Fr. Lev Lebedeff (+1998): Thoughts on Grace
Thoughts on the Church, Grace, and Schism
Protopriest Lev Lebedeff | February 17, 1998
Dear N!
Let us still determine the essence of the disputes and the methodology of approaching them.
It has been as clear as day since the time of the Ecumenical Councils that gnosis is not an instrument for the knowledge of divine things. Before refuting Nestorius, St. Cyril of Alexandria and some others called for the complete abandonment of intellectual reasoning and views regarding the mystery of the Incarnation and for accepting it solely by faith. For from the beginning, this was how it was in the Church: they did not theologize or philosophize about it; they saw it.
How? With the eyes of faith. "Enlighten the eyes of my mind," or—"the spiritual eyes of the heart." You are, of course, aware that in addition to the external mind, sometimes defined as ratio, there is also a spiritual mind in a person. Its distinction from the external mind is that it is capable of seeing the essence of things in God, without logical reasoning, comparisons, or proofs, but directly and immediately. This mind is often synonymous with faith, which the Savior places above empirical, external knowledge ("blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed"). It seems to me that it was precisely during the era of the Arian and Nestorian disputes (inspired in some way by the Gnostics) that the well-known saying was born: non intellegere ut credas, sed credere ut intelligas (not from reason to faith, but from faith to reason). Without even realizing it, we, in all our "disputes about grace," have followed the Gnostic path. I am ready to accuse myself of this first of all. For we have attempted, with our external mind (though with references to the Holy Fathers), to define the boundaries of the Church, the workings of grace, and so on. And the result: we have arrived at nothing! Both opposing viewpoints within the Orthodox community still have the right to exist; neither has been shaken, nor established with sufficient strength (I mean the judgments: "the ecumenical churches, and the MP, are graceless," and—"they have grace, but with the caveat that for many, grace leads to condemnation"). What then should be done? Even the Holy Fathers, though perhaps against their will, had to labor over the precise verbal expression of truths that were previously perceived by faith, that is, by the spiritual-mind of the heart. But they were not simply and not only "fathers" and "teachers"; they were holy fathers and teachers! It was the Lord Himself, in connection with the particular purity and height of their spiritual lives, who enlightened and taught them what and how to say or write. In general, the appearance of a host of holy fathers is a special work of God's providence! If only such would appear in our days to resolve this relatively new dispute for the Church—the dispute about the Church itself! For only with a clear and correct vision of the essence of the question by the spiritual-mind of the heart (with the pure eyes of faith) can, with God's help, everything be expressed infallibly in words accessible to the understanding of the external mind.
Knowing our church life, it seems difficult to imagine that people in the spirit and power of the Holy Fathers will appear within it. But for some reason, I believe (or perhaps only hope) that in some council of truly Orthodox hierarchs, this issue could be rightly resolved. Here, it must be said, Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos has managed to incline me to the idea that a Great Orthodox Council of representatives from all the Churches faithful to Orthodoxy is needed. However, he thinks too broadly about such a council. For now, I am inclined to limit myself to the idea of a council consisting only of those faithful to Orthodoxy, that is, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, the Synod in Resistance, other Old Calendarist groups in Greece, the Old Calendarist Church of Romania, and Bulgaria (possibly Serbia as well, if it leaves the World Council of Churches). Let both the moderates and radicals be heard there, as in the old days, and may the Holy Spirit resolve this most important issue.
Preliminarily, as merely my weak reasoning, I can say the following. The discussion is not about the actions of God's grace in general (it is manifold, its actions are varied, and it manifests not only in relation to people of all faiths, but also to animals, plants, stones, etc.); the discussion is about the actions of grace in the Church, as the Body of Christ, primarily in the sacraments of the Church. This should immediately lead us to the question of what is the Church and what is not? In the Apostle Paul's many reflections on the Church as the Body of Christ, whose head is Christ Himself and people are the members, there are two concepts or representations of the body: 1) as the body of a single person, and 2) as the "body of two in common" in the union of marriage. The second representation is more complex and mystical ("this mystery is great!"), but it more accurately corresponds to spiritual reality. It presupposes the existence of two free hypostases—Christ (the "Bridegroom") and the Church, consisting of people (as the "Bride of the Lamb"). In this case, their union into "one flesh" is not a complete merging, not an identity, but something similar (although not identical) to the union of the two natures—Divine and human—in the person of Jesus Christ, long defined as unconfused yet undivided. Then, according to V. Lossky, the hypostasis of the Church, or at least the minor hypostasis, is the soul of each person, each individual, united with Christ in the union of love ("marriage"); this person’s soul, the human person, is the "bride" of the Heavenly Bridegroom, loving Him and loved by Him. But the whole point is that in this mysterious union of "one flesh," the "bride" must be, and is, a free person! There is no mechanical subjugation, enslavement, or absorption of the "bride" by the "Bridegroom." In the Kingdom of Heaven, their mysterious "marriage" will remain unbreakable forever, but still on the basis of freedom, that is, the finally tested free desire of the "bride" to be with the "Bridegroom" forever. However, in the earthly conditions of existence, where this freedom is still being tested, "betrayals" are possible, separations from love and union on the part of some "brides." In Holy Scripture, this is often described by the image of "fornication," and the fallen "unfaithful" Church is called a "harlot" or "adulteress." The Apocalypse presents us with the image of the "great harlot," as the church of those who have freely and eternally renounced love and union with Christ. Some are wrong to assert that God can do everything. God cannot do everything—He cannot force those who do not want to love Him to love Him. This is how He Himself willed to create man (in His image and likeness, that is, in particular, absolutely free).
"Fornication" can take different forms or types. Essentially, every time we sin, we break the bond of love with Christ, as if we commit adultery against Him with something or someone. But in one case, it is not forever, because as soon as we come to repentance and turn to the sacrament (confession), called the "second baptism," the filth of sin is washed away again and again, and the bond of love with Christ is restored. In another case, that is, if repentance does not occur and the person (or community of persons) voluntarily descends deeper into the abyss of "fornication," this "fornication" severs the person from Christ eternally, forever. From this, it becomes clear that persistence in errors (the root of the word "fornication") undoubtedly separates all heretics, who refuse and do not want to renounce their errors and fully accept the pure teaching of Orthodoxy, from Christ and from the Church as His Body.
Let us try to imagine what happens when a wife betrays her husband. In this case, according to the word of Christ, the husband is free to "let her go," that is, to dissolve the marriage forever. He is free, but not obligated! For if she repents and he forgives, the marriage is restored and preserved. What does this mean ontologically? Marriage is a union of two into one flesh, so they are no longer two, but one flesh. By betraying her husband, the wife becomes the flesh of another, without ceasing to be the flesh of the first! A terrifying reality! A rupture of the unbreakable! If this is not severed or healed through repentance and she departs into eternity in this state, the person will be eternally torn into as many parts as there were adulterous relationships, without complete rupture, meaning without relief! It becomes understandable why Christ always places the sin of fornication alongside the sin of murder, and sometimes even ahead of murder. However, for our discussion, it is important to note that the unfaithful wife continues to be, to some extent, the flesh of her lawful husband. Until when? Until a legal (church) divorce occurs.
The same thing happens with church communities, churches that deviate into heretical errors. For a time, they continue to be "members" of the Body of Christ—the Universal Church. During this time, efforts are made to admonish them, call them to repentance, rebuke them, persuade them, and so on. This is roughly what happened with the Roman Church over several centuries (!) due to its teachings on the primacy of the Pope and the "Filioque." But it did not repent, did not turn back. And then came the "divorce"—1054. But even "divorce," separation, cutting off—this is still not complete death. If a branch is cut off from a tree, or a hand from a person, or even if the soul is separated from the body, life continues in the branch, in the hand, in the body for a certain time, although it is very brief. Still, if during this brief moment the branch is grafted back, the hand reattached, the soul returned to the body—everything can come back to life again!
Therefore, I have always told our "zealots": the process of separating a heretical community from the Church is precisely a process, that is, a phenomenon that unfolds over time and is characterized by the fact that, on the one hand, "death" has already set in, while on the other hand, "life" (i.e., grace in the Sacraments) still continues. Hence, there is no need to rush to categorical judgments... Who should and has the right to determine the degree of repentance, the timing, and the extent of the cutting off? In the deeper sense, and ultimately, Christ Himself determines. But in reality, this happens only through a conciliar decision (definition) of the Church. For the Lord has arranged His Church in such a way that it is not He directly, but the Church, which has received from Him the authority to "bind and loose," that must decide whether to cut off or not yet cut off a given erring community from itself. "And whatsoever is bound (by the Church) on earth shall be bound in Heaven."
You are right that no "self-respecting" (a good expression) heresy simply repeats verbatim any previous condemned heresy, but instead tries to present its false teaching in some "new" verbal expressions or coverings that essentially hide elements of already existing, old heresies. Therefore, it is not enough to merely identify the "new" heresy as a rehash (echo) of the "old" one, although this must, of course, be done! But it is also necessary to fight for the souls of the misguided people, again and again explaining everything to them... And then, a new Council of Churches is needed for the "new" heresy! More precisely—a Conciliar trial (!!), which, based on identification, would not only condemn the false teaching itself but also personally condemn the persistent heresiarchs, and abstractly condemn all who follow their teaching or remain in church communion with them...
When objections are raised, saying that since new heretics or apostates have already, by their teachings, fallen under the anathemas of the ancient councils of the Church, there is no need for a new trial against them, because they have already fallen away (through heresy) from the Church and thus are already without grace, this is only half true or even entirely false. It is entirely true only in relation to those who have consciously separated themselves from the Church, forming their own distinct "new church." But if we are dealing with those who have fallen into apostasy and heresy, yet claim that they have not fallen into anything of the sort, but continue to be Orthodox and consider themselves part of the Church, it is not enough for someone from the Orthodox to merely expose them as heretics; a conciliar trial is needed. Only such a council has the authority to cut off those who stubbornly persist in error from the Body of Christ (just as in the case of a legal ecclesiastical divorce between husband and wife).
There is also this objection: if one of the local churches has identified a new heretical community as such and anathematized their "new" heresy, then it expresses the voice of the entire Orthodox fullness and is, therefore, a sufficient judgment. Often, people point to the 1983 anathema of ecumenism and ecumenists by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Yes, it is true that in this case, the Russian Church Abroad expresses the opinion of Orthodoxy. But one local Church does not have the authority to cut off another local Church from the Universal Orthodox Fullness; a judgment and sentence by the Fullness, i.e., a Council of Churches, is needed. However, until such a Council and judgment have taken place, the famous 15th canon of the First-Second Council comes into effect, which allows those who understand and perceive the heretical nature of the new teachings of certain bishops to separate from them, ceasing Eucharistic and prayerful communion with them even before a conciliar judgment and sentence, without waiting for such. This is a very painful state of affairs, giving rise to many "vacillations" and scandals in the churches, which we are witnessing.
How can this be understood or described from the perspective of the concept of the Church as a "body," that is, a certain unified organism? In the case of the representation of a single body for two in the union of marriage, this state of affairs corresponds to the condition of a "divorce process," where marital relations have been practically severed, but the spouses are still husband and wife, and it is not yet clear whether they will be granted a divorce or perhaps the marriage will be restored. In the case of the body as the body of a single person, this might correspond, for example, to the onset of gangrene in a person's leg. The gangrenous limb is still a part of the body, it still lives at the expense of the body, but it already threatens the entire body with death unless it is amputated or a miracle of healing occurs.
I once encountered a case where, as a result of the sacraments I performed (in the Moscow Patriarchate) — confession, unction, and communion — a miracle occurred: the right leg of a person, fully affected by severe gangrene up to and above the thigh, was healed overnight (!), while the doctors, observing the rapid development of gas gangrene, were convinced that the person had 45 hours to live...
Let us take another image of the Church, offered by Christ, for clarity — the image of the tree (or vine). If we imagine a branch that has just been cut from the tree, life still continues in it for a while, and its leaves remain as alive and fresh as the leaves of the branches still on the tree. The question is: is this branch still a branch of the tree? On the one hand, yes, it is a branch of this tree, and the living sap of the tree is still acting within it. But, on the other hand, it no longer truly belongs to the tree because it has been cut off, and the replenishment of life-giving sap is no longer there. If it is not immediately grafted back onto the tree, it is doomed to die and will wither completely.
Who, in this case, decides whether to graft it back or leave it to wither? Ultimately, in the deeper sense, it is the Lord (the "Vinedresser"), but not directly — only through His Church, through its judgment, which, on the surface of existence, appears as the free conciliar decision of a certain assembly of bishops (with the participation, in one form or another, of the people).
All the above ontological considerations and reflections allow for certain conclusions, among which it should be noted that, overall, the current period of church life can be defined as transitional. In this period, the apostate Churches mentioned have already separated themselves from the unity of the Body of Christ, but it is still unclear whether they will turn to repentance or be finally cut off by anathema. The Body of Christ is mysterious, and unlike the material body of a person, when hopelessly diseased members are cut off, it immediately regains its wholeness and former fullness in the remaining faithful members. Thus, the unity of the Church is preserved and will be preserved until the Second Glorious Coming of Christ.
This article is one of the last letters by Protopriest Lev Lebedev [d. April 29, 1998]. Father Lev responds to his correspondent, a priest of the Russian Church, regarding the question of the boundaries of the Church. The title was provided by the editors.
Source: Русский Пастырь [Russian Pastor], issue No. 30, 1998. Translation via ChatGPT-4o.
Comments
Post a Comment