarding the need to receive the Covid-19 inoculation.  “Metropolitan Hilarion’s (of Volokolamsk) remark concerned people who refused to be vaccinated and then passed on COVID to someone who died as a result – indicating that they were in some sense responsible, that they were thinking only about themselves in choosing not to get vaccinated and not thinking about others.”[68]  Though encouraged by many bishops, and mandated by federal authorities, a Covid-19 “vaccine”[69] mandate never became an official directive for (re)admission to Communion in the Church.

By framing the spiritual malady and cure as an either/or proposition centering on the Eucharist – either refrain from gathering in Church for Divine Liturgy, or someone will get sick and die of Covid-19; either refrain from gathering in the Church, or demonstrate your lack of love for your neighbor – the faithful were commanded to stay away from Holy Communion, only to reapproach it under conditions of hyper-vigilant caution, assuming the transgression of those precautionary measures could quite possibly result in the cause of more sickness and death.  Insistence on implementing the novel penitential system during the Covid-19 crisis shifted the Church’s focus away from Faith and morals manifested in the Eucharist to suspicion and moralizing (virtue signaling) exhibited in the symbols of that system (e.g., masking, social distancing, streaming services, frequent testing, etc.).

Would that the bishops and faithful were this careful when approaching the Chalice at every Divine Liturgy, not in terms of modern medicine and hygiene, but in terms of the actual contagion of sin and the passions addressed in the canonical penitential practice of the Church!  Yet by adhering to the tenets of modern medicine and hygiene and nullifying the essential norm of participation in the Eucharist, the words of our Lord apply: “Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition…teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:6, 9).  In another place the warning is the same: “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in” (Matt. 23:13).

The prudent directives of the bishops would have been to keep the churches open for their essential liturgical and eucharistic activities: “the medicine of immortality, the antidote that we should not die, but live forever in Jesus Christ.”[70]  At the same time, advise the people to exercise common sense regarding the virus and participation in the common gatherings of the Church, just as people did before the advent of Covid-19.  The weak and vulnerable are always treated with special care in the Church precisely because of their need for Holy Communion and the mysteries of Christ, not by isolating them from these gifts of grace.

About one-fifth of the Orthodox parishes in the United States followed this course of remaining open and prospered during the crisis.  “When compared to pre-pandemic, they were much more likely to have grown in worship attendance, in overall involvement of members in the life of the parish beyond worship services, and in participation of children and teenagers in parish-based religious education.  Also, more members in such congregations feel that they have grown significantly in their personal faith through the pandemic.”[71]

7. Conclusion

Obedience to bishops in the Orthodox Church can only be understood in the context of mutual obedience to Jesus Christ, the Bishop, and the Church His Body with its members living its Faith and Tradition.  Bishops can never demand obedience to their mandates simply because of their personal title and position, but because those directives enact the will of Christ and the Church, and the bishops themselves are obedient to those same directives.

Likewise, obedience to bishops can only be properly understood as adherence to prescriptions for spiritual health, healing, and eternal life in the Kingdom of God manifested in the stewardship (management) of the Church.  First and foremost, the bishop presides at the Divine Liturgy and administers Holy Communion to the faithful.  Every other aspect of the Church’s life radiates from that central act of worship.  The bishop stewards the mysteries based on the spiritual condition of the flock and their need for healing through repentance,  faith, and love.  The bishop’s rule is not arbitrary, and neither is the obedience due him, especially regarding the treatment of sin and the passions, and access to the eucharistic/sacramental activities of the Church.

The Covid-19 crisis beginning in 2020 was a test of the bishops’ and laity’s fidelity to that essential Tradition of Christ and His Church.  That test revealed many strengths, but even more weaknesses in the fabric of the Orthodox Church, that is, vital areas for correction and growth.  Chiefly, the reaction to close the churches to normal eucharistic activity has never been officially retracted by those bishops who justified it.  In continuing to justify such an action, the call for unquestioning obedience (compliance) to the bishops is likewise wrongly perpetuated.

Genuine repentance is the only solution to this problem, as with any genuine problem in the Church necessarily affecting its Faith and morals.  Repentance is required of clergy (bishops) and laity alike as the first and most fundamental command from our Lord Himself (Matt. 4:17).  The Covid-19 test revealed, as always, the touchstone of repentance to be the Eucharist and our unceasing participation in it as our ultimate strength, life, and salvation.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,

now and ever and unto ages of ages.  Amen.

Reposted by permission from Patristic Faith – click here for the original.

[1] Apostolic Canons, 39; Laodicea, 57; Chalcedon, 8 (the collection of canons may be found in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [NPNF], Second Series, Volume XIV, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, reprinted by Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1991).

[2] For greater precision I retain the Greek word presbyter, usually translated in English versions as elder.

[3] Vb. episkopountes; as with the word presbyter, here I retain the Greek word bishop (episkopos), usually translated in English versions as overseer.

[4] See below, section 3.

[5] The Epistle to Diognetus, 7.4-5: “The [almighty God] sent [the Son] as King, He sent Him as God, He sent Him as Man to men, he was saving and persuading when He sent Him, not compelling, for compulsion is not an attribute of God.  When He sent Him He was calling, not pursuing; when He sent Him He was loving, not judging.” (The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 2, trans. By Kirsopp Lake, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985), pg. 365)

[6] “And [God the Father] put all things under [Christ’s] feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:22-23).  “I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). “Obedience in the Church is modeled after the obedience between the Son and the Father.  ‘When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak thus as the Father taught me’ (Jn. 8:28-29).  As the disciples and the apostles were obedient to Christ, so the faithful and the clergy should be obedient to the Church; this expectation was raised to the level of divine commandment.  ‘He who hears you hears Me, and he who reject you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me’ (Lk. 10:16).  The power of the Church to sanction offenses is based on divine law: ‘and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector’ (Matt. 18:17).” (Orthodox Canon Law Reference Book, Fr. Vasile Mihai, [Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2014], pg. 301).

[7] Homily 34.1 on Hebrews, NPNF, First Series, Volume 14, pp. 518-519.

[8] “Let the presbyters who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in word and doctrine.  For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain’ (Deut. 25:4; 1 Cor. 9:9), and, ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages’” (Matt. 10:10; Lk. 10:7)…Some men’s sins are clearly evident, preceding them to judgment, but those of some men follow later.  Likewise, the good works of some are clearly evident, and those that are otherwise cannot be hidden.” (1 Tim. 5:17-18, 24-25)  Here in 1 Timothy 5:17 the word for “rule” is proistamenos (presider; cf. 1 Thes. 5:12), whereas in Hebrews 13:7, 17 it is hegoumenos (leader; cf. Acts 15:22).  Throughout this paper it is assumed without further detailed explanation, as usage within context of Scripture demonstrates, that these different terms: steward, shepherd, presbyter, teacher, leader (ruler), and presider, all refer pre-eminently to the same position in the Church also known as bishop.

[9] Eucharist, Bishop, Church, by John D. Zizioulis Metropolitan of Pergamon, trans. By Elizabeth Theokritoff, (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), pg. 66.  This book provides an exhaustive treatment of this subject.  “[I]t was precisely the bishop who customarily presided over the eucharistic assembly.  Only much later, with the gradual transformation of the local church community into an administrative district (diocese) broken up into a multitude of parishes, was the position of the priest converted from that of an extraordinary celebrant of the eucharist, as the deputy of the bishop, into that of the ordinary celebrant”; The Eucharist, by Alexander Schmemann, trans. by Paul Kachur, (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988), pg. 16.

[10] Smyrnaeans, 8; see also Ephesians, 2.2; 4.1; 5.3; Magnesians, 6; Trallians, 7.2; Philadelphians, 4; in The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 1, pg. 261.

[11] 1 Clement, 40.5-41.1; 42.4-5; 44.4, in The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 1, pp. 79, 81, 85.

[12] The Apostolic Tradition, 3.4-5, of Bishop and Martyr Hippolytus of Rome, trans. by Rev. Gregory Dix, reissued by Henry Chadwick, (London: The Alban Press, 1991), pp. 5-6.

[13] The beginning of the (now) separate services of Baptism and Marriage indicate they were originally always performed within the Divine Liturgy (“Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”).  Of Water and the Spirit, by Alexander Schmemann, (Creatwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974), pg. 40-41: “[I]n the past the sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony not only were celebrated in the context of the eucharistic gathering of the Church, but that the Eucharist was their self-evident end and fulfillment.”

[14] A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, I.1, by Nicholas Cabasilas, trans. by J. M. Hussey and P. A. McNulty, (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1960), pp. 26, 28, 30.

[15] The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 3.I, III.14, in Pseudo-Dionysius The Complete Works, trans. by Colm Luibheid, (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), pp. 209, 223.

[16] Mihai, Orthodox Canon Law Reference Book, pp. 79-84.

[17] Zizioulis, Eucharist, Bishop, Church, pp. 66-67.

[18] Sardica, 6: “It is positively not permitted to ordain a bishop in a village or petty town, for which even one single presbyter is sufficient (for there is no necessity to ordain a bishop there) lest the name and authority of bishop should be made of small account, but the bishops of the province ought, as before said, to ordain bishops in those cities in which there were bishops previously.” (NPNF, 2.XIV.420; see also Laodicea, 57.)

[19] Op. cit., Eucharist, Bishop, Church, the emergence of the parish and diocese, pp. 197-227.  See also Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions, by John Meyendorff, (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1989), pg. 42: “Already in the third century, bishops, especially in larger cities, had ceased to be the only regular celebrants of the Eucharist – as this was originally the case (cf. particularly Ignatius of Antioch, ca. 100 A.D.) – and their leadership gradually lost some of its immediate pastoral and sacramental character, to become a ministry of teaching and government over several eucharistic communities…In the fourth century, however, the episcopal function became closely associated with the city, which was the administrative and social center, controlling the countryside around it.  This development was probably inevitable (it began before Constantine), implied a certain secularization of the episcopal office.”

[20] Antioch, 9: “It behooves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis.  Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from the times of our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them.  For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment.  But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.”  See also Apostolic Canons, 34, 35.  Mutual consent of the bishops is codified with the requirement of semi-annual meetings  to examine “the decrees concerning religion and settle ecclesiastical controversies which may have occurred,” the fourth week after Pascha and in the month of October (Apostolic Canons, 37; Chalcedon, 19; Antioch, 20); if a bishop is able to attend but does not, he is to be admonished.

[21] The Freedom of Morality, by Christos Yannaras, trans. by Elizabeth Briere, (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996), pg. 192.

[22] “The Third Confession of Faith – The Office of Confession and Answering of a Bishop,” The Great Book of Needs, Volume 1, (South Canaan: St. Tikhon’s Monastery, 1998), pg. 274: “I will, in all things, follow and always obey the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America; and to be, in all things, of one mind with the Most-Blessed Metropolitan, and the Most-reverend Archbishops and Bishops, my brethren, and together with them submissive to the divine laws, and to the sacred Canons of the Holy Apostles and Holy Fathers; and with all fervor to have spiritual love for them, and to respect them as brethren.”

[23] Ibid., pg. 274.

[24] St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4.18.5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), Volume 1, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, reprinted by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, 1993), pg. 486.  John D. Zizioulis, The One and the Many, (Alhambra: Sebastian Press, 2010), pp. 353-354: “But it was never the case that creedal statements could be the basis either for theology or for the Church.  The Church was always understood as the great mystery of the plan of God for the destiny of the world, a mystery which was celebrated in the Eucharist and of which one became partaker as a member of a concrete local community…But in the ancient Church itself, the term ‘theology’ was not based on creeds or propositions of faith; it was used to denote a grasp of the mystery of divine existence as it is offered to the world and experienced in the ecclesial community.”

[25] Schmemann, The Eucharist, pg. 141.  “…the crown on the spiritual building of your edification…For the reason of our reciting this confession of God, delivered down to us from the Seraphim, is this, that so we may be partakers with the hosts of the world above in their hymn of praise.” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 23.1, 6; NPNF, Second Series, Volume 7, pg. 153, 154)

[26] J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds Third Edition, (New York: Longman Inc., 1972), pp. 30-52.

[27] St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67 (ANF 1, pg. 186); op. cit., The Apostolic Tradition, 10.3, 5, pg.19.

[28] Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries, by Werner Elert, trans. by N. E. Nagel, (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966), pg. 80; also the chapter: “The Local Congregation and the Heretics,” pp. 108-121.

[29] Apostolic Canons, 8; see Apostolic Canons, 45; Antioch, 2; Laodicea, 33.  This principle is true of the laity as well: “All the faithful who come in and hear the Scriptures, but do not stay for the prayers and the Holy Communion, are to be excommunicated, as causing disorder in the Church” (Apostolic Canons, 9; NPNF, Second Series, Volume 14, pg. 594).  The essential place of the Eucharist in the lives of the faithful is embodied in this canon: “If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or any of those who are enumerated in the list of the clergy, or a layman, has no grave necessity nor difficult business so as to keep him from church for a very long time, but being in town does not go to church (i.e., the eucharistic assembly) on three consecutive Sundays – three weeks – if he is a cleric let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off (from communion)” (Quinisext, 80; Sardica, 11; NPNF, Second Series, Volume 14, pp. 400, 426).

[30] Denial of Holy Communion is the original meaning of the term excommunication, which progressed to severing ties altogether with the community of the Church for those who refused to repent.  See Mihai, Orthodox Canon Law Reference Book, pg. 185-186.

[31] Mihai, Orthodox Canon Law Reference Book, 180, 93, 186.  See also Exomologetarion A Manual of Confession, by Nikodemos the Hagiorite, trans. by Fr. George Dokos, (Athens: Uncut Mountain Press, 2006), pp. 164-170.

[32] Great Lent, by Alexander Schmemann, (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996), pp. 126-127: “[The Sacrament of Penance] was and, according to the essential teaching of the Church, still is the Sacrament of reconciliation with the Church, of the return to her and into her life of those excommunicated, i.e., excluded from the eucharistic gathering of the Church…it was for those alone who were excommunicated from the church for acts and sins clearly defined in the canonical Tradition of the Church…while certain sins do excommunicate a Christian, some other sins do not lead to this separation from the body of the believers and from the participation in the Sacraments.”  Yannaras, The Freedom of Morality, pp. 180-181: “The canons are established to be healing and therapeutic in character, not legal and juridical…The canons define and delimit the healing, therapeutic action of pastoral instruction in the Church, the way in which the Church guides man to the fulfillment of his possibilities in life…Simply to recognize our distance from the truth of life and to submit to the canons, to the standard of the Church’s ascetic consciousness, is an act of participation in the Church, the first and greatest step towards communion with the very body of life.”

[33] Cabasilas, A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, IV.36, pg. 89: “And what can cut off the members from this holy Body?  ‘It is your sins which have separated me from you’ (Isa. 59:2), says God.  Does all sin then bring death to man?  No indeed, but mortal sin only; that is why it is called mortal.  For according to St. John there are sins which are not mortal (1 Jn. 5:16-17).  That is why Christians, if they have not committed such sins as would cut them off from Christ and bring death, are in no way prevented, when partaking of the holy mysteries, from receiving sanctification, not in name alone, but in fact, since they continue to be living members united to the Head.”  See also Exomologetarion A Manual of Confession, pp. 78—84, text and footnotes.

[34] See NPNF, Second Series, Volume 14, pp. 25-27, “Excursus on the Public Discipline or Exomologesis of the Early Church,” commenting on Canon 11 of Nicea I.

[35] “How to protect yourself and others: get vaccinated; wear a mask; COVID-19 county check; avoid poorly ventilated spaces and crowds; test to prevent spread to others; wash your hands often; cover coughs and sneezes; clean and disinfect; monitor your health daily; follow recommendations for quarantine; follow recommendations for isolation; take precautions when you travel.”

[36] “Statement of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America on the Corona Virus” (March 13, 2020), at www.oca.org.

[37] “Statement of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America on the Coronavirus Outbreak” (March 17, 2020), at www.oca.org.  Metropolitan Joseph of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America issued an encyclical with directives on this same date stating the rationale for this action: “With yesterday’s announcement of the new CDC recommendations by President Trump, the time has sadly come” (at www.antiochian.org).

[38] “Statement of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America on the Coronavirus” (March 30, 2020), and “Synodal Directives for the Clergy and the Parish, Mission, and Monastic Communities of the Orthodox Church in America Concerning the Coronavirus (COVID-19)” (March 30, 2020), at www.oca.org.

[39] Letter dated May 1, 2020, from the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America, accompanying “SYNODAL DIRECTIVES Towards a Re-opening of our Churches Effective May 1, 2020,” at www.oca.org: “[A] partial a gradual re-opening…as we emerge from isolation and quarantine…fully aware of the civil directives…strictly observe all relevant directives…in accord with, and parallel to, the phases set forth by the federal government…must follow in every way the civil decrees…CDC guidance…US Federal Guidelines…come to church for a service on a rotating basis…calculating how many people can safely be in church…Precise records of who comes on which day will have to be kept…where they can enter the church…hang their coats…must sanitize or wash their hands…Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) will be inspected…temperature checks…understand and follow strictly the directives…requirements for social distancing.”

[40] Letter dated March 4, 2021, from the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America.

[41] “Restrictions on some of the most characteristic practices of Orthodoxy, such as attendance at the Divine Liturgy and receiving communion from a common spoon, fueled controversies that exposed points of tension concerning the relationship between the sacramental life of the Church and the obligation to care for the sick out of love for neighbor.” (“A theological and ethical analysis of the response of the Eastern Orthodox to the COVID-19 pandemic,” by Philip LeMasters, Review and Expositor, 2022, Vol. 119(1-2) 110-121, sagepub.com)

[42] Examples from Scripture and Church history employed to justify such a response illustrate their unprecedented application for the entire Church, especially since these events occurred during Lent just prior to the Paschal celebration: deferring the celebration of Pascha as King Hezekiah’s celebration of Passover (Pascha) in the second month of the year instead of the first as prescribed by the Law (2 Chronicles 30), and designating a small group to serve in Church on behalf of everyone else as was the practice of the monastery by the Jordan of leaving a few monks behind to maintain the divine services of the monastery during Lent when the majority went into the wilderness for the Fast (“Life of our Holy Mother Mary of Egypt,” in The Great Canon, (Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, undated), pg. 83).  However, in Chronicles, the Passover was deferred because the temple was defiled by idolatrous practices, not disease, and was not finally cleansed until the second month.  Likewise, the Lenten practice of the monastery by the Jordan was the particular, not universal, practice of that monastery; using an example from the same story, an argument could be made for living in complete isolation and abstaining from Holy Communion for 47 years as did St. Mary of Egypt, only to receive Communion on the day of one’s death.

[43] “BOMBSHELL: Veritas Documents Reveal DC Bureaucrats Had Evidence Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine Were Effective in Treating COVID – BUT HID THIS FROM THE PUBLIC,” by Jim Hoft, January 12, 2022, at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01: “Documents stored in a TOP SECRET folder on the computers of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) prove that the medicines Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, and Interferon were PROVEN ‘Curative’ of COVID-19 in April, 2020 – the cures were buried as ‘Top Secret’…the federal government of the United States KNEW in April, 2020, the entire ‘COVID-19 Pandemic’ was completely curable through the use of these common medications.”  “Blaylock on Vaccines: What You Need To Know For Informed Consent,” by Dr. Russell Blaylock, January 26, 2021, at https://www.technocracy.news: “In order to allow the population to use these entirely experimental biologicals the government had to declare this ‘pandemic’ a medical emergency and utilize Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)…Because this virus did not meet the accepted criteria for a pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) changed the criteria, dropping the necessity for the virus to be deadly for a significant percentage of the population or causing severe injuries to a mass of the population.  This virus has never even come close to satisfying these criteria.  Worse, to increase the perception that everyone was in danger, the public health authorities were instructed by the CDC to only use the RT-PCR tests to diagnose cases and specifically instructed these agencies to set the cycles far beyond what was standard for accurate testing (20 to 30 cycles).  By doing this, the CDC, and other agencies, turned negative tests into false positive tests – making it appear that the infection was everywhere.”

[44] Conveniently summarized in “30 facts you NEED to know: Your Covid Cribsheet,” September 22, 2021, at https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/22.  See also, Unreported Truths about Covid-19 and Lockdowns, by Alex Berenson, (North Chelmsford, MA, December, 2020): “What went all-but-unnoticed in the push for lockdowns was the fact that major public health organizations had for decades rejected them as a potential solution to epidemics…As protection, masks are largely useless, and mask mandates even more so.  But as a symbol that the coronavirus is a serious danger requiring us to give up our rights, they are incredibly effective.”

[45] This is a liturgical, eucharistic admonition also found at the end of 1 Corinthians (16:22-23): “If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.  Marana tha (Aramaic, Our Lord, come!).  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you”; and the late first century Didache, 9-10: “And concerning the Eucharist, thus give thanks (Gk., evcharistesate)…”; the prayer ends thus: “Let grace come and let this world pass away.  Hosanna to the God of David.  If any man be holy, let him come!  If any man be not, let him repent: Marana tha.  Amen” (The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 1, pp. 322-325).

[46] On the Mortality, 2, 8, 12 (252 A.D.; ANF, 5, pp. 469, 471, 472).

[47] St. John Chrysostom later wrote of the ubiquitous power of Pascha in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy: “The mystery of Pascha is not of more efficacy than that which is now celebrated (i.e., at each Sunday Liturgy).  It is one and the same.  There is the same grace of the Spirit; it is always Pascha…Let not the time, therefore, make any difference in your approach.  There is at all times the same power, the same dignity, the same grace, one and the same body; nor is one celebration of it more or less holy than another.” (Homily 5 on Timothy, NPNF, First Series, Volume 13, pg. 425)

[48] The Church History of Eusebius, VII.22.4, 8-10 (NPNF, Second Series, Volume 1, pp. 306-307).

[49] “Disease and Holy Communion,” by Fr. John Breck, October 1, 2009 (www.oca.org/reflections).  “[Metropolitan Mesogaias Nikolaos] emphasized (in 2018) that interpretation of the Holy Eucharist as a vehicle through which contagious disease may be transmitted, derives from the lack of faith and the human rationality.  It is remarkable that in front of this human disaster (the Covid-19 pandemic), the requirement of a spiritual way of living has emerged.  Medical doctors occupied in countries seriously affected by the coronavirus pandemic, such as Italy, witnessed religious conversions among infected healthcare workers.  They have recognized the importance of spirituality and faith to alleviate stress and psychical sufferance.  A growing body of research efforts reports a beneficial effect of religiosity on immune functioning and mental health…From the part of the science, the common communion cup may serve as a potential vehicle for transmission.  However, the risk is considerably lower compared to other conditions of social gathering.  Furthermore, the transmission of any infectious disease has never been documented…Science seems to stand in opposition with the concept of Holy Communion.” (Dimitrios Anyfantakis, “Holy Communion and Infection Transmission: A Literature Review,” DOI: 10.7759/cureus.8741, June 21, 2020)

[50] “[A] circumstance such as has never before been recorded…leaving, as I suppose, no part of the human race unvisited by the disease,” written by Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History (AD 431-594), Book 4, chapter 29, trans. by E. Walford (at https://tertullian.org/fathers), concerning the bubonic plague at the time of Emperor Justinian I (the Great).  See “Brief History of Pandemics (Pandemics Throughout History),” by Damir Huremovic, (Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019) at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15346-5_2.

[51] The advice of medical experts accepted by the bishops was by no means universal, but it was promulgated in the public arena to the exclusion of dissenting information by the civil health authorities in conjunction with most mass media outlets.  See “What We Knew in the Early Days,” November 4, 2022, at www.brownstone.org/articles; “The Great Barrington Declaration,” October 4, 2020, at https://gbdeclaration.org; “Trusted News Initiative (TNI) to combat spread of harmful vaccine disinformation and announces major research project,” 10 December 2020, at www.bbc.com/mediacentre; and a year into the crisis: “Why The Pandemic Is 10 Times Worse Than You Think,” by Nurith Aizenman, February 6, 2021, at https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021.  Even more telling is the build-up within the public health community to an anticipated, and planned, viral pandemic sowing the seeds for what was eventually implemented during the Covid-19 crisis.  “The plan is titled, ‘Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) Presentation to the WHO (World Health Organization)’ and is dated July 21, 2017.  It is a blueprint for what has already taken place and continues to roll out during COVID-19.  From the financial and governance perspective, it is what (Bill) Gates, (Anthony) Fauci, WHO, the pharmaceutical industry, FDA, CDC, NIH, and many others throughout the world are implementing during COVID-19 under the guise of public health…All the planning that went into the coming pandemic was about using vaccines to gain wealth, aggrandizement, and power.” From COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are The Prey, by Peter R. Breggin, M.D., and Ginger Ross Breggin, (Ithaca: Lake Edge Press, 2021); this extremely well researched book details the entire process.  See also, “Fauci Emails: How Top Public Health Officials Spun Tangled Web of Lies Around COVID Origin, Treatments,” by Meryl Nass, M.D., June 4, 2021, at https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender; and, “MEMORY HOLE: The Original COVID-19 Lie,” by Matt Orflea, March 3, 2020, at https://censorednews.substack.com/p: “The media narrative was that Trump’s ‘less than 1% (Covid-19 mortality rate)’ figure was not supported by scientists, doctors, or data, but it was.  The nation’s top doctors, health authorities (CDC), and data from South Korea – the country with the most COVID testing per capita, which calculated the death rate to be 0.6% – all supported Trump’s take.  The public was told that it was not only crazy to question WHO authority but dangerous.”

[52] On the Eve of Easter 2020: Coronavirus and US Orthodox Christian Parishes, by Alexei Krindatch, April, 2020, (Second Census of US Orthodox Churches/2020 US Religion Census at www.usreligioncensus.org).

[53] “Resistance or Submission? Reactions to the Covid-19 Pandemic in the Russian Orthodox Church,” by Alexander Agadjanian and Scott Kenworthy, August 19, 2021, (at https://berkleycenter,georgetown.edu), pg. 4.

[54] The “New Traditional” in a Most Traditional Church: How the Pandemic Has Reshaped American Orthodox Christian Churches, by Alexei Krindatch, January, 2022, at www.orthodoxreality.org, pg. 75: “The pandemic resulted in the increased political polarization of church life which was based on disagreements about various restrictions and new rules in worship services brought by the pandemic.  Some parishes split into hostile factions, creating rifts that will be very hard to heal, let alone to forget.”

[55] “The Faithful Are Suffocating, Open the Churches! – Metropolitan Nicholas of Mesogaias,” December 3, 2020, at https://orthochristian.com/135831.html.

[56] For instance, St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 2.16 (In Defense of His Flight to Pontus), NPNF, Second Series, Volume 7, pg. 208.

[57] “[T]he notion grew that frequent gazing upon the Eucharist could in some way replace the sacramental reception.  The idea of spiritual communion developed…In the later Middle Ages, the desire for sacramental Communion was regarded as a requisite for such a spiritualis communio, in fact as its essential mark.  At a time when frequent Communion was made almost impossible by exaggerated requirements, this desire must really have been a genuine one for many people.  A certain justification for the existing practice of infrequent Communion was found in the Middle Ages in the thought that the priest surely communicates and does so as representative of the entire community…Communion in place of someone else.  Thus in the thirteenth century there are evidences of the practice of receiving or, to use a better term, ‘offering up’ Communion for others, especially for the dead.”  In The Mass of the Roman Rite, by Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J., trans. by Rev. Francis A Brunner, C.SS.R., 2 Volumes, (Allen, TX: Christian Classics, 1986), Vol. 2, pp. 364-365.

[58] The field of Social Psychology offers important insights into the degrees, distinctions, and factors of Influence: compliance, conformity, groupthink, persuasion, and obedience.  See Influence: Science and Practice, 4^th ed., by R. B. Cialdini, (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001).

[59] Saint Basil, Ascetical Works, trans. by Sister M. Monica Wagner, C.S.C., The Fathers of the Church, Volume 9, (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1962), “The Long Rules, Preface,” pg. 227.

[60] Oration 12.5 (To His Father, When He Had Entrusted to Him the Care of the Church of Nazianzus), NPNF, Second Series, Volume 7, pp. 246-247.

[61] “Why Did People Comply,” by Maximilien Lacour, October 1, 2023, at www.brownstone.org/articles.  Surveys found that “personal fear of the virus or of coercion by the State may have been relatively unimportant in driving compliance with the lockdown rules.  Instead, they found that, in general, people followed the rules because (1) they were the law and (2) because they provided us with a shared understanding of what was good and right to do, which many of us seem to have internalized.”  In 1920, W. H. Kellogg, M.D., executive officer of the California State Board of Health, observed on the failure of masking to contain the rampant and devastating 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic: “The masks, contrary to expectation, were worn cheerfully and universally, and also, contrary to expectation of what should follow under such circumstances, no effect on the epidemic curve was to be seen.  Something was plainly wrong with our hypotheses,” in “Maskerade: COVID-1984 and evidence-free compulsory masking,” by Andrew Bostum, December, 2020 at https://www.theblaze.com/conservative-review.  Brandon Smith observes a general principle: “Everything government officials told us during the pandemic was a lie.  It was not a mistake, it was not bureaucratic confusion, it was a lie (e.g., the effectiveness of lockdowns, masks, vaccines, testing, pandemic of the unvaccinated, mortality rates, etc.)…As many leftists openly admitted, the goal was to make life so difficult for the unvaccinated that they would eventually comply in order to survive.  In this way, establishment elites and leftists could claim that people ‘volunteered’ for the vaccines and no one was forced.  What they really meant was, no one was forced at gunpoint, but we all knew that the threat was coming next,” in “Never Forget: Leftists Showed Their True Authoritarian Colors During Covid,” August 11, 2023, at https://alt-market.us.  Closely related to the issue of compliance is the granting, or denying, of informed consent (freedom of choice) for mandated health measures and medical treatments.

[62] Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13; and Rom. 13:1 all use the word “be subordinate” (Gk., hypotasso), the root being taxis, that is, “order, or rank,” when describing the relationship of Christians to governmental authority.  See Krindatch, The “New Traditional” in a Most Traditional Church, pg. 75: “The pandemic revealed how strongly secular authorities and government can interfere in the internal affairs of religious congregations by imposing various rules and restrictions on them.”  The rules and restrictions were willingly adopted as much as they were imposed.

[63] See the Apologies of both St. Justin Martyr and Tertullian, ANF, Volumes 1 and 3, respectively.

[64] Quinisext, 2; NPNF, Second Series, Volume 14, pg. 361.

[65] Mihai, Orthodox Canon Law Reference Book, pg. 181, 185: “Epitimia, or penances, are the sanctions given to those who commit sins; epitimia are temporal in character and healing in purpose…The Church discipline inspired by the teachings of the Lord and of the apostles applied the sanction of excommunication to those who were guilty of major sins (e.g., heresy, schism); this meant that the transgressors were denied Holy Communion; if they did not show remorse and repentance, they were not only denied Holy Communion but were also ostracized from the community.”

[66] March 4, 2021, Letter of The Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America, at www.oca.org; this quote is a verbatim reproduction of the letter from the Holy Synod issued one year earlier on May 1, 2020, accompanying the document: “Synodal Directives Towards a Re-opening of our Churches,” expressing the extreme caution to be exercised in preventing any transmission of the virus.

[67] LeMasters, “A theological and ethical analysis,” pg. 114.  The first quote is from a June 8, 2020, “Letter to ‘Beloved Faithful in Christ,’” by Metropolitan Joseph (of the Antiochian Archdiocese of America), in the author’s possession.  The author is a Priest in the Antiochian Archdiocese.

[68] Agadjanian and Kenworthy, “Resistance or Submission?”  As more and more data was released on the Covid-19 inoculations, it became evident they never prevented infection with nor transmission of the virus.  See “It was never a ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated’ and official public health data prove it,” by Dr. Paul Elias Alexander, July 29, 2022, at https://lifesitenews.com/opinion; and “Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” by Stephanie Seneff and Greg Nigh, International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, May 10, 2021, pp. 38-79.

[69] “mRNA biologicals are not true vaccines,” not satisfying two basic requirements for definition as a vaccine: a preparation of weakened or killed pathogen, and having been rigorously tested for safety and efficacy (typically 10-15 years); “The mRNA biologicals…are thus more akin to experimental treatments.”  From “A Report on the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of the COVID-19 Messenger Ribonucleic Acid (mRNA) Biologicals,” by Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc, BSc, May, 2021, Science, Public Health Policy, and The Law, Volume 2:59-80, pp. 59-80.  See also, “mRNA: Vaccine or Gene Therapy? The Safety Regulatory Issues,” by Helene Banoun, 22 June 2023, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241310514.

[70] St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ephesians 20.2; The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. 1, pg. 195.

[71] Krindatch, The “New Traditional” in a Most Traditional Church, pg. 2.