First statement by HOCNA on Grace and Ecclesiology: "Letter to Polychronios"

HOLY TRANSFIGURATION MONASTERY

278 Warren Street, Brookline, Massachusetts 02146

(617) 734-0608

 

April 29/May 12, 1987                                                                                              

SS. Jason and Sosipater

 

Dear Polychronios,

Christ is risen!

I pray that this letter finds you and your family well and in the grace and peace of our Saviour. Amen.

Here, glory be to God, we are well for the time being.

We received your letter, which touched on many important issues as regards the question of grace in the new calendar/ecumenistic jurisdictions. You are right in stating that “the Greek Old Calendarists have struggled over this question for over fifty years with devastating results in regard to internal unity.” This is an important question and deserves to be considered in some detail.

If we begin with a brief examination of the church leaders who initiated the calendar change in 1924, we can learn much about what motivated them:

1) Archbishop Chrysostom Papadopoulos of Athens, who changed the calendar in Greece, was not duly elected, either as a hierarch or as archbishop. Under pressure from the government, an Extraordinary (Αριστίνδην) Synod – meaning, of course, bishops hand-picked by the government – made Archimandrite Chrysostom an archbishop overnight. In short, he was the government’s man.

This was during the time when the controversy between the Venizelists (i.e., the Republicans) and the Royalists was at fever pitch, and politics entered into all aspects of life, including church life. As we know, many Greek parishes even here in America were established along strictly political lines. At first, the dethroned King of Greece opted for keeping the church calendar for the Church, and the civil calendar for civil occasions. Hence, because of the King’s position on this matter, the old calendarists were usually Royalists. Others, on the other hand, wanted to enter the mainstream of European life and to adopt the new calendar for all aspects of life in Greece, including church life.

2) Meletios Metaxakis (first, Archbishop of Athens, then Patriarch of Constantinople, and later, of Alexandria) was a known arch-mason and modernist. He too was not duly elected, but was an appointee of the Greek secular authorities, both as Archbishop of Athens, and later, as Patriarch of Constantinople, and then of Alexandria. When he was placed on the Ecumenical throne by these means, many Constantinopolitan bishops resented this and voiced themselves about the uncanonicity of this action. However, because the times were critical (the Greek armed forces were waging a military campaign against the Turks in Asia Minor), the bishops awaited the outcome of the war before taking action and deposing Meletios.

The outcome of the war was catastrophic for the Greeks. In the summer of 1922, the tides of battle turned against them. By 1924, the dioceses of Asia Minor were no more. The clergy, including the Metropolitans, were the first to perish. Hence, after the smoke had cleared, the Synod of the Church of Constantinople – with many of its bishops dead – was in no position to take action against Metaxakis. However, the flock held the Greek government and Metaxakis responsible, not only for the military reverses, but also for the problems in the Church. So, one night, a group of Orthodox men scaled the wall of the Patriarchate, found Metaxakis, and gave him a beating. As a result, Metaxakis had to flee for his life. Later, using the same political means, he became Patriarch of Alexandria where he imposed the new calendar on the many and (at that time) thriving Orthodox communities in Egypt. (In contrast, Metaxakis’ predecessor in Alexandria, Patriarch Photios, had strongly denounced the calendar innovation and telegraphed the Church of Greece, telling the bishops that by adopting the new calendar, they had gone into schism.)

3) In Romania, the man who spearheaded the calendar change there in 1924 was Patriarch Myron (Christea), a former Uniate. Myron also decreed that, before the arrival of the year 1930, all the dioceses of the Romanian Church had to celebrate Pascha by the Western Paschalion, but when this was instituted, there were riots and even bloodshed, and so the Romanian Church changed back to the old Paschalion, though not to the old calendar.

What motivated these men and their followers to change the calendar is a consideration of prime importance. The answer to this question can be found in the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Encyclical of 1920 addressed “Unto all the Churches of Christ, wheresoever they be...”. The “Churches of Christ” referred to in this encyclical were both the Orthodox Churches and every heterodox denomination as well. The first step which this encyclical proposed in bringing all the “Churches” together (this alone presupposes that the Church is not one) was “the acceptance of a uniform calendar.” Four years after the issuance of this encyclical, Constantinople, Greece and Romania unilaterally adopted the new calendar which was in use by the Protestants and Roman Catholics. As Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) has observed, the aforementioned Orthodox Churches broke their liturgical unity with the other local Orthodox Churches only in order to celebrate together with the heterodox. In other words, the calendar change was the first ecumenistic compromise made by the aforementioned Orthodox Churches; it was adopted for the very reason it had been previously condemned by three Pan-Orthodox councils in the sixteenth century: Uniatism.

When the calendar was changed in 1924, all those in Greece who remained faithful to the Church calendar agreed that a schism had been created by the innovators. As for the other local Churches, they did not take a clear-cut stand in regard to the innovation. Some, in fact, adopted it (Constantinople changed with Greece; then there followed Romania, Alexandria, Antioch, and finally, Bulgaria). Other local Churches denounced the change (as did Serbia and Russia, and also Alexandria, before it itself changed), but then they did nothing more about it.

In a little over a decade, a split took place among the old calendarists in Greece. One group said that a true schism had taken place and that the canons concerning schism should be strictly applied. Others said that the adoption of the new calendar created only a “potential schism,” since it had not yet been synodically declared as such by the Church, and therefore the canons concerning schisms were not applicable.

We must understand right from the outset that what is often referred to as “the stringent Matthewite position” (i.e., that grace ceased from the new calendarists immediately in 1924) is not something which the Matthewites concocted of themselves. They are simply basing themselves on an interpretation of St. Basil’s first canon.

One can see from other contemporary instances that this strictness in dealing with the question of the presence of grace among schismatics and heretics is not a unique phenomenon in our days, one that can be ascribed only to “fringe groups,” like the Matthewites. When the “Living Church” made its appearance in the Soviet Union, Patriarch Tikhon declared its clergy defrocked and its mysteries invalid and devoid of grace. Many of the Russian new hieromartyrs said virtually the same thing – if not more – regarding the sacraments of the Sergianist Moscow Patriarchate. St. Victor, Bishop of Glazov, martyred by the Bolsheviks, declared that communion with the Soviet Patriarchate was equivalent to a renunciation of Christ and that the Soviet Church was “deprived of the grace of eternal salvation.” In a pamphlet entitled “Does the Soviet Church Have Grace?” written by Professor Andreyev of Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville in 1948, and published in the Russian edition of Orthodox Life, Prof. Andreyev argues that the Soviet Patriarchate does not have grace. In the early sixties, when the group under Bishop Dionysie broke away from the Serbian Patriarchate, the Patriarchate responded by declaring that all the mysteries of the break-away group were invalid and graceless, even though in the later sixties, mixed marriages between Orthodox and Roman Catholics performed by a Roman Catholic priest were recognized by the Church of Serbia!

Indeed, we know that both in the United States and Greece, the new calendarists do not recognize the validity of the Mysteries performed by clergy who follow the traditional calendar – and this includes even the Mystery of ordination. We know of two instances, both of which took place in the New York area, in which clergy ordained by duly ordained old calendar bishops were re-ordained by Greek Archdiocese bishops. Yet, the Greek Archdiocese does recognize the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments! Both Uniates and Roman Catholic clergy are received as duly ordained priests. John Martin, a Uniate priest, came to the Carpatho-Russian jurisdiction which is under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. He was received as a duly ordained priest and immediately ordained bishop.

Although the Matthewites are well known for their teaching that there is no grace in the Mysteries of the new calendarists, yet they have not re-baptized or re-ordained anyone who comes to them from the new calendarists (although they do use the rite of “laying on of hands,” χειροθεσία, for new calendar clergy). Their reasoning is that since the proper form of triple immersion is still kept (although we are hearing about more and more exceptions even in this), all that is needed is holy chrism. However, in cases where triple immersion was not employed, the Synod of Matthewite bishops issued a decision a few years ago that the proper rite of baptism was to be administered.

So you see, the new calendarists are even more Matthewite than the Matthewites!

It is thus wrong to ascribe this type of approach only to the Matthewites. Some fathers of the Holy Mountain came to the same conclusion concerning the new calendar schism – the new calendarists have no grace, they are cut off from the Church. As regards the validity of the baptism of the new calendarists, one highly-respected elder of the Holy Mountain remarked, “A bath it is; a baptism it isn’t.” This statement echoes the patristic axioms of the Arian period. In the Lives of the Saints, for example, we commemorate one Orthodox Roman lady who was forced against her will to accept “baptism” from the Arians. After she came out of the water, she asked one of her maids to give her a coin. Then she turned and gave the coin to the Arian bishop, and told him, “Thank you for the bath.” This so outraged the Arians, they dragged her out of the church and murdered her on the spot.

We mentioned above that some of the old calendarists in Greece said that the adoption of the new calendar created only a “potential schism,” since it had not yet been synodically declared as such by the Church, and therefore the canons concerning schisms were not applicable.

Yet, the truth of the matter is that we have never encountered the term “potential schism” (ἐν δυνάμει σχίσμα) anywhere in the patristic writings. The terms “potentially” and “in actuality” (ἐν δυνάμει and ἐν ἐνεργείᾳ) are Aristotelian in origin. Aristotle asserted, for example, that all blocks of marble are “potentially” statues. All that is needed is a sculptor to turn them into statues “in actuality.” [1] Applying such distinctions to questions of schism is really a novelty, which, if you ask me, is meaningless. We are all “potential saints,” and we are all likewise “potential devils.” So, what does this mean? Nothing. Schism means separation. And there is a real separation and rupture of communion between the old calendarists and the State Church since 1924. If this separation already exists, it is nonsensical to speak of a “potentiality.”

However, as we saw from the contemporary examples which we cited above (i.e., regarding Patriarch Tikhon and the “Living Church,” the New Martyrs of Russia and the Soviet Patriarchate, etc.) the so-called Matthewite approach to the question of grace in schismatic and heretical bodies is not actually unique to them, nor did they invent it. The canons can lend themselves to the support of such a view as the one held by the Matthewites, so one cannot say that this is solely an “extremist” view. The Matthewites do take it one step further, however, and say that even the other old calendar groups are without grace and that they alone -- the Matthewites, that is — are the Church.

Our belief in this matter is that, absolutely, there was a true schism in 1924, and this schism was created by the new calendarists, and not by those who, though fewer in number, remained obedient to the tradition of the Church as embodied in its resolutions regarding the calendar. The truth of the matter is that the new calendar itself had already been condemned. Patriarch Jeremias II presided over the three Pan-Orthodox councils of 1583, 1587, and 1593, which synodically condemned the new calendar. (See, for example, Against False Union, pages 92-93, for a translation of the text of the Sigillion of the Council of 1583.)

The problem arises when one tries to define when a schism becomes a schism, or when a heresy becomes a heresy. Is a schism (or a heresy) one from its very inception, or only when it is officially proclaimed and synodically condemned? When is one in heresy? When he has espoused it, when he is condemned and/or defrocked, or when he is anathematized by the Church officially? And, since the “anathemas” condemn those who “knowingly” are in heresy or schism, is one in heresy or schism when one is found in one or the other unknowingly? In short, when is one separated from the Church? If one approaches the question from a legalistic and scholastic point of view, then one has to wait for a synodal decision. When, however, one approaches the matter with the mind of the Church and the Fathers, a heresy or a schism is such from its very inception, even before a synodal clarification has been made. This is clear from the fifteenth canon of the First-Second Council of Constantinople, and also from other incidents in Church History (see the Epilogue in The Life of Our Holy Father Maximus the Confessor printed by our monastery).

We do not adhere to the novel concept of “potential schism” or “potential heresy.” Schism is schism and heresy is heresy from the very start. Nonetheless, the one point on which we disagree with the Matthewites is their concept of grace being “switched off” at the very moment a heresy is pronounced or a schism occurs, since, as I mentioned to you on the phone, “grace is uncreated, not created, and therefore not subject to ‘switches’” as though it were (created) electrical power. We disagree with this Matthewite position because, in the tradition and life of the Church, we have never encountered such a mechanical and legalistic understanding of an automatic, instantaneous, and clear-cut break taking place, even in very serious instances of heresy. There was always a period of time which elapsed until the matter of schism or heresy was clear-cut and no longer ambiguous. This period could last for a span of time stretching from a few years to as long as some generations, until all the concerned parties were knowingly aware, and in one or the other position. This, too, is precisely why the canons say “knowingly.” There was always a certain period of time, until the smoke had cleared and one could see the borders and frontiers clearly.

This is not simply our opinion. The writings of the Saints and Church History itself confirm this. Read, for example, what St. Athanasius I, Patriarch of Constantinople (+1309), says regarding this very matter:

The Church of Christ is the tree of life. Therefore, just as a branch which has been cut off from a healthy tree withers away little by little, and becomes dry and fuel for the fire, so is it in this case as well. The proof is this: many people, after the economy of Christ my God’s incarnation in the flesh, cut themselves off from the life-giving tree, from the Church, I mean, either through heresy or schism. And the tree of life, the Church, given water and light by Christ my Saviour, continues to flourish; but they who have apostatized from Her have perished, since of their own will they removed themselves far from God.

(Letter 34)

This certainly does not lessen the witness of those enlightened confessors who, right from the beginning, denounced the heresy as soon as it appeared; yet, these individuals were the exception in most cases. For example, St. Cyril of Alexandria understood the perniciousness of Nestorius’ doctrine right off and, after giving him three opportunities to renounce his error, denounced him with twelve anathemas. Later, Nestorius was condemned at the Third Ecumenical Council. But did grace automatically switch off for everyone in Constantinople from the moment Nestorius pronounced his heresy? And what about all those Christians who were living far away in Persia and who didn’t clearly understand why everyone was shouting over this former Patriarch of Constantinople – especially since all the shouting was in a foreign language, and the translations which the Persian Christians had of Nestorius’ works were neither accurate, nor complete? Hence, with some justification, but also in considerable ignorance, the rank and file of the Persian Church wondered why this erudite Patriarch of the Roman Empire’s capital was under attack.

What was St. Cyril’s approach in dealing with Nestorius’ heresy? Behold what he writes in his “Epistle to the Clergy and People of Constantinople”:

For, indeed, we did not slumber while such a great flock – or rather, peoples and churches everywhere – were in turmoil. But we imitated those who are experienced in medicine and who, in regard to maladies which befall our bodies, do not immediately make use of the blade and cauterization. Rather, in the beginning, they seek to soften [the malady] with medicines, while awaiting the proper time to make the excision.

(P.G. 77, 124-125)

Furthermore, we know from Church History that the same St. Cyril of Alexandria who steadfastly fought against the unrepentant and heretical author of the Nestorian heresy, and saw to it that both Nestorius and his teachings were condemned, was the same St. Cyril who showed great compassion and economia in bringing back into the Church those who had a great reverence for Theodore of Mopsuestia (whose teaching was identical to Nestorius’ on several points).

Look at the life of St. Athanasius the Great. He was exiled from his see five times. Five times he was driven out by the Arians, who placed their own man on the episcopal throne, and five times the Saint returned. What happened to the Christian populace of Alexandria during this period? When the Saint was in Alexandria, was grace switched on? When he left, was grace switched off? (He’s back in town again; grace is present. He’s thrown out of town by Arians; grace leaves with him. Back and forth; on and off.)

Please don’t misunderstand us. We are not saying that the Arian patriarch who took over St. Athanasius’ place had apostolic succession and was a source of sacramental grace. He did not; but many – if not most – of the clergy and people of Alexandria were Orthodox Christians and the issues were not that clearly defined for most of the people – especially since the Arians were notorious for trying to conceal their doctrines behind an “Orthodox” veneer. Surely, there is no evidence that every time St. Athanasius was ousted, there was also a mass exit of all the Orthodox clergy and laity from Alexandria.

If the switch kept going on and off immediately – as would necessarily be the case in the Matthewite understanding – were all the sacraments repeated when the switch was back on again in Alexandria? And then multiply all this switching on and off by all the dioceses and cities and provinces throughout the Christian world, and then you see what confusion and mayhem ensues when one adopts this position. Hence, aside from the theological complexities of the issues, and the intentional double-talk used by many of the heterodox who wished to conceal their poison under a semblance of Orthodoxy, is it any wonder that many people simply didn’t understand what was going on and just tried to wait it out? Were these people “knowingly” and immediately in heresy or in schism?

In 1054 we had the Great Schism. Yet, we have accounts of pilgrims from the West receiving communion at Orthodox shrines in the Holy Land and Near East as much as one hundred years later. As for the filioque, the monks of the Monastery of Mar Sabba in the Holy Land were the first to detect this novel teaching in the year 809 when they heard Latin monks using it in the Creed. This was in the ninth century. Both St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Photius the Great condemned the filioque (but they also noted that it could have an Orthodox interpretation if it was meant to refer only to the Holy Spirit’s mission to the world – an interpretation repudiated by later Latin theologians). However, it took a few centuries before the final break came with Rome, because Rome itself was divided over, and sometimes devious about, this innovation. Some popes were for it, some were against it, some were for it but didn’t want it in the Creed. It wasn’t until 1009 that Pope Sergius IV decreed that the filioque be officially inserted into the Creed at Rome.

So, as we see, although the filioque existed in the West for a long time, it became the cause for the Church to cut off the Roman patriarchate only when – in the words of Gennadios Scholarios (who later became Patriarch of Constantinople) – the Orthodox “tried for many years to bring about a correction, through many letters and embassies, and finally despaired of bringing about a cure,” whereupon “this necessitated a separation which was more than right” (P.G. 160, 713).

Later on in the eleventh century, when Patriarch Michael Cerularius accused the Latins of being – among other things – iconoclasts, Patriarch Peter of Antioch told him that this was a slander. And the remarkable thing is that both patriarchs were right! Patriarch Peter was acquainted primarily with the Roman and Mediterranean Latins, who indeed venerated both the holy icons and the holy relics. Patriarch Michael Cerularius, on the other hand, was more acquainted with the Frankish Latins who were impeding the work of the followers of SS. Cyril and Methodius in the Slavic lands, and who indeed had held a council under Charlemagne which condemned the veneration of the holy icons and relics.

In his reply to Patriarch Michael Cerularius, Patriarch Peter of Antioch listed three categories of differences with Rome: dogmatical, liturgical (or, as he terms them, “things which are ‘healable’”), and local custom. Under the heading of dogmatic differences, he placed the filioque, which he called “evil of evils,” and he agreed that if Rome insisted on this point, she should be condemned. Under this heading he also included the triple immersion for baptism. This he considered dogmatic. Under liturgical differences, he put the leavened bread for Communion, and other points, concerning which he insisted that Rome must also abide by the ancient usages. Under the heading of custom, he put shaven clergy, fasting on Saturday, the wearing of a ring by the bishops, and others, which, said he, had been the usage of the Latins for many centuries and no one had ever broken off communion with them because of these things. He did not express any fondness for these latter practices, but he did make a point that everybody had lived with them up to then, and, in his estimation, one could continue to live with them, if these were the only differences with Rome.

Even as late as the fifteenth century, there were pockets of Latin Christians – including even bishops – who resisted the authority of the pope, and who held the Ecumenical Councils to be superior to papal prerogatives. The Council of Basel – which took place at the same time as the Council of Florence – is proof of this.

When, then, did grace leave the West? Do we have any patristic document that tells us that on such and such a date, at this hour, grace was cut off? But things did become absolutely clear in time.

The ambiguities which we have enumerated above, then, are one aspect of the problem. Yet, this does not give license for a free-for-all mentality. For those who grasp the issues, there is no excuse for not taking a stand. If some are confused today, nonetheless, there are those who are not confused and who understand what is going on, and for them it would be inexcusable to use the above-mentioned historical precedents as license to take the attitude, “Oh, since most people don’t even know what Ecumenism is, we shouldn’t take such a ‘rigorist’ stand. Shouldn’t we lend these people a helping hand in any way we can?”

Yes, we definitely should lend these people a helping hand by informing them through all the means at our disposal that their bishops and clergy have actually betrayed Orthodoxy by being organic members of the World Council of Churches. If these individuals care to listen to us, we can demonstrate this to them by the very words and official statements of their church leaders. Yet, I fear that those who care to listen will be few, because – let us be realistic, Polychronios – for most people, religion has become more a matter of convenience than of conviction. Can any committed Orthodox Christian who can read and write really claim ignorance today? It seems to us that the real problem is that most people today have become either too secularized or vaguely ecumenistic in their thinking, so that traditional Orthodox Christianity seems too "hard line" to them. And taking advantage of this secularized and vaguely ecumenistic mentality which prevails among most who call themselves Orthodox Christians, the church leaders who are definitely ecumenistic lead them wherever they wish.

Certainly, we must lend everyone a helping hand, but we cannot pray with them or be in communion with them, since they insist on praying with the heterodox and even pagans. We cannot help one who is drinking poison by drinking the poison ourselves.

This is what St. Basil says concerning such a careless attitude in regard to ecclesiastical relations with those who are compromised in their Orthodoxy:

Nor would we have accepted union with them [the bishops Meletius and Eusebius] even for an hour, if we had found them unstable in the faith.

(Letter 266)

If one doesn’t take a stand, then the issues will never become clear. For one who understands, there is no excuse for allowing incidents which are falsely called economia, and which should rather be referred to as paranomia (“lawlessness”). As we have observed in our parish life, such economias serve not to bring people into the Church, but rather keep them out and confirm them in their error.

This stand does not depend upon questions of whether there is or is not grace in the innovators. The real issue is: if one does not take a stand, he betrays the truth. The decision to cut off a certain diocese or jurisdiction from communion is not based on whether or not they are devoid of grace, but rather on the fact that they are teaching heresy and innovation, or – as the tenth Apostolic Canon says – are in communion with those who do so. As St. Theodore the Studite notes concerning this:

With a great voice, St. John Chrysostom addressed as enemies of God not only the heretics, but also those who were in communion with them.

(To Abbot Theophilus, Letter 39, P.G. 99, 1049A)

By persisting in a heresy and innovation, these bodies will surely be deprived of grace, but the time when this happens, or how long it takes to happen, is not clearly designated.

Thus, we cannot say that there are “grace-bearing heretics,” but then again the point at which they become confirmed heretics, knowingly and stubbornly and unrepentantly, may take some time. Yet, for one who understands the issues, there is no excuse for crossing back and forth. With time, things become very evident, and the heresy is condemned synodically also.

Therefore, especially in the beginning, it is untenable to say that grace is absent in these bodies, and that it left at a particular date and hour; but it is equally untenable to claim that they do have grace for a certainty.

Actually, it is no concern of ours if they do or do not have grace, since we have no communion with them. It is not our problem; it is a problem for them and for those who are in communion with them. We have no doubt that by our remaining faithful to the traditions and teachings of the Church, we have grace in the holy Mysteries. This is our concern, and in this we are assured.

To get involved in the issue of whether the others have or do not have grace, and when it left, is an exercise in futility for the Orthodox. Even if it could be demonstrated to us that the Ecumenists absolutely do have grace, we would still not have communion with them, even if our heads were cut off, since we know that they are found in heresy. This is the point. Even if they should have grace, yet it is receding because of their heresy. They are on a sinking ship. And although their ship may be bigger than our boat, no matter what anyone says, our poor little life-boat is far more preferable than their Titanic, which is going down with all its big names and rich appointments.

Do you recall the example of St. Maximus the Confessor? His life tells us that whenever representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate would come to see him, the Saint would welcome them warmly, embrace them and kiss them, and address them and all the other dignitaries of the Patriarchate with their full ecclesiastical titles – this, in spite of the fact that these clergymen had been preaching the Monothelite heresy for many years. Naturally, this led the Patriarchate’s representatives to believe that the Saint was a “push-over,” and that there would be no problem convincing him to enter into communion with the Church of Constantinople.

Yet, despite the Saint’s meekness, kindness, and friendliness in his dealings with the abovementioned churchmen, he was immovable in matters of the faith and steadfast in his refusal to enter into communion with them. Why? Purely and simply, because they were preaching heresy.

Angered at the Saint’s refusal, the Patriarchal clergy retorted, “Then you alone will be saved, and all others will perish?”

To this the Saint replied:

“When all the people in Babylon were worshipping the golden idol, the Three Holy Children did not condemn anyone to perdition. They did not concern themselves with the doings of others, but took care only for themselves, lest they should fall away from true piety. In precisely the same way, when Daniel was cast into the lion’s den, he did not condemn any of those who, fulfilling the law of Darius, did not wish to pray to God, but he kept in mind his own duty, and desired rather to die than to sin against his conscience by transgressing the Law of God. God forbid that I should condemn anyone or say that I alone am being saved! However, I shall sooner agree to die than to apostatize in any way from the true Faith and thereby suffer torments of conscience.”

“But what will you do,” inquired the envoys, “when the Romans are united to the Byzantines? Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord’s day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch.”

The Saint replied, “Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching.”

(From our monastery’s publication,

The Life of Our Holy Father Maximus the Confessor, pp. 38-9)

 

What we have said here regarding St. Maximus’ attitude toward Constantinopolitan churchmen could also be said concerning St. Mark of Ephesus’ attitude at the Council of Florence. However, once St. Mark saw that the Papacy was obdurately adhering to its errors, he was absolutely clear in declaring that Rome was cut off from the Church of Christ. And to make this latter fact even clearer, since 1870 Roman Catholicism has officially declared that the Roman pope speaks with the voice of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. (One wonders: if this is so, then what is there left to discuss at all in these ecumenical dialogues between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox?)

Now, as to the manner in which we receive those coming to us from the ecumenistic jurisdictions – as you know, Polychronios – we receive them by chrismation. Some see this as extreme and say that this means that we teach absolutely that there is no grace in the new calendarists and ecumenists. However, it seems to us that there is a misconception here. The use of re-chrismation is something which has been misunderstood in recent times. Chrismation may be repeated on varied occasions – but true baptism may be administered only once. If one apostatizes and returns, one is re-chrismated. There is historical evidence that in the early Church, in certain localities, re-chrismation was used at the end of a severe epitimion, which may have lasted many years and which was imposed because of grievous sins. Since the person involved had not received communion for ten, fifteen, or even more years, before being admitted to the holy Eucharist, the individual was re-chrismated to prepare him for the reception of the holy Mysteries. An echo of this usage still exists in the Greek Church. After a grievous sin, which in turn is followed by a lengthy epitimion, many of the older father confessors recommend the performance of an unction service before the person approaches the holy Eucharist.

In both of the instances mentioned above, this was seen as a healing process which enabled one to come to the awesome and holy Eucharist. Actually, as one of our priests recently pointed out, there is really only one holy Mystery, and that is the holy Eucharist (i.e., the divine Economy of the Incarnation, and our union with God in the holy Eucharist, wherein, according to the expression of the holy Apostle Peter, we become “partakers of the divine nature” – through which mankind’s theosis, “deification,” is effected by God’s uncreated and deifying grace). All the other holy Mysteries, if one thinks about it, are instituted in order to enable one to come to this Mystery of Mysteries. In short, they are linked to this one central Mystery.

So, it is with the understanding that it is unto healing that we re-chrismate those who come to us from the heresy of Ecumenism. It seems to us that if people understood the true significance of holy chrism, they would more fully appreciate the application of this holy mystery. In his Mystagogical Catecheses, St. Cyril of Jerusalem says that holy chrism has the power “to drive away every trace of hostile influence” and “to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one” (Lecture II, 3). In his Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, St. Dionysius the Areopagite writes that holy chrism “imparts a sacred state of mind to those who have changed from the worse to a religious understanding, so that they should not be again enslaved by evil” (Eccl. Hier. IV, 3). St. Cyril of Alexandria says that the mystery of holy chrism “cleanses our conscience from dead works” (P.G. 74, 929 BC), and the Apostolic Constitutions affirm that it “is a confirmation of our confession [of the faith]” (III, 17, A).

There is no doubt that the heresy of Ecumenism is a grievous illness which has become established in the local churches to a greater or lesser degree — depending on the Church. Therefore, any individual who comes to us from an ecumenistic jurisdiction and understands the gravity of the sickness which afflicted his former church group will certainly not object to receiving the healing imparted by holy chrism, and this is precisely why we employ this particular usage of holy chrism. [2]

In the current general usage of the Russian Church, most who return from apostasy are received simply by absolution. Hence, many Russian clergy are dismayed with the Greek practice of re-chrismation in such instances, and they view it as extreme.

However, our usage was known to the bishops of the Synod, and it was with the blessing of Metropolitan Philaret, our ruling bishop, that we re-chrismated. It was not done arbitrarily or by our own decision. In the instance of the parish of the Holy Protection in Astoria, N.Y., Fr. Anthony Gavalas was even instructed to obtain a signed statement from those coming from the Greek Archdiocese and other jurisdictions, stating that they understood the reasons why they were separating themselves from their former jurisdictions and that they promised not to have communion with them again. As for the reception of clergy from the Greek Archdiocese, they were received in different ways. Most were received by stating in writing that they renounced the heresy of Ecumenism, and then they were received by the mystery of absolution. There were instances, though, of some being received by χειροθεσία (“laying on of hands,” not re-ordination).

Although we have been accused of "re-baptizing" people, the truth is that we have never “re-baptized” anyone. We have only baptized people who had never been baptized by triple immersion – again, with the blessing of our ruling bishop and, at times, by his explicit instructions. [3]

However, to conclude what we have been saying here, Polychronios, one must realize that this is 1987, and not 1924, nor even 1964. Things are moving very fast today. If one simply reads the past issues of the Orthodox Christian Witness, one can clearly see the history of the progress of the Orthodox involvement in Ecumenism. What took generations, or even centuries, to become widely known in ages past, now takes only a matter of minutes, thanks to the communications media and all the electronic paraphernalia that is at the world’s disposal. Today, one has to be blind and deaf, or else totally indifferent, to claim “I don’t know.” And that’s why we have to move more and more toward “exactness,” precisely because in too many people’s minds today, the notion “Oh, it doesn’t make any difference where you go to church” has become fixed.

There have been too many breaches of the canons. There has been too much bareheaded preaching of heresy. Just re-read Metropolitan Philaret’s open letters to Patriarch Athenagoras and Archbishop Iakovos, and also his Sorrowful Epistles, or take one look at the Thyateira Confession, to see how many sacrilegious things have been uttered and enacted in the name of “Orthodoxy” in the past twenty or twenty-five years. Any one of them is enough to make you shudder in disbelief. Surely, when one considers the attitude of the clergy and the laity who belong to the ecumenistic jurisdictions, and sees their indifference to the blatant subversion of traditional Orthodox doctrines and practices promoted by their bishops, then if grace hasn’t disappeared from among them already, one can safely say that it is fast disappearing.

Oftentimes here at the monastery, people from ecumenistic jurisdictions attend our services and they get in line to receive communion. In a very discreet and polite way – in order not to embarrass the individual – one of the priests or deacons will quietly ask them where they go to church or if they have gone to confession to one of our priests. Then, using this opportunity of “confession” after the service, one of the priests will explain why we could not impart the holy Mysteries to them. Some respect our position, some are offended, and quite a few others have abandoned their ecumenistic jurisdictions and joined us. If we don’t tell them what the differences are, who will? Their priests? We consider these incidents God-given opportunities to instruct these people.

As for those who are genuinely and truly in ignorance, if there are any – God, Who knows the heart of man, will provide for them according to His boundless judgments and the disposition of their hearts. The same is true for people who live in Kathmandu or in the mountains of Tibet, and who have never even heard of Christianity. They are out of our jurisdiction, literally and figuratively. But God, Who knows His creatures better than we do, will give to each according to His wisdom and mercy.

So, the real issue is not if the local Orthodox Churches still have, or do not have, grace in the holy Mysteries, but rather if they are found in heresy – heresy being an illness unto death. We believe that all who are organic members of the World Council of Churches are, by their very membership, found in heresy, and that by their participation in the prayers, deliberations, and common statements of the W.C.C., they teach the heresy of Ecumenism in word and deed. Wherefore, they come under the condemnation of the various anathemas pronounced by the Church both in our own times and in times past, and the appropriate canons dealing with such instances are to be applied to them. Under these circumstances, we would not remain in communion with them not “even for an hour,” as St. Basil writes.

I hope this has answered your question somewhat.

You have the greetings of all the fathers and brethren. Please forgive us for taking so long to get back to you, but the subject matter was important, and also many important feasts intervened.

 

With the love of our Saviour

[Signed] Ephraim monk + my guardian angel

 

P.S. Your godson, Peter novice, read the letter and had an observation to make. Peter thought: “Does this teaching of ‘receding grace’ mean that, among heretics and schismatics, the communion is only partially the Body and Blood of Christ?” (Hmmm… is this what happens to people when they get too much schooling?) Anyway, the answer is: of course not. It is not a matter of “receding grace”; it is a matter of when these people knowingly and stubbornly become heretics. As we wrote on p. 9 of this letter: “We cannot say that there are ‘grace-bearing heretics,’ but then again the point at which they become confirmed heretics, knowingly and stubbornly and unrepentantly, may take some time.” Heretics do not have grace in their “mysteries.” This is the clear and consistent teaching of the Church throughout the ages. What we are saying is that what sometimes takes time is for a group of people to “knowingly and stubbornly and unrepentantly” become heretical. The thing that is of primary importance is that those who do understand the issues have no excuse and cannot claim ignorance. Hence, it is their duty as Orthodox Christians to be separated from the others because of their heresy, whether the latter are in heresy knowingly or not. And since what we are dealing with is a spiritual sickness, this, precisely, is the reason why we re-chrismate those coming from ecumenistic jurisdictions.

 

FOOTNOTES IN THE ORIGINAL

1. I suppose one could say that, in modern art, all statues are “potentially” blocks of marble. All that is needed is a modern sculptor to accomplish this feat “in actuality.”

2. An interesting note about chrismation: It has come to our attention through a scholarly article entitled “The Formation and Influence of the Antiochean Liturgy,” by Massey H. Shepherd Jr., (Dumbarton Oaks Papers - Number 15, 1961) that whereas in most of the local Churches of the first centuries, the order of the Mysteries was Baptism - Chrismation - Eucharist, in the Antiochean Church – even as late as the time of St. John Chrysostom – the order was Chrismation - Baptism - Eucharist, which seems to have followed more of a Hebraic understanding (circumcision - baptism [miqva'ot] - sacrifice). “This ‘Semitic’ sequence was preserved in the Church of Antioch for some centuries, whereas the other local Churches followed the more rational and hence more ‘Greek’ order,” writes Shepherd. We bring this point up just to show that there was no rigid and uniform usage of chrismation in the early Church.

3. This reminds me of a small incident that took place here at the monastery. One day, a Roman Catholic priest came to buy something, and as he was leaving, he stopped and asked me, “Is it true that the Orthodox baptize by immersion?” I replied, “Well, you realize, of course, that ‘baptism’ is a Greek word which means ‘immersion.’ So what you’re really asking me is if we immerse by immersion — and the answer to that is ‘yes.’”

 

 

Transcribed, formatted, and typos corrected from the original.