The Continuity of the Non-Commemorators' Movements

 

The Continuity of the Non-Commemorators' Movements: The Forward-Looking Vision

Vladimir Nani | January 28, 2019

 

We propose this article for reading, first and foremost with the aim of introducing into open and public discussion the very concept of the continuity of the non-commemorators' movements. This text was written a year ago but is being published only now, after the situation has calmed down and the topics related to the work of non-commemoration can be addressed openly without leading to personal interpretations. At the same time, what is described below should be seen as nothing more than a hypothesis, taking into account that every man is a liar and no one is without fault; thus, the author of this article may also err, for which he asks forgiveness from the outset.

Today, at some distance in time after the cessation of the commemoration of hierarchs who preach heresies (or of those who are in tacit communion with them), in Romania, Moldova, Greece, Russia, as well as in other Orthodox countries, the problem of the continuity or the perspective of the work that has been started arises before the Christians and priests who have chosen this path of confessing their faith.

When the true-believing Christians, prompted by their conscience, decided to embark on the path of breaking communion with the hierarchs who teach unorthodox doctrine and promote unorthodoxy, practically no one involved in the movement thought about or at least openly addressed the continuity of this work in the long term. Some, perhaps out of naivety, and others out of purity of heart, hoped for a prompt resolution of the problem that had arisen, believing that the step taken by the non-commemorators, through its nature as a protest against the line of Church officials, would spark a massive revolt among ordinary Christians, monks, and priests, which would inevitably lead, through the people's pressure on the hierarchs, to the synodal and even pan-Orthodox condemnation of ecumenism and all its manifestations.

Unfortunately, this has not happened and probably will not happen. Based on the state of affairs and their movement (trends), we can easily understand and even anticipate the events that will follow; we are capable and even obliged, for the sake of our own salvation, to become aware of the real state of things. The maturity to understand this is one of the minimum components necessary for a person who has embarked on this path of non-commemoration, and for this reason, we cannot accept the so-called hope for a reactive resolution of the problem created, for this sudden hope seems more to be just a tendentious (emotional or passionate) opinion of some, if not outright delusion, or even an obvious hypocrisy of those who desire a more comfortable life — in friendship with the world and its rulers. So, if we come to call things by their name, we will say that at present none of the bishops in the official Church structures is analyzing or at least showing a serious intention to safeguard themselves from the heresy of ecumenism, and the Christians together with the priests who have ceased the commemoration of the bishops have become like a flock without a shepherd.

Thus, having become like a ship in the middle of the sea without wind, or rather with a multitude of winds pulling it in all possible directions, and even in those which perhaps the perverse human mind has not yet formulated into some newer teaching, today's "non-commemorating" Christians find themselves facing the question of where to turn, what is the continuity of their movement? This question is increasingly discernible in the writings and comments of non-commemorating priests and laypeople, even if the idea of the lack of a clear vision for continuity is not explicitly stated, it can be inferred from messages, formulations, and especially from the polemics that arise among today's non-commemorators.

At present, among those who have taken the path of non-commemoration, separate groups have already formed based on differing views regarding the quality of the non-commemoration work and, consequently, regarding the final goal of this work: some see the work of non-commemoration as optional, placing the emphasis of the struggle within the official Church structures; others see non-commemoration as necessary, but still recognize the "ecclesiality" within the official Church structures, either under the pretext of collaboration in the anti-ecumenist front or even as an ecclesiological position; and others who completely separate themselves from the heretics and those who commemorate or serve with them. The latter are more often viewed by the first two groups as strict adherents (acrivists) but are still accepted as a position. There are also those who, after a period in the state of non-commemoration, have decided to join some alternative, traditionalist synod and continue their life and work there, accepting and recognizing it as the Church of Christ.

The existence of these vectors or tendencies within the non-commemorators' movement shows that there is still no universally formulated and generally accepted answer to resolve this issue, or rather, to overcome this unnatural state of lacking a bishop and proper church organization. There is still no solution consolidated in the minds of those who have embarked on this path, even though such a solution can certainly be found in the history of the Church, in the practices of resistance and safeguarding of true-believing Christians against the heresies that have existed in the past.

It is also true that the movements and discourses of those in non-commemoration are often drawn into non-Orthodox directions, whether due to personal relationships, inappropriate communication language, or truly non-Orthodox references. However, setting aside the extremes we know today and distancing ourselves from them, we can attempt to define the outline of already known directions, of positions that have already been formed and explicitly formulated. We would describe them as follows:

1) The work of non-commemoration is good but not obligatory. This position is especially supported by the Greek theologian [Protopresbyter] Theodoros Zisis. While accepting the phenomenon of non-commemoration as a personal protest against the hierarch who preaches heresies, within the known limits of not abandoning the territorial canonical space, he still does not accept that the heretic should be called as such until he is nominally condemned by an Orthodox synod. The latter is expected to possibly take place even within the official patriarchates.

2) The work of non-commemoration is necessary, but those who still commemorate, if they have an Orthodox mindset, do not cease to be in the Church and can be received at services or in common prayer. They also await and contribute to the organization of a synod within the official patriarchates. At present, this position is shared by [theologian] Mr. Mihai-Silviu Chirilă and the priests and laypeople with him. In some aspects, those from the first and second categories share common positions, and their complete division has not yet occurred. However, we consider that the main criterion that will make their distinction clearer in the near future is the position regarding the obligation to cease commemoration and the attitude toward those who remain within the official structures.

3) Here are those who consider the application of the canon obligatory and tend not to receive in communion those who still commemorate their heretical hierarchs or those who share in heresy. This position, in our opinion, is represented by Fr. Ciprian Staicu, formerly a disciple of the Greek theologian [Protopresbyter] Theodoros Zisis, and Monk Sava Lavriotis. The first and second groups view the latter as zealots but still maintain some contacts and discussions regarding current issues. The first three positions are similar in acknowledging the need for the participation of a bishop in the work of non-commemoration, especially with the goal of organizing a potential synod. However, in one way or another, the criterion of eligibility for a bishop remains a topic of discussion, particularly if a bishop would wish to join the non-commemorators' movement, given his past participation in heresy and communion with heretics.

4) In this category are those who have decided it is better to join a traditionalist [Genuine Orthodox] synod as an already existing Church rather than remain simply as non-commemorators of hierarchs who preach heresies. An example is Fr. Ioan Miron from Romania. Although this position is not represented by a "large" group, we still consider that this phenomenon should not be overlooked and presents an objectively alternative position to the first three.

We believe that, ultimately, these internal tendencies of the non-commemorators' movement will determine their future course, and the criteria that define certain groups within the movement will form the basis for the clear delineation of separate, independent movements. Those who support one of the above-mentioned positions will normally continue their activity in a consistent manner. In the end, we even admit the possibility of a radical change in the personal position of any representative of a particular group, but nonetheless, we can already clearly discern the directions of a possible development of the groups in general, independent of any individual, as a logical continuity of the ideas promoted by the group.

Thus, based on the specifics of each category-group, we can easily deduce the following possible developments:

1. After a certain period of time, it will be concluded that the non-commemorators' movement will not have any widespread effect, and for this reason (from the perspective of reactive protest), the need to apply this measure will disappear. The representatives of this group will most likely be satisfied with some Orthodox statements from their hierarchs, perhaps even viewed as a renunciation of the ecumenism challenge, and will resume commemorating their bishops. In cases where this is not possible, they will submit to the authority of bishops they consider Orthodox, of course following the internal procedures for transfer from one diocese to another. In the worst-case scenario, the representatives of this group will overlook the doctrinal differences between themselves and their bishops and will claim that personal faith is an independent factor from the bishop’s faith and that this is sufficient for salvation. In the end, the representatives of this group will be indistinguishable from those believers in the official patriarchates who have not been involved in the work of non-commemoration.

2. In this case, it is most likely that no solution will be found for resolving the problem, and the work of non-commemoration will be seen as self-sufficient, even in the absence of a bishop. Some of the representatives of this group will shift to the position described in points 1) or 3), thus significantly reducing the number of those who will remain here. Most likely, the representatives of this position will form separate groups among themselves for various reasons, more or less objective, and will consider the concept of the catholicity—sobornost—of the Church as impossible to fulfill in today's times. The services in these groups will continue only during the lives of the existing priests or those who join along the way (although, after a certain point, priests from official structures will no longer be accepted), and upon their passing, the communities will be content with services without priests.

3. In its struggle against ecumenism, this group will not be able to achieve the mass effect it expects, nor the condemnation of ecumenism by all official patriarchates. However, a few bishops will become sensitized to the anti-ecumenist message. Thus, a synod will be organized that will condemn the heresy of ecumenism, its manifestations, and those who promote it by name. Afterward, this synod will perceive itself as the Church, and all those who do not join it and its decisions will, after some time, be considered heretics or schismatics. Initially, this will not be explicitly stated, but eventually, the necessity of clarifying this issue will completely fade away. For the official structures, this synod will be perceived as just another synod in the series of many traditionalist synods, leaving its existence without much attention.

4. The existing traditionalist [Genuine Orthodox] synods, to which some of today's non-commemorators will join, will continue their existence and work separately from other ecclesial structures. However, some of them, recognizing the similarity of their position and faith, will express a desire for unification, thus fulfilling the criterion of the catholicity (sobornost) of the Church mentioned earlier, while the other groups will degenerate into increasingly separate movements without a very clear continuity.

These possible developments of the activities of the non-commemorators' groups seem appropriate to the positions and ideas being discussed today. However, we must also understand that the described scenarios are an external perspective on each group. The experience, or rather the perception, of the followers of each group will most likely be characterized by a more or less assumed and sincere belief that the path they have chosen is the only possible and true one. We do not wish to question the sincerity of this belief, but we should mention that in some of the cases described above, this belief may be qualitatively different from our Orthodox faith, the only salvific one.

Therefore, the scenarios described should help us understand the phenomenon of the continuity of the non-commemoration work and should prompt each of us toward making the wisest decision and adopting a constructive approach to the topics discussed, in line with the teachings of the Church and its tradition. We strongly believe that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which, according to the truthful words of our Savior, the gates of hell will not prevail against, exists and will exist forever, regardless of circumstances, the number of believers, worldly past, or personal prejudices of each of us. Thus, the only thing we must do is strive toward it, and may the Lord help us in this endeavor!

 

Original Romanian source:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220627120235/https://lumea-ortodoxa.ro/index.html@p=2585.html