Presbyter Jiří Ján, Th.D.
I.
Prefatory Remarks
“The Holy and Great
Council of the Orthodox Church” convened by the so-called “mainstream” Orthodox
Churches in Kolymbari, Crete, Greece, from June 19 to 26, 2016 (New Style),
aspired, inter alia, according to the expectations of its protagonists,
to display to the whole world the unity of the “official” Local Orthodox
Churches in the most solemn way. However, the refusal of four Patriarchates—the
Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, the Russian Orthodox Church, the
Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and the Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church of
Georgia—to participate in the Council of Crete produced the opposite effect:
that is, it manifested the depth and pathology of the disunity of “official Orthodoxy.”
Archbishop Elpidophoros (Lampryniadēs) of America [1] came straight to the
point: “It is a universally acknowledged fact that the absence of Moscow and
the other Churches was not based on theological and canonical arguments.” [2]
This assessment was confirmed again the following year, in December 2017, when
the OEcumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Church of Greece refused
in turn to participate in the pan-Orthodox celebration organized by the Russian
Orthodox Church to commemorate the Centennial of the Restoration of the Moscow
Patriarchate (2017–2018).
The truly woeful
state of the Orthodox Ecumenists is painted in the blackest colors, however, in
the sorely-troubled country of Ukraine: its people have been torn apart and
suffering for decades, a plaything in the hands of the powerful of this world
and of the worldly-minded leaders of “official Orthodoxy.” A serious
disagreement has emerged in the domain of “official Orthodoxy,” or “world
Orthodoxy,” as it likes to style itself, over the canonical status of the
Orthodox Church in Ukraine. This dismal rupture, which initially involved only
the Moscow Patriarchate and the OEcumenical Patriarchate but fairly rapidly
embroiled all of the Local Orthodox Churches, resulting in the formation of two
opposing blocs, pro-Moscow and pro-Constantinople, respectively, has, in fact,
all but eclipsed the Council of Crete in the minds of many. It has not,
however, neutralized the damage caused by the gathering in Kolymbari, but
merely served to throw into relief the corrosive effects of the ecclesiastical
rivalries and jockeying for power that have, unfortunately, characterized
relations between Moscow and Constantinople in recent years.
For the benefit of
those unfamiliar with either the Council of Crete or the conflict over
Orthodoxy in Ukraine, we will begin by summarizing what led up to the
soi-disant “Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church” and what transpired
during the meeting, and then proceed to a brief recounting of the subsequent
controversy. It should become obvious, even from such abbreviated accounts of
these events, that the ongoing tragedy is not only one of internecine feuding
between brethren who ought to be united, especially in a world that is proving
ever more inimical to Christian beliefs and values, but also of a fundamental
disregard for the articulation and proclamation of Orthodox doctrine and, above
all, of an authentic and coherent ecclesiology firmly grounded in the Tradition
of the Holy Fathers and the Holy Synods.
Although the roots
of the Council of Crete go back ultimately to the encyclical sent in 1902 by
OEcumenical Patriarch Iōakeim iii (1834–1912) to all of the Primates of the
Local Orthodox Churches with a view to resolving certain problems in relations
among the Orthodox Churches themselves and to defining the relationship between
the Orthodox Church and non-Orthodox ecclesiastical communities, the primary
impetus for the convocation of this Council was the Pan-Orthodox Meeting of
Rhodes held in 1961, the first in a protracted and seemingly interminable
series of pre-conciliar consultations. It took altogether not less than
fifty-five years for the Local Orthodox Churches to convene what was supposed
to be a Pan-Orthodox Synod, but which was, in the event, boycotted, as
mentioned above, by four Autocephalous Churches.
During eight days
of deliberations in 2016, from June 19 to 26 (New Style) inclusive, the
Hierarchical delegates who took part in the proceedings in Kolymbari discussed
six topics:
(1)
The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World
(2)
The Orthodox Diaspora
(3)
Autonomy and the Means by Which it is Proclaimed
(4)
The Sacrament of Marriage and its Impediments
(5)
The Importance of Fasting and Its Observance Today
(6)
Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World [3]
Although the
Hierarchs in attendance endorsed all six of the documents in which these topics
were set forth, there were, perhaps not surprisingly, noticeable disagreements
about the last, and in particular about its wording. We will return to this
final document in due course. Suffice it to say for now that statements like
“[T]he Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of other non-Orthodox
Christian Churches and Confessions that are not in communion with her” [4] and
“We pray that all Christians may work together so that the day may soon come
when the Lord will fulfill the hope of the Orthodox Churches and there will be
‘one flock and one shepherd’ (Jn 10:16)” [5]—as though there is not yet “one
fold,” [6] namely, the Orthodox Church—do nothing to dispel the worst fears of
Genuine Orthodox Christians concerning the probable future union of “official”
Orthodox Christianity with Oriental Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and
Protestantism.
Although it is
understandable that the “official” Orthodox Churches should have wanted to
discuss and endeavor to resolve certain long-standing canonical problems
arising from the presence of overlapping jurisdictions in many countries of
Europe, North America, South America, Oceania, and elsewhere, we consider it
shameful that these Local Churches squandered a valuable opportunity to delve
into theological issues of real substance, and above all, ecclesiology, and,
one would hope, to have realized in the process the utter futility of continued
involvement in the Ecumenical Movement. This they might well have realized if
those Hierarchs whom one could reasonably have expected to articulate and to
champion the ecclesiology upheld by Saint Cyprian of Carthage (ca. 210–258),
according to which the canonical and charismatic—i.e., the
Mysteriological—boundaries of the Church “completely and invariably coincide,”
[7] had been willing to speak up and to stand their ground by insisting that
their fellow Hierarchs henceforth cease participation in ecumenical activities.
Just over two years
after the conclusion of the Council of Crete, the Holy Synod of the Russian
Orthodox Church resolved on October 15, 2018 (New Style), to break all
ecclesiastical communion with the OEcumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople,
[8] in protest over the announcement by the latter on October 11, 2018 (New
Style), that it intended to grant autocephaly to “the Church of Ukraine.” [9]
These two actions created serious dissension and turmoil within the Orthodox
world not very long after “the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church,”
at least part of the purpose of which was to heal divisions in the Church and
to enable it to function more effectively and harmoniously in the modern world.
Now, two questions
arise. First, what entitled the OEcumenical Patriarchate to grant autocephaly
to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, a country which does not fall under its
jurisdiction? [10] Second, just what did Constantinople mean by “the Church of
Ukraine”? No such Local Orthodox Church existed in October 2018 when the
fateful announcement was made. In order to answer these questions, we will
briefly advert to the history of Orthodox Christianity in Ukraine and then
outline the ecclesiastical situation in that country prior to the declaration
of autocephaly.
From its inception
during the conversion of Rus’ in 988, the Metropolitanate of Kiev (Kyiv) was
under the jurisdiction of the OEcumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, its
Mother Church. This situation persisted until 1686, when the Metropolitanate
was placed by Constantinople under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Kiev remained subordinate to Moscow for more than three hundred years, until
the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1991, after which
the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic became the independent nation of
Ukraine. This newfound independence, allied with a resurgence of nationalism,
fueled demands for an Autocephalous Church wholly free from control by the
Russian Orthodox Church. Rightly or wrongly, the OEcumenical Patriarchate
deemed itself justified in revoking the act of 1686.
Even though it is
difficult to avoid the conclusion that the OEcumenical Patriarchate of
Constantinople was, by virtue of this revocation, interfering in the internal
affairs of a Sister Church, nonetheless, it was precisely its decree of October
11, 2018 (New Style), that hastened the process of overcoming the divisions
among Orthodox Christians in Ukraine. Up until December 15, 2018 (New Style),
when a special Unification Council of the Eastern Orthodox Churches of Ukraine
took place in Kyiv, there were three Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine:
(1)
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), a self-governing
jurisdiction with considerable autonomy under the Russian Orthodox Church
(2)
The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, an independent jurisdiction
established in 1921 after the founding of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, a
short-lived state that was soon absorbed by the Soviet Union
(3)
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Kyiv Patriarchate, an independent
jurisdiction founded in 1992 following the dissolution of the Soviet Union
Of these three
ecclesiastical bodies, only the first was recognized by the rest of the
“official” Orthodox Churches, the other two being regarded as schismatic. The
two independent jurisdictions, namely, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox
Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Kyiv Patriarchate, had, over the
years, undertaken various initiatives to discuss their differences with a view
to eventual union. These initiatives, however, yielded no concrete results,
even though such differences as existed appear to have been primarily
administrative in nature.
Before we deal
specifically with the Unification Council itself, it is worth noting that one
of the major grievances of the Russian Orthodox Church with regard to the
granting of autocephaly to “the Orthodox Church of Ukraine” was the decision of
the OEcumenical Patriarchate to reinstate “the former Metropolitan Philaret
(Denisenko) [Filaret (Denysenko)] of Kiev and All Ukraine,”11 who had been
suspended by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) in May 1992
for
oath-breaking,
manifested in the violation of the vow made by him before the Cross and Gospel
at the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church[...]to convoke the
Bishops’ Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and submit there a petition
for resignation from the post of primate of the Ukrainian Church. [12]
In fact, less than
a month later, the same Bishops’ Council deposed him for a variety of reasons,
including
the
cruel and arrogant attitude[...]to his subordinate clergy, dictatorialness, and
intimidation[...], causing temptation among the faithful by his behavior and
personal life[…], oath-breaking[...], public slander and blasphemy against the
Bishops’ Council[...], celebrating services, including ordination, in a state
of suspension[...], [and] the perpetration of a schism in the Church[...]. [13]
According to the
Bishops’ Council, “These decisions were recognized by all the Local Orthodox
Churches including the Church of Constantinople.” [14] In fact, Constantinople
affirmed its recognition thereof in 1992 and 1997, only to annul these
affirmations “after more than two decades[...]for political reasons,” [15] as
the Russian Hierarchs put it.
Immediately prior
to the opening of the Unification Council of the Eastern Orthodox Churches of
Ukraine, both the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church–Kyiv Patriarchate dissolved themselves so as to facilitate the
creation of a unified Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The OEcumenical Patriarchate,
it should be noted, invited all of the Hierarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church (Moscow Patriarchate) to attend the Unification Council, but the
majority of them, including the Chief Hierarch, Metropolitan Onufriy
(Berezovsky), returned their invitations. This was hardly surprising, given
that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) viewed the two
independent jurisdictions as schismatic and renegade. In the event, two Hierarchs
of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) did attend, but their
participation in the proceedings was deemed problematic.
The three principal
results of the Unification Council of the Eastern Orthodox Churches of Ukraine
were:
(1)
The formation of a new united ecclesiastical body, to wit, the Orthodox Church
of Ukraine
(2)
The election of Metropolitan Epifaniy (Dumenko) of Pereiaslav and Bila Tserkva
of the former Ukrainian Orthodox Church–Kyiv Patriarchate as First Hierarch of
the Orthodox Church of Ukraine with the title “Metropolitan of Kyiv and All
Ukraine”
(3)
The ratification of the charter of the new Church [16]
These achievements,
positive though they undoubtedly are from the standpoint of the Orthodox Church
of Ukraine, precipitated a major controversy and the potential for a lasting
rift in “world Orthodoxy.” There are those Local Orthodox Churches that support
the Russian Orthodox Church, in some cases, such as the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside of Russia, severing communion with the OEcumenical Patriarchate, but in
others, such as the Serbian Orthodox Church, simply refusing to recognize the
Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Other Local Orthodox Churches, such as the Church
of Greece, side with Constantinople and recognize the Orthodox Church of
Ukraine, while yet others, such as the Church of Cyprus, remain in communion
with the OEcumenical Patriarchate but do not recognize the Orthodox Church of
Ukraine. The situation is highly volatile. To date, the Moscow Patriarchate has
severed communion only with the OEcumenical Patriarchate and with the Church of
Greece, since the latter has formally recognized the Orthodox Church of Ukraine
and affirmed the right of the Phanar to grant autocephaly thereto. For the most
part, the other Local Orthodox Churches, while refusing to recognize the
Orthodox Church of Ukraine or the right of the OEcumenical Patriarchate to
grant it autocephaly, remain in communion both with Constantinople and with
Moscow, and continue to press for the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Synod or
pan-Orthodox synaxis to resolve the matter. The OEcumenical Patriarchate of
Constantinople has consistently defended its right to grant autocephaly to the
Orthodox Church of Ukraine and rejected all proposals for a Pan-Orthodox Synod.
The Orthodox Church
of Ukraine officially received a Tome of Autocephaly from the OEcumenical
Patriarchate of Constantinople on January 5, 2019 (New Style), and less than a
month later, on February 3, 2019 (New Style), Metropolitan Epifaniy of Kyiv and
All Ukraine was Enthroned in Kyiv. Such, in brief, are the events surrounding
the establishment of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and the disturbance that it
spawned within the world of Orthodox Christianity. Despite, however, the
profound and multifaceted division between the two main and antagonistic poles
of the Orthodox world, namely, the OEcumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
and the Russian Orthodox Church, there is a very strong bond that unites them: their
common acceptance of the ecclesiocidal heresy of Ecumenism.
The absence of the
Russian Orthodox Church from the Councilof Crete, at which the “official”
Orthodox Churches Synodally sanctioned and recognized the new ecclesiology
of the innovating Ecumenists, gave rise to much speculation as to
the stance of the Moscow Patriarchate in this regard. As was to be expected,
even after everything that was decided and signed at Kolymbari, there appeared
a tendency, particularly among anti-Ecumenist New Calendarists, to
interpret the absence of the Russian Orthodox Church according to their own
hearts’ desire.
Highly indicative
of this trend is a completely misleading and deceptive article about the
putative rejection of the Council of Crete by the Hierarchs of Moscow entitled
“377 Orthodox Hierarchs Rejected ‘Kolymbari.’” At the conclusion of this
howlingly irresponsible article, it is written:
Ultimately,
whether intentionally or unwittingly, Russia saved the prestige of Orthodoxy,
setting the final seal on Kolymbari, which was officially rejected not only by
the plenitude of the Church, not only by the Churches of Russia, Serbia,
Bulgaria, and Georgia, but also by the Primates present from among all the
Autocephalous Churches. A great victory was brought about by all those who
struggled from every front to condemn the supposed “Council” that has divided
the Orthodox. The new horizon opening before us is that of informing the
faithful about Ecumenist theology, which has altered the mindset of the
Orthodox. Against this we must form a common united front. [17]
Another source
similarly attempts to soothe the ruffled consciences of the anti-Ecumenist New
Calendarists in the following deceptive manner:
On
the final, most solemn day of the festivities [of the Centennial of the
Restoration of the Moscow Patriarchate], the Hierarchy of the Church of Russia
once again convened, with the Primates (or their representatives) of the
Orthodox Churches in attendance, and ratified the conciliar decisions it had
made against the pseudo-Council. Thus, by this clever and diplomatic action,
Moscow wished to lend a pan- Orthodox character to its condemnation[...]. [18]
Clearly, the tragic
triumph of Ecumenism in all of the “official” Orthodox Churches, including—as
the present treatise will demonstrate—the Moscow Patriarchate, is being
disregarded, and a completely false appraisal is being set forth of the stance
of the largest Local Orthodox Church with regard to such a critical matter,
which has divided the Orthodox world for over a century.
Now, is it
admissible to concoct myths on such a serious subject and so deceive the People
of God?
The
Russian Hierarchs[...]support and fully justify the criticism of the texts of
the pseudo-Council expressed by a multitude of clergy, monastics, and laypeople
from all of the Local Churches, even from among those Churches that took part
in the pseudo-Council. [. . .They] justify the struggle of thousands of
faithful, who rejected the decisions of the Council and who underwent, and are
still undergoing, persecution. They justify all those who are slandered as
“extremists,” “fanatics,” “mentally ill,” or “fundamentalists” by the adherents
of Ecumenism. [19]
We must note, with
genuine regret, that even the anti-Ecumenist “Synaxis of Orthodox Clergy and
Monastics” did not remain uninfluenced by the unwarranted enthusiasm provoked
by the decision of the Russian Orthodox Church to maintain a cautious stance
toward “the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church.” The “Synaxis” makes
the following assertions in its “Communique”:
The
recent decision of the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Church, which
essentially abrogates the pseudo-Council of Crete, increases our joy and hopes,
and justifies all those who have struggled against [. . .the pseudo-Council].
We wait for other Local Churches, or at least other Bishops, clergy, and
monastics, and particularly those from the Holy Mountain, to reassess their
position. [20]
We can easily
ascertain from this statement that, in contradistinction to the vast amount of
literature detailing the immense extent to which the Greek-speaking Orthodox
Churches have been corroded by the panheresy of Ecumenism, there is a great and
substantial dearth of information available regarding the corresponding
phenomenon in the Russian Orthodox Church.
Conscious of the
historic responsibility that the Lord has bestowed on the Church of the Genuine
Orthodox Christians of Greece to furnish a serious and responsible study of the
multidimensional and multifaceted phenomenon of ecclesiocidal Ecumenism, as
a necessary precondition, as a sine qua non, to be sure, for a
theological confutation and, God willing, Synodal condemnation and repudiation
thereof by an authentically Patristic-minded Holy and Great Synod of Genuine
Orthodox Christianity, we have endeavored, with the blessing of our spiritual Father,
Metropolitan Kyprianos II of Oropos and Phyle, to compose the present treatise,
which we hope will contribute to a more considered, credible, and
well-documented evaluation of the attitude and confession of the Moscow
Patriarchate with regard to this matter of utmost importance in Orthodoxy
today, namely, ecclesiology.
The
Session of the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow,
February 2016
From February 2 to
3, 2016 (New Style), the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church met at
the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow. The Council convenes every four
years, with the participation of all of the Diocesan Bishops and Vicar Bishops.
According to Article III.1 of The Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church,
the Bishops’ Council “shall be the supreme body of the Russian Orthodox
Church in doctrinal, canonical, liturgical, pastoral, administrative and
other matters concerning both the internal and external life of the
Church[...].”21 One of the matters on the agenda was the convening of
the upcoming “Holy and Great Council” of Ecumenists in Kolymbari. With
this in view, the Russian Hierarchs were called upon to appraise the
final documents approved at the Fifth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox
Conference, held in Chambesy, Geneva, from October 10 to 17, 2015 (New
Style), as well as at the Synaxis of Primates of the Orthodox
Autocephalous Churches, also held in Chambesy, from January 21 to 28,
2016 (New Style).
One of the six
approved documents was the text “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest
of the Christian World.” In our essay, “Journey to the ‘Holy and Great Synod’:
An Unceasing Estrangement from Genuine Patristic Orthodoxy,” we demonstrated,
with documentation, that this text cannot but be understood as “the theological
basis of this new ecclesiology of the innovating ecumenists.” [22]
The
official Orthodox Churches, for the first time at a pan-Orthodox level, are
acknowledging the fundamental and real ecclesiality which supposedly
exists outside the canonical and charismatic boundaries of the Orthodox Church
(ecclesia extra ecclesiam). That is to say, they endorse a heretical
ecclesiology, the fruit of the long-term development and cultivation of
dogmatic syncretism, namely ecclesiocidal ecumenism, at a theoretical and at a
practical level. [23]
Moreover, we noted
that this new ecclesiology leads Orthodox Ecumenists
into
complete and total conflict with Orthodox ecclesiology as it has been
experienced throughout the ages by the One and only Church—namely,
Orthodoxy—and embodied in our Patristic and Synodal Tradition. [24]
One also finds a
similar theological assessment among anti-Ecumenist New Calendarists; for
example, Demetrios Tselengides, a Professor at the Theological School of
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, draws the following conclusion about
“Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”:
From
all that is clearly written and suggested in the foregoing document, it is
evident that those who inspired and composed it are undertaking an
institutional legitimation of Christian syncretism and ecumenism through a
decision by a pan-Orthodox Synod. [25]
II.
The Opinion of the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church
What, then, was the
opinion of the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose
obligation it is, in accordance with its statutes, to “preserve the purity and
integrity of [...] Orthodox doctrine”? [26]
The
members of the Bishops’ Council testify that, in their present form, the drafts
of the documents for the Holy and Great Council do not violate the purity of
the Orthodox Faith and do not deviate from the canonical tradition of the
Church. [27]
In order to
understand the seriousness of this assessment fully, we must keep in mind that
it is not simply the opinion of one or more Hierarchs, but rather an official
Synodal resolution, by which the ecclesiological self-consciousness of the
Russian Orthodox Church is defined. It is clear that this decision is one of
vital importance in determining whether or not the Moscow
Patriarchate is unified in the true Confession of Faith with the One,
Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. In any case, it is very
distressing that “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the
Christian World,” which destroys the foundations of Orthodox Patristic and
Synodal ecclesiology and which received such intense theological criticism from
other “official” Orthodox Churches—the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the Apostolic
Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Georgia, the Church of Greece, and the
Autonomous Monastic Community of Mount Athos—, was unreservedly and fully
accepted by the Hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church.
In order to
understand the causes of this tragic fall better, let us listen to the address
of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus’ to the Bishops’ Council of the
Russian Orthodox Church on February 2, 2016 (New Style), in which he appraised
“Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”:
In
its main positions, it takes into consideration the basic principles endorsed
in 2000 by the Bishops’ Council contained in the document “Basic Principles of
the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the Other Christian
Confessions.” [28] [29]
Indeed, we cannot
but agree with this assessment. A thorough examination of “Relations of the
Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” (Chambesy) and of “Basic
Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the Other
Christian Confessions” (Moscow) indisputably shows that both documents are
founded on the same ecclesiological basis, which was developed and cultivated
within the realm of the syncretistic heresy of Ecumenism, resulting in the
complete relativization of the eternal boundaries separating the Orthodox
Church from the various heresies. The Synodal institutionalization of such an
ecclesiology must assuredly be interpreted as an apostasy from Patristic and
Synodal Tradition, which, as Metropolitan Kyprianos II of Oropos and Phyle
stresses, has, to the contrary, “established with absolute clarity the eternal
boundaries of Orthodoxy, so that it might never be confused with heterodoxy.”
[30]
III.
An Attempt to Combine Two Mutually Exclusive Ecclesiological Principles
A careful and
serious study of the new syncretistic ecclesiology of the Orthodox Ecumenists,
as expressed in the aforementioned two documents, helps us to understand that
this ecclesiology is based on an attempt to combine two mutually exclusive
ecclesiological principles:
(1)
According to the first principle, it is proclaimed that the Orthodox
Church is the very Church of the Symbol of the Faith.
(2)
According to the second principle, on the other hand, it is confessed
that the heterodox Christian communities—despite the fact that, throughout
history, they have “broken off” from the Orthodox Church—do not cease to exist
within the boundaries of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
In particular, the
official ecclesiological document of the Council of Crete, “Relations of the
Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World,” defines the Orthodox
Church as “the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” [31] while it
simultaneously states that “the Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of
other non-Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions that are not in communion
with her.” [32] Likewise, the official ecclesiological document of the Moscow
Patriarchate, “Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church
Toward the Other Christian Confessions,” confesses that
The
Orthodox Church is the true Church of Christ established by our Lord and
Saviour Himself[...]. She is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the
keeper and provider of the Holy Sacraments throughout the world, “the pillar
and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). [33]
Yet it subsequently
states, in complete contradiction to the above,
At
the same time however, communities which have fallen away from Orthodoxy have
never been viewed as fully deprived of the grace of God. Any break from
communion with the Church inevitably leads to an erosion of her grace-filled
life, but not always to its complete loss in these separated communities. This
is why the Orthodox Church does not receive those coming to her from
non-Orthodox communities only through the Sacrament of Baptism. In spite of the
rupture of unity, there remains a certain incomplete fellowship which serves as
the pledge of a return to unity in the Church, to catholic fullness and
oneness. [34]
***
Over the course of
a century (since 1920), Orthodox Ecumenists have been endeavoring to achieve a
syncretistic amalgamation of these two mutually exclusive and contradictory
ecclesiological principles. The result of these endeavors was, and continues to
be, a theological formulation and practical implementation of a new
ecclesiological self-consciousness that no longer presupposes an exclusive but
rather a comprehensive attitude of “official” Orthodoxy toward
heterodoxy.
This new
ecclesiology initiates those Orthodox Christians who are in ecclesiastical
communion with Orthodox Ecumenists into a new understanding of the Church, of
the Church in a broader sense, and leads them to adopt a new,
comprehensive theological view of heretics. The Orthodox Ecumenists
thereby assuredly have as their ulterior goal to place the Church where their
God-Bearing Forefathers did not envision it, that is, in the domain outside
of the canonical and charismatic boundaries of the Orthodox Church (ecclesia
extra ecclesiam). We thus deem it necessary, in what follows, to
demonstrate the wellsprings from which the new ecclesiological consciousness
officially and Synodally proclaimed by the Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox
Church flows. A brief historical retrospective is absolutely indispensable in
order for us to place this consciousness within its own historical and
hermeneutic context.
IV.
Historical Retrospective: Two Contradictory Ecclesiologies
The ancient Church
was acquainted with two ways of approaching the issue of the boundaries of the
Church with regard to the place of heretical and schismatic communities that
had “broken off” from Her, that is, how the nature of heresy and of schism are ecclesiologically
defined. The first way was worked out by Saint Cyprian of Carthage in the third
century and the second way was worked out by Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
a century later. Despite the fact that these two ecclesiological views were developed
in the same spiritual climate of the Church of North Africa, they are
nevertheless contradictory and are to be found precisely at the root of the
subsequent divergence that developed between the Eastern Orthodox Church and
the Roman Catholic and Protestant West with regard to the doctrine of the
Church.
a.
The Ecclesiology of Saint Cyprian of Carthage
In the middle of
the third century, there emerged in the West the well-known dispute between
Saint Stephen I of Rome († 257) and Saint Cyprian of Carthage. The essence of
the contention between the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Carthage centered
on the question of the validity of the baptism of heretics and schismatics. The
Church was called to decide whether those who had been baptized in heresy or
schism would need to be Baptized upon entering the Church. The Church of North
Africa received them through the Mystery of Holy Baptism, whereas the Church of
Rome received them solely through the Mystery of Holy Chrismation. The dispute
escalated when Saint Stephen demanded that the Roman practice be implemented in
all of the Local Orthodox Churches.
In an epistle to
Bishop Jubaianus of Mauretania (fl. 3rd cent.), Saint Cyprian stresses
that the issue was by no means a novel one, since the problem had already “been
examined of old with all exactitude and diligence by those who came before us.”
[35] In particular, Saint Cyprian refers to the Holy Synod of Carthage (220),
which ruled on the invalidity of the baptism of heretics and schismatics. Thus,
the Orthodox Christians of North Africa were not introducing innovations, as
they were so accused, but were simply adhering to “the steadfastness [of the Canons]
of the Catholic Church,” [36] in accordance with which “[n]o one can be
Baptized outside the Baptism of the Catholic Church, which is one, and is found
in the Catholic Church alone.” [37]
Nevertheless, as a
genuine Father and first Teacher of the Orthodox Church in the West, Saint
Cyprian does not confine himself only to referring to Tradition, and Synodal
Tradition at that; rather, inspired by God, he transfers the dispute from a
pastoral and practical level to a theological level. Precisely herein lies the
greatest and most essential contribution of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, who, as
a possessor of the primacy of truth and of the charism of theology, offers to
the Body of the Church, at a critical historical juncture, a complete
theological elucidation and clarification of a pastoral practice that, in the
conscience of the Church, constituted part of ecclesiastical tradition. In
order to resolve the pastoral question of the validity of the baptism of
heretics and schismatics, Saint Cyprian deemed it absolutely necessary to
treat this question as a matter of ecclesiology. [38] In other words,
whoever maintains that Bishop Novatian of Rome (ca. 200–ca. 258),
a schismatic Hierarch, is able “to Baptize and to sanctify” [39] must first
demonstrate that Novatian “is in the Church.” [40] In this way, Saint Cyprian
transfers the center of the point of contention from the level of an
ecclesiastical custom to the level of an ecclesiological issue of the
boundaries and unity of the Church.
The fundamental
concern of the theological thinking of Saint Cyprian is indisputably “the
Mystery of Unity,” [41] which exists on multiple levels. The foundation and
source of this multilevel unity is the unity of the Three Persons of the
Holy Trinity. [42] This unity “comes from above; it is from Heaven, from
the Father,” [43] and becomes the wellspring and cause of other levels of
unity: the unity of the Church, the unity of the Hierarchical office, the unity
among the Faithful, and also—and this is very important for the matter at
hand—the unity of the Mysteries. [44] Beginning with the multilateral Mystery
of Unity, Saint Cyprian formulates a clear theological principle, which, as
an expression of the self-consciousness of the Church, is at the basis of the
solution to the question of the validity of the baptism of heretics and
schismatics: “[B]aptism and the Church cannot in any way be separated and
detached from one another.” [45] In order to highlight the unbreakable bond
between the Church and Baptism, Saint Cyprian speaks of “true and
ecclesiastical Baptism” [46] and of “ecclesiastical Grace.” [47] According to Saint
Cyprian, it is indisputably only within the realm of the Church that a person
can “be born of water and of the Spirit” [48] and become a son of God by Grace:
“He cannot have God as his Father, who does not have the Church as his mother.”
[49]
Preservation and
confession of this multilateral Mystery of Unity in its entirety is a
precondition for life and salvation: “He who does not preserve this
unity does not preserve the law of God, does not preserve the Faith of
the Father and the Son, does not preserve life and salvation.” [50]
Saint Cyprian explains that this is due to the character of the unity of
the Church, which, proceeding as it does from the Triune Unity, cannot
be ruptured. The only thing that can possibly happen is for one part to
be severed from the unity, an event which inevitably entails “loss of
life and the essence of salvation” [51] for the part that has been cut
off. [52]
***
Saint Cyprian of
Carthage, in accordance with the tradition that Saint Irenæus of Lyons (ca. 125–202)
brought from Asia Minor and placed at the foundation of Western theology,
understood salvation first and foremost as victory over death and the
acquisition of immortality and incorruptibility.53 On the day of Pentecost, the
Church received from Christ, in the Holy Spirit, the fullness of His victorious
strength. [54] Only the Church has the power to render man immortal, since only
She has access to the “wellspring and stream of living water.” [55] It is
precisely within this context that one must understand the statement of Saint
Cyprian that “there is no salvation outside the Church.” [56] This unity of the
Church, which we would call “organic” in nature, simultaneously determines the
boundaries of the Church. According to Saint Cyprian, the Church unequivocally
has boundaries and is surrounded by “walls,” [57] and only “within these walls”
[58] does there exist “the Grace of salvific Baptism.” [59] And since the
Church is One and has Her boundaries, it is not possible to exist
simultaneously inside of Her and outside of Her. [60] Saint Cyprian likens
the Church to an “[e]nclosed garden and a sealed fountain,” [61] a phrase he
borrows from Holy Scripture, [62] and one of the responsibilities of the
Hierarchs is to preserve and to protect “the boundaries of the living fountains”
[63] of the Church by means of knowledge of the Mystery of Unity.
Ecclesiastical
Tradition, as Saint Cyprian received and experienced it, comprises, inter alia,
the following Rule of Faith: “It has been handed down to us that there is one
God, one Christ, one hope, one faith, one Church, and one Baptism[...]. [64]
Whoever departs from this unity will of necessity find himself among the
heretics.” [65] Whosoever separates himself from the unity of the Church, be he
a heretic or a schismatic, passes over into a realm that Saint Cyprian calls in
his epistles “extra ecclesiam.” [66] The basic characteristic of this
realm is that it lies under the dominion of death: “It is manifest that all
those who are not inside the Church of Christ are counted among the dead, and
that it is not possible for one who is not himself alive to give life to
others[...].” [67] Citing the “authority of the Gospels and the Apostolic
Tradition,” [68] Saint Cyprian asserts, in the Holy Spirit, that outside of the
Church there is no access “to ecclesiastical and salvific Grace.” [69]
Saint Hilarion of
Vereya (1886–1929) superbly summarizes the teaching of Saint Cyprian of
Carthage regarding the nature of the realm extra Ecclesiam:
The
Church is like an oasis of Grace surrounded by a completely barren desert.
Outside the Church, we are without Grace, without the Holy Spirit, and this
applies equally to idolaters, heretics, and schismatics. All are equally bereft
of Grace, since they are outside the Church, and we should Baptize all of them
alike, if they wish to enter the Church. [70]
This is precisely
the theological basis on which is founded the well-known Canon of the Holy
Synod of Carthage, under the Presidency of Saint Cyprian, in 256: “[D]ecreeing
this now, which we have always maintained strongly and surely, that no one can
be Baptized outside the Catholic Church, there being but one Baptism, which
exists in the Catholic Church alone.” [71]
b.
The OEcumenical Validity and Authority of the Ecclesiology of Saint Cyprian of
Carthage
Before we present
the ecclesiology of Saint Augustine of Hippo during the Donatist controversy,
we deem it expedient to refer, if only briefly, to the interpretations that
periodically appear in theological research, which raise doubts, without
substantive documentation, and maintain that the teaching of Saint Cyprian of
Carthage regarding the Church supposedly does not express, define, and reveal
the self-consciousness of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, or at
least that his ecclesiology has putatively been superseded.
This perception of
the restricted validity of the Canon of the Holy Synod of Carthage, which
supposedly expressed only the local tradition of North Africa, is based, inter
alia, on an arbitrary interpretation of a commentary by the Holy Fathers on the
Second Canon of the Quinisext Holy OEcumenical Synod, which ascribes universal
validity to the decision of the Holy Synod of Carthage under the Presidency of
Saint Cyprian.
But
we set our seal likewise upon all the other sacred Canons[...] and, moreover,
the Canon promulgated by Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of the Africans and
Martyr, and by the Synod under him, which held sway only in the country of the
aforesaid Prelates, according to the custom handed down to them[...]. [72]
As a case in point,
Metropolitan Paulos (Menebisoglou) of Sweden and All Scandinavia, in his
treatise on the Canons of the Orthodox Church, takes as his starting point an
elucidation of the word “only,” [73] so as to proceed to an unsubstantiated and
completely subjective assessment, according to which the Quinisext Holy
OEcumenical Synod did “not accept that Canon as a Canon for the entire Church,
but rather as a Canon of the Church of Africa.” [74] Likewise, Bishop Kyrillos
(Katerelos) of Krene, a contemporary exponent of baptismal theology among the
Orthodox Ecumenists and a university professor, is of the opinion that the
views of Saint Cyprian possessed only “local validity” [75] and “were not
adopted by the Church.” [76]
***
It is noteworthy
that Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite (1749–1809), as a genuine Patristic
interpreter of the Divine and Sacred Canons, does not encounter any difficulty
in interpreting this Synodal commentary: the Quinisext Holy OEcumenical Synod
“ratified [...the Canon of the Holy Synod of Carthage], and from being merely a
Canon of a local and partial Synod, it has now become a Canon of an OEcumenical
Synod.” [77] As for the commentary whereby the Quinisext Holy OEcumenical Synod
“reserved the present Canon apart,” [78] Saint Nikodemos maintains that the
Synod “did this by way of oeconomy and condescension, and not according to
exactitude.” [79] However, continues Saint Nikodemos, “the Sixth OEcumenical
Synod, in its Second Canon, ratified it[...]. Once it ratified it, it confirmed
it still further and did not abrogate it.” [80]
The thinking of the
Holy Fathers of the Quinisext Holy OEcumenical Synod is perfectly clear and
leaves no room for doubt. By the decision to invest the Canon of the Holy Synod
of Carthage with universal validity, it is manifestly affirmed that the Holy Fathers
accepted the ecclesiological teaching of Saint Cyprian of Carthage as an
expression of the self-consciousness and experience of the entire Church.
Through the explanatory word “only,” [81] the Holy Fathers validate the
subsequent decision of the Church to use oeconomy with regard to those who are
in schism or heresy, so that they may be accepted, when the Church deems it so
necessary, without the Mystery of Holy Baptism.
***
Historical and
theological research proves conclusively that the fundamental ecclesiological
principles of Saint Cyprian of Carthage constitute an integral part of the Rule
of Faith (regula fidei) of the Catholic Orthodox Church, and not only
that of the Local Orthodox Church of North Africa. Metropolitan Iōannēs
(Zēzioulas) of Pergamon, in his well-known historical study of the ecclesiology
of the first three centuries, clearly shows that “[a] basic presupposition of
Cyprian’s position is the coincidence between the canonical boundaries of
the Church and her essential boundaries,” [82] which also expressed the
Faith and Tradition of all of the Local Orthodox Churches of the third century.
A careful examination of the history of the Church cannot but confirm this
view.
Saint Firmilian of
Casarea (ca. 200–ca. 269), expressing the Apostolic Tradition of
his Local Orthodox Church, was in complete agreement with Saint Cyprian of
Carthage, since, in contradistinction to Saint Stephen I of Rome, he
unconditionally adopted the conclusions of the Holy Synod of Carthage, for they
were formulated, as he writes, “in accordance with the canon of truth and the
wisdom of Christ.” [83] In his epistle to Saint Cyprian, Saint Firmilian
emphasizes that this view of Baptism is that “which was handed down from the
beginning by Christ and the Apostles” [84] to the Churches of Asia Minor. He
adds that this tradition was confirmed by the Holy Synod of Iconium (ca. 230–235),
which was convened owing to the doubt in certain minds regarding the validity
of the baptism of the Montanists. The decision of this Local Synod is crystal
clear: “[E]very baptism is altogether to be rejected which is performed outside
of the Church.” [85] Basing himself on these ecclesiological principles in
relation to those of Latin North African theology, Saint Firmilian affirms that
heretics, being cut off from the Church, are deprived of “power and
Grace,” [86] that is, alienated from “spiritual and deifying sanctity.”
[87] Hence, being separated from the Church, they are not able to “enact
anything holy or spiritual.” [88]
One century later,
his successor in the See of the Church of Casarea, Saint Basil the Great (ca.
329–379), in his First Canon, bases himself entirely on the Rule of Faith
that existed in the Church from the outset regarding the validity of baptisms
outside of the Church. Referring to Saints Cyprian and Firmilian, Saint Basil
elaborates on the reason why heretics and schismatics cannot Baptize:
The
beginning of the separation came about through schism, and those who
apostatized from the Church no longer had on them the Grace of the Holy Spirit.
For the impartation thereof ceased with the rupture of the continuity[...]. In
breaking away, they became laymen, and thus they had no authority either to
Baptize or to Ordain, since they no longer had the power to confer on others
the Grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves had fallen. [89]
As regards the
Church of Alexandria, the same understanding of the invalidity of the rites of
heretics is attested to by Saint Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–ca. 215),
by Saint Dionysios of Alexandria (ca. 190–264), and by Saint Athanasios
the Great (296–373). According to Saint Hippolytos of Rome (ca. 170–ca.
236), the same practice was also observed in Rome under Saint Kallistos I
of Rome († 222).90 Likewise, this order also held sway during the third century
in Syria, as attested to by the Forty-Sixth, Forty-Seventh, Forty-Eighth,
Fiftieth, and Sixty-Eighth Apostolic Canons. The Forty-Sixth Apostolic Canon,
in fact, advocates the deposition of those who have accepted the baptism or the
eucharistic sacrifice of heretics, and the Forty-Seventh Apostolic Canon
prescribes the deposition of those who refuse to Baptize heretics.
This unshakable
historical and canonical evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
Rule of Faith regarding the invalidity of extra-ecclesiastical rites
constituted an integral part of the Apostolic Tradition of the Local Orthodox
Churches duringthe third century. The Quinisext Holy OEcumenical Synod, with
its decision to ratify the Canon of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, the Apostolic
Canons, and the Canons of Saint Basil the Great, bestowed oecumenical validity
on this regula fidei, which thenceforth has constituted an organic part
of the criterion of Orthodoxy.
***
Apart from the
foregoing views, which completely substantiate the canonical authority of the
ecclesiology of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, it would be useful to expound a bit
further on this thorny issue. Another interpretation, which one frequently
encounters among proponents of the ecclesiocidal baptismal theology, attempts
to convince us that, beginning in the fourth century, the Church abandoned the
ecclesiological teaching of Saint Cyprian. Thus, the Seventh Canon of the
Second Holy OEcumenical Synod and the Ninety-Fifth Canon of the Quinisext Holy
OEcumenical Synod established three ways of receiving those joining themselves
to Orthodoxy. This pastoral practice, according to the arbitrary, erroneous,
and utterly anti-Patristic interpretation of the Orthodox Ecumenists,
supposedly indicates that the Church, convening an OEcumenical Synod, decided
to accept the existence of Baptism outside of Her canonical boundaries.
Archbishop
Hierōnymos i of Athens and All Greece (1905–1988), a prominent professor of
canon law, however, in his extensive treatise on ecclesiastical oeconomy, completely
accepts the “oecumenical validity of the First Canon of the Synod convened in
Carthage under Saint Cyprian,” [91] and is entirely categorical on this matter.
The question of the validity of extra-ecclesiastical rites must be approached
from two different perspectives, namely, the validity of the rites of heretics who
return to Orthodoxy is one thing, and the validity of the rites of those who
remain in heresy—that is, the intrinsic validity of the rites of
heretics—is another. [92] The conclusion of his historical, canonical, and
dogmatic study is absolutely clear:
There
is no Sacred Canon, no canonical prescription—nor can the age-old history of
the Church offer even one example—according to which mysteries celebrated by
the heterodox were officially recognized by Her as valid in and of
themselves[...]. [93]
The potential
acceptance of the validity of extra-ecclesiastical rites inevitably leads, in
his opinion, to the “overturning of a dogma most fundamental for the Church.”
[94]
Another prominent
professor of dogmatic theology, Metropolitan Chrysostomos (Kōnstantinidēs) of
Ephesus (1921–2006), arrives at a similar conclusion, whereby he also accepts
the universal validity of the Canon of Saint Cyprian of Carthage [95] and precludes
the possibility of interpreting the act of receiving heretics into the
Church by oeconomy, without the Mystery of Holy Baptism, as a rejection of the
ecclesiological teaching of Saint Cyprian; that is, he rejects the recognition
of Mysteries outside of the Orthodox Church.
The
Mysteries are the expression, the proclamation, and participation in the being
of the Church […]. Such being the case, anything acting as a “mystery” outside
of the aforementioned “ecclesiastical” boundaries is not a Mystery and is not
recognized as a true and salvific Mystery […]. This means that, according to
exactitude, the only true and valid Mysteries are those of the Orthodox Church,
which is identical to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church […]. [96]
c.
The Ecclesiology of Saint Augustine of Hippo
As we mentioned
earlier, the second ecclesiological approach to the nature of heresy and schism
was elaborated by Saint Augustine of Hippo in the context of his dispute with
the Donatists. His ecclesiological thinking, developed about the year 400 in
his work Seven Books on Baptism Against the Donatists (De
Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem) literally constitutes a
rupture, not only with the Eastern theology of the Holy Synods and the Holy
Fathers, but also with pre-Augustinian Western theology. In order to understand
the ecclesiological thinking of Saint Augustine, it is of vital importance to
take into consideration that Saint Augustine did not possess adequate
historical knowledge of the development of the significant ecclesiastical
crisis regarding the validity of the baptism of heretics.
During the first
two centuries of Christianity, the term “heretic” referred primarily to
Gnostics, whose teaching was so different from that of the Church that there
was no doubt that they were not Christians and that they had to be received by
the Church like the pagans, that is, by the Mystery of Holy Baptism.
Circumstances changed, however, at the end of the third century with the
emergence of the heresy of Montanism, which did not differ from the Church with
regard to dogma. The Church was thus faced with a serious practical and
pastoral problem: How would She receive those who had been baptized
in Montanism and subsequently asked to be joined to the Church? The
resolution of this problem was bound up with the first historical Synods, one
of which was convened in Carthage under Bishop Agrippinos of Carthage (fl. 3rd
cent.) in 220 and the other two in Asia Minor, the Synod of Iconium and the
Synod of Synnada, held between 230 and 235. These three Synods decided in
concord that those joining the Church from Montanism must be received by
Baptism. Later, under the Presidency of Saint Cyprian, three more Synods took
place in Carthage (in the autumn of 255, in the spring of 256, and in September
256), which confirmed the invalidity of the baptism of heretics and
schismatics.
A serious
ecclesiastical crisis was provoked by Saint Stephen I when he ascended the
Throne of Rome in 254. It should be noted that the dispute did not arise
because Saint Stephen, following local custom, received heretics and
schismatics into the Church only by means of the Mystery of Holy Chrismation,
but because he demanded the implementation of the local Roman practice in the
Local Orthodox Churches of Africa and of Asia Minor, which were not in the
least inclined to submit to such anti-ecclesiastical and autocratic demands.
The response of Saint Stephen was to disavow them. Essentially, only his
Martyric death in 257 saved him from reaping the bitter fruits of his arrogant
behavior and of being himself cut off from the Church. In a letter to Saint Cyprian
of Carthage, Saint Firmilian of Cæsarea writes that the Pope of Rome, by this
action of his, “makes himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical
unity.” [97]
***
It has been
established that Saint Augustine’s treatment of this issue was based on an
interpretation of Church history that was aberrant in many ways. He mistakenly
believed that the Apostolic Tradition kept by the Universal Church prescribed
that heretics and schismatics should not be Baptized and that the first to
“corrupt” [98] this Apostolic Tradition was Bishop Agrippinos, at the Holy
Synod of Carthage in 220. According to Saint Augustine, when the question arose
again some thirty years later as to whether “remission of sins and man’s
spiritual regeneration” [99] could take place among heretics, Saint Cyprian,
together with “some few” [100] likewise misguided Hierarchs—it should be
noted that thirty-one Hierarchs took part in the First Synod of Carthage in
255, seventy-one Hierarchs in the Second Synod of Carthage in 256, and
eighty-seven Hierarchs in the Third Synod of Carthage in 256—since they did not
understand how to defend the ecclesiastical custom of not re=Baptizing
heretics, followed Bishop Agrippinos and “devised something new.” [101]
The great esteem in
which he held the person of Saint Cyprian notwithstanding, Saint Augustine was
firmly convinced that the latter was mistaken in this matter. In his opinion,
Saint Cyprian had “imperfect insight into the hidden mystery of the Sacrament.”
[102] This “imperfect insight” [103] led him, “contrary to the rule of truth,”
[104] to compel heretics and schismatics to be Baptized anew. A careful study
of Saint Augustine’s treatise De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri
septem leaves no room for doubt: it is not only a confutation of
Donatism, but simultaneously a detailed rebuttal of the ecclesiology of
Saint Cyprian of Carthage.
The first and
fundamental principle set forth by Saint Augustine in
his rebuttal of the Donatists essentially presupposes the complete
disapprobation of the long-held and Synodally-sanctioned ecclesiology of
Saint Cyprian. Whereas Saint Cyprian bases himself on the indivisible
ontological unity between Church and Baptism, Saint Augustine cuts Baptism
off from the Church, so as to link it directly with Christ as its primary
minister. In this way, the ground was laid for a different understanding of the
Church, according to which Baptism is accepted as existing “outside the
communion of the Church.” [105]
The second
principle of the ecclesiological thinking of Saint
Augustine, likewise revolutionary, lies in the distinction he ventures to make
between “the Mystery of Baptism” [106] and Grace itself, which he also defines
as being salvation, [107] “the remission of sins,” [108] or the gift of the
Holy Spirit. [109] In other words, it is one thing to have Baptism and another
thing to have avail of it: [110] in heresy and schism, Baptism certainly
exists, but without fruit, to no avail, and instead of salvation, it works to
condemnation; [111] only by union with the Church is it possible for baptism
received outside of the Church to bear fruit, that is, to become “for the
remission of sins and sanctification of life.” [112]
As we can see,
Saint Augustine of Hippo innovates radically, introducing a hitherto unknown
distinction between the validity of Baptism and the efficacy of
Baptism. Moreover, when he attempts to explain how it is possible for Baptism
to be valid, but at the same time to be of no avail, he resorts to rather peculiar
reasoning: “[A]t the moment of the celebration of the Mystery, the sins of
the one being Baptized are indeed remitted, yet afterward, they return
immediately to him as a consequence of his adherence to heresy[...].” [113]
According to Saint Augustine, the primary deficiency in the ecclesiology of
Saint Cyprian lies precisely in his failure to ascertain and elaborate on this basic
distinction. Hence, Saint Cyprian was supposedly not in a position to
understand that it is possible for Baptism to exist outside of the
Church, in heresy and schism. [114]
***
In order, however,
to complete our exposition of the ecclesiology of Saint Augustine of Hippo,
with regard to its principles, we must relate the following very interesting
points. As we have said, in his work De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri
septem, Saint Augustine simultaneously rejected both the Donatists and
Saint Cyprian of Carthage. The Donatists maintained that a Baptism is invalid
if the Priest who performed it had committed a mortal sin; Saint Cyprian taught
that Baptism is invalid only if the Priest is cut off from the Church. To these
positions of the Donatists and of Saint Cyprian, Saint Augustine responded that
the validity of Baptism does not depend on either the holiness of the
Priest or on his unity with the Church; thus a Baptism can be
lawfully accomplished just as much by “unrighteous and impious persons” [115]
and a murderer as by a “heretic or schismatic.” [116]
Thus, Saint
Augustine placed dogma and morality on the same level (a move with
significant consequences for Western Christianity); that is, he equated,
with regard to their relationship to the Church, heretics and Her sinful
members. Among those who have the Holy Mysteries, but without Divine
Grace and to no avail, are included not only heretics and schismatics,
but also all of the members of the Church who live contrary to the
commandments of Christ. [117] In this way, Saint Augustine arrived at
the complete relativization of the boundaries of the Church, as we
see from the following statement of his: “For in that unspeakable foreknowledge
of God, many who seem to be without are in reality within, and many who
seem to be within yet really are without.” [118] Whether someone is inside
or outside of the Church thus depends on the condition of his heart. [119]
***
This ecclesiology,
expressed in such a novel way, clearly constituted a great rupture with
the theological thinking both of the Latin Fathers and of the Greek Fathers of
the Church, and indisputably forms part of the basis of today’s Ecumenical
Movement. Tragically for the further development of Western Christianity,
subsequent generations of Latin theologians did not heed the exhortation that
Saint Augustine of Hippo addressed to the readers of his works: “Hold fast
whatever truth you have been able to grasp, and attribute it to the Catholic
Church. Reject what is false and pardon me who am but a man.” [120]
Thus, instead of
being assessed in accordance with the words of Saint Vincent of Lérins († ca.
450), “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all,” [121] the
theology of Saint Augustine was established, especially by Scholasticism, as
virtually the sole source and criterion for the formulation and
development of Western theology. Later, in the Middle Ages, Western theology,
following in the footsteps of Saint Augustine, departed yet further from the consensus
Patrum. At the Council of Trent (1546–1563), Papism fell to the extreme
point of anathematizing the pre-Augustinian ecclesiology expressed by
Saint Cyprian of Carthage and other venerable Fathers, and sanctioned by Local
Synods and the Quinisext Holy OEcumenical Synod:
If
anyone says that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing
what the Church does, is not true baptism: let him be anathema. [122]
V.
Ecclesiastical Reforms for the Sake of Westernizing and Modernizing Russian
Orthodoxy
In the sixteenth
century, Ukrainian (“Little Russian,” i.e., southwestern Russian)
Orthodoxy found itself in a deep crisis on account of a steadily evolving
process of intense Latinization. The theologians of Ukraine had, during that
period, adopted wholesale the basic framework, principles, and methodology of Latin
theology, as the latter had developed in Scholasticism and subsequently in the
conflict between the Protestant and Roman Catholic, and specifically the
Jesuit, traditions. Protopresbyter Georges Vasilievich Florovsky (1893–1979)
describes this alteration of Ukrainian Orthodoxy as a Latin pseudomorphosis and
as an internal poisoning by Latin religiosity, which had as a consequence the
cultivation and development of a form of crypto-Papism. [123] As a natural
consequence, these substantial and radical changes also had an impact on the
way in which the issue of rites performed outside of the Orthodox Church was
approached. From the inception of Christianity in Russia, converts from the
West were received into Orthodoxy by the Mystery of Holy Baptism, and in Muscovite
Russia, this practice was still in force at the beginning of the seventeenth
century, when it was ratified at the Synod of Moscow of 1620 under Patriarch
Filaret of Moscow and All Rus’ (1553–1633). [124]
***
However, in the
region of southwest Russia, a different ecclesiastical order prevailed during
the same period. The most characteristic representative of this totally
Latinized Orthodoxy was Metropolitan Petro (Mohyla) of Kiev, Galicia, and All
Rus’ (1596–1646), Exarch of the OEcumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, who
viewed Latin dogmatic teaching as fully Orthodox and the question of the Unia
as a purely administrative matter. In view of this, it is completely
understandable that Metropolitan Petro also accepted the Latin teaching
concerning the Mysteries (ex opere operato) and regarded the baptism of
heretics as valid. In 1646, he compiled and edited an edition of the Great
Euchologion in which it was stipulated that Protestants be received into
Orthodoxy by Chrismation and Roman Catholics without Chrismation. The magnitude
of the alienation of Metropolitan Petro’s theological thought from Synodal and
Patristic ecclesiology becomes very evident from the way in which he
characterizes Papists as merely “schismatics, as maintaining the seven
Mysteries and the rites of the Church, not having separated themselves from the
Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.” [125] He sternly warned his clergy that none of
them should dare, when receiving Roman Catholics, to repeat their chrismation
or ordination, since they bear a seal and sign which cannot be obliterated.
[126]
***
During the
seventeenth century, the Westernized Orthodoxy of the Ukrainians began to
relocate northward, to Moscow. In that period, the Muscovite Patriarchs,
especially Patriarch Ioakim of Moscow and All Rus’ (1620–1690), with the
multilateral assistance of the Patriarchs of the East, such as Patriarch
Dositheos II of Jerusalem (1641–1707) and others, strove with all their might
to protect Orthodox Christianity in the face of the danger posed by
Latinization, which the imperial court supported and fostered. This valiant
resistance, however, was thwarted when, in 1682, Emperor Pyotr I the Great of
Russia (1672–1725) ascended the imperial throne, and in particular when the
Synodal constitution of the Russian Orthodox Church was paralyzed and the
office of Patriarch was abolished. By this act, Emperor Pyotr I inaugurated the
realization of a broad ecclesiastical reformation, in the name of Westernizing
and modernizing Russian Orthodoxy.
***
Saint Hilarion of
Vereya, in a lecture entitled “Theology and the Freedom of the Church” that he
delivered in 1915 at the Moscow Theological Academy, describes in the following
manner the tragic situation in which Russian Orthodoxy found itself during the
era of Emperor Pyotr the Great:
There
were, in fact, times in the eighteenth century when any talk of defending
Orthodoxy or censuring Western heresies was regarded as a civil offense, as an
assault against the government [...]. Some Bishops lost their Sees and were
imprisoned simply for publishing and disseminating The Rock of Faith by
[Metropolitan] Stefan Yavorsky [of Ryazan and Murom (1658–1722)], a protracted
polemical work against Protestantism [...]. In the eighteenth century, on
account of the total domination of the Academy by Ukrainians, Western
Scholastic theology prevailed [...]. All of the future pastors of the Russian
people, all of the future theologians, began to speak in Latin. [127]
VI.
The Endeavor to Return to the Orthodoxy of the Holy Fathers and the Holy Synods
Only in the middle
of the nineteenth century, and especially through the contributions of Saint
Philaret of Moscow (1782–1867), did Russian theology undertake a journey of
gradual liberation from the fetters of its Western captivity to return to the
Orthodoxy of the Holy Fathers and the Holy Synods. This explains how, at the
end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, we
encounter in Russian theology two divergent conceptions of the Church, two
divergent ecclesiological currents. The first current endeavored, in a creative
return to the Patristic and Synodal foundations, to discover anew the Orthodox
understanding of the Church. Names like those of Aleksey Stepanovich Khomyakov
(1804–1860), Saint Ignatius of Stavropol (1807–1867), Saint Theophanes the
Recluse (1815–1894), Metropolitan Antoniy of Kiev and Galicia (1863–1936), and
others are connected with this undertaking. The second current, by contrast,
continued to reinforce the tradition of Russian crypto-Papism, that is, the cultivation
of Scholastic theology in the academic environment of the Tsarist educational
system.
***
One of the most
important personalities of the first current was Saint Hilarion of Vereya, a
leading Russian theologian of the twentieth century and a Holy New Hieromartyr.
With his acute spiritual disposition, as though he had foreseen that the issue
of ecclesiology would predominate during the impending twentieth century, he
dedicated his entire theological oeuvre to the topic of the Church.
Saint Hilarion, in the era in which Orthodox Christianity was called to
encounter Western Christianity, undertook a most valuable service: he offered
to the Orthodox the unerring and unshakable foundation of Patristic and Synodal
discourse about the Church. Of especial importance is his thorough and detailed
historico-theological treatise concerning the development and formation of the
ecclesiological self-consciousness of the early Church, entitled Studies in
the History of the Dogma of the Church, published in 1912, in the
introduction of which he writes:
The
history of the dogma of the Church, for us, is nothing other than the history
of how theological study disclosed the one and unchangeable understanding of
the Church. From the time of Christ and the Apostles to the present day, the
Church, with Her self-understanding, has remained one and the same; it is only
the comprehension by theological study of the dogma of the Church that has
changed, in breadth and depth. [128]
Of particular
importance regarding the question of the unity and the boundaries of the Church
is his work The Unity of the Church and the World Conference of
Christian Communities, which he wrote in 1917. With reference to Saint
Cyprian of Carthage, he emphasizes that the foundation of the Church and the
precondition for belonging to the Church is not only unanimity in the Faith but
chiefly, and first and foremost, the very fact of organic union with the Church
as the Body of Christ.
Membership
in the Church is determined by the unity with the Church. It cannot be
otherwise, if only because the Church is not a school of philosophy. She is a
new mankind, a new grace-filled organism of love. She is the body of Christ.
Christ Himself compared the unity of His disciples with the organic unity of a
tree and its branches. [129]
From this very
clear Patristic understanding of the unity of the Church, it becomes
inescapably evident that any separation from the Church, regardless of its
cause, entails excision from the Body and alienation from unity with the
Church. This means that Saint Hilarion rejects the possibility that there
exists an invisible unity of the Church where there is a real and visible
rupture of communion:
It is not the
degree of the dogmatic dissent on the part of the separated member that is
important; what is significant in the extreme is the fact of separation as
such, the cessation itself of unity with the Church. Be it a separation on the
basis of but a rebellion against the Church, a disciplinary insubordination
without any dogmatic difference in opinion, separation from the Church will for
the one that has fallen away have every sad consequence. Not only heretics but
schismatics too separate themselves from the Church. The essence of the
separation remains the same. [130]
This explicit and
limpidly clear Patristic teaching about the unity of the Church led Saint
Hilarion very naturally to the following assessment of the realm outside the
Church:
No,
the truth of ecclesiastical unity does not recognize the grace of the mysteries
administered within extra-ecclesiastical communities. It is impossible to
reconcile Church unity with the validity of extra-ecclesiastical sacraments.
Even the genius of Augustine had been unable to solve this problem
satisfactorily. [131]
The basic
ecclesiological principle of Saint Augustine of Hippo (the distinction between
the validity and the efficacy of the Mysteries), according to Saint Hilarion,
is comprehensible only in the context of a Scholastic dialectic and has no
basis in spiritual experience. [132] Saint Hilarion emphasizes that Patristic
theology formed its thinking on ecclesiology without any interaction with the
ecclesiology of Saint Augustine.
Likewise, it is
very significant that in this work he refutes a view that is often encountered
among historians and theologians, to wit, that the Church supposedly
subsequently forsook the teaching of Saint Cyprian of Carthage concerning the
unity of the Church and the nonexistence of Grace outside Her boundaries. It is
well known, as we have mentioned previously, that Roman Catholics, Protestants,
and Orthodox Ecumenists maintain that the Church gradually abandoned the
teaching of Saint Cyprian at the beginning of the fourth century, with the
result that She ultimately accepted the validity of extra-ecclesiastical
baptism. This can be proved allegedly from the canonical practice of the
Church, according to which there are three ways for heretics and schismatics to
enter the Church:
(1)
The Mystery of Holy Baptism
(2)
The Mystery of Holy Chrismation
(3)
The Mystery of Holy Confession
According to Saint
Hilarion, such a view is not only completely at odds with the history of our
Church, but is also patently tantamount to an outright rejection of the ninth
article of the Symbol of Faith. [133]
***
Saint Hilarion of
Vereya was profoundly cognizant of the misunderstandings and equivocations, and
also of the confusion, that prevailed in Russian theology in that period with
regard to a dogmatic explanation of the canonical act of receiving heretics into
the Church, and because of this, he devoted the greater part of his treatise to
the elucidation of this very important ecclesiological issue. With his deep
knowledge of Patristic thought, he analyzes the First Canon of Saint Basil the
Great, the Ninety-Fifth Canon of the Quinisext Holy OEcumenical Synod, and the
Seventy-Seventh Canon of the Synod of Carthage, as well as the history of the
admission of Westerners to the Church during the second millennium, both in
Russian practice and in Greek practice.
Through his
exhaustive interpretation, Saint Hilarion demonstrates that it was
unquestionably only pastoral oeconomy (οἰκονομία) and missionary responsibility
for the salvation of the world that guided the Church in Her effort to
accommodate those cut off from Her in their path toward union with Her, that
is, in Her decision not to require exactitude (ἀκρίϐεια), namely, the Holy
Mystery of Baptism, in all circumstances. For the sake of the peace and the
good of the Church, it was considered possible sometimes not to demand a second
performance of the correct rite of Baptism, believing in the mystical
charismatic significance of union with the Church Herself. Before, the rite
performed outside the Church was only an external form, which in the Church is
filled with Grace-giving content. [134] It is not possible, under any
circumstances, writes Saint Hilarion, for us to infer from this pastoral
practice a dogmatic teaching about the putative recognition of Holy Mysteries
in heretics who come to us. Moreover, this is also evident from the fact that
members of these same excised communities have been received in different ways
in different periods and in different places.
VII.
The Advocates of the Augustinian View
In spite of this,
the Western captivity in which Russian academic theology languished during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and its isolation from the experiential,
liturgical, ascetical, and spiritual life of the Church, had as a consequence
that the very lucid conception of ecclesiology of Saint Hilarion of Vereya was
viewed, by manifestly emotional and non-ecclesiastical criteria, as too strict
and extreme, and therefore as unacceptable. The exponents of this Patristic and
Synodal ecclesiology constituted a minority in the Russian Orthodox Church and
were, consequently, in no position to influence Her official attitude toward
this matter. By contrast, the overwhelming majority of theologians and
Hierarchs, the chief representative of whom was Patriarch Sergiy of Moscow and
All Rus’ (1867–1944), were animated by the Augustinian understanding of the
Church, as is evident from the response of the Holy Synod of the Russian
Orthodox Church, dated February 25, 1903 (Old Style), to the Patriarchal and Synodal
Encyclical of OEcumenical Patriarch Iōakeim iii. In this Synodal document, at
the very outset of the Ecumenical Movement, we see that the non-Orthodox
teaching concerning the validity of the rites of Roman Catholic and Protestant
heretics had already been adopted:
We believe in the
sincerity of their faith in the All-Holy and Life-Giving Trinity, and we
therefore accept the baptism of both the one and the other. We respect the
Apostolic Succession of the Latin Hierarchy, and we receive their clergy who
come to our Church in their respective clerical status (just as we receive
Armenians, Copts, Nestorians, and others, who have not lost their Apostolic
Succession). [135]
VIII.
Patriarch Sergiy of Moscow and All Rus’ and the Ecclesiocidal Doctrine of
Baptismal Theology
Patriarch Sergiy of
Moscow and All Rus’ published in 1931, when he was Metropolitan of Nizhny
Novgorod and the Deputy of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, a study entitled “The
Relationship of the Church of Christ with the Communities Separated from Her,”
in which he expounded his theory of ecclesiology in order to refute the
ecclesiology of Saint Hilarion of Vereya and of Metropolitan Antoniy of Kiev
and Galicia, which he characterizes as a “strictly ecclesiastical approach.”
[136] At the beginning of his study, the greater part of which consists of his
personal interpretation of the First Canon of Saint Basil the Great, Patriarch
Sergiy cites two ecclesiological principles.
The first is based
on the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox Church and it defines Her
self-understanding:
She
regards Herself alone as the Church of Christ, Her own Mysteries as alone
possessing Grace, Her Hierarchy alone as endued with Apostolic authority to
bind and loose. Outside the Orthodox Church, there is no remission of sins, nor
Mysteries, nor Grace in general. [137]
One would expect
such an understanding, the author continues, to entail a complete absence of
Grace in those communities cut off from the Church and, consequently, a
requirement that their members be admitted solely through the Mystery of Holy
Baptism.
However, as we
know, the practice of the Church was different, and in the opinion of Patriarch
Sergiy, this fact gives him the right to use this practice and decision as a
basis for defining his second ecclesiological principle:
In
truth, along with the universal dogma about Herself as the only treasury of
grace and salvation on earth, the Orthodox Church offers us an equally
universal dogma about the “one baptism for the remission of sins,” [138]
according to which, the Mystery of Baptism, even if performed outside the
Church, as long as it was performed properly in the name of the Persons of the
Holy Trinity, is considered valid. And when the one who was baptized joins the
Church, the baptism is not repeated. [139]
***
We deem it
indispensable to point out, here, the methodological divergence between the
interpretation of Patriarch Sergiy and that of Saint Hilarion. At first sight,
we are facing an apparent conflict between a dogma concerning the unity of the
Church and an ecclesiastical act of admitting heretics and schismatics to the
Church. Nevertheless, there certainly exists no conflict when we take into
serious consideration the following subtle distinction: Saint Hilarion bases
his study on the dogmatic teaching concerning the unity of the Church and then
proceeds from this to the correct interpretation of the canonical practice of
the Church. Patriarch Sergiy does the opposite: he makes canonical practice
(the interpretation of the First Canon of Saint Basil) his basis, and on this,
he constructs his erroneous dogmatic teaching about the unity of the Church.
It is beyond
dispute that, according to Patristic theology, the only legitimate and correct
method is that of Saint Hilarion of Vereya, since the Sacred Canons are based
on and flow from dogma, and not the other way round. It is obvious, Patriarch
Sergiy of Moscow concludes, that the canonical practice of the Church, “if not
in direct opposition to the aforementioned dogma concerning the Church, at the
very least introduces into this dogma a substantial caveat.” [140] On account
of this caution on his part, his entire theological endeavor is directed toward
altering the Orthodox dogma concerning the Church in such a way that it can be
reconciled with what he defined as a “universal dogma” [141] concerning a
single Baptism existing also outside the Church. It is as clear as day that
Patriarch Sergiy, many years before Metropolitan Iōannēs of Pergamon and
like-minded Orthodox Ecumenists, is proclaiming as a new “universal dogma”
[142] the heresy of baptismal theology, which completely and utterly overthrows
the Patristic and Synodal ecclesiology inspired by the Holy Spirit.
***
We will not
undertake a critical presentation of Patriarch Sergiy’s erroneous
interpretation of the First Canon of Saint Basil the Great, but will advert
only to the ecclesiological consequences that, according to him, flow from the
new “universal dogma” [143] concerning a single Baptism existing also outside
the Church. In conformity with “the genuine meaning of the 1st Canon of Basil
the Great,” [144] Patriarch Sergiy maintains that
beyond
the fold of the Church, it is not the case that total darkness sets in
immediately. Rather, it is as though there were a semi-darkness between the
Church and heretical communities, which in turn veils both schismatics and
conventiclers [...]. From the beginning, this was the teaching of the Church, a
teaching which (in our opinion) sheds light in a wholly special way on the
issue of the apparent contradiction between faith in the One Church and faith
in one Baptism for the remission of sins. [145]
The radical and
direct contradiction between Patriarch Sergiy’s interpretation and the content
of Saint Basil’s Canon is evident when we simply compare the following two
evaluations of the ecclesiological nature of schism. In his First Canon, Saint
Basil the Great states,
The
beginning of the separation came about through schism, and those who
apostatized from the Church no longer had on them the Grace of the Holy Spirit.
For the impartation thereof ceased with the rupture of the continuity[...]. In
breaking away, they became laymen, and thus they had no authority either to
Baptize or to Ordain, since they no longer had the power to confer on others
the Grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves had fallen. [146]
Patriarch Sergiy
offers the following theological appraisal of schism, which is diametrically
opposed to that of Saint Basil’s:
Others
are separated from the Church for certain reasons, but they have everything
that makes a man a Christian: they diligently keep faith in the Tri-hypostatic
God and the commandment of the Lord regarding Baptism. Although they have
fallen away, yet they have not done so completely; there remains a certain bond
with the Church, and together with this bond, some possibility (perhaps
invisible and incomprehensible to us) even of partaking of the vital sap of
Grace that waters the Church. [147]
Such an evaluation
of the relationship between the Church Herself and communities broken off from
Her assuredly presupposes a completely different understanding of the unity of
the Church from that which we encounter in Patristic theology.
And, indeed,
Patriarch Sergiy places the abolition of the unity of the Church by schismatics
and conventiclers on the same level as other essential transgressions in
matters of the Faith.148 Whereas Saint Basil explains that the baptism of
schismatics was accepted “for the sake of oeconomy for the majority,” [149]
Patriarch Sergiy, by contrast, draws from this conclusions that lead him
ineluctably into complete conflict with and contradiction to the Patristic and
Synodal Tradition of the Church:
•
Communities which have decisively broken away from the Church continue to
remain to some degree within Her.
•
It is possible for the continuity of Grace not to be interrupted in spite of a
rift that exists in practice. [150]
***
In the epilogue to
his treatise, Patriarch Sergiy, on whom, as we shall explain in what follows,
is based the new, officially, and Synodally proclaimed ecclesiology of the
Moscow Patriarchate, affirms his belief in the ecclesiocidal doctrine of
baptismal theology:
There is something
higher, which the Synodal mind of the Church detected and which has made it
possible, without fear, to set beside the confession of faith in the one saving
Church the belief in one Baptism, in accordance with the commandment of the Lord,
notwithstanding the fact that such-and-such a baptism was performed outside the
Church. [151]
X.
Protopresbyter Georges Vasilievich Florovsky and the Boundaries of the Church
Among the advocates
of the Augustinian conception of the Church was the greatest Russian theologian
of the twentieth century, Protopresbyter Georges Vasilievich Florovsky, and
this, despite the fact that in every other respect his theological work contributed
decisively to the effort to liberate Orthodox theology from the dreadful
fetters of Western captivity. In the 1930s, Father Florovsky published a series
of short studies on the issue of ecclesiology. In 1927, in his brief article
“St. Cyprian and St. Augustine on Schism,” he takes a critical stance toward
the ecclesiology of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, which he refuses to accept in
its entirety, because it strikes him as “dangerously one-sided” [152] and based
on “the unexpressed presupposition that the canonical and charismatic limits
of the Church completely and invariably coincide.” [153] Father
Florovsky sees the solution to his problem in the thought of Saint Augustine of
Hippo, which supposedly can offset this deficiency, since it permits the
broadening of the charismatic boundaries of the Church beyond the canonical
boundaries.
He poses the same
question again in 1933 in his article “The Boundaries of the Church,” in which
he now fully and clearly adopts the ecclesiology of Saint Augustine. He
explains the canonical practice of receiving heretics and schismatics without
Baptism, just as Patriarch Sergiy did, as proof “that the sacraments can be
celebrated outside the strict canonical limits of the Church.” [154] He
advances the very striking view that the Synodal Tradition of the Church
refused to follow Saint Cyprian in his “silent presupposition” [155] concerning
the identity of “the charismatic and canonical limits of the Church”
[156] because supposedly “[i]n her sacramental, mysterious existence the Church
surpasses canonical measurements.” [157] He defines the ecclesiological nature
of schism as “the mysterious and even enigmatic sphere beyond the canonical
limits of the Church, where the sacraments are still celebrated[...].” [158]
***
In view of his
exposition of such ecclesiological principles, it was natural that Father
Florovsky would reject the explanation of the canonical practice of receiving
heretics as a matter of oeconomy, deeming this “only a private ‘theological
opinion,’ very recent and very controversial,” [159] which is but the result of
“a hasty endeavor to dissociate oneself as sharply as possible from Roman
theology.” [160] However, by his rejection of the two basic principles of
Patristic and Synodal ecclesiology—the identity of the charismatic and
canonical boundaries and the explanation of the canonical practice of receiving
heretics as a matter of oeconomy—, Father Florovsky, just like Patriarch Sergiy
of Moscow and All Rus’, inevitably confronted the same antinomy or mystical
paradox between the dogma of the unity of the Church and the canonical practice
of the Church, paradoxically putting forward the following solution:
Contemporary
Orthodox theology must express and explain the traditional canonical practice
of the Church in relation to heretics and schismatics on the basis of those
general premises which have been established by St. Augustine. [161]
We should emphasize
that this solution exposes precisely the weak point of the then young Father
Georges Florovsky’s ecclesiological thinking, [162] which is, moreover, at odds
with one of the fundamental principles of his theological program, namely, the
return of Orthodox theology to the Patristic Tradition, to the Catholic
conscience of the Church as expressed by the consensus Patrum. Father
Florovsky appears to have overlooked the historical fact that the theological
thought of Saint Augustine of Hippo, which, as is well known, “moved beyond the
established bounds of ecclesiastical tradition and left very wide margins for
misunderstandings and misinterpretations.” [163] As a result, it played no role
in the formation of the ecclesiological self-understanding of the Church as
this was expressed in the dogmatic, Synodal, and canonical Tradition of the
Church during the first millennium.
At this juncture,
it is worth noting that the Orthodox Ecumenists, in appealing to Father Georges
Florovsky’s early theological thought, whether on account of ignorance or on
account of a deficiency in serious academic work, hush up or conceal the following
very significant detail: Father Florovsky himself, even when proposing the
adoption of the presuppositions of Augustinian ecclesiology, to wit, broadening
the charismatic boundaries of the Church beyond the canonical boundaries,
acknowledged the dangers of such an undertaking. In his article “The Problem of
Christian Reunion,” published in 1933, he clearly warns his readers that
recognition of the activity of the Holy Spirit outside the Church (extra
Ecclesiam) entails a certain ambiguity in the teaching about the Church, an
ambiguity that should never be used as a foundation on which “to build the
‘normal’ structure of the Church,” [164] since it involves something which is
“excluded from Canon Law and still unknown in history.” [165] Nevertheless, the
innovating Orthodox Ecumenists attempt to do precisely this, when, in their
endeavor to develop their new ecclesiology, they invoke the early Father
Georges Florovsky.
X.
The Synodal Document “Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox
Church Toward the Other Christian Confessions” (2000)
This somewhat
protracted historical retrospective was vital for us to understand the
fundamental characteristics and the historical and theological context within
which “Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward
the Other Christian Confessions,” the official Synodal document of the Moscow
Patriarchate, was composed. This document was approved by the Bishops’ Council
of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000, and it in turn provided a theological
basis for the acceptance by the Moscow Hierarchy of the Chambésy document
“Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” in
February 2016 when “the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church” of
Orthodox Ecumenists in Kolymbari was impending.
***
For historical
reasons, it is worth mentioning that the composition of “Basic Principles of
the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the Other Christian
Confessions” was entrusted to the Synodal Biblical–Theological Commission,
which was established in 1993 as the successor to the Holy Synod Commission for
Christian Unity. Before the Hierarchs were called to bestow Synodal approval on
this document, the President of the Synodal Biblical–Theological Commission,
Metropolitan Filaret (Vakhromeyev) of Minsk and Slutsk (1935–2021), in his
address to the Bishops’ Council, informed the Hierarchs about the pre-history
and the sources of the document. [166] The Synodal Biblical–Theological
Commission undertook an analysis of the opportunities, the problems, and the
challenges that Russian theology was facing after the fall of the Communist
regime. This analysis revealed, inter alia, that one of the most serious
theological questions “provoked by theological dialogue with heterodoxy” [167]
was the issue of “the boundaries and the nature of the Church,” [168] which, in
the opinion of leading contemporary Russian theologians, is bringing us to an
“historic paradox.” [169]
On the one hand,
the Orthodox Church has always had the awareness that She is identical to the
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and that beyond Her boundaries there
is no salvation, while on the other hand, “She has decided that it is
canonically acceptable to receive heterodox into Her womb not necessarily
through Baptism, but also through Chrismation [alone], or even through
repentance alone.” [170] In Metropolitan Filaret’s opinion, “[I]t must be
stated clearly that this question remains open, in spite of the fact that
different explanations for this phenomenon have been given.” [171]
The urgency of this
subject was confirmed, according to Metropolitan Filaret, by an opinion poll
conducted in the context of preparation for the Bishops’ Council of the Russian
Orthodox Church. Diocesan Bishops and rectors of theological schools were asked
what, in their opinion, were now the most pressing theological questions. It
was shown that the pastors and the Faithful “are in need of clear knowledge of
the subject: which part of the heterodox world has preserved ecclesiality and
what is the working of the Grace of God outside the boundaries of Orthodoxy.”
[172] Thus, from its establishment, the most important task of the Synodal
Biblical–Theological Commission has been the inquiry into the relationship of
the Orthodox Church with the heterodox world. As time went on, the Commission
ascertained that the problems it had to confront were due first and foremost to
the “absence of a unified and consistent stand by the Church as a whole vis-à-vis
the heterodox.” [173] It came to the conclusion that “without an officially and
validly endorsed position,” [174] it is not possible to avoid a conflict of
opinions in the Church, and because of this it drew up the document “Basic
Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the
OtherChristian Confessions,” which Metropolitan Filaret characterized in the
following way:
The
present document presents a series of very important ecclesiological ideas:
“principles” of the Orthodox teaching of the Faith, both concerning the essence
of the Church and concerning the nature of heresies and schisms, and also about
the problems which Orthodoxy needs to address in Her relations with communities
that are cut off from Her. [175]
Metropolitan
Filaret also presented to the Bishops’ Council, as a preface to “Basic
Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the Other
Christian Confessions,” a short study entitled “The Question of the Boundaries
of the Church in Russian Orthodox Theology,” in which the conclusions of the
lengthy investigation of this subject by the Synodal Biblical–Theological
Commission are stated as follows:
By
way of a conclusion to this brief examination of the subject of the “boundaries
of the Church” and of the rules governing the relationship of the Church with
the heterodox world, we can finally affirm that, from a theological, Patristic,
and historical standpoint, the most well-founded position is that of Patriarch
Sergiy and Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky, on which the Russian Orthodox
Church bases Herself with regard to Her relations with the heterodox. [176]
XI.
Concluding Remarks
At the same time
that, by the Grace of God, we completed our humble thoughts on the burning and
crucial ecclesiological subject of the great temptation faced by the Church
since the inception of the Ecumenical Movement, we finished reading an extended
article, “The Holy and Great Council of Crete: A New Ecclesiology or Fidelity
to Tradition?” by Bishop Kyrillos of Krene. A Hierarch of the OEcumenical
Patriarchate of Constantinople and a Professor at the Theological School of the
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Bishop Kyrillos stalwartly
defends the validity of the Council of Crete and also, more broadly,
participation by the Orthodox in the ongoing movement for Christian unity that
began in 1920. His article falls far below what one would expect of an academic
work, since it is devoid of scholarly methodology and the dispassion that
should characterize scholarship, and in a vulgar manner it denigrates and
disdains not only persons but also entire Local Orthodox Churches for having
the audacity to put forward objections to the documents of the Council of
Crete, which are riddled with so many and various errors. There have already
been powerful and well-documented responses to the Council of Crete, [177] as
well as an initial rebuttal of Bishop Kyrillos’s article, [178] and perhaps
there will be further well-founded and sober critiques of the Council of Crete.
What we can state
here for the time being, since it bears directly on the present work, is that
Bishop Kyrillos of Krene is directly and vigorously opposed to an exclusivist
ecclesiology and also to the identification of the canonical and charismatic
boundaries of the Church. Furthermore, he does not hesitate to turn impiously
against even Saint Cyprian of Carthage or to adduce inaccurate, if not false,
information in support supposedly of his own ecclesiological deviation. Bishop
Kyrillos writes, in patent confusion:
•
“The OEcumenical Synods and the Fathers of the Church rejected the ecclesiology
of Saint Cyprian[...].” [179]
•
“How can one adhere indiscriminately to all of the ecclesiological positions of
Saint Cyprian, who equates the canonical with the charismatic boundaries of the
Church?” [180]
•
“Why was Saint Maximus the Confessor [(ca. 580–662)] unaware of Saint
Cyprian of Carthage[...]? Why was Saint John of Damascus [(ca. 675–749)]
unaware of Saint Cyprian of Carthage[...]?” [181]
•
“Should we perhaps denounce him [sc., Saint Paul the Apostle (ca. 5–67)]
too, since he does not follow Saint Cyprian of Carthage?” [182]
•
“They [sc., the anti-Ecumenists] equate the canonical with the
charismatic boundaries of the Church. They adhere to the exclusivist
ecclesiological views of Saint Cyprian, which inspire fear and trembling and
create feelings of guilt[...].” [183]
•
“Saints[...]like Saint Philaret of Moscow [the only example cited!] emphasize
the non-exclusivity of the Church.” [184]
•
“Is it possible for us, if we have an attitude of exclusivism, to avoid
self-justification?” [185]
•
“How, therefore, can one confine the Church to Her canonical boundaries,
creating a watertight compartment between them and Her charismatic
functioning?” [186]
***
In conclusion:
Could it perhaps be that academic theology, influenced by the Scholastic Latin
and Protestant West (with Augustinian deviations as its starting point), has
now decisively lost its genuine spiritual criteria and is on this account
incapable of understanding the Divinely inspired and truly Orthodox and
Catholic theological thinking of Saint Cyprian of Carthage concerning the
Mystery of the Unity of the Church?
***
The
Holy Synodal Tradition
Forty-Sixth
Apostolic Canon
“We order any
Bishop or Presbyter who has accepted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics to be
deposed; for ‘what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that
believeth with an infidel?’” [187]
Forty-Seventh
Apostolic Canon
“If a Bishop or a
Presbyter[...]fails to Baptize anyone who has been polluted by the impious, let
him be deposed[...]as failing to distinguish [genuine] Priests from false
priests.”
Sixty-Eighth
Apostolic Canon
“Those who have
been baptized or ordained by such persons [sc., heretics] cannot
possibly be either faithful Christians or clergymen.”
***
The
Anti-Conciliarity of the Ecumenists
“Here I also
mention the declaration made in 1937 in Edinburgh at the Faith and Order
Conference convened there, where the representatives of nine Orthodox Churches
proceeded to issue a declaration which, among other things, contains a most
important view concerning the position of the heterodox within the body of the
Church… ‘By this declaration,’ writes Archbishop Hierōnymos [i of Athens and
All Greece], ‘the representatives of the nine Orthodox Churches recognized the
heterodox churches as members of the one body of Christ. [...]Likewise, the
view is not correct that whenever any sacrament performed by heterodox persons
is recognized, this is done solely “by oeconomy,” since the Sacred Canons
clearly define whose baptism among the heterodox is regarded as valid “even
according to strictness.”’” [188]
—Metropolitan
Methodios (Phougias) of Pisidia
(1924–2006)
NOTES
1. A
prominent Hierarch of the OEcumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople who was
Metropolitan of Prousa at the time, Archbishop Elpidophoros achieved notoriety
for his novel ecclesiology according to which the OEcumenical Patriarch is
supposedly “primus sine paribus” (“first without equals”), as opposed to
“primus inter pares” (“first among equals”) (v. His Eminence,
Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Prousa, “Primus sine paribus: Ἁπάντησις εἰς τὸ
περὶ πρωτείου κείμενον τοῦ Πατριαρχείου Mόσχας” ⟨ec-patr.org/primus-sine-paribus-pantisis-e-s-t-per-proteioy/⟩).
2.
“Προύσης Eλπιδοφόρος: ≪Προ των πυλών η παραχώρηση αυτοκεφαλίας στην Oυκρανική
Eκκλησία≫” ⟨www.ekklisiaonline.gr/nea/prousiselpidoforos-pro-ton-pylon-i-parachorisi-aftokefalias-stin-oukraniki-ekklisia/⟩.
3.
“Official Documents of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church” ⟨www.holycouncil.org⟩.
4.
“Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” ⟨www.holycouncil.org/rest-of-christian-world⟩.
5. Ibid.
6.
St. John 10:16.
7.
Georges Florovsky, Ecumenism II: A Historical Approach, Vol. Fourteen of
The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, ed. Richard S. Haugh (Vaduz,
Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989), p. 49.
8. V.
“Statement by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church concerning the
encroachment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the canonical territory
of the Russian Church” ⟨mospat.ru/en/news/47059/⟩.
9.
“Announcement of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the Autocephaly of the Orthodox
Church in Ukraine” ⟨www.goarch.org/-/announcement-of-the-ecumenicalpatriarchate-on-the-autocephaly-of-the-orthodox-church-in-ukraine⟩.
10.
Needless to say, we do not endorse the rather expansive, not to say
pretentious, way in which the Phanar typically interprets the Twenty-Eighth
Canon of the Fourth OEcumenical Synod; see, for example, a letter from
OEcumenical Patriarch Phōtios II (1874–1935) to Serbian Patriarch Varnava
(1880–1937), in which, with reference “to the general view of our Patriarchal
Throne on the question of the canonical position of the Orthodox church
communities and colonies found in the diaspora and outside the boundaries of
Orthodox Autocephalous Churches” (Professor Sergei V. Troitsky, “The Limits of
the Authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople over the Diaspora,” Sourozh:
A Journal of Orthodox Life and Thought, № 64 [May 1996], p. 34), he
asserts that “it is well known that all church communities, no matter of what
nationality, must, in relation to the Church, be subordinated to our Holy
Patriarchal Throne” (ibid.).
11.
“Official History of the Defrocking and Anathematization of Philaret Denisenko:
Documents of the June 1992, 1994, and 1997 Bishops’ Councils of the Russian
Orthodox Church,” trans. Jesse Dominick ⟨orthochristian.com/116586.html⟩.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14.
“Statement by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church concerning the
encroachment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the canonical territory
of the Russian Church.”
15. Ibid.
16.
To make matters worse in the eyes of Moscow, the erstwhile Patriarch Filaret of
Kyiv and All Ukraine, whom Constantinople now views as simply Metropolitan of
Kyiv Emeritus, was given the title of “Honorary Patriarch” of the
Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Although adding insult to injury from the
standpoint of the Russian Orthodox Church, the primary motive for conferring
such a curious title on Metropolitan Filaret was to keep the peace within the
Orthodox Church of Ukraine by acknowledging his role in the formation of the
new Church and reassuring those loyal to him that he still enjoyed some
official respect. This motive notwithstanding, a conflict eventually erupted
between Metropolitan Filaret and Metropolitan Epifaniy that led to Metropolitan
Filaret seceding from the Orthodox Church of Ukraine in June 2019.
17.
“377 Ὀρθόδοξοι Ἀρχιερεῖς ἀπέρριψαν τὸ «Kολυμϐάρι»,” Ὀρθόδοξος Tύπος·
Ἑϐδομαδιαία Ἔκδοσις τῆς Πανελληνίου Ὀρθοδόξου Ἑνώσεως (Π.O.E.), № 2192 (15
December 2017) ⟨orthodoxostypos.gr/377-ορθοδοξοιαρχιερεισ-απερριψαν-το-κο/⟩. For an exposé of this
misinformation, see Protopresbyter Theodoros Zeses, “Δὲν κατεδίκασαν οἱ
Ὀρθόδοξοι Προκαθήμενοι στὴν Mόσχα τὴ «Σύνοδο» τοῦ Kολυμπαρίου” (January
15, 2018) ⟨aktines.blogspot.com/2018/01/blog-post_848.html⟩.
18.
Archimandrite Paulos DĒmĒtrakopoulos, “Nέο καίριο πλῆγμα τῆς ψευδοσυνόδου τῆς
Kρήτης ἀπὸ τὴν Pωσικὴ Ἱεραρχία!” (January 8, 2018) ⟨www.orthodoxia-ellhnismos.gr/2018/01/blog-post_26.html⟩.
19. Ibid.
20.
Archim. GrĒgorios ChatzĒnikolaou, “Σύναξις Oρθοδόξων Kληρικών και Mοναχών”
(December 20, 2017) ⟨agonasax.blogspot.com/2017/12/blog-post_74.html⟩.
21.
“III The Bishops’ Council” ⟨mospat.ru/en/documents/92088-iii-the-bishopscouncil/⟩.
22.
Presbyter Father Jiří Ján, “Journey to the ‘Holy and Great Synod’: An Unceasing
Estrangement from Genuine Patristic Orthodoxy,” p. 24 ⟨www.imoph.org/pdfs/2015/02/23/E20150223aPoreiaProsMegaliSynodo%20Folder/E20150223aPoreiaProsMegaliSynodo.pdf⟩.
23. Ibid.,
p. 25.
24. Ibid.,
p. 26.
25.
Demetrios Tselengides, “Initial Observations on the Document ‘Relations of the
Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World,’” trans. Archimandrite
Patapios ⟨www.dep.church/downloads/Tselengides2016Synod.pdf⟩.
26.
“III. The Bishops’ Council.”
27.
“Постановленія Освященного Архіерейского Собора Русской Православной Церкві
(2–3 февраля 2016 года)” ⟨www.patriarchia.ru/article/97654⟩.
28. V.
“Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the
Other Christian Confessions—adopted by the Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the
Russian Orthodox Church August 14, 2000” ⟨orthodoxeurope.org/page/7/5/1.aspx⟩.
29.
“Доклад Святейшего Патріарха Московского і всея Русі Кірілла на Архіерейском
Соборе Русской Православной Церкві 2 февраля 2016 года” ⟨www.patriarchia.ru/article/97494⟩.
30.
Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle, “The Eternal Boundaries of Orthodoxy
and the ‘New Ecclesiology’ of the Ecumenists” ⟨www.imoph.org/pdfs/2015/03/01/E20150301aOmilia+MhtropolKyrOrthod15.pdf⟩.
31.
“Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World.”
32. Ibid.
33.
“Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the
Other Christian Confessions—adopted by the Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the
Russian Orthodox Church August 14, 2000.”
34. Ibid.
35. Epistola
lxxiii.1 (Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Vol. 1,
col. 969A).
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
“Nemo possit baptizari extra ecclesiæ catholicæ baptismum qui unus est,
et in sola catholica ecclesia reperitur.”
38. V.
Epistola lxix.5 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1142A). “[N]on
habitans[...] in Ecclesia Dei, in qua non nisi concordes atque unanimes
habitant[...].”
39. Epistola
lxix.3 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1140B).
40. Ibid.
41. Epistola
lxxiii.10 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1116B). “[S]acramentum
unitatis.”
42. V.
Liber de Unitate Ecclesiæ vi (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iv, col.
504A).
43. Liber
de Unitate Ecclesiæ vii (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iv, col. 505A). “[S]uperiore
parte venientem, id est de coelo et a Patre.”
44. V.
Liber de Unitate Ecclesiæ v (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iv, cols.
501AB–502AB).
45. Epistola
lxxiii.25 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1126B). “[C]um
separari a se et dividi omnino non possint baptisma et Ecclesia.”
46. Epistola
lxxiii.9 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1115A). “[L]egitimum
et ecclesiasticum Baptismum.”
47. Epistola
lxxiii.15 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1119A). “[G]ratiam
ecclesiasticam.”
48.
St. John 3:5.
49. Liber
de Unitate Ecclesiæ vi (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iv, col. 503A). “Habere
jam non potest Deum patrem, qui Ecclesiam non habet matrem.”
50. Ibid.
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. iv, col. 504A). “Hanc unitatem qui non
tenet, Dei legem non tenet, non tenet Patris et Filii fidem, vitam non tenet et
salutem.”
51. Liber
de Unitate Ecclesiæ xxiii (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iv, col. 517BC).
52. V.
ibid. “Deus unus est, et Christus unus, et una Ecclesia ejus, et fides
una, et plebs una in solidam corporis unitatem concordiæ glutino copulata.
Scindi unitas non potest, nec corpus unum discidio compaginis separari,
divulsis laceratione visceribus, in frustra discerpi. Quidquid a matrice
discesserit, seorsum vivere et spirare non poterit, substantiam salutis
amittit.”
53. V.
Liber de Unitate Ecclesiæ ii (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iv, col.
496A).
54. V.
Epistola lxxiii.11 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1116B). “Hæc
est una quæ tenet et possidet omnem sponsi sui et domini potestatem.”
55. Ibid.
“[F]ons et fluvius aquæ vitalis.”
56. Epistola
lxxiii.21 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1123B). “[S]alus
extra Ecclesiam non est.”
57. Epistola
lxxiii.10 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1116A).
58. Ibid.
“[I]ntra muros.”
59. Ibid.
“Baptismi gratiam salutaris.”
60. V.
Epistola lxix.3 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1140B). “[U]na
est, quæ una et intus esse et foris non potest.”
61. Epistola
lxxiv.11 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1136A). “Hortus
conclusus[...] fons signatus.”
62. V.
Song of Songs 4:12 (lxx).
63. Epistola
lxxiii.11 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1116B). “[T]erminos
vitalium fontium.”
64. V.
Ephesians 4:4–6.
65. Epistola
lxxiv.11 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1136A). “Traditum est
enim nobis quod sit unus Deus, et Christus unus, et una spes, et fides una, et
una Ecclesia, et baptisma unum[...]qua Unitate quisquis discesserit, cum
hæreticis necesse est inveniatur[...].”
66. Epistola
lxxiii.2 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1111A).
67. Epistola
lxxi.1 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1105A). “Manifestum est
autem eos qui non sunt in Ecclesia Christi, inter mortuos computari, nec posse
ab eo vivificari alterum qui ipse non vivat[...].”
68. Epistola
lxxiii.15 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1119A). “[A]d
evangelicam auctoritatem atque ad apostolicam traditionem.”
69. Ibid.
“[A]d gratiam ecclesiasticam et salutarem.”
70.
Hieromarytr Hilarion (Troitsky), Творенія, Vol. 1: Очеркі із історіі
догмата о церкві (Moscow, Russia: Izdanie Sretenskogo Monastirya, 2004),
p. 304.
71. Σύνταγμα
τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν Kανόνων, ed. G. Ralles and M. Potles, Vol. Three
(Athens, Greece: Ek tēs Typographias G. Chartophylakos, 1853), p. 3.
72. Σύνταγμα
τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν Kανόνων, ed. G. Ralles and M. Potles, Vol. Two (Athens,
Greece: Ek tēs Typographias G. Chartophylakos, 1852), p. 309.
73. Ibid.
74.
Metropolitan Paulos Menebisoglou, Ἱστορικὴ εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τοὺς Kανόνας τῆς
Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας (Stockholm, Sweden: 1990), p. 625.
75.
Kyrillos of Abydos, “Eμπιστεύομαι την Eκκλησία” ⟨www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/8579-abudou-kurillos-empi-steuomai-tin-ekklisia⟩.
76. Ibid.
For a well-documented refutation of this view, see Protopresbyter
Anastasios K. Nkotsopoulos, “Ὁ οἰκουμενικοῦ κύρους Kανόνας τοῦ Ἁγίου Kυπριανοῦ
καὶ τὰ ἀνύπαρκτα γιὰ τὴν Ὀρθοδοξία ἐκκλησιολογικὰ διλήμματα (ἀποκλειστικὴ ἢ
περιεκτικὴ ἐκκλησιολογία;)· Σκέψεις μὲ ἀφορμὴ κείμενο τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου
ἐπισκόπου Ἀϐύδου κ. Kυρίλλου” ⟨www.imoph.org/pdfs/2016/07/22/20160722aKanonasAgKyprianou.pdf⟩.
77. Πηδάλιον
τῆς Nοητῆς Nηὸς τῆς Mιᾶς Ἁγίας Kαθολικῆς καὶ Ἀποστολικῆς τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων
Ἐκκλησίας, Ἤτοι Ἅπαντες οἱ Ἱεροὶ καὶ Θεῖοι Kανόνες, ed. and ann. Hieromonk
Agapios and Monk Nikodemos (Athens, Greece: Ekdoseis Bas. Regopoulou,
1982), p. 52, n.
78. Ibid.,
p. 370.
79. Ibid.
80. Ibid.
81. Σύνταγμα
τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν Kανόνων, Vol. Two, p. 309.
82.
JOHN D. ZIZIOULAS, METROPOLITAN OF PERGAMON, Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The
Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and The Bishop During the First
Three Centuries, trans. Elizabeth Theokritoff (Brookline, MA: Holy
Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 148.
83. Epistola
lxxv.3 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1156B).“[S]ecundum
regulam veritatis et sapientiam Christi.”
84. Epistola
lxxv.19 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1170B).“[A]b
initio[...] quod a Christo et ab Apostolis traditum est.”
85. Ibid.
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1170C). “[R]epudiandum esse
omne omnino Baptisma quod sit extra Ecclesiam constitutum.”
86. Epistola
lxxv.7 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1161A).“[P]otestas et
gratia.”
87. Ibid.
“[S]piritali et deifica sanctitate.”
88. Ibid.
“[N]ec quicquam sancte nec spiritaliter gerere.”
89. Σύνταγμα
τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν Kανόνων, ed. G. Ralles and M. Potles, Vol. Four
(Athens, Greece: Ek tēs Typographias G. Chartophylakos, 1854), pp. 90–91.
90. V.
V. V. Bolotov, Лекціі פо історіі древней церкві, ed. A. Brilliantov, Vol.
II: Історія церкві въ פеріодъ до Константіна В., (Saint Petersburg, Russia:
Tipografіya M. Merkusheva, 1910), p. 384.
91.ARCHIM.
HIERŌNYMOS I. KOTSŌNĒS, Προϐλήματα τῆς ≪ἐκκλησιαστικῆς οἰκονομίας≫ (Athens, Greece: Ekdoseis “Hē
Damaskos,” 1957), p. 200.
92. V.
ibid., pp. 184–185. The familiar distinction between “returning” and
“remaining” heretics and schismatics is made here. In both cases, however, we
have nonexistent and invalid Mysteries. In the case of those “returning,”
however, the form of the Mystery is not repeated if it has been preserved in
the heresy or schism, and this, to be sure, by oeconomy. In this case, the
Church gives the empty form essence and content.
93. Ibid.,
p. 200.
94. Ibid.,
p. 186.
95. V.
METROPOLITAN CHRYSOSTOMOS KŌNSTANTINIDĒS, Ἡ ἀναγνώριση τῶν μυστηρίων τῶν
ἑτεροδόξων στὶς διαχρονικὲς σχέσεις Ὀρθοδοξίας καὶ Pωμαιο-καθολικισμοῦ (Katerine,
Greece: Ekdoseis “Epektasē,” 1995), p. 95.
96. Ibid.,
pp. 94, 96.
97. Epistola
lxxv.24 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. iii, col. 1174A).“[S]e a
communion ecclesiasticæ unitatis apostatam fecerit.”
98. De
Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem ii.7.xii (Patrologia Latina,
Vol. XLIII, cols. 133–134).
99. Ibid.
(Patrologia Latina, Vol. xliii, col. 134). “[R]emissione
peccatorum et de spirituali hominis regeneratione.”
100.
De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem ii.7.xii (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 134). “[N]onnullorum.”
101.
Ibid. (Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 134). “[A]liquid
novum moliri.”
102.
De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem i.18.xxviii (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 125). “Minus ergo ille penetravit, ut cerneret
secretum abditum sacramenti.”
103.
Ibid.
104.
De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem ii.1.ii (Patrologia Latina,
Vol. XLIII, col. 127). “[C]ontra regulam veritatis.”
105.
De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem ii.7.xi (Patrologia Latina,
Vol. XLIII, col. 133). “[E]xtra communionem Ecclesiæ.”
106.
De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem vii.19.xxxvii (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 232). “Baptismus sacramentum.”
107.
V. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem iv.14.xxi (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 167).
108,
De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem vii.19.xxxvii (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. XLIII col. 232). “[A]bolitio peccatorum.”
109.
V. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem iv.14.xxi (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 167).
110.
V. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem iv.17.xxiv (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 270).
111.
V. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem v.8.ix (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 181).
112.
De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem ii.7.xi (Patrologia Latina,
Vol. XLIII, col. 133). “[A]d remissionem peccatorum, ad sanctificationem
vitæ.”
113.
De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem i.12.xix (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 119). “[P]er sanctam vim tanti sacramenti
dimissa quidem illi esse peccata in ipso temporis puncto, sed per
fictionem ejus rediisse continuo[...].”
114.
V. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem vi.1.i (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. XLIII col. 197).
115 De
Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem iii.10.xiii (Patrologia Latina,
Vol. XLIII, col. 144). “[O]mnes iniqui et impii.”
116.
Ibid. “[H]æreticorum et schismaticorum.”
117.
V. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem iv.3.iv (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 155). “[C]ontra Christum vivunt.”
118.
De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem v.27.xxxviii (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 196). “Namque in illa ineffabili præscientia
Dei, multi qui foris videntur, intus sunt; et multi, qui intus videntur, foris
sunt.”
119.
V. De Baptismo contra Donatistas libri septem v.28.xxxix (Patrologia
Latina, Vol. XLIII, col. 197).
120.
De vera Religione x.20 (Patrologia Latina, Vol. XXXIV, col. 131).
“Quæ vera esse perspexeris, tene, et Ecclesiæ catholicæ tribue; quæ falsa,
respue, et mihi qui homo sum ignosce.”
121.
Commonitorium Primum ii (Patrologia Latina, Vol. l, col. 640).“[Q]uod
ubique, semper, ab omnibus creditum est.”
122.
Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et
morum, ed. Heinrich Denzinger (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany: Verlag Herder
GmbH, 2009), p. 629.
123;
V. GEORGES FLOROVSKY, Ways of Russian Theology, Part One, Vol.
Five of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, ed. Richard S. Haugh
and Paul Kachur, trans. Robert L. Nichols (Belmont, ma: Nordland Publishing
Co., 1979), p. 85.
124.
V. “Соборное ізложеніе 1621 года о Крещеніі латынь” ⟨ancientorthodoxy.narod.ru/doc/1621.htm⟩.
125.
V. Требник Митрополита Петра Могили, Киів 1646 (Kyiv, Ukraine:
Informatsiino-Vydavnychyi Tsentr Ukrainskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvy, 1996), p.
164.
126.
V. ibid., pp. 191–192.
127.
Hieromartyr Ilarion (Troitsky), Творенія, Vol. 2: Богословскіе труды (Moscow,
Russia: Izdanie Sretenskogo Monastirya, 2004), p. 255.
128.
Idem, Творенія, Vol. 1: Очеркі із історіі догмата о церкві (Moscow,
Russia: Izdanie Sretenskogo Monastirya, 2004), p. 61.
129.
The Unity of the Church and the World Conference of Christian Communities
(Letter to Mr. Robert Gardiner, secretary of the Commission to arrange a World
Conference of Christian Communities), trans. Margaret Jerinec, ed. Monastery
Press (Montreal, qc: Monastery Press, 1975), pp. 14–15.
130.
Ibid., p. 15.
131.
Ibid., p. 28.
132.
V. ibid., p. 29.
133.
V. ibid., pp. 13, 27.
134.
V. ibid., p. 37.
135.
“Обмен פосланіямі
между Вселенской Патріархіей і Святейшім Правітельствующім Россійскім Сінодом
(1902–1905),” Православіе і экуменізм: Документы і матеріалы
1902–1998 (Moscow, Russia: Otdel vneshnikh tserkovnykh svyazei Moskovskogo
Patriarkhata, 1999), p. 51.
136.
E. P. Titkov, Патріарх Сергій (Страгородскій): פодвіг служенія Церкві і
Родіне (Arzamas,
Russia: AGPI im. A. P. Gaidara, 2007), p. 583.
137.
Ibid.
138.
The Symbol of Faith.
139.
E. P. Titkov, Патріарх Сергій (Страгородскій), p. 583.
140.
Ibid.
141.
Ibid.
142.
Ibid.
143.
Ibid.
144.
Ibid., p. 590.
145.
Ibid., pp. 591–592.
146.
Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν Kανόνων, Vol. Four, pp. 90–91.
147.
E. P. Titkov, Патріарх Сергій (Страгородскій), p. 595.
148.
V. Ibid.
149.
Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν Kανόνων, Vol. Four, p. 91.
150.
V. E. P. Titkov, Патріарх Сергій (Страгородскій), p. 598.
151.
Ibid.
152.
Georges Florovsky, Ecumenism II, p. 49.
153.
Ibid.
154.
Idem, Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal Approach, Vol. Thirteen of The
Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, ed. Richard S. Haugh (Vaduz,
Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989), p. 37.
155.
Ibid.
156.
Ibid.
157.
Ibid.
158.
Ibid., p. 44.
159.
Ibid., p. 41.
160.
Ibid.
161.
Ibid., p. 43.
162.
V. BISHOP ATANASIJE JEVTIĆ OF ZAHUMLJE AND HERZEGOVINA EMERITUS, “Ὁ π.
Γεώργιος Φλωρόφσκυ περὶ τῶν ὁρίων τῆς Ἐκκλησίας,” Θεολογία· Tριμηνιαία
Ἔκδοση τῆς Ἱερᾶς Συνόδου τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῆς Ἑλλάδος, Vol. 81, № 4
(October–December 2010), pp. 137–158.
163.
BLASIOS IŌ. PHEIDAS, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία, Vol. i, Second Edition
(Athens, Greece: 1994), p. 567.
164.
PRIEST GEORGES FLOROVSKY, “Ἡ προϐληματικὴ τῆς ἐπανενώσεως τῶν χριστιανῶν,” Θεολογία·
Tριμηνιαία Ἔκδοση τῆς Ἱερᾶς Συνόδου τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῆς Ἑλλάδος, Vol.
81, № 4 (October–December 2010), p. 135.
165.
Ibid.
166.
V. “Доклад мітро פоліта Мінского і Слуцкого Філарета, Патріаршего Экзарха всея Беларусі, פредседателя Сінодальной
богословской коміссіі” ⟨www.patriarchia.ru/article/88649⟩.
167.
Ibid.
168.
Ibid.
169.
Ibid.
170.
Ibid.
171.
Ibid.
172.
Ibid.
173.
Ibid.
174.
Ibid.
175.
Ibid.
176 Ibid.
177.
V. METROPOLITAN HIEROTHEOS OF NAVPAKTOS AND HAGIOS BLASIOS, Ἡ .Ἁγία
καὶ Mεγάλη Σύνοδος. στὴν Kρήτη· Θεολογικὲς καὶ ἐκκλησιολογικὲς θέσεις (Pelagia,
Greece: Ekdosis Hieras Monēs Genethliou tēs Theotokou, 2018);
“Bιϐλιοπαρουσίαση Mητροπολίτου Nαυπάκτου καὶ Ἁγίου Bλασίου Ἱεροθέου, Ἡ ≪Ἁγία καὶ Mεγάλη Σύνοδος≫ στὴν Kρήτη· Θεολογικὲς καὶ
ἐκκλησιολογικὲς θέσεις” ⟨www.imoph.org/pdfs/2018/09/11/20180911aBiblioparousiasi-A-M-Synodo-Kritis.pdf⟩; “Ἐπὶ τῇ συμπληρώσει
διετίας… Tὸ φρόνημα τῶν Oἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων σὲ ἀντιδιαστολὴ πρὸς τὸ
φρόνημα τῆς ≪Συνόδου τῆς Kρήτης≫” ⟨www.imoph.org/pdfs/2018/08/30/20180830a2etia-A-M-Synodo-Kritis.pdf⟩.
178.
V. Nikolaos Mannes, “H Ψευδοσύνοδος της Kρήτης: Προς Nέα Eκκλησία (Mέρος
α΄)” ⟨krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2017/09/blog-post_15.html⟩; idem, “H
Ψευδοσύνοδος της Kρήτης: Προς Nέα Eκκλησία (Mέρος ϐ΄)” ⟨krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2017/09/blog-post_22.html⟩; idem, “H
Ψευδοσύνοδος της Kρήτης: Προς Nέα Eκκλησία (Mέρος γ΄)” ⟨krufosxoleio.blogspot.com/2017/09/blog-post_9.html⟩; idem, “H
Ψευδοσύνοδος της Kρήτης: Προς Nέα Eκκλησία (Mέρος δ΄)” ⟨krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2017/10/blog-post_14.html⟩; idem, “H
Ψευδοσύνοδος της Kρήτης: Προς Nέα Eκκλησία (Mέρος ε΄)” ⟨krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.
com/2017/10/blog-post_29.html⟩; idem, “H Ψευδοσύνοδος της Kρήτης: Προς Nέα
Eκκλησία (Mέρος στ΄)” ⟨krufosxoleio.blogspot.com/2017/11/ blog-post_15.html⟩; idem, “H
Ψευδοσύνοδος της Kρήτης: Προς Nέα Eκκλησ ία (Mέρος ζ΄)” ⟨krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2018/01/blog-post_8.html⟩; idem, “H
Ψευδοσύνοδος της Kρήτης: Προς Nέα Eκκλησία (Mέρος η΄–τελευταίο)” ⟨krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2018/01/blog-post_14.html⟩.
179.
Bishop Kyrillos (Katerelos) of Abydos, “Ἡ A̔ γία καὶ Mεγάλη Σύνοδος τῆ ς
Kρήτης: Nέα Eκκλησιολογία ἢ Πιστότητα στὴν Παράδοση;,” p. 67 ⟨orthodoxia.info/news/wpcontent/uploads/2017/07/Agia-kai-Megali-Synodos-Kritis.pdf⟩.
180.
Ibid., p. 68.
181.
Ibid.
182.
Ibid., p. 70.
183.
Ibid., p. 105.
184.
Ibid., p. 67.
185.
Ibid., p. 68
186.
Ibid., p. 69.
187.
ii Corinthians 6:15.
188.
Kyrillos of Abydos, “Eμπιστεύομαι την Eκκλησία.”
Source:
Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXXVIII (2021), No. 3, pp. 3-56.
