Sacramental Grace in
New Calendarist / Ecumenist Communities, in Light of the Inter-Orthodox Union of 2014/2015*
Regarding the contentious issue of sacramental grace, the
historic 2014 union document, “The True Orthodox Church and the Heresy of
Ecumenism: Dogmatic and Canonical Issues,”1 was signed by the
largest True Orthodox2 bodies in Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria, as
well as the continuing ROCA under Metropolitan Agafangel. It states, in Section
IV, Paragraph 6:
More specifically, with regard to the
Mysteries celebrated in the so-called official Orthodox Churches, the True
Orthodox Church does not provide assurance concerning their validity or
concerning their soteriological efficacy, in particular for those who commune
‘knowingly’ with syncretistic Ecumenism and Sergianism, even though She does
not in every instance repeat their external form for those entering into
communion with Her in repentance, in anticipation of the convocation of a Major
Synod of True Orthodoxy, in order to place a seal on what has already occurred
at a local level.
This seemingly ambiguous statement on
sacramental grace does not mean a principled answer to the question is lacking;
it indicates there is a diversity of views and understandings on the matter.
And why this should be acceptable, at this point, to all True Orthodox
Christians is found in the document, “The Ecclesiastical Union of the Orthodox
Community in Resistance with the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of
Greece: Objections, Concerns, and their Resolution,”3 issued on
September 4, 2014 (O.S.), by the Secretariat of the Holy Synod.
In Section B3 (“Issues pertaining to the Union document”), it
states:
a1. The Union document, which was drawn up by the True Orthodox Churches
of Greece and Romania and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (March 2014) does
not offer the possibility of a plurality of views on matters of Faith, nor any
leeway for such, since it is a product of merging and agreement on issues of
Faith.
In other words, at this point in time, opinions regarding the
presence or absence of grace in the New Calendarist churches are not considered
dogma.
Additionally, and significantly,
a2. There has been no agreement to suppress different ecclesiological
views, and the suspicions to this effect are due, we suppose, to
misunderstandings of statements which, one way or another, were made in a
pastoral context prior to our merging and Union.
The next paragraph states:
“b1. … [Concerning] the phrase in the Union document
that “the True Orthodox Church does not provide assurance concerning [the]
validity” of Mysteries celebrated by the New Calendarists (ch. VI, §6) … it
should be stated here that this is certainly not an innovation, nor does it
abrogate the past, since the Encyclicals of 1935, 1950, and 1974, which were
local in nature, are now placed in the context of our common inter-Orthodox
Confession and interpreted correctly.
This accurately notes that while the
Encyclicals of 19354/19505/19746 remain
official local documents for the
Church in Greece, the 2014 union document represents a confession of inter-Orthodox character, which,
naturally, carries greater weight.
It is then immediately pointed out, in the next paragraph,
that:
b2. It should also be emphasized that in the unitive ecclesiological
document it is clear that the issue of the validity or invalidity of the
Mysteries celebrated by the innovationists in general is not examined directly
or specifically in a special chapter, but parenthetically.
In other words, it was not
a thorough and definitive study of the issue of sacramental grace in the New
Calendarist/Ecumenist churches, but a unitive or consensus document that could
be signed by all True Orthodox bishops.
And one of the most important points of the whole text is
contained in the next paragraph, which states:
b3. In the end, we need to realize that the True Orthodox Church ought
not to cultivate the mistaken impression that Her unity is founded on our view
of the Mysteries of the New Calendarists; on the contrary, Her fidelity to
Apostolic teaching and Succession should be the focus of Her unity. It is
fidelity to our Confession that unites us, and not our view of the Mysteries of
the New Calendarists, who are, in any case, fallen away in the Faith and “not
in communion [with our Church].”
- Compiled by
C.J.G.
May 13/26,
2021
Holy Martyr Glykería
Edited on July 16/29,
2021
Holy Hieromartyr
Athenogénes
* The initial union, through the signing of the first
document under discussion, occurred on March 8/21, 2014, between the True
Orthodox Church of Greece (under Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens) and the
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (under Metropolitan Agafangel of New York). On
August 6, 2014 (O.S.), it was approved and signed by the Synod of Bishops of
the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania under Metropolitan Vlasie of
Slătioara (see https://www.manastirea-amd.ro/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ecleziologia_ro.pdf).
Additionally, on January 26, 2015, it was signed by Bishop Photiy of Triaditsa
of the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria (see
https://bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/ch-life/official/signature-en.html).
NOTES
1. http://hotca.org/pdf/TrueOrthodoxOppositionEcumenism.pdf
2. True or Genuine Orthodox being defined as those
Orthodox Christians who have walled themselves off from the Official Churches
on the basis of the openly professed errors of Ecumenism and Sergianism, and
who have established separate administrations for the maintenance of their faithful.
3.https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2014/10/01/E20141001aSynodikesTheseis-Antidrontes%20Folder/E20141001aSynodikesTheseis-Antidrontes.pdf
4. https://goctoronto.org/encyclical-june-21-1935/
5. https://goctoronto.org/encyclical-may-26-1950/
6. https://goctoronto.org/encyclical-june-5-1974/
After requesting a review of this brief essay for accuracy
and fairness, the following assessment was received from Hieromonk Savvas
(Anastasiou) of St. Nektarios Cathedral, Toronto, Ontario, on May 27, 2021:
“In general, I think your understanding of the question of
Sacramental Grace in light of the 2014 document is accurate, I would only add
that the two sentences in Section IV ¶ 6 should be understood as one idea.
Namely, that we do not declare their validity by not repeating their outward
form.
“This is a basic principle of ecclesiastical œconomy that is often
not understood by many.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.