Hieromonk Lavrentie | August 20, 2026
Two videos produced on the
[Romanian] Way to Salvation channel give the impression of
scrupulousness and rigor in refuting the practice of ceasing the commemoration
of one’s hierarch, especially the one that responds to another video by Silviu Chirilă. The
citation of canons and patristic writings, together with their careful
presentation and commentary, led even me to believe that they were largely
correct in what they maintained. However, on watching them a second time more
critically, I noticed that what predominates are distortions, falsehoods,
superficial gloss—in a word: emotional manipulation through conveniently
arranged arguments.
I mention from the outset that
there are also some pertinent points made, but this should not lead to a
validation of the whole. One truth is that we cannot regard Canon 4 of the
Third Ecumenical Council as the most relevant canon for ceasing communion with
condemned heretics. However, the further conclusion that such cessation is not
obligatory is false, because there are other canons to this effect, such as
Apostolic Canon 10, which explicitly forbids communion with those who have been
excommunicated.
Although the first video struck
me as propaganda and as a deliberate provocation, the statements in the second
nevertheless prompted me to respond to the following commitments: that manifest
errors would be retracted and that there is openness to serious criticism.
Proceeding from the premise that these materials were produced not in pursuit
of views, but out of certain firm and honest convictions, I decided that it was
worthwhile to compose this response.
I will focus on two distinct
levels: first, an elaboration of two central ideas, and then a brief inventory
of the minor errors that make up the underlying supporting framework. The two
main points are these: there is a dogma that was suppressed at the Synod of
Crete, and it is consistently upheld. With these in mind, the other detailed
criticisms that follow are easier to understand.
Which dogma was suppressed?
Although posed as a rhetorical
question, the answer concerning the heresy signed at Crete is readily available
and clear: the exclusive identification of the Orthodox Church with the one
Church of Christ. This idea can be expressed in several ways, including the
statement that outside Orthodoxy there is no salvation. Thus, the emphasis
falls on the fact that Orthodoxy alone constitutes the Church, with the
consequence that heresies are outside it and that there are no other
“Churches.” Moreover, from this follows the impossibility of common prayer and
of proclaiming unity as the goal of ecumenical dialogue.
As with all heresies, the
distinction between Ecumenism and the right faith lies in the details.
Falsehood has always stood close to the truth, but it is exposed by certain
particular points. This is why precision of expression is necessary in order to
exclude deception. It is much the same as in the past, when it was necessary to
say that Christ is in two natures, not merely from two natures;
that these are united unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, and inseparably;
or that grace is apprehended as uncreated, and so forth.
Thus, nowhere in the texts
adopted at the “Great” Synod does there appear the qualification that only the
Orthodox Church is the one Church, while the heresies are outside the latter.
Indeed, the first paragraph
affirms that the Orthodox Church is the one Church, but it does not exclude the
possibility that the heterodox may also be part of it. Moreover, the ecumenist
perspective maintains that some “Churches” regard themselves as faithful
continuations of the apostolic Church, while others consider themselves
incomplete, yet still part of it. The branch theory, which holds that the
Church is internally divided into several traditions and structures, is more
complex and accepts not only fragmentation, but also differing degrees of
ecclesial authenticity.
From this perspective, the
statement in the first paragraph is a more elaborate paraphrase of the Catholic
formula from the Second Vatican Council. There, the papists wrote that “the
Church of the Creed … subsists in the Catholic Church …, although many elements
of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible structure” (Lumen
gentium, I, 8). Set side by side, the first idea—that the Church subsists
in the Catholic Church—is expressed among the Orthodox by the formulation that
the Orthodox Church is (being) the one Church. In addition, the fact that the
heterodox are also part of the Church is expressed in one way by the Catholics,
while at Crete it was presented through the concept of participating from a
principal position in the promotion of Christian unity on the basis of dogmatic
consciousness: “firmly believes, in her profound ecclesial self-consciousness,
that she occupies a principal place in the matter of promoting Christian
unity.” Thus, the emphasis falls, not only grammatically but also logically, on
unity with heretics, not on the exclusivity of Orthodoxy. Reformulated, the
idea would sound as follows: We are the Church of Christ, but this means
nothing more than that we hold a principal place in cooperating with heretics
for the achievement of the unity of the Church that has been damaged by the
dissensions among us.
Moreover, the idea that the one
Church is not limited solely to the Orthodox Church, but comprises several
so-called Churches, is also found in the quotation from the Toronto
Statement: the WCC brings together “the Churches into a living relationship
with one another and to promote the study and discussion of questions
concerning the unity of the Church.” Thus, Orthodoxy is one of the many
“Churches” that cooperate and deliberate for the realization of the unity of
the Church of Christ. It is understood that all of them are part of that
Church, but that they are not in communion and lack unity with one another.
Consequently, this idea directly contradicts the fact that Orthodoxy alone is
the Church of Christ and that the heterodox are outside it.
There are also other formulations
and conceptions, which I have set forth briefly in an article on the subject
entitled The Flagrant Errors of the Synod of Crete.
In conclusion, Ecumenism in the
form signed at Crete suppresses the very dogma in the Orthodox Creed concerning
the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. According to patristic
interpretations, this expression affirms both the four attributes of the Church
and the fact that heretics are outside her. Ecumenism, however, denies both of
these things.
There Has Been No Departure
Thus Far from the Line Adopted at Crete
Besides the formulations signed
at Crete, there has been no other position taken by the Romanian hierarchy that
would correct this ecumenist stance. On the contrary, all the official
communiqués and decisions of the Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church have
favored the unreserved acceptance of the documents, which they characterize as
beyond reproach and as containing no innovations; indeed, they maintain that a
lucid Ecumenism would be beneficial and compatible with Orthodoxy.
Indeed, His Eminence Teofan
responded publicly to the demands of those who subsequently ceased
commemoration in August 2016 and rejected the branch theory, but he did not
repudiate his signature at Crete, and in October his position was recorded in
the decision of the autumn Synod in Bucharest.
From what he told me personally,
he considers that the branch theory is not found in the Cretan documents,
although he was unable to point to clear passages that would invalidate it. The
same can be said of the Romanian hierarchy, if we take into account the booklet
published in August 2017. It states that the heterodox separated themselves
from the one Church of Christ (§34). On the other hand, it falsely deduces the
exclusion of the existence of other “Churches” as parts of the one, holy Church
merely from the formulation that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy Church.
As I wrote above, without specifying that she alone is the Church, the
ecumenist branch theory is not denied. This is because the ecumenist
perspective says that various “Churches” are and constitute the Church of
Christ, identifying themselves wholly or partially with her.
Thus, these contradictory
statements do not resolve the controversy. As long as there are common prayers,
participation in the WCC and in other bodies of ecumenical dialogue, and, above
all, as long as the signature at Crete remains without reservation, any other
declarations lack the force to overturn the corrupted dogma endorsed synodally.
In other words, the various declarations merely show either that they do not
know what they signed, or that they are simply deceiving the faithful in order
to quiet the criticisms directed against them while preserving intact their
adherence to the Cretan line. By this they condemn themselves, like the
Monothelites in the time of St. Maximus the Confessor, who by the decree known
as the Typos forbade any discussion of one or two operations or wills.
Just as at that time the trivialization of the right faith brought about
condemnation at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so also today it may be said that
affirming both the Orthodox ecclesiological dogma through correct formulations
and the ecumenist one through the promotion of the Synod of Crete constitutes
an unacceptable repudiation and confusion of the right faith.
In summary, to this day, the
position of our hierarchy, without any praiseworthy dissent, has been to uphold
an Orthodox vision without setting it against or using it to refute the decrees
of Crete, but rather paradoxically or schizophrenically validating them, while
compounding all this with participation and common prayers at services, events,
and ecumenical dialogues. Yet faith does not mean duality and duplicity, but a
firm and unashamed confession of Christ. Otherwise, one ends up with a mélange
and syncretism of doctrines that confuses more than it enlightens.
This ambiguity can also be seen
in the decision of the Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church in the
autumn of 2016, when it stated that no new dogmas had been formulated. This
wording must be viewed in context. Set against what follows—“but confessed the
fact that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church
of Christ”—it is clear that what is meant is a validation of the contested
Orthodoxy of the Synod. Yet a mere affirmation means nothing without
corresponding reality in practice. That is to say, the distortion of the dogma
concerning the Church cannot be counterbalanced by that simple sentence; on the
contrary, anyone who maintains that the dogma that was signed is neither
something new nor an innovation thereby becomes himself a liar and deceiver.
And the acknowledgment that the
texts may be clarified, nuanced, developed, or perfected does not include the
idea of correction, which is something different from the four actions
mentioned.
Worse still, not only were new
dogmas formulated, but also new canons and liturgical practices pertaining to
fasting and marriage.
Brief Inventory of the
Remaining Erroneous Assertions
1. If these had merely
been unclear formulations, the problem would not have been serious, but could
have been resolved. However, since they are not merely expressions but
erroneous ideas, the cessation of commemoration is justified. Unfortunately, I
too acknowledge that too much emphasis has been placed on the inappropriate use
of the term “Church” for the heterodox, while the fundamentally heretical
character was not sufficiently brought to the fore—the branch theory, the
theory of the invisible Church, and the notion of incomplete or gradual
ecclesiality.
2. The disagreement of
synodal participants permitted by the Cretan regulations is a contrivance and a
deception. This does not signify openness and sincerity, but rather deception
and the nullification of each hierarch’s vote according to his dogmatic conscience,
his absorption into the synodal mass, and the destruction of the Orthodox
synodal principle. At the Ecumenical Councils of the past, whoever did not sign
was excluded from communion and anathematized, whereas at Crete the dissenters
are swallowed up by being reduced to silence and allowed to hold a separate
opinion that carries no weight. Moreover, the refusal of some hierarchs to sign
the documents was not provided for in the regulations; their disagreement was
simply to be recorded in the minutes, and that was all.
3. Article 22 of the
ecumenist document mocks the confession of faith through the wording: “any
rupture of the unity of the Church by individuals or groups under the pretext
of preserving or supposedly defending authentic Orthodoxy is to be condemned.”
As though there were no such thing as a defense of the faith, but only a
pretext for it and the arrogation of an authority that does not belong to them.
For the synodal system is regarded as the “only” one that “guarantees” the
preservation of the faith, not as the final arbiter (as is claimed in the
video, which misreads the correct text shown on the screen). In this way, acts
of confession are treated mockingly, as though they were forbidden and impossible.
This declaration contradicts Orthodox tradition and the Encyclical of 1848,
which held that it is the people who, through reception or rejection, validate
the correctness of a Synod.
4. Canon 15 does not
understand by “condemned heresy (κατεγνωσμένη)” one that has been solemnly and
definitively declared as such, but rather one that has already been opposed
indirectly. In the case of heresies that have been clarified by the Church,
there is no longer any question of a future synodal examination, because this
has already taken place, whereas the canon permits the cessation of
commemoration before a synodal investigation. Moreover, the Romanian
translation “osândită” (“condemned”) deliberately avoids the stronger nuance of
a formal condemnation, reducing it to the level of something opposed, rejected,
or disapproved by Councils or Fathers.
5. The condition imposed
by Canon 15—that a heresy must have been condemned synodally or patristically
in order for commemoration to be ceased—does not refer to a formal ruling on
the statements of the bishop in question, because that would amount precisely
to a synodal investigation of the hierarch, or to his having been refuted
specifically by the Fathers, which is impossible. The Fathers are precisely
those attested by the Church who lived in the past; how could there be a
requirement that they denounce texts from the present? It is sufficient for the
incriminated statements of the bishop to be in evident contradiction with the
mind of the Church as expressed in Councils and in the Fathers, and for the one
who ceases commemoration to demonstrate this convincingly—or, conversely, for
the hierarch to refute the accusations brought against him.
6. The decision of the
Synod of the Georgian Church states concerning the Synod of Crete, in point 4,
that the documents do not reflect Orthodox teaching. Even though they decided
not to break communion with the participants, since this is not obligatory [sic],
their characterization of it as a doctrinal deviation justifies those who have
ceased commemoration in their action. The delay of a final decision can be
explained by the fact that such a decision does not fall within their
competence, and the convening of a Pan-Orthodox Council on this subject
requires time and preparation.
7. The 1983 decision of
ROCOR (not 1986, as the year was incorrectly taken over from Silviu Chirilă)
remains valid through its integration into the Russian Patriarchate. Even at
that time, it was applied by those who issued it as a choice to avoid communion
with manifest ecumenists.
8. To whatever extent the
decrees Typos and Ekthesis were heretical in the time of St.
Maximus, the documents of Crete are at least equally so. If we bear in mind
that the latter merely prohibited dogmatic discussions, it would appear far
more moderate than the documents of Crete.
9. The bishop of those who
have ceased commemoration is not Christ as a substitute for the diocesan
hierarch, but rather Christ as the supreme authority of whom they are not
ashamed before the world. The hierarch in office remains the one being
challenged through the cessation of commemoration until the issue is settled in
the future. Moreover, it is not clear who stated, or from where it is inferred,
that this would be a central idea of those who have walled themselves off.
10. The Moscow Conference
of 1948 decided on non-participation in the WCC. Did the decision to join in
1961 arise from a change in circumstances? In the meantime, nothing had
appeared except the Toronto Statement of 1950. Does it answer the
Orthodox objections? The same Churches can take radically different measures
over time depending on whether heretics or Orthodox confessors are making the
decisions. Thus, the two perspectives—non-participation in or participation in
the ecumenical movement—are not similar merely because they come from the same
institution, which can be affected by changes over time.
11. Communion among the
Local Orthodox Churches is not an argument that they see no dogmatic problem.
There have been other situations in which certain heresies were condemned (such
as the Filioque), but not their proponents, for reasons of
ecclesiastical economy. On the other hand, Ecumenism is still developing, and a
possible condemnation may in the future also extend to those who in the
meantime will have died in this heresy. Their explicit written declaration that
what is involved is a dogmatic deviation cannot be contradicted by other
circumstantial considerations.
Because the material produced by Way
to Salvation sets forth the arguments and general position of those who
support the hierarchy regarding the issue of the Synod of Crete, refuting it
amounts to a rejection of the sophisms employed by those who criticize the
non-commemorators. On the other hand, at least here there is an engagement in a
dialogue that appears honest, whereas the synodal hierarchs avoid even giving
an account of their actions and retreat into a refusal of dialogue and a
self-satisfied sense of superiority. In this context, I anticipate that a
sincere examination of what has been set forth represents a challenge for
ordinary laypeople and theologians as to whether they allow themselves to stand
in opposition to the higher hierarchy.
I should add that I intend to
produce a video presentation that will place greater emphasis on the entire
issue and bring to light other important points that I have, for the time
being, left aside.
Romanian source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.