Monk Vsevolod (Filipiev) | Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, NY | 2001
What is ecumenism? A revelation
of the 20th century or the heresy of all heresies? A way out or a dead end? A
work of God, human, or demonic? What is the relationship between ecumenism and
the Orthodox universal faith?
Let us familiarize ourselves with
the arguments presented in defense of ecumenism and examine whether its
theological knot can be untangled.
Ecumenical apologetics offers
three main arguments. We immediately emphasize that, although all these
arguments have been used by ecumenists from the major Christian
confessions—Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy—each confession is,
nevertheless, more closely tied to one of these arguments.
The First Argument of
Ecumenism
The first argument, originating
from Protestantism, is well known to all. It states that Christ's Church has
been divided into parts that have no communion with one another. Consequently,
the necessity arises for mutual communion, with the ultimate goal of achieving
full ecclesiastical unity.
The proposed argument has already
been refuted multiple times. It was primarily condemned by the well-known
anathema of the Hierarchical Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
Russia in 1983. The decrees of this council explicitly state that a "text
of anathema against the ecumenical movement as a heresy against the
dogma of the unity of the Church" was adopted (Tserkovnaya Zhizn’,
No. 1 and 2, 1984, p. 11).
The condemnation of the teaching
on the "divided Church" is particularly evident in the first part of
the anathema against ecumenism: "To those who attack Christ’s Church and
teach that it has been divided into branches, and claim that the Church no
longer visibly exists, but that from branches and schisms, heterodoxy and other
faiths, it will be united into one body…—anathema!" (The text of the
anathema is cited everywhere according to Tserkovnaya Zhizn’, No. 7 and
8, 1984, p. 177.)
The heretical teaching of the
divided Church was bound to emerge from the depths of Protestantism, whose
self-awareness is wounded by the tragedy of fragmentation. A significant number
of Orthodox ecumenists initially also adopted this teaching. However, the clear
contradiction between the teaching of the divided Church and the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which professes "One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church," ensured the failure of this argument of ecumenism.
Today, it is quite rare to
encounter supporters of the teaching of the divided Church among Orthodox and
Roman Catholic ecumenists. Meanwhile, Protestantism, which gave birth to this
argument of ecumenism, for the most part, remains inseparable from its own
offspring.
The Second Argument of
Ecumenism
Following the first argument
comes the second. This time, it is spiritually akin primarily to Roman
Catholicism, although it is also used by both Orthodox and Protestants. This
argument appears to have its justification in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
This argument of ecumenism states
that since the Church is by nature one and unique, there can be no question of
any division within it. All Christians are members of the same Church for the
simple reason that, according to the Creed, the Church could never be divided
in the first place. The divisions among Christians are merely human and
superficial; in a higher sense, no division truly exists. Simultaneously with
the external division of Christians, there exists a certain mystery of the
undivided universal Church.
Furthermore, the Roman Catholic
"champions" of ecumenism gradually but persistently promote the idea
that once non-Catholics come to know the mystery of the undivided Catholic
[i.e., catholic in the Roman Catholic understanding of the term—translator's
note] Church, they must realize that, in essence, they have never separated
from this Church, since they never could have separated from it. For their
part, Roman Catholic ecumenists are willing to recognize the mystery of the
undivided Church; they are also prepared to accept and acknowledge diversity in
the forms of religious experience, to resort to all kinds of compromises and
unions—but always under the obligatory condition that the primacy of the Roman
Pontiff is recognized, naturally, in its Vatican understanding.
In this second argument of
ecumenism, the nature of papism is revealed—its primary aim is to wield
administrative power at all costs, and secondarily, to eclectically incorporate
all forms of religious experience within itself, akin to Roman paganism, which
included the gods of all nations in its pantheon under one condition: the
submission of these nations to the deified Roman emperor.
When this argument is used by
non-Roman Catholics, it is usually somewhat softened—the emphasis is not placed
on the superiority of one's own confession. Instead, it is stressed that the
visible divisions among Christians are entirely human, that confessional
barriers do not reach heaven, and therefore, in essence, all Christians remain
united within the bosom of the universal Church and are equal to one another.
What assessment, then, should we
give to the second argument of ecumenism?
First of all, we must note that
this argument is a sophism: its conclusion is based on an assumption that has
not been fully developed. Its incompleteness lies in the fact that, although it
correctly asserts the impossibility of the Church being divided, it fails to
make the necessary clarification regarding the possibility of heretical and
self-willed communities separating from the one Church. Yet such separations
have existed since apostolic times (cf. 2 Peter 2:1-2; 1 John 2:19). These
separations, apostasies, and schisms have continued throughout the entire
history of the Church, but they have never affected the nature of the Universal
Orthodox Church of Christ, which has always remained visible, true, one, and
unique on earth.
The argument of ecumenism
concerning the one Church (in the ecumenical understanding of unity as the
impossibility of any part falling away from the universal Church) inevitably
leads to the conclusion that there is a necessity for the union of Orthodox and
heterodox in the sacraments and prayer. Ecumenists diligently promote this
conclusion in practice, asserting that whatever differences may exist among
Christian confessions, as long as unity is practically achieved in the
sacraments and prayer, this confirms the mystical indivisibility of the
Christian Church.
Against this argument is directed
the second part of the anathema of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
Russia against ecumenism: "To those who do not distinguish the true
priesthood and sacraments of the Church from those of heretics, but teach that
the baptism and Eucharist of heretics are sufficient for salvation…—anathema!"
The second argument of ecumenism
is now rare in Orthodox circles, although its wider spread can be expected. Its
sophistical plausibility makes it popular among those inclined toward
renovationism and Latinophilism within Orthodoxy.
The Third Argument of
Ecumenism
Regardless of the fact that
Orthodox ecumenists occasionally resort to the arguments we have examined, all
these ecumenical arguments, by their very nature, are not akin to Orthodoxy.
After all, Orthodox Christians as a whole have never experienced either the
Protestant complex of the Church's division or the Roman Catholic passion for
administrative domination and formal universal subjugation. However, Orthodox
ecumenists have their own weak point—the idea of participating in the
ecumenical movement for the purpose of bearing witness to Orthodoxy. This idea
constitutes the third argument of ecumenism, this time presented from the
Orthodox side.
We acknowledge that at the dawn
of ecumenism, in the first half of the 20th century, participation in the
ecumenical movement for the purpose of preaching Orthodoxy might have seemed
like a revelation and a new valuable opportunity that should not be missed. At
the Second All-Diaspora Council in 1938, during the debates on the question of
participation in the ecumenical movement, there were not a few defenders of
such participation, pointing to the possible benefit of Orthodox witness. However,
at the same council, there were no fewer uncompromising opponents of ecumenism.
As a result, the ecumenical question was referred by the All-Diaspora Council
to the judgment of the Hierarchical Council of the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside of Russia. Then, on August 16/29, 1938, the Hierarchical Council
adopted the following resolution on the matter: "Orthodox Christians must
regard the Holy Universal Orthodox Church as the one and only true Church of
Christ. Therefore, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia forbids its
faithful from participating in the ecumenical movement, which is based on the
principle of equality among all Christian religions and confessions."
In that distant year of 1938, one
could have raised the question: was it not premature for the council of the
Russian émigré hierarchs to adopt such an unequivocal decision? After all, most
official representatives of the local Orthodox Churches chose a different
course: they entered the ecumenical movement, most often justifying their
participation with the well-known ecumenical argument—the necessity of Orthodox
witness.
But now the 20th century, which
accumulated the rich experience of "ecumenical Orthodox witness," is
behind us. And what are the fruits of this witness?… How many non-Orthodox
participants in the ecumenical movement have been drawn to Orthodoxy by
Orthodox ecumenists? Such cases, at least until now, are unknown. And if such a
thing has happened, it has been an exception to the rule—one that only confirms
the rule itself. On the other hand, what great scandal and confusion have
Orthodox ecumenists caused among the faithful!
The lamentable experience of
Orthodox ecumenical witness has unquestionably confirmed the divine inspiration
of the decisions of the Hierarchical Council of 1938, which rejected even the
third argument of ecumenism.
Expanding on this argument, it is
often said that Orthodoxy cannot remain in isolation, that it is obliged to
bear witness to itself. But are we opposed to this?… The only issue is that we
must not replace the understanding of mission with that of ecumenical dialogue.
The task of mission is to testify to the divinely revealed truth and to convert
people to it, whereas the stated goal of ecumenical dialogue is an endless
clarification of what truth is—never a turning toward it. Ecumenical dialogue
does not assist Orthodox mission; rather, it restrains it, since Orthodox and
heterodox ecumenists often make mutual agreements not to engage in proselytism
in territories traditionally associated with their respective confessions. In
other words, Orthodox ecumenists renounce their mission among the heterodox,
thereby committing a betrayal of the apostolic work. Despite the counsel of the
Psalmist, they time and again join the "assembly of the ungodly" (Ps.
1:1)—the countless ecumenical gatherings…
True and fruitful witness to
Orthodoxy is achievable only through Orthodox mission, which is indeed of
utmost necessity! Orthodox mission—this is what truly brings Orthodoxy out of
isolation, placing the candle of the true faith on the lampstand so that it may
shine upon the whole world. The fruits of Orthodox mission are real and cannot
be compared in any way to the imaginary missionary efforts of ecumenism. Let us
at least recall the victorious mission of Russian Orthodoxy in Japan at the end
of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century.
Thus, it is entirely evident that
even the third argument of ecumenism is false.
Untangling the
Ecumenical Knot: Ecumenism from Different Perspectives
§ 1. Philosophy
When considering ecumenism from a
philosophical perspective, we must once again reiterate its eclectic nature:
not an organic union, but an artificial compilation; not a God-man organism, as
is Christ’s Church, but a human organization, governed by the fallen will and
reason.
In its eclecticism, ecumenism
mirrors the pagan religion of the Roman Empire, which automatically
incorporated the gods of all nations into its pantheon. The reasons for such
unrestricted religious expansion are indifference toward the work of faith, spiritual
omnivorousness, and at the same time, a secular cosmopolitanism interested in
constructing a universal earthly kingdom.
There is no doubt that ecumenism
strives for wholeness. Yet, lacking the strength to attain the God-man
wholeness of Orthodoxy, it substitutes it with universality and pan-unity in an
ancient-humanist spirit. In general, the character of all manifestations of
ecumenism is not Christian but ancient, that is, pagan in essence. Just as the
ancient worldview, the ecumenical worldview perceives religion not as the
service of the one and only salvific truth, but as a means of organizing
earthly life. Material well-being, utopian peacemaking, and political
chiliasm—these are the universal principles of ecumenism.
§ 2. Ethics and Aesthetics
An acquaintance with ecumenical
philosophy obliges the impartial researcher to conclude that ecumenism is
unethical. Stillborn in its very essence, ecumenism is not only incapable of
doing good but, consequently—whether willingly or unwillingly—it becomes an
instrument of evil. Furthermore, it is necessary to highlight the deceptive
nature of ecumenism, stemming from the fact that a significant portion of its
participants, particularly from economically weaker countries, pursue
mercantile interests rather than the goals they officially declare. This aspect
of ecumenism is profoundly immoral.
From the lack of ethics in
ecumenism follows its lack of aesthetics. If something is not good, it cannot,
by its very nature, be truly beautiful.
Dead and immoral eclecticism is
neither beautiful inwardly nor outwardly. It is enough for one to watch a video
recording of any ecumenical service to be convinced that even the external
"ritualism" of ecumenical actions contradicts the aesthetic sense of
a Christian.
If one were to seek artistic
parallels for the aesthetic description of ecumenism, it could be said that
ecumenism is not a symphony (harmony) but a cacophony (discord); not an
iconographic composition (polyptych), but a tasteless collage; not an inspired
poem, but a quatrain in which each line is written by a different author, and
so forth.
Ecumenism is always disharmony,
not harmony.
§ 3. Psychology
The psychological nature of
ecumenism is conformism, or, in ecclesiastical terms, people-pleasing.
A well-known psychological
experiment demonstrates the degree of conformism in a child. The essence of the
experiment is as follows: a child is shown a black piece of paper and asked
what color it is. Meanwhile, the other children participating in the experiment
have been instructed beforehand to deliberately claim that the paper is white,
despite clearly seeing that it is black. As a result of the experiment, the
non-conformist child firmly refuses to agree with the other children, who are
lying, and insists that the paper is black. In contrast, the conformist child
aligns with the majority opinion and also begins to claim that the black paper
is white.
Conformism lies at the foundation
of the behavior of participants in the ecumenical movement, who resemble the
conformist children from the described experiment, trusting the opinions of
their leaders and the majority more than self-evident truths.
The conformism of ecumenists is
dangerous because it leads to irresponsibility for the consequences of one's
own decisions and actions. Some people proclaim a utopian idea, while others,
forming the ecumenical mass, do not take the trouble to reflect on this foreign
idea. Instead, carried away by it, they confidently pursue false goals. But
this is no longer an experiment—it is real life, in which the conscious choice
of falsehood carries within it the destruction of the human soul.
In its compromise and
people-pleasing, ecumenism is akin to another destructive phenomenon of the
20th century—the so-called "Sergianism", which, in a broader moral
sense, is understood as a compromise with evil for the sake of supposed ecclesiastical
benefit. Ecclesiastical conformism, as the common foundation of both ecumenism
and Sergianism, contradicts the very psychology of Christianity, which upholds
the holy ideals of confession and martyrdom for the faith.
§ 4. Exegesis—Interpretation
of Holy Scripture
Heterodox and Orthodox ecumenists
have always sought, and continue to seek, an ideological justification for
their activities. In this regard, their attention is primarily directed toward
exegesis. According to them, ecumenical interpretation of Holy Scripture is
capable of proving that ecumenism is not only appropriate but even divinely
commanded.
Ecumenist exegetes point to
various quotations and examples from the Bible that supposedly confirm the
legitimacy of ecumenism. However, let us remind ourselves that most Christian
sects also attempt to justify their false teachings through Scripture in order
to "prove" their correctness. Does this mean that Holy Scripture does
not contain objective truth? No. The highest truth is objective, not
subjective. But how is it, then, that both sectarians and Christians, both
heterodox and Orthodox, both ecumenists and anti-ecumenists all appeal to the
same Holy Scripture? The answer lies in the difference in interpretation of
Scripture.
The strength of true Orthodox
exegesis lies in the fact that it is based on Holy Tradition, or more
specifically, on the interpretations of the Holy Fathers, made under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In contrast, ecumenical exegesis is practically
devoid of patristic interpretations of Holy Scripture. This is not surprising;
after all, even if one could, with great difficulty, find a private opinion
among certain Holy Fathers that contains some vague hint of ecumenical ideas,
the "consensus of the Fathers" (consensus patrum) would never
support ecumenical views and expectations. The mere mention of such Holy
Fathers as Ignatius the God-Bearer, Vincent of Lérins, Cyprian of Carthage,
Athanasius the Great, Mark of Ephesus, Theophan the Recluse, and Ignatius
(Brianchaninov) should be enough to cause trembling among ecumenists. The
ecclesiology of the Holy Fathers is a direct rebuke to ecumenism.
Finding no support among the Holy
Fathers, ecumenical exegesis is forced to rely on the new tradition of
modernist theologians, who are more engaged in a "creative" search
for convenient interpretations at the expense of patristic tradition.
The separation of ecumenical
exegesis from Holy Tradition is in fundamental contradiction to Orthodoxy.
§ 5. Spirituality and
Asceticism
The most widespread sin of
Orthodox ecumenists is joint prayer with heretics. Let us clarify that, based
on the etymology of the word "heresy" (Greek: choice, preference),
all "heterodox Christians" must be considered heretics, as they are
individuals who have fallen away from the fullness of the universal
[Orthodox—translator’s note] teaching, choosing and preferring their own
erroneous opinions and traditions over the unchanging and universal Tradition
of the Church.
The prayer of Orthodox Christians
with heretics, and even more so with non-Christians, is a spiritual corruption
born of ecumenism.
Prayerful and spiritual communion
with the heterodox, who are infected with a subtle spiritual delusion,
mystically poisons Orthodox souls.* Such communion is dangerous, even if the
Orthodox participant in the ecumenical dialogue does not share the doctrinal
position of ecumenism and declares himself a witness to Orthodoxy. Defilement
through heterodox spirituality occurs not only during ecumenical services but
even in the most ordinary forms of "casual" joint prayer, such as
before an ecumenical banquet.
If heresy, as false doctrine, is
a sin of the mind, then prayerful communion with heretics is a sin of the soul.
Such communion destroys spiritual chastity, turning the Christian into a
spiritual adulterer. In this, we see yet another aspect of ecumenism—spiritual
fornication.
Given the utmost importance of
this topic, let us examine it in greater detail.
In ancient times, even pagans and
Jews safeguarded their religious communities from prayerful communion with
dissenters and non-believers. This principle has always been known to the
Christian Church. Its Founder and Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, established the
practice of excommunication from ecclesiastical—and therefore, from prayerful—communion
(Matt. 18:17). This principle was further developed and affirmed in Church life
by the Holy Apostles (2 Tim. 3:5; Titus 3:10; 2 Thess. 3:6).
The teaching of the Church on
this matter has been definitively sealed in the Holy Canons. Thus, the Canons
of the Holy Apostles state:
"If anyone prays with one
who has been excommunicated from ecclesiastical communion, even in his own
house, let him also be excommunicated." (Apostolic Canon 10). But who are
these excommunicated persons, with whom joint prayer is forbidden? They are not
only those who have been officially excommunicated by ecclesiastical authority
but also all those who do not have full communion with the Universal Orthodox
Church, for such individuals have excommunicated themselves from communion with
it. In other words, we are forbidden from praying together with all
non-Orthodox. Another example: "A bishop, presbyter, or deacon who has
merely prayed with a heretic shall be excommunicated." (Apostolic Canon 45).
And so on. (See also Apostolic Canons 11, 65, Antioch 2, and their parallels.)
Following the conciliar mind of
the Church, which strictly forbids any spiritual communion between Orthodox
Christians and non-Orthodox, the Russian hierarchs abroad once again reaffirmed
in 1983 the anathema against all those "who have communion with...
heretics" (a citation from the third and final part of the Anathema
against Ecumenism).
We emphasize that the separation
of the faithful from spiritual communion with heretics is determined primarily
by mystical-ascetical rather than disciplinary or doctrinal reasons (for
example, the doctrinal aspect of the prayer "Our Father" does not
raise any doubts). The danger of any joint prayer lies in the fact that it
mystically unites the hearts of those who pray together. And what else can an
Orthodox Christian expect from such a prayer except defilement by the impurity
of heretical spirituality? This defilement occurs externally in an entirely
imperceptible manner, much like radiation exposure, yet over time, it
inevitably leads to spiritual illness, and in the worst case, even to spiritual
death.
Thus, from an ascetical
perspective, ecumenism is unacceptable to Orthodoxy, for it carries within
itself heterodox spirituality, infected with delusion.
§ 6. Historiosophy
From a historiosophical
perspective, it can be said that since the beginning of the 20th century,
ecumenism has become a knot of numerous difficulties and contradictions for the
Orthodox world.
Through the open window of
ecumenism, the wind of modernism rushed into the Orthodox world, infiltrating
practically all areas of Church life.
Thus, for example, the
implementation of the calendar-Paschal reform is directly linked to the ideas
of ecumenism. After all, with calendar unity between Orthodox and heterodox, it
becomes easier for modernist Orthodox and ecumenists to carry out their destructive
work. Here, moreover, we see the spiritual and deeply ecclesiastical
significance—not merely a superficial ritualistic matter—of defending the
Patristic Paschalion and the Julian Orthodox calendar. In a broader
sense, this defense is part of upholding Orthodox Tradition as a whole.
Deprived of any foundation in
Church Tradition, ecumenical apologetics often refers to its own previous
decrees and declarations, relying on the authority of contemporary Roman popes,
Protestant professors, and modernist-minded Orthodox theologians. In this way,
within the framework of ecumenism, an entirely new tradition is being
constructed—one that has openly departed from the apostolic and patristic
faith.
§ 7. Eschatology
From an eschatological
perspective, it is impossible not to associate the phenomenon of ecumenism with
the beginning of the period of ecclesiastical apostasy—the falling away from
true Christianity, and consequently, with the future enthronement of the Antichrist.
One of the pillars of the
Antichrist’s rule will undoubtedly be the unification of religions. Most
likely, however, this unification will not take the form of complete fusion but
rather an eclectic amalgamation, as previously discussed.
From what has been said, it
follows that the spiritual core of the present age is the opposition between
the supporters of uncorrupted Orthodox Christianity and the advocates of
"ecumenical Christianity." The resolution of this conflict is
possible only through a pan-Orthodox conciliar condemnation of ecumenism and of
false-religious ecumenicity in the broadest sense. Such a conciliar
condemnation of the pan-heresy of ecumenism would mark a new great triumph of
Holy Orthodoxy. Otherwise, this opposition will ultimately result in the
complete falling away of Orthodox ecumenists and modernists from the Church of
Christ, leading them into the fold of the ecumenical (universal) church of the
Antichrist—the church of the deceitful ["the church of the deceitful,"
Ps. 25:5—translator’s note].
The Universal Confession
Upon careful examination, it
becomes clear that the theological knot of ecumenism cannot be untangled. Like
the Gordian Knot, it can only be severed. How? With the sword of the universal
[Orthodox—translator’s note] confession, the sword of the Orthodox faith.
The true Orthodox theologians of
the 20th century have long exposed the essence of the devil’s struggle—and that
of his servants—against Christianity in our time. They have pointed out that
now the enemy wages war particularly against the dogma of the Church, striving
to undermine or distort the faith in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
Church. As we have seen, ecumenical doctrine is entirely permeated with the
poison of falsehood and anti-church ideology.
In opposition to this ecumenical
heresy, we must fearlessly confess the uncorrupted Christian ecclesiology,
whose fundamental principles are as follows:
• The true and salvific Church,
both in heaven and on earth, is one alone. It is the Universal Orthodox Church,
which has preserved in purity the teaching of Christ and apostolic succession.
This Church is one. It has never divided within itself, and the forces of evil
shall never overcome it. Its light shines in the darkness, and the darkness
shall not consume it.
• In all ages, there have been
traitors, self-willed schismatics, and false teachers who, along with their
followers, have separated themselves from the Church. However, though the
Church may have diminished in number, it has never diminished in essence.
People have fallen away from her, but she herself has never been divided. The
Church has always remained one and real. At the same time, schisms and
apostasies from the Church have always occurred and will continue to occur (1
Tim. 4:1). Therefore, the claim of absolute inseparability of those who wither
away from the Church is deceitful.
Because of God’s longsuffering,
falling away from the Church does not always happen instantly. In particular,
the apostasy of large ecclesiastical communities from the Universal Church is,
as a rule, a process rather than a single act. However, this reality does not
blur the boundaries of the Church. The true Church is always that one and only
Church in which the Orthodox universal faith is preserved in its fullness and
purity, without corruption. Only where faith is pure and uncorrupted is a
salvific and deception-free spiritual life possible. Conversely, the presence
of a living and healthy tradition in the spiritual-liturgical life serves as
evidence of the truth and vitality of the Church. The spiritual-liturgical life
(Hesychasm) is the heart of Orthodoxy. The heart must be especially safeguarded
from the ecumenical spirituality, which is immersed in delusion.
• The invincible and salvific power
of the Church lies in the fact that she is the Body of the Lord Jesus Christ,
who is also her Head (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23). The Head of the Church, the Messiah,
Himself governs her in the fulfillment of her salvific mission on earth.
Following her Head, the Church establishes righteousness and goodness, not
through the means of this world, but through spiritual power.
The work of the Church is the
work of love—love for God and for the human race. Her calling is to be the
guardian of truth, the comforter of the sorrowful, and the savior of the
perishing.
Until the end of time, the Church
will continue her fiery and grace-filled witness before this world, which lies
in evil. The essence of her witness is in the honest and unfeigned proclamation
of the Gospel ideals and in prayer for the mercy of mankind.
The Holy Spirit, who fills the
entire life of the Church, makes her Spirit-bearing and light-giving, so that
her spiritual light reaches and enlightens all those who thirst for
righteousness.
• Outside the Church of Christ,
there is no salvation for us!
* Here, we must also understand prayerful communion with
Orthodox who are in communion with heretics. For example, the Bulgarian and
Georgian Patriarchates are officially outside the canonically forbidden
prayerful communion with heterodox. However, they remain in full liturgical
communion with all local churches that are members of the World Council of
Churches, which in reality constitutes spiritual communion with the very
heterodox Christians they outwardly avoid (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14-18). [Bulgarian
translator’s note.]
About the author: Monk Vsevolod (Filipiev) is instructor of Patristics and
Homiletics at Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, NY, and editor of Pravoslavnaya
Rus'.
Original source: https://pravoslavie.bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/02/vsevolod_ecum.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.