The Theological Knot of Ecumenism and the Universal [Orthodox] Confession

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