Mihai-Silviu Chirilă,
theologian | May 19, 2017
Argument
After the council of Crete, the
defenders of the "Orthodox confession" that this assembly would have
made to the whole world tried to demonstrate that there is no reason for the
council to be considered heretical, that some controversial decisions were made
there, but not so serious as to be incapable of being corrected at another
council of the same nature as the one in Kolymbari. An analogy was even made
with the Second Ecumenical Council, ignoring the fact that it did not correct
serious errors allegedly committed by the First Council, but only developed the
correct doctrines of the First Council, which it also reinforced through its
first canon.
Most of the arguments were
formulated around the expression in Article 6 of the synodal document The
Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World,
which "admits the historical designation of churches and heterodox
confessions," [1] vehemently criticized by those opposing the Cretan
council.
Some pro-synodal arguments have
attempted to promote the idea that other official documents of the Church (the
documents of the 1484 Synod of Constantinople, the patriarchal encyclical of
1848) also contain references to a certain ecclesiality attributed to Roman
Catholics, or that many contemporary theologians use this formulation. This
argumentation ignores several aspects:
1. The document of the
15th-century council is one through which the Orthodox Church breaks the
artificial connection created with Rome by the uncanonical council of
Ferrara-Florence. Held in a context dominated by Turkish supremacy over
Orthodox territories and the instability of the patriarchs on the throne of the
Great Church of Constantinople—whose appointment and removal depended on the
intrigues at the Turkish court—the 1484 council discussed, among other things,
the manner of receiving back into Orthodoxy those who lived in territories
dominated by Latins and had accepted the Latin supremacy promoted by the
council of Ferrara. From the accounts preserved in the documents and by
historians, the council primarily referred to Greeks who had accepted Catholic
supremacy in territories ruled by Latins. The decision to receive them back
solely through chrismation did not imply the acceptance of Catholic baptism or
the recognition of papist ecclesiality, and the decision was made at the end of
a theological dispute in which there was also an opposing opinion. [2] In the
decision taken in 1484, all aspects must be considered: Latin influence, the
influence of Ottoman rule, political games, the personal theological opinions
of those involved in the process, and the nature of the converts to whom
chrismation was applied (most of them being Greeks who wanted to return to the
Mother Church after escaping Latin political supremacy). This theological
dispute regarding the baptism of heretical converts was resolved by the Oros
of 1755, which decided that all who come to Orthodoxy from heretics must be
rebaptized. [3] The Oros was strongly contested by papal envoys and by
some Enlightenment-inspired metropolitans, contributing to the deposition of
the patriarch who promulgated it, which indicates the political atmosphere in
which these decisions were made.
2. The 19th-century patriarchal
document describes Papism through an analogy with ancient Arianism, foretelling
that it will not prevail until the end. [4] It considers filioque a
heresy and other papist teachings as innovations, calling papist missionaries
"soul traffickers." In the text, the reference to the "Catholic
Church" pertains to the universal Church, not the papist heresy, while the
provision regarding the entry of innovations into the "Church of the
West" refers to the Western Church before the schism of 1054, when the
West was in communion with the Church of Christ. Regarding the canonical
primacy of Rome, the encyclical states that it existed as long as the See of Rome
"remained pure according to the doctrines of the Holy Fathers, adhering to
the infallible rule of Holy Scripture and the holy Councils." However,
after its fall into heresy, "this primacy degenerated from a fraternal and
hierarchically privileged see to supremacy." [5]
3. Even if it were true that
those documents referred to Papism with the term "Church," and even
if it were true that at that time Papism possessed certain ecclesial traits,
its enormous falls after the mid-19th century—when the First and Second Vatican
Councils proclaimed the supremacy and quasi-divine status of the pope, along
with other heretical doctrines—render any reference to a past situation
irrelevant in the present. This is because it is in the nature of a heresy to
diverge, over time, ever further from the truth of the Orthodox faith.
In addressing this matter, the
defenders of the council of Crete encountered the following paradoxical
situation: on the one hand, they attempt to demonstrate that Crete followed an
older Orthodox line that somewhat recognizes a kind of ecclesiality in Papism
and even Protestantism, while on the other hand, it is emphatically stated that
the council did not in any way recognize those communities as "churches"
but merely performed an “act of courtesy” by acknowledging the reality that
they call themselves so.
An argument was even constructed
suggesting that the mere fact that their designation was recognized means
nothing, as it does not imply that it was also affirmed that they are
"churches," as if it were possible to acknowledge the designation of
something while denying the reasons that justify that thing having such a
designation.
The only stumbling block for all
those who positioned themselves in favor of the council of Crete was the
reality that Article 19 of the document on relations with the rest of the
Christian world accepted the Toronto Declaration, whose ecclesiological
premises were considered of paramount importance for the participation of
Orthodox Churches in the World Council of Churches. Most opinions of the
council's apologists converge on the idea that only the ecclesiological
premises cited in the text were accepted on that occasion, without, however,
being able to explain:
1. How is it that the wording in
the text uses an undefined plural, which implies that all the ecclesiological
premises of that document are acceptable and vital?
2. Why were four favorable
opinions selected from a text that, as a whole, is entirely heretical?
3. Why was it not specified that
the Orthodox Churches consider the rest of the premises in the Declaration
heretical and condemn them?
In this study, we aim to
demonstrate that the key to understanding the heretical nature of the
council of Crete lies in its acceptance of the Toronto Declaration.
All the decisions included by the council in the document The Relations of
the Orthodox Churches with the Rest of the Christian World are in the
spirit of this heretical ecumenist declaration and must be understood through
its lens.
What is the Toronto
Declaration?
In 1950, two years after the
first General Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Amsterdam, the
Central Committee of the WCC drafted a declaration that entered history under
the name The Toronto Declaration. Alongside the WCC Constitution, the Toronto
Declaration is considered one of the pillars of the ecumenist movement,
sometimes even referred to as the "Magna Carta" of the WCC.
The Toronto Declaration
was drafted by the WCC secretary Willem Visser’t Hooft, together with his
colleague Oliver Tomkins, [6] and is the result of prior consultation with
Roman Catholic theologians [7] and some Orthodox theologians, among whom
Protopresbyter George Florovsky contributed. The purpose of this declaration
was to develop a concept of what the World Council of Churches represents and
what it is not. The idea underlying this declaration was to create a space that
would take into account the existing diversity within the Christian sphere,
including ecclesiological and dogmatic diversity. As the Russian ecumenist
Vitaly Borovoy states, the declaration is what created a space for
ecclesiological diversity. [8]
In the form in which it was
approved, the Toronto Declaration attempts to outline some general
principles regarding how the WCC should function and relate to its member
“churches,” but it also contains a few fundamental principles concerning what
the Church is from an ecumenist perspective. This document draws attention
through its ambivalent, somewhat schizophrenic language, which generally
accompanies any ecumenist document.
The Toronto Declaration
consists of four parts: an introduction, which links it to the resolution on
the "authority of the Church" adopted by the Amsterdam Assembly; an
argument advocating the necessity of clarifying the status of the WCC; a
section defining what the WCC is not; and a final section defining what the WCC
is and, especially, what the Church is from the WCC's perspective.
What is relevant for the purpose
of our study is the fact that the ecumenists have considered, in the name of
the Orthodox Church, and continue to consider even today, through the decisions
of the council of Crete, the Toronto Declaration as essential for
Orthodox participation in the WCC.
The reason for such an attitude
lies in what theologians call the "negative language" of the
document, namely the section that states what the WCC is not. This section
contains certain principles that Orthodox participants in the ecumenist dialogue
consider sufficient to guarantee the participation of the Orthodox Church in
this dialogue without being compelled to make concessions regarding Orthodox
ecclesiology. Some Protestant theologians involved in the ecumenist dialogue
have even criticized the Declaration, arguing that by asserting this
neutrality of the WCC, it makes too great a concession to the Orthodox,
reducing the role of the WCC to that of a mere discussion forum. [9] In
practice, however, ecclesiological neutrality has never truly been respected.
"Negative
Language"
The main provisions of the Declaration
[10] concerning what the WCC is not, broadly cited in Article 19 of the synodal
document from Crete, The Relationship of the Orthodox Church with the Rest
of the Christian World, are as follows:
1. The World Council of Churches
is not and should never become a super-church (premise III.1).
2. The purpose of the World
Council of Churches is not to negotiate unions between churches, which can only
be undertaken by the churches themselves, on their own initiative, but to bring
the churches into living contact with one another and to promote the study and
discussion of issues related to the unity of the Church (premise III.2).
3. The World Council cannot and
should not be based on any particular conception of the Church (premise III.3).
4. Membership in the World
Council of Churches does not imply that a church relativizes its own conception
of the Church (premise III.4).
5. Membership in the World
Council does not imply acceptance of a specific doctrine concerning the nature
of the Church (premise III.5).
6. The member churches of the
World Council consider the relationship of other churches to the Holy Catholic
Church, as confessed in the Creeds, to be a subject of mutual consideration.
However, membership does not imply that each church must regard the other
churches as true and complete churches in the fullest sense of the term
(premise IV.4).
All these principles articulated
in the Declaration appeared to Orthodox theologians participating in the
ecumenist dialogue as a strong guarantee for becoming members of the World
Council of Churches or for remaining involved in this initiative. This is
despite the fact that the rest of the document contains ecclesiological views
contrary to Orthodox ecclesiology, thereby contradicting the WCC's claims of
ecclesiological neutrality.
We will further analyze these
ecclesiological principles invoked in Crete and demonstrate that, even if we
were to disregard the rest of the heretical Toronto Declaration, these
principles themselves have a heretical content and, through the contradiction
in terms contained in their formulation, represent a chimera, not a solid
guarantee of a specific behavior within the WCC.
"The WCC is
not and will not be a super-church" (Premise III.1)
The most appealing promise for
Orthodox theologians was the premise that the WCC would never become a
"super-church" and, in principle, would never adopt ecclesial
characteristics. However, as early as 1961, upon the approval of the Toronto
Declaration by the WCC General Assembly in New Delhi, a document titled Report
on Unity stated in Article 49: "We are at least able to say that the
World Council is not something entirely different from the member churches. It
represents the churches in continuous synod" [11] (emphasis added).
In other words, the WCC does not constitute itself as a “super-church,” but as
the supreme deliberative body of the ecumenist-type "church," its
permanent synod. This idea is reinforced by the blasphemy at the end of the
mentioned paragraph, which states: "Many Christians are now aware that the
Council is, in a new and unprecedented way, an instrument of the Holy Spirit,
through which the will of God for the whole Church and, through the Church, for
the entire world is being realized."
From the Orthodox perspective,
synodal governance of the Church is what defines its catholicity (sobornost).
By accepting this point of view as a promise that the WCC would not become a
super-church, the concept of the WCC’s "sobornost" as the governing
body of the "Church of Christ," as formulated in the New Delhi
Declaration, was also accepted. If we draw an analogy with the synodal
governance of the universal Orthodox Church, in which each local Church is a
fully empowered member by virtue of the fullness of grace and the orthodoxy of
faith, we can say that the WCC conceives all its participating members in this
"continuous synod" as "complete churches," existing in a
full state of grace. Otherwise, how could they participate together in this
"synod through which the Holy Spirit speaks"? A practical
application of the branch theory.
The Theory of the
"Lost Unity of the Church" (Premise III.2)
The second premise outlines the
assumed goal of the WCC: to place "churches" in living contact and to
promote the study and discussion of issues related to the unity of the
Church. It is evident that the "Church" referred to in this WCC
premise is not the Orthodox Church but what the document calls the "true
Church of Christ," the "Holy Catholic Church confessed by the
Creeds." From this, it follows that the Orthodox Church, through a
heretical decision of a pan-Orthodox council, has committed itself to participating
in the realization of the unity of a "Church" other than the Orthodox
one, which contradicts the purpose and mission of our Church.
When questioned, Orthodox
ecumenists give a terse response that the purpose of our Church’s presence on
this heretical platform for religious dialogue is “to bear witness.” The
decision of October 26, 2016, by the Synod of the Holy Romanian Orthodox Church
states that "the Great and Holy Council bore witness that the Orthodox
Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." However, Premise
III.2 of the Declaration stipulates that "the purpose of the WCC
is… to bring the Churches into living contact with one another and to promote
the study and discussion of issues related to the unity of the Church." It
speaks of a living contact between "churches," meaning a very real
ecclesial relationship between Orthodox and heretics, with the goal of
achieving the unity of the Church.
Nowhere in the history of the
Orthodox Church is there mention of establishing a living contact between
the Church of Christ and heresies. A living contact implies two living
entities, which in turn presupposes the recognition by the Orthodox Church of a
certain ecclesiality in the dialogue partners.
We cannot understand the
ecumenist concept of "studying and discussing issues related to the unity
of the Church" without connecting it to other premises of the Declaration,
which reveal the WCC's conception of the "Church of Christ," on the
one hand, and the "member churches," on the other.
Thus, by subscribing to the WCC’s
goal of "studying and discussing issues related to the unity of the
Church," the council of Crete implicitly accepts that "the member
churches of the Council believe that the conversation, cooperation, and common
witness of the churches must be based on the mutual recognition that Christ is
the Divine Head of the Body" (Premise IV.1). This premise asserts that Christ
is the Head of all denominations claiming Christian identity, which, in
turn, would be parts of the Body whose Head is Christ. The Declaration
supports this heretical idea based on a statement by an Orthodox delegation at
the ecumenist meeting in Edinburgh in 1937, which stated: "Despite all the
differences that exist among us, our common Lord and Master is One – Jesus
Christ, who will lead us to increasingly closer collaboration for the building
up of the Body of Christ." The idea that Christ is the Head of all
heresies is a blasphemy that Orthodox participants in the ecumenist
dialogue overlook—or, even worse, some of them actually believe.
From this heretical idea, all
other ecumenist conceptions about the nature of the Church can arise, because
if we accept that Christ is the Head of all Christian communities, then all of
them become scattered members of the same Body. In reality, however, Christ is
only the Head of the Orthodox Church; all other heresies are severed from the
Body of the Church, whose Head is Christ. Premise IV.1 states in its commentary
that "no relationship among the member churches can have substance or
promise anything unless it begins with the shared submission of the churches to
the Head, Who is Christ, in the Church." The idea that Christ is the Head
of all “churches” would obligate them "to enter into a real and close
relationship with one another." Although it is suggested that
participation in ecumenist dialogues is strictly a matter of bearing witness,
Orthodox ecumenists accept entering into a "real and close relationship"
with heresies, which they consider part of the Church of Christ. The goal of
the WCC remains the realization of the visible unity of the Church by
harmonizing the "differences" that exist among those who "submit
to Christ as Head."
Another premise, seemingly
correct, is: "The member churches of the World Council believe, based on
the New Testament, that the Church of Christ is one" (Premise IV.2). The
premise is seemingly correct because, in itself, it is true: the Church of
Christ is indeed one. However, the testimony of the New Testament is also
reinforced by the Holy Tradition of the Church, especially by the apologetic
and canonical writings, which very clearly delineate the boundary between the
Church and heresy. Regarding Holy Tradition, in a manner reminiscent of sola
Scriptura, the premise says nothing. The explanation of this premise
addresses the discrepancy between the New Testament affirmation that the Church
is one and the reality that "there are so many churches claiming to be
churches of Christ, but they do not live in unity with one another."
In reality, however, the Church
is One, as described in the New Testament and confessed by the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and it is solely the Orthodox Church. Outside
of it, there exist only heresies and schisms. It cannot be said that there are
multiple "churches" claiming to be "churches of Christ,"
nor can there be talk of "a simple Christian duty to do everything to
manifest the Church in its uniqueness," as the explanation of the premise
states, in the sense that the Church of Christ would also include heresies and
schisms outside of it.
Lastly, to understand how the WCC
intends to fulfill its goal of studying and discussing matters concerning the
unity of the Church, we must consider an extremely controversial premise: "The
member churches of the World Council recognize in other churches elements of
the true Church. They believe that this mutual recognition obliges them to
enter into a very serious conversation, with the hope that those elements of
truth will lead them to the recognition of the whole truth and to unity based
on full truth" (Premise IV.5).
This premise, inspired by
Protestant theology regarding the "signs that indicate the unity of the
Church," considers these elements to be: the preaching of the Word, the
teaching of the Holy Scriptures, and the administration of the Sacraments. From
the perspective of Orthodox doctrine, there can be no preaching of the Word
outside the Church, as heresies emerged in history precisely as a result of
preaching teachings other than the life-giving Word. The teaching of the Holy
Scriptures, in the Orthodox Church, is carried out in the light of Holy
Tradition, that is, patristic thought, not based on "personal
revelations," as often occurs in the Protestant world, for example. Apostolic
Canons 45 and 46, along with many others, make it clear that outside the
Orthodox Church, there can be no administration of the Sacraments, as the
Sacraments convey the divine Grace necessary for salvation, while heresies and
schisms are severed from divine Grace. Moreover, the Catholic or Protestant
conception of the created nature of Grace results in the "sacraments"
they practice transmitting something other than divine Grace.
The idea that revealed truth is
dispersed among the various self-proclaimed Christian confessions is foreign to
the Orthodox Church, which is the depository of the entire revealed truth, as
it was given by the Savior, preached by the apostles, and preserved by the
Church from their time to the present day. "The full truth" cannot be
recognized by pooling "confessional truths" but rather by removing
from divine Revelation all human inventions introduced into the lives of those
who have separated from Orthodoxy through heresy and schism.
Premise IV.6: "The member
churches of the Council are willing to consult together to try to discern from
the Lord Jesus Christ what witness He wants them to bear to the world in His
name" postulates nothing less than the joint witness of Christ before
the world by the Orthodox Church alongside heresies and schisms. The
explanation of this premise speaks again of the "common Lord" and
also of "a common witness" before the world. Although it is not
always possible for "churches" to bear common witness, the Declaration
states that when they meet, "the churches can gratefully accept [to bear
common witness], as a gracious gift from God, that, despite their divisions, He
has enabled them to bear one and the same witness."
Another premise, directly related
to the previous ones, is Premise V.8: "The member churches enter into a
spiritual relationship in which they seek to learn from one another and to
offer mutual support, so that the Body of Christ may be built up and church
life renewed."
The premises contain several
ideas dangerous to Orthodox ecclesiology:
- It reaffirms that Orthodoxy enters into a
spiritual relationship with heresies.
- It asserts that within this "spiritual
relationship," the Orthodox Church learns from heresies.
- It proclaims the blasphemy that the Body of Christ
is built up within the relationship between Orthodoxy and heresies.
- It promotes the idea of an aggiornamento of
church life.
This is also discussed in the
previous premise. Both contain the idea of cooperation on certain aspects of
church life, which are subject to evolution and change, particularly in
practical matters and issues faced by all Christian communities. The danger of
this premise lies in the postulation of practical cooperation between Orthodox
Christians and heretics, with catastrophic effects on the Orthodox dogmatic
consciousness.
The World Council of Churches has
two branches: a "theological" one, called Faith and Order,
praised in the document from the council of Crete, and a "diaconal"
one, Life and Work. The theological commission is tasked with drafting
ecumenical theological documents meant to “build up the Body of Christ” from a
theological perspective, while Life and Work is tasked with dulling
confessional consciousness by involving Orthodox and heretics in joint
projects, as also postulated by the documents of the council of Crete, on
social, economic, and ecological issues. The practical branch of the WCC has so
far achieved much more than the theological one, creating, at least within the
Orthodox mindset, the impression that collaboration with heretics poses no
canonical problems and that dogmatic divergences are mere theological
speculations, insignificant for good cooperation with heretics and for
achieving the much-desired "unity of the Church."
The WCC is modeled after the
European Union by the same strategists who designed the union. The
denationalization of European peoples was not achieved through great
philosophies and common ideals but by opening the borders of wealthy countries
to poorer ones and creating the illusion of a "better life" for the
needy. The same model is applied on a religious level by the WCC.
"Ecclesiological
Neutrality" (Premise III.3)
Premise III.3: "The World
Council cannot and must not be based on any particular conception of the Church"
is contradicted by the text of the Declaration itself. The Toronto
Declaration is structured around two themes: what the WCC is and is not,
and what the "Church of Christ" is, which the WCC seeks to
realize. It is true that, at a declarative level, the WCC proclaims its
ecclesiological neutrality, but it is self-evident that a dialogue platform
aiming at the unity of the Church must have an idea about this Church.
Otherwise, how could it achieve this unity?
The Toronto Declaration
abounds in ecclesiological statements, most of them assumed to be common to the
Protestant majority among the Council’s members. What else but ecclesiological
principles are the following statements: "the mutual recognition that
Christ is the divine Head of the Church” (Premise IV.1); “the member churches
believe… that the Church of Christ is one" (Premise IV.2); "the
member churches recognize that membership in the Church of Christ is broader
than membership in their own church" (IV.3); "the member churches of
the World Council recognize in other churches elements of the true Church"
(Premise IV.5)?
Despite its declared aim of
ecclesiological neutrality, the WCC actually bases its premises on the most
well-known Protestant ecclesiological conceptions: the branch theory, the
baptismal theory, the signs theory, the traditions theory, and the theory of "incomplete
churches."
"Unity in
Diversity of Evangelical Expression" (Premises III.4, III.5)
Premises III.4 and III.5 state
that no member "church" of the WCC is required to relativize its own
ecclesiological doctrine and that membership in the World Council does not
imply the acceptance of a specific ecclesiology. If these two premises were
genuine, they would seemingly invalidate the WCC's ultimate goal: the
unification of all in the "Church of Christ," which would bear common
witness to Christ in the world. Moreover, if none of the WCC members are
obligated to relativize their own ecclesiology, then the Orthodox confession
that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church has
no chance of ever becoming the official doctrine of all Christianity—a sine
qua non condition for achieving the much-desired Christian unity, as
acknowledged by one of the movement’s proponents, Professor John Meyendorff.
[12] The question arises: what, then, is the purpose of Orthodox participation
in the WCC? The even graver question is this: if this principle guarantees
the preservation of each participant’s eschatological vision, how is it that
the Orthodox Churches participating in Crete chose to modify their own
ecclesiology, even though no one compelled them to do so?
Adhering to this ecclesiological
principle would mean, from the outset, condemning the WCC to forever remain a
mere forum for discussions—a criticism made by many participants in this
dialogue. The only solution to this impasse would be the acceptance of the
Protestant principle of treating theological differences among various
confessions as mere traditions that do not, in any way, impede the "unity
of Christians."
This was also noted by Roman
Catholic theologians, active participants in drafting the Declaration: "Even
though each Church was able to preserve its own ecclesiological conception, as
stated in the Toronto Declaration of 1950, the WCC could define itself
as a Council of Churches precisely based on this conviction: that each
community of believers who have faith can be recognized as a Church, called to
meet with others while still preserving its own identity and, within certain
limits, even its own diversity." [13] From this perspective, "the
attitude the WCC imposes upon itself is one of reconciliation only, of
restoring the fullness of visible communion, which arises from participation
in the unique Eucharist, not of reducing diversity, insofar as it involves
different understandings and developments of the Christian faith achieved under
the action of the Holy Spirit, not errors" (emphasis added). [14]
This Roman Catholic analysis of
the WCC’s principle of ecclesiological neutrality suggests a koinonia
(fellowship) of "churches" moving toward "the fullness of a
visible communion that arises from participation in the unique Eucharist,"
under the premise that "each community of Christians… can be recognized as
a Church," preserving its own identity and even diversity. Participation
in the unique Eucharist under conditions of doctrinal diversity is unacceptable
from the perspective of Orthodox doctrine. However, it poses no issue for
Protestant communities or even for Roman Catholicism and is the only framework
through which the WCC can promote the realization of “Christian unity” under
conditions of doctrinal neutrality.
The principle was implemented,
and at Porto Alegre in 2006, it was established that interconfessional
differences should be understood as "varieties of evangelical expression
that enrich common life": "The variety of evangelical expression, of
word and deed, enriches common life. Different forms of expression are present
today in the life and witness of the various Churches. For example, the
tradition of holiness among Methodists, the doctrine of reward for faith and
grace among Lutherans, life in the Holy Spirit among Pentecostals, the primacy
in the service of unity of the Roman Catholic Church, intrinsic value in
Anglican society, and the doctrine of deification correlated with that of
'synergy' among the Orthodox. To what extent do the emphasized points
constitute contradictory attitudes or expressions of legitimate variety? The
focus on certain issues overshadows the fullness of the Gospel message."
[15]
The idea is also present at the
local level, in the ecumenist relations between local "churches."
Here is how a Protestant representative understands the "common prayer for
the unity of Christians" in Romania: "In Romania, the Evangelical
Church of the Augsburg Confession calls on other churches and Christians to
leave behind the 'old human things' that separate us, to be evangelical, that
is, faithful to the Gospel of Christ, to reform ourselves, that is, to
renew our faith in one Savior Christ, to become Orthodox, that is, to be
Christians with right faith and deeds, to become Catholic, that is, to
realize that faith is universal and shared with many others, and to be
Protestant, where the truth is trampled underfoot" (emphasis
added). [16]
The fact that ecclesiological
neutrality has not been respected—and could not be respected, as long as the
WCC seeks the "full visible unity of the Church"—is evident from the
statements of the most recent WCC General Assembly in Busan, South Korea: "Faithful
to our common calling, we will seek together the full visible unity of the One,
Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, as we express unity around the same
Lord’s Table. Seeking the unity of the Church, we will open ourselves to
receive the gifts of each other’s traditions and offer our own gifts to one
another…" (emphasis added). [17] The method of achieving this unity
is dogmatic minimalism, transforming the significant theological deviations of
heretical ideologies into mere "traditions," which WCC members accept
as "gifts" of the "Spirit." According to five Greek bishops
who denounced the declarations of Busan, on that occasion, the Orthodox
Church was asked to apologize for the division within the Christian world: "At
the World Council of Churches—or rather, the Council of Heresies—which met in
Busan, South Korea, positions contrary to Orthodox ecclesiology were
formulated. The Orthodox Church was asked to apologize for the state of
division in which the Christian world finds itself, the infallibility of
our Church was called into question, and the Protestant doctrine of the
invisible ecclesiological unity of the Church, which is allegedly 'multi-dogmatic,'
was proclaimed…" [18]
The assertion that no "Church"
is required to relativize its own ecclesiology within the WCC, combined with
the establishment of the goal that visible unity is the WCC’s sole purpose,
could only lead to this vision of "multi-dogmatism" and "evangelical
variety."
The principle that WCC members
are not required to alter their eschatological vision encapsulates the essence
of the Church unity postulated by the WCC: this unity is not based on
rediscovering the truth of Christ proclaimed by the Orthodox Church to the
world, but on the federative idea of achieving religious unity modeled on "unity
in diversity," even dogmatic diversity. Under this model, all forms of
religious expression are equally true and valid, and the principle of mutual
acceptance replaces the necessity of unity in Truth, which is essential for
salvation.
The pressing question is: after
witnessing the WCC's clearly expressed tendencies at Busan, and after having
repeatedly been forced to protest against manifestations of intercommunion
within the WCC (such as the "Lima Liturgy," etc.), how was it
possible for the Orthodox hierarchs in Crete to still believe in this outdated
promise of ecclesiological neutrality and to legislate it through a decision at
such a level?
The Theory of
"Incomplete Churches" (Premise IV.4)
The last of the premises that the
Orthodox Churches participating in the council of Crete consider "of
paramount importance for participation in the WCC" is Premise IV.4: "The
member churches of the World Council consider the relationship of other
churches with the Holy Catholic Church, as confessed in the Creeds, as a
subject of mutual consideration. However, membership does not imply that each
church must regard the other churches in the true and full sense of the word."
The latter part of this premise was deemed by Orthodox ecumenist theologians in
the 1960s to be sufficient to guarantee that the Orthodox Church, by
participating in the ecumenist movement, would not be compelled to recognize
other participants as "churches in the true sense of the word."
The explanation provided by the Declaration
for this ecclesiological premise contains two heretical ideas that Orthodox
ecumenist theologians do not seem to have considered particularly grave. First,
it states that despite "doctrinal and canonical differences," the
WCC members recognize one another as serving the same Lord. This heretical
idea is refuted by patristic theology, according to which there can be no doubt
that "the Catholic (universal) Church is the assembly of the
right-believing who confess the Orthodox faith," [19] while heretics are
deceived by demons and worship them: "The enemy… seeing his idols
abandoned and, due to the immense multitude of the faithful, his abodes and
temples empty, devised a new deception, that under His very Name he might
deceive the unwary. He invented heresies and schisms, by which to overturn the
faith, corrupt the truth, and tear apart unity. Those whom he can hold in the
blindness of the old way, he entices and deceives; leading them astray on a new
path, he snatches people even from the Church. And while they believe they have
drawn near to the light and escaped the darkness of the world, unknowingly he
casts darkness over them again. And although they do not abide in the Gospel of
Christ and His law, they call themselves Christians and, walking in darkness,
believe they have the light." [20]
The second heretical statement is
the blasphemy that "[the WCC members] trust that they could be led by the
Holy Spirit to manifest their unity in Christ," as a result of harmonizing
their differences. The idea that the Holy Spirit would guide efforts to bring
Orthodoxy and cacodoxy closer together on the ecumenist principles of the Toronto
Declaration is echoed in Article 18 of the synodal document from Crete, The
Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World: "The
Holy Spirit, Who constitutes the entire institution of the Church, will fulfill
what is lacking." As noted earlier, the 1961 General Assembly in New Delhi
defined the WCC as the instrument through which the Holy Spirit manifests God’s
will to the entire "Church" and even to the whole world.
To these heretical ideas is added
the statement: "these divided churches, even if they do not yet accept
one another as true and pure churches…," which shows that Premise IV.4
is a transitional phase in the process of integrating the participating
communities into what the WCC calls the "True Church."
Premise IV.4 must be directly
connected to the previous premise, IV.3, which is the most scandalous from the
perspective of Orthodox theology: "The member churches of the World
Council of Churches recognize that membership in the Church of Christ is
broader than membership in their own ecclesial body. For this reason, they seek
to enter into living contact with those outside their own community who confess
that Christ is Lord." The explanation of this premise retains the idea
that "all Christian churches, including the Church of Rome, affirm that
there is no complete identity between membership in the Universal Church and
membership in their own church. They recognize that there are members of the
Church extra muros [outside the walls of the Church], that these belong aliquo
modo [in some way] to the Church, and even that there is an ecclesia
extra ecclesiam [church outside the Church]. This recognition finds
expression in the fact that, with very few exceptions, Christian churches
accept baptism administered by other churches as valid."
This heretical idea is
complemented by the explanation that, within the ecumenist movement, each "church"
has a positive role to play and a mission to fulfill: to seek communion with
all those who, although not members of the same visible body, belong to the
same mystical body. The theology of a mystical, invisible unity is a
specifically Protestant ecclesiological vision, which the Declaration
adopts despite the promise in Premise III.3 that the WCC does not impose any
ecclesiological vision.
Premise IV.4 deserves further
elaboration because it forms the backbone of the ecumenist endeavor and was
accepted by Orthodox ecumenist theologians, despite the fact that, among all
WCC participants, Orthodoxy is the only one that does not share this ecclesiology.
The Second Vatican Council
adopted the principle known in Roman Catholic theology as substitut in,
which states: "The Church of Jesus Christ subsists in the Roman Catholic
Church." This concept replaced the assertion that "The Church of
Jesus Christ is the Roman Catholic Church," [21] allowing for the claim
that, outside the [Catholic] Church, there are not only abandoned Christians
but also "elements of the Church" and even "Churches and
communities which, although not in full communion, rightfully belong to the One
Church and are, for their members, means of salvation." [22] Through this
terminological clarification, the Second Vatican Council establishes "a
concrete place" for the Church of Christ, and that place is in the Church
of Rome. The Church of Christ is concretely found in the Church of Rome.
However, the Council acknowledges the "active presence" of the One
Church of Christ in other Churches and ecclesial communities (according to the
encyclical Ut Unum Sint), even if they are not yet in full communion
with it.
This concept, adopted by the
Second Vatican Council as an ecclesiological line of thought, is known in
theology as the "theory of incomplete churches." It was derived from
the Protestant theological thinking of Jean Calvin, who spoke of "remnants
of the true Church." The "theory of incomplete churches" asserts
that Christ does not refuse to use other "churches" as instruments of
salvation, [23] that the grace of God operates within these communities and is
communicated through these instruments of salvation. However, the effectiveness
of the actions of grace depends on the connection of these "churches"
to the Catholic Church, which possesses the "fullness of grace and truth."
From this perspective, the Catholic Church is the only "complete church,"
while the others are incomplete, even though "the Church of Christ exists,
in an imperfect form and to varying degrees," outside the Catholic Church.
Despite differing views on the
"location of the Church of Christ," Protestant and Roman Catholic
theology of "incomplete churches" converge in the Toronto
Declaration. This document accepts that WCC members do not necessarily need
to recognize one another as "churches" in the true and full sense of
the word but should acknowledge the existence of certain elements of the "true
Church" in other WCC members and the fact that Christ is the Head of all
of them. It also recognizes that mutual acknowledgment of baptism is the key to
affirming the existence of the Church outside the Church. Roman Catholicism
aspires for all "sister churches" to return to communion with a
renewed and more Catholic Church of Rome. [24] Meanwhile, the ecumenist vision
of what the "Church of Christ" should be is more centered on a
federative idea, achieved through a union in dogmatic diversity, though it does
not exclude the possibility of communion with the Church of Rome.
It is astonishing that the
Orthodox Churches accepted this theory of "incomplete churches" and
enshrined it in the document on the Relations of the Orthodox Church with
the Rest of the Christian World, both through the "admission of the
historical name of churches" (which, in the pre-synodal draft of the
document, was phrased as "recognizes the historical existence of churches"
[25] but was replaced in the final version with a softened formula rooted
in the same concept of varying degrees of ecclesiality granted to heresies, as
found in Article 6) and through the argumentation of this recognition based on
the second part of Premise IV.4. This addition was included in the final
document, whereas it was not cited in the pre-synodal version. The distinction
made in Article 6 between "churches" and "confessions" (a
distinction absent from ecumenical documents, where the branch theory is
employed) suggests that the document considers some heresies more deserving of
being called "churches," while others are not. (Various heresies are
invariably referred to as "churches," so this distinction reflects
the perspective of the ecumenist participants in Crete on the confessional
landscape). Or, as articulated in Article 4 of the document on relations with
the Christian world, the Church "has always cultivated dialogue with those
who have separated from it," some of whom are "closer," while
others are "farther," precisely in line with the theory of "incomplete
churches." This theory is foreign to patristic thought, which holds that
all heresies are outside the Church, not closer or farther.
Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira
wrote a letter to the Patriarch of Georgia in which he provided an analysis
suggesting that Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon is attempting to impose
the theory of "incomplete churches" within the Orthodox sphere,
relating these to the Orthodox Church. [26] From this perspective, the ease
with which heresies have been granted a "sociological" [27] status as
"churches" becomes understandable. Even the assertion that the
Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church takes on a new
meaning, as, following the logic employed by Roman Catholicism, this does not
in any way preclude the coexistence of the Orthodox Church with other "churches."
Relating "incomplete
churches" to the Orthodox Church is no less heretical than relating them
to Roman Catholicism, as, from the perspective of Orthodox ecclesiology,
outside the Orthodox Church there exist only heresies and schisms. Even if one
begins with the truth that the Orthodox Church is the only complete Church or
even with the idea, formulated in a Catholic-like manner, that "the Church
of Christ subsists in the Orthodox Church," it cannot be admitted that
there is Church outside the Church. From the perspective of Roman Catholic
or Protestant ecclesiological reality, the idea that there is a "Church
outside the Church," as they claim, is more of an instinctive
self-recognition of the non-ecclesial character of these communities. A more
accurate formulation for them would be that the [Orthodox] Church of Christ
exists entirely outside their "churches." However, Orthodoxy
cannot adopt such concepts, which contradict the Holy Canons and the thought of
the Holy Fathers.
An important aspect of this
theory of "incomplete churches" and the idea that there is a "church
outside the Church" is the recognition of the validity of baptism
administered by other "churches." The theory of "incomplete
churches" and the "branch theory" rely heavily on another
heretical theory, the "baptismal theory," promoted within the
Orthodox sphere by Metropolitan John Zizioulas and Protopresbyter George
Florovsky, the latter being a "consultant" involved in drafting the Toronto
Declaration. According to this theory, the Church of Christ extends
wherever a baptism has been administered. The boundaries of the Church of
Christ are the boundaries of baptism. More specifically, outside the Church are
only those who have not received any kind of baptism. This idea places Orthodox
Baptism on the same level as baptism administered by heretical communities.
Until recently, the Orthodox
Church practiced a certain oikonomia concerning the recognition of
Baptism performed by heretics, taking into account the correct form of the
administered Baptism and, above all, the necessity of salvation for the person
coming to Baptism. As a rule, however, following the Holy Canons, the Church
did not recognize the baptism of heretics. A testimony to this is the Definition
of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church from 1775, which stipulates that
only Orthodox Baptism is valid, while others are not performed according to the
evangelical command of the Lord and the canonical provisions in this regard.
[28]
Since the Orthodox Churches have
been practicing ecumenism, oikonomia has become the rule, and baptism
performed within heresies or schisms that use the baptismal formula "in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is
recognized, even though those heresies generally have an incorrect conception
of the Holy Trinity.
In a note by Father Professor
Ioan N. Floca on Apostolic Canon 68, the Romanian canonist states: "With
regard to schismatics, particularly Roman Catholics and those belonging to the
heterodox Churches of the East, ecclesiastical practice has established
that both their baptism and ordination are to be recognized as valid" (emphasis
added). [29]
From this quote, we first observe
that Roman Catholics and those from the "heterodox churches of the
East" are not considered heretics but schismatics. Secondly, the
recognition of Catholic ordinations and baptisms has been established through "ecclesiastical
practice," without specifying whether this occurred primarily in recent
times, since the Orthodox Church has been engaged in the "dialogue of
love" with Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.
The reason why the baptisms of
heretics are generally accepted by "ecclesiastical practice" is the
claimed performance of them in the name of the Most Holy Trinity—of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the case of heretics, however, it is crucial
to consider what they understand by the Most Holy Trinity, given that most
heresies and schisms are rooted precisely in a misunderstanding of the doctrine
of the Most Holy Trinity. This is evident from the formulation of Canon 47 of
St. Basil the Great, where, in referring to the Encratites, Saccofori, and
Apotactites, the author categorically demands their rebaptism: "Lest they
say, 'We are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit,' when they consider God to be the author of evil, surpassing
Marcion and the other heresies." [30]
From this canon, it follows that
the mere utterance of the names of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity is not
sufficient for the validity of Baptism; correct faith in the Most Holy Trinity
is absolutely necessary.
The recommendation of Canon 47 of
St. Basil was adopted by Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council, which
established which types of heretics could be chrismated and which needed to be
rebaptized. Among those who must be rebaptized are the adherents of the
Eunomian heresy, who practiced a single immersion and taught that the Holy
Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, being a mere creature. [31]
The striking similarities with Roman Catholic doctrine prompted Orthodox
ecclesiastical practice to apply to the Papists the same treatment regarding
Baptism as Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council applied to the Eunomians
[32]—rebaptism. The "ecclesiastical practice" by which their
baptism was recognized aligns primarily with the agreements from Balamand,
where ecumenist representatives of Orthodoxy recognized the "sisterhood"
of the "Roman Catholic Church" and, implicitly, the sacraments of
Baptism and Priesthood, which are absolutely necessary for considering this
heresy as a "church."
Regarding Protestant
"baptism," the situation is even simpler, given Protestantism's
unequivocal rejection of priesthood, which means that Protestant baptism is
effectively performed by no one. This situation is not, in itself, different
from that in Roman Catholicism, because where there is no valid baptism, how
can there be valid priesthood? Or, as the Synod of Carthage in 256 states: "The
admission of the baptism of heretics and schismatics also implies the
acknowledgment of those baptized by them. For it cannot be valid in part: if
they could baptize, they could also bestow the Holy Spirit; if they could not, because
they are outside the Church, they do not have the Holy Spirit and cannot
baptize those who come, for baptism is one, and the Holy Spirit is one, and the
Church established by Christ our Lord is one, since from the beginning the
Apostle Peter said that it is founded on unity; therefore, the things done
by them are false and vain, and all are without value." (emphasis
added). [33]
Regarding the relationship
between recognizing a valid baptism and attributing ecclesiality to heretics,
this is also addressed by the single canon issued by the Synod of Carthage held
in 256 during the time of Saint Cyprian: "For the very question asked at
baptism is evidence of the truth: for when they say to the one being examined, 'Do
you believe that you receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life?' they
say nothing else but that this can be given in the Catholic Church. From
heretics, where there is no Church, it is impossible to receive the
forgiveness of sins. Therefore, the defenders of heretics must either change
the question or defend the truth unless they wish to also attribute a Church
to those whom they claim have baptism." (emphasis added). [34] This
is precisely what was done in Crete by those engaged in "dialogue and
cooperation" with heretics.
The acceptance of premise IV.4
contains within itself another trap, as by accepting the idea that no
participant in the WCC is obligated to recognize the other members as
"churches in the true and full sense of the word," the unique
character of the Orthodox Church within this religious framework has been
relativized. If the Orthodox Church has the right not to consider as
Churches, in the full and true sense of the word, the WCC members that do not
meet the Orthodox ecclesiological criteria to be considered "Churches,"
why wouldn’t the other participants have the same right regarding the Orthodox
Church? This is evident from the statement of the five Greek bishops who
contested the assembly in Busan, revealing that on that occasion, "the
infallibility of our Church was called into question." [35]
By recognizing this principle,
the Orthodox Churches made a counter-confession of faith, allowing all WCC
members to judge the ecclesial nature of Orthodoxy according to their own
ecclesiological criteria and even to reject it if it does not align with them.
Roman Catholicism has safeguarded its claim to being "the only complete
Church in which the Church of Christ subsists" by refraining from full
membership in the WCC, precisely to avoid the relativism that the Toronto
Declaration would impose. Instead, Rome collaborates effectively with
WCC departments dealing with doctrine and practical activities, ensuring a
Catholic presence within this Council.
The ratification
of the Declaration by the Council of Crete
The analysis of the four premises
cited by the Council of Crete from the Declaration, deemed of paramount
importance for the participation of the Orthodox Churches in the WCC, reveals
several essential points:
1. The four premises cited by the
Council of Crete cannot be separated from the context of the entire Declaration
and cannot be accepted in isolation from the rest.
2. Contrary to what Orthodox
ecumenists participating in the WCC believe, the four premises provide no real
guarantees that the WCC will remain merely a "catalyst" for
ecumenical dialogue and will not evolve into a kind of super-church.
3. The premises cited by the
Council of Crete are heretical, as they share the same spirit as the rest of
the document.
Over the decades since the
adoption of the Declaration, relationships within the WCC have
progressed toward a goal contrary to the one so strongly stipulated in premise
III.1, upon which Orthodox ecumenists have built their participation in the WCC
for decades. The need to overcome the "ecclesiological neutrality" of
the Declaration was demanded as early as the years immediately following
its adoption by Protestant members, who did not join the WCC merely to engage
in dialogue with the Orthodox but to achieve that communion which they regard
as the "unity of the Church."
The text Baptism, Eucharist,
Ministry (BEM) from 1982, also known as the "Lima text," sought
to create a foundation for liturgical and doctrinal rapprochement among the WCC
members, aiming to achieve the much-desired unity. In the years following the
adoption of these texts, the "Lima Liturgy" emerged—a service of
ecumenical worship where participation was not mandatory but was recognized as
an opportunity for many "churches" to enter into Eucharistic
communion. At that point, the participating Orthodox Churches realized that the
principles they so valued from the Declaration had been surpassed and
objected to violations of both the principle that the WCC would not become a
"superchurch" and the principle of retaining the possibility of not
recognizing other participants as "churches in the true and full sense of
the word." [36] This objection provoked dissatisfaction among some
Protestant denominations, which refused to take a step back from the union
achieved up to that point. The difference in vision between Orthodoxy and
Protestantism regarding the Eucharist remains as significant as it was before
ecumenical dialogues: Orthodoxy sees communion as a visible sign of the
Church's unity, whereas Protestants view it as a means of achieving that unity.
[37] Although Orthodox Churches officially rejected intercommunion,
Protestant-style "Eucharistic hospitality" found supporters in
certain Orthodox Churches, particularly in the diaspora, where cases have been
observed of heretics being admitted to Communion alongside Orthodox believers.
The WCC's intention to acquire
ecclesiological traits is somewhat expected, given that the visible unity
envisioned by ecumenists must take on a form. The idea of all heretics
returning to Orthodoxy is an illusion that Orthodox ecumenists present to us, the
faithful, to make participation in ecumenism more acceptable. As the Orthodox
theologian John Meyendorff acknowledged, "The Orthodox Church has
failed to convert all other Christians to the one Church of Christ." (emphasis
added) [38] Meyendorff attributes this failure of the Church’s mission to "the
inability of the Orthodox Church to express the message in an effective manner,
with enough love to make the harsh truth acceptable to all those who do not
know it." [39] The Thessaloniki Declaration of 1998 offers
different reasons: "After a century of Orthodox participation in the
ecumenical movement and years spent within the WCC, we do not observe
sufficient progress in the multilateral theological discussions among
Christians. On the contrary, the gap between Orthodox and Protestants is
becoming increasingly wide, while the aforementioned tendencies [40] within
certain Protestant denominations are growing stronger." (emphasis
added) [41]
A very significant reason why
Orthodoxy has failed to convince all participants in the ecumenical dialogue to
renounce their heresy and return to Orthodoxy as a precondition for achieving
Christian unity, as postulated by Orthodox ecumenist theologians, is the
acceptance of the heretical principles upon which the WCC is built, as recorded
in the Toronto Declaration. Since the entire ecumenical endeavor is
not founded on a desire to be in communion with the Truth Who is Christ, but on
a strictly human, politically-oriented mindset, the "ecclesiological
neutrality" that Orthodox ecumenist theologians consider a shield in
the ecumenical dialogue becomes a barrier to the Orthodox witness of the
uniqueness of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
The analogy between the World
Council of Churches (WCC) and the European Union (EU) must be revisited, as
both organizations are part of the same globalist plan for the unification of
humanity: the WCC aims for a religiously unified humanity, while the EU
provides the model for achieving a politically united humanity. Two decades
ago, European politicians cautiously addressed the idea of a superstate,
carefully considering nationalist sentiments and asserting that "the EU
will never become a superstate." A few decades later, the Lisbon Treaty
laid the groundwork for a European superstate, and following Brexit, plans to
relinquish national sovereignty in favor of a federal state are now being
publicly discussed. Just as the promise that the EU would never become a
superstate but merely a communal space for dialogue, the "ecclesiological
neutrality" and emphatic assertion in the Toronto Declaration that
the WCC will never become a "superchurch" serve as bait for the
Orthodox, offering them a grace period in which to become accustomed to the
doctrinal, liturgical, and canonical minimalism underpinning the ecumenical
effort to achieve "Christian unity."
Why did Orthodox
ecumenist theologians accept the Declaration?
Anyone studying the Declaration
is shocked by the fact that Orthodox participants in the ecumenical dialogue
accepted those four principles, which were also cited by the Synod of Crete in
Article 19 of the document The Relation of the Orthodox Church to the Rest
of the Christian World, while ignoring the rest of the text, which is
entirely heretical, and the fact that those four principles cannot be separated
from the context of the entire Declaration.
The defenders of the Synod of
Crete go to great lengths to assert that Article 19 did not approve all the
premises of the Declaration, but only the four cited. I have
demonstrated that even these four principles, considered "of capital
importance for Orthodoxy’s participation in the WCC," are heretical in
nature, encompassing ecclesiological theories completely different from
Orthodoxy’s vision of the Church. Moreover, Article 19 of the Synodal document
from Crete refers to the premises of the Declaration in the plural, not
just to the four cited. The pre-synodal version mentioned three principles, and
the final version added another, indicating that all the principles are
considered acceptable and that only those useful for the argument the document
sought to make were mentioned in the text. Neither the theologians of the
1950s nor those of 2016 provided clear clarifications indicating that the
Orthodox Churches categorically oppose the other ecclesiological premises
included in the rest of the Declaration.
A reason why this did not happen
is the belief held by some theologians that the principles of the Declaration
are not as heretical as they appear to those who uphold the Tradition and
Canons of the Church. At the Congress of Orthodox Theological Faculties in
1936, there were professors who considered it impossible to convene an
ecumenical council in the absence of two-thirds of Christendom. [42] A
Bulgarian professor proposed the convocation of a "truly catholic council
of the universal Church," which would include Roman Catholics and
Protestants. The Romanian professor Valerian Șesan suggested an ecumenical
council that would include "all baptized Christians." Reading many
theological books written over the last century shows that participants in the
ecumenist dialogue have long adopted the language of Protestant and Roman
Catholic theories, such as the "sister churches," the "branches,"
the "two lungs," the baptismal theory, and so on.
For this reason, it is not
incorrect to consider that the theologians participating in the WCC dialogue on
behalf of the Orthodox Churches assent to the other heretical ecclesiological
doctrines of the Toronto Declaration. However, those who wish to remain
Orthodox cannot do so.
NOTES [inactive links
replaced with archived links]
1. http://basilica.ro/sfantul-si-marele-sinod-relatiile-bisericii-ortodoxe-cu-ansamblul-lumii-crestine-document-oficial/
2. Steven
Runciman, Marea Biserică în captivitate, traducere de Mihai-Silviu
Chirilă, Sofia, București, 2012, p. 251.
3. Ibidem,
p. 393.
4. Enciclica
Patriarhilor Ortodocși de la 1848, în Ioan N. Floca, Canoanele Bisericii
Ortodoxe. Note și comentarii, f.e. Sibiu, 2005, pp. 595-598.
5. Ibidem.
7. Harold C.
Fey, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, vol. II, p. 6.
8. Erin
Brighman, Sustaining the Hope for Unity: Ecumenical Dialogue in a Postmodern
World, p. 111.
9. Angelo
Maffeis, Ecumenical Dialogue, p. 12.
10. https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/central-committee/1950/toronto-statement
12. John
Meyendorff, Catholicity and the Church, Crestwood, NY, St. Vladimir’s
Press, 1983, p. 10.
13. Rosario
La Delfa, Ecclesial Communion and Belonging: The Meaning of an
Ecclesiological Question Today, Città Nuova, Faculty of Theology of Sicily,
Rome, 2002, p. 71.
14. Ibidem,
p. 73.
15. The
Holy Mount Athos, a Testimony of Centuries of Struggle for the Defense of the
True Faith, “The Athonite Fathers” Publishing House, Holy Mount Athos, p.
60.
19. Saint
Symeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, Interpretation of the Divine Symbol of
the Orthodox Faith, EIBMBOR, Bucharest, 2010, p. 93.
20. Saint
Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Church, EIBMBOR, Bucharest,
2013, pp. 45-47.
21.https://web.archive.org/web/20130819072349/https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20041111_kasper-ecumenism_it.html
22. Ibidem
23. Giulio
Sembeni, Direttorio ecumenico 1993: sviluppo dottrinale e disciplinare,
p. 71.
24. Harold
C. Fey, op. cit., p. 16.
25. http://basilica.ro/relatiile-bisericii-ortodoxe-cu-ansamblul-lumii-crestine
27. The idea
of "sociological" of the name "churches" belongs to the
theologian Vasile Ioniţă, who does not explain, however, why the argumentation
of the name is supported by premise IV.4 of the Declaration and not by
the provisions of the German Constitution, for example, to which the theologian
refers.
29. Arch.
Prof. Dr. Ioan N. Floca, The Canons of the Orthodox Church. Notes and
comments, edition edited by Dr. Sorin Joantă, FE, Sibiu, 2005, note 14, p.
45.
30. Arch.
Prof. Dr. Ioan N. Floca, op. cit., p. 414.
31. Ibidem
33. Arch.
Prof. Dr. Ioan N. Floca, op. cit., p. 200.
34. Ibidem
36. Wendell
Wills, Eucharist and Ecclesiology: Essays in Honor of Dr. Everett Ferguson,
Pickwick Publications, Oregon, 2016, p. 42.
37. Ibidem
38. John
Meyendorff, Catholicity and the Church, Crestwood, NY, St. Vladimir’s
Press, 1983, p. 11.
39. Ibidem
40. See
above, p. 2.
Original
Romanian source: https://ortodoxinfo.ro/2017/05/19/implicatii-eclesiologice-ale-aprobarii-documentului-eretic-declaratia-de-la-toronto-de-catre-pseudosinodul-din-creta/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.