Hieromonk Lavrentie (Carp) | March 2, 2021
It is fundamental that there be
as well-defined and powerful a reaction as possible against Ecumenism, which is
spreading and has gained strength especially through the synodal validation at
Crete (2016). Nevertheless, vigilance and care are needed that it be in a good
and edifying spirit, one that seeks the restoration and consolidation of the
much-tormented unity of the Church.
There is a danger of slipping
into another extreme, that of rigorism of a zealotist–Old-Calendarist nature
and even provenance. I am referring to the idea of participation in, or
defilement through, heresy by the commemoration of a heretical hierarch who has
not, however, been officially condemned. This concept is developed more broadly
in the second part of the book The Teaching of the Ecumenical Councils on
Defilement through Heresy and the Validity of the Holy Mysteries, [original
Greek title: “The Concept of Defilement of the Orthodox from Ecclesiastical
Communion with Uncondemned Heretics”], written by a Greek “hieromonk,” Eugenios,
and translated into Romanian by Fr. Ciprian Staicu, and I will focus on
analyzing the arguments found in its lines. Even though I will not dwell on all
aspects, so that the article does not become tiresomely long, nevertheless most
of the points will be touched upon.
The Athonite group
with a zealotist-schismatic influence and roots
First of all, it must be known
that the Greek author is a monk ordained priest among the Old-Calendarists, but
who left that group. He was also in Romania, and at the opening of the
conference held at Târgu Frumos in 2019, certain clarifications were made
regarding his situation.
(See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9faubW1mm8)
It is very good that he abandoned
the Old-Calendarist structure of which he had been part, yet it should be kept
in mind that he passed through them, because it is possible that he preserved
from there precisely the theory of defilement through heresy and of the obligation
to cease the commemoration of a bishop who falls into a dogmatic error, but is not
yet deposed. This suspicion is strengthened by the fact that the material in
the book was documented over the course of 10 years, thus before the Council of
Crete. The first concern was to show the validity of the Mysteries, as a
counteraction to the zealotists, and then the so-called necessity of walling
off.
As is very well known, there are
several Fathers who have ceased commemoration from the Holy Mountain who fall
along the same line, among whom [Fr.] Savvas Lavriotis is the best known in
Romania. I was impressed by him and in general by all of these men because they
are studious and have researched the issue of Ecumenism and of the cessation of
commemoration according to patristic texts. Unfortunately, I have also observed
glaring errors, which betray a very superficial attitude. I give here the
example of an elder from the Paterikon who was supposedly in danger of
losing his salvation because he participated in services where a heretical
hierarch was commemorated.
(See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UpkWUJHge4&t=1020s)
There are major differences
between the account given by Monk Savvas and the text in question: the monk was
not on his deathbed, an angel did not appear to him in order to warn him, but
to show him that he was losing his soul because he was going to the heretics;
it was not a question of some uncondemned dogmatic error, nor of the
commemoration of the hierarch, but of belonging to the Orthodox Church or to
the Monophysites. Therefore, the use of that incident is altogether
unfortunate, because it has no connection with the present situation of
Ecumenism. And the conclusion is that there exists an insincere tendency to
adapt the patristic testimonies to one’s own convictions instead of submitting
one’s own mind to that of the Fathers.
However, it should be kept in
mind that the Athonite fathers and the group connected with them are making
efforts to understand correctly the issue of the cessation of commemoration;
they have not remained in the Old-Calendarist delusion and are genuinely
interested in patristic teaching. By contrast, will they have the strength to
carry this undertaking through to the end and correctly, renouncing personal
ambitions?
The contradiction
between the validity of the Mysteries and defilement through heresy
Father Eugenios’ book deals with
two major subjects: the validity of the Mysteries of clerics until their
deposition and, on the other hand, defilement through communion with
uncondemned heretics. The analysis made is based especially on the testimony of
seven Ecumenical Councils (considered to be 9 in total), the first and the
second not being taken into account because their minutes have not been
preserved. Only the Fifth Ecumenical Council is taken as testimony for
participation in heresy, and the remaining 6 in order to demonstrate the
validity of the Mysteries.
So detailed is the proof that [unjudged]
heretics were authentic bishops of the Church and that even their ordinations
were recognized, that there is almost no need for any argument on my part to
show the groundlessness of the theory of defilement through heresy, that is, of
the communicating-vessels theory upheld in the second part. Why? Because at the
Councils, not only were the heretics Nestorius, Dioscorus, Macarius, and others
spoken of as valid hierarchs, but also as “co-ministers.” That is, they were
not merely clerics of the Church, but there existed communion with them. Only
after their deposition was concelebration with them rejected. I do not know how
I could explain this contradiction in the book except that the appellation “co-minister”
was taken only as an indication of rank, and not also of liturgical communion,
which is incomprehensible even so.
Eugenios himself writes about the
letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria before the convening of the Third Ecumenical
Council: “St. Celestine, Pope of Rome, is called co-minister; therefore, to the
same extent that it refers literally to Pope Celestine, it also refers just as
literally to Nestorius” (p. 18). A little further down he adds: “we mention
that until the sending of the third epistle to Patriarch Nestorius, Saint Cyril
was in communion with him” (p. 21). Then even the members of the council call
him “most pious,” “most honorable,” “most honored by God” (p. 26) until his
deposition from his rank. Therefore, it is very clear that he was not only a
bishop, but also in communion with the Church, because he was called by Saint
Cyril “co-minister” and by the Council with the above appellations, which are
fitting only for someone who is in ecclesiastical communion.
The Fourth Ecumenical Council at
Chalcedon proceeds in the same way with Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria, whom
it does not call a “pseudo-bishop,” but “bishop beloved of God.” Moreover, in
the summons addressed to him to appear in person, it is written: “…knowing that
your presence is being made without suspicion (he is granted the presumption of
innocence)” (p. 43). Thus, it is evident that communion existed; otherwise, he
could not have been summoned to the Council as a fellow-brother.
Passing over the similar case of
Patriarch Macarius of Antioch at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at the following
Council, the Seventh, the recognition of the priesthood and ordinations of
uncondemned heretics is decreed in a general manner after an extensive debate.
The second canon of St. Athanasius is brought into discussion, from which it
follows that uncondemned heretics have sacerdotal grace, and the letter of St.
Basil the Great to the Nicopolitans, from which it is clear that he did not
recognize the ordinations of those condemned and broken off from the Church, yet
did not reject those who remained within her bounds. In the end, the Council
receives the 11 Iconoclast bishops (who were repenting of their delusion) as a
gesture representing the Church’s attitude from all time. Also interesting is
the clarification that their reception does not amount to an entrance back into
the clergy, but to a passing from a mistaken party into the right-glorifying
one, both being within the canonical boundaries, but in a conflict that
absolutely had to be resolved. In the author’s words, “those returned from
among the Iconomachs are to unite with the other part of the Church, that of
the iconophiles” (pp. 107-108). “Take note, through this there are not two
churches, for the Church is one, yet the flocks come to be two; they are in
fact two Local Churches, at a distance from one another” (p. 112).
From these testimonies it is
clear that communion with the heretics existed until the moment of their
synodal condemnation.
The communion
between the Orthodox and the Iconomachs
Although on p. 117 it is said
that “the Orthodox had no communion whatsoever with the Iconomachs (who did not
venerate the icons),” nevertheless the reality seems to have been otherwise. It
is described succinctly even in the preceding pages (75), where there is
mention of the actions of certain bishops to prevent the convening of a Council
in 786 that would proclaim the right faith, that is, the veneration of icons.
These began to hold, as is described in the Acts of the Seventh Council,
illicit assemblies (parasynagogues). But those who were doing this drew back at
the threats of Patriarch Tarasios that he would depose them for this deed. That
is, he threatened them not for heresy, but for schism, more precisely for an
illicit separatist grouping. Therefore, before these oppositions, they were
bishops in communion with the Orthodox Patriarch appointed by the empress who
wanted to restore right-glorification in the Church. There is almost no need to
appeal to other sources to confirm this thing.
A somewhat similar assertion
refers to the hesychasts led by St. Gregory Palamas, namely that they
supposedly did not have communion with the Barlaamites (p. 136). Nevertheless,
although there was a rupture of communion there, it was not initiated by the
Orthodox, but by Patriarch Kalekas and subsequently by other bishops who were
adherents of the heresy. Because this subject has already been treated in
detail, I will not develop it here.
[English translation
here: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/07/the-struggles-of-saint-gregory-palamas.html]
The defilement of
the Mysteries through heresy
Two statements are cited from the
Acts of the Ecumenical Councils from which it would follow that the Holy
Mysteries are defiled by heretical ministers. One comes from the letter/Typos
of Emperor Justinian, who writes that, by the request that Pope Vigilius be
removed from the diptychs, he proves his care for the Church: “…that you may
learn how much care the most peace-loving emperor has for the union of the Holy
Churches and for the purity of the Holy Mysteries” (p. 168). This passage is
understood through another, from the same work: “and we forbid all those who
attempt to divide the catholic Church of God, whether through the teaching of
Nestorius, who is bereft of the rein of the mind, or through the absurd
tradition of Eutyches, or through the blasphemy of Severus and of those who
think these things, or through those who wanted to bring disturbances to the
Most Holy Churches and to say something about the faith; but we decree that
each of these be guided with quietness and not be received to approach or dare
to defile Holy Communion and give it to them…” (pp. 172-173). The idea is clear
that the Mysteries are defiled by the fact that they are given to some who have
a heretical mind, who do not deserve to approach them, it being known that
right faith is an indispensable condition. In addition, the conclusion that
uncondemned heretics cause defilement (anyone who preaches some heresy) is
unfounded and forced; on the contrary, the text refers to condemned heresies,
such as those of Nestorius, Eutyches, Severus, and others from the past (“those
who wanted to bring disturbances”), not from the present or future.
Also, from the Acts of the Fifth
Ecumenical Council a similar fragment is taken: “we decree that he (Anthimus)
be alien to every clerical dignity and function…, for light has no
participation with darkness, and thus no defilement is any longer brought upon
the Holy Liturgies by men who do not serve confessing Christ, the true God” (p.
173). It is a matter of incompatibility between the mistaken faith of the
minister and the purity of the Mysteries of the Church. Anyone who has deluded
beliefs is self-condemned at the judgment of God, but he does not automatically
defile those in the Church. He may commune, but he does so wrongly, unto his
own condemnation, which is called defilement of the service.
The idea of the defilement of the
Mysteries, but even of the Church, is carried further with other patristic
quotations. First of all, the Third Ecumenical Council excommunicated Nestorius
“so that the churches might be cleansed of such defilement” (p. 174). Likewise,
St. Basil the Great writes that “the holy things have been defiled; those among
the people who are sound take refuge in their homes” (p. 174). But with respect
to these, it must be noted that it is a matter of heretics upon whom a condemnation
had been pronounced, as is clear in the case of Nestorius, and as is known
about the Arians, that they had been synodally deposed several times, such as
in the year 359, before the writing of Saint Basil. Even in the first part of
the material, it was written that at that time the Arians had already been
excommunicated, and therefore this inconsistency with his own arguments, which
can be observed in the book translated by Fr. Staicu, is very curious.
The distortion, through faulty
translation and interpretation, of a quotation from St. Sophronius of Jerusalem
is striking. Although, at least in the Romanian rendering made by Fr. Staicu,
the expression “unclean clerics, yet still uncondemned” appears, the meaning of
the original term is that of “being under a curse.” Moreover, the entire
quotation is a paraphrase from the Apostolic Constitutions, where the
reference to unbelievers outside the Church is much clearer.
The quotation given from St.
Joseph of Constantinople omits to say that it is a matter of union with the
Latins at the Council of Lyon (1274), something even more clearly eliminated
from the passage from Meletios Galisiotes, from which precisely the verse in
which it is said that communion with the Italians [i.e., Latins] is condemnable
is skipped. Obviously, it is a matter of union with excommunicated heretics,
not with some who had not yet received a synodal condemnation.
Union with
condemned heretics means automatic excommunication
As if precisely in order to
forestall the reproach that there is a major difference between a cleric who
preaches a new heresy and one who has united with heretical ecclesiastical
structures, a straw-man demonstration is constructed (on p. 182), as though it
were the same thing. It is evident that whoever goes over to the Catholics,
Protestants, or other heretics automatically loses his status as Orthodox and,
if applicable, his clerical rank.
Union with the Catholics, as was
attempted at Lyon or Ferrara-Florence, was in terms of betrayal of the faith;
it was essentially a capitulation to Rome. Even if it had been done on the
basis of a middle faith, between the Orthodox and the Latins, a new structure
would have resulted, different from the Orthodox Church, and again it is
natural that those who would do this should automatically lose their status.
Only a union of the Catholics, for example, with the Orthodox would be
praiseworthy and would not have dire implications. Therefore, St. Mark of
Ephesus or other confessors from the time of the two unions considered the
Latin-minded to be automatically heretics and deemed it impermissible to be in
communion with such people.
The union with the Catholics, as
attempted at Lyon and Ferrara-Florence, amounted to a betrayal of the faith; it
was essentially a capitulation to Rome. Even if it had been carried out on the
basis of some compromise confession between the Orthodox and the Latins, the
result would have been a new structure, distinct from the Orthodox Church; and
it would still be natural for those responsible to lose their status
automatically. Only a reunion of the Catholics, for example, with the Orthodox
would be praiseworthy and would not have disastrous implications. Therefore,
St. Mark of Ephesus or other confessors from the time of the two unions
automatically considered the Latin-minded heretics and intolerable to be in
communion with such people.
The entire demonstration
attempted on the basis of the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council is
irrelevant, because those do not speak of an ecclesiastical structure already
condemned, but one only in the process of formation. Precisely for this reason no
Ecumenical Council gave provisions as to how those returning from the heresy
under their debate were to be received. For example, the First Council did not
regulate the reception of the Arians, but only condemned Arianism. Likewise,
the Third Council with the Nestorians, the Fourth Council with the
Monophysites, the Sixth Council with the Monothelites, and the Seventh Council
with the Iconoclasts, or other Councils with the Docetists, Manichaeans,
Paulicians, and so on.
The difference
between a condemned heresy and one not yet condemned
In the history of the Church,
there are also cases in which a heresy condemned synodally gains strength again
and even comes to dominate. This is the case with Arianism, Monophysitism, and Iconoclasm.
When their defeat was reached, the Councils convened, in order to restore
order, prescribed Chrismation for those who were returning from such heresies.
The Second Ecumenical Council and the Council of the year 842, [1] which
composed the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, received Arians and, respectively, Iconoclasts
through Chrismation because there was a prior express condemnation and they had
formed separate groups.
As I have said before, the Arians
were synodally excommunicated and had a parallel existence alongside the
Orthodox at least from the year 343, from the Council of Sardica. In the case
of the second Iconoclast period, there was not, as far as I know, an express
condemnation of the heretics, but the delusion encompassed more the area of
Constantinople, and not also Rome, Jerusalem, and Antioch, for example. In
addition, the Orthodox were persecuted and exiled if they did not agree to
repudiate the holy icons. Thus, there existed a sort of separate grouping
concentrated in the capital of the empire, with many betraying clerics at its
head, together with the Patriarch. In this context, there were many martyrs and
confessors, especially among the monks. Some of these were the “graptoi/branded”
brothers, Theophanes and Theodore. After being subjected to various torments,
they were pressured to make certain concessions, such as declaring that they
had never venerated the holy icons, or receiving Communion just once with the
Iconoclasts. Under the conditions in which a Robber Council had been convened
in 815 and a heretical Patriarch chosen, and the majority of the Orthodox had
left the capital or were in open opposition to the deluded imperial line, it is
difficult to say how the refusal to be in communion with the Iconoclasts should
be classified. Was it a simple reaction of generalized confession or a
necessity? However things may stand, the attitude of these confessors cannot
give us a categorical indication.
However, here it is worth
developing an important subject: what the condemnation of a heresy means and
what implications it has. Although dogmatic deviations are related to one
another, this does not mean that all are implicitly condemned, as is suggested
in the book we are analyzing. For example, if Nestorianism is another form of
Apollinarianism (a teaching rejected at the Second Ecumenical Council, which
said that Christ was not fully man, but that His divinity took the place of the
mind or soul), or if Monothelitism constitutes a nuance of Monophysitism, this
does not mean that they were previously condemned heresies, but that they
required synodal examination and official repudiation. Likewise in our days,
although Ecumenism represents a resurrection of all heresies, it has not yet
been condemned, because it represents a strictly ecclesiological deviation in
the formula signed at the Council of Crete. Thus it comes about that
Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism were uncondemned deviations until
their anathematization at the Third, Fourth, and Sixth Councils. By contrast, Iconoclasm
in the second phase, when the branded brothers confessed, had already been
condemned. Even so, details are not very clearly known as to whether
depositions were pronounced nominally upon its promoters or whether these broke
away from the rest of the Orthodox Patriarchates. Or it is very probable that
the majority of the confessors preferred not to enter into communion with the Iconoclasts.
What is certain is that at the Council of 842, which again restored the icons,
the issue raised was not that of communion, but of imposing a penance upon the
apostates, the adherents of the Iconomach heresy.
The Fifth
Ecumenical Council and the receiving of the Mysteries from priests with an
Orthodox mind
In a letter sent by Emperor
Justinian to the Council, it is affirmed that only approaching the Holy
Mysteries with a pure and right mind gives us the hope of salvation, and
receiving them from “priests who glorify God in an Orthodox manner” (p. 187).
Moreover, the autocrat asks that Pope Vigilius be removed from the diptychs
because he is of one mind with Nestorius and Theodore (of Mopsuestia), “because
we will not be able to accept receiving Holy Communion either from him or from
another who would not condemn this heresy” (p. 190). And indeed, the pope was
deposed from his rank, although he was not exactly a heretic, but simply did
not want to reject the writings under discussion before the Council, but on his
own. In less than half a year, after he accepted the conditions, the pope was
recognized and allowed to return to Rome from Constantinople, where he was
detained.
What those who give these
quotations as testimony of defilement through heresy do not observe is the fact
that a synodal condemnation is required, not a simple recognition of
participation in heresy. Precisely for this reason the Council had been convened,
in order to resolve this problem, because “only a synodal decision and, of
course, with ecumenical authority (that is, a great council) can resolve the
situation” (p. 155). In other words, the debates within the synodal sessions
cannot be placed on the same level as other current situations. To glorify God
in an Orthodox manner does not depend on the examination of the minister’s
mind, but on the official faith that he confesses.
Even from a quotation from St.
John of Damascus, it follows that liturgical communion is realized not through
the personal faith of each person, but through that of the Church. The Saint
writes: “It is called communion (the Eucharist) and is truly so because through
it He unites us with Christ and makes us… be in communion and unites us with
one another, each with the other, through it” (p. 196). Therefore, what unites
us is not the faith of any one of us, but Christ and the manner in which each
of us approaches Him. The more closely we cleave to Him, the more closely we
are in communion also with one another. Therefore, we do not commune of the
faith of others, as is erroneously asserted on p. 197, but of the Body of the
Lord through the faith of the Church and our own faith, that is, through the
official Orthodox confession and through our mind being as pure as possible.
Communion with one
who is excommunicated is forbidden
The most astonishing distortion
of a patristic and canonical principle is that the prohibition against entering
into communion with one who is excommunicated (Apostolic Canon 10 and Canon 2
of Antioch) does not refer to the one “who has been placed by the Church
outside communion” (p. 206), but to anyone who has a heretical mind, even if he
has not been excommunicated. This comes into an acknowledged contradiction with
“Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, who followed the canonists before him” (p.
207).
The arguments brought from the
lives and writings of certain Saints are pointless to discuss, because they
refer precisely to communion with condemned heretics, such as especially the
Italians [i.e., Latins] and the Arians. St. Athanasius the Great, Athanasius
and Joseph, Patriarchs of Constantinople, and all those cited refer to
heterodox who have been removed from communion. A great confusion persists from
the fact that the excommunication of the Arians as early as the time of St.
Athanasius, and especially of St. Basil the Great, is not admitted.
Precisely because of the
prohibition against having participation with those removed from communion, the
Church organized herself in such a way that today we can say: “It would be
absurd for a priest, knowingly and intentionally, to commune with a deposed
cleric or with an excommunicated layman” (p. 221), or: “Is there the
possibility that they (monks and laymen) be given Communion by a condemned
cleric or by a heretic from outside the Church? Certainly not,” and: “Is there
the possibility that they (the clerics) give Communion to a layman condemned as
a heretic or to an unbaptized man? Of course, not” (p. 197). But, even so, such
deviations appear also in our days, when Orthodox clerics voluntarily pray with
heretics, when some faithful receive communion among the Catholics, or when
some priests administer the Holy Mysteries to the heterodox. Therefore, we can
say only in principle that there is no [justifiable] way such deeds can happen.
In any case, it would be an illogical conclusion that, in fact, the canonical
norms refer to the refusal of communion with one who has even only heretical
thoughts, without having been excommunicated by the Church. If it were so,
grave abuses and arbitrary acts would be reached, if each person were to
interpret who and how Orthodox such-and-such bishop or priest is. Precisely for
this reason a clear and legitimate order was imposed, so that there might be
sound principles, that they might be put into practice officially, and that it
not be violated by anyone according to personal interpretations.
Misinterpreted
economies
A series of 7 economies made by
the Holy Fathers are brought into discussion. A few mentions must be made
regarding these:
1. No proof is presented that the
Churches of Rome and Alexandria “around the date of December 10, 430, ceased
the commemoration of the uncondemned cleric Nestorius” (p. 265) until the
convening of the Council of 431. The interpretation that the summons was put
into practice at the ecumenical synodal assembly at Ephesus is more plausible.
2. The assertion that St. Maximus
the Confessor “realized the existence of the heresy (of Monothelitism) when it
was preached openly, in the Ekthesis of Sergius, from the year 638, and
from then on he broke ecclesiastical communion” (p. 291) is contradicted by
other testimonies. For example, in the book The Guardians of Orthodoxy,
it is said that two voices arose in Alexandria against the union on
Monoenergist and Monothelite grounds in 630: Saints Sophronius and Maximus, who
“strongly opposed any concessions.” [2] This is without even bringing into
discussion the fact that St. Sophronius became Patriarch of Jerusalem in 634
and was in communion with the other Primates until his death in 638.
3. The history of the rupture
between Rome and the East is troubled and generally connected with the Filioque
heresy. Of course, there was an economy made toward the Franks in the time of
Saint Photios, but not toward the pope, who was Orthodox. The schism occurred
when the popes began to include the Filioque dogma in the letters of
commendation at their enthronement. But the worsening of relations between the
Westerners and the Byzantines also contributed to this distancing and cessation
of commemoration. Although a measured attitude was attempted, the Orthodox
never made concessions in matters of faith. Even later, they called the
anathematization of 1054 only a schism in order not to worsen relations with
the Westerners, but they considered it a full-fledged heresy. In any case, a
clear economy was that of not excommunicating the Franks already at the Photian
Council (the Ninth Ecumenical) of the year 879, although this would have been
required. The assertion that the Patriarchs and their Synods “had the right to
apply economy for the removal of this defilement (of heresy)” (p. 345) is
wrongly understood. Economy cannot be applied at the dogmatic level. If there
existed doctrinal defilement through communion, then condescension could not be
made. But this is why an exception can be made, as was done with the Franks,
because there is no direct contamination with heresy in the middle.
Conclusions
The deeds and teachings of the
Holy Fathers must be read with great attention and understood in their spirit,
starting from the clear things, by which the less clear things also are to be
interpreted, without being distorted by our own convictions. A humble
disposition and one of sincere inquiry excludes every manifestly erroneous
explanation, but also the slipping into subtle errors, difficult to perceive.
In this way an extremist attitude, foreign to the Spirit of God, is avoided.
There are complex ecclesiastical
situations, which can generate mistaken impressions if they are not examined
sincerely. But there also appear glaring contradictions with the canonical
norms, such as the distortion of the prohibition of communion with those
excommunicated. In order to make a general picture, the following principles
must be kept in view:
– the cessation of communion with
uncondemned heretics is a right and a praiseworthy attitude, but not
obligatory;
– economy can be exercised and a
dogmatic deviation temporarily permitted only at the level of ecclesiastical
communion, precisely because it does not presuppose the adoption of doctrinal
errors;
– deluded teachings must be
condemned together with those who spread them, but by Councils. It is not
normal that they exist in the Church, but they are rejected through correct
procedures and debates in order to preserve the right faith unaltered, and not
through arbitrary attitudes;
– after a group has been
condemned on the grounds of heresy or schism, communion with it represents an
automatic fall outside the Church, as was the case with the Latin-minded
unionists. As a remark, perhaps this is why the Ecumenical Patriarchate did not
simply recognize the Ukrainian schismatics, but formed a new structure, so as
not to come automatically under anathema;
– communion in the Church is made
on the basis of her official faith, not on that of the participants in the
service;
– the cessation of commemoration
does not represent a condemnation, but a warning concerning the erroneous faith
of a hierarch.
Although I am aware that it is
hard for those who have ceased commemoration, who have become inflamed by an
uncontrolled zeal to oppose the hierarchs who signed at Crete, to recover
themselves, nevertheless I hope that they will at least have the patience to
revise their attitude. I believe that God can give a good spirit in the heart
of those who examine, with an anxious conscience, the danger of Ecumenism, but
also of zealotism, and that this article may be an invitation to deepen and
even revise the principles that ought to stand at the foundation of the
cessation of commemoration, or perhaps even to a broader and clarifying debate.
Unfortunately, it is not only
Monk Savvas and those around him who hold this theory of communicating vessels.
Finally, the greatest danger
comes from Ecumenism and from betrayals of the faith, but attention is needed
in order to form a useful counterweight in a right-glorifying spirit and
understanding.
[1] See George Peter Bithos, Saint Methodios of
Constantinople. A Study on His Life and Writings, trans. Dragoș Dâscă,
Doxologia Publishing House, 2015, pp. 129-133.
[2] Vasilios Papadakis, The Guardians of Orthodoxy,
Egumenița ed., 2015, p. 212.
Romanian source:
https://theodosie.ro/2021/03/02/intinarea-prin-erezie-o-conceptie-zelotist-schismatica/
