Hieromonk Lavrentie | June 29, 2026
Starting from a text written by
His Grace [Bishop] Petru Pruteanu [of Caffa] to mark 10 years since the meeting
of the Council of Crete, [1] I insist on an important aspect: the branch theory
in the Cretan documents is not ambiguous and unclear, but explicit. In fact, we
do not have an aquarium with fish of all kinds, good and bad, as has been
written before, but only something harmful.
His Grace Petru’s observations
are very pertinent on one point, namely that the use of Canon 15 is not
permitted for weak, confused, or contradictory dogmatic texts. However, I would
be curious which passages from the document on Ecumenism “will remain valuable.”
I personally have looked for ideas, not merely expressions, that would be
purely Orthodox, and I have not found any.
For a correct evaluation, Ecumenism
and the branch theory in all its variations should first be defined
dogmatically. The demarcation does not consist in affirming that the Orthodox
Church is the one, holy Church, but that she is the only one, exclusively. Or,
put differently: heresies are outside the Church of Christ, not merely outside
Orthodoxy. And one more aspect: the unity of the Church is not lost or affected
by the existence of heresies.
Furthermore, a text is confused
if it lacks clear expressions or if it contains contradictions. However, the
document from Crete is explicit in an ecumenist direction and does not contain
Orthodox affirmations of a nature to counterbalance the dogmatic errors in
question.
Concretely, the idea of restoring
the unity of the Church implies its loss through the division produced by
heresies and its restoration through union with them. This perspective is
profoundly un-Orthodox, because heresies affected the unity of the Church as
long as they were manifesting themselves within her, but it was restored when
they broke away from her. Therefore, ecclesial unity is restored by the
condemnation of heresies and the removal of discord from within, not by
bringing the heretics back. Not even a return through real repentance restores
the unity of the Church, because it is not an extensive, territorial unity, but
a qualitative one; it proceeds from a healthy bond with Christ. Thus the return
of heretics only extends the unity, it does not restore it. As Saint Ignatius
the God-bearer writes, heretics return to the unity of the Church, which
already exists; they are incorporated into it and enjoy it or have a share in
it.
Although the first paragraph of
the document on Ecumenism begins with the affirmation that seems to be a denial
of the branch theory, namely that the Orthodox Church is, being, the one
Church, this definition is incomplete. If the specification had been added that
she alone, or exclusively, or only she is the one Church, then we would have
had a clear denial of the branch theory, that is, of the compartmentalization
of the Church of Christ. However, the very continuation of paragraph 1
indicates the idea that the Orthodox Church, “in her profound self-awareness,”
is part of the endeavor to promote Christian unity. Since self-consciousness is
her dogmatic identity, being placed in such a process shows that she does not
consider herself the only Church, but is part of a conglomerate of “Churches”
that seek the lost unity among themselves. Therefore, we are speaking precisely
about the branch theory. That is, Orthodoxy is the one Church, but it does not
exclude the fact that other confessions too are the one Church, or at least
part of her. On the contrary, Orthodox dogmatics affirms that heresies are not
part of the body of the Church and, consequently, we cannot cooperate at the
dogmatic level with these foreign formations toward the realization of unity.
We can help them from outside to return, to rediscover the Church, but we do
not cooperate with them in something that pertains to us. It would be absurd
for Orthodoxy to work shoulder to shoulder with the enemies of the faith for
the realization of Christian unity, that is, of herself.
I also mention here a heretical
passage, cited from the Toronto Statement: “The WCC brings the Churches into
living contact with one another in order to produce study and discussion
concerning the unity of the Church.” It follows from this that there exists a
Church which includes other Churches that desire to be reconciled with one
another, to arrive at unity. Therefore, the Church of Christ is comprehensive
and contains different Churches that have separated and that desire to return
to unity. This perspective contradicts the Orthodox dogma that heresies have
separated from the Church of Christ and are no longer within her, but that
Orthodoxy alone has preserved this identity intact.
There is a confused use of the
term “Church” for heretics in paragraph 6, but this does not change the
heretical character of the text. Unfortunately, most of the discussions have
focused on this appellation, ignoring the true dogmatic errors in the text.
Even so, His Eminence Ierotheos showed, in his Memorandum to the Greek Synod,
[2] that the first sentence of that paragraph has a heretical character, not
the rest, which is only problematic.
It is painful that such
relativizing approaches gain traction and keep the faithful in confusion even
after 10 years. The position of the Holy Mountain is presented as a firm
criticism, whereas it was nothing but an evasion of the issue in relation to the
Council of Crete. [3] Completely laughable, unfortunately.
Perhaps some critics have not
managed to convincingly expose the deviations of the Council, but to affirm
that there are only weak or criticizable formulations is lamentable when we are
speaking about the faith, which must be firm and clear.
Last but not least, the
consequences of adopting Ecumenism are not insignificant. Participation in the
World Council of Churches, common prayers, the relativization of the right
faith, and the acceptance of mixed marriages are thereby justified. And all of
these affect dogmatic life. Even if Patriarch Daniel or others affirm that
dogmas were not discussed, this is as if we were to say, for example, that we
are not performing medical interventions on someone, but are merely giving him
some pills or treatments outside the hospital. Even if there were no
discussions within doctrinal frameworks solemnly assumed as such, the texts
address dogmatic issues.
It is a pity that there is no
real acknowledgment of reality. If there is confusion and good mixed with evil,
I am curious what that good from Crete would be. The Church of Councils at the
declarative level? Well, where are the condemnations of heretics at the synodal
level when we commit ourselves to the ecumenical movement? It is evident that
we recognize the Councils only in order to trample them underfoot.
I do not want to contest the
hierarchy and administration of the Church, but I realize that they set Christ
aside in order to establish themselves. Even somewhat more distinguished
bishops, such as Petru Pruteanu, prove to be simple functionaries who do not
have the courage to acknowledge a reality, but only criticize in the same
diplomatic manner what was ratified in Crete, offering other solutions, but
still relative ones.
1. https://www.teologie.net/2026/06/26/eclesiologie-zece-ani-creta/
[English text:
https://www.parembasis.gr/index.php/holy-great-council-menu/4705-ni-intervention-hierarchy-cog-nov-2016]
Romanian
source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.