Critical observations of Hieromonk Spiridon Roșu on "Participation in Heresy"

Critical observations of Hieromonk Spiridon Roșu of Rădeni Skete, Neamț,  on the study written by Mihai-Silviu Chirilă, Participation in Heresy - a Biblical and Patristic Expression

January 25, 2018 | Roman, Neamț, Romania

Whoever has the patience to carefully read this original material entitled: "Participation in Heresy – a Biblical and Patristic Expression" will be surprised to discover a confusing vision, full of contradictions and false conclusions that stem from incorrect theological interpretations of the patristic concept of communion with heresy.

Even from the preamble, several confusing and unacceptable statements clearly appear. We will present them as they are laid out by the author in the course of his study.

I have marked the quotes from Mihai-Silviu Chirilă's study "Participation in Heresy – a Biblical and Patristic Expression" as "Fragment" and my personal remarks, pointing out the errors in the aforementioned study, as "Commentary," with strict reference to the respective cited "Fragment."

+++

Fragment I

"The present study is not a plea for the application of economia in dogmatic matters, but an attempt to provide a correct theological framework for the responsibility of those who, in 2016, in Crete, agreed to sign the documents of the council that officially sanctioned the participation of the local Orthodox Churches in the heresy of ecumenism, of those who, in the synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Bucharest, supported the decisions made in Crete, and of those who accepted them as being Orthodox and in accordance with the missionary principles of the Orthodox Church."

Comment 1

If the author insists on mentioning that he does not apply economia in dogmatic matters, it follows that he accepts applying the principle of akrivia in his study. However, the dangerous idea immediately arises that we, those who have broken communion with the ecumenist hierarchs, would have the role of determining the responsibility of the hierarchs who approved the documents of the pseudo-council of Crete.

This idea proves from the outset that the author does not understand the purpose for which priests resort to severing communion with heretics, according to Canon 15 of the First-Second Local Council of Constantinople. The responsibility and individual guilt of the hierarchs who signed cannot and should not be determined by the priests who have distanced themselves from the ecumenist heresy (much less by lay Christians), but only by the hierarchs.

Fragment II

"The purpose of this endeavor is to offer, based on the experience of the Holy Fathers of the Church, as correct a stance as possible towards those who have brought heresy into the Romanian Orthodox Church, in order to avoid falling into the two extremes: on one hand, moral laxity, which involves accepting heresy and coexisting with it, and, on the other hand, radicalism, which can deviate into schismatic attitudes."

Comment 2

We draw attention to the fact that when the author speaks of the motivation behind his writing, he claims that what he writes is based on the "experience of the Holy Fathers." As will be seen later, it is not about the truth of the writings of the Holy Fathers (much less about their experience), but rather his personal interpretations, which he skillfully presents as teachings based on the writings of the Holy Fathers.

Fragment III

"From this point of view, participation is the beginning of spiritual downfall, at the end of which the one who has participated in heresy comes to preach it with full conviction, becoming a complete heretic, both in thought and in deed."

Comment 3

The author speaks of a spiritual downfall but avoids specifying into what exactly the one who has participated in heresy falls. This unclear expression is clarified by what he writes next, referring to the "complete heretic." From all of this, the hypothesis emerges that there is also a state of incomplete heresy. Thus, it could be understood that in his view, participation in heresy is precisely this intermediate state of incomplete heresy.

Here a very serious problem arises: can someone be in a state of participation with heresy and at the same time be Orthodox?

If the author accepts that for an Orthodox Christian participating in heresy, their state consists of a mixture of Orthodoxy and heresy, this hypothesis would automatically coincide with one of the fundamental teachings of the Messalian heresy: that the devil and grace can coexist simultaneously in the soul of a person. This heresy was definitively refuted and condemned by St. Diadochos, Bishop of Photiki, St. Mark the Ascetic, St. Macarius of Egypt, and other Saints.

If the author claims that the one participating in heresy does not commit any mixing between Orthodoxy and heresy, then the very expression "participation in heresy" becomes a nonsense, because that person would have no ecclesiastical connection with heresy. Therefore, they cannot be accused of any kind of spiritual downfall—about which the author writes.

Fragment IV

"The official condemnation of heresy and its heresiarchs by an ecumenical council, in a nominal manner, creates a canonical reality in which the condemned heretics and those in communion with them are cut off from the body of the Church, lose the salvific grace and the sacraments, and become strangers to the Church of Christ as long as they persist in that heresy. From that moment on, any contact of Orthodox believers with those condemned by the Church is prohibited by the holy canons, and participation in prayer with them is severely punished, with defrocking for clerics and excommunication for laypeople."

Comment 4

Clerics are not defrocked for praying together with heretics, as the author writes, but for concelebrating the Divine Liturgy and the Holy Sacraments and rites. For praying together with heretics, the punishment is excommunication, according to Apostolic Canon 45.

Fragment V

"The Romanian hierarchs, who have participated in the heresy of Crete either by direct signature, by approving it at the synod in Bucharest, or by tacit agreement with the two synods, have become promoters of ecumenism in our Church and persecutors of the priests who confess the truth of the faith, and from this point of view, they can be considered heretics, as they have become initiators and promoters of heresy in the Romanian Orthodox Church. Through their attitude, they have fulfilled the conditions for ceasing their commemoration in church services, as provided by Apostolic Canon 31 and Canon 15 of the First-Second Council."

Comment 5

Here we agree with what the author expresses. However, the author contradicts himself when, in his study, he attempts, without evidence, to exonerate some of the hierarchs of the Romanian Orthodox Church by suggesting that they do not hold ecumenist convictions. In support of what we assert, we offer a fragment from the study where the author states: "Taking into account all these distinctions, we must observe, applied to the situation we are in, that there are Romanian hierarchs who signed those documents out of ecumenist conviction, those being heretics in thought, preaching, and action long before the council in Crete, manifesting this over time through various actions (participation in ecumenist meetings of the WCC, scandalous statements of a heretical nature, signing heretical ecumenist documents, Eucharistic intercommunion or co-celebration of the Sacraments and rites with heretics); there are hierarchs who signed those documents with reservations and with a troubled conscience (the Metropolitan of Oltenia insisted on noting under his signature that His Eminence strongly believes in one single holy, catholic, and Orthodox Church); there are bishops who did not directly sign those documents but took note of them during the synodal meeting on October 28, 2016. Some of the latter did so with a heretical ecumenist mindset, while others criticized the documents earlier (as in the case of the Bishop of Alexandria, about whom there is a media report stating that a few months before the synod he had declared himself against it, or the Bishop Macarie of Northern Europe, who at one point had criticized those documents). There are bishops who did not even participate in the synodal meeting of October 2016 (as is the case of the Archbishop of Suceava), but even they became participants in the documents from Crete by not taking an open stance against them. Regardless of how they participated in the ecumenist heresy, all the Romanian bishops are in communion with it by the fact that none of them took a clear stance against that synod."

Orthodoxy is not confessed only through thoughts and words, but especially through deeds. Here we offer the parable spoken by our Savior Jesus Christ: "But what do you think? A man had two sons. He went to the first and said: Son, go today and work in my vineyard. / And he answered and said: I will not. But afterward, he repented and went. / Then he went to the second and said the same. And this one answered: I go, sir. But he did not go. / Which of the two did the will of the father? They said to Him: The first" (Matthew 21:28-31).

Applying this teaching to the activity of the hierarchs who participated in the pseudo-council of Crete, which of them did the will of the Master: those who promised they would reject the heretical documents but accepted and signed them (and the others later approved them), or those who rejected the erroneous documents with their actions? And how many of the hierarchs who rejected the documents also proved with their actions that they had broken communion with the heretics?

No one can exonerate themselves for signing documents that express and reinforce the ecumenist heresy by saying that, in their mind, they do not hold ecumenist convictions, for: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Luke 6:45). Therefore, first there is an acceptance of the ecumenist heresy at the level of the mind, and then it is confessed through action, either by spoken word or written word. If any of the bishops in the delegation of the Romanian Orthodox Church had clear anti-ecumenist convictions in their mind, this should have been reflected by rejecting and not signing those documents.

Fragment VI

"One of the traps that those who have ceased the commemoration of hierarchs participating in the ecumenist heresy may fall into is considering all those who remain in communion with the hierarchs as heretics and treating them according to the canonical rules by which heretics already condemned by an ecumenical council must be treated."

Comment 6

Here the author makes a series of confusions and errors that inevitably lead to incorrect conclusions. First of all, the bishop and priest who commemorate the heretical bishop are no longer Orthodox, but they too fall into heresy because, by being in communion with him, they demonstrate that they fully share the same faith as the heretic they commemorate. It is not possible for someone to remain Orthodox if they are in ecclesiastical communion with a heretical bishop, even if they are unaware, do not recognize, or do not care about this reality. The author is troubled by and does not accept that those who are in ecclesiastical communion with heretical bishops or priests should be called "fallen into heresy." He prefers to categorize them in an intermediate state called "participation in heresy," which he understands as something other than the state of being heretics.

Secondly, the author claims that those in communion with heretics should not be treated according to the canonical rules applied to heretics who have been condemned by a synod, but he does not explain how they should be treated. The priests who have ceased communion with the pseudo-bishop heretic and with the other priests who have also fallen (by maintaining communion with the respective pseudo-bishop) are, by applying Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople, cutting all ecclesiastical ties with them. However, they do not pronounce judgment on the validity of the sacraments performed by these uncondemned clerics. The cessation of communion with those who have fallen into heresy but have not yet been condemned is not due to a presumed invalidity of the sacraments or suspicion of the cessation of grace working through those clerics (as those fallen into heresy have not yet been defrocked), but because they no longer hold the Orthodox faith.

The author tries to suggest the idea that if we were to call "fallen into heresy" all those who are in communion with the pseudo-hierarchs, then we would be separating ourselves from the other members of the Church and would "consider our Church as a foreign entity." Here arises a misunderstanding of the role of ceasing communion with heretics. The purpose of this separation is not to remove ourselves from the Church, but to remain in the Church by preserving the purity of the true faith. It is not us, those who have distanced ourselves, who separate from the Church by ceasing all ecclesiastical ties with them, but rather those who have fallen into heresy are at risk of separating from the Church. For them, there are only two possibilities: either they remain fallen in heresy (whether they will be ultimately condemned by an Orthodox council or die before that and face eternal condemnation), or they fully repent, in which case they will not be held accountable for their prior fall into heresy. But since this Orthodox council, which would clarify the situation created by the rise and spread of the ecumenist heresy in the life of the Church, has not yet taken place, those fallen into heresy remain, for the time being, mixed within the body of the Church, like sick and disease-transmitting members.

Regarding the category of priests who are said to have an Orthodox mindset, an important distinction must be made. There is a category of priests who have a truly Orthodox mindset, proven both through their anti-ecumenist discourse and by their actions in ceasing communion with the ecumenist heretics and by enduring persecution from them. And there is another category of priests who only imagine they have an Orthodox mindset (or are praised as having an Orthodox mindset), but in fact, do not, because through their actions in maintaining ecclesiastical communion with the ecumenist heretics (concelebration, commemorating the name of the ecumenist bishop during church services and sacraments, participating with them in the same sacraments, and other such acts), they demonstrate that they share the same faith as the ecumenists. It is in vain to proclaim with words that they are anti-ecumenist if, through their actions and way of life, they support the ecumenists. These priests, who have not ceased communion with the ecumenist heretics, unfortunately, become the most dangerous supporters of the hierarchs who have fallen into the ecumenist heresy. Through their negative example, these priests suggest that it is not necessary to cease communion with the ecumenist heretics in order to be an effective fighter against ecumenism. The reasons why these priests maintain ecclesiastical communion with the ecumenist heretics are twofold: either out of ignorance (they do so unconsciously, though not without guilt) or out of cunning (in this case, they do so knowingly). If they were judged by a true Orthodox synod while remaining in their current state, they would have to answer for the immense scandal they have caused among clergy and faithful, by promoting and maintaining a false model of anti-ecumenist struggle. Who will take responsibility for the countless souls who, after death, were condemned because they believed these priests and did not cease communion with the heretics, but were deceived by following their so-called balanced example?

For people who still do not understand these things, the clearest proof is the fact that the ecumenist hierarchs do not persecute the priests who maintain ecclesiastical communion with them, even though they speak clearly against ecumenism. They do not persecute them because they are deceived like them, so even the devil does not incite them against each other, being satisfied with their state.

Fragment VII

"But there is no need to further investigate or inquire whether someone ate with one who ate with a heretic, and another with him, for if we follow this chain, we would have to separate from everyone. And this is the way of those who love their own will, not that of the saints." (St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle 49, To the son Navcratius)

Comment 7

This fragment, with which the author begins his argument, insinuates, for the uninformed, the general idea that it is not good to investigate too much into the Christians who have had communion with heretics. But, attention! In this epistle, St. Theodore refers strictly to Christians who had communion in non-ecclesiastical matters (shared a meal together) with heretics. One should not confuse ecclesiastical communion with heretics (the commemoration of a heretical bishop during services, concelebration, confession to a heretic, taking an oath of obedience to a heretical bishop, participating in a church judicial council under the authority of a heretical bishop, public common prayer, receiving communion from the hand of a heretical bishop or priest, and other such forms) with communion in non-ecclesiastical matters (which are less grave).

Fragment VIII

"St. Theodore the Studite gives us a concise definition of heresy, which he calls 'a departure from right thinking,' meaning from the true faith confessed by the Orthodox Church. Canon 1 of St. Basil the Great says: 'They have called heresies those who have completely renounced and alienated themselves even from the faith.'"

Comment 8

Although the author correctly cites two texts from the Holy Fathers, he fails to capture a very important idea, namely that while all sins committed by someone represent a violation of the Gospel Law, the sin of heresy is something entirely different—it is a replacement of the Gospel Law with another falsified law. For this reason, the person who has fallen into heresy does not realize their error, and therefore, their repentance is very difficult.

Fragment IX

"Regarding the importance of the condemnation of heretics and their heresy by a council, the clergy who responded to the unionist emperor in 1443, when asked why they did not accept the union from Ferrara, said: 'We hold all the interpretations made of the words of the Holy Fathers, which are based on the good foundation laid by Christ, as a "rock" (Mt. 16:18), a secure foundation of the faith upon which we too, according to our ability, build ourselves. But we do not in any way accept the shameless interpretations and distortions brought by some to the words of life, driven by their own thoughts and by the "foolish wisdom" of philosophers dead in both body and soul. Moreover, neither has the Church ever accepted them, but has anathematized them, cutting off from its body those who wrote them. Likewise, we also consider them strangers to sound doctrine and have no communion with those who continue to use them to this day.'" (See page 3)

Comment 9

Here, the author fails to clearly point out that the clergy who opposed the Council of Ferrara-Florence ceased the commemoration of the bishops who accepted union with the papists. He also omits the fact that from 1439, when the meeting at Ferrara-Florence ended, until 1484, when the heresy signed at Ferrara-Florence was condemned synodically in Constantinople, there were many priests, and even bishops, who ceased communion with the Latin-speaking heretics. The most well-known is St. Mark, Metropolitan of Ephesus.

Fragment X

"From this perspective, the expression 'participation in heresy' designates, on the one hand, the manner in which all those who are not the actual initiators of the heresy adhere to it, and, on the other hand, the assumption by the one who participates in heresy of the responsibility of becoming 'an enemy of God,' just like the one who rose against the true faith through heretical thinking." (See page 4)

Comment 10

The concept of "initiator of heresy" is unclear. The reason is that a person who later adheres to a heresy that was initiated by a particular heresiarch can very easily become an initiator of the heresy for other uninformed individuals whom they deceive, thereby leading them to also fall into the heresy that they are promoting.

Fragment XI

"Among those who participate in a heresy, some become direct preachers of it, being convinced by its doctrine, meaning they become actual heretics, while others accept it for various reasons (fear, convenience, ignorance, etc.) without openly preaching it."

Comment 11

Here, the author speaks of an unclearly formulated distinction between actual heretics, whom he describes as being convinced by the heretical doctrine and directly preaching it, and others—participants in heresy—whom he does not call heretics. The latter merely accept the heresy for various reasons without openly preaching it. The author avoids showing that these participants in heresy are still in a state of mortal sin, meaning they are also heretics, like the first group. What concerns us is not that they do not openly preach the heresy, but that, through their actions, they support the presence of heresy within the Church. The fact that some people adhere to a heresy for different reasons and manifest themselves in different ways within that heresy does not mean that we can consider some fully heretics while others are not heretics, but rather a difficult-to-define category, like people who are merely inclined towards heresy.

Fragment XII

"In our case, those who participate in heresy share the same judgment as those who are preachers of heresy if death finds them in this state, and they share both the heretical doctrine and communion with the preachers of heresy." (See page 4)

Comment 12

The idea the author seeks to support here is that if those participating in heresy do not repent—that is, do not renounce all communion with heretics during their lifetime—then they will face eternal condemnation. We see that here, too, the error creeps in that only if they also hold heretical beliefs will they face condemnation (he incorrectly writes "judgment," but the correct term is "condemnation"). The author ignores the fact that many were led into a particular heresy due to their ignorance. Not knowing their true state, they did not strive to return to Orthodoxy. As a result, they went to eternal torment, without having spread any heretical teaching during their lifetime, whether it was an old and synodically condemned heresy or a new one, not yet condemned by a synod.

Fragment XIII

"The difference in terms of sharing the same heretical teaching is determined by the manner and level of assimilation and awareness of the one who has participated in heresy." (See page 4)

Comment 13.1

Here appears the unacceptable idea that the degree of participation in heresy varies according to the level of assimilation and awareness (that is, understanding and acceptance) of the heresy. If we were to give an example: a simple Christian understands and approves 25% of the ecumenist teaching, this would mean that he is 75% Orthodox. This is false because: "Whoever keeps the whole law but stumbles in one point has become guilty of all of it" (James 2:10). Another proof: "What partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14).

Comment 13.2

There have been cases, such as the one recounted in the Limonarion, where it is shown that an elderly father with a spiritual life, unaware of the situation created by the heretics of that time, would receive the Holy Mysteries sometimes from the Egyptians (the Monophysites), and other times from the Jerusalemites (the Orthodox). A few days before his death, an angel sent by God appeared to him, asking: "Decide with whom you want to be: with the Egyptians or with those from Jerusalem?" That father went to another hermit to ask him how to proceed. The latter told him to choose the Jerusalemites. When the angel returned and received the correct answer, he took his soul and brought him to paradise. From this event, it is evident that the degree of participation in heresy and its effects do not depend on the level of awareness of the respective heresy. More precisely, it is possible for someone to participate in heresy out of ignorance, but the final effect after death is still eternal condemnation.

Fragment XIV

"In his second catholic epistle, the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John teaches: 'If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds' (2 John 1:10-11). Participation in the evil deeds of heretics means both assuming guilt before God for sharing their teachings and adopting these teachings and putting them into practice, which leads to acquiring heretical thinking and living, foreign to the gospel preached by the Apostle to the Gentiles." (See page 5)

Comment 14

Here, there is a discrepancy between St. John the Evangelist, quoted in this fragment, and the expression "Apostle to the Gentiles," which is actually attributed by Holy Tradition to the Holy Apostle Paul. We must point out that the explanation Mihai-Silviu Chirilă gives for "participation in the evil deeds of heretics" is incorrect. It is not necessary for one who participates in heresy to consciously assume guilt before God, to put it into practice, or to adopt heretical thinking and living. Let us provide an example. In 2017, a heretical bishop who signed the documents from Crete comes to serve the hierarchical liturgy and publicly praises the priests of that monastery, saying that by staying within the church—meaning in communion with him and the other heretics—they are acting correctly when they speak and write against ecumenism. The abbot, the priests, and the other residents welcome him warmly and with joy. Moreover, they serve the liturgy together and receive communion from the hand of the pseudo-bishop, thus showing that they all share the same faith. This creates a threefold deception:

a) The heretical bishop is under the illusion that he is Orthodox because he is well-received by the faithful at that monastery.

b) The priests and residents are deceived into thinking that as long as they speak publicly against ecumenism, they bear no responsibility for the actions of the bishops who signed in Crete.

c) The faithful followers are convinced that those who have fallen into heresy are worthy models to follow, believing that all those pastors are examples to be emulated.

Fragment XV

"In the first epistle to the Corinthians, the Holy Apostle Paul calls participation in the evil deeds of sinners 'mixing': 'But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner...' (1 Cor. 5:11)." (See page 5)

Comment 15

The content of this quote does not refer at all to the sin of heresy, so this citation should not have been included in the text.

Fragment XVI

"St. Irenaeus of Lyon, in Adversus Haereses, considers that the exhortation given by the Holy Apostle Paul: 'Reject a heretical man after the first and second admonition' (Titus 3:10) is a call to guard ourselves against communion with heretics, because, says St. Irenaeus: 'Such was the reverence the apostles and their disciples had, that they would not even have koinonia (communion) in word with anyone who falsified the truth (parachorasso).'" (See page 5)

Comment 16

Here the author omits a very important explanation, namely that the expression "a heretical man" refers to both categories of heretics: those already condemned by a synod and those condemned by the Saints but not yet condemned by a synod. In this second category are the ecumenist heretics.

Fragment XVII

"St. John Chrysostom interprets the words of St. James, from his catholic epistle, as referring to participation with heretics: 'James said: "Whoever wishes to be a friend of them [the heretics] becomes an enemy of God" (cf. James 4:4).'" (See page 5)

Comment 17

This passage does not clearly and explicitly refer to heretics, but to people who show friendship with the world. If a person allows themselves to be enslaved by passions, through them, they demonstrate friendship with the world, even though they may, at least formally, remain Orthodox.

Summarizing the comments from 'Biblical Context': the quote from 2 John 1:10 is incorrectly explained, and all the other biblical quotes do not clarify what participation in heresy consists of, but only emphasize the command for Christians to guard themselves from any communion with heretics.

Fragment XVIII

"In his writing against false prophets, St. John Chrysostom, commenting on the passage from James 4:4, affirms: 'James said: "Whoever wishes to be a friend of them [the heretics] becomes an enemy of God" (cf. James 4:4). Hear all of you who dine with heretics this painful decree: you are enemies of Christ. For no one who is a friend of the enemies of the king can be a friend of the king; and they are not deemed worthy of life, but perish together with the enemies and suffer even worse.'" (See page 6)

Comment 18

Here, St. John Chrysostom shows the consequences of participation in heresy through communion in non-ecclesiastical matters. The author avoids highlighting the mistake made by some priests, who initially distanced themselves from heresy, but later prayed publicly with priests who were in communion and obedience to a heretical bishop. If the simple act of dining with heretics brings someone into the state of being an enemy of God, how much more will someone who prays publicly with heretics be an enemy?

The expression "participation in heresy" implies that the respective Christian shares something in common with the heretic. What does the former have in common with the latter? The heretical teaching of faith! In this case, the Christian who was initially Orthodox now also becomes a heretic, even though, in most cases, the person is unaware of their fall.

Fragment XIX

"Speaking at the unionist council of Ferrara, after 13 sessions held without any concrete result, on December 8, 1438, Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus, inspired by the Holy Spirit, reaffirmed the Orthodox position, saying: 'I do not accept and do not recognize these testimonies of the Western Fathers and teachers who speak of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, because I suspect they are falsified. In matters of faith, there can be no compromise... Do not receive them into communion with you, as long as they remain in this innovation.'" (See page 7)

Comment 19

The author fails to highlight the grave consequences of not adhering to the teachings of St. Mark, Metropolitan of Ephesus. For instance, unionist Latin-speaking bishops such as Gregory Mammas, the Ecumenical Patriarch, Mitrophanes, the Metropolitan of Cyzicus, and others were anathematized at the anti-unionist synod in Constantinople in 1484 because they maintained communion with the Latins until the end. Therefore, those who today consider participation in heresy to be a lesser sin than heresy itself would have a practical example of how things should be understood.

The anti-heretical strategy of St. Mark of Ephesus is all the more important for us, as the heresy of Orthodox-Latin union had not yet been condemned by a synod. This synodal condemnation occurred only 45 years after the conclusion of the heretical council of Ferrara-Florence. Thus, the Orthodox of that time had to fight against heretics who had not yet been synodically condemned.

Fragment XX

"He who embraces the doctrines of the Latins will be judged with the Latins and will be considered a betrayer of the faith." (See page 8)

Comment 20

Here, the author should have provided concrete examples from our time: John Zizioulas, the heretical Metropolitan of Pergamon, Bartholomew, the pseudo-patriarch of Constantinople, Kirill, the pseudo-patriarch of Moscow, and others. The author should have explicitly shown that St. Mark not only ceased all communion with the unionists (those who maintained ecclesiastical communion with the Latin heretics) but also with the pro-unionists (a category that is not explained here). This likely refers to those who did not agree with the union of Ferrara-Florence but also did not break communion with the Latin-speaking unionists.

Fragment XXI

"... the 'Moechian dispute,' referring to the scandal created by the decision made in 795 by Emperor Constantine VI the Blind to repudiate his wife and remarry, the approval of this decision by a synod held in 806, and the condemnation of those who opposed this decision by the 'adulterous synod' of 809." (See page 8)

Comment 21

The "Moechian dispute" is not clearly explained, making it difficult for an uninformed reader to understand. It is not mentioned what happened to the bishops and priests who did not accept the decisions of the synod of 806. The author does not state whether they broke communion with the bishops who supported the emperor. Likewise, no clarifications are provided regarding the decisions made by the bishops gathered at the adulterous synod of 809. The author speaks of a "non-dogmatic heresy," a term he invented. The issue that led to the convocation of the synod of 809 was not an action, as he claims, but a heretical teaching that contradicts the truth of Holy Scripture and the holy canons regarding marriage.

Fragment XXII

"When speaking about participation in iconoclasm, the aggravating circumstance is participation in a heresy already condemned by an ecumenical council, along with its heresiarchs, specifically the iconoclastic heresy, which was condemned by the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 and reemerged during the saint's time, in 813, with the enthronement of the Byzantine Emperor Leo the Armenian. The mitigating circumstance is that participation in heresy occurred during a period of harsh official persecution, when Orthodox Christians were forced to adhere to heresy, even by signature, as can be seen in two of his letters. These circumstances are reversed in the situation created in the Orthodox world after the council in Crete, where the aggravating circumstance of participating with condemned heretics turns into the mitigating circumstance of participating with heretics who have not yet been condemned, and the mitigating circumstance of brutal persecution is transformed, in our case, into the aggravating circumstance of the lack of persecution or a milder persecution than that endured by the iconodules in the early decades of the ninth century." (See pages 9-10)

Comment 22

In this fragment, the author speaks of an aggravating circumstance where a believer participates in a heresy that has already been condemned by a synod. He implies that participation in a heresy not yet condemned by a synod is less serious than the former. This is false. If the believer does not cease communion with any kind of heresy, the result is the same—condemnation to eternal torment. Let us not forget that Canon 15 of the Council of Constantinople in 861 refers specifically to heretics who have not yet been synodically condemned. In this canon, St. Photius does not mention any mitigating circumstance nor any optional aspect.

The author suggests that there would be a mitigating circumstance for accepting participation in heresy if the heretics are severely persecuting the Christians who oppose them. However, he fails to mention that betraying the faith out of fear is also a sin that is subject to penitential discipline, including excommunication from the Holy Communion.

Mihai-Silviu Chirilă discusses the situation created in the Orthodox world after the council of Crete. He claims that Orthodox Christians who maintain communion with the ecumenist heretics have mitigating circumstances. This is false for many reasons:

1. Ecumenism entered the life of the Church 100 years ago in the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and 53 years ago in the Romanian Orthodox Church (ROC). During this time, Christians who sought salvation would have had ample time to understand and clarify the situation.

2. Even though it has not yet been condemned synodically, ecumenism has been condemned by many Saints of the 20th century. What justification could Orthodox believers, especially bishops and priests, present for their indifference?

3. The texts of the theological agreements with the papist and Monophysite heretics have been published and could have been known. The fact that very few have critically commented on those ecumenist documents does not lessen the gravity of their consequences in any way.

4. The actions against ecumenism prior to 2016, whether through written or spoken word, but while maintaining communion with the ecumenist hierarchs, did not yield the expected results. This should have led Orthodox fighters to undertake the last possible solution: ceasing communion with the ecumenists.

For all these reasons, there can be no mitigating circumstances for those who today participate in the heresy of ecumenism.

Fragment XXIII

"Heretical doctrines are not just simple statements, but powers that, once accepted, gradually develop and transform a person without them realizing it. This is why the saints prohibited any kind of communion, even seemingly trivial, with heretics, especially for those not yet firmly grounded in the true faith." This very pertinent explanation shows us, first of all, the reason why the Holy Fathers and the holy canons forbade not only dogmatic and liturgical communion with heretics condemned by the ecumenical councils and cast out of the Church, but even social communion (such as sharing a meal, for example). Secondly, it highlights an essential aspect for understanding the process of participation in heresy by those who accepted the false council of Crete: participation in heresy is a process of continuous spiritual downfall, which begins with the acceptance, in one form or another, of heretical teaching and can degenerate—if the one who has become a participant does not renounce it by ceasing the commemoration of the hierarch who preaches it—into full adherence to the heresy, until the moment when the one who participated in the heresy becomes fully heretical in every respect." (See pp. 10-11)

Comment 23

The author speaks of a "process of continuous downfall" but does not clearly indicate when the transition from Orthodoxy to heresy occurs. If he asserts that a person accepts "in one form or another" heretical teaching, how can that person still remain Orthodox? Mihai-Silviu Chirilă claims that the Holy Fathers only forbade ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical communion with heretics condemned by ecumenical councils, but he says nothing about the fact that communion with as-yet-uncondemned heresies is equally prohibited (pp. 10-11). Another dangerous idea is that a person who communes with heretics gradually becomes a heretic. He speaks of a moment when the participant in heresy "becomes heretical in every respect," thus promoting the same false teaching that a person can be Orthodox in some aspects and heretical in others. In Mihai-Silviu Chirilă's study, there seems to be an intermediate state between Orthodoxy and heresy.

Fragment XXIV

"To correctly understand what the saints, whose work we are discussing here, say, it is important to note from the outset that when they speak about the spread of heresy, they clearly divide those affected by it into two categories: heretics, in the analyzed cases, both in the sense of uncondemned heretics (the adherents of the imperial adultery) and heretics condemned by an ecumenical synod and excluded from the body of the Orthodox Church (the iconoclasts), and participants in heresy, about whom St. Theodore tells us that they can return to Orthodoxy (including fallen clergy) through sincere repentance and a penance of repentance. It is worth noting that even in the case of those who are on the threshold of death or even beyond it, the saint maintains this distinction: 'But if none of this has happened, and he was in communion with heresy and did not come to partake of the body and blood of the Lord (...) one must not dare to hold liturgies for him... he is not placed with the Orthodox, the one who has no communion with Orthodoxy, even if it is in the last hour.'" (See page 11)

Comment 24

The author of the study divides those affected by heresy into two categories: heretics and participants in heresy. Here, it becomes clear that he interprets participation in heresy as a state distinct from heresy itself, as an intermediate state. The fact that one who participates in heresy has the possibility to return to Orthodoxy through repentance does not mean that they are innocent, nor that their state is something intermediate between Orthodoxy and heresy. However, it must be noted that to return to Orthodoxy from the fallen state, the first step is to cease any connection with heretics and their teachings.

Fragment XXV

"In Letter 49 to his son Naucratius, when asked whether it is appropriate to have communion with a priest who leads a virtuous life but, out of fear, commemorates a heretical bishop (not yet condemned synodically), the saint says that we must refrain from divine communion, but that it may be acceptable for him to bless and chant with us 'only if he has neither served nor knowingly had communion with the heretic, his bishop, or anyone else.'" (See page 12)

Commentary 25

It speaks here of the situation of commemorating out of fear. The fear that the Orthodox of those times experienced was caused by the harsh persecution of the imperial authorities. More precisely, the life of anyone who opposed the emperor’s orders was in danger, as they were subject to arrest, trial, torture, exile, and sometimes even death. In today's conditions, such constraints do not exist. As a result, the fear that many priests invoke today for not ceasing the commemoration stems from a lack of courage to confront a false bishop and a lack of faith that any eventual punishment coming from him has no value before God. For this reason, any attempt to apply economia today to justify fear, following the practical advice of St. Theodore the Studite, is inappropriate and wrong.

Fragment XXVI

"It is very important to note that when he speaks of separating from the priest who commemorates a bishop involved in the Moechian heresy, not yet condemned by an ecumenical council, St. Theodore recommends separation from 'divine communion' with that priest. However, when he speaks of participating in the communion of neo-iconoclast heretical bishops and priests, already condemned at Nicaea in 787, the saint is decisive and says: 'You have chosen well to suffer for Christ rather than to partake in the heretical communion that separates from Christ. For whoever partakes of it is estranged from the inheritance of Christ, like Judas, and shares with those who handed over the Lord to be crucified. For the persecutors and crucifiers of Christ are those who defame and despise the icon of Christ, as well as that of the Mother of God and of each of the saints.'" (See page 12)

Commentary 26

Here the author seeks to show a non-existent difference. For both in the case of the heresy of the adulterers and in the case of the heresy of iconoclasm, St. Theodore teaches one and the same thing: namely, that we must reject communion from heretics.

Fragment XXVII

"The same distinction is made in the letter to the wife of a sword-bearer named Mahara, in which, telling her that 'now the heresy that reigns in our Church is that of the adulterers,' he continues: 'What can I tell you now about this matter, except that communion is defiled solely by the fact that he [the heresiarch] is commemorated, even if the one celebrating the Holy Liturgy is orthodox.' Therefore, not only does he call the priest who celebrates the Holy Liturgy while commemorating a heretical bishop orthodox, but his communion continues to be communion, even if it is defiled by participation in heresy, and both the one who receives and the one who gives it do so unworthily, to their condemnation." (See pp. 12-13)

Commentary 27

Due to a misunderstanding of the terms "communion" and "Eucharist," the author formulates a blasphemy: that the Eucharist, that is, Christ present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, becomes defiled due to participation in heresy. This is akin to saying that God and sin can coexist in the same place. 

Mihai-Silviu Chirilă claims that St. Theodore "calls orthodox the one who commemorates a heretical bishop." This is false because in Letter 40 to Naucratius, the saint clearly states: "Why does he (the bishop), while confessing (the true faith), not flee from destruction by separating from heresy, so that he may remain a bishop before God?" Then St. Theodore says about the bishop that "he is in heresy by commemorating a heretic at the Liturgy." Note: Right Faith in the Writings of the Holy Fathers, volume 1, pp. 51-52.

Fragment XXVIII

"From this example, we see that there are multiple levels of participation in heresy: there is a participation in heresy through its acceptance out of cowardice (the case of someone who said they would partake with heretics but thought of doing so with the Orthodox), and there is a full participation in heresy, realized by those who completely accept the heretical teaching or willingly and with theological conviction participate in the pseudo-sacraments of the heretics excommunicated by the Church. In this latter case, full participation in heresy is the state of being a true heretic." (See page 13)

Commentary 28

According to the author's opinion, there would be several partial levels of heresy and a maximum level indicating a state of total heresy. These teachings are completely wrong because they contradict both Scripture and the truth expressed by the Holy Fathers. Just as there is no agreement between Christ and Belial and no fellowship between light and darkness (2 Corinthians 6:14), there can be no mixture between orthodoxy and heresy within a so-called state of participation in heresy.

Fragment XXIX

"In Letter 294, addressed to the abbot Macarius, the saint speaks about a priest who 'subscribed to the heretical unbelief,' meaning he became a participant in heresy by signing a document in which he expressed agreement with heresy. For this betrayal of Orthodoxy, more serious than the unconscious acceptance of heresy, but less serious than actual participation in the pseudo-sacraments of the (condemned) heretics, the saint recommends that this priest repent, cease serving, and wait for an Orthodox council to decide on his case. And if he partook in heresy through receiving communion, 'he should stay away from the Holy Mysteries for one or two years.'" (See page 13)

Commentary 29

Here the author speaks about the betrayal of Orthodoxy through various forms of acceptance of heresy. He misinterprets what St. Theodore wrote by saying that the betrayal of Orthodoxy, meaning the elimination of one of the three essential conditions for attaining salvation, could be something less serious. The "betrayal of Orthodoxy" that the author refers to represents the squandering of the chance for salvation, which is an extremely serious matter. The inevitable effect of this betrayal is the renunciation of Orthodoxy (a fact made even more serious when the one who has betrayed is unaware, continuing to believe that they are still orthodox).

Fragment XXX

"If someone were to give all the money in the world and has communion with heresy, they are not a friend of God, but an enemy." St. Theodore the Studite, Letter 340, to his son Talelaios, in Right Faith in the Writings of the Holy Fathers, cited edition, p. 97 (see page 14).

Commentary 30

From this, we see the gravity of this sin, regardless of the forms in which it is carried out. Therefore, no one should interpret this concept according to their own understanding but should always flee from any connection with heretics.

Fragment XXXI

"In the case of the heresy of ecumenism, the initiators of the heresy are all the Orthodox theologians and hierarchs who, by participating in the activities of the World Council of Churches, have made a direct contribution to the alteration of Orthodox ecclesiological teaching and/or have violated the holy canons of the Church, which prohibit any form of prayer or communion with heretics, by participating in various ecumenist worship practices." (See page 15)

Commentary 31

In the case of the Romanian Patriarchate, the heresiarchs are Patriarch Justinian Marina and all the members of the Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church (ROC) who, since 1964, accepted the adherence to the "ecumenical movement." As early as 1948, the Greek-Catholic heretics from Transylvania were received into the Romanian Orthodox Church without any repentance, without publicly renouncing their heretical teachings, and all the sacraments performed in their pseudo-church were recognized as valid. Many Greek-Catholic priests entered the ROC not out of faith but out of fear of being sent to communist prisons. All these anti-canonical practices show that the hierarchs of the ROC had an unorthodox mindset even before adhering to the heresy of ecumenism.

Fragment XXXII

"For this reason, in all the documents I presented to the Romanian hierarchs participating in that synod, I called them 'participants in heresy.'" (See page 16)

Commentary 32

It would have been more correct to call them fallen into heresy. This term precisely describes their theological situation, judges them for their actions in signing the documents freely and without coercion, and at the same time avoids condemning them, a task that belongs solely to an Orthodox synod.

Fragment XXXIII

"(...), it can be stated that the Romanian hierarchs, either by directly signing the heretical documents from Crete, by approving them in the local synod in Bucharest, by not publicly opposing them, by preaching them to the people as orthodox, and by persecuting the Orthodox priests and believers who oppose these documents, have become the initiators of heresy in the Romanian Orthodox Church, (...)" (see page 16)

Commentary 33

This is a reductionist view because the hierarchs who approved the documents from Crete, directly or indirectly, are the ones who have legalized and generalized ecumenism throughout the entire Romanian Orthodox Church. When the author claims that they are "heretics not yet condemned by a synod," he forgets to add that the saints of the 20th century have already condemned the ecumenist heresy and, implicitly, all its supporters. This truth contradicts the official discourse of some hierarchs who mislead the clergy and the people by saying that there is a so-called good ecumenism, which, they claim, brings advantages to the Orthodox Church.

Fragment XXXIV

"Note 51: The condemnation by an ecumenical synod does not mean that those condemned become heretics only from the moment of condemnation or that they become more heretical after condemnation, but rather that from that moment on, they and their teaching are completely separated from the right mind of the Church. This cutting off from the body of the Church creates a new canonical reality, which obliges all who wish to remain in Orthodoxy to cease any connection with those condemned by the synod." (see page 16)

Commentary 34

The author says that those condemned by a synod were heretics even before the condemnation. This shows that he contradicts himself. At one point, he calls them participants in heresy, then initiators of heresy, and then uncondemned heretics. It would have been more correct to say unexcommunicated heretics.

Fragment XXXV

"... as St. Gennadius Scholarius teaches us: 'the spiritual communion of those of the same mind and complete submission to the true pastors is shown through commemoration (...)'." (see page 17)

Commentary 35

Here, it is claimed that the commemoration by a bishop or priest of another bishop confirms that all share the same faith. This can be either Orthodox or heretical. Although the quote is correct, the author does not show that the commemoration of a heretical bishop also demonstrates complete submission and identity of faith with him.

Fragment XXXVI

"When speaking about the acceptance of iconoclastic heresy, already condemned by a synod, St. Theodore identifies six categories of participation in heresy (which in this epistle he calls 'submission [to] heresy'), to which correspond six distinct types of penance for those who renounce it." (see page 17)

Commentary 36

We must be attentive. St. Theodore says that penances (epitimies) are applied to those who renounce communion with heretics. This repentance, meaning the cessation of any communion with heretics, is absent in the bishops, priests, and laity who continue the commemoration. Here is what St. Theodore writes in Letter 393 titled: "To my holy spiritual fathers, who are exiled for the Lord, Theodore, the least priest and abbot of those in Studion." "So how should those [note: those who fell into the iconoclast heresy, already definitively condemned at the Seventh Ecumenical Council] be received if they return [note: to Orthodoxy]? From this, it is clear that otherwise, the penances cannot be applied." "It is clear if they show all the fruits worthy of repentance. And what are these fruits? Withdrawal from the Holy Mysteries, combined with weeping and arduous prayer." (Right Faith in the Writings of the Holy Fathers, St. Theodore the Studite, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Amphilochius of Iconium, vol. I, Sophia Publishing, Bucharest, 2006, p. 121).

We point out that the reasons for adhering to heresy, as described by St. Theodore the Studite, for the most part, do not apply in the case of today's ecumenist heresy. None of the priests, monks, or laity who opposed the ecumenist heresy have suffered beatings, torture, or threats (of death, arrest, or exile) because, in a democratic state, there are no forces of order to carry out the orders of church authorities, as was often the case in the Byzantine theocratic empire. Therefore, the author's speculations and analogies between the persecution of heretics in the 9th century and today's heretics are false.

Fragment XXXVII

"(...) the way in which participation in heresy (the fall) occurred is important regarding the determination of the degree of guilt (...)." (see page 18)

Commentary 37

We must emphasize that the determination of the guilt of the clergy and laity affected by the spread of heresy in the life of the Church cannot be done by an individual but only by an Orthodox synod, which must condemn the heresy and the heretics.

Fragment XXXVIII

"Considering all these distinctions, we must note, applied to the situation in which we find ourselves, that there are Romanian hierarchs who signed those documents out of ecumenist conviction, those being in mind, preaching, and action heretics long before the Council of Crete, manifesting this over time through various actions (participation in the ecumenist meetings of the WCC, scandalous heretical statements, signing heretical ecumenist documents, Eucharistic intercommunion or joint participation in sacraments and services with heretics); there are hierarchs who signed those documents with reservations and with a troubled conscience (the metropolitan of Oltenia made the clarification under his signature that he firmly believes in one holy, catholic, and Orthodox Church); there are bishops who did not directly sign those documents, but who acknowledged them during the synodal session on October 28, 2016. Some of these latter bishops did so with an ecumenist heretical mindset, while others had previously criticized the documents (such as the case of the bishop of Alexandria, who, according to a press report, declared himself, a few months before the synod, against it, and the bishop Macarie of Northern Europe, who at one point also criticized those documents). There are bishops who did not even participate in the synodal session in October 2016 (such as the archbishop of Suceava), but even these made themselves participants in the documents of Crete by not taking an open stand against them." (see pp. 19-20)

Commentary 38

To begin with, we must observe that the Romanian hierarchs who participated in the synod of Crete signed the final documents with different motivations. However, the author of the study is gravely mistaken when he claims that all the hierarchs, whether they signed the documents or indirectly approved them, are merely participants in heresy. All the Romanian bishops of the ROC are ecumenists. The difference is that some are extremist and more direct ecumenists, while others are more cunning, supporting the same heresy in a more discreet manner.

Fragment XXXIX

"Through their attitude, they allowed heresy to enter the Romanian Orthodox Church, becoming its initiators at the local level." (see page 20)

Commentary 39

As I have previously pointed out, the pseudo-bishops who signed in Crete did not introduce, but rather legalized and imposed the obligation of ecumenist teaching throughout the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate (this teaching existed in the ROC even before 2016).

Fragment XL

"There are only two Romanian Orthodox bishops who did not accept the documents from Crete in any way: Bishop Justinian of Sighet, who passed away on the day the documents were accepted by the local synod, considering them unorthodox, and Bishop Vasile of Someș, whose grave health condition prevented him from expressing any opinion on this synod." (see page 21)

Commentary 40

This personal opinion of Mihai-Silviu Chirilă is also false. Archbishop Justinian never publicly expressed opposition to the ecumenist heresy. He approved the ecumenist agreement from Balamand, Lebanon, in 1993, through which the papist religious organization was recognized as a sister church with grace, Holy Mysteries, and apostolic succession. Although Bishop Vasile of Someș was severely ill, he had not lost his discernment, so if he had wanted to, he could have publicly protested against the heresy.

Fragment XLI

"This guilt must be precisely determined in relation to the stage of the fall in which they find themselves, just as the correct attitude towards the hierarchs must be precisely determined, so as not to fall into schismatic thinking or action." (see page 21)

Commentary 41

Here arises a very dangerous idea, namely that if someone does not fully accept the theories of the author of this study, that person has schismatic thinking, and if they do not repent before him, they will eventually engage in schismatic action. Mihai-Silviu Chirilă here adopts the main accusation formulated by the ecumenist hierarchs against the priests who have ceased communion with them and warns everyone who dares to challenge his theory about participation in heresy. Just as the ecumenist hierarchs accused the priests who broke communion with them of schism without allowing any debate on the teachings expressed in the Crete documents, to determine if they are heretical or not, so too does Mihai-Silviu Chirilă now accuse those who deviate from his theories about so-called participation in heresy of schism. We must point out that the determination of the guilt of the ROC hierarchs at this stage cannot be made by a lay "theologian," no matter how many pretensions he might have, but only by an Orthodox synod. We should also note that "the heretic is sinful, self-condemned." (Titus 3:10-11).

Fragment XLII

"They are not to be associated with, in the sense that priests and believers have the right and duty to cease commemorating them, but they are not yet defrocked or removed from the Church." (see page 21)

Commentary 42

For those of us who have distanced ourselves from heresy, we are not concerned with the fact that the ecumenist hierarchs and their supporting priests have not yet been defrocked. What concerns us is that we cannot obey them, nor can we have any connection with them. We do not deny the possibility of their repentance, but for now, we can only observe that they all persist in heresy and persecute those who have broken ecclesiastical communion with them. The question arises: if an Orthodox confessor priest, who has been uncanonically defrocked by his ecumenist bishop for no longer commemorating him, directly accuses the persecuting hierarch of being an unrepentant heretic, could this priest be accused of schism? Not at all. The one who must repent is the heretical bishop, not the persecuted priest, whom some might think is exaggerating.
Let us not forget that the ecumenist hierarchs, if they had wanted to repent of their heresy, could have done so freely during the 100 years in which God patiently waited. But these hierarchs not only did not repent, but they also camouflaged the pan-heresy of ecumenism and, through all their actions, entrenched it in the minds of the faithful, claiming that it is a good strategy that ensures the peace of the Church. Therefore, I warn that all those today who present themselves as anti-ecumenists but, at the same time, seek to minimize the guilt of the ecumenist hierarchs are deceived and are doing the work of the devil.

Fragment XLIII

"In turn, the clergy and believers have become participants in heresy through their communion with their bishops, participants or supporters of the Crete synod." (see page 21)

Commentary 43

In this fragment, the author ignores an essential truth. When a priest commemorates his bishop during the Holy Services, this proves that he shares the same faith with him. In our case, that is the ecumenist heretical faith. Consequently, the priest who commemorates any hierarch of the ROC also falls into heresy, just like his archpastor.

Fragment XLIV

"There are clergy and believers who have had an ecumenist heretical mindset formed many years before the Crete synod. This is the case with some priests, hieromonks, monks, nuns, abbots, abbesses, theologians, university professors in theological faculties, or teachers in theological high schools, eparchial and protopresbyterial officials, lay intellectuals, and ordinary believers, especially from areas of confessional convergence, who have lived together with heretics for so long that they are incapable of making theological and dogmatic distinctions." (see page 22)

Commentary 44

After mixing priests and laypeople as if their ecclesiastical rank were of no importance, the author attempts to excuse the ecumenists by saying that all of them "are incapable of making theological and dogmatic distinctions." It would have been more accurate to write that ecumenists do not want to see or recognize the dogmatic differences between Orthodox teachings and those of various heresies. They are all the more guilty because they should know the clear testimonies of the 20th-century Saints against the heresy of ecumenism. Then, the author adds that the older ecumenist priests and "theologians" are the most fervent fighters against those who have stopped commemoration. In doing so, he indirectly absolves the ecumenist hierarchs, who are, in fact, the main persecutors of the Orthodox confessor priests.

Fragment XLV

"Insofar as they accept the decisions of the Crete synod as being in perfect agreement with what they imagine to be the missionary imperative of the current Orthodox Church and consider them orthodox, while viewing ecumenism as 'an attitude of dialogue and cooperation with other Christians,' they can be considered heretics because they have completed the entire process of forming a heretical mindset." (see page 22)

Commentary 45

The author tries to convince readers that only those with a firm heretical conviction and mindset are heretics. This is false because many fall into heresy due to the sin of ignorance. The Holy Fathers warn that ignorance of the Scriptures is a deep abyss. Then follows a complex sentence, consisting of eight successive clauses, which is difficult to understand. In this, another theological error creeps in. Mihai-Silviu Chirilă states that we should distance ourselves from those ecumenists who have a heretical mindset to avoid ecclesiastical communion with them, but then contradicts himself by saying that we can still pray with them because their heresy has not yet been condemned by a synod. The truth is this: with those you cannot serve together, you also cannot pray together. A priest who has ceased communion with the ecumenists cannot pray with them either in public or in private. Thus, everything the author says here is wrong. The fact that a heresy has not yet been condemned by a synod does not transform it into something else; it remains heresy, and the one who supports it is no less guilty.

Fragment XLVI

"There are priests who remain in communion with their hierarch and in participation with heresy out of inertia, because they were taught that obedience to the bishop is the most important aspect of a priest’s activity. Many of them contest the decisions made in Crete, if they understand them, or consider that they are not serious enough to cause the 'capital sin' of breaking communion with the hierarch. Some have orthodox thinking and even preaching, but they maintain communion with the bishop because they have become accustomed to the simulacrum of struggle practiced for generations in the Romanian Orthodox Church, in which priests, especially hieromonks, more or less publicly contested the ecumenist decisions of the hierarchy but continued to be in communion with it, deluding themselves that they were fighters against ecumenism and that one day this type of struggle would bear fruit. Unfortunately, the fruits were the documents from Crete." (see page 23)

Commentary 46

Through this fragment, there is a risk that the reader may be wrongly influenced to believe that there are multiple reasons for priests to remain obedient to the ecumenist pseudo-hierarchs. Moreover, these reasons might make the commemorating priests less guilty. However, these reasons are unacceptable from an Orthodox point of view.

Fragment XLVII

"None of these reasons protect the commemorating priests from the danger imposed by participation, nor from the guilt of aligning themselves with heretical thinking, with which they agree by commemorating the hierarch (even if, in some cases, superficially or formally), and from keeping the people they shepherd in ignorance and participation in heresy." (see page 23)

Commentary 47

Once again, Mihai-Silviu Chirilă fails to recognize that these priests in communion with the hierarchs of the ROC have already fallen into heresy and bring condemnation upon themselves. We are not discussing potential future realities, but concrete facts that have already occurred.

Fragment XLVIII

"The risk imposed by keeping the people in participation with heresy is illustrated by St. Basil the Great in a letter he addressed to the bishops of Gaul and Spain, in which he describes the ravages caused among the people by Arianism, the heresy condemned at the First Ecumenical Council but revived under the reign of Emperor Valens: 'The ears of the simple have been deceived and accustomed to the deceit of heresy. The young children in the Church are taught the corrupted teachings – but what can they do? Baptisms are performed by heretics, as well as the funeral services for the deceased, the care of the suffering, the consolation of the sorrowful, the support of those in distress, and all kinds of assistance, as well as the celebration of the Holy Mysteries. Through all these, a bond is formed with them among the people, and they all come to share the same mind, so that in a short time, even if we were given some freedom, there would be no hope of bringing back those caught in this prolonged deceit to the knowledge of the truth.'" (see pp. 23-24)

Commentary 48

We must point out that the ecclesiastical situation today is far more serious than suggested by the author when comparing it to the situation described by St. Basil the Great in his time. Today, we no longer have, or at least we do not yet know of, any true confessing hierarchs. The leaders of society, in most areas of life, impose and support the ideology of religious tolerance, especially through the actions of heretical ecumenism. This is happening without any Orthodox hierarch applying pastoral and canonical measures to counter these enemies of the Church.

Fragment XLIX

"There are many believers who oppose granting the status of 'church' to the papist or Protestant heresies, but who remain obedient to their priests for various reasons." (see page 24)

Commentary 49

We must acknowledge that there are very few believers who assert that the papists and Protestants are not churches but heretical groups. If things were as Mihai-Silviu Chirilă writes, then the delegation of ROC hierarchs would have been met upon their return from Crete by a multitude of outraged Orthodox. They would have received the ecumenists at the airport just as the Greek people received the traitors returning from Ferrara-Florence. Regardless of how many explanations and excuses the author of the study finds for the majority of Romanians who have remained loyal to the pseudo-hierarchs of the ROC until today, the situation is much more serious than he understands and presents it.

Fragment L

"Regardless of the reason for which bishops, clergy, and the people have become participants in heresy, the reality is that they are in communion with heresy and risk sharing the same eternal fate as those who created and preach that heresy, unless they free themselves from it by breaking communion with ecumenism and those who preach it." (see page 24)

Commentary 50

This conclusion by the author is wrong because he only speaks of a future risk and overlooks the grave fall that has already occurred. Through the new ecclesiology approved in Crete, the hierarchs have already fallen into heresy, becoming pseudo-bishops. Furthermore, all the priests and believers who remain in communion with these bishops testify that they share the same faith with them, that is, the heretical ecumenist faith. We believe that the hierarchs will never acknowledge that ecumenism is a new dogma but will deceive the world by saying that it is merely a temporary and harmless strategy for adapting the Church to the challenges of a globalized world.

Fragment LI

St. Theodore the Studite writes in a letter addressed to Patriarch Theodore of Jerusalem: "Some have completely shipwrecked in matters of faith; others, even though they have not sunk due to heretical beliefs, have perished along with those heretics because of their participation with them." (see page 25)

Commentary 51

Here the Saint warns that those who have had communion with heretics not only risked their souls but have actually "perished along with them."

Fragment LII

"Those who could not possibly have become aware of the decisions made in Crete, due to various reasons (they are too old, too young, too ill, medically incapable of understanding, living in isolation, or in other situations that objectively prevented them, not due to neglect, from informing themselves...), cannot be considered participants in the decisions from Crete." (see page 25)

Commentary 52

What the author claims here is incorrect. Those who have ecclesiastical ties with those who have fallen into heresy are also drawn into heresy, even if they are unaware of it. Just because that category of believers did not learn about the "novelty" that has arisen in the life of the Church does not mean they are not caught in the same fall. Those who did not find out or are unable to understand due to a lack of discernment are not held responsible before God, but they still belong to the group of those who have fallen into heresy.

Fragment LIII

"Those who lack the education and intellectual capacity to understand what is happening have been deceived by official propaganda."

Commentary 53

Here, the author continues to mix things up in order to reinforce his previously established personal interpretation. He says, "those who lack the education and intellectual capacity to understand what is happening have been deceived by official propaganda." To better understand this, let us offer an example. A simple believer, with little education but devout, when faced with a complicated temptation such as heresy, should seek advice from a holy elder. If they cannot find one, they must look into what the Saints have said about the issue causing the turmoil. The Saints have clearly written that ecumenism is the greatest heresy of all time. But if the simple person is lazy and superficial, relying on ignorance as a crutch, God will allow them to trust in the pastors who have fallen into delusion. Ignorance and indifference are serious sins, not innocent weaknesses that absolve a person of the responsibility for their fall.

Fragment LIV

"At this moment, they are condemnable, but not yet condemned by a synod."

Commentary 54

Although this may seem correct, the reality is different. First, when the Saints of the 20th century wrote against the heresy of ecumenism, they opposed not only the doctrine but also the supporters of the pan-heresy. For example, St. Justin Popovich broke communion with the Serbian patriarch of his time during the last years of his life. Second, many of those who continue to commemorate and obey the ecumenist hierarchs today are under the illusion that a future synod will resolve the issues currently causing turmoil. However, that much-anticipated synod may never convene. In such a case, those who have already fallen into heresy will go to eternal damnation. Third, the author tries to make a strictly canonical analysis of the newly arisen situation without taking into account the spiritual reality. The author's idea is that a heresy not yet definitively condemned would be less serious than one already condemned by a synod. In other words, a person who has fallen into an uncondemned heresy would be less guilty. From a spiritual perspective, both are mortal sins.

Unclearly, the author suggests the idea that it is not forbidden for those who have distanced themselves from heresy—whom he refers to as those remaining within the Church—to have any ecclesiastical connection with those who have not yet been defrocked. This is evident in explanatory note 72, where he mentions the participation of a non-commemorating priest in prayer with priests who are members of the Metropolitan Consistory. In short, the author claims that it is neither wrong nor forbidden for priests who have distanced themselves from heresy to pray publicly with priests with whom they have ceased communion.

To claim that a priest who has ceased communion with ecumenist heretics is permitted to pray publicly—and is even praised for doing so—with ecumenist priests who are obedient to the heretical pseudo-bishop shows a misunderstanding of how Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople is applied. This canon refers only to heretics who have not yet been judged by a synod.

Fragment LV

"The author writes in explanatory note 72: 'In this sense, the non-commemorating priest affirmed that the ecumenist priests in the consistory are "innocent" (in the legal sense, where someone enjoys the presumption of innocence, even if the evidence incriminates them in the eyes of all, until the decision of their condemnation is final and enforceable) (...).'" (see page 26)

Commentary 55

The claim that the ecumenist priests from the judicial consistory are innocent is entirely wrong for the following reasons:

1. They are condemned by themselves because, by maintaining communion with their pseudo-bishop, they support a teaching of faith that differs from that of the Church.

2. They are condemned by the Saints who fought both the heresy of ecumenism and its supporters.

3. They have shown no sign of repentance regarding the ecumenist heresy; even worse, they have allied themselves with the persecuting bishop.

Fragment LVI

"Those who have already labeled all members of the Romanian Orthodox Church who remain in communion with the hierarchy as heretics and treat them as if they are already completely outside the Church (...)" (see page 27)

Commentary 56

This expression is confusing because it is not at all clear whom the author is referring to when making the above statement. We are left to assume that he may be referring to those who separated from Fr. Claudiu Buză for his error, or to those who disagree with the theory about participation in heresy presented in this study, or perhaps others. Additionally, we cannot call those in communion with the pseudo-episcopal heretics anything other than heretics themselves. The expression "completely outside the Church" is problematic because it leaves room for the possibility that someone could be partially a member of the Church and partially outside it, which is impossible. Another ambiguity arises when the author says: "they treat them (the ecumenist heretics) as if they are already completely outside the Church." Here, the author should have clearly explained what a priest who has distanced himself from heresy is not allowed to do. He is not allowed to have any form of ecclesiastical connection with those from whom he has distanced himself. We must also highlight a rather sensitive and poorly understood point: in the current situation, bishops, priests, deacons, and laity who, in one way or another (even unconsciously), agree with the Crete synod are still part of the Orthodox Church, but they are sick members, and therefore, connection with them must be avoided.

Fragment LVII

"(...) they relate to the Romanian Orthodox Church as something foreign, as something other than the ancestral Church."

Commentary 57

This vague accusation has no foundation. We believe it is purely a personal speculation of the author. In fact, those who sign heretical documents, and all the clergy and laity who support them through commemoration and participation in services, are guilty of deviating from the true teaching of the Church and, through their actions, show that they are at risk of becoming alienated from the Romanian Orthodox Church (ROC). Not having any ecclesiastical connection with ecumenist clergy and the people shepherded by them does not mean being alienated from the ROC.

Fragment LVIII

"(...) which we have the duty to cleanse of heresy, so that one day we may resume church life together with the faithful, the priests, and the bishops who are now participants in heresy, but whom we hope to recover (...)" (see page 27)

Commentary 58

Here the author errs by not recognizing his own limitations or the mission of those who have distanced themselves from heresy. We, who have ceased communion with the ecumenist heretics, are neither the saviors of the Church nor do we have any mission to bring heretics back to Orthodoxy. The duty to cleanse the Church of heresy does not fall upon a lay Christian, as Mihai-Silviu Chirilă suggests in this study, no matter how ambitious he may be. This mission belongs to the bishops gathered in a synod. We, the priests who have stopped communion with the heretics, can only attempt to explain to others the gravity of the situation in which the Romanian Orthodox Church (ROC) finds itself after the entire hierarchy accepted the decisions of the pseudo-synod of Crete. Everyone must freely choose whether to join us on the path of distancing from heresy.

Fragment LIX

"Labeling everyone as heretics and thinking of the Romanian Orthodox Church as something foreign is the beginning of schismatic thinking." (see page 27)

Commentary 59

Since, through everything written so far and through countless mistakes and false interpretations, the author has failed to demonstrate anything regarding the supposed schism, it is evident that his final conclusion is also incorrect. When someone brings a serious accusation, such as schism, they must support that claim with very clear terms and theological arguments. But in this case, the person making the accusation of schism does not even clearly specify who the schismatics are and from whom they are separating.

Fragment LX

"If St. Theodore the Studite made a distinction between heretics and those who participated in heresy, not labeling everyone together as heretics, even though he admitted that they were participants in heretical thinking and in enmity with God that derives from this (...)" (see page 27)

Commentary 60

Several necessary clarifications must be made here:

1. At the time when St. Theodore was fighting heresies, Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople did not yet exist. This canon was issued in 861, and St. Theodore reposed in 826.

2. St. Theodore and those who shared his orthodox mindset ceased commemorating certain heretical bishops who had not yet been condemned by a synod. These were the heretical bishops who participated in or approved the adulterous synod.

3. St. Theodore clearly states in Letter 51 to his son Naucratius that bishops who have fallen into heresy (specifically a heresy not yet condemned by a synod) are called false-bishops even before their synodal judgment.

4. St. Theodore says that a priest who commemorates a heresiarch during services cannot be orthodox. (Letter to the wife of a sword-bearer named Mahara)

5. A bishop who commemorates a heretic is himself in heresy. St. Theodore says: "(...) but since he is in heresy, by commemorating a heretic, then even if he claims to have a sound mind, it cannot be said that those ordained by him are true servants of the Lord." (Letter 40 to his son Naucratius)

From everything St. Theodore wrote in his letters, it is clear that those who are in communion with heretics are, in practice, also heretics, and they remain in this state as long as they do not repent and prove that they have ceased any connection with the heretics.

Fragment LXI

"Those who believe that an Orthodox synod can no longer be convened are rushing to do God's work themselves, ignoring the fact that through Canon 15 of the First-Second Council, we are called to distance ourselves from heresy and to wait, not to issue anathemas, defrock, or excommunicate heretics from the position of clergy or laity." (see page 27)

Commentary 61

We do not know to whom the author is addressing this accusation. Furthermore, it is not supported by any evidence, which makes it difficult to take seriously.

Fragment LXII

"Some say that we no longer need to wait for an ecumenical synod because it will never come, as ecumenism is all-powerful. The history of the Church has seen heresies dominate church life for decades, only for God to eventually have mercy on His people and bring deliverance. Those who believe that an Orthodox synod can no longer be convened rush to do God’s work themselves, ignoring the fact that through Canon 15 of the First-Second Council, we are called to distance ourselves from heresy and to wait, not to issue anathemas, defrock, or excommunicate heretics from the position of clergy or laity.

If there is no future ecumenical synod to expel from the Church those who remain faithful to ecumenism, then the ecumenists will continue the centrifugal movement they began at the Crete synod and will eventually reach the point where they will achieve their long-desired 'unity of Christians,' meaning they will unite with the heretics, effectively exiting the Orthodox Church by themselves and adhering to a religious structure foreign to Orthodoxy, together with all those who follow them, fulfilling the condemnation and expulsion from the Church that an ecumenical synod could not accomplish (as the Greek Catholics did when they left the Orthodox Church)." (see pp. 27-28)

Commentary 62

This very long sentence, made up of 8 clauses, contains several errors.

First, we cannot know if the much-anticipated Orthodox synod will ever take place. If the author is making a claim about future events, he must specify the source of this prophecy. Otherwise, we are left to believe that the author himself possesses the gift of prophecy. But given how he quotes and interprets the writings of the Holy Fathers, this hypothesis must be excluded.
Second, Mihai-Silviu Chirilă's view that ecumenists are engaged in a centrifugal movement is untrue and can be easily disproven by facts. The fundamental principles of ecumenism are: peace, harmony, unity, and love, though not as Christian virtues but as broadly accepted humanistic values. The goal of the ecumenist heretics is the creation of a universal religious structure in which all religious organizations coexist without paying attention to the dogmatic differences that exist between them. This ideal cannot be reached through a centrifugal movement but through a movement of unification, relativization, and mutual tolerance of various religious groups (which, for now, includes the only true Church – the Orthodox Church).

Third, the author does not correctly explain how the Orthodox united with the heretics "will exit the Orthodox Church by themselves." The Savior says in the Gospel: "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown out like a branch and withers" (John 15:6). Who throws out the member sick with heresy? The synod of bishops. As a result, a Christian who separates from Christ, who is present in the Orthodox Church, by falling into heresy, dies spiritually just as a branch separated from the vine dies. The example of the Greek Catholics' fall into heresy is poorly chosen, as the Greek Catholic heresiarchs were anathematized during their lifetimes.

Fragment LXIII

"The cessation of commemorating the hierarchs who have become participants in the heresy of ecumenism at this moment is precisely aimed at avoiding the point where they would reach a 'common chalice,' at which point they would be fully heretics and could no longer be saved." (see page 28)

Commentary 63

The theory about sharing the same chalice between Orthodox and heretics is not of interest to us because no canon mentions this act as a reason for ceasing commemoration. The goals pursued by those who have ceased communion with heretics are different:

a) avoiding the shared condemnation with heretics;

b) calling attention to the need for convening an Orthodox synod;

c) awakening the clergy and people's conscience regarding the spread of heresy.

Fragment LXIV

"Can we consider a priest who preaches and believes that the papists and Protestants have no sacraments and that ecumenism is the heresy of all heresies, but remains in communion with his bishop out of fear, as a proper heretic (...)" (see page 28)

Commentary 64

The author raises a series of questions without providing answers. However, from the way he presents his previous explanations, he suggests that it is wrong to label all those in communion with hierarchs as heretics and seeks to excuse them through the questions posed. Mihai-Silviu Chirilă states that the priest remains in communion with his bishop out of fear. But what kind of fear is he referring to? The fear of falling into schism, as the false bishops explain? This reason has no value before God because separating from heretics does not constitute schism. Is it the fear of being punished by the authorities and losing a parish, monastery, rectory, salary, or other material benefits? This shows a lack of fear of God and an unhealthy attachment to material things. Or is it the fear that the majority will not follow and thus the priest will lose his previous prestige? We observe that what may seem like justification is, in fact, an indictment of the fearful.

Fragment LXV

"(...) from a misunderstanding of the decisions made in Crete, from an incorrect understanding of the canonical provisions that allow him to separate from his bishop, or from another reason besides conscious and deliberate adherence to the heresy being preached?" (see page 28)

Commentary 65

Here the author suggests that the ignorance of priests might be a reason that would exonerate them for maintaining obedience to heretics. We have already addressed the lack of validity of this reason in a previous commentary, where we discussed the saints who opposed the pan-heresy of ecumenism.

Fragment LXVI

"Our duty is to warn those who continue their connection with the hierarchs who preach ecumenist teachings (and even those hierarchs who have associated with heresy out of fear or convenience) that remaining in communion with them exposes them to the risk of adopting their heretical ecumenist teachings and practices, and of continuing the fall that began with their participation in heresy, to the point where, gradually, they will think, confess, and act heretically, reaching what St. Theodore calls 'total participation' in heresy, meaning becoming like those with whom they are in communion." (see page 28)

Commentary 66

Again, we are dealing with an excessively long sentence composed of seven clauses. For Mihai-Silviu Chirilă, the guilt of participating in heresy begins only with the conscious acceptance of heretical teachings. This is a delusion, because the greatest victory of the ecumenist heretics is to incorporate even those who have an anti-ecumenist Orthodox discourse but, through their actions—such as commemorating the false bishops—have also fallen into heresy. The most serious point the author makes is when he says that those in communion with heretics will reach "total participation" in heresy. As previously demonstrated, just as a person cannot be partially Orthodox and partially heretical, likewise, no one can have partial communion with heresy and partial communion with Orthodoxy.

Fragment LXVII

"(...) to behave as if we are the only Orthodox Christians left in the world." (see page 28)

Commentary 67

This irony, once again, is unsupported by any evidence. This was also the accusation made against St. Maximus the Confessor by his enemies: "So, you alone will be saved, and everyone else will perish?" And he responded, "The three youths, who did not bow to the idol to which all the people bowed, did not condemn anyone [Dn 3:18]. They were not concerned with others, but with how they themselves would not fall from the true worship of God. [...] May God not grant me to condemn anyone or say that only I will be saved! But I would rather die than have my conscience troubled by having in any way slipped in matters of faith." ("St. Maximus the Confessor and His Companions in Martyrdom," Deisis Publishing, Sibiu, 2004, p. 126).

We do not claim to be the only remaining Orthodox Christians, but rather that ceasing communion with the ecumenist heretics is the only way to avoid falling from the true faith in the context of the spread of heresy within the life of the Church.

Fragment LXVIII

"Humility, love, pain, hope, and patience—these must be the traits of our attitude towards those who are still in connection with heresy."

Commentary 68

The virtues that should characterize someone who has ceased communion with heretics must necessarily be complemented with: firmness in confessing the Orthodox faith, theological precision in expression, and spiritual discernment—traits that the author does not mention at all.

+++

Conclusions:

1. The state of participation in heresy—understood as an intermediate state between Orthodoxy and heresy—is theologically incorrect, being contradicted by both Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers.

In Holy Scripture we read: "What fellowship has light with darkness...?" (II Corinthians 6:14);

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other..." (Matthew 6:24).

Therefore, no one can serve both God through Orthodoxy and the devil through heresy at the same time.

The Holy Fathers teach:

• St. Basil the Great writes: “Those who pretend to confess the sound Orthodox faith but have ecclesiastical communion with heretics, if they do not distance themselves after being admonished, then not only should you cease having ecclesiastical communion with them, but you should not even call them brothers.” – Patrologia Graeca, vol. 160.

• St. Gregory Palamas states: “So tell me, where will we place those who confess (the faith) and at the same time deny God? With the faithful? Yet by their deeds, they deny God. With the unbelievers? But with their words, they confess God (…). By what will we distinguish the faithful from the unfaithful, the enlightened from the unenlightened, in other words, those baptized in Christ and placed alongside Christ, from those unbaptized and placed alongside the devil? Will we not distinguish them by words, by deeds, by their way of life? Therefore, if someone agrees with the unenlightened, even if they say they are baptized in the name of Christ, it is clear that they have not ceased to belong to the assembly of those [note: the unbelievers].” – Homily on the Healing of the Two Blind Men.

• St. Mark of Ephesus, Metropolitan of Ephesus, says: “Never have ecclesiastical matters been corrected by middle-ground solutions. Can one say there is something in between light and darkness, called dusk or twilight? And no one can think of a middle ground between truth and falsehood, no matter how hard they try. There is no middle way of reconciliation between truth and falsehood! In matters of faith, there is no room for concession and economia, for concession diminishes faith. That would be like saying: ‘Cut off your head and go wherever you like!’” – Priest Vasile Sorescu, The Orthodox Church: Pillar and Ground of the Truth.

2. The claim by Mihai Silviu Chirilă that a cleric or layperson who claims to have an Orthodox mindset, manifested through an anti-ecumenist discourse, but at the same time departs from Orthodoxy by maintaining ecclesiastical communion with ecumenist heretics, cannot be called a heretic is false.

3. The theory that the state of heresy begins only when a person consciously accepts the heretical teaching is false. Most bishops, priests, deacons, monks, and laypeople do not even realize that by maintaining communion with a heretical cleric, they unconsciously fall into the state of heresy, which prevents their return through repentance.

4. The author's conclusion that "St. Theodore the Studite made a distinction between heretics and those who participate in heresy," interpreting that this participation is a state different from heresy, is a blasphemy against the saint and a rejection of the teaching of the Holy Fathers, with whom St. Theodore is in complete agreement.

5. Avoiding showing people, with sorrow and compassion, the real state of falling into heresy that they have reached, and telling them that they are in a so-called intermediate state, hinders their repentance and lulls their conscience.

6. The reasons invoked by the author—fear of ecclesiastical punishment with which the ecumenists threaten those under their authority, ignorance, misunderstanding, misinformation (from church leaders)—are not valid reasons for Christians to maintain ecclesiastical communion with ecumenist heretics.

7. The accusation of schism against those who have distanced themselves from the ecumenist heresy and who reject the incorrect theological interpretation of participation in heresy—defined as an intermediate state between Orthodoxy and heresy—is false, being pure slander.

In my opinion, this study on participation in heresy was one of the elements that contributed to the drafting of the resolution project from January 12.

As a general conclusion of my critical observations, I reject Mihai Silviu Chirilă's study, as I consider it to be in disagreement with the truth of Holy Scripture and the teachings of the Holy Fathers.

End and glory to God!

Note – This document was first presented in complete form at the Synaxis in Roman on January 25, 2018. What we are now publishing online is the final, revised, and expanded version, resulting from discussions with the Fathers participating in the Synaxis.