"Nothing has changed after the Council of Crete" as a formula of apostasy or the anesthetization of the faith

Hieromonk Lavrentie | Oct. 12, 2021

 

The docilization and immunization of clergy and laity toward the betrayals signed in Crete were achieved through the inoculation of the idea that nothing has changed in the Church; therefore, questions, concerns, and anxieties are superfluous. Naturally, this tactic gained ground against the backdrop of the believers' ignorance, who do not know Church history and, evidently, do not follow the path laid down by the Saints whom they ought to honor.

Even though we have indirectly combated this lie, that "Nothing has changed," through articles about the errors of the Council, about the patristic attitude toward heresies, and through many others on the theme of the heresy of ecumenism, it is still worth addressing this diversion head-on. Why? Because it is becoming a modus vivendi of our Orthodoxy here [in Romania], a permanently entrenched distortion.

In a particular form, this festivism of apparent prosperity can be observed in a recent laudatory article about His Beatitude Daniel, the Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, written by Father Sorin Ionițe, in which he makes an assessment of the 14 years of his patriarchate (on September 30). Among the great achievements is counted his performance at the "Holy and Great Council of Crete (2016)," despite all of its serious shortcomings.

[https://basilica.ro/14-pagini-de-istorie-a-bisericii-ortodoxe-romane-sub-conducerea-preafericitului-parinte-patriarh-daniel/]

Besides this, it is also noteworthy that the other praiseworthy deeds are mostly managerial actions; nevertheless, two are in the same vein as the ecumenist betrayal and draw special attention, namely the reception of Pope Francis in Bucharest and the management of the pandemic challenges, when religious rights were violated with the consent of the hierarchy last year. Then the question arises: What do we still understand about the Church and what is its purpose? Is its glory the Cross or material accomplishments and even deviations from Orthodox tradition?

Regarding the subject that concerns us, the decisions made in Crete, it is stated in the Romanian version of the article that they were not dogmatic, while in the English version it is said that there were "not only dogmatical decisions," but also provided "practical pastoral and missionary guidance." What can we understand from this? That Romanians are being told that doctrinal issues are not even in question, much less any changes, and that they should stay quiet, while before the foreign public the dogmatic character of the signed documents is being acknowledged. It is possible that this is merely a banal translation error into English, which is nevertheless being picked up by foreign agencies, such as OrthodoxTimes.

[https://orthodoxtimes.com/romanian-orthodox-church-14-pages-of-history-under-the-leadership-of-patriarch-daniel/]

It must be said that from the beginning, Patriarch Daniel pursued this tactic of lulling the faithful into believing that there was no question of changing anything in the content of the faith. Indeed, a very good idea, but one that was scarcely adopted by the representatives of the other Local Orthodox Churches. And when we speak of the beginning, it truly is so, meaning even before the sessions of the Council began. Such assurances were given even before the Romanian delegation’s departure, and even much earlier. As early as 2014, when the decision to convene the Council was made, His Beatitude the Patriarch stated: "The future Pan-Orthodox Council will not debate dogmatic issues," despite the obvious fact that the decision for Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement is of a dogmatic nature. As a side note, attention is also drawn to the statement made back then, that "texts which were drafted many years ago will be updated," which indeed happened, the document on the Relations of the Church… being the most retouched in an ecumenist heretical sense.

Still, has anything changed?

In essence, the slogans "Nothing has changed" and "There were no dogmatic decisions" are equivalent. Both suggest that the decisions are unimportant, merely courteous, and do not affect the Creed. But is that truly the case?

I will not insist here on the idea that there are dogmatic errors in the final documents, but rather on the way they are received, in blatant contradiction with the Church’s age-old practice.

There are a few similarities between the older heresies and the ecumenism signed in Crete:

1. Heretics have never claimed that they formulated new dogmas or introduced innovations, but rather that they adhered to the authentic ecclesiastical tradition, that they correctly expressed the teaching of the faith. The same is happening after Crete;

2. Heretics have never encompassed the entire Church, but only significant parts of it. Likewise now, ecumenism was not endorsed by all hierarchs, but only by the majority of those who participated in Crete;

3. Heretics have always sought to obtain recognition either by force or formally, as was the case with the Arians and the Iconoclasts (by force) and with the Monothelites (by forbidding discussions on the topic). Similarly today, any contestation of the Council is suppressed either by force or by milder means.

But there are also important differences between the Church’s former reaction to heresies and today's:

1. The holy hierarchs of the past, as well as simple fathers and faithful, reacted to the dogmatic deviations of heretics (such as Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Barlaam...) and condemned them, whereas today the so-called unity of the Church is promoted, meaning a worldly peace, a compromise with evil;

2. The Holy Fathers did not "become haughty, but were saddened" (Gal. 5:2) in the face of heresies and made every effort to uproot them, not to have them, so to speak, absorbed by the healthy part of the Church, knowing that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" (Gal. 5:9). Whereas today we are told not to judge and, practically, not to take any stance in the face of the advancement of evil.

3. The Church has always been regarded as the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), and its unity formed on steadfast faith in God, whereas today it is conceived more as an organization and an autonomous institution, at the whim of the hierarchs, episcopocentric, not Christocentric.

If someone says that they see no changes after Crete, would they not have said the same thing in the time of the Arians, the Monophysites, the Monothelites, the Barlaamites, or other heresies that seemed not to affect the conduct of worship? Yes, the Iconoclasts removed the icons from the churches, but a multitude of other heretics did not bring visible changes, and yet they were firmly opposed. Why is that?

The change that is taking place is not at the material, visible level, but at the spiritual level, at the level of the faith. Even if the services remain the same, the Creed upon which they are founded is no longer the same. What greater difference could there be? And whoever does not perceive this can hardly be called a believer. They are capable of seeing a scandal in the perhaps exaggerated reactions of some, but not in the unacceptable decisions signed by the hierarchs. This proves once again that today we are dealing with an ongoing heresy that undermines the doctrine concerning the Church; there is no longer a correct understanding of what salvation within it means.

Even Mount Athos is functioning incorrectly

The expectations of many to denounce the errors from Crete were directed toward Mount Athos, which has the reputation of being a republic of monks who seek nothing but God, having no earthly interests. However, how false and illusory this disposition proved to be!

Without speculating on the honesty of the monks there, it is telling to see how the Holy Community decided that the Council of Crete had made no mistakes.

On June 17/30, 2017, the Double Assembly of the Holy Mountain discussed and approved an official document regarding the Council of Crete. But it is well known that "the text was not composed during the session itself, but beforehand by Archimandrite Vasilios (Gondikakis), the former abbot of the Monasteries of Stavronikita and Iveron, who is known to be close to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Although the text was issued in the name of the entire Holy Community, it is also known that a number of Athonite Monasteries contested the document." [See https://orthochristian.com/105681.html] Although "the long-standing policy of the Holy Community is to issue all statements that are not of a dogmatic nature as if they were taken unanimously, even if 7 or 8 monasteries would be in disagreement," it is precisely here that the deception appears. The issues raised by the decisions of Crete are of a dogmatic nature and, therefore, the very procedure of discussing them was itself wrong. Even the Monasteries of Xeropotamou, Karakallou, Philotheou, Constamonitou, and Gregoriou did not oppose as they ought to have, as one would against heresies, but merely expressed their disagreement. Of course, there are also other important figures who, in fact, did not agree, but again, that no longer matters.

What is important to note from all this is that the very structure of the Church is changing, the souls and consciences of the faithful are no longer being formed by reference to the unadulterated truth revealed by Christ, but by various compromises. And, of course, these concessions do not stop here, because such is the nature of any heresy, to erode and suffocate the saving faith.

In times of tribulation, salvation is attained through self-compulsion despite the adverse circumstances.

 

Romanian source: https://theodosie.ro/2021/10/12/nu-s-a-schimbat-nimic-dupa-sinodul-din-creta-ca-formula-de-apostazie-sau-anesteziere-a-credintei/