Hieromonk Lavrentie | October 15, 2026
Translated from
the original Romanian.
In recent days (October 5–8 of
this year), an International Conference was held in Paris (Chantilly) on the
Council of Crete, ten years after it convened. It was
even reported by the Romanian Patriarchate on its official portal, Basilica,
and two speakers delegated by our Church, Fr. Viorel Ioniță and Fr. Michael
Tița, were also present. Thus, the scale of the event is significant, and it
also concerns developments within Romanian Orthodoxy.
This is a good opportunity to
assess how the documents of Crete are being received within Orthodoxy, at least
in a certain part of it, namely the (pro-)Phanariot circles. It is also useful
to observe whether the decisions are being put away in a drawer or whether
there is an intention to implement them.
The impression I have formed from
the available texts of some of the presentations is that the Church hierarchy is
conveying to the world and the faithful a social, secularized message that is
not presented as coming from Christ. It is not exactly a lack of spirituality,
but rather a self-sufficient, worldly spirituality, devoid of the God revealed
in the Gospel—a kind of New Age spirituality.
The Participation of the
Bulgarian Patriarchate
First of all, before highlighting
certain relevant aspects, it must be emphasized that the Bulgarian
Patriarchate, which is one of the four Churches that did not attend the
Council, was also represented at the Conference. Indeed, its two delegates were
appointed directly by the Holy Synod, a fact mentioned in a post devoted to the
subject: Bulgarian
Participation in an International Scientific Conference Dedicated to the
Council of Crete. It is evident from the report that the basis for this
involvement is the fact that the Bulgarian Patriarchate also contributed to and
approved the pre-synodal documents and is interested in the final decisions
adopted in Crete.
Given that the current Patriarch
Daniil is recognized as a defender of Orthodox Tradition and an opponent of
innovations introduced into the Church, particularly Ecumenism and Phanariot
Papism, which brought about the schism in Ukraine, this appointment of
delegates is astonishing. Although the presentation by Metropolitan Ioan of
Varna says nothing significant, the very fact that the final decisions of Crete
are being considered and discussed before the Synod has pronounced itself on
their acceptance is telling and incomprehensible. Is this a tacit acceptance
preceding an improvement in relations with the Phanar at the official level?
The Status of Heretics
The
paper dealing with Orthodoxy’s relations with the “rest of the Christian world”,
that is, heretics, which is available for reading, was prepared by Stylianos
Tsomanidis, a professor at the Faculty of Theology in Thessaloniki.
He states that the Council did
not define where heretics stand from an Orthodox perspective. In his words:
“The Holy and Great Council constitutes a major step toward strengthening
ecumenical dialogue; nevertheless, this step has remained incomplete. It was
unable to clarify with complete precision to those with whom it engages in
dialogue how Orthodoxy understands and experiences its relationship with them
and what they are in relation to Orthodoxy. This question constitutes the
so-called ‘ecclesiological challenge.’”
In fact, he does not stop there,
but expressly refers to the Thessaloniki Conference, at which the Orthodox were
asked the question: “Is there a place for other Churches in Orthodox
ecclesiology? How can this place and its boundaries be described?” However, he
does not mention that an answer was also given to this question there, an
ecumenist one: there are Churches that are fully Churches and others that are
not fully Churches, possessing only elements of the true Church and not being
entirely identical with it. Moreover, he does not point out that the Council of
Crete endorsed that particular decision, which means that we now have, in fact,
an officially established ecumenist ecclesiology. On the contrary, the author
of the paper continues as follows: “Within and among the Local Orthodox
Churches, there are disagreements, while the positions expressed are
fluctuating and inconsistent, with extremely negative consequences not only for
their witness to the outside world, but also for the consistency between their
own words and deeds.”
He goes on to emphasize that even
the decisions of the first Pre-Synodal Conferences (1976) established as an
objective the clarification of ecclesiological principles not only on the part
of heretics, but also on the part of the Orthodox. In this connection, he
refers to certain words of the late Patriarch Parthenios III of Alexandria: “Do
we acknowledge that they too are the Church? The answer must not be an
equivocal one, such as ‘perhaps,’ ‘if,’ ‘who knows,’ and the like. Are they
outside the Church? Are they within the Church? Let us state it as clearly as
possible. […] The answer will help the dialogue, whether it is positive or
negative.”
This ambiguity is then linked to
the failure to inform the Orthodox faithful about the steps taken and to their
lack of involvement. Consequently, the conclusion is that greater involvement
from the grassroots upward is needed in “Christian reconciliation and unity.”
To a certain extent, these
statements are correct in that the ecclesiological issue has not been
definitively settled, since it has not been explicitly set down in black and
white, although it is implicit in the references to the Thessaloniki Conference
and the WCC Constitution. It is very likely that this is a tactic of
manipulation and of introducing heresy according to the principle of “putting
the cart before the horse.”
On the other hand, it is, to say
the least, curious and astonishing to claim that there is no Orthodox dogmatic
ecclesiology concerning the place of heretics. The Creed itself affirms that
there is only one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which means that
heretics are outside it. Moreover, patristic works on this subject, such as On
the Unity of the Church by St. Cyprian of Carthage, as well as numerous
canons, leave no room for debate: heretics are not within the Church and are
opposed to it.
Therefore, the faithful must be
preserved in the authentic and established Tradition, rather than introduced to
new ecumenist theories and innovations.
The Ecclesiality of Heretics;
the Baptismal Theory
But ecclesiology is pushed even
further in the paper
by Metropolitan Job of Pisidia, the representative of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate to ecumenist institutions. Although he begins with the premise
that the Council of Crete did not pronounce itself on the ecclesiality of “Christians
who find themselves outside the boundaries” of the Orthodox Church, and that
this was a “compromise to preserve the essence of the document,” he
nevertheless goes on to argue that heretics are canonically recognized as
participating, to varying degrees, in the Church of Christ.
The argument employed has already
been given the name “baptismal theory.” This theory maintains that the starting
point for reflection is Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council and Canon 95
of the Council in Trullo, which provide for the reception of various heretics
in different ways, either through chrismation or through a confession of faith.
The fact that they are received without being baptized supposedly “validates
their previous baptism and thus recognizes a certain ecclesial character in
their community.”
Indeed, a heated dispute
concerning the reception of heretics through baptism or merely through
chrismation arose as early as the first centuries, between St. Cyprian of
Carthage and St. Stephen, Bishop of Rome. The issue was resolved when the
former convened Synods that ruled that the Mysteries of those outside the
Church were invalid. However, it is very likely that the practice existing in
Rome of not baptizing those coming from among the heretics continued until
Blessed Augustine, who argued against the Donatists that Baptism performed by
heretics is valid because it belongs to Christ and does not depend on the
minister. Nevertheless, this position is an isolated one, with the rest of the
Holy Fathers siding with St. Cyprian.
Thus, St. Dionysius of Alexandria
introduced certain distinctions into this question, namely that heretics who
return to Orthodoxy, that is, after having departed from the Church, should not
be (re)baptized.
St. Basil the Great, in his First
Canon, examines at length the manner of receiving those who come into the
Church and determines that no heresy possesses valid Baptism, whether it is
Trinitarian in nature or of another kind (Canon 47). Schismatics, on the other
hand, are still part of the Church, but no longer possess the power of an
operative priesthood, and Baptism is valid only if performed by clergy who
broke away from the Church, those who initiated the separation, and not by
those ordained by them. He further acknowledges that economia may be
exercised, as was widespread among the Romans, so that certain persons may be
received without rebaptism.
In addition to these, a
resolution of the issue is also offered by St. Justin the Martyr and
Philosopher in the fourteenth response of the work Answers to the Orthodox
Concerning Certain Necessary Questions:
“Question: If the baptism
administered by heretics is false and vain, why do the Orthodox not baptize a
heretic who comes over to Orthodoxy, but instead accept the false baptism as
though it were true? And if he happens to have received ordination from them as
well, they also accept this as valid. How, then, are both the person received
and those who receive him free from blame?
Answer: The error of the heretic
who comes to Orthodoxy is corrected by a change of mind from false belief, that
of his baptism by anointing with Holy Chrism, and that of his ordination by cheirothesia
(the laying on of hands), and nothing of what formerly existed remains
unresolved.”
Therefore, when economia
is exercised and someone is received through chrismation, this is done not
because heretical baptism is valid or possesses any saving power, but by
correcting it and, more precisely, conferring sacramental efficacy through the
act of reception. Thus, there is no division of heretics into different
degrees; rather, reception by economia may be applied to some, while to
others (who perform only one immersion instead of three) it may not be applied
at all. More precisely, heretics possess no trace of ecclesiality that can be
recognized; rather, the form of their liturgical practice either permits or
precludes their reception by economia.
But the apostolic foundation for
not recognizing the baptism of heretics comes from the words of the Holy
Apostle Paul: “There is one body (of the Church), and one Spirit, (…) one Lord,
one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:4–5), meaning that there is only one Baptism
belonging to one Church. In addition to this Scriptural testimony, Apostolic
Canons 46 and 47 explicitly prohibit the acceptance of heretical baptism.
Returning to the papers under
discussion, it is evident that there is an innovationist movement seeking to
change patristic ecclesiology. This movement is gaining ground because it
exploits certain issues that have been disputed throughout history and have not
been fully and definitively clarified. For this reason, a rigorous theological
examination of these issues is necessary, together with their clarification, as
was done with other erroneous teachings in the past. In other words, a firm condemnation
of ecumenist theories is necessary.
Mixed Marriages
One practical aspect of ecumenism
was addressed in the discussion of mixed marriages (that is, with heretics).
An extensive presentation on the
subject was given by a female professor of canon law from Athens, which
deserves particular attention. But first, Metropolitan Job also made references
to the subject. He maintained that it is regrettable that the Council
identified Catholics and Protestants as heretics, since they confess the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Consequently, the prohibition of Canon 72
against contracting marriages with heretics would not apply to them. In
practice, he seeks to dilute the concept of heresy on the basis of dogmatic
minimalism.
Other strange statements
concerning mixed marriages are to be found, as I have written, in the presentation
given by Professor Irini Christinaki. First of all, it is interesting that
she refers to discussions recorded in the minutes of the Council, which are not
available to the public.
From the standpoint of canon law,
the arguments presented are very likely correct. The analysis is interesting
and may open up certain perspectives on mixed marriage, particularly regarding
what exactly is wrong: the religious ceremony or the relationship itself.
Nevertheless, there are some important inconsistencies: the objection raised by
the Church of Georgia was not resolved by the Council through granting each
Local Church the pastoral right to allow dispensations; rather, it is possible
that this very decision was erroneous and does not constitute a genuine source
of canon law.
At one point, she forces an
interpretation of the saying: “Birds of a feather flock together.” This should
lead a believer to choose an Orthodox spouse, not someone who merely accepts
and tolerates Orthodoxy.
She also speaks of the “natural
sacredness” of marriage, which enjoys God's protection even where no religious
ceremony has been performed. This is based on the reasoning that they gather in
Christ's name and that He is present in the family consisting of the Orthodox
spouse, the children, and the partner who also accepts His presence. This
overly loose interpretation of the Saviour's words is astonishing, to say the
least, if not downright irreverent. It is true that marriage has its origins in
Paradise and possesses something sacred by its very nature, but it is not a
marriage in Christ or within the Church when those who are married are not
Orthodox.
Throughout the entire paper, canonical
and juridical considerations are given far too much precedence over the
commandments and principles of the Gospel. The conclusion is particularly
revealing in this regard, with its assertion that the canonical norms of the
Church concern not only her members but also constitute a universal standard of
justice. Let us not forget that Christ does not pray for those who belong to
the world, that is, He does not work salvation except in those who believe in
Him. The rest are without the law of God.
General Observations
A conflict between two traditions
within the Church is evident: modernists and traditionalists. For the time
being, it cannot be said that this conflict has been resolved. Events such as
this Conference commemorating the anniversary of the Council of Crete bring it
more clearly to light. Constantinople is proving to be an outpost of dogmatic
and theological innovation at virtually every level and is imposing this
direction on many other Local Churches, including our own Romanian Church.
For the Phanariot faction, “the
Council of Crete is not the end of a synodal process, but only the beginning.”
Fortunately, there is resistance to the acceptance of the innovations of modern
theology, including Ecumenism. Unfortunately, however, there is no
well-articulated theology, rooted in the authentic Orthodox spirit and through
which Christ may work, capable of responding adequately and safeguarding the
Church.
Baptismal theology, mixed
marriages, and personalism constitute only a few points of disagreement, but
behind them are two different spirits, that of the world and that of the
Gospel, which are in conflict over these issues. Orthodoxy will prevail when it
provides clear answers, without fear of going against the prevailing fashion of
apostasy and without fear of persecution. Of course, what is needed first and
foremost is to be firmly rooted in the Spirit of Christ, rather than merely
adhering to the letter of the Gospel in a rigorist manner. For the time being,
the voices of those who confess the faith remain marginalized and obstructed by
those who have taken control of official ecclesiastical positions (the case of
Metropolitan Tychikos is revealing of the extent of the tyranny and
persecution, and it is not an isolated case, not to mention the Ukrainian
schism).
