Archimandrite Lazar (Abashidze) (+2018)
Pascha Without the
Cross, or Once Again About Ecumenism
"If, while
remaining faithful to our dogmatic positions, we could reach mutual
understanding, especially regarding what distinguishes us from each other, this
would, of course, be a more certain path to union than one that would bypass
these differences."
Vladimir Lossky [1]
Today, every Orthodox Christian
must unequivocally answer for themselves the question: are they on the side of
ecumenism or on the side of Orthodoxy? Vague and abstract reflections on this
painful issue are increasingly taking on the character of blatant falsehood.
The spirit of ecumenism, the ecumenical movement, has manifested itself with
full clarity; specific statements have been made, and for Orthodox Christians,
it is no longer permissible to pretend that "nothing terrible is happening
yet." Although many laypeople, pastors, and even hierarchs of our Church
declare that ecumenism can play a positive role with a certain approach to it, such
a view is entirely false. Ecumenism will remain a destructive force in
relation to the true faith, regardless of the approach taken to it. It is an
obvious evil, and an evil that is subtly cunning, deceitfully seductive,
killing the saving faith, an evil that acts imperceptibly on the soul, but
paralyzes the very central points of a Christian's spiritual life.
We affirm, based on the teachings
of the Holy Orthodox Church, relying on countless testimonies from Holy
Scripture and patristic Tradition, on the rules of the Holy Apostles, on the Nomocanon
of the Church, on examples from the lives of the holy Fathers of Orthodoxy, on
the prevailing view of contemporary monks, priests, and laypeople of the
Church, also presenting as irrefutable testimony the holy blood of the great
multitude of Orthodox martyrs — we affirm that any religious communion
with heretics, any attempts at union with them by concealing or covering up the
differences, the doctrinal irreconcilability of the teachings of Orthodoxy with
the teachings of any heretics and non-believers, and all such double-minded,
hypocritical behavior, which accustoms Orthodox people to hide the very
foundation of their faith, the essence of their entire spiritual life — that
Truth is only in Orthodoxy and nowhere else — all of this is a betrayal of
Christ, a departure from the True God!
We, Orthodox Christians, firmly
believe and do not doubt that the Truth is only in Orthodoxy. We believe that
salvation, inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven, and attaining the main goal of
human life—theosis—can only be achieved by an Orthodox Christian,
whose life in all respects aligns with the teachings of the Orthodox Church,
who partakes of the Sacraments preserved by our Church, is nourished by their
grace, adopts the spirit of repentance, and labors in the spirit of Christ’s
meekness and humility, rather than in the spirit of delusion and pride, and
follows the teachings of the holy Fathers.
No matter how good, decent,
pleasant, or merciful non-believers may seem to us, even when we maintain the friendliest
outward relations with them, we must not waver on the issue of the
incorrectness and heretical nature of their teachings about God. We should not
be deceived by their apparent goodness: not all goodness is the same. Due to
our spiritual blindness, we are often unable to discern the roots of a person's
outward actions—what depths of spirit they arise from, what foundation and
motives they are based on. Only the careful study of the spiritual heritage of
our mentors, the holy Fathers, through life itself, can teach us this
discernment. Only they, through their divinely inspired writings, teach us
today to distinguish Gospel goodness from the deceptive goodness of man. Our
own reasoning, by itself, is blind in this matter.
Ecumenism most often attempts to
find something general, something that unites different religions, cults,
teachings, and all sorts of currents of human cultural activity, using cunning
and convoluted phrases, ambiguous statements, and theatrical remarks. Words
such as "love," "world peace," "mutual
understanding," "humanity" are heard; slogans such as
"division is a wound on the body of the Church," "seek
God-commanded unity," "the call for the unity of all believers is
especially relevant now," "we stand in the face of the threat of
nuclear catastrophe," "pray that divisions may be removed and that
mutual, all-embracing love may come closer to us," etc., etc., are heard.
Fragmented and falsely interpreted quotes from Holy Scripture are often cited,
especially the words of the Lord: "that they may all be one, as You,
Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us"
(John 17:21), and others.
Everything that is
"uniting," when discovered by the ecumenists, is enthusiastically and
jubilantly elevated over the heads of people—as a new banner, as yet another
step in overcoming division, as yet another proof of the unity of all doctrines.
All differences and divisions, which are so difficult to conceal, are denounced
in every possible way, declared to be the result of evil, fanaticism, and
spiritual blindness, and it is proposed that they be ignored and overcome by
any means—these annoying disagreements. The most skillful defenders of
ecumenism even assure us that "the dividing walls between churches do not
reach up to heaven, to Christ the Head, and do not descend to the very heart of
the Church, to the Holy Spirit."
Yes, indeed: these walls do not
reach Heaven, nor do they extend to the "heart" of the Church. They
simply separate, as an insurmountable barrier, the true Church from false
churches. Heaven from hell, Truth from falsehood, the faithful of Christ from
the apostate world! These "dividing walls" are the dogmatic truths of
the Orthodox Faith, whose purpose is to clearly distinguish the path of
salvation from the paths of destruction (it is obvious to whom the idea of
erasing or destroying them belongs—the father of lies, the murderer from the
beginning, who did not abide in the truth (John 8:44) and strives in every way
to shake others from it!). Anyone who distorts the dogmas of the faith cannot
cross the threshold of the Church, cannot even begin the path to salvation.
This "wall" becomes an obstacle for them on the way to Heaven. It can
only be removed by fully accepting the teachings of the Orthodox Church and
precisely following the spirit of its grace-filled life.
Often, supporters of ecumenism
respond to the accusations made against them: "Ecumenism is something
entirely different, you don't understand what 'ecumenism' means. We are not
going to concede anything to heretics on matters of faith; on the contrary, we
wish to draw them to Orthodoxy. We do not have the right to shut ourselves off,
saving only ourselves, while the whole world perishes!" But is this really
the case? Let us examine!
What divides us from the
heretics? Where did this division begin? What is the destructive nature of
their teaching? Was it we who separated from them, or did they themselves
depart from the Truth, not heeding the voice of the Church, which, through a
council, called upon them not to commit such madness, explained their errors,
and carefully examined each point of their harmful innovations? Did they not
scorn the loud call of our Church? It was not we who separated from them, but
they themselves who departed from the Truth! If we wish to return them to the
fold of Orthodoxy, what must we first speak to them about? Should it not be
about the cause of the division? Should it not be about the same disagreements
and differences in matters of faith, which were already once discussed? But how
is this possible when the very "rules" of ecumenical meetings forbid
any debate on the dogmas of faith? And nowhere do we ever hear ecumenists
discussing dogmas. If they do examine dogmatic questions, it is only with one
purpose—to find a way to somehow bypass the differences in their understanding.
This was the case recently during the attempt to reunite with the Monophysites,
when ecumenists tried to present the fundamentally different interpretation of
the dogma concerning the Divine and Human natures of the Lord Jesus Christ as a
misunderstanding caused by "somewhat different theological
terminology." But we hear no other serious, necessary discussions about
dogmas—neither at ecumenical gatherings, nor in private meetings, nor during
joint travels to conferences, nor at parties and banquets during and after
these meetings.
Why?! After all, we know, we
believe, that their heretical confession of faith has a destructive flaw, their
faith distorts the teaching on salvation, they have lost the source of life,
the path to salvation has slipped from their sight, and they stand on a false
path—and we remain silent? We cheerfully drink coffee, champagne, with friendly
faces we engage in pleasant conversation about this and that, offer each other
chocolates, and remain silent about the most important thing, the question of
life and death? Or do we simply no longer consider this question a matter of
life and death?
Most likely, we will be told that
this is a kind of "diplomacy," that outward friendliness can attract
heretics to us, and then the depth of Orthodoxy will be revealed to them. They
will cite the example of the Apostle Paul, who "to the Jews became as a
Jew, that he might win the Jews; to those under the law, as under the law, that
he might win those under the law; to those without law, as without law—not
being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ—that he might win
those who are without law. To the weak, he became as weak, that he might win
the weak. He became all things to all men, that he might by all means save
some" (1 Corinthians 9:20–22). They will recall St. Macarius of Egypt,
who, through a friendly manner, converted a pagan priest to the true faith.
They will also point to the words of the Lord Himself: "For he who is
not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40). They will bring to mind St.
John Chrysostom’s exhortation about the "gentle" treatment of
heretics for the sake of their salvation, and will say much, much more in their
defense.
But the same Apostle Paul also
says: "A heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject,
knowing that such a person is subverted and sins, being self-condemned" (Titus
3:10–11). The Apostolic Canons categorically forbid praying with heretics,
receiving blessings from them, celebrating with them, accepting festive gifts
from them, and allowing them to enter the house of God (Apostolic Canons 10,
11, 45, 46; Canons of the Council of Laodicea 32, 33, 37, 6). Countless
warnings from the Fathers can be cited, teaching us to be extremely cautious
with non-believers and to guard against the poison of their heresies in every
possible way.
But the main misunderstanding
here is the following: all the aforementioned "methods" of the
Apostle Paul, the friendliness of St. Macarius, and the Lord's instruction not
to reject the one who is not against us—these are like a hook that draws in a
person who does not yet know the truth, making them more trusting and open.
However, it is absolutely implied
that after this, the true teaching will be thoroughly imparted to them—not only
about the pleasant and joyful aspects of our faith, but also the teaching about
the Cross, self-denial, the crucifixion of one's passions and desires, the
renunciation of one's own will, and the strict adherence to the entire teaching
of the Church. However, the ecumenists lead the "captured"
non-believers, who already seem to be quite friendly and well-disposed towards
them, finally to the doors of the Church, bring them inside, lead them to the
altar, even into the sanctuary, where they pray and embrace them—but they never
begin the conversation about the truth of our faith, nor about the heretical,
and thus destructive, nature of their teachings!
Another characteristic trait of
the ecumenists has been observed: when one of the [Roman] Catholics,
Protestants, Monophysites, or any other lost soul, suddenly stirred by God's
calling, after a long search and suffering, becomes inflamed with the desire to
convert to Orthodoxy, our "love-filled" ecumenists, contrary to all
expectations, prove to be extremely indifferent to these people who have come
to them for help, returning to their true home, the sheep that had been
wandering in the mountains! At such times, the faces of these pastors show
neither joy, nor enthusiasm, nor the former zeal—on the contrary, there is
boredom, indifference, and even displeasure! It seems that just a little more
and those who have turned away from heresy will hear: "Why such a
sacrifice?! This is not so necessary! Go back, go back to your own, don't upset
them!" And indeed—how can they rejoice when the popes, cardinals, priests,
pastors, and doctors will not be pleased with such defections—their sheep
leaving for the Orthodox fold! Heaven forbid, they might get offended by our
pastors, and the "work of Christian unity for the sake of world
peace" will become complicated and delayed. Is it worth quarreling over
one or two pitiful sheep when the grand goal is so much more majestic!
And here is another point, to
ignore which is, at the very least, strange. We, Orthodox Christians, are
greatly scandalized when, during a service, we see non-believers praying
alongside our hierarchs in our churches, when we see heretics entering the altar,
when we learn that an Orthodox priest has given Communion to a non-believer.
Even more so when we witness our pastors and hierarchs at ecumenical assemblies
sharing "life experiences," "peace-building experiences,"
and almost "spiritual" experiences with representatives of all the
religions of the world, even with shamans and sorcerers. We are deeply
scandalized, grieved, and troubled, seeing the many blasphemies of ecumenism.
Why do the ecumenists, so lovingly disposed toward heretics, ignore this sorrowful
and spiritually dangerous state of their own church children, for whom they, as
pastors, will ultimately be accountable before God?
How many truly Orthodox people,
finding no compromise in such disgraceful circumstances within the Church,
leave us and cease to live a churchly life! Many people are coming to Orthodoxy
today who are uncompromising, who seek purity of confession and cannot tolerate
falsehood. They have already seen enough hypocrisy in the world and now seek
honesty and sincerity—among the Orthodox. They cannot reconcile the strict
teachings of the Church on dogmas, the rules of the Apostles and Fathers, with
the modern, so double-minded and hypocritical behavior of many of our pastors
and laypeople. We know of numerous cases where believers, scandalized precisely
by ecumenism, have left the Church. Yes, one can accuse them of pride, of
"inflexibility." But why are ecumenists so willing to lovingly and
patiently tolerate, endure, and excuse any inflexibility of heretics, showing
them any kind of "flexibility," any kind of spinelessness—even to the
point of concealing almost all the fundamental concepts of their own faith—while
for those who wish to strictly adhere to Orthodox teachings, there are only
contemptuous smirks, accusations of narrow-mindedness, of not understanding
"elementary things," of fanaticism, and of being out of touch with
the spirit of the times, and so on?
But let the ecumenists show us a
list of those they have brought to Orthodoxy through their "flexible
diplomacy," and we will show them a list of those who, scandalized by
their hypocritical actions, have departed from the Church! What goal justifies
such means?
Perhaps this goal is the
conversion of all heretics to Orthodoxy? But how? If there is no discussion
about the dogmas of faith, how will they believe that the Truth is with us? If
we wish to once again engage in debate on these matters, we must return to the
polemics that have already taken place—at the Councils! The Holy Fathers long
ago refuted every distortion of the faith by heretics, and we will not be able
to do it better than they did. But here's the problem! Ecumenists are
practically shaken at the very mention of these Councils. They would much
rather convene a new council—their own—to revise all the decrees of the
previous Councils.
Even if we were to allow that a
significant number of non-believers, through the selfless work of our
ecumenists, decide to convert to the Orthodox Church, would the latter be
joyful about this? Hardly! For the conversion of a large number of non-believers
to Orthodoxy, as already noted, would cause scandal, would provoke protest from
those who remain loyal to their teachings. And so, again, there would be
enmity, again division and strife! But what, then, of "peace throughout
the world"?
Ecumenists differ in the degree
of their enthusiasm for the ideas of ecumenism: some do not deny that the
"fullness" of Truth is only in Orthodoxy, but they also allow for its
partial presence in other confessions; others consider Orthodoxy to be higher
in a moral-ascetical sense, but not at all in terms of preferring the Orthodox
Church as the keeper of God's Grace; still others do not recognize any
distinction between confessions at all and are convinced that truth is
partially present in all teachings, and therefore the union of religions can
only lead to mutual enrichment.
As for the "Orthodox"
ecumenists, they undoubtedly give preference to Orthodoxy (although,
surprisingly, there are exceptions even to this), but again—to varying degrees.
Some would like to find in ecumenism a way to resolve global problems related
to constant hostility between nations. They believe that, at the very least, an
agreement should be made so that people do not feud over different religious
beliefs but instead unite and come closer together. After all, all religions
teach some form of "good," and therefore we should try to bypass the
"prickly" details of doctrinal disagreements and, while remaining
silent on all that divides, select only what is "best,"
"reconciling," "uniting," and build peace and love on this
foundation. These people believe that ecumenism is a phenomenon of a
non-religious character, with goals external to religion.
However, there are also
ecumenists who aim to solve precisely religious issues. They see in ecumenism
the seed of a "new religion"—more perfect, universal, accessible, and
all-encompassing—one that alone will be able to solve global problems, not
externally, not through mere verbal agreements between people of different
faiths, but through their inner reunification. This, they claim, will be
achieved when a central unifying point, close, understandable, and desirable to
every soul, is found, while all the "superficial" and divisive, the
secondary, will be wisely rejected. Then, they say, people will appreciate the
importance of this "main thing" in their lives and will find the key
to their happiness. They will see the naivety and inadequacy of their fanatical
desire to cling to certain private, narrow, dead religious concepts, rites,
laws, prohibitions, and dogmas, which, like a dried-up cocoon, no longer live
but merely cover the life of a beautiful being. The time has come, they say,
for this bright, life-thirsting, joyful butterfly to fly free! We must live,
live broadly, and accept everything and everyone in the joy of our life! A new
era! It is time to shake off the dried-up shell of ancient, tedious notions of
God and man! We must live and love, love and live! Religion must give people
peace, love, happiness, communion and mutual understanding, brotherhood, joy,
laughter, and life—here and now, today! Laughter, not tears, not sorrow and
fear, not strife, slaughter, curses, prohibitions, threats, anathemas, schisms,
and the like.
There are also such ecumenists
from among the "Orthodox" who have very modest hopes for the
ecumenical endeavor. For them, ecumenism is merely a way to step onto the world
stage, to appear before all of educated humanity, and say something of their
own. After all, everyone is declaring their "self" from this global
platform, so why should we hide, remaining on the sidelines of such important
events, away from religious people who are collectively seeking solutions to
global problems? We can quietly bring something of our own to this gathering,
for the benefit and welfare of suffering humanity, we can introduce a healthy
element into the movement for peacemaking...
In general, the motives for the
appearance of "Orthodox" Christians at ecumenical conferences and
assemblies can vary greatly, ranging from the reluctance to offend important
and influential sponsors and organizers of these gatherings with their absence,
to taking upon themselves, "with a heavy heart," the self-sacrificing
task of "sanctifying" this assembly of lost souls with their
"grace-filled" presence, while secretly offering fervent prayers for
them. It is quite possible that some "Orthodox" ecumenists believe
that their inner burning with Christian love, the grace they secretly carry
within, and their decent, "spiritual" behavior and piety can work
miracles, and that people, drawn by some mysterious call, will turn to
Orthodoxy.
Today, there are also (and they
are not uncommon) such "zealous" Christians who believe that
"grace" flows from them like the fragrance of incense, sanctifying
everything around them, and that their prayerful, ascetic life transforms and
brings the surrounding world into the Church. These people feel that it is good
and beneficial to attract everyone and everything to themselves, that their
mere presence anywhere already brings down God's mercy on those present, and
will inevitably be salvific for them. They are ready to go through all
obstacles, fearing nothing; with the cross and holy water, with psalm singing,
they are prepared to go through cities and villages, mountains and fields. They
sprinkle holy water on prisons and hospitals, stadiums and theaters, streets,
homes, stores, and statues. Just as the ancient martyrs, under the guise of
idol worship, entered pagan temples and destroyed them with prayer, so too do
they seek to transform and save today's apostate, pagan world through prayer.
What are the roots of such a
dreamy, naively enthusiastic approach to Christian life? Most likely, the cause
must be sought in the following: modern people have come to love the earth, the
world too much, they have loved their soul in this world, they have loved their
activity on earth, their fallen state, their wealth, their entire
"spiritual" culture, their arts, and their "progress." They
have dug into the earth and become entrenched in this world.
Second, the human mind has become
rationalistic, and people are now accustomed to thinking only in categories of
space and time. Anything that lies beyond the bounds of the visible world does
not fit into the concepts of the modern person. To understand, that is, to
accept on faith truly spiritual truths, one must step beyond one’s usual
thinking, surrender to faith, change, elevate the mind, as if stepping out of
one's rational mind. But for the rationalist, this is madness. Indeed, it was
this excessive logicality and fear of stepping out of one's reason that was
most often the cause of the rejection of dogmatic truths by the heretics
condemned and anathematized by the Church.
And third, spiritual
blindness—lack of real, untainted spiritual experience in discerning thoughts,
feelings, and actions, and ignorance of one's true spiritual state. The root of
all three of these evils lies in the hardening of man in his pride, in self-reliance,
and in self-assurance. From here arises the self-activity of modern
"preachers of Orthodoxy."
A person who sees their own sins,
who has recognized their own weakness, and a person who does not see their sin,
can both appear equally faithful and Orthodox, knowing the fundamental truths
of our faith and speaking the same correct things, but their spiritual
difference is immense. The entire life of a person who sees the beginnings of
passions in the depths of their heart, ready to kill them, is turned inward.
Their entire mindset is one of repentance, their actions are restrained and
modest. Their prayer is for the forgiveness of their sins, for the healing of
their leprous soul. When they are asked to pray for others, it is extremely
difficult for them, and when they pray for someone else, sweat pours down their
face like drops of rain; they would rather leave everything and everyone behind
and focus on saving their own soul. Such a person does not need to be told that
there is an inner life or what the main spiritual work should be—before them
lies their soul, slain by sin. Tears—what other labor could be more useful?
They may be accused of selfishness, of being closed in on themselves. But in
reality, their path is the only true one. Through repentance and tears for
their sins, praying to God to cleanse them, they truly become a new person, a "new
creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17). And the grace of God, resting in the
meek and humble heart, involuntarily draws the attention of others, who see in
them a model of truly spiritual Christian life and are themselves drawn to
correction.
A person who does not see their
own sin is in a strange, unnatural state of enthusiasm, as if intoxicated! What
should they occupy themselves with? They are unaware of any serious sins, and
inwardly, they see nothing significant, and if they do, they think, "So
what? God is merciful, He will forgive! We are all full of passions." Such
a person does not understand what they should do inwardly and thus rushes
outward. All their activity is external, constantly pouring out their own light
and goodness: charity, prayer for others, all of this is so "joyful"
for them! It would seem they are holy, and how favorably they compare to that
repentant Christian who is occupied with themselves. But in reality, this is a
terrible delusion! And how difficult it is to recognize this deception! True
spiritual sight is needed here, for it would reveal that, instead of Christ,
there is an idol of pride in the heart, an idol of self, which considers itself
the source of all goodness, not God.
It is important to understand: seeing
one’s own sin is not merely intellectual awareness of one’s faults, but a
repentant spirit, a zealous self-demanding, a hatred of deceit, hypocrisy,
pretense, a hatred of self-pleasing, artistry, and all falsehood within
oneself—not just obvious sinful desires. Seeing one’s sin is a gift from
God, the first gift of grace from the Holy Spirit to someone who sincerely
seeks God. It crushes the soul, humbles it, prevents it from thinking highly of
itself, sobers it, and brings attention inward. A person who has not seen their
own sin has not yet begun the spiritual life. Such a person, even if they give
advice, their advice lacks power; it comes from fantasy, from a dreamlike
state. The words of such a person are slogans, their actions are theatrical.
Their knowledge of spiritual life is amateurish, their preaching is literary.
Their energy does not come from zeal for true godliness, but from a thirst for
activity in this world, and their "self-sacrifice" is not an effort
to "lose their soul" for their own salvation, but rather to revive it
to avoid the death in Christ that is required of a Christian. Such a person
does not bear the Cross of Christ, but rather parades with a cross, deceiving
themselves and others.
Let us recall the story of St.
Peter of Damascus: once, an elder was dying, whom people revered as a saint,
their spiritual father, and they wept inconsolably by his bed. But to another
elder, truly spiritual, it was revealed by God that the dying man had never,
for even a moment, allowed the Lord to rest in his heart. St. Peter of
Damascus explained that what had prevented the Lord from resting in the heart
of this elder, so highly esteemed by the people, was pride and self-conceit—dangers
in the spiritual life more terrifying than anything else.
And it is precisely from
ignorance of one's corruption by sin, from a lack of understanding of the very
process of illness, from self-assurance and boasting about one’s own goodness
and efforts that a cold, dismissive attitude toward dogmas is born. This often
happens with people who are only interested in moral and ascetic matters: they
do not see the connection between dogma and life. Because of this, they often
think, "Why do we need dogmas?" "What difference is there
between religions?" "Is there even any difference?" and similar
thoughts. But there sometimes comes a state in spiritual life when a person
becomes completely disillusioned with their own strength and, no longer relying
on themselves, out of necessity turns to supernatural help—to God. It is here
that the great, and even the only truly important, value of the "so-called
dogmas" is revealed.
The increasingly widespread
tendency toward adogmatism, which is highly, highly dangerous, often does not
deny the truth of divine dogmas themselves but rather denies the necessity of
clearly knowing them for moral and spiritual Christian life. This perspective
regards dogmas as something abstract, unrelated to real life, devalues them,
considers them practically unnecessary, and denies the inseparable connection
between dogmas and commandments. Yet, again, when a person becomes
disillusioned with their own strength, it suddenly turns out that
"dogmas" are not merely "truths," that is, not abstract
ideas, not just knowledge, not a subject of intellectual belief or cold
acknowledgment, not simply teachings. On the contrary, in them lies the most
authentic life, or, better yet, they are the very life of the soul itself. The
Christian moral life, our good behavior, is founded on, rooted in, and derives
its strength from them. For the life of the soul is participation in that
supernatural life which the dogmas describe in abstract terms.
At this point, dogmas take on
central significance, and "moral issues" become derivative,
subordinate, secondary. When the soul experiences this, it moves from interest
in moral and ascetic questions to a "life rooted in dogmas," and these
dogmas become the most precious thing to it. A heartfelt relationship to
dogmas begins, not just an intellectual one; initial knowledge transitions into
communion, and this communion or inner union brings true knowledge. The Creed
itself no longer seems a cold "acknowledgment" but a living confession,
a fervent testimony of inner communion with God, of heartfelt love for Him.
What once appeared as cold dogmatic truths suddenly ignite with inner fire and
warm the heart more than any other means, for life from God pours into the
heart of the one who confesses Him. To faith united with love, God responds
with self-revelation, or communion, and to the invocation of His Name, He
responds with Life in Him.
It is essential to understand
that Orthodoxy is not merely a teaching about God and man, not a philosophical
system trying to explain the world through abstract concepts and theoretical
formulas, but the most real, actual life in God—a constant, living, and active
communion with Him. No other religion has even the slightest notion of the true
mystical experience that Orthodoxy possesses. This is precisely why we believe
in the sanctity of our dogmas—because they are the most direct reflection, the
imprint on the level of reason, of what has been revealed to humanity through
mystical experience. The theology of the Church, the dogmas of our faith, are
the common expression of what has been experientially known by Christian
ascetics, and these are the God-revealed truths that can be experientially
known by every Orthodox believer.
As it is said, "Christian
theology is only a means, a certain body of knowledge meant to serve the
purpose that surpasses all knowledge. This ultimate purpose is union with God,
or theosis." [2] And thus, "Christian theory holds the
highest practical significance, and the more mystical this theory is, the more
directly it is aimed at its highest goal—union with God—the more 'practical' it
becomes." [3] The teaching of the Church is intimately connected with the
inner experience, revealed to the believer in varying degrees. "And the
complex struggle for the dogmas, which the Church has waged for centuries,
appears to us, if viewed from a purely spiritual perspective, as above all the
Church's tireless effort in every historical epoch to ensure Christians the
possibility of attaining the fullness of mystical union with God."
Indeed, the Church fights against
the Gnostics to defend the very idea of theosis as the ultimate goal:
"God became man so that man could become God." It asserts the dogma
of the consubstantial Trinity against the Arians, for it is the Word, the
Logos, that opens the path to union with the Divine, and if the incarnate Word is
not of the same essence as the Father, if it is not truly God, then our theosis
is impossible. The Church condemns the teachings of the Nestorians to break
down the barrier they sought to place between man and God within Christ
Himself. It opposes the teachings of Apollinarius and the Monophysites to
demonstrate that since the true nature of man in all its fullness was taken up
by the Word, our nature in its entirety must enter into union with God. It
fights against the Monothelites because without the union of the two wills in
Christ—the Divine will and the human will—our theosis is impossible:
"God created man by His single will, but He cannot save him without the
cooperation of the human will." The Church triumphs in the struggle for
icon veneration, affirming the possibility of expressing divine realities in
matter as a symbol and pledge of our theosis.
In the subsequent questions that
arose—about the Holy Spirit, about grace, about the very Church itself—the
dogmatic issues presented by our time, the Church's main concern and the reason
for its struggles have always been the affirmation and demonstration of the
possibility, mode, and means of union between man and God. The entire history
of Christian dogma revolves around the same mystical core, which has been
defended throughout successive eras with various weapons against a multitude of
different adversaries. The theological systems developed during and as part of
this struggle can be viewed in their direct relationship to the ultimate goal
they were meant to serve. [4] This goal is the union of man with God. In this
sense, we perceive them as they should be— as the very foundation of Christian
life.
Today, for some, the words
"dogma" and "dogmatic theology" have almost become
derogatory, as if dogma is an enemy of life. But the absence of dogma is an
open door to all deceptions. Adogmatism teaches Christians to stop thinking, to
stop distinguishing true doctrine from falsehood. Dogma or heresy—this is light
or darkness, good or evil, love or hatred, life or death. Acceptance of dogmas
is the sole condition for knowing the truth and for freeing a person from all
falsehood and from performing the works of the "father of lies." Zeal
without true, grace-filled knowledge of dogma can turn into fanaticism, just as
knowledge without zeal can remain dead, not leading to salvation.
Church Christianity stands for
dogmas, yet it nevertheless shows tolerance toward the misguided. According to
St. Theophan the Recluse, "True religious tolerance sincerely loves and
reverently honors its own singular faith (that is, the Orthodox faith), is
zealous for its purity and glory, rejoices in its elevation, but at the same
time makes room beside it for other faiths—not because it considers them equal
in honor or salvific, but out of condescension to the weaknesses of those who
are in error. It does not oppress, persecute, or harass; but at the same time,
it does not miss the opportunity to lovingly point out the error and
offer, to free conviction and conscience, the choice of what is better."
[5]
Dogma delivers a strict judgment
upon those Christian communities that ignore the long history of the Church and
begin to build their own "Christianity" anew. In dogmatic theology,
the essence of Christian faith is expressed—the God-revealed knowledge
proclaimed in the Gospel, preached by the apostles, unfolded and carried
through the centuries by the Fathers of the Church, and confirmed in the lived
experience of the greatest Saints in both life and death. Therefore, dogma is
the cherubic sword, falling between the Spirit, which is truth (1 John 5:6),
and the spirit of error (1 John 4:6)—that is, between Christ and Antichrist,
between the Christian and the world. The dogmas of the true faith describe the
conditions for the possibility of our salvation! Can there ever be an era in
which the dogmatic disagreements between God-revealed tradition and heresies
would become irrelevant?
Indifference in matters of faith
is a plague upon humanity. St. Theophan says: "If only one faith leads to
salvation, and all other beliefs do not save but bring ruin, then does not the
one who holds people in these false beliefs destroy all those whom they keep in
them? When a deadly disease is raging and a skilled doctor invents the only
cure, anyone who says, 'It’s fine, any medicine will do,' destroys all who
listen to him. Such is indifference: it weakens and kills the spirit. The one
who holds this view is almost like an unbeliever, for it is evident that for
him, faith is a peripheral matter, something he holds by habit, in imitation of
others, or even worse, as some kind of political tool. All these accusations
also fall upon those who say: 'It doesn’t matter, as long as it is a Christian
faith, any kind will do.' Where does this thought come from? The apostles cared
so zealously for unity of mind, worked so diligently to restore it whenever it
was disrupted, and fought so strictly against those of differing opinions that
they decreed excommunication for them. And now it has become customary to say:
'It doesn’t matter, as long as it’s Christian,' even if it is heresy? How then
did the Lord say: 'If he refuses to listen to the Church, let him be to you
as a heathen and publican' (Matthew 18:17)? And how, throughout its entire
history, did the Church so vigorously battle and arm itself against all those
of different opinions? Was all of this for nothing?" [6]
It is important to pay attention
to how ecumenism, in destroying the "walls of division"—that is, the
system of dogmas—employs entirely deceitful methods: religious concepts, terms,
and the meaning of quoted passages are blurred, substituted, shuffled, and
turned upside down. From what appear to be the same holy and cherished words
comes a completely unheard-of teaching! For example, Western theologians bring
to the forefront the "merciful neighbor" instead of the
"merciful God." A shift in emphasis within a dogma inevitably affects
spiritual life: the second commandment—love for one's neighbor—begins to take
the place of the first commandment—love for God. (And if love for one’s
neighbor gains such dominance, as St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain asserts,
it can lead us away from love for God, cause us great harm, and plunge us into
destruction.) Words are chosen and arranged in such a way as to accommodate the
modern human mindset. People no longer speak about redemption but about
"liberation," with all the ambiguity this term entails. Opinions
arise that the dogmatic content can be expressed in different verbal
formulations, that there is no absolute truth, no dominant ideology—there are
many ideologies, each of which is partly true. There is not one Truth—there are
many relative, partial truths.
But this is a terrible and
destructive delusion. "Science and philosophy ask the question: WHAT is
truth? Whereas genuine Christian religious consciousness is always directed
toward the truth of 'WHO.' They do not understand the negativity of their 'WHAT';
they do not understand that true, absolute Truth can only be 'WHO' and not
'WHAT,' because TRUTH is not an abstract formula or idea, but it is LIFE
ITSELF. In religious life, a person who descends into the path of rational
searching inevitably falls into a pantheistic worldview. Every time the
theological mind tries by its own power to comprehend the truth about God, it
fatally falls into the same error as science, philosophy, and pantheism—namely,
the search for and contemplation of the truth as 'WHAT.' The truth of 'WHO'
cannot be comprehended by reason. God, as 'WHO,' is known only through
communion in being, that is, only by the Holy Spirit." [7] Now let us ask:
Can Truth—'WHO'—be broken into fragments, losing its fullness and wholeness?
Ecumenist views, and modern
thinking in general, are characterized by fragmentation, a mosaic-like
approach, and a disconnection in the holistic religious perception of doctrine,
worship, and all aspects of life, whether spiritual or material. A holistic
dogmatic perception implies monism, an approach that proceeds from one
question: "To what extent is this beneficial for the salvation of my
soul?" Or, conversely: "To what extent does this distract me from the
Christian path?" Fragmented consciousness, on the other hand, does not
care much about the salvation of the soul, and thus cannot find a single true
criterion for evaluation. It lacks unity—a comprehensive attitude toward life,
a holistic worldview—and lacks a singular, Gospel-based law that should guide
all actions, thoughts, and emotional movements of a Christian.
This is why a "Christian
liberal" might attend church services to "satisfy their religious
needs" while simultaneously finding aesthetic enjoyment in the vulgarity
of Hollywood films, and in their scientific work, might promote pantheism,
Darwinism, or other non-Christian views. In the realm of reason, the loss of
intellectual sovereignty combined with intuitionism leads to spontaneity, where
a person gets used to expressing opinions "on the fly" without
thoughtful consideration. This results in strong suggestibility, a readiness to
believe any foolishness if it is wrapped in a beautiful package and presented
with great confidence. Such a person allows themselves to make judgments that
are neither logically justified by dogmas nor by rational arguments, but are
born solely from the emotions of the heart and secular values. They introduce
anthropomorphic judgments into their ideas about God, adapting the truth to fit
their personal views. The secularization of consciousness and the dominance of
the mind by emotions lead to open heresy, where it is not the conscience and
life of a person that are judged by dogmas, but rather dogmas are accepted or
rejected based on whether they align with a person's own views of God and
whether they do not offend their conscience. In this way, the individual
performs a heretical selection, acting according to "personal taste"
or even whim, choosing from the system of doctrine the dogmas and moral demands
that they "like," while discarding others.
This creates an overall
atmosphere of ambiguity and subjectivity, where the criteria of Truth and
Goodness become blurred in a gray mist. From this arises a misunderstanding of
the laws of spiritual life, a desire to skip certain stages of it, a thirst for
Christian love without the Cross, a substitution of true love with imaginary,
delusional love, a replacement of reason with imagination, and of common sense
with subjective arbitrariness. The modern world exhibits a remarkable
insensitivity to sin, an unwillingness to see its own sinfulness, which
condemns it. As a result, a theology emerges that directly contradicts
Christian teaching on many important points. [8]
Ecumenists constantly repeat the
words "PEACE," "LOVE," and "UNITY." But they
imbue these words with a meaning that is far from Christian. Are they not like
those preachers to whom the words of Scripture refer: "…and from the
prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. They have healed also
the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when
there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay,
they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall
fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast
down." (Jer. 6:13-15)? The Lord also says: " Think not that I
am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am
come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her
mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall
be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is
not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy
of me." (Matt. 10:34-37). "Peace I leave with you, my peace I
give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be
troubled, neither let it be afraid." (John 14:27).
We must never forget that in this
world, there is a constant struggle between God and the devil, between Truth
and sin. This struggle occurs not only in the world and in heaven but also
within the very nature of man, including his mind and body. This is a battle
that encompasses the entire universe. Therefore, we are still far from
"peace" and "unity"—our task now is to seek reconciliation
with God through the fight against sin and everything sinful, through
separation from those who teach falsely about salvation, who sin and lead
others into sin, and through a relentless battle with ourselves, with
everything passionate and corrupt within us.
Thus, pastors are required first
and foremost to speak words of rebuke—often harsh words that cut through sin
and falsehood, words that awaken and instill fear. The Last Judgment is near;
it is not the time for sweet, deceitful, ear-pleasing speeches. Let us recall
the recently glorified saint of Georgia, Bishop Gabriel Kikodze, and his fiery
sermons, born from pain and love for his people. He did not flatter his flock's
ears but exposed all the sores of the apostate world before them. Such words
are needed today more than ever! "The path of salvation is harsh,"
said the well-known ascetic Abbess Arsenia. "And sometimes the word spoken
about it is harsh—it is a double-edged sword that cuts through our passions and
sensuality, causing pain in the heart from which they are excised. Will there
ever be a time when this sword will no longer have work to do in our
hearts?" [9]
Christianity, "freed"
from this heartache, from this sword that cuts and divides, which has fallen in
love with this world, lying in wickedness, and seeks to comfort and indulge man
in his sick, fallen state, no longer raising him from his fall through rebuke,
prohibition, and exhortation with all authority (2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:13,
2:15)—such Christianity without the Cross, without salt, is nothing more than a
pretty veil behind which sin lives and thrives.
Love for one's neighbor is
impossible without victory over one's passions, without pain, without struggle,
without blood, without hatred of one's own soul in this world, without losing
it for Christ's sake. To truly love one's neighbor, "you must place them
where you stand yourself, which means you must first step down from where you
stand. And where is that place? It is the whole world, visible and invisible.
Selfishness has seized everything for itself and does not want to yield
anything to its neighbor. So how can the soul love its neighbor when it feels
that the neighbor is taking everything from it, with just as much right to it
as it has? One must take everything from oneself to yield everything to the
neighbor, and only then, together with the neighbor, will the soul find the
Lord." [10]
The proponents of ecumenism,
perhaps without realizing it, are reviving the heresy of chiliasm: they want to
bake themselves a delicious loaf of bread from this wheat even before the Last
Judgment, before the wheat is separated from the tares. They want to establish
a kingdom of peace and happiness on earth now, bypassing the Cross and all the
sufferings and divisions associated with it. Hence the constant enthusiastic
expectations of the "dawning" of spirituality, faith, and
religiosity. But we must note that today the very concepts of religion and the
Church are deeply confused. Unfortunately, "in the eyes of many of our
contemporaries, the differences between religions have lost their significance,
and it is enough to believe in God for the concept of the Church to dissolve
into the general concept of religion (and not just Christian religion). As a
result, we are left with a concept of the Church that is either distorted or
vague, merging indistinctly with the general notion of Christianity."
Ecclesiology has ceased to be popular. Secular interpretations and various
forms of charismatic movements have made ecclesiology seem unnecessary. The
Church has come to be seen almost as an idol or, at the very least, an obstacle
to humanity's recognition of its calling in history and to the direct reception
of spiritual gifts.
Chaos and indifference reign in
both the dogmatic and canonical spheres. We have suddenly
"understood" something that the Holy Fathers did not: that the canons
are "human inventions" and not the realization of the Church's dogmas
in life. "Councils and canons—these are all outdated," and now the
prerogative of the Council ("It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to
us") is transferred to each individual. [11]
One can speak at length about
ecumenism, for in the end, it would be necessary to raise the entire teaching
of the Holy Fathers—not only about dogmas but about all aspects of spiritual
life—because the terrible distortion at the heart of this movement lies, above
all, in the departure from the spiritual center of Orthodox teaching, in the
deviation from the main axis of all Christian life—the Cross, the spirit of
repentance, the spirit of humility. Therefore, the entire structure of
ecumenism, no matter how adorned it may appear, is built on a different
foundation—on the sand of human self-will. It is a "Resurrection"
before the death on Golgotha, a "Pascha" before Holy Week. The entire
tree of ecumenism grows on the soil of apostasy; it is entirely an evil seed,
the very tares that the Angels of God will burn in unquenchable fire. It is
utterly mistaken to think that with "certain diplomacy," we can
gather nourishing and beneficial fruits from this tree. "Do men gather
grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?" (Matt. 7:16).
"Therefore, brothers,"
says St. John of Damascus, "let us stand firm on the Church Tradition, as
on the rock of our faith, not moving the boundaries set by our Holy Fathers,
and not giving place to those who desire innovations and the destruction of the
building of the Holy, Godly, Universal, and Apostolic Church, for if everyone
acts according to their own will, little by little, the entire Body of the
Church will be destroyed!"
Amen.
1. Outline of the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Moscow.
1991. p. 20.
2. Vladimir Lossky. Outline of the Mystical Theology of the
Eastern Church. Moscow. 1991. p. 20.
3. Ibid.
4. Vladimir Lossky. Outline of the Mystical Theology of the
Eastern Church. Moscow. 1991. pp. 10–11.
5. St. Theophan the Recluse. Homilies on the Lord's and Theotokos' Days.
6. St. Theophan the Recluse. Outline of Christian Moral Teaching.
Vol. 2. Moscow. 1994. pp. 360–361. See also the article by Protopriest
Alexander Shargunov, "The Cherubic Sword," Trinity Word, 1990.
7. Schema-Archimandrite Sophrony
(Sakharov). Elder Silouan. Moscow,
1996. p. 102.
8. See the aforementioned article
The Cherubic Sword.
9. Abbess Arsenia. Holy Dormition Pskov-Caves Monastery.
1994. p. 135.
10. Ibid. p. 162.
11. Leonid Ouspensky. Theology of the Icon in the Orthodox Church.
Moscow. 1994. p. 447.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.