Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythera, the 2019 decision of the Hierarchy, and the limits of personal dissent within a synodal Church
By A. Philalethes
The new statement by Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythera and Antikythera that he “does not recognize” Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kyiv is not merely another personal position on the Ukrainian issue. It raises a deeper ecclesiological and institutional question: can a member of the Hierarchy publicly maintain for years his own regime of “recognition” and “non-recognition” when the Church to which he belongs has already decided the matter synodally, its Primate commemorates Epiphanius in the Diptychs, and has concelebrated with him?
1. The new statement: not merely dissent, but a public rejection of the Church’s ecclesiastical act
On 25 September 2026, a new interview with Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythera and Antikythera was made public, in which he reiterated two familiar positions: first, that no regular vote on the Ukrainian issue took place at the extraordinary meeting of the Hierarchy on 12 October 2019; and second, that he does not accept Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kyiv as a canonical hierarch. His words were entirely clear: “And I do not recognize this Epiphanius either. I cannot accept that he is the canonical one.”[1][2]
This statement does not come out of nowhere. In February 2026 he had described the Ukrainian issue as a “canonical crime,” spoken of “unordained” men and “schismatics,” and stated that he does not commemorate Epiphanius, does not accept his inclusion in the Diptychs, and does not wish to concelebrate with those who have concelebrated with him.[3] We are therefore not dealing with a momentary expression of reservation, but with a persistent and publicly maintained personal line that continues seven years after the synodal act of the Church of Greece.
This is precisely where the problem lies. A Metropolitan certainly has the right, within the Synod, to set out his theological, canonical, or historical judgment, to be in the minority, to request a new discussion, and to substantiate his objections. But synodal dissent is one thing; the permanent public assertion of a personal regime of ecclesiastical recognition contrary to that applied by his own Church is another. When the phrase “I do not recognize him” is uttered by a serving Metropolitan, institutionally it does not function as a mere academic opinion; it acquires the character of a public ecclesiastical stance. And determining the external ecclesiastical communion of the Church of Greece does not fall within the individual competence of a diocesan Metropolitan.
2. In 2019 the Hierarchy had already answered — and answered him specifically
The most striking element in the present discussion is that the claim that “no decision was taken” is not being made for the first time now. Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythera and Antikythera had advanced it immediately after the extraordinary convocation of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy in October 2019. The Holy Synod of the Church of Greece itself responded officially and by name at the time, in a press release dated 15 October 2019, issued expressly “on the occasion of a Statement by His Eminence Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythera.”[4]
The official synodal text is entirely specific. It states that 33 hierarchs took part in the discussion, that the Archbishop’s conclusions were read before the body, that amendments were made to them by the hierarchs, and that the final text “constituted a decision of the Hierarchy.” The Holy Synod further adds that “any other attempt to interpret” the events “does not reflect reality.”[4]
The same official issue also records the content of the synodal decision: the Hierarchy accepted the earlier decision of the Standing Holy Synod and the recommendation of Archbishop Ieronymos, recognizing the canonical right of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to grant autocephaly and the prerogative of the Primate of the Church of Greece to handle further the question of recognizing the Church of Ukraine.[4]
From an institutional standpoint, therefore, the matter is clear: the Church of Greece holds that its Hierarchy took a decision in 2019 and has acted on that basis ever since. Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythera is certainly entitled to have expressed his disagreement as a member of the synodal body and to believe that the procedure should have unfolded differently. But that personal assessment cannot be presented as though, by itself, it nullified the official position and act of the competent synodal body.
A recorded minority position or procedural objection by a hierarch is one thing; denying the institutional reality that his own Church has officially proclaimed and applies is another.
3. What Article 19 of the Regulation actually proves — and what it does not
Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythera bases part of his argument on Regulation 1/1977, then in force, “On the Proceedings of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy.” Article 19 provides that, when after the conclusion of the discussion a decision must be taken, the President formulates the proposal or proposals “on which each of the participants is called upon to vote.”[5]
This provision certainly exists and must be taken into account. By itself, however, it proves neither that the Regulation was violated at the meeting of 12 October 2019 nor that the decision of the Hierarchy is without legal or canonical existence. The latter conclusion is not contained in Article 19; it is an interpretation advanced by Metropolitan Seraphim himself.
For it to be stated as an objective fact that no valid decision was taken, it would have to be demonstrated, on the basis of the official Minutes and the entirety of the applicable synodal procedure, that a specific breach occurred of such a nature as to render the synodal act non-existent or invalid. Invoking Article 19, without further substantiation from the official Minutes and the whole applicable procedure, is not in itself sufficient for such a weighty institutional conclusion.
And this is precisely where the more fundamental problem in Metropolitan Seraphim’s present stance lies.
A hierarch may disagree within the Synod. He may request a vote, place a dissenting opinion on record, argue that a procedure was not followed as he believes it should have been, and seek, through the ecclesiastical means provided, reconsideration of an issue. This is part of synodal functioning.
It is, however, an entirely different matter to proclaim publicly for years that a synodal decision — one which the competent body itself considers that it took and on the basis of which it acts — does not in substance bind him personally.
For then we are no longer dealing merely with disagreement over how an article of the Regulation was applied. We are facing a deeper ecclesiological question: to what extent may an individual member of the Hierarchy set his own personal judgment against the institutional will of the synodal body to which he belongs?
If the answer is that every Metropolitan may, after a synodal procedure has concluded, regard at will as non-existent those decisions with which he disagrees, then the concept of synodality is emptied of its real content. The Synod ceases to be a body that decides and becomes an aggregate of autonomous individual judgments, from which each person chooses which synodal decisions bind him and which do not.
That, however, is not synodality. It is its negation.
4. Who has competence over ecclesiastical communion and relations with the other Autocephalous Churches?
The Charter of the Church of Greece, Law 590/1977, gives an answer to this question that is difficult to misinterpret. Article 3 provides that the “Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority of the Church of Greece” is the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy.[6] Article 4 expressly entrusts the Hierarchy with responsibility for “ecclesiastical communion” with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the other Patriarchates, and the Autocephalous Churches.[6]
By contrast, Article 29 describes each serving Metropolitan as the ecclesiastical authority of his own Metropolis and provides that he exercises his authority “within the territory of his Metropolis.”[6] This in no way diminishes episcopal dignity or responsibility. It does, however, reflect the synodal structure of the Autocephalous Church: each bishop shepherds his diocese, while matters concerning the external ecclesiastical communion of the Church as a whole belong to the synodal body.
For this reason, the term “usurpation of authority” may not be the precise legal characterization here and need not be used. The essential point is simpler: a Metropolitan has no independent institutional competence to draw up a personal list of recognized and unrecognized Primates different from that of the Autocephalous Church to which he belongs. Most importantly, he cannot by himself alter the external ecclesiastical position of the Church of Greece.
5. What the episcopal affirmation says — and what it does not say
Precision is also needed regarding the affirmation made by a newly appointed Metropolitan. Law 590/1977 provides in Article 26 §2 that the new Metropolitan makes the affirmation prescribed in Article 16 §1, adapted to his episcopal duties. In it, he declares that he will fulfill his duties while unwaveringly observing the sacred Apostolic and Synodal Canons and the holy Traditions, and that he obeys the Constitution and the laws of the State.[6]
This wording does not contain a separate phrase such as “I will obey every decision of the Holy Synod.” The Metropolitan’s institutional obligation under the synodal polity, however, does not depend on such a phrase: it follows from the entire structure of the Charter, which defines the Hierarchy as the supreme ecclesiastical authority, entrusts it with ecclesiastical communion with the other Churches, and grants it supreme supervision and oversight over the acts of the hierarchs.[6]
At the canonical level as well, Apostolic Canon 34 expresses precisely this reciprocity: the bishops do not act in matters extending beyond their own dioceses without the first among them, but neither does the first act without the judgment of the others. What is required is synodality — neither a “papism” of the Primate nor a federation of private episcopal foreign policies.[7]
6. The objection concerning Epiphanius’s ordination and the fact that cannot be bypassed
Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythera links his rejection of Epiphanius to the latter’s ordination by Filaret Denysenko at a time when Filaret had been deposed by the Russian Church. This is a real canonical dispute that has generated extensive inter-Orthodox discussion and need not be reduced to a slogan.
There is, however, a crucial subsequent fact that must be included in any serious presentation: on 11 October 2018, the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate announced that, following appeals, it had restored Filaret Denysenko and Makariy Maletych, as well as all those ordained by them, to their episcopal or priestly rank, and their faithful to ecclesiastical communion.[8]
The two competent Synodal Committees of the Church of Greece had already concluded in 2019 that, from a canonical and legal standpoint, there was “no obstacle” to recognizing the autocephaly of the Church of Ukraine and to the “complete harmonization and agreement” of the Church of Greece with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Hierarchy subsequently accepted the earlier decision of the Standing Holy Synod and the recommendation of Archbishop Ieronymos.[4] Metropolitan Seraphim is therefore not simply opposing a personal opinion of the Archbishop. He is opposing the institutional judgment and action of the competent organs of his own Church.
7. Ieronymos and Epiphanius: the question that can no longer be avoided
On 10 November 2019, Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens and All Greece commemorated Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kyiv in the Diptychs for the first time at the Metropolitan Cathedral of Athens, an act that publicly recorded the recognition of the Church of Ukraine by the Church of Greece.[9] On 4 September 2022, Archbishop Ieronymos concelebrated on Thasos with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kyiv. The Ecumenical Patriarchate itself described that concelebration as an expression of their “sacramental communion and unity.”[10]
Here the public position of Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythera reaches an unavoidable logical and ecclesiological limit. In February 2026 he stated that he is not in communion with and does not wish to concelebrate “with those who have concelebrated” with Epiphanius.[3] Archbishop Ieronymos is indisputably one of those who have concelebrated with him.
For this reason, with the same degree of clarity with which he says “I do not recognize Epiphanius,” Metropolitan Seraphim should answer several very specific questions:
8. Four questions that require a clear answer
- Does he consider Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kyiv to be outside canonical ecclesiastical communion, and if so, on what ecclesiastical decision of the Church of Greece does he base that judgment?
- Does he consider Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens, who commemorates Epiphanius in the Diptychs and has concelebrated with him, to be a canonical hierarch?
- Does his statement that he does not wish to concelebrate with those who have concelebrated with Epiphanius include the Primate of the Church of Greece himself? If so, what does this mean for his own position within the synodal body? If not, how is that exception reconciled with the canonical charge he himself makes?
- Ultimately, does he recognize the decision of the Hierarchy and the act of its Primate as binding for the external ecclesiastical communion of the Church of Greece, or does he believe that each Metropolitan may apply a personal list of ecclesiastical communion?
9. “One who communes with someone out of communion…”: the argument must be used with precision
In this discussion, Canon 2 of the Council of Antioch is often invoked. It provides that one may not commune with those who are “out of communion,” and that clerics who commune with them are likewise subject to exclusion from communion.[11] The principle is serious. Precisely for that reason, it should not be turned into an automatic rhetorical device.
The Canon presupposes that someone is already ecclesiastically out of communion. In the present case, the Church of Greece does not treat Epiphanius as being out of communion; it has received him into its ecclesiastical communion, its Primate commemorates him, and has concelebrated with him. Consequently, it is not legitimate for a private commentator — or for an individual Metropolitan by personal declaration — to proclaim Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kyiv or Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens “out of communion.”
There is, however, a reasonable argument from consequences: if Metropolitan Seraphim literally means that Epiphanius is a “schismatic,” “unordained,” and outside canonical ecclesiastical communion, then he must explain what consequences he attributes to those who are in full Eucharistic communion with him — above all, to the Primate of his own Church. If he attributes no such consequences, he must explain how he reconciles that stance with the absolute canonical terminology he uses.
10. Personal dissent is respectable; a “personal Diptych” is not ecclesiology
No one asks a bishop to renounce his conscience. The Orthodox Church is not a barracks, nor is synodality identical with the prohibition of all disagreement. Bishops must speak within the Synod, scrutinize, argue, and, when they believe something to be wrong, state it with parrhesia.
But synodality ceases to have meaning if every bishop, after the synodal process has been completed, indefinitely maintains a parallel system of recognitions, commemorations, and liturgical communion. Then we no longer have a synodal Church, but an aggregate of independent ecclesiastical foreign policies.
Apostolic Canon 34 permits neither authoritarianism by the first nor the autonomization of individual bishops. Its meaning is concord within the synodal order.[7] This is precisely what is at stake here. Within the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, Metropolitan Seraphim may say: “I disagree with the 2019 decision,” “I request reconsideration,” “I consider the patriarchal act canonically erroneous.” Institutionally, however, it is not the same thing for him to say: “I do not recognize” the person whom the Church of Greece recognizes.
11. The time has come for a clear institutional response from the Church of Greece
Long-standing tolerance does not appear to have led to de-escalation. On the contrary, the same public confrontation returns, with severe characterizations and formulations that create among the faithful the impression that within the same Autocephalous Church there are two parallel ecclesiological lines: that of the Hierarchy and the Primate, and that of individual hierarchs who declare that they do not accept the Diptychs applied by their Church.
The Archbishop of Athens, as President of the Hierarchy, and the competent synodal organs have reason to set a clear institutional boundary. Not through personal attacks and not through administrative suppression of theological discussion, but through a clear reaffirmation of what the Church of Greece decided, what its ecclesiastical communion is today, and what distinction every member of the Hierarchy must observe between personal canonical disagreement and official ecclesiastical action.
The Charter entrusts the Hierarchy itself not only with responsibility for ecclesiastical communion but also with “supreme supervision and oversight” over the acts of the hierarchs.[6] If, therefore, the public rejection of the common ecclesiastical line continues, it is legitimate and necessary for the competent synodal organs to examine the matter through canonical procedure.
12. If conscience makes common ecclesiastical action impossible, institutional consistency is required
There is one final, difficult but unavoidable point. If a Metropolitan genuinely believes that the Autocephalous Church to which he belongs is in Eucharistic communion with “unordained” men or “schismatics,” and if he believes that he cannot concelebrate with those who have communed with them, then the issue is no longer a simple particular disagreement. It touches on the very possibility of exercising one’s ministry within that synodal body without a permanent internal contradiction.
No law automatically requires resignation merely because a Metropolitan disagrees. The same Charter, however, expressly provides that a Metropolitan may resign “for any other serious reason,” through the prescribed synodal procedure.[6] Therefore, if a person’s conscience reaches the point of regarding his Church’s official ecclesiastical communion as canonically unacceptable, the institutionally consistent course is to seek a solution through the canonical organs and, if he considers continuation in active governance impossible, to assume personally the consequences of his conviction.
Withdrawal from active administration or, if one so chooses, residence in a monastery are free personal and spiritual choices. They are not a penalty that a commentator can impose. What is difficult to reconcile institutionally, however, is indefinite membership in a synodal body while simultaneously presenting in public the official ecclesiastical act of the Church to which one belongs as uncanonical or legally non-existent.
Epilogue: the Synod is not a decorative body
The Ukrainian issue is difficult and multilayered, but a synodal Church cannot function if every minority considers its disagreement sufficient grounds to behave as though no synodal decision had ever been taken.
Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythera has every right to request a new synodal discussion and to submit a full canonical argument. He does not, however, have institutional competence to create his own regime of recognition for a Primate whom his Church commemorates in the Diptychs and with whom his own Archbishop has concelebrated.
The question, therefore, is not whether Metropolitan Seraphim “is entitled to have an opinion.” Of course he is. The question is whether a member of the Hierarchy may indefinitely behave in public as though he had his own Diptychs. And on that point, if the concept of synodality means anything, the answer cannot be ambiguous.
Sources and documentation
The links below are active. Priority was given to primary institutional sources (Church of Greece, the Charter, the Ecumenical Patriarchate) and, for the recent statements, to publications that quote or transcribe the relevant material.
[6] Law 590/1977 — Charter of the Church of Greece, especially Articles 3, 4, 16, 26, 29, and 34
