Why It Is Not Necessary to Amend Point 10 of the Resolution of the Assembly of Confessors Who Have Ceased Commemoration, Held in Botoșani in June 2017
Mihai-Silviu Chirilă |
July 30, 2026
After separating from the moderate anti-ecumenist confessors,
Fr. Claudiu Buză came into contact with certain priests who had ceased
commemoration, who convinced him to campaign for challenging Point 10 of the
Resolution of the 2017 Assembly of Botoșani, on the grounds that it was
supposedly “schismatic” because it provides for unconditional communion with
others within the Church.
This material was written in 2023 and brought to the
attention of Fr. Claudiu Buză. Unfortunately, just like the materials
concerning that text of Venerable Paisios, this material also failed to
convince Fr. Claudiu Buză in the slightest. He remained firm in his position
and continues to campaign for the amendment of Point 10.
In this material, I demonstrate that, at the time the
Botoșani Resolution was adopted, Point 10 was intended to make it clear to Monk
Savvas that we did not agree with his radical view of relations with the other
members of the Church. At that time, this was all that could be stated, given
the circumstances and the presence in our group of those holding extremist
views, who certainly would not have accepted the definition of communion with
those within the Church that we articulated after the division became clear and
the extremists separated from us.
Point 10 attests to a state of affairs within the Romanian
Orthodox Church that took shape as a result of the hierarchy’s reaction to our
struggle, and must be understood in the broader context of all the subsequent
documents that we, the moderate clergy and faithful who have ceased
commemoration, have made public, in which we have explained all the details
concerning ecclesiastical communion.
Following Fr. Claudiu Buză’s
formulation of a position regarding Point 10 of the Botoșani Resolution of June
18, 2017, which was signed and endorsed by the priests present at that
assembly, in which he calls for its amendment so as not to give the impression
that our movement was already in schism at that time, I take the liberty of
offering a theological response. I do so on the grounds that only someone who
is familiar with every aspect of this struggle and who actively participated in
all the initiatives and struggles undertaken at that time can provide the most
pertinent explanation in response to the objection raised by these priests,
which, as we shall see, repeats the identical objection previously raised by
other priests.
[For the complete Botoșani
Resolution, see: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2024/10/2017-resolution-from-botosani.html]
The text under discussion is
Point 10 of the Botoșani Resolution, adopted at the Botoșani Assembly of June
18, 2017, the most important declaration against ecumenism. At this event,
ecumenism was condemned as a heresy, a demand was made for our Church to
withdraw from all ecumenist organizations, Freemasonry was condemned for the
second time in the history of our Church, and we made it clear that we
categorically reject the notion that we are schismatics or that we are
separating ourselves from our ancestral Church. Here is the text of Point 10 of
that landmark document:
We firmly reject
the accusation that, by ceasing to commemorate the hierarchs who are
participants in ecumenism and the assembly of Crete, we have committed a
schismatic act or rebelled against the bishops of our Church. We are in
communion with the Local Churches and bishops who publicly reject ecumenism and
the assembly of Crete, with their priests and faithful, as well as with the
priests and faithful who have ceased communion with the bishops who accept
them. We remain within the Universal Orthodox Church, as part of the Romanian
Orthodox Church, having no intention of separating from it, joining heretical
or schismatic organizations, or placing ourselves under the obedience of
bishops other than those of our own locality.
In order to understand correctly
the content of Point 10 of the Botoșani I Resolution, it is first necessary to
be familiar with certain historical and theological aspects of the situation at
that time, which I will explain in detail below.
Separation from
the Schism of the Greek Monk Savvas Lavriotis
On April 4, 2017, an assembly of
Greek clergy and faithful who had ceased commemoration was held in Oreokastro,
near Thessaloniki, to which we were also invited. I attended as the delegated representative
of the Romanians who had ceased commemoration, entrusted with delivering an
address presenting the struggle of the Romanians against heresy at that time.
The assembly took place against
the backdrop of serious disagreements between Monk Savvas and Professor
Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis. Monk Savvas strongly advocated a radical break
with all those who had not ceased commemoration by that time, while Professor
Zisis proposed a more flexible approach to the issue, involving the application
of economia in the spirit of Canon 3 of St. Athanasius of Alexandria.
On the day of the assembly, I
visited Professor Zisis at the offices of the publication Theodromia in
Thessaloniki, where he explained his position. I recorded his remarks on video
and subsequently presented them to the Romanian delegation at Oreokastro, which
included, among others, the late Fr. Antim Gâdioi, Fr. Ieronim Cosma, and other
clergy and laypeople.
After watching the video, I
recommended that the Romanian delegation not participate in the assembly and
that they leave the Greeks to resolve their problems among themselves. I
continue to believe, even today, that this was the most appropriate course of
action in that situation.
As was proper, Monk Savvas was
also asked for his opinion, and he managed to convince those present that he
had no intention whatsoever of adopting such a position, that he was Orthodox,
etc. Following the discussion with the Greek monk, the majority of the Romanian
delegation agreed to participate in this assembly, and consequently, I
participated as well.
After the assembly itself, Monk Savvas
traveled to Bănceni to inform Bishop Longhin of what had taken place at
Oreokastro and to ask his opinion. On that occasion, Monk Savvas told us, in
a private discussion, that we must sever ties with all those who had not yet
taken a stand against Crete, including autocephalous Churches that had not
participated in the assembly or Orthodox bishops such as Bishop Longhin.
At that moment, I realized that
we had been deceived at Oreokastro and that Monk Savvas actually intended to
carry out this plan to its conclusion. Since, during a conference held in
Bucharest toward the end of April, the monk had invited us to organize an
assembly similar to the one at Oreokastro, I understood that this conference
provided us with an opportunity to tell Monk Savvas and his followers openly
that we did not agree with the direction he was taking, but wished to remain in
communion with all those who had made at least some effort to combat the
heresy.
Consequently, Point 10 of the
Resolution was not conceived as a negative, exclusive statement concerning our
communion with the rest of the Church, but, on the contrary, as a positive,
inclusive one. In other words, through this point, we did not intend to
wall ourselves off from the rest of our ancestral Church, as is evident from
the final part of the second sentence of the point, where we clearly state that
we are part of the Romanian Orthodox Church, but rather to open ourselves to
all those who, in one way or another, are struggling against the heresy of
ecumenism, and whom Monk Savvas had begun to regard as equally heretical as the
participants in the Synod of Crete, inciting some of those among us who had
ceased commemoration to adopt the same position.
It is in this context that Point
10, adopted by those who participated in that assembly and who are familiar
with the details of this struggle, must be understood. Point 10 infuriated Savvas
the Lavriote, who immediately thereafter launched a fierce campaign against any
form of economia toward those who had not ceased commemoration, leading
to a rupture between the moderate Orthodox who had ceased commemoration and the
extremists.
Anyone who reads Point 10
objectively, honestly, and with knowledge of the details set out above will
understand from it that we, the moderate Romanian Orthodox who have ceased
commemoration, refused to accept that there was no longer anyone in the world
who had remained Orthodox and that everyone was complicit in the heresy,
not that we had denied communion with the rest of the Romanian Orthodox.
The Internal
Situation of the Romanian Orthodox Church
Having explained the importance
of Point 10 in the context of our struggle to avoid the schism into which Monk Savvas
subsequently fell, it is also appropriate to add that, given the circumstances
in which the conference took place and the situation created by the
Patriarchate in its response to the movement of those who had ceased
commemoration, an unconditional affirmation of liturgical communion with those
who continued to commemorate their bishops would have been both inappropriate
and unrealistic.
From what I have explained in the
first point, it can be seen that the communion of which we spoke in that
point of the Botoșani Resolution was more a communion in confession of faith
than a liturgical communion, since its purpose was to make Monk Savvas
aware that not all bishops and Churches were heretical and had fallen away.
Now, as regards communion in confession of faith, at that time there was no one
left within the Romanian Orthodox Church, apart from the movement of those who
had ceased commemoration and a few priests who sympathized with it, who
publicly opposed the Synod of Crete and ecumenism in general. Even today, there
are very few such people, and if they have the courage to establish contact
with us, we readily receive them into communion.
Affirming liturgical communion
with those in churches where commemoration had not ceased was, at that time, on
the one hand, unrealistic and, on the other, carried the risk of causing
serious confusion among those who had only recently ceased commemoration and
who did not yet understand all its theological implications. That this was
indeed the case is demonstrated by the fact that, a few months after that
assembly, the well-known controversy over “participation in heresy” erupted,
resulting in a split among those who had ceased commemoration, some of whom
have not understood, even to this day, what the proper relationship between
those who have ceased commemoration and those who continue it should be. If
they have still not understood this after seven years, how could they have
understood it in 2017? Do the priests who submitted this request believe
that the more recent initiative to hold an “assembly of reconciliation,”
promoted through various channels, with some of these priests would be viable, given
that in 2021 they unanimously declared that they were openly separating
themselves from everyone in our Church who had not ceased commemoration? [1]
On the other hand, such a
statement at that time would also have been inappropriate and unrealistic
because of the situation established by the Patriarchate following the
cessation of commemoration. I would remind readers that the majority of
those who participated in this assembly had already been deposed by the
Patriarchate for ceasing commemoration, while the other priests of the
Patriarchate had already been indoctrinated into believing that those who had
ceased commemoration were “schismatics,” and that therefore no form of
communion whatsoever could exist with them. In our case, there was no
normal ecclesiastical situation, such as exists in Greece or the Republic of
Moldova, where priests who have ceased commemoration can concelebrate freely
with those who continue to commemorate their bishops, if they so wish, without
this resulting in any sanctions from anyone.
For this reason, taking the
circumstances into account, at that stage of the struggle, Point 10 served
primarily to inform the entire Church that we refuse to regard ourselves as
being outside the Orthodox Church, that we are members of it, and that we are
not schismatics. I believe that this is sufficient, for the sake of the
historical record invoked by these priests, to make it clear that we have never
broken communion with the other Orthodox Christians within the Church, but that
they have, in practice, broken communion with us and with the truth of the
faith that we uphold, since we continue to affirm that we are members of
the Church, whereas they hastened to deprive us of this privilege, acquired at
our spiritual birth through Holy Baptism.
The Dynamic
Process of Affirming Ecclesiastical Communion
If the above considerations are
not sufficient for history to record that we have never broken communion with
the other Orthodox Christians within the Church, future analysts of the
movement will be able to read all our subsequent documents, issued by us, the
moderate Orthodox who have ceased commemoration, in which we demonstrated,
first of all, that cessation of commemoration is a stance, not an identity,
in the sense that we do not substitute the designation “non-commemorator” for
that of Orthodox Christian, but merely use it to indicate the manner in which
we conduct our struggle among the other Orthodox Christians; that we are
open to cooperation with all those who wish to confess the faith; that we
rejected the decisions made at Roman [in 2018] and at other such meetings of
radical non-commemorators, where all those who had not ceased commemoration
were considered heretics; that we refused to accept that grace was no longer
present among those who continued commemoration, and stated this in the
Resolution of 2018 (which for a time was called the “draft resolution”), signed
and endorsed by Fr. Theodoros Zisis as the true Orthodox manifesto of the
Romanian struggle against heresy, read before thousands of faithful by Fr.
Maximos Karavas on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, and received with enthusiasm by the
Greek pleroma; that we recommended that those who cannot attend
services celebrated by priests who have ceased commemoration act according to
the guidance of their conscience regarding priests who have not taken an openly
anti-ecumenist stance but who neither preach nor defend the heresy, and attend
services celebrated by priests who continue commemoration but have publicly
confessed their opposition to ecumenism, as decided at Bănceni in 2018, where
we insisted on the importance of a public confession of faith by those whose
services the faithful may attend; and that we wrote and acknowledged that
cessation of commemoration is merely one means of conducting the struggle—the
fullest, but not the only one—and that we gladly welcome all forms of
confession of the faith wherever they exist. We stated this last point in the
two brochures concerning the pitfalls of ceasing commemoration (the blue
brochure, published anonymously) and the theological identity of those who
follow the correct path (the yellow brochure). Our openness to communion with
those who continued commemoration, while maintaining a consistent and forceful
confession of faith on our part, prompted certain comments even from some of
our fellow moderate Orthodox Christians who had ceased commemoration, some of
whom were disciples of the two petitioning priests who had ceased
commemoration. In 2022, when the yellow brochure was written, these comments
required clarification concerning the risk of completely erasing the line of
demarcation between our correct position and that of those who have not yet
done anything to defend the Orthodox faith.
If all these positions of ours
do not reflect communion with the rest of the Church, to the extent that such
communion can and should exist in the present circumstances, then what else
were we supposed to do? Cease commemoration one day and resume it the next, in
order to satisfy the “purists of unconditional communion” with those who have
taken no stand against the heresy even after seven years?
The process of defining our
position has been, and continues to be, a dynamic and diachronic one, just as the
process of defining the doctrine of the Church has been, with the Church
providing dogmatic or canonical responses over time to various problems that
have arisen throughout history. For this reason, I believe that an honest
researcher who wishes to ascertain the correct position of the moderate
Orthodox who have ceased commemoration will be able to understand it through an
analysis of all the documents of this movement. These will reveal that there
has been a sustained effort to acknowledge and eliminate certain theological
errors inherent in such a struggle; to assimilate the practical theological
knowledge acquired in the course of the struggle by reconciling theoretical
truths with the situation on the ground, so as to find a realistic course that
does not, however, compromise the truth of the faith (what else is the economia
that we have been applying for years?); and to overcome certain entrenched
attitudes among those who preferred to separate themselves from the legitimate
struggle rather than accept that those who have not ceased commemoration are
also Orthodox, that not all of them are heretics, and so forth. Anyone who
wishes to know who we are and how correct our struggle has been cannot confine
himself to a single document, but must read them all. This is a minimum
requirement of honest and serious scholarly research.
It is astonishing that, after
seven years, priests who were at the forefront of the effort to define our
position correctly—and who, in 2017, signed without reservation the very
document they now challenge—have forgotten the sacrifices and hard work involved
in setting out in detail the correct path of the Holy Fathers. This
seven-year process will remain a point of reference for all those who come
after us and who, compelled by circumstances, will have to do what we have
done. For, whether we like it or not, we are pioneers of this kind of
struggle within our Church, which has never before faced this form of
resistance to heresy, characteristic of the Byzantine world, where the great
struggles in defense of Orthodoxy were fought during both the first and second
millennia.
I wonder how many priests who
continue commemoration have been in liturgical communion with these fathers
since 2017, welcoming them to concelebrate and refraining from commemorating
the hierarch during the service. How many such priests have they invited, and
how many have accepted their invitation? How many faithful have they advised to
remain quietly in their parishes and attend the services of their parish
priests, regardless of whether those priests actively oppose ecumenism or not,
so as not to break communion? If the answer to these rhetorical questions is
negative, or at least unsatisfactory in light of the new demands concerning the
Botoșani Resolution, can we not affirm that, when read and interpreted
literally, Point 10 confirms a historical reality created by the Romanian
Patriarchate, which we have been unable to change in the manner suggested by
those who criticize this point? What real and full communion can there be
in Romania between the confessors who have ceased commemoration and the other
faithful, when, in Orășeni, the priests of the Metropolis of Moldavia and
Bukovina (MMB) who continue commemoration will not tolerate our presence even
in the courtyard of our own church, let alone inside it, unless we renounce our
confession of faith and resume commemoration? Moreover, in order to have our
right to membership in the parish assembly recognized—a right we have never
lost and which was upheld by the civil court in Civil Decision No. 506A/2021 of
the Botoșani Tribunal—we were required, on January 16, 2022, to sign a document
recognizing the ecumenist priest who defends the metropolitan and his heresy.
This was imposed as an uncanonical prerequisite, contrary to the regulations,
for permission to participate in the parish elections. We were compelled to
refuse, and for this reason we were expelled from our parish church. What
communion between priests can there be when Fr. Ioan Ungureanu has two brothers
who are priests and who do not even wish him “Happy New Year!” at the beginning
of the year or greet him with “Christ is Risen!” at Holy Pascha, much less
share a meal with him, whether at his table or theirs, as brothers and fellow
priests? Have the petitioning priests forgotten that within the Romanian
Patriarchate, Orthodoxy and liturgical communion have, in recent years, been
defined as being strictly centered on the commemoration of the hierarch,
exactly as in the Vatican, where the commemoration of the pope is the visible
sign of the unity of their worship? And so, would not an affirmation of
communion with these people, in the manner suggested by those who challenge
Point 10, be mere empty boasting even today, since such communion does not
exist—not because of us, but because of them? For, after all, it is not we
who have fallen into schism from the Church and the truth, but they, and Point
10 merely reflects this sad reality.
And one more essential question,
which will lead us naturally to the next point in the argument: Apart from
those whom we shall discuss below, who else has ever called us “schismatics”
because of what we wrote in Point 10 of the Botoșani I Resolution, rather than
because we ceased commemorating the ecumenist hierarchs? Since I have
responded to all of them in writing, I can confirm that no one else has.
Point 10 and the
Ruining of the International Conference at Bănceni in March 2018
Criticism of Point 10 of the
Botoșani Resolution is nothing new to us. On the contrary, it is an exact
reproduction of the position expressed in March 2018 by three priests, none of
whom had signed the Resolution: Hieromonks Lavrentie Carp, Macarie Banu, and
Eftimie Mitra.
In March 2018, after it had
become clear that the anti-ecumenist struggle had become divided over the
application of akribeia or economia, and that some of those who
had been with us at Botoșani no longer accepted even that those who had not
ceased commemoration were members of the Church, much less the idea of
communion with them, a conference was held at Bănceni, to which Professor Protopresbyter
Theodoros Zisis was also invited.
On the occasion of that
conference, I presented the position of the Romanian confessors, which at that
time was also endorsed by some of the priests who are now calling for the
amendment of Point 10. According to this position, the situation in Romania is
such, owing to the hierarchy’s complete attachment to the heresy of ecumenism
and the extremely weak opposition to Crete and ecumenism in general, that we
in Romania cannot wholeheartedly encourage the faithful to attend the services
of just any priest who continues to commemorate his bishop. We succeeded in
establishing the principle, which was accepted both by the Greek priests and by
some of the priests who have ceased commemoration and who now criticize Point
10, that only attendance at the services of priests who continue commemoration
but have publicly confessed their opposition to ecumenism can be recommended
without reservation, while leaving it to the conscience of the faithful whether
or not to attend the services of priests who continue commemoration but are
passive or lax in their stance toward the heresy, and unequivocally
recommending that they avoid the services of those who defend, adhere to, or
preach the heresy, whether bishops or priests. Furthermore, given that the
number of those who have made a public confession of faith is also very small,
it was agreed that we in Romania should encourage people to follow the guidance
of their conscience, after ascertaining the ecclesiastical convictions of
the priest whose services they intend to attend, without encouraging them to
attend the services of priests who continue commemoration whose convictions are
not publicly known, but also without condemning them if they do so. For
years, some of the priests who now criticize Point 10 wholeheartedly endorsed
this coherent and theologically correct limitation of communion.
During that conference, the three
aforementioned priests, Frs. Lavrentie, Macarie, and Eftimie, who at that time
constituted an ad hoc group, which was apparently dissolved later,
presented an “indictment” against us, accusing us of being schismatics because
we had formulated and endorsed Point 10 of the Botoșani Resolution.
From the discussions that
followed during the conference, it became clear that the accusation was
unfounded and that the practice proposed by the three priests was consistent neither
with their own stated positions nor with the realities in Romania.
Hieromonk Lavrentie Carp put
forward certain arguments at that time, which he also advanced on other
occasions, that diluted the practice of ceasing commemoration to the
greatest possible extent, making it almost as effective and important as
complete inaction. According to certain information we have received,
although we cannot vouch for its accuracy, it would appear that Fr. Lavrentie
continued for some time to have as his spiritual children the faithful from the
Monastery of the Three Holy Hierarchs, whom, as I understand it, he still hears
in confession, or at least continued to hear in confession for some time after
ceasing commemoration. This suggests that he may have received preferential
treatment from Metropolitan Teofan, who, as far as we know, has not taken any
punitive measures against him, even though he has ceased commemoration for at
least six years. Such treatment, if it is indeed taking place, may make it
easier for Fr. Lavrentie to maintain unrestricted communion with priests who
continue commemoration, but it represents an exception from which the other
priests who have ceased commemoration do not benefit.
Hieromonk Macarie Banu told us at
Bănceni about services he celebrates together with priests who continue
commemoration in the area where he serves, without, however, mentioning again
the nature of his relationship with the local bishop, which he had described to
us during the few meetings we had while we were still in communion and
consultation with one another. If what he told us is true, this relationship
could lead the bishop to grant an exception that other bishops do not grant
with regard to such concelebrations. Fr. Macarie did not explain how his
openness to full and unconditional communion with priests who continue
commemoration can be reconciled with what he told us in 2016, from which we
understood that his spiritual children confess their sins before an icon every
day, receive absolution from the priest over the telephone, and administer Holy
Communion to themselves using the Holy Mysteries reserved in a thermos. Nor
is it clear, even now, how much of his position is motivated by theological considerations
and how much by personal ones, such as the visceral hatred he displayed toward
the late Fr. Antim Gâdioi, or his frustration at not having been involved in
the Botoșani I project, having already withdrawn from our group. Nor can we
find any particularly convincing explanation for the fact that he maintains
open communion with those who continue commemoration, but virtually no
communion with us, the Orthodox confessors recognized as moderate throughout
the Orthodox world engaged in the struggle. Are we, with our Point 10,
somehow more culpable than those who continue commemoration, with all their
documents from Crete, Chieti, Toronto, Porto Alegre, Busan, Karlsruhe, Harare,
and Ravenna? Is it possible that those who are Orthodox in the eyes of
Professor Emeritus Dr. Theodoros Zisis, who had access to a
translation of the Botoșani I text, and of the spiritual father Maximos
Karavas, should be considered heretics by Fr. Macarie Banu, Fr. Eftimie
Mitra, or Fr. Lavrentie Carp?
At the time of the Bănceni
conference, Fr. Eftimie Mitra was a priest who continued to commemorate his
bishop, and probably remains so today. He justified his position by asserting
that the late Bishop Gurie had not been a signatory at Crete and had an Orthodox
mind, although he frequently invited the arch-ecumenist Zaharia Zaharou to
Deva, who, on the occasion of one such conference, strongly condemned the
cessation of commemoration and defended the heresy of ecumenism. [2] After
harshly condemning us as schismatics because of Point 10, Fr. Eftimie refused
to participate in the concelebration at Bănceni with Bishop Longhin, Fr. Zisis,
and the Romanian priests who had ceased commemoration, explaining that he had
woken up late and had not arrived in time for the service. This prompted the
affectionate, fatherly humor of the distinguished professor of theology, who,
during the communal meal, invited Fr. Eftimie to bless the food. Through this
gesture, he was alluding to the words of St. Theodore the Studite, who says
that a priest who commemorates his heretical bishop may be invited to bless a
meal, but not to participate in the Eucharistic Supper. I know of this incident
from the accounts of the priests, since I personally left the conference after
the first day, deeply disgusted by the way our struggle had been ridiculed over
precisely the same issue we are discussing now.
Under these circumstances, we
cannot fail to observe a clear discrepancy between the statements of these
three priests and their actual practice, which reinforces our position that, in
the Romanian context, Point 10 in no way reflects any schismatic inclination on
our part, but rather a situation that is still evolving.
We must also mention here the
extremely radical attitude of Hieromonk Paisie of Vrancea, who, upon learning
that one of the priests who had ceased commemoration had a spiritual father who
continued to commemorate his bishop, refused all communion with him until he
severed his relationship with his spiritual father, who is a well-known
anti-ecumenist priest, recognized for his clear and public stance against the
heresy, even though he continues commemoration. The priest in question
retained his spiritual father after consulting us, as we encouraged him to do
so. Is such advice characteristic of those with a schismatic mentality? If we
do not have such a mentality, how could we have issued a schismatic resolution?
Why, then, this sudden concern
over Point 10 of the Botoșani Resolution?
To What Extent Is
Communion with Those Who Have Not Ceased Commemoration Possible Today?
Communion is a relationship
involving at least two parties. Therefore, the simplest answer to this question
is that communion is possible with anyone who wishes to be in communion with
us. This means that, apart from notable exceptions, communion is currently
possible with very few priests who continue to commemorate their bishops,
especially among those who have an Orthodox mind and are willing to accept the
risks involved, given that the vast majority of priests refuse, whether out of
conviction or fear, to have anything to do with us, who have been struggling
against the heresy in recent years by ceasing commemoration.
For years, we have maintained
that we consider heretics only those who adhere to, profess, and defend the
heresy of ecumenism, as well as the heretical hierarchs. Consistent with this
correct position, which reflects Canon 3 of St. Athanasius the Great, [3] we
have affirmed that the Mysteries celebrated by priests who continue
commemoration are valid, that grace operates through them and even through the
heretical hierarchs, for the proper functioning of the Church of Christ, even
though the ecumenist hierarchs and the priests who openly preach their heresy
are not to be approached for participation in their services and stand
condemned before God. The Mysteries cannot be defiled by the actions of
these clergy, as the assembly at Roman deliriously claimed in 2018. However, by
refusing communion with them, we neither dishonor nor reject their grace-filled
ministrations, nor do we thereby manifest any lack of communion with the rest
of the Orthodox pleroma. Rather, we simply make it clear to these
priests that we do not agree with their heresy or with their attitude toward
its propagation. The same understanding must be applied to our
reluctance to receive the Holy Mysteries, antidoron, or holy water from
their hands: not as a disparagement of these grace-filled ministrations or as
any separation from the rest of the faithful within the Church, but as an
expression of our desire not to have communion with the particular priests
concerned, with the heresy preached and/or defended by those priests, and/or
with the attitude of these clergy toward the struggle against the heresy of
ecumenism.
The same applies when someone who
has ceased commemoration is reluctant to attend the services of priests who
continue commemoration or to receive the holy water or antidoron that
they bless. If such a Christian does not refuse these grace-filled
ministrations from the hands of priests who continue commemoration because he
considers them invalid or defiled by heresy, or because he considers himself
separate from the Orthodox people—for if he did so, he would be mistaken—then
it means that he refrains from receiving them simply because he disagrees with
the cowardice or ignorance of the priests. This does not constitute schism, but
rather a warning to those priests who find themselves being refused when they
offer their religious ministrations to Christians. For this reason, St.
Theodore the Studite said that a priest who continues to commemorate his bishop
may be invited to bless a meal, but not to share in the Eucharistic Chalice.
Was St. Theodore in schism because he did not have communion with those who
continued commemoration? Did he despise the Mysteries celebrated by a priest
who continued commemoration? Of course not. If he invited such a priest to
bless a meal, this means that he recognized his priesthood and his ability also
to bless the Mystical Supper, the Holy Eucharist, but wished to warn him that
he was not fulfilling his duty. If someone who has ceased commemoration refuses
to attend a service at which the hierarch whom he himself has not commemorated
for years is commemorated, preferring instead a service at which that
hierarch’s name is not heard, this does not mean that he is a schismatic, but
that he is consistent with his confession of faith, even if the priest who
commemorates that hierarch has an Orthodox mind. The psychological discomfort a
person experiences at the commemoration of a heretical hierarch does not
constitute schism. These matters must be understood far more deeply than
simplistic statements would suggest.
Insofar as we have affirmed
for years, at the cost of the utter hatred directed against us by the
extremists, that the Mysteries celebrated by those who continue commemoration
are not invalid, and that these clergy are not themselves heretics if they do not
preach the heresy, this means that we have affirmed real communion with the
others within the Church, to the extent that such communion is possible under
conditions of heresy. To advocate unconditional communion means to fail
entirely to understand the reasons why we entered into this struggle and its
true purpose.
The same applies to our
willingness to concelebrate with those who have not yet ceased commemoration,
on the natural condition that the hierarch’s name is not commemorated during
the concelebration. If there are priests who continue commemoration and who
wish to do this, all they need to do is contact the priests who have ceased
commemoration and invite them to concelebrate, or come themselves to
concelebrate with them. And if they do not do so, does this mean that we are
in schism, or that they are in schism from the truth of the faith? This
willingness means that we have affirmed real communion with the others within
the Church, to the extent that such communion is possible under conditions of
heresy.
Epilogue
Taking into account everything
said thus far, it follows that no amendment to the Botoșani I Resolution is
necessary. Such an amendment would also be impossible after seven years, given
the number of publications in which the Resolution has been reproduced. As I
have already stated, the Botoșani Resolution was translated into Greek in its
original form and presented to our Greek associates, including Fr. Zisis, who
expressed no concern whatsoever that it might constitute any indication of schism.
Nor did the distinguished professor express any such concern following our
discussions at Bănceni in 2018, as demonstrated by the fact that he honored the
Botoșani II Assembly with his presence, being fully aware of the content of the
declaration issued there as well.
If there is concern about what
history will say about us, I believe that a simple reading of this material
will be sufficient to explain fully all aspects of the Botoșani I Assembly that
might remain unclear. With the agreement of the priests who have remained in
communion and consultation with us from the beginning until now, publishing
this text on the Mărturisirea Ortodoxă website would be sufficient for
the historical record.
The 2017 Botoșani Conference
represents a defining moment in the struggle against the heresy of ecumenism in
Romania, when, beyond the actual text of the Resolution, all those who had
embarked on the same path a year earlier came together for the last time,
united in the same Orthodox mind. Many of those who were present at that
time say that the assembly was blessed by the Holy Spirit and long for those
days of peace and brotherhood, especially after finding themselves in various
communities torn apart by a schismatic spirit of constant rebellion and aimless
pursuits. To propose amending the Resolution adopted on that extraordinary
occasion in order to satisfy a few individuals who did not see fit to become
involved at the time, but preferred to criticize from the sidelines, is to
disregard an international effort undertaken by a thousand confessors and
dozens of priests who had the opportunity to express their views on every point
of that Resolution during the preliminary consultations that took place, and
who also had the option of not signing the document if they disagreed with it.
Last but not least, I wish to
emphasize that falling into the trap of amending Point 10 on the pretext
that it might appear schismatic would mean accepting the otherwise false notion
that, from 2017 until now, we, the signatories of the Botoșani Resolution, have
been in schism. This would also entail acknowledging that most of the
depositions pronounced against the priests on charges of schism were justified.
Who, I wonder, would wish for such a distortion of reality and for all of us to
be drawn into such a trap?
The reality is that neither Point
10 nor the Botoșani Resolution as a whole is schismatic, and therefore there is
no reason whatsoever to call either of them into question.
NOTES
[3] https://www.marturisireaortodoxa.ro/canonul-sfantului-atanasie-cel-mare-despre-reprimirea-celor-ce-nu-s-au-facut-partasi-eresului-de-bunavoie/.
In The Rudder, the canon is numbered as the second.
Romanian
source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.