FUNDAMENTAL TENETS
The ecclesiological identity of
the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria is based upon the following
fundamental tenets of Orthodox ecclesiology:
• The main
criterion for membership in the Church of Christ is the “correct and salvific
confession of Faith” (St. Maximos the Confessor), [1] the true and correct
Faith (St. Gregory Palamas). [2]
• This
criterion, or principle, applies both to every single individual, with regard
to the Church, and to the local Churches, with regard to the Catholic Church.
• The
Catholicity [3] of the Church of Christ is Her qualitative, not quantitative
characteristic; it is Her ontological attribute, revealing the integrity and
the completeness of the Truth preached by Her. Therefore, the Catholicity of
the Church does not depend on the number of Her members, on Her territorial and
geographic scale or on any other empirical conditions.
• The Catholic
Church cannot be identified with one particular church, nor can She be
regarded, as is the case with Roman Catholic ecclesiology, as a sum of all the
local Churches constituting the Œcumenical Church (i.e., the globally
distributed Church, from a geographic point of view). What defines the Church
as Catholic is the confession of the Orthodox Faith. Moreover, the “Catholic
Church (καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία) Herself is the correct and salvific confession of
Faith” (St. Maximos the Confessor). [4] Consequently, “the correct and salvific
confession of Faith” in God (i.e., Orthodoxy) is the ontological foundation of
Catholicity as a characteristic of the Church, and it is exactly in this
confession that church communion, as communion with Christ and in Christ, is
achieved. Church communion attests to unity in Christ precisely through this
communion with and in the Catholic Church, and does so to the utmost extent.
However, of itself, church communion is not a condition for unity with the
Catholic Church. Communion is a manifestation of unity, and not a means for
attaining it. Unity with the Catholic Church is determined not by communion,
but by “the correct and salvific confession of Faith.”
• Hence, abiding
in the Orthodox Faith and its protection is not simply a matter of ideological
conviction and abstract dogmatic debate, but a question of supreme existential
significance. The Fathers, who fearlessly confessed and defended the Orthodox Faith,
did so on behalf of the Catholic Church and in the name of Her real existence:
“For the sake of the Catholic and Apostolic Church” (καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν)
“the Apostles, and in their turn the Holy Fathers, teachers, and martyrs
sacrificed themselves, in deed and word, in struggle and sweat, with suffering
and blood, and finally with their remarkable deaths” (St. Maximos the
Confessor). [5]
It follows from the
aforementioned that everybody who confesses the Orthodox Faith is a member of
the Catholic Church (or joined to Her) and is in communion with Her, whereas
whosoever preaches a doctrine incompatible with Orthodox doctrine separates himself
from the Catholic Church and communion with Her. This is valid for individuals
and entire ecclesiastical organizations alike, even if they continue to
function institutionally as Churches and to call themselves Churches. “Those
who do not belong to the Truth do not belong to the Church of Christ, either;
and all the more so if they speak falsely of themselves by calling themselves,
or are called by each other, holy pastors and hierarchs; because it has been
instilled in us that Christianity is characterized not by persons, but by truth
and exactitude of Faith” (St. Gregory Palamas). [6]
THE NAME
The name “Old Calendar Orthodox
Church of Bulgaria” does not exactly reveal its ecclesiological nature. It
follows an established tradition. The ethnic definition “Bulgarian” reflects
the historically established institutional structuring of the local Churches according
to the criteria of ethnicity (subsequently nationality) and state, which
gradually replaced the old territorial structuring of local Churches within the
multi-ethnic Roman Empire. The term “Orthodox” is identical with the term
“Catholic.” Its widespread use in relation to the One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church has existed since the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries.
The term “Old Calendar” denotes a distinctive feature of the prevailing
liturgical practice of the Church, which was employed from the seventh century
up until the 1920s by all local Churches without exception, in concord with the
Paschalion and the calendar system of the Great Indiction. Although
inaccurate from a strictly ecclesiastical point of view, additional denotations
of the Church have appeared at various times in history. It is well known that
the Catholic (Orthodox) Church was first called “Eastern” in contrast to the
Western Church, i.e., the Roman Catholic Church. In the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, the Russian Orthodox Church was called “Greek Russian,”
“Eastern Orthodox” and even “The Russian Church of the Greek Rite.” Besides,
depending on the political and legal circumstances in the different countries,
some local Church structures received various additional denotations because of
emerging church issues. For example, since 1996, in Estonia two local Orthodox
Churches have existed simultaneously within so-called official Orthodoxy. One
is called the “Estonian Orthodox Church,” and is a self-governing local Church
under the Moscow Patriarchate. The other is the “Estonian Apostolic Orthodox
Church,” an autonomous local Church under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. A
number of clergy and lay people who left the Estonian Church’s jurisdiction
under the Moscow Patriarchate belong to it.
THE
ECCLESIOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS OF APOSTASY IN THE MODERN WORLD
Modern ecclesiological heresies
corrupt the very concept of the Church. Ecumenism, as a theological concept,
organized social movement and religious practice, is such a heresy. Many
Spirit-bearing Orthodox hierarchs and theologians of the preceding twentieth
century defined it as heresy in its essence. One of the major steps in the
attempt to implement the ecumenical idea of uniting “divided Christians” and
reconstructing the “undivided Church” was the church calendar reform in a
number of local Orthodox churches during the twentieth century. It should be
noted, however, that as a multi-stage, infiltrative heresy, ecumenism defies
exhaustive and accurate definition, since, unlike the ancient heresies, it does
not seek to find clear and consistent doctrinal expression by claiming to be
accepted conciliarily or pose as a truth of the Faith formulated by the
consciousness of the Church. On the one hand, for the time being, few are those
hierarchs, clerics, and theologians who simultaneously consider themselves
Orthodox and profess ecumenism in its most extreme forms of inter-religious
syncretism, or in its “pure” form of ecclesiological heresy, claiming that,
owing to the divisions among Christians, the one visible Church of Christ no
longer exists and, therefore, has to be recreated in the womb of the ecumenical
movement. On the other hand, ecumenism continues to coalesce with official
Orthodoxy. The official Orthodox episcopate is responsible for this phenomenon,
demonstrating a crafty political and diplomatic attitude towards the process,
categorically refusing to condemn ecumenism as a multi-stage, multi-faceted
ecclesiological heresy, albeit it is nonetheless indisputably so in its true
nature. In this context, the exit of the Bulgarian Patriarchate from the World
Council of Churches in 1998, unfortunately, proved to be only a tactic with a
certain ecclesio-political purpose, and not a step determined by a reëvaluation
of its attitude towards ecumenism rendered in principle.
Another phenomenon with an
ecclesiological dimension is so-called Sergianism, which in the unprecedented
circumstances of the persecution of the Church in the former Soviet Union
surrendered an outwardly proper church institution to the Bolsheviks so that,
in their hands, it could become a tool in a fierce battle against the Church
Herself, as representing the fullness of the Truth of Christ. In fact,
Sergianism is not simply a characteristically Russian phenomenon. It also
embraced the local Orthodox churches in the countries of Eastern Europe, where,
after World War II, communist régimes were established. Both in the Soviet
Union and in these countries, the essence of Sergianism manifested itself in
the (self-)delusion that deception could be used as a means to help Тruth
“survive,” and that collaboration with the enemies of the Church was the way to
“protect” Her. In practice, the logical consequence was just the opposite—the
episcopate adopting this position became a tool in the hands of the communist
atheists, who schemed to achieve full control over the Church, to the end of
Her moral and spiritual enfeeblement and with a view to Her ultimate
annihilation, which they intended. More specifically, the ecclesiological
aspect of Sergianism comes down to distorting the concept of “canonicity.” In
the Sergianist context, canonicity is unnaturally torn away from the Spirit and
the Truth of canonical tradition and turns into formal adherence to the norm,
which can be used to vindicate any act of lawlessness committed by the
governing episcopate. Ultimately, canonicity degenerates into a managerial
technique for the subordination of the people of the Church to that episcopate,
regardless of the direction in which it leads them. In other words, as
Archpriest Michael Polsky, an eyewitness to the cruel persecutions and the
perfidious fight against the Russian Church in the 1920s, writes, “Metropolitan
Sergius and his bishops differ from the Renovationists in that they keep to the
canons at all costs and safeguard them more than anything else. They (the
Sergianists) do not disregard the canons, as do the Renovationists. But there
arises a gross discrepancy. When the Renovationists lied, slandered, or
deceived, that was bad because they were not canonical. However, when
Metropolitan Sergius slandered and lied, this was considered good, since he was
canonical. It turns out that to him who is canonical, everything is allowed.
This mocks the canons and morality alike by distorting their meaning.” [7]
After the collapse of the totalitarian régimes towards the end of the twentieth
century, under the new conditions of political freedom, Sergianism was
preserved as a legacy of the past and, at the same time, was transformed.
Having long incorporated unscrupulousness, deception and pathological servility
to those in positions of authority into its inner nature, it not only continues
to betray the Church—now no longer for fear of reprisals but for the sake of
mercenary motives—but has also started to sell Her freedom, under the guise of
“canonicity,” in exchange for gaining the friendship of the powers that be,
with the ensuing material benefits and prestigious social status. In this
modified form, today Sergianism (as neo-Sergianism or post-Sergianism) affects
a large part of the episcopate of the official local Churches around the world.
Once phenomena such as ecumenism
and Sergianism become systematic and universal, even when they do not seek a
clear doctrinal expression but penetrate and spread into the body of the Church
in a “creeping” manner—that is, once they have been actively adopted or
passively allowed by all bishops of one or more local Churches—then the essence
of the struggle against these phenomena comes down to the termination of
ecclesiastical communion with those bishops who instill heresy in the Church in
a conciliar manner, either by preaching it or by contributing to its
dissemination though their passivity and silence (see Canon 15 of the
First-Second Synod of Constantinople).
THE CONCEPTS OF
“OFFICIAL ORTHODOXY” AND “OFFICIAL LOCAL CHURCHES”
These concepts have an
idiosyncratic ecclesiological substance and reveal the specifics of the
processes of apostasy in the contemporary Orthodox world. Orthodoxy is sui
generis and does not need further clarification by any additional denotations.
The need to add one or another modifier to the term “Orthodoxy” has arisen
because of the replacement of its original and authentic substance under
pressure from ecumenist and Sergianist mentalities, from liberalism, relativism
and other apostatic phenomena. The meaning of the concept of “official
Orthodoxy” is closely connected with the meaning of the concept of “official
Church” and “official local Churches,” respectively. “Official Orthodoxy” is
the peculiar ideology of the “official local Churches.” It represents an
increasingly diluted, pluralistic Orthodoxy, which is gradually tearing itself
away from its spiritual identity and increasingly becoming a surrogate for
authentic Orthodoxy, without reforming it abruptly or defiantly. The main
distinctive feature of official Orthodoxy is its Sergianist conjuncture; i.e.,
its collaborative adjustment to the realities of our time, with a view towards
accommodating various political and ecclesiastical courses: outwardly as an
expression of the catholic consciousness of the Church, but in essence, as a
situational strategy, with terminology or behavior typical of the corporate
mentality. For example, official Orthodoxy may resound with loud ecumenical
tones; and contrariwise, at times, the prevalent tone may be that of traditionalist
rhetoric. Moreover, as already mentioned, “official Orthodoxy” never takes a
clear, principled, conciliar stand on the nature of ecumenism as the
ecclesiological heresy with which it is entwined, inasmuch as the majority of
the supporters and propagators of this heresy still avoid designating it wholly
openly and clearly as an article of their religious creed. In official
Orthodoxy, the connection between announcements and intentions, between
speaking and believing, between words and conscience fades out, becomes debased
in a Jesuitical manner, and in this sense is severed. Thus, for example, in a
private conversation a bishop might dissociate himself from some official deed
of his—from a public statement or from a document he has signed containing
views contrary to Orthodoxy, i.e., heretical views—but that same bishop chooses
not to do this publicly since it is at variance with official church policy.
What does the term “official
Church” mean? It is what the Russian catacomb believers called the Church
recognized by the Soviet régime (and completely dependent on it), headed by
Metropolitan (and later Patriarch) Sergius Stragorodsky (†1943). The terms “Official
Church” or “official local Churches” refer to the known, historically formed
local Churches whose hierarchical leadership officially accepts, advances, or
authorizes ecumenism as a theological concept and religious practice, uses
conciliar deception on sundry occasions, hides under the cloak of “canonicity”
as understood in the spirit of Sergianism, and adopts other forms of apostasy
from Orthodoxy. In brief, the term “official Churches” extends to the known,
historically formed local Churches which are in a state of apostasy—a process
that has been coördinated or permitted to develop conciliarily by the
episcopate.
THE QUESTION OF
GRACE IN THE MYSTERIES (SACRAMENTS) OF THE OFFICIAL LOCAL CHURCHES
The Old Calendar Orthodox Church
of Bulgaria has no communion with the official local Churches. Walling oneself
off from such communion does not require an unequivocal affirmation that these
Churches have completely fallen away from the One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church and that the Mysteries performed in them are deprived of
Grace. Sufficient grounds for the cessation of ecclesiastical communion is the
fact that the episcopate of these churches preach heresy or allow its
dissemination through their passivity and, therefore, abide in ecclesiastical
communion with bishops preaching or tolerating heresy. Clergy, monastics, and
laity who break ecclesiastical communion with bishops “preaching heresy
publicly and openly in the Church” are worthy of “honor befitting the
Orthodox,” since not only do they not destroy the unity of the Church, but, on
the contrary, they show diligence in protecting the Church from divisions and
schisms. [8]
Currently, the Old Calendar
Orthodox Church of Bulgaria refrains from a definitive answer on the question
of whether the Mysteries performed in the official local Churches are valid or
not. Indeed, the heresy that is propagated or is being allowed to spread—mostly
by bishops—ultimately leads to a falling-away from the Orthodox Church of
individuals, groups of people, or even of entire local Churches. This can also
happen gradually, in the course of a shorter or a longer period of time. For
instance, such is the case with the Roman church. It deviated from the “correct
and salvific confession of Faith” in stages, and only after a fairly lengthy
period of time did it completely fall away from the Catholic Church.
Unfortunately, from a theological
perspective, it is precisely the question of the presence or absence of Grace
in the Mysteries of the official local Churches that came to be the main rock
on which the unity of the True Orthodox Christians crashed. In the tense
atmosphere of decades of disputes, undue theological absolutism was reached on
a question, the answer to which was not formulated dogmatically by the
conciliar consciousness of the Church. This is why it should be addressed with
special caution in the light of the theological consensus of the Fathers, and
also in the light of the conciliar pastoral experience of the Church of Christ.
This precludes debate which uses one-sided quotations gleaned from the Holy
Fathers, and also precludes the absolutism of the theological opinion of
specific persons or groups.
THE PROSPECT OF A
CONCILIAR CONDEMNATION OF ECUMENISM
It is well known that only the
conciliar mind of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church can ascertain
and proclaim the final falling-away from Orthodoxy (from Catholicity) of a
local Church (or Churches) which was Orthodox but has ceased to be so in
essence, regardless of the fact that it continues to call itself Orthodox (i.e.
Catholic). For example, with regard to the Roman Catholic Church, the voice of
this conciliar mind was manifested in the testimonies of many of the Holy
Fathers: from St. Photios of Constantinople, St. Gregory Palamas, and St. Mark
of Ephesos to the Venerable Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. John of
Kronstadt, St. Nectarios of Aegina, and the Venerable Justin of Serbia, as well
as in the decrees of several Councils of Constantinople (1170, 1450, 1722, and
1838) and in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848.
The realities of the modern
Orthodox world do not provide sufficient grounds to assume that the example of
the Seventh Œcumenical Council is applicable to our epoch. In keeping with this
example, we should be seeking the testimony of the Orthodox Church in the hope
that the way out of the crisis of apostasy would be a “Council of Unity,” which
will condemn ecumenism (and probably other contemporary manifestations of
apostasy as well), will unite all Orthodox Christians in the “correct and
salvific confession of Faith,” and will declare the excommunication from the
body of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of all those who continue
to confess the heresies and misbeliefs condemned by the Council. Unfortunately,
comparatively recently just the opposite event occurred. Through the union of
the larger part of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia with the Moscow
Patriarchate in 2007, those who had abandoned Truth did not join the Orthodox;
on the contrary, the Orthodox renounced their long-standing witness of Faith
and united with the ecumenists and Sergianists whom they used to denounce.
Taking into account the current
trends in the development of Church life (in its broadest sense), it can be
assumed that in the future, favorable conditions for holding a Unifying
Orthodox Council will be even less likely to arise. Moreover, it is not impossible
that the present crisis in the Orthodox world will sink even further into
apostasy. This, in turn, could lead to emendations of our ecclesiological
assessment of the developments within the official local Churches, such an
assessment being determined by an analysis of variables, not constants.
Ultimately, the road of apostasy that official Orthodoxy continues to follow
leads outside the Church of Christ.
No less disturbing is another
fact: the lack of agreement and coöperation among the True Orthodox Churches.
What is needed are goodwill and patient, long-lasting labor, in order to
overcome the tragic divisions among us and to create conditions for convening a
Pan-Orthodox Council, which would condemn ecumenism and provide an assessment
of the entire spectrum of the apostate processes of our times.
THE VALUE OF THE
CONCILIAR PASTORAL EXPERIENCE OF THE CHURCH
The conciliar pastoral experience
of the Church of Christ regarding the manner (rite) by which penitent heretics
and schismatics were received into Her bosom is reflected in the works of
various of the Holy Fathers and, above all, in the acts and decisions of a
number of Œcumenical and Local Church Councils. The variety of ways of
accepting various repentant heretics or schismatics does not in the least
signify relativism or ecclesio-political pliancy in this practice of the
Catholic Church, but reveals the spiritual depth of Her conciliar pastoral
experience. In receiving penitent heretics and schismatics, the Œcumenical and
Local Councils very often apply the principle of oikonomia. The pastoral
canonical principle of oikonomia does not imply a compromise determined
by conjuncture, neither does it represent ordinary leniency, but reflects in
large measure a responsible pastoral action in extremely difficult
circumstances, with the nature of this action being determined exclusively by
its desired beneficial consequences (religious, spiritual, and moral). Oikonomia
is a canonical and pastoral act in which the letter of the canon can be broken
without, however, contradicting its spirit. Yet, oikonomia can never,
under any circumstance, allow the exoneration of any sin or of any compromise
whatsoever in the “correct and salvific confession of Faith.”
The application of the principle
of oikonomia in receiving heretics or schismatics into ecclesiastical
communion does not mean at all that the Church recognizes the validity of their
Mysteries. A classic example of this is the 95th Canon of the Quinisext
Council, according to which the followers of heresies condemned by the
Church—Nestorians and Monophysites— were received in ecclesiastical communion
only through the renunciation of their heresy and their confession of the
Orthodox Faith.
Considering the specifics of the
ecclesiastical situation in Bulgaria, the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of
Bulgarian strives to approach with careful attention those clergy and laity
willing to join Her. What is most essential in pastoral work with them is to
help them make their choice freely, consciously, and responsibly. To date, the
laity who have faith and ecclesiastical awareness, and have been participating
in the church life of the Bulgarian Patriarchate, are received into communion
during the Mystery of Confession. Monastics and clerics submit a written
request and are received into communion by following a brief repentance rite,
composed especially for such cases.
According to the Old Calendar
Orthodox Church of Bulgaria, every single True Orthodox Church has the pastoral
freedom to determine—based on the specific nature of the church life in the
respective country or region—the manner of receiving bishops, clergy, and laity
from the official local Churches who wish to join Her. The Old Calendar
Orthodox Church of Bulgaria does not insist on а standardization of the
practices of reception into ecclesiastical communion, and in doing so is guided
by the words of St. Cyprian of Carthage: “In this matter we do not co- erce or
impose a law on anyone, since every prelate has freedom of will in the
administration of the Church and will have to account for his actions before
the Lord.” [9]
† Bishop Photii of Triaditza
Notes
1. See “The Life and Struggle of
Оur Venerable Father Maximus the Confessor,” Patrologia Græca, XC, col.
93D. Cf. “Letter to John the Chamberlain,” PG, XCI, col. 461BC.
2. “Refutation of the Letter of
Patriarch Ignatios of Antioch,” Codex Coislianianus, 99, f. 144a, cited by
George Mantzarides, “Περὶ θεώσεως τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: Μυστηριακὸς καὶ ἐκκλησιολογικὸς
χαρακτὴρ τῆς θεώσεως” (Concerning the deification of man: The mysteriological
and ecclesiological nature of deification), in Παλαµικά (Thessalonike:
Ekdoseis P. Pournara, 1998), pp. 197-198.
3. From the ancient Greek
adjective καθολικός—“universal”; since the third century, the word has been
used to mean “all-embracing,” “comprehensive,” “global.” As far back as the end
of the first century, καθολικός was used in the language of Christians with a
specific meaning, denoting a fundamental feature of the Church of Christ.
4. See “The Life and Struggle of
Оur Venerable Father Maximus the Confessor,” PG, XC, col. 93D.
5. “From a Letter Written in
Rome,” PG, XCI, col. 140AB.
6. “Refutation of the Letter of
Patriarch Ignatios of Antioch,” Codex Coislianianus 99, f. 144a, cited by
Mantzarides, “Περὶ θεώσεως τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: Μυστηριακὸς καὶ ἐκκλησιολογικὸς χαρακτὴρ
τῆς θεώσεως,” pp. 197-198.
7. Польский, Михаил
протопресвитер. Положение Церкви в Советской России, очерк бежавшего из России
священника. Параклит, 2004, с. 83. Available from:
http://paraklit.org/knigi/Ispovednicheskye/Polskoj.pdf.
8. Canon 15 of the First-Second
Synod in Constantinople.
9. “Letter to Pope Stephen,” in Concilia
ad regiam exacta, Vol. I (Lutetiae Parisiorum: Impensis Societatis
Typographicae Librorum Ecclesiasticorum iussu Regis constitutae, 1671), col.
741.
Translated from the original Bulgarian by the Center for
Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, Etna, CA.
