Hieromonk Lavrentie | June 19, 2026 | Romania
Ten years ago, on June 19, 2016,
the sessions of the Synod of Crete began in the absence of four Local Churches;
the Russians, Bulgarians, Georgians, and Antiochians refused to participate.
The actual necessity of the gathering arose after the introduction of the
corrected calendar following the Conference of 1923, for the regulation of this
matter, but the true intention can be detected even earlier. Thus,
approximately a century of preparing the ground.
The indications lead us to the
conclusion that the true stake in the gathering together of the Local Orthodox
Churches was always alignment on an ecumenist course. Although this cannot be
asserted categorically, the entirely reasonable suspicions are confirmed by the
sequence of events. Thus, the triggering factor for the convocation of the
Synod was the adoption of the corrected calendar, as I have mentioned. But the
idea of adapting it to the Gregorian calendar had been expressed some years
earlier by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Encyclicals issued in the years
1902 and 1920. Considering that those texts made a correlation between the
opening of Orthodoxy toward heretics (Ecumenism) and the step of good will in
this direction through the correlation of the feasts with the Catholics (the
change of the calendar), and, on the other hand, that the central subject on
the agenda was precisely engagement in the ecumenical movement, the logical
conclusion would be that from the beginning the objective was the
officialization of participation in ecumenist organizations.
Without entering here once again
into details connected with this subject, which has been dealt with
extensively, it should be noted that Ecumenism held the headline place among
the concerns of 2016. Although the discussions on this theme were limited only
to the last day of the week of sessions, they were the most intense, and the
final document was the most contested. Moreover, the debates centered on it
both before and afterward. However, the tactic of the organizers and supporters
is to diminish its importance and to distract attention, probably so that it
may be accepted more easily.
The Official
Positioning of the Romanian Patriarchate
The article dedicated to the
Synod of Crete in Ziarul Lumina, signed by Fr. Viorel Ioniță, who
himself participated in its proceedings, maintains the same line of diverting
attention from the real point of interest. For this purpose, it reprises the
idea that the documents from 2016 do not have a dogmatic character, although
ecumenist relations with heretics pertain to ecclesiology, that is, to the
definition of the Church. And, of course, this is a dogmatic point.
It is interesting that Fr. Ioniță
officially brings into discussion for the first time the fact that the
“decisions taken are contextual and can be corrected by a subsequent synod,”
although elsewhere he returns from the possibility of correction to the official
line of explanation: “some formulations could be better expressed.”
Strange is the theory that the
acceptance of any Synod and its normative status occur only after pan-Orthodox
reception. Somehow the Cretan Synod is placed under a question mark in order to
calm spirits for the moment with regard to its deviations. On the other hand,
the criterion of validation is shifted from the dogmatic conscience of the
members of the Church to an official and formal plane. In this sense, it should
be recalled that, although the First Ecumenical Council, for example, was
rejected for many years by the Arians of that time, the Holy Fathers of that
time, such as St. Athanasius and Basil the Great, and all the right-believing,
considered it indisputable. On the other hand, robber councils were confronted
and combated from the very first moments by the Orthodox confessors.
Therefore, the idea that the
decisions of a Synod are normative only after official reception and the
extinguishing of the disputes surrounding it is manipulative. Attention is
shifted from the importance of Orthodox decisions and teachings for salvation
to the ecclesiastical administrative level. In other words, value would not be
given by intrinsic truth and the spiritual impact upon the soul, but by formal
and external-institutional implementation.
This distraction results in a
different way of relating to synodal decisions. The place of responsibility is
taken by indifference and a resigned waiting to see how the Synod will be
supposedly received, how its fate is decided. The reaction of reception or
combatting is intended to be reduced to passivity. The simple reason? Grave
dogmatic and canonical betrayals are being hidden, and a docilizing of the
faithful is desired.
In order not to reduce the tone
of the aforementioned article merely to a softening of tone or to a
presentation of the Synod for ordinary faithful, we also do not overlook other
important structural ideas. The recognition of the lack of pan-Orthodox unity
is accompanied by shifting it to the Synaxis of the Primates in January 2016,
in which all the Churches participated. Even at this point misinformation
occurs, namely that the Georgians had signed all the preparatory documents. But
it is known that they did not validate the one concerning the Mystery of
Marriage, a fact which should have led to the cancellation of the gathering and
which only influenced the absence of this Local Church.
For the time being, this is the
most representative point of view expressed by the Romanian Patriarchate on the
subject at this moment. Therefore, after 10 years, we have the same oscillation
at the official level between docilizing the faithful and submission to the
official direction received from Constantinople or from other anti-Orthodox
command centers.
Unofficial, but
Orthodox Voices
A discussion of the Synod and its
implications after 10 years was carried out together with Fr. Mihail Deliorga
and Fr. Claudiu Buză [in Romanian]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rkvWqziwdQ
What I would have to add is that
the opposition to the decisions of the Synod of Crete through the interruption
of commemoration is a modest one, yet it falls within an already formed
tradition. The attitude of St. Dionysios of Colciu, who did not commemorate the
Patriarch at services until his death, was not a singular one. On the Holy
Mountain there were quite a few elders who lived in this way for the sake of
their conscience. Although without the desired echo needed to bring about a
synodal and decisive condemnation, at least there exists a confession that
keeps Orthodoxy alive within the Church.
Romanian source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.