A DEFENSE OF THE CESSATION OF COMMEMORATION

of the Local Bishop, the Metropolitan of Chișinău and all Moldova, Vladimir,
and of His Holiness, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, Kirill,
in the Divine Liturgy and in all other services of the Church [2016]

On the 20th of February 2016 on the official webpage of the Metropolis of Moldova, an
article was published with the title “A Declaration of Canonical Disobedience,” 1 a response to
the declaration which the undersigned clerics addressed to the Metropolis of Moldova, where
we announced that we are ceasing commemoration [as of February 14, 2016] of the local
bishop, the Metropolitan of Chișinău and all Moldova, Vladimir, and of His Holiness, Patriarch
of Moscow and all Russia, Kirill, due to recent ecclesiastical events related to the preparation
for the Holy and Great Pan-Orthodox Synod, but also because of the meeting in Cuba of the
Pope of Rome, Francis, with the Patriarch of Moscow, Kirill, and the text of their joint
declaration.
We wait with anticipation to commemorate once again our Hierarch and our Patriarch. We
are not transgressors, nor do we desire schism, we are for the Church and within the Church,
but the cessation of commemoration is our sign and protest within the Church because
something is not right.2 We do not intend to organize “parallel Synods,” but to implement the
15th canon of the First-Second Synod, precisely because we wish to be first of all in full
communion with the Orthodox Faith.
We, the undersigned clergymen of the present declaration, who are mentioned in the article
in question, reject all of the accusations against us, especially the accusations concerning the
creation of a schism, because these have no canonical basis. Our action is based strictly on the
teaching of the Orthodox Church concerning schism and heresy, as it is expressed in the 13th,
14th, and 15th Canons of the First-Second Synod of Constantinople in 861. The second part
of the 15th Canon, according to the interpretation of the Holy Confessor Nikodim [Milaš], 3 is
a completion of the preceding canons, because it places the canonical terms of their
implementation and identifies the unique case for the cessation of the commemoration of the
local hierarch, which is to say, the proclaiming of heresy bareheaded [γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ]. As St.
John Chrysostom teaches us, obedience and subjection to the priest, to the hierarch, or to the
Synod no longer hold when the issue concerns heresy: “For if one has perverted doctrines,
even if he be an angel, do not obey [him]. But if he teaches correctly, pay no heed to his way
of life, but to his words.” (John Chrysostom, “Homily 2 on 2 Tim.”, PG 62, 610).
These canonical conditions are articulated chiefly in St. Nikodim’s interpretation of the first
Canon of the Third Ecumenical Synod:
“In issuing this injunction, the Synod of Ephesus has in mind the general ecclesiastical-
legal norm, according to which hierarchical ecclesiastical authority has full legal force
only when it acts within the boundaries established by law and when the wielders of

1
 this authority strictly obey the laws and teachings of the Orthodox Church; and
conversely, once they deviate from these laws and cross the strictly prescribed legal
limits, this authority loses all its rights. In further examining the canons of the Synod
convened at Constantinople in 861, we shall see what force this norm has always had
in the Church.”4
Thus, acting within the strict requirements of the canon law of the Orthodox Church, we state
that the unique cause of our own cessation of commemoration of our local Bishop, and of His
Holiness, the Patriarch of Moscow and all of Russia, Kirill, is the public and open preaching
of heresy on their part.
Within the aforementioned text which was published on the official webpage of the
Metropolis of Moldova, it is underlined that his Eminence, Vladimir, “never promoted or
preached ecumenism publicly or under any other form.” With deep sorrow and grief, we find
this assertion to be false, because for anyone to sign or to vote positively or to not resist or to
not state publicly his opposition to a public document which is un-Orthodox and was received
by a synodal body of the hierarchy to which he belongs, is the same as to express agreement
and for the same man to proclaim heresy bareheaded [γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ]. Saint Maximus the
Confessor broke communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, because he had signed a
heretical monothelite and monergist document.
Thus, from the 2nd-3rd of February 2016, the Hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church,
with the immediate participation of His Eminence Metropolitan of Chișinău and All Moldova,
Vladimir, approved the preliminary texts for the Holy and Great Pan-Orthodox Synod, which
the Synaxis of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches drafted in Chambésy, which had
gathered from the 21st until the 28th of January 2016. In particular, in the fourth paragraph of
the “Decision of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church from 2nd-3rd of February,”
it is claimed: “The members of the Hierarchy confess that in their present form, the preliminary
documents of the Holy and Great Synod do not violate the authenticity of the Orthodox faith
and they do not come into opposition with the canonical tradition of the Church.” 5
One of these entitled “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian
World,” contains a series of ecclesiological heresies, for which reason we ended up ceasing
commemoration of the local bishop and of Patriarch Kirill.
The specific reasons for ceasing commemoration are the following:
[The Supposed] Lost Unity of Christians
In the fifth paragraph of this particular text, there is talk about “the restoration of Christian
unity” and “for the lost Christian unity.”6 However, having in our view all these things, we
wonder together with the Apostle Paul: “Can Christ be divided?” (1 Cor 1:13). The use of such
terms is an immediate denial of dogma concerning the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
Church, because, according to St. Justin Popović: “The Godman Christ united in His Church
‘the things in heaven and the things on earth, in Him’ (Eph 1:10). All of the mysteries of heaven

2
and earth are united in a unique mystery, in a ‘great mystery’, in the hyper-mystery of the
Church.”7 And again, “The True God-Man Christ, in the perfect fullness of evangelical and
theanthropic reality, is completely present in His theanthropic Body, the Church, as it was in
the time of the Apostles, as it is today, and will be in eternity.”8 The Church is One, as Christ
is One, and the unity of “Christians” outside the Church cannot be anything but a unity in sin
and heresy. The text of the fifth paragraph does not make clear what it means by “unity of
Christians,” leaving room for each to interpret it as he wishes.
The recognition of the existence of other Christian churches
In the sixth paragraph, the aforementioned document declares that “The Orthodox Church
recognizes the existence in history of other Christian Churches and confessions which are not
in communion with her.”9 If the Orthodox Church is the One Church, then how can there be
talk about the existence “of other Christian Churches?” The religious organizations to which
the document refers are in no way able to be named “Churches,” especially since this is a
synodal document which was approved by an archiepiscopal synod. We ask the Synod to
clarify the term “Christian Churches” in relation to the “Orthodox Church” because these
formulations are contradictory. In the one, we start from the idea that the Church is One, and
in the other, we speak about “Christian Churches.”
What kind of ecclesiology emerges here? We, however, give witness together with Photios
the Great that “There is only one Church of Christ, apostolic and catholic. No more, not even
two. And the others are synagogues [gatherings] of the wicked and a synod of trespassers.” 10
And the claim that there exist other Christian churches is against the foundational teaching of
the Orthodox Church, because it constitutes an heretical ecclesiology. Furthermore, since the
matter concerns public documents of the Orthodox Church which were voted and ratified by
the members of the upper hierarchy at the synodal level,
“the terminology of the decisions must be strictly theological and ecclesiological. The
decisions must be in harmony with the entire tradition of the Church which is not
conservative, but traditional; it is not constituted by idleness but by movement, by
means, however, of theological and ecclesiological thought. In this way, in the
authoring of the texts, it will be necessary for the Bishops and theologians to participate
which select the terminology which will be used, so that it does not express neo-
scholastic, ‘existential’ and post-patristic theology, with a double meaning, which was
not delineated conceptually by the Holy Fathers and the ecclesiastical Tradition.
“It is well-known that the Fathers of the Church in the Ecumenical Synods struggled
with vigor, and by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they used suitable terminology
(‘with few words and much understanding’) which expresses the Orthodox faith
securely and in a God-inspired way. A choice of erroneous terminology creates a
falling away from Orthodox teaching. Special attention is necessary in this, and
suitable Clergymen are required who know sufficiently the history and content of the
terms and phrases.”11

3
 The World Council of Churches
Further on in the text which we are analyzing, it is claimed that “the local Orthodox
Churches which are members of the W.C.C. participate fully and equally in the structure of
the World Council of Churches,”12 which in essence is the source of ecclesiological heresies.
Thus, in the 13th article it is claimed that the statutes of the organization in question constitute
the basis for the participation of the Orthodox Church in the W.C.C., [statutes] such as the
Statement of Toronto in 1950.13 In the first of these documents, in the statutes of the World
Council of Churches, it is defined that “the churches through the Council will […] facilitate
common witness in each place and in all places, and support each other in their work for
mission and evangelism.”14 However, the Orthodox Church, since she is the One Church, is
unable to be connected to heretical organizations in common declarations and cannot support
them in their missionary work and preaching of the gospel, because these do not guide men to
Christ, according to the witness of St. John Chrysostom:
“And knowing this, we know that the salvation of the entire world crosses [into the
world] not by those under the Law but by Christ, and we do not apportion for the
godless heresies anything to do with hope, but we place them absolutely beyond hope,
because they, in fact, have not even the least participation in Christ.” 15
And the Statement of Toronto (1950) which is highlighted in the text “Relations of the
Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World,” contains the following claim:

“The member Churches recognize that the character of membership in the Church of
Christ includes more than those included in their own church body […] All the
Christian churches, including the Church of Rome, hold that there is no complete
identity between the membership of the Church Universal [Una Sancta] and the
membership of their own church. They recognize that there are church members ‘extra
muros’ [outside the walls], that these belong ‘aliquo modo’ [in some way] to the
Church, or even that there is an ‘ecclesia extra ecclesiam’ [church outside the
church].”16

We consider these heresies and blasphemies to be irreconcilable with Orthodoxy, because

we confess that there is a complete identity between the Orthodox Church and the Church
of Christ.
Continuing, the document “Relations of the Orthodox Church With the Rest of the Christian
World” claims that “the Church has a favorable review of the theological documents adopted
by the Commission [on Faith and Order].”17 One of the theological texts which was composed
in Lima in 1982, with the title, “Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry” claims chiefly that “The
churches, therefore, need to avoid attributing their particular forms of the ordained ministry
directly to the will and institution of Jesus Christ.”18 We confess that such a claim is absolutely
irreconcilable with the teaching of the Orthodox Church whose priesthood we believe to have
been found by Jesus Christ Himself.

4
 At the same time, in the text approved at Chambésy, it is claimed that “the Orthodox Church
has reservations concerning fundamental questions of faith and order.” 19
However, concerning the text “Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, such reservations were not
expressed, a thing which the Patriarch of Moscow, Kirill, stresses, the same who claimed that
the text in question is the result of “Orthodox participation and witness at the W.C.C.” 20
The above demonstrations, which do not even exhaust the series of heresies of the W.C.C.
where the Orthodox Churches participate “fully and on equal terms” are more than sufficient
to claim that this organization, the W.C.C., is heretical. And when the same participation of
the Orthodox Churches in the W.C.C. is unacceptable, how much more condemnable is the
validation of the values of this organization at the level of the Hierarchy of the Russian
Orthodox Church, and impossible to be acceptable to the Orthodox faithful.
The Synodal System
Further in the text put forth by the Synaxis of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches, it is
claimed that “the preservation of the authentic Orthodox faith is secured only by the synodal
system which has always constituted the guarantee and final judge in the Church concerning
matters of faith.”21 The synodal system is very important for the Church because it constitutes
an expression of her Catholicity, but in no case is it ever able to be named “guarantee and
final judge concerning matters of faith,” a thing which has been proved so many times in the
History of the Church. Let us only remember the robber Synod of Ephesus in 449, in which
600 bishops participated and approved the Monophysite heresy.
And “the preservation of the authentic Orthodox faith” is a function of the Catholicity of
the Church because the Church “is called, therefore, Catholic, on account of being according
to all of the ecumene, from the ends of the earth to the ends [of the earth]; and on account of
completely and universally teaching the entirety of the dogmas which ought to come to the
knowledge of men, concerning both things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and on
account of subjecting every generation of men to piety.” 22 This faith, however, is not
safeguarded only by the synodical system [of hierarchs]—which should not be considered
infallible—but is safeguarded by the whole body of the Church.
The apostle Paul tells us the same thing:
“But if even we or an angel from heaven preach a gospel which is contrary to the gospel
which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, even now
we say again: if anyone preach to you a gospel which is contrary to that which you
have received, let him be anathema.”
St. Theophylact of Bulgaria interprets these words as follows:
“By anathematizing the angels, he casts out all authority; and through himself, all
familiarity. […] But he does not say this as if condemning the apostles, but wishing to

5
 sew shut the mouths of deceivers, and to show forth that when what is spoken of
concerns dogmas one does not submit to authority.” 23
Therefore, a synod is an authentic expression of the Catholicity of the Church only when it
is found to be of one voice and mind with the Holy Scripture, the Holy Synods, and the Holy
Fathers of the Orthodox Church, and not exclusively by means of the mechanical expression
of the synodal system, as St. Basil the Great claims:
“That there is need of hearers, who have been educated in the scriptures, to test the
things which are spoken by their teachers, and to accept whatever is consonant with
the scriptures, but to reject whatever is foreign, and most vehemently to turn oneself
away from those who persist in such teachings.”24
The claim of the proposed text tends to replace the Catholicity of the Church with the synodal
system as the absolute point of reference in matters of faith, something which is alien to the
teaching of the Church.
Conclusions
We consider the adoption (even through the following assertion: “The members of the
hierarchy confess that in their present form, the preliminary texts of the Great and Holy Synod
do not violate the authenticity of the orthodox faith and do not come into opposition with the
canonical tradition of the Church”) of the text “Relations of the Orthodox Church With the
Rest of the Christian World” as a proclamation of heresy bareheaded [γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ] and
an enactment at the level of the local Synod of the abovementioned heretical teachings,
something for which, following the teaching of the Orthodox Church articulated in the 15th
Canon of the First-Second Synod from Constantinople in 861, as well as in the entire tradition
of the Church, in the lives and writings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, we cease
the commemoration of the local bishop and of His Holiness, Patriarch of Moscow and all
Russia, who participated and voted for the document in question and we act in this way until
the repudiation and condemnation of the heresy which is expressed in the aforementioned text.

1. https://mitropolia.md/declaratia-neascultarii-canonice/
2. The relevant arguments will be presented further on.
3. St. Nikodim Milaš – Правила Святой Православной Церкви с толкованиями Никодима, Епископа
Далматинско-Истрийского (The Canons of the Orthodox Church with An Interpretation), interpretation of
the 15th canon of the First-Second Synod.

4. St. Nikodim Milaš – Правила Святой Православной Церкви с толкованиями Никодима, Епископа
Далматинско-Истрийского (The Canons of the Orthodox Church with an Interpretation), interpretation of
the first canon of the Third Ecumenical Synod.

5. Постановления Освященного Архиерейского Собора Русской Православной Церкви, 3rd paragraph.

6
6. http://fanarion.blogspot.gr/2016/01/blog-post_88.html, 5th paragraph.
7. St. Justin Popović, Ecclesiological Chapters, 34.
8. Ibid.
9. http://fanarion.blogspot.gr/2016/01/blog-post_88.html
10. St. Photios the Great, Epistle to Pope Nicholas.
11. Ierotheos, Metropolitan of Nafpaktos, “The Meeting of the Primates of the Orthodox Church”,
Ecclesiastical Intervention 212, March 2014.

12. http://fanarion.blogspot.gr/2016/01/blog-post_88.html, 17th article.

13. http://fanarion.blogspot.gr/2016/01/blog-post_88.html, 19th article.
14. http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/assembly/2013-busan/adopted-documents-
statements/wcc-constitution-and-rules

15. St. John Chrysostom, “On Holy Pascha”, sermon 1, 14, PG 59, 725.
16. And continuing, “…This recognition finds expression in the fact that with very few exceptions the
Christian churches accept the baptism administered by other churches as valid.”
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/central-committee/1950/toronto-statement.

17. http://fanarion.blogspot.gr/2016/01/blog-post_88.html, 21st article.

18. “Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry”, 1982, cap. 3, II.11, apud oikoumene.org
19. http://fanarion.blogspot.gr/2016/01/blog-post_88.html, 21st article.
20. Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev) – Православие и экуменизм: Документы и материалы 1902-1998
(Orthodoxy and Ecumenism: Texts and Materials 1902-1998), p. 44.

21. http://fanarion.blogspot.gr/2016/01/blog-post_88.html, 22nd article.

22. St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechesis 18, chapter 23, PG 33, 1044A.
23. St. Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, “Interpretation of the Epistle to the Galatians”, PG 124, 960-961.
24. St. Basil the Great, “Principle of Ethics”, 72, 1, PG 31, 845D, 848A.

Text source (corrected): https://lessonsfromamonastery.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/moldovan-clergy-

cease-commemoration-of-local-bishop-and-russian-patriarch/