Orthodox and Catholics in the Seventeenth Century: Schism or Intercommunion?

by K. T. Ware

[A classic text by Kallistos Ware reminding us why canonical penalties for praying and communing with heretics are not automatically incurred. In the words of the official Brief History of the G.O.C. published by the Holy Synod in 2015, “If, within the life of the Church, the grace of the priesthood were automatically cut off due to violations of the Holy Canons or even lapses in the Faith, then, as St. Theodore the Studite confirms, it would have been lost ‘retroactively’ long ago.” – Administrator note.]

Source: Studies in Church History, Volume 9: Schism, Heresy and Religious Protest, Cambridge University Press, London, 1972, pp. 259 – 276.

 

 

EVENT OR PROCESS?

For use on the first Sunday in Lent, the service books of the Greek Orthodox Church include a special office known as 'The Synodikon of Orthodoxy', which contains no less than sixty anathemas against different heresies and heresiarchs. [1] Yet in this comprehensive denunciation there is one unexpected omission: no reference is made to the errors of the Latins, no allusion to the Filioque or the papal claims, even though more than a third of the anathemas date from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries, a time when doctrinal disagreements between East and West had emerged clearly into the open. This omission of the Latins is an indication of the curious imprecision which prevails in the relations between Orthodoxy and Rome. It is altogether obvious that an estrangement has long existed between the Greek East and the Latin West. What is much less obvious is the precise point at which this estrangement evolved into a definitive schism, into a clear and final breach in sacramental communion. The division between the two halves of Christendom did not occur as a single event, accomplished once and for all at a specific moment in history: it was, on the contrary, a gradual, fluctuating, and disjointed process, [2] stretching over a remarkably extended period.

Despite the reappraisal of the history of the schism, following on the researches of Dvornik, Runciman, and others, it is still not generally realised how complicated this gradual and disjointed process was, and how slow in coming to its final conclusion: perhaps, indeed, the process never has been finally concluded. Long after the anathemas of 1054, long after the sack of Constantinople in 1204, long after the formal repudiation of the Union of Florence in 1484, Greeks and Latins continued in practice quietly to ignore the separation and to behave as if no breach in communion had occurred. Instances of communicatio in sacris are especially abundant in the seventeenth century, and if we are to speak of a 'final consummation' of the schism, perhaps this should not be placed earlier than the years 1725-50.

In the relations between Old and New Rome a recurrent pattern may be distinguished. A sharp dispute occurs between the two, leading to acute tension and even to mutual excommunications; yet on neither side are these excommunications treated as conclusive, and within a few decades the dispute is ignored or forgotten. In 863-7, for example, we see pope Nicolas I seeking to assert supreme jurisdiction over the East; his claim was rejected at Constantinople by patriarch Photius; communion was broken off, and in his encyclical letter of 867 to the other eastern patriarchs, [3] Photius accused the West of heresy concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. In this way the traditional causes of disagreement between East and West - the Filioque and the papal claims-had already emerged plainly and unambiguously as early as the middle of the ninth century, and had led to an open breach in ecclesiastical relations. Yet the schism was very far from complete. Ten years later, when Photius returned to the patriarchal throne for a second period of office (877), he was in communion once more with the Roman see. Neither he nor the popes who succeeded Nicolas I withdrew explicitly from the positions adopted by the two sides in 863-7, but both parties abstained prudently from pushing the argument to its logical conclusion. Rome did not press her claim to jurisdiction in the East, while Constantinople suffered the charge of heresy to lie dormant. Although the basic grounds of disagreement remained unresolved, each side was content to pass them over in silence for the time being.

The conflict in the middle of the eleventh century was equally indecisive. In the summer of 1054, when cardinal Humbert and patriarch Michael Cerularius anathematised one another, each was at pains to restrict the scope of his excommunication: Humbert directed his anathema against Cerularius and his followers personally, not against the Greek Church as such, while Cerularius and the synod at Constantinople were equally careful to excommunicate Humbert but not the pope or the Roman Church. [4] Admittedly, since the papacy took no steps whatever to disown Humbert's action, his excommunication and the reply of Cerularius came to acquire a wider application, involving not only the two protagonists as individuals but also their Churches. Yet in 1089, when the emperor asked the synod at Constantinople why the pope's name was not commemorated in the diptychs, the bishops in their answer made no reference to the anathemas of 1054, but chose to regard the estrangement as something existing de facto but not de jure. 'Not by a synodical judgement and examination', they stated, 'was the Church of Rome removed from communion with us, but as it seems from our want of watchful care (ἀσυντηρήτως) the pope's name was not commemorated in the holy diptychs.' [5]

Recognising the inconclusive nature of the 1054 quarrel, several recent writers have drawn attention to the effect of the Crusades, and more especially the sack of Constantinople in 1204, in widening the division within Christendom. Sir Steven Runciman, for example, treats the events of 1204 as marking the 'final consummation' of the schism, if not juridically, then at any rate psychologically. 'The Fourth Crusade', he observes, 'could never be forgiven nor forgotten by the Christians of the East. Thenceforward there was definite schism between the Greek and the Latin Churches.' [6] But the rift was not as absolute as might at first appear. When Greeks and Latins met at the council of Ferrara-Florence in 1438-9, from the outset they treated one another as members of the same Christian Church, albeit mutually alienated. Neither side required the other to do penance as schismatics or heretics, and then to undergo a formal ceremony of reconciliation to the Church. Each acted towards the other as if there were a schism within the Church, not a schism by one or other party from the Church. 'Let the heavens rejoice and let the earth be glad', stated the preamble to the decree of union promulgated on 6 July 1439. 'For the wall, which divided the Western and the Eastern Church, has been removed from our midst (sublatus est enim de medio paries, qui occidentalem orientalemque dividebat ecclesiam).' [7] The 'wall', be it noted, is inside the Church. The decree does not say that the East has hitherto been separated from the communion of the Catholic Church and is now being received back: neither side is 'received back', for both are already within. The reunion council, on this interpretation, did no more than render explicit an underlying unity which had never been wholly destroyed.

But what of the events which followed the fall of the Byzantine empire? In 1484 a synod was held in Constantinople, attended by the four eastern patriarchs, at which a special service was drawn up 'for those who return from the Latin heresies to the Orthodox and Catholic Church'. The convert was required to renounce the 'shameful and alien dogmas of the Latins', to pronounce anathema on all who add Filioque to the Creed, and to repudiate the Union of Florence; he also promised to 'abstain completely from Latin services'. After this he was anointed with the holy chrism (μύρον). [8] Here, it may well be thought, was an official and definitive severance of communion. The Greeks treated the Latins as heretics, who could be admitted to the sacraments only after a formal abjuration of errors and chrismation. From the Latin viewpoint the Greeks were now schismatics, perhaps also heretics, for they had expressly rejected the dogmatic decisions of the ecumenical council of Florence. It was, surely, no longer a question of mere estrangement but of open division.

Yet the historical reality turns out to be more complicated. Despite the Greek synod of 1484, despite a constant flow of polemical literature from either side - but more especially from the Greeks - in actual practice relations between Catholics and Orthodox often continued to be extraordinarily amicable, above all during the years 1600-1700. In the many regions of the Levant where members of the two Churches dwelt side by side, if there was sometimes tension on the local level, more frequently there was friendly cooperation, and not only cooperation but intercommunion. Within the Venetian dominions it was the normal policy of the Latin authorities to do everything possible to encourage harmony between their Catholic and Orthodox subjects; within the Ottoman empire, servitude to the infidel made Greeks and Latins alike more conscious of the common heritage which they shared as Christians.

Writing at Rome in the 1640s, the Greek Catholic Leo Allatius remarked of the contemporary situation:

The Greeks show no abhorrence for intermarriage with the Latins; they frequent the Latin churches, they attend the divine offices, the church sermons, and all the other functions of the Latins, and they entrust their sons for education at Latin hands... Greeks with Latins, and Latins with Greeks, attend worship and celebrate services indiscriminately (promiscue) in the churches of either rite. [9]

Allatius is not always a reliable witness, but in this instance there is plentiful evidence to show that he was not exaggerating. [10] There were not only mixed marriages between Greeks and Latins: in many Greek islands there were also mixed churches, with parallel naves and two adjacent sanctuaries, one for the Greek and the other for the Latin rite. [11] Roman Catholics were accepted as godparents at Orthodox baptisms, and vice-versa. Latin missionaries from the west, in the absence of a bishop of their own Church, behaved towards the local Orthodox hierarch as if they recognised him for their ordinary, seeking faculties from him, asking formally for permission to work in his diocese. The Orthodox authorities on their side welcomed the Jesuits and other religious orders as friends and allies, and even took the initiative in summoning them to undertake pastoral duties among their flocks. With the blessing of the Greek bishops, Catholic priests preached in Orthodox churches, heard the confessions of Orthodox faithful, and gave them holy communion. When Greeks wished to embrace Roman Catholicism, the Latin missionaries usually rested content with a secret act of submission, and instructed their converts to receive the sacraments as before at Orthodox altars. In the light of all this, the question can scarcely be avoided: How far is it legitimate to speak of a definitive schism or irrevocable breach between Orthodoxy and Rome in the seventeenth century?

Needless to say, local conditions varied considerably, and relations were not uniformly cordial. Contacts were closest in the Ionian and Aegean islands. Outside the Turkish empire, on the other hand, in Russia there was no cordiality at all: so consuming was the hatred felt by Orthodox Russians for Catholic Poles, particularly after the Polish incursions in the 'Time of Troubles' (1601-13), that during the first half of the seventeenth century Catholic converts to Orthodoxy were not only chrismated by the Russians but rebaptised. In the eastern Mediterranean during the seventeenth century there were few if any instances of such intense hostility, but widespread anti- Latin feeling was displayed on occasion in Constantinople, in Jerusalem, and on the Holy Mountain of Athos. Yet when full allowance is made for all the exceptions, the fact remains that in the years 1600-1700 vast numbers of Catholics and Orthodox, educated clergy as well as simple believers, acted as though no schism existed between East and West.

THE JESUITS AND THEIR 'TROJAN HORSE ' POLICY

Some of the most striking examples of Catholic-Orthodox cooperation are to be found in the story of the Jesuit missions in the Levant during the seventeenth century. [12] The Jesuits could have chosen to treat the Orthodox strictly as schismatics or even heretics, refusing all collaboration and common worship with them, aiming simply to win over individual Greek converts whom they would then place in self-contained communities, under their own immediate care and wholly independent of the Orthodox congregations. This, with certain qualifications, was normally the course recommended by the Holy Office and the Congregation of the Propaganda [of the Faith] at Rome. [13] The practice of the Jesuits, however, was very different. Arriving in the Levant, they found the directives from the authorities in Rome strangely irrelevant and inapplicable to the local situation. Deeply impressed by the extent to which the Christian East agreed with Catholicism, impressed also by the warm friendship which many Greeks showed towards them, they found it difficult to treat the Orthodox simply as aliens, as schismatics or heretics whom they must shun. In all essentials, so the Jesuits felt, the Greeks were brother Catholics – albeit Catholics who had drifted into certain errors and corruptions from which they required to be purged gently. Most of the Jesuits were devoted priests, with a strong pastoral conscience. Seeing the neglect and spiritual poverty from which the simple Greek believers suffered, and finding that their own ministrations were eagerly welcomed, they strove at once to render what help they could, without waiting for a formal 'reconciliation' of the Greek East to Rome. As in China, they displayed a remarkable flexibility and readiness for adaptation; but in the Levant this policy of accommodation could of course be carried much further, since those among whom they worked were fellow Christians.

It goes without saying that the ultimate aim of the Jesuits was to secure the full submission of Greek Orthodoxy to the Holy See – to reestablish the Union of Florence which, in their view, remained still theoretically in force, although unjustifiably repudiated in practice by the Greeks. But they were shrewd enough to realise that they could achieve more by pastoral collaboration than by polemics, more by courtesy and conciliation than by an aggressive proselytism. Instead of engaging in the kind of negative apologetics which underlined the points of divergence between East and West, they strove to win the confidence and affection of the Greeks, to infiltrate among them, and so to work upon them from within. Deliberately they adopted a 'Trojan horse' policy, not creating a Greek Catholic community distinct from and in rivalry to the Greek Orthodox, but fostering a Catholic nucleus inside the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox communion. This nucleus, so they hoped, would slowly grow until it was in a position to take over the leadership of the eastern patriarchates and to proclaim organic unity as a fait accompli.

It was a policy which came very near to success. In the initial stages most Orthodox overlooked the long-term aims which inspired Jesuit friendship, and they gladly accepted western help without inquiring into its ulterior motives. Jesuit sermons were received with enthusiasm. On his first arrival at Smyrna in 1624, Fr Jerome Queyrot, SJ, was at once invited to preach in the Greek church of St George, and this he continued to do regularly on festivals and during Lent. He was also allowed to teach the catechism to Greek children: at the end of each class he took care to insert a prayer for the pope, which he made all the children recite together. [14] Probably this particular detail escaped the notice of the Orthodox authorities. Ironically, when the Jesuits in Smyrna encountered opposition and hostility, it came not from the 'schismatic' Greeks but from their own Catholic colleagues, the Capuchins. In the ensuing quarrel between the two groups of Latin religious, the Greek metropolitan Iakovos intervened vigorously on the Jesuit side, and even wrote an appeal to Louis XIII of France. In his letter to the French king, he terms the Jesuits 'able teachers, zealous for the salvation of souls'. 'Since their establishment in our most holy archdiocese,' he continues, ' they have not ceased to help all kinds of Christians, alike by the good example of their life, by their preaching in our church, and by the instruction which they give to the children of our rite... These reverend fathers work much for the good and the salvation of Greeks, Latins, and Armenians.' [15] Clearly the Greek metropolitan looked on the Jesuits, not as enemies who had come to steal his sheep, but as trusted helpers in his pastoral tasks.

The same attitude was displayed by the Orthodox authorities elsewhere. In 1630 the Greek metropolitan Ieremias of Naxos gave formal permission in writing, authorising the Jesuits to deliver sermons and hold catechism classes throughout his diocese. His successor Makarios renewed the authorisation but thought it wiser not to put it in writing. The Jesuits were clearly regarded as the best preachers in the island: it was members of the Society of Jesus, rather than the Greek clergy, who were asked to deliver the address at great feasts when the churches were packed with worshippers, and the Jesuits were regularly invited to preach in the Greek cathedral at liturgies celebrated by the metropolitan himself. [16]

The western missionaries were in demand not only as preachers but as confessors. A Jesuit priest on Santorini claimed to have heard the confessions of some 400 Greeks in the space of four years; [17] another in Naxos spoke of confessing 600 Greeks in a much shorter period. [18] One reason for their popularity - or so the Jesuits themselves claimed – was that, unlike the Greek clergy, they did not demand money from their penitents! [19] Now the hearing of confessions is manifestly a more delicate matter than the preaching of sermons: it is one thing to deliver a sermon to schismatics, but quite another to pronounce absolution on someone who chooses to remain formally in schism. Yet the Jesuits adopted an exceedingly lenient view. As a general rule they put no questions to their Greek penitents concerning the Church of Rome; still less did they demand of them any explicit abjuration of schism or act of submission to the Holy See. So long as they detected no evidence of active personal hostility against the papacy, they prudently refrained from inquiring into the dogmatic convictions of the Greeks who came to them for absolution.

Being human, the Greek clergy must sometimes have resented the popularity of the Jesuits, yet in many cases they displayed no signs of jealousy. One Jesuit recounts how, while he was talking to a village priest on the island of Naxos, a woman came up and asked the Greek papas for confession. 'Here is the confessor,' the Greek at once replied, pointing to the Jesuit, 'here is the father, make your confession to him': and he promptly withdrew, leaving her in the care of the Latin missionary. [20] This ministry of confession was normally performed with the knowledge and tacit consent of the local Orthodox bishop, and sometimes, as at Smyrna, Aegina, and Naxos, with his explicit authorisation. [21] The Jesuits acted as regular confessors at the Orthodox convent of St Nicolas in Santorini. [22] Sometimes Greek clergy and even bishops went to Latin priests for confession. [23]

Cases where western missionaries administered holy communion to Greek faithful are understandably less frequent. Because of their superior education and pastoral training, the Jesuits were in demand as preachers and spiritual fathers, but for holy communion the Greeks naturally tended to go to their own parish priests, who would administer the sacrament to them in the familiar way under both kinds. On occasion, however, acts of intercommunion certainly occurred. The Dominican liturgist Jacques Goar, resident in Chios from 1631 to 1637, relates one such instance:

If the [Greek Orthodox] bishops and parish clergy learn that some of the sheep in their flocks have turned aside to the pastures of the Latin Church and are receiving communion there, they are not in the least annoyed. On the contrary, they issue no public condemnation of such a course, thus by their silence implicitly commending it. I add, not something which I witnessed, but something which I myself did: with my own hands, publicly in the presence of all and in the sight of the church, I gave holy communion - under one kind - to some Greek deacons; and when their bishop learnt about it, he made no protest whatever. [24]

At Corpus Christi processions, the Orthodox behaved with marked reverence towards the Latin sacrament. The Chian Jesuit Andrea Rendi recounts how in 1630 the Greek metropolitan with another Orthodox bishop went specially to a house from which they could conveniently observe the procession, while in front of the building they posted three priests in vestments, to cense the blessed sacrament as it passed. [25] On the predominantly Orthodox island of Andros, the Greek bishop himself took part in the Latin Corpus Christi procession, accompanied by his clergy in full vestments, with candles and torches. [26]

So delighted were the Orthodox authorities with Latin ministrations that they did not merely wait passively for the missionaries' arrival but actively encouraged them to come. In 1615 patriarch Theophanes of Jerusalem, after meeting the Jesuits during a visit to Constantinople, begged some of them to accompany him on his return to the Holy City: he promised them quarters in one of the Greek monasteries, which they could use as a centre for pastoral work among the Orthodox. The plan came to nothing, not because of Orthodox hostility, but because of opposition from the Franciscans in Jerusalem, who had no wish to see the Jesuits established there. [27] In 1628 a former abbot from that stronghold of traditional Orthodoxy, the Holy Mountain, called on the officials of the Propaganda in Rome and requested a priest, to open a school on Athos for the monks. [28] In 1644 the Greek patriarch of Antioch Euthymios asked the Jesuits to found a house in Damascus, [29] while in 1690 metropolitan Damaskinos of Aegina wrote directly to pope Innocent XI, with a request for two Jesuits to undertake pastoral work within his diocese. [30]

Pere Besson spoke no more than the truth when he observed in his book La Syrie sainte: 'The Greeks and the Syrians open their houses to the apostolic men; they open even the doors of their churches and their pulpits. The parish priests welcome our assistance and the bishops beg us to cultivate their vineyards.' [31]

LATIN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE 'GREEK SCHISM'

Such are not the relationships which we should expect between two Christian communities divided by schism, and it may well be asked how the canonists and theologians on either side defended these acts of communicatio in sacris.

On the Greek side there seems to have been little or no attempt at theoretical justification. The official theology of the Greek Church throughout the seventeenth century remained fiercely polemical: though influenced by the thought forms and terminology of Latin scholasticism, it never ceased to chastise the Latins for their doctrinal deviations, treating them not just as schismatics but as heretics. If the Greek bishops acted differently in practice, this was not because of any special theory concerning the incomplete nature of the schism, but simply because of urgent pastoral necessity. They and their flocks were fighting for survival under the rule of a non-Christian government; their own clergy were almost entirely simple and ill-educated; in desperate need of qualified preachers, catechists, and confessors, they turned naturally to the Latin missionaries.

The Latin missionaries, for their part, were likewise influenced by pragmatic considerations. The attitude of the Turkish authorities made it difficult for them to do otherwise than adopt the method of secret conversions. Religious minorities in the Ottoman empire were organized in a series of self-contained millets or 'nations'. There was a 'Roman' – that is, Greek Orthodox – millet under the patriarch of Constantinople; there were Armenian and Jewish millets; there were Catholic communities of the Latin rite, which enjoyed the protection of the western Catholic powers, especially France. But there was no Greek Catholic or 'Uniate' millet. What, then, were the Jesuits to do with their Greek converts? They could admit them to the Latin rite, but this had two grave disadvantages: it made the act of conversion more difficult, since it required the Greek convert to adopt unfamiliar forms of worship; and it provoked Turkish suspicions, since a growth in the Latin rite implied an extension of the influence of the western powers within the Ottoman dominions. If they were to avoid trouble with the authorities and possible expulsion, the Jesuits had really no alternative to the 'Trojan horse' policy: they had to tell their Greek proselytes to remain outwardly where they were. The directives concerning communicatio in sacris from the authorities in Rome failed to take account of the concrete practicalities of the local situation.

But the Latin missionaries were not merely opportunists, for they were prepared to offer a reasoned defence of their conduct. The form which this theoretical justification took can best be illustrated from two books: Quaestiones morales...de Apostolicis Missionibus by the Theatine missionary Angelo Maria Verricelli, published at Venice in 1656; and De Ecclesiae Occidentalis atque Orientalis Perpetua Consensione by Leo Allatius, published at Cologne in 1648. The first provides a rationale of the missionaries' policy from the standpoint of canon law, the second from that of church history and theology.

Verricelli takes as his basis the decree Ad evitanda scandala of pope Martin V (1418), [32] which he considers applicable to the situation of the Greeks. [33] On this basis he argues that communicatio in sacris with heretics and schismatics is permissible, provided that the persons in question have not been excommunicated publice et nominatim. [34] Heretical hierarchs, even those who are 'notorious', retain power of jurisdiction, so long as they have not been condemned by name; a fortiori the same is true of mere schismatics. [35] Since the four eastern patriarchs and  the Greek hierarchy in general have not been condemned publice et nominatim, they are to be treated as true bishops of the Church, endowed with genuine spiritual authority, and common worship with them is not excluded.

Verricelli proceeds to give specific examples of what he has in mind. A Catholic priest may attend a schismatic Greek liturgy, vested in a cope. [36] A Catholic may request the sacraments of confession or communion from a schismatic Greek priest, even extra mortis articulum. [37] A Greek, converted to Catholicism, may continue to receive the sacraments from schismatic and heretical Greek clergy. [38] A Catholic may receive ordination from a Greek bishop, even from one who is a 'notorious heretic or schismatic', provided that the hierarch in question has not been excommunicated nominatim. [39] A Greek priest, converted to Catholicism, need not mention the name of the pope when celebrating mass, but may continue to commemorate a bishop or patriarch who is a 'notorious heretic'. [40]

Here, then, is a church lawyer fully prepared to justify, on canonical grounds, all that the Latin missionaries were doing in the Near East. Admittedly, Verricelli speaks of the Greek Orthodox as schismatics and heretics, [41] but the cumulative effect of his recommendations is that in practice they are to be treated as nothing of the sort. It is significant that Verricelli's book appeared at Venice, where the writ of the Inquisition did not run. It is doubtful whether such a work could have been published at Rome, with the blessing of the Holy Office and the Propaganda.

Allatius goes much more deeply into the whole question than Verricelli. Passing beyond the level of canon law, he raises the basic issue of principle: Has there ever been, and does there exist today, a complete schism between the Christian East and Rome? During the middle years of the seventeenth century, precisely at the time when Allatius was writing, western scholars were beginning to formulate what may conveniently be styled the 'standard view' of the eastern schism. This 'standard view' is set forth succinctly by a personal friend of Allatius, the French Oratorian Jean Morin, in the opening pages of his monumental Commentarius de Sacris Ecclesiae Ordinationibus.' [42] In this work Morin was concerned to prove that, ever since the start of the schism, Rome had never called in question the validity of schismatic Greek ordinations; and it was therefore important for him to establish precisely when the schism had in fact begun. He had little doubt about the exact date, 1053, and about the identity of the two chief culprits: Photius and Cerularius. 'The first seeds of the secession of the Greek Church from the Latin', he writes, 'were sown around the year 866... Photius was the first Greek who dared to accuse the Latin Church of errors in the faith, thus advancing the banner of schism and pointing the way for others to follow.' Pope John VIII, 'acting somewhat remissly', in 879 consented to the restoration of Photius to the patriarchal throne; and so, for the time being, the further evolution of the schism was halted. Disagreeing with Baronius, Morin evidently thinks that there was no 'second Photian schism', but that East and West remained in communion until Cerularius closed the Latin churches in Constantinople in the middle of the eleventh century. 'One hundred and eighty-seven years after the seeds were first sown by Photius, open schism broke out in the year of salvation 1053… Such is the date which we must assign to the schism.' [43]

Apart from the question of the 'second Photian schism', where Morin anticipates the conclusions of Dvornik, this is very much the view of the schism which prevailed generally until the second world war, and which still persists in the popular textbooks: a preliminary conflict under Photius in the 860s; a final breach under Cerularius in 1053-4. Allatius, by contrast, presents an account of East-West relations that is incomparably more subtle and more carefully qualified. The incidents of Photius and Cerularius he sees as important, but in themselves totally inconclusive. His main thesis, clearly indicated in his title De F.cclesiae Occidentalis atque Orientalis Perpetua Consensione, is that there never has been a 'final breach': the Western and Eastern Churches remain essentially united in a single faith. 'Greeks and Latins', so he argues, 'approve and reject the same things, and with united mind they pronounce the same concerning the dogmas of the faith. Their religious experience springs from one source, and both alike interpret it identically'. [44]

According to Allatius, there have been quarrels and misunderstandings between individuals on either side, but no act of complete schism formally and irrevocably committing the two Churches as such. Particular Greeks have been hostile to the Holy See, as were Michael Cerularius or Mark of Ephesus; particular Greeks have misinterpreted the Filioque, as did Photius, or they have propounded heretical theories about the divine light, as did Symeon the New Theologian or Gregory Palamas. [45] But these hostile attitudes and doctrinal misconceptions are not to be attributed to the Greek Church and nation at large. Adducing a wealth of evidence from the period after 1054, Allatius maintains that there have never been lacking Greeks who remained well-disposed towards Rome; and he points to the friendly contacts which exist in his own day. Neither in 1054 nor at any other time has there ever been a 'complete consummation' of the schism.

As Allatius puts it in one of his other works:

Individual persons, although holding office in the Greek Church, do not constitute the Greek Church. Nor, because various heresies have arisen and spread within that Church, is she herself to be considered heretical… The Greek Church as a whole, whether in her professions of faith or in the service books read continually in her public worship, has never professed any heresy condemned by the councils and the Church of Rome… Because certain individual Greeks have endeavoured to spread some ancient or freshly invented heresy, and have inveighed against the papacy in their published writings, it does not therefore follow that the Greek Church is separated from the Church of Rome: this would only be the case if the heresy in question were universally adopted and outwardly professed by all alike; and this, you will find, has never happened on the occasions when certain individuals have launched attacks against the Roman Church. [46]

The standpoint of Allatius is concisely summarised by his younger contemporary, Nicolo Papadopoli: 'There are many schismatics in Greece, but Greece itself has never been schismatic.' [47] With this may be compared the statement of Carlo Francesco da Breno, in his manual for Latin missionaries in the Near East, published in 1726. 'Is the Eastern Church schismatic?' he inquires, and replies: 'Considered in itself it is not really schismatic, although there are many schismatics within it' (non esse secundum se spectatam reipsa Schismaticam, etsi in ea multi Schismatici sint). [48]

THE SEQUEL: INCREASING HOSTILITY AND RENEWED FRIENDSHIP

Such, then, were the friendly contacts existing between Orthodox and Catholics during the seventeenth century; and such was the theoretical justification provided by contemporary Catholic scholars for the acts of communicatio in sacris which took place daily throughout the Levant. In the first part of the eighteenth century, however, relations deteriorated markedly. Instances of joint worship and sharing in the sacraments, which around 1650 were a commonplace, had virtually ceased a hundred years later. By 1750 the separation between East and West had come to possess a sharpness and a finality which in 1700 it still lacked.

On the Orthodox side, the man most responsible for the growth in hostility was Dositheos, patriarch of Jerusalem for nearly forty years (1669-1707), an able and tireless foe of Rome, inspired by a passionate aversion for the Jesuits and all their works. [49] On the Catholic side, a rigorist approach to communicatio in sacris came to prevail more and more. The authorities at Rome, who had always looked with reserve on Jesuit leniency, grew increasingly severe in their directives as the eighteenth century proceeded. On 5 July 1729 Propaganda issued a general prohibition, excluding all common worship in terms of the utmost strictness. On 10 May 1753 the Holy Office published another general prohibition, insisting that the decree of Martin V, Ad evitanda scandala, applied only to civic cooperation and not to communicatio in sacris. [50]

But the most decisive single factor in the deterioration of relations was probably the schism in the patriarchate of Antioch from 1724 onwards. [51] The western missionaries had found Syria and the Lebanon a particularly fruitful field, and nowhere else in the Levant did they succeed in making so many secret converts, including several patriarchs of Antioch. But the eventual outcome belied the Jesuit hopes. Instead of securing the reconciliation of the entire patriarchate en bloc to the papal obedience, they succeeded only in producing a schism: in 1724 rival patriarchs were elected, the one looking to Rome and the other to Constantinople, and thenceforward the faithful were divided into two opposed flocks. This incident not only caused great local bitterness but led to widespread alarm throughout the Orthodox world. Many Greeks realised for the first time the way in which friendship with the Latins was leading to secret conversions; they were terrified that what had happened in Antioch would occur elsewhere, and so they broke off friendly contacts with the Latin clergy. The schism of 1724 made them view the Latins, no longer as fellow-workers whose collaboration they could sincerely welcome, but as enemies dedicated to the subversion of their Church. Anti-Latin feeling came to full development in 1755, when the patriarch of Constantinople, together with his colleagues of Alexandria and Jerusalem, laid down that Latin converts were to be received henceforward by rebaptism, and no longer by chrismation, as in the regulations of 1484. [52]

By the nineteenth century acts of shared worship had become little more than a dim and distant memory for both Catholics and Orthodox. In 1862 Dom Jean-Baptiste Pitra, the future cardinal, prepared a perceptive memorandum on communicatio in sacris with the Orientals. [53]   He was well aware of the intercommunion which had existed between Greeks and Latins some two centuries previously, and he cited the De… Perpetua Consensione of Leo Allatius and the reports of the Jesuit missionaries, as well as interesting evidence from Kerkyra (Corfu) in 1724. But he went on to insist that the situation had altered. The precedents adduced from the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, so he argued, now possessed no more than a 'speculative value'; such practices he considered out of the question in the mid-nineteenth century.

Yet even in Pitra's day the sacramental severance was not total, for Latin canon law has never ceased to permit a Catholic, if in danger of death and cut off from his own Church, to receive Orthodox sacraments. [54] And had Pitra been writing, not in 1862 but in the years following the second Vatican council, his conclusions would necessarily have been different. The decrees of Vatican II 'On Ecumenism' and 'On Eastern Catholic Churches', both dated 21 November 1964, together with the supplementary 'Ecumenical Directory' issued in May 1967, have greatly enlarged the possibilities of communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox. The reaction of many Orthodox to these decisions has been guarded, but on 16 December 1969 the synod of the Russian Church declared that 'if… Catholics ask the Orthodox Church to administer the holy sacraments to them, this is not forbidden'. The Russian resolution has been vigorously attacked by the synod of the Church of Greece, but the ecumenical patriarchate has maintained a discreet silence and issued no condemnation. It appears that Catholic-Orthodox relations are entering upon another period of flexibility, reminiscent of the seventeenth century. Let us hope that the establishment of closer contacts will not lead to a fresh schism among the Orthodox, such as occurred at Antioch in 1724.

 

FOOTNOTES [numbering combined]

1. For the text of the Synodikon, see Τριῴδιον κατανυκτικόν (Apostoliki Diakonia, Athens 1960) pp 44–51. Compare also J. Gouillard, ‘Le Synodikon de l’Orthodoxie: édition et commentaire’, Travaux et Mémoires, II (Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation byzantines, Paris 1967) pp 1–316.

2. I take this phrase from Fr Gervase Mathew, OP: see The Eastern Churches Quarterly, VI, 5 (Ramsgate 1946) p 227, and compare [G.] Every, [SSM,] Misunderstandings [between East and West], Ecumenical Studies in History, No 4 (London 1965) p 9.

3. For the text, see PG 102 (1860) cols 721-41.

4. See PL 143 (1853) cols 1004B; PG 120 (1864) col 748B.

5. Greek text in W. Holtzmann, 'Die Unionsverhandlungen zwischen Kaiser Alexios I. und Papst Urban II. im Jahre 1089', Byzantinische Zeitschrift, xxvm (Leipzig 1928) p 60: cited by G. Every, The Byzantine Patriarchate 451-1204 (2 ed, London 1962) p 180.

6. The Eastern Schism (Oxford 1955) p 151.

7. Text in J. Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge 1959) p 412.

8. The text of this service is given in I. N. Karmiris, Τὰ Δογματικὰ καὶ Συμβολικὰ Μνημεῖα τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, II (Athens 1953) pp 987–9. Orthodox writers occasionally describe the synod of 1484 as ‘ecumenical’, see, for example, G. A. Rallis and M. Potlis, Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων, V (Athens 1855) p 143, but it should more correctly be styled ‘local’, compare P. N. Trembelas, Δογματικὴ τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, I (Athens 1959) p 136, n 53.

9. De Ecclesiae Occidentalis atque Orientalis Perpetua Consensione (Cologne 1648; photographic reprint with new introduction by K. T. Ware, Gregg International Press, Westmead 1970) cols 970–80, 1059.

10. A vast inventory of acts of communicatio in sacris during the seventeenth century is supplied by [P.] Grigoriou-Garo, Σχέσεις [καθολικῶν καὶ ὀρθοδόξων] (Athens 1958). The main evidence is briefly summarised by [Timothy (K. T.)] Ware, Eustratios Argentis: [A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule] (Oxford 1964) pp 17–23, 36–7.

11. See A. K. Sarou, Περὶ μεικτῶν ναῶν ὀρθοδόξων καὶ καθολικῶν ἐν Χίῳ, in Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν, XIX (Athens 1949) pp 194–208; Grigoriou-Garo, Σχέσεις, pp 25–6, 34–41, 57.

12. For contemporary accounts of these missions, see [François] Richard, [SJ,] Relation [de ce qui s’est passé de plus remarquable à Sant-Erini isle de l’Archipel, depuis l’établissement des Pères de la Compagnie de Jésus en icelle] (Paris 1657); the anonymous report dating from 1643 and perhaps by Fr Mathieu Hardy, SJ, entitled ‘Relation [de ce qui s’est passé en la résidence des Pères de la Compagnie de Jésus establie à Naxie le 26 Septembre de l’année 1627]’, ed [V.] Laurent, [Echos d’Orient,] XXXIII (Paris 1934) pp 218–26, 354–75, and XXXIV (1935) pp 97–105, 179–204, 350–67, 473–81; [A.] Carayon, [SJ,] Relations inédites [des Missions de la Compagnie de Jésus à Constantinople et dans le Levant au XVIIe siècle] (Paris 1864). Compare [H.] Fouqueray, [SJ,] Histoire [de la Compagnie de Jésus en France des origines à la suppression (1528–1762),] 5 vols (Paris 1910–25) especially III, pp 200–15, 606–35; IV, pp 315–62; V, pp 341–89. There is much valuable material in the series of articles by V. Laurent, ‘L’âge d’or des Missions latines dans le Levant (XVIIe–XVIIIe siècle)’, L’Unité de l’Eglise (Paris) issues for 1934–5. For the work of the Capuchins in the Near East (who were usually more cautious and reserved than the Jesuits in the matter of communicatio in sacris), see Fr Hilaire de Barenton, FMC, La France catholique en Orient durant les trois derniers siècles (Paris 1902).

13. See the articles by [W.] de Vries, SJ, 'Das Problem der "communicatio in sacris cum dissidentibus" im Nahen Osten zur Zeit der Union (17. und 18. Jahrhundert)', Ostkirchliche Studien, vi (Wiirtzburg 1957) pp 81-106; 'Eine Denkschrift zur Frage der "communicatio in sacris cum dissidentibus" aus demjahre 1721', Ostkirchliche Studien, vii (1958) pp 253-66; '"Communicatio in sacris": An Historical Study [of the Problem of Liturgical Services in Common with Eastern Christians Separated from Rome'], Concilium iv, 1 (London 1965) pp 11-22.

14. Fouqueray, Histoire, iv, pp 344.-5.

15. 'Brieve relation [de l'etablissement des Peres de la Compagnie de J£sus en la ville de Smyrne...'], in Carayon, Relations inUites, pp 174-5: compare Fouqueray, Histoire, v, p 367.

16. 'Relation', ed Laurent, xxxiv, pp 350-1, 353-4: compare the letter of Fr Mathieu Hardy in Carayon, Relations inidites, p 116.

17. Richard, Relation, p 127.

18. Grigoriou-Garo, Σχέσεις, p 83.

19. ‘Relation’, ed Laurent, XXXIV, pp 359–60.

20. ‘Relation’, ed Laurent, XXXIV, p 357.

21.‘Drève relation’, pp 172–3; Fr F. Richard, SJ, in Grigoriou-Garo, Σχέσεις, p 83; Laurent, ‘L’âge d’or’, L’Unité de l’Eglise, No 72 (1935), p 477.

22. Grigoriou-Garo, Σχέσεις, p 34.

23. For examples, see Richard, Relation, p 135; Grigoriou-Garo, Σχέσεις, p 97.

24. Allatius, De . . . Perpetua Consensione, cols 169–60; compare S. Salaville, Studia Orientalia Liturgico-Theologica (Rome 1940) pp 54–61.

25. Grigoriou-Garo, Σχέσεις, p 107.

26. Hilaire de Barenton, La France catholique, p 175. For other examples, see Richard, Relation, pp 309–12; ‘Relation’, ed Laurent, XXXIV, pp 198–9; Grigoriou-Garo, Σχέσεις, pp 83, 112, 116.

27. Fouqueray, Histoire, III, p 618.

28. G. Hofmann, ‘Athos e Roma’, Orientalia Christiana, XIX (Rome 1925) pp 5–6, 29–31; Grigoriou-Garo, Σχέσεις, pp 163–74.

29. Fouqueray, Histoire, v, pp 382-3.

30. G. Hofmann, ' Byzantinische Bischofe und Rom', Orientatia Christiana, LXX (Rome 1931) pp 19-20.

31. J. Besson, SJ, La Syrie sainte (Paris 1660), p 11.

32. Mansi, XXVII, cols 1192D–93A. For the importance of this decree for the question of communicatio in sacris, see de Vries, ‘“Communicatio in sacris”: An Historical Study’, p 13.

33. Quaestiones, p 207.

34. Quaestiones, p 138.

35. Quaestiones, pp 139, 465.

36. Quaestiones, p 145.

37. Quaestiones, p 152. But Verricelli admits that others hold an opposite view on this point, and he only defends his opinion as probabilis.

38. Quaestiones, p 753.

39. Quaestiones, pp 492–3. Compare the truly Machiavellian schemes of Thomas à Jesu, De Procuranda Salute Omnium Gentium (Antwerp 1613) pp 293–7.

40. Quaestiones, p 148.

41. Verricelli in fact inclines to the view that the Greeks in general are to be considered schismatics rather than heretics; individual Greeks may be tainted with heresy, but this cannot be affirmed of the Greek nation as a whole (Quaestiones, pp 634–5).

42. First edition: Paris 1655.

43. Commentarius, p 3. On the views of seventeenth-century historians concerning the date of the schism, see the valuable discussion in Every, Misunderstandings, pp 15–24.

44. This particular statement comes, not from De . . . Perpetua Consensione, but from another book on the same subject, in which Allatius collaborated with Bartold Nihusius and Abraham Ecchelensis: Concordia Nationum Christianarum… in Fidei Catholicae Dogmatibus (Mainz 1655) p 121.

45. For the views of Allatius on Hesychasm, see his De Symeoniorum Scriptis Diatriba (Paris 1664), pp 151–79; De… Perpetua Consensione, cols 802–40.

46. Ioannes Henricus Hottingerus Fraudis, & Imposturae Manifestae Convictus (Rome 1661) pp 6–7. Compare De… Perpetua Consensione, col 711.

47. Praenotiones Mystagogicae ex Jure Canonico (Padua 1697) p iv.

48. Manuale Missionariorum Orientalium, 2 vols (Venice 1726) I, p 83: compare G. Borgomanero, ‘Gli apologisti della dottrina cattolica contro i Greci nel secolo XVII. Il P. Carlo Francesco da Breno’, Bessarione, 3rd series, VIII (Rome 1910–11) p 292.

49. See Ware, Eustratios Argenti, pp 31-2.

50. See de Vries, '"Communicatio in sacris": An Historical Study', pp 18-19.

51. See Ware, Eustratios Argenti, pp 28-30, for further details and bibliography.

52. See Ware, Eustratios Argenti, pp 65–78. The 1755 measure did not apply to Russia, which ceased to rebaptise Latin converts from 1666–7 onwards. Since the end of the last century, the 1755 decision has fallen largely into disuse, but it has never been formally revoked and is still occasionally applied.

53. Memorandum to cardinal von Reisach, in A. Battandier, Le Cardinal Jean-Baptiste Pitra (Paris 1893) pp 435–9. This reference was kindly supplied to me by Br George Every.

54. See Codex Juris Canonici Pii X Pontificis Maximi iussu digestus (Rome 1949) §882; C. Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate, I (London 1955) p 508.

 

New Dimensions in Pride and Insanity

The Calendar Question Revisited: The Fathers or the Papacy? [1994]

 

 

In the May issue of The Word, the official organ of the Antiochian Christian Archdiocese of North America (vol. 38 #5, pp. 5-7), the dean of St. George Antiochian Orthodox Cathedral in Toledo Ohio, Fr. Nabil Hanna, published an article, Why is it So Late This Year!, in which he argues against the traditional formula for calculating the date of Pascha, suggesting that the Orthodox formula is in violation of the spirit of the First Ecumenical Council, and concluding his article with the words: "Let us pray that one day soon, we can rediscover the goal of the First Ecumenical Council, that the whole Orthodox Church might adopt the most precise calendar available, and much more important-that we might demonstrate our unity by celebrating all our feasts together, with one accord and in the same manner."

Rather than give any credence to the pseudo-scholarship in this article, and remembering the admonition of the holy Apostle John, who says "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world" [I Jn 4:1], it might be better to test this article using the following questions as a humble guide.

Is it not quite extraordinary and noteworthy that for the last 1,669 years, since the First Ecumenical Council, and particularly during the last 412 years since Gregory XIII, Popе of Rome, and his atheist astronomers revised the Julian Calendar (on 5 October 1582, and not 1528), no reputable Orthodox scholars or Orthodox canonical interpreters, no distinguished Orthodox Hierarchs* and no Orthodox saints have ever discovered what our sincere but misguided Fr. Nabil Hanna has discovered – i.e., that the traditional Orthodox formula for calculating the date of Pascha is in violation of the spirit of the First Ecumenical Council?

Are we to believe that Fr. Nabil Hanna has greater insight into the interpretation of the Holy Canons than the great and renowned Orthodox canonical interpreters Blastaris, Zonaras, and others, who have handed down to us precise and concrete instructions regarding the traditional Orthodox formula for calculating the date of Pascha, as laid down at the First Ecumenical Council?

Are we to believe that Fr. Nabil Hanna has greater wisdom than the venerable Orthodox Patriarchs, Jeremiah II of Constantinople, Silvester of Alexandria, Sophronios of Jerusalem, and the other hierarchs, who condemned, by means of an Encyclical Letter to all genuine Orthodox Christians in the year 1583, the then newly-invented Paschalion of the Pope of Rome, which Fr. Nabil Hanna now promotes and advocates?

Or are we to believe that Fr. Nabil Hanna possesses greater knowledge and expertise in the matter of the Paschalion than the venerable Orthodox Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, together with the plenipotentiary of the Russian Orthodox Church and other distinguished and outstanding Orthodox hierarchs and scholars representing the local Orthodox Churches, who condemned in Council the papal Paschalion in the year 1593?

Are we to believe that Fr. Nabil Hanna is better able to impart to us the Mystery of righteousness than were the Orthodox saints and martyrs who unanimously experienced the Resurrection and were sanctified, celebrating the Pascha calculated according to the traditional Orthodox formula?

Are we to believe that the recently canonized hieromartyr St. Joseph the Damascene, who labored both lovingly and diligently to reunite the Melkites (Greek Catholics) to Orthodoxy (especially after the Western calendar and the Western date of Pascha had been forced upon them by their patriarch), and who wrote apreface for the book by Shibi Al-Demashki, titled Christian Law is Far above the Astrological Considerations ("a precise calendar is not the most important thing; the Holy Scriptures teach us that time will pass away no matter how we measure it"),would agree with Fr. Nabil Hanna's assessment of the traditional Orthodox formula for the calculation of the date of Pascha?

Are we to believe that our present traditions violate the spirit of a Universal Synod, and that the Church Fathers have been errant in their pronouncements about the calculation of Pascha, and that the flamboyant Orthodox Churches of North America, mired in the hypocrisy of political ecumenism and modernism, laden down with the riches of this world, impoverished in traditional Orthodox spirituality and piety, deprived and destitute of true Orthodox monasticism, as well as being both cut off from and ashamed of our old-world Orthodox roots and traditions, have a better understanding of the Apostolic spirit?

Are we to believe that the small, unhealthy Church of Finland, the only Orthodox Church in the world which celebrates Pascha with the West, constitutes, in its few years of practice, the correct liturgical standard (even though one of the accursed results of the introduction of the new Paschalion was the destruction of the holy and renowned Monastery of Valaam), while the rest of Orthodoxy, following at least sixteen hundred years of tradition, is in error?

Are we to believe in the vile pronouncements of "the important council in 1922" (actually 10 May/8 June 1923) which Fr. Nabil Hanna cited in his article, and which was nothing more than the mouthpiece of the unstable, restless, power-hungry, evil demon of bitter memory, Meletios Metazakis, who (after being expelled from Jerusalem by Patriarch Damianos for activities against the Holy Sepulchre and later impeded from taking the throne as Archbishop of Athens), through usury had himself uncanonically elected and enthroned as Patriarch of Constantinople (and who later retired when faced with the prospect of being deposed and physically expelled from Constantinople by both the clergy and laity), who convened this "important council" (presided over by five bishops), the "Pan-Orthodox" (Robber) Congress of Constantinople in 1923, for his own personal ends (taking advantage of the turmoil in the Russian Orthodox Church, due to the relentless persecution of the Bolsheviks, as well as the upheaval in the Hellenic world with the expulsion of the Greeks from Asia Minor), who recognized and entered into communion with the communist-sponsored "Living Church" in Russia while true Russian Orthodox Christians were being martyred, who wilfully destroyed the liturgical and visible unity of the Orthodox Church, who implemented his innovations by the use of merciless brute force against faithful Greek Orthodox Christians, who accepted the "validity" of Anglican orders, and who instituted countless other abominations and innovations?

Together with the above questions, we might also rightfully and seriously ask ourselves the following:

Why would an Orthodox priest write this article?

Why would an Orthodox priest attempt to undermine the respect of Orthodox Christians for our holy Traditions?

Why would an Orthodox priest so blatantly injure the sensibilities of the faithful, and humiliate us in the face of the enemies of our Church?

Why would such a well-known publication of the Antiochian Orthodox Church in North America print such an article?

Is there a hidden agenda behind Fr. Nabil Hanna's article?

Is there something we do not know or something that we are not being told?

Are we being slowly prepared for capitulation?

Are we being slowly prepared for a union? or Uniatism?

Are we being slowly prepared to go down the same road as the Melkites (Greek Catholics)?

Is the continual propaganda of the Melkites regarding union in the near future really true?

Is it possible that those Orthodox Christians who faithfully continue to follow the traditional Julian Calendar have been right all along in resisting any change, and that we Orthodox who have been following the Revised Julian Calendar and who have, according to the old adage, already given an arm, will be expected also to give a leg?

Or, is this just another of the many mindless and fleeting fashions (or better yet, fads) and fantasies that sweep America from time to time?

BUT now, can we possibly afford to be quiet in this matter, if it isn't just another mindless fad?

The Holy Scripture reminds us: "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God" [Rom 12:2].

We can only be transformed by the renewing of our minds (i.e., learning to live and think as Orthodox Christians) through participation in the full liturgical life of our holy Orthodox Church, through participation in the Holy Mysteries (especially frequent Confession and Holy Communion as recommended by our Father Confessors), and then through the reading of the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. We must not lean "unto our own understanding" [cf. Prov 3:5], and we must not be "wise in our own opinion" [cf. Rom 12:16], nor is it permitted to us to follow the ways of the world, for "friendship with the world is enmity with God" [cf. Jas 4:4]; but rather, we must conform ourselves to the law of God as handed down by our Holy Fathers, and "contend earnestly for the Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" [cf. Jude 3].

 

* It is probable that the false reasoning used to arrive at the preposterous conclusions in Fr. Nabil Hanna's article are based upon the writings of Archbishop Pierre (L'Huillier) of New York and New Jersey, a prelate of the "Orthodох Church in America." Archbishop Pierre is the author of the article The Date of Orthodox Easter which was published in the March 1994 issue of Solia, the official organ of the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate in America, in which he argues against the traditional Orthodox formula for calculating the date of Pascha.

Prepared for St. Mary's Antiochian Orthodox Discussion Group by Fr. Zoran, Assistant Parish Priest of St. Mary's Antiochian Orthodox Church; 91 Hemphill Ave; Mount Pritchard, NSW 2170, Australia.

Source: Living Orthodoxy, Vol. XV, No. 4; July-August 1993 [actual release August 1994] (#88), pp. 6-7.

How Apostasy Led to Ecumenism: Precursor Spiritual Movements Behind Ecumenism

Pavlos Klimatsakis

A presentation at the conference with the theme:

Unity of the Church and Union of the Churches

War Museum, Athens – Sunday, May 3, 2026

Center for Patristic Studies

 

 

In our days, Ecumenism is often presented to the broad public as an innocent, spontaneous, and sincere desire for the achievement of unity among divided Christians. It is put forward as a movement of love that responds to the challenges of our times. However, a careful historical and theological analysis proves that this phenomenon is neither innocent nor autonomous. It was not born suddenly in the 20th century out of nothing. On the contrary, it constitutes the mature and necessary result of a long, systematic course of apostasy, which began in the bosom of Western Christianity centuries ago. In order to understand the true nature and aims of contemporary Ecumenism, we must seek out its roots and examine the spiritual substratum from which it emerged.

It is proven that Ecumenism arose through two parallel, but distinct, paths of apostasy in the West: the humanistic-rationalistic tradition and the occultist one. Despite their apparent differences, both of these directions historically converge in precisely the same result. They lead to the gradual undermining and relativization of Christian truth as the sole and exclusive path of salvation.

PART A: The Humanistic and Rationalistic Path

The first path was deprived of the living experience of the Church and relied exclusively on human intellect. It developed in four decisive historical steps:

1. The Renaissance and Humanism: The Shift of the Center

During the period of the Renaissance, a radical spiritual overturning takes place. The center of interest shifts from the God-man Christ to man himself and to his earthly capabilities. In this context, leading scholars, such as Erasmus, begin to envision a universal Christian unity. This unity, however, is no longer based on the common, unshakable dogmatic faith. It is based simply on a common, external moral conduct. At the same time, the appearance of philological criticism of the sacred texts comes to relativize, for the first time, the dogmatic authority of the Church. Thus, the spirit of irenicism is gradually introduced into Western thought, according to which dogmatic differences are deliberately downgraded to secondary issues that must not hinder coexistence.

2. The Enlightenment: The Deification of Reason

With the advent of the Enlightenment, human reason and logic are now proclaimed as the supreme criterion of truth. Philosophers such as Locke and Voltaire develop and teach the theory of religious tolerance. This tolerance is not simply respect for one’s fellow man, but the gradual equating of religious beliefs. In the same period, the Deists propose the adoption of a common “natural religion.” This religion is supposedly accessible to all men through reason, independently of revealed truth. This theory is structurally identical with the basic ecumenical idea of the search for a “common basis” among the confessions. During the same period, the historical criticism of the Bible, with Spinoza as its chief exponent, deconstructs the sacred text. It treats it as a mere human historical creation, profoundly undermining every dogmatic certainty.

3. Liberal Theology: Subjectivism and the Social Gospel

During the 19th century, liberal Protestant theology completely diverts the meaning of faith. Schleiermacher defines religion not as the revelation of doctrines, but as a purely subjective, emotional experience of the individual. A little later, Harnack attempts to strip Christianity bare as he seeks its supposed genuine “core,” beneath the later dogmatic “layers” of the Ecumenical Councils. This logic was simple: if dogma is regarded as a later, human surface, then the various churches can easily be united upon the common moral core. This theory found its practical application in the movement of the “Social Gospel,” where Christian communities began to cooperate closely for social and philanthropic purposes, completely setting aside their dogmatic differences. This is a purely practical Ecumenism, which functioned long before the term itself had even been invented.

4. Postmodernism: The Fluidity of Truth

In our age, postmodernism comes to provide the philosophical legitimation that Ecumenism needed. Lyotard proclaims the end of the “grand narratives.” He claims that no religion or ideology is any longer justified in laying claim to exclusive and absolute truth. At the same time, Derrida’s method of deconstruction is applied to the sacred texts, presenting them as “open” to every kind of subjective interpretation. Within this philosophical climate, religious identity ceases to be stable. It becomes fluid, changing, and the object of continual negotiation, exactly as Ecumenism wants it.

PART B: The Occultist Path

Parallel with rationalism, within the framework of apostasy, a second, equally dangerous path developed in the West. This path used the tools of mysticism and occultism in order to achieve the same goal (p. 2).

1. Gnosticism: The Primordial Undermining

Gnosticism was the first systematic syncretism that the Church was called to confront already from apostolic times. It introduced a specific structure of thought, which has since been repeated in every occultist movement: it claims that there is a hidden, inner truth, which is common to all the religions of the world. It regards the doctrines, the Mysteries, and the institutions of the Church as non-essential, external coverings. It proclaims that the “initiated” can transcend religious divisions. The ancient Church fought Gnosticism with vigor and condemned it. It immediately recognized that its logic was spiritually deadly for revealed truth.

2. Hermeticism and Kabbalah: The Search for the Primordial Theology

During the Renaissance, in parallel with humanism, interest in the ancient Hermetic texts and so-called Christian Kabbalah is revived. Through these searches, the dangerous idea of Prisca Theologia (Primordial Theology) is born. This is the theory that there exists a single, divine knowledge that was given to humanity at the beginning of its history and which is scattered throughout all religions. Pico della Mirandola is a characteristic example. This scholar attempted to prove that Judaism, ancient Greek philosophy, and Christianity converge and are identified on a deeper, mystical level. This effort essentially constitutes the first clear formulation of the ecumenical “common basis,” expressed, however, in occultist terms.

3. Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry: Practical Syncretism

In the 17th and 18th centuries, the various initiatory brotherhoods, chiefly Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry (1717), now set as their explicit and official goal the overcoming of religious divisions. Freemasonry opens its doors to members coming from any religious doctrine. It sets as the only prerequisite belief in a deliberately vague and impersonal higher power, which it calls the “Great Architect of the Universe.” In this way, the particular dogmatic religious identity of each person is downgraded. It is transformed into a purely private matter, which must not hinder spiritual “fraternization.” This is yet another form of practical Ecumenism. Even the papal Church, perceiving the danger, condemned it very early, already from 1738.

4. Theosophy and New Age: The Systematic Culmination

At the end of the 19th century, Helena Blavatsky founded the Theosophical Society, succeeding in systematically synthesizing all the previous occultist currents. Theosophy explicitly teaches the existence of an “Ancient Wisdom.” This wisdom supposedly constitutes the common denominator and the hidden source of all the great religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. At the same time, it introduces Eastern beliefs into Western thought, such as reincarnation, the spiritual evolution of humanity, and the expectation of a “New Age” consciousness.

The New Age movement, which has experienced enormous flourishing in recent decades, is nothing other than the popularization and vulgarization of Theosophy. In our days, New Age constitutes syncretism on a purely individual level. Each person can function as an autonomous consumer of spirituality, assembling his own faith from various religious traditions. This deinstitutionalized logic creates the most suitable psychological and social ground for contemporary Ecumenism to be accepted.

The Synthesis of the Two Paths and the Challenge for the Church

Contemporary Ecumenism did not choose between the humanistic and the occultist path. It functioned as the final heir of both of these spiritual currents, synthesizing their characteristics. The central conclusion that emerges is clear and relentless. Ecumenism is not a simple, mistaken idea or a misunderstanding that sprang up suddenly and without cause in the 20th century. It is the mature, necessary, and inevitable result of a spiritual deviation that has been developing unceasingly in the West from the Schism onward.

Every historical step of this course removed one more layer from the exclusivity of Christian truth. Thus, we were led to today’s Ecumenism, where the much-desired union of the churches no longer presupposes the common, unadulterated, and patristic faith. On the contrary, it is satisfied with a vague, emotional, and worldly “good will.” For the faithful of the Church, the understanding of this historical course constitutes a precious resource. It reminds us that genuine Christian unity cannot be achieved through compromises and diplomatic concessions, but only through return to and persistence in the Truth of the Gospel, as the fathers of the Orthodox Church interpreted it, which remains the same yesterday and today and unto the ages.

 

Greek source:

https://www.orthros.eu/2012-09-25-13-07-17/%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%B4%CE%B5%CF%83-%CE%B5-%CF%80-%CE%BC/epm-enotita-enosi/1906-epm-enotita-klimatsakis.html

 

Towards Greater Moderation in the Tendentious Orthodox Dispute Over “Augustinianism”

by the Most Reverend Chrysostomos [+2019],

Former Archbishop and Metropolitan of Etna

 

 

The Editor of Orthodox Tradition recently asked me to write a short article about the status of Bishop Augustine of Hippo Regius (+430) and his writings in the Orthodox Church, an issue that created intense controversy several decades ago—controversy that still persists, unfortunately, in some theological circles. At the peak of that initial dispute, I was, as one of its primary writers, similarly requested to comment on an inquiry to the now defunct “Questions and Comments From Readers” section of Orthodox Tradition regarding the doctrinal orthodoxy of this eminent Latin Father. [1] I have thus decided to reprint, in acquiescing to Bishop Auxentios’ newer request, those original comments, along with a few changes and refinements. This decision came not without some trepidation, stemming from the negative Orthodox attitudes towards St. Augustine that I first encountered in my earlier comments on him. These attitudes are perhaps best summarized by the views of the distinguished Greek theologian and philosopher, Chrestos Giannaras, who, in his book The Freedom of Morality, published in the mid-1980s, described Augustine as the source of virtually all the theological deviations of the Christian West. Expressing the more positive traditional reception of this Father with which I was familiar, and calling him Saint Augustine, I found myself accused by certain clergy, in shockingly contumelious language, of being an “Augustinian heretic” and zealous “λατινόφρων” (Latinophron, Latinizer), if not guilty of sundry impious traducements against the Holy Fathers. Though I knew about various earlier negative reactions in the Slavic Orthodox Churches concerning sundry doctrines of St. Augustine, I was in complete ignorance of the polarization of views in more contemporary theological circles, and I thus entered almost naively into what turned out to be a veritable theological wasp’s nest.

I feel obliged, therefore, to assure my readers that I have no desire whatever to fan the flames of controversy that still exist with regard to the status of Bishop Augustine in the Orthodox Church. Even if I may use nomenclature and adhere to views of the Saint that reflect a moot stand, and even if, in so doing, I seem also to hold his person in high esteem, I assuredly do not do so in a spirit of counter-advocacy or without an awareness of the fact that, whereas for centuries he has been revered in many quarters of the Orthodox Church, the same Fathers who praised him were cognizant of the fact that some of his theological opinions were substantially at odds with the consensus Patrum. I likewise know that the effect of his writings on western Christian thinking was devastating and contributed to the West’s estrangement from the Orthodox East—a truly lamentable legacy. At the same time, I do not think that we can rightly ignore the honor shown Augustine, which has, as I said, been acknowledged for centuries in the Orthodox Church. To the end of making that point, and especially in an epoch when basic Christian virtues are rare, I would like to propose a more moderate approach to the person, writings, and teachings of St. Augustine. There certainly must be more edifying pursuits than those of fervidly arguing against the sanctity of a Churchman who, both his alleged and truly serious errors and misunderstandings notwithstanding, has long served as an example of the power of the Christian Faith to bring sinful men and women out of the delusions of paganism and the ways of iniquity into a life of pious morality, if not Christian enlightenment.

Of those who so vehemently lay such great stress on Augustine’s divers deviations from the consensus of the Orthodox Fathers—starkly so with regard to sin and human guilt before God (his views in this area are diametrically at odds with the pivotal and incisive doctrines of St. Maximos the Confessor), the nature of Grace, and the procession of the Holy Spirit—I would ask some consideration for the fact that further distortions and overstatements of his theological vagaries by Medieval, Reformation, and later thinkers unfairly obfuscate the Saint’s obvious struggle to remain faithful to the Church. One would, indeed, be hard- pressed to find evidence of malice prepense in his writings or his misstatements of the Church’s teachings, let alone tenacious resistance to correction by his contemporaries. Thus, Pope Vigilius (+555), in reconciling himself to the decisions of the Fifth (Ecumenical Synod, invoked the memory, among “...our Fathers,” of the “blessed Augustine” for the Saint’s willingness to retract and correct various errors in his “writings” and “sayings.” [2] Rather, St. Augustine’s works are marked by profound personal piety, a spirit of contrition, and a relentless deference to the teaching authority of the Church: traits of considerable spiritual significance. Moreover, while one may argue that his notions about “created” Grace are incompatible with Orthodox teachings regarding our illumination by Uncreated Grace, this does not mean that he did not experience true Glorification. His lofty spiritual writings would hint otherwise. A purported inability to describe the ineffable, or the perpetuation of conceptual ambiguities in doing so, does not necessarily obviate the possibility of one’s experiencing it.

We might cite such historical luminaries as St. Gregory the Dialogist, the Pope of Rome (+604), St. Photios the Great (+895), and St. Mark of Ephesus (+1444 or 1445), who, while citing him, in specific instances, with pertinent qualifications, nonetheless also pay open homage to Augustine’s sanctity. In his letter, “To Innocent, Prefect of Africa,” Pope Gregory calls St. Augustine “blessed,” [3] and St. Photios refers to him as the “divine Augustine” (“Αυγουστίνον τον ιερόν”) in his “Epistle to the Archbishop of Aquileia,” [4] as does St. Mark in the thirty-fourth of his “Συλλογιστικά κεφάλαια προς Λατίνους,” or syllogistic chapters in defense of the Orthodox Faith against the Latins at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. [5] In our own times, quoting St. Augustine in his arguments against the Latin teaching on the immaculate conception —in fact, from a passage in which Augustine speaks of sanctification and individual union with God (θέωσις, Deification, or Glorification) in a way consistent with the most exalted teachings of the Church Fathers—St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco (+1966) also honors him as “blessed” (see The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God [Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1987], p. 42). The late Hieromonk Seraphim of Platina perspicaciously comments on this matter:

... [He] has always been regarded with some reserve in the East. In our own days,… there have risen two opposite and extreme views of him. One view, influenced by Roman Catholic opinions, sees rather more importance in him as a Father of the Church than the Orthodox Church has given him in the past; while the other view has tended to underestimate his Orthodox importance, some even going as far as to call him a ‘heretic.’ ...The Orthodox view of him..., held consistently down the centuries by the Holy Fathers of the East and (in the early centuries) of the West as well, goes to neither extreme, but is a balanced appraisal of him with due credit given both to his unquestioned greatness and to his faults. [6]

Though Father Seraphim’s comments are more balanced than most, his observations, too, evidence a critical approach to sanctity that can easily obfuscate its greater dimensions. It is in their fidelity to the common phronema of the Church, and not in the expression of personal opinions that may or may not reflect that commonality, that our Fathers and Saints make manifest their holiness. It is also, and importantly so, in their universal recognition by the Orthodox Church that the verity of their witness is ultimately established. Hence, it is worthy of note that St. Augustine is cited as “shining forth most resplendently among the African Bishops” in the Acts of the Fifth (Ecumenical Synod (553).7 Similarly, in his epistle to the Fathers of the same Synod, St. Justinian (+565) includes Augustine in his references to the “holy Fathers,” along with such renowned luminaries as Sts. Athanasios (+373), Basil (+379), Gregory the Theologian (+389), Gregory of Nyssa (+395), John Chrysostomos (+407), Cyril of Alexandria (+444), et al. [8] In this same spirit, Father Georges Florovsky, not at all timid about criticizing, and not one to underestimate, the Saint’s doctrinal imprecisions, nonetheless called Augustine, in evaluating his spiritual witness in a spirit of moderation that we should emulate, “a Father of the Church Universal.” [9]

The Blessed Augustine is commemorated in the Orthodox Church on June 15, along with his mother, St. Monica (+387).

 

 

NOTES

1. Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIV (1997), no. 4, pp. 37-39. The inquiry in question read thusly: “I know that you have refused to say that the Blessed Augustine of Hippo was a heretic. Nonetheless, there are those who would say that his teachings on ‘original sin,’ created grace, and the Holy Trinity are errors that cast doubt on his sanctity. Would you address a few words to your readers about this subject?”

2. “Decretal Letter,” The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. XIV.

3. See “Epistles,” 10.37, NPNF, 2nd series, Vol. XIII.

4. Patrologia Grceca, Vol. CII, col. 809D.

5. While the more pervicacious critics of Augustine have argued that the many Eastern Church Fathers, supposedly unable to read Latin, who held him in high esteem did so simply because they had not read his writings (a rather audacious assertion), both St. Photios and St. Mark (Evgenikos) were familiar enough with his works to evaluate, qualify, and, more significantly, praise his theological thought.

6. The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1983), p. 8. We might observe in passing that among his collected testimonials from the Fathers to the sanctity of Augustine in this work, Father Seraphim wrongly attributes to St. Gregory the Dialogist a reference to “Saint” Augustine in a letter which was, in fact, not written by the Saint, but addressed to him by Licinianus, the Bishop of Carthagena (in Spain). Using Russian sources for other of his references, his citations from various Greek Fathers are also, at times, not wholly faithful to the original Greek. Finally, the use of the words “blessed” and “saint” to distinguish between two categories of holiness, while a common device in some Orthodox circles, has no counterpart in the Greek Patristic tradition. The words “divine,” “blessed,” “righteous,” and “holy” (the actual meaning of the title “saint,” which in Greek is commonly expressed in two words, “άγιος” and “όσιος”), among others, are used interchangeably to refer to the sanctified.

7. “Rulings of the Synod,” P. Labbe and G. Cossart, Sacrosancta Concilia, 1671, Vol. V.

8. Ibid.

9. The Collected Works of [Father] Georges Florovsky (Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Biichervertriebsanstalt, 1989), Vol. XIV, p. 50.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXXIV (2017), No. 3, pp. 5-9.