So what is the "ancient tradition"?"We have received from the Church of God, that upon this day we owe yearly thanksgiving to God along with an exposition of the dogmas of piety and the overturning of the impieties of evil."http://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/synodoi/synodicon_of_orthodoxy.htm
This is the very first line of the Synodicon of Orthodoxy. "It refers to an imperial edict of 11 March 842 which recalled Orthodox clergy. After St. Methodius was elected Patriarch, the Synod promulgate this Synodicon, which was formally read on 11 March 843, the First Sunday of Great Lent."
- 'The True Vine
' Issue Numbers 27 & 28 (Spring 2000), page 35 (footnote)
Nothing in the Synodicon nor in this issue with the English translation say anything about a bishop being necessary to read it.
Such a doctrine about episcopal presence is completely heretical. It not only violates one or a few of the anathemas. It violates the entire Synodicon of Orthodoxy by tossing it to the wind. That is the motive which gave form to this unsubstantiated bishop theory.
EDIT: Those words may seem strong to some, but I have always taken this as elemental. I follow unchanging laws and eternal truths rather than men. If anyone can show me where I am mistaken about this from the tradition of the Church, then I will reconsider my own position.
Anyway, those are my comments with no intention of squelching anyone else. I had perceived that genuine tradition was getting the shaft by persons who had never been familiar with it. It is not a conspiracy theory to speak up when you know something pertinent that is not being voiced. The bishop doctrine is the only theory so far advanced in this thread.