Holy Orthodox Tradition and Ecumenism

An editorial by a non-commemorating new calendarist Romanian monastic.

Hieromonk Lavrentie | September 13, 2019

 

“For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!” (Matt. 23:23–24)

The words above are just as valid for our days as they were in the time when they were spoken by the Savior Himself. They express nothing other than sorrow and rebuke toward those who are content with cheap rituals and disregard the most essential commandments of God. “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63). How easily we confine ourselves to empty forms and abandon the simple, Spirit-filled gestures! But the question arises: Did Christ become incarnate, suffer, and rise again for our health and well-being, or for something better and more necessary—for the hearts and eternal life of men, for us?

What is the essence of Orthodox rituals

But first of all, today’s committed ecumenists, as well as those who merely accept the Council of Crete, hold especially to and urge others to value more the external ordinances detached from the sanctifying power of pure faith. They even boast that they have not renounced the faith because they celebrate the Liturgy and the rites unchanged. But have they never read the Gospel? Not even during the services? Is it so difficult to put a little heart and sincerity into the outward order of liturgical life?

It is true, I must admit, that the hardest thing in this world is to put faith into our deeds. It is the easiest thing to fulfill our duties toward the good God without faith, without zeal, without conscience. It is terribly difficult to struggle with ourselves, not to deceive ourselves. It is the science of sciences and the art of arts, as the Holy Fathers define this work, just as the craftiness of evil spirits is to derail people's path from the straight and healthy road, to scatter tares that choke and render fruitless good efforts.

In order not to be caught in the snares of the evil one, it is necessary to search the Scriptures, to seek God, to knock at the doors of our hearts, and to ask for the mercy of Christ. It is not possible to avoid them without proper preparation, without fitting effort. It is not possible to be saved without knowing the pure tradition left by the Savior through the apostles to the Church. Of course, it is not necessary for everyone to know all the details, to be experts. Yet we cannot lay claim to salvation when we swallow the camel and strain out the gnat, when we preserve certain outward and formal aspects, but neglect the essence of God’s commandments: right faith, sound and filled with conscious piety.

St. Theophan the Recluse eloquently presents the simplicity of faith: “You have known from experience the saving power of the entire order within the Church of God, in all its details, down to the incense in the censer and the simple offering brought to church. And if all these are inventions—as they say—then they are saving inventions. […] They do not want to understand the Gospel except insofar as they find it similar to their own notions. What is the end? Their end is the total rejection of Christianity and, as a result, perdition. […] In the Holy Church of God, such wavering and oscillation of ideas and vain speculations are not possible. Here the saving rule has been established once and for all in the Holy Creed, being handed down from the apostles and contained within the Holy Orthodox Church.” [1]

Who are those who change the tradition precisely at its core, if not the hierarchy that adhered to the decisions of the Council of Crete? Who separates themselves from the Church: those who rebuke the hierarchs even by ceasing commemoration, or rather those who have adopted Ecumenism? What is the criterion that must be followed: the tradition of the apostles or the will of the hierarchy, which seeks to impose itself through the Council?

Elements of Contemporary Ecumenism

To be more explicit and to bring concrete arguments about the subtle yet immense betrayal, we must understand what ecumenism is in its current form. It is described even by one of its promoters in these words: “Both ecumenist and anti-ecumenist Orthodox begin from the same fundamental ecclesiological principle, succinctly expressed in an anti-ecumenist declaration of the Holy Community of Mount Athos in April 1980: ‘We believe that our holy Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ, which possesses the fullness of grace and truth.’ But pro-ecumenist and anti-ecumenist Orthodox draw radically different conclusions from this single principle. Orthodox ecumenists, such as Fr. Sergius Bulgakov (1871–1944) and Fr. Georges Florovsky (1893–1979), focusing on the notion that the Orthodox Church possesses the fullness of truth and grace, conclude that other Christian churches also possess grace and truth, though not in their fullness. […] This does not mean that all Christian communities are equal in matters of faith and doctrine, since Orthodox ecumenists agree with anti-ecumenists that the Orthodox Church alone holds the fullness of the Christian faith and is the true visible Church of Christ.” [2] Therefore, even the ecumenists themselves acknowledge these differences, which have been exploited in the final formulas of the synodal documents from Crete. They do not deny that the Orthodox Church is the one Church of Christ, but they use sophisticated and sophistic formulas to affirm that the other denominations are also partakers in the Body of Christ. Again, they do not deny the differences and inequality among Christian confessions, but they claim that all these together invisibly form the apostolic Church. Whereas the truth is that the Councils have the power to expel heretics from the Body of the Church; it is a living organism and chooses for itself, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, whom to receive and whom not to. The heterodox cannot be part of it against its will. Church history shows precisely this: that the Church preserved its unity and integrity through the exclusion and condemnation of heretics from its midst. Today, ecumenist theories represent precisely a reversal of the ordinances of the Holy Councils and of ecclesiastical order.

To form a complete picture of the driving lines of ecumenism, I will briefly add a few more fundamental ideas from the article cited above. In addition to the distinction between the uniqueness and fullness of Orthodoxy as the Church of Christ, from which arises the possibility and opportunity of establishing a dialogue between Orthodoxy and the heretics, the author insists on two more principles. He does not admit the absence of saving grace within heterodox formations, nor does he deny them the designation of churches.

The latter two aspects require some clarification, yet they are doctrinally clear. No matter how much one tries to contradict the dictum of St. Cyprian of Carthage, “extra ecclesiam, nulla salus” (outside the Church, there is no salvation), it represents the quintessence of the Church's mind from all times. God does work outside the Church, but we cannot conclude from this that the grace of Christ is by definition present outside the canonical boundaries of the Church. And the fact that the proposal of Priest Vsevolod Chaplin — “communities that call themselves Christian” instead of “the historical designation of other Christian churches and confessions” — was rejected, proves that this is a point the ecumenists will not concede, namely that heretics are to be regarded as churches. This is why there was such strong opposition to removing the term “church” from the text when referring to the non-Orthodox.

From all this results a well-defined program that is to be implemented step by step. Dialogue and relations with heretics must first become normalized among hierarchs, theology professors, and priests, and then also at the level of the simple faithful. Orthodox Christians must become accustomed to the idea that those outside the Church also partake of the grace of Christ and are our half-brothers, whom we must love and accept in the name of a boundless love. In other words, the “Orthodox” stubbornness is being systematically attacked (with mocking labels invented, such as “ecumenoclasts”) in order to remove the purity of the faith, aiming at a dissolving mixture with all apostates. And, unfortunately, many even among practicing Orthodox fall into this trap, ignoring the terrifying danger of having an impermissible “openness” toward heresies.

Ecumenism Ratified Through the Documents of Crete

To show the presence of this ecumenist theory within the lines of document 6 from Crete [“Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”], I present here a few passages from which the very ideas of the ecumenical movement emerge:

1. Art. 1: The Orthodox Church, being the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, firmly believes, in her profound ecclesial self-consciousness, that she holds a primary place in the matter of promoting Christian unity in the contemporary world.”

This phrase expresses the conviction of taking a leading role in the ecumenical movement based on the fact that our Church is fully the one Church, while the others are incomplete. Self-consciousness represents a dogmatic vision, not merely an institutional one, regarding the Church. And it is not a missionary dogmatic conviction or one about the Church’s role in society, but an ecclesial one—that is, concerning the very definition of the Church in its essence. Therefore, as a dogmatic conviction, this passage declares that Orthodoxy cooperates with other Christian denominations to restore ecclesiastical unity. This statement is in blatant contradiction with the entire history mentioned earlier. It is precisely through the exclusion of heretics who threatened it that the unity of the Church was preserved. To now consider them as being within, to claim that there is division and that cooperation is needed with them in order to achieve, supposedly, unity—this is nothing other than a denial of the divine justice and peace preserved with sacrifice until now.

But there is an error among today’s Orthodox who do not want to see the true meaning of the article under discussion. As an example, I point to Archimandrite Tikhon, the Athonite abbot of the Monastery of Stavronikita. He was present at the Council of Crete (Kolymbari) and even gave an account of what took place there.

[https://www.cuvantul-ortodox.ro/recomandari/raportul-confidential-al-intaistatatorului-manastirii-stavronichita-catre-sfanta-chinotita-despre-dezbaterile-sinodului-de-la-creta-marturie-importanta-care-confirma-rolul-pozitiv-jucat-de-delegatia/]

But he also wrote a eulogistic text titled The Holy and Great Council through the Texts of its Decisions, in which he presents the decisions taken as if they were Orthodox.

[https://www.pemptousia.gr/2017/08/i-agia-ke-megali-sinodos-mesa-apo-ta-kimena-ton-apofaseon-tis/]

Although at the end there is a note indicating that a continuation would follow, it appears that this did not happen. As the monks of the Panagouda cell indicated to me, this article “demonstrates” that Orthodox teaching was not affected. It is similar to the brochure issued by the Romanian Patriarchate, which presents an Orthodox vision—but one that is in fact not reflected in the Cretan documents.

Thus, Archimandrite Tikhon states at one point, commenting on Article 1: “The Orthodox Church firmly believes and holds in the deepest part of her conscience, through the experiential living of the grace of the Most Holy Spirit, that she is one and alone by the fact that she is the Body of our Lord and God Jesus Christ, Who became incarnate and extends into eternity.” Therefore, it can be observed that this is an incorrect reading of the synodal text. It does not state there that the Church believes she is the one Church, but that she holds a primary place in the promotion of “ecumenical” unity. This blindness and inability to read the synodal text in all its clarity is at the very least strange. Probably, out of a painful panic over betrayal, he cannot accept this disastrous reality. Nevertheless, the attitude of burying one’s head in the sand—which is not only that of Archimandrite Tikhon—is not helpful, but extremely harmful.

2. Art. 18: “The Orthodox Church, faithful to her ecclesiology, to the identity of her internal structure, and to the teaching of the early Church of the seven Councils, while participating in the World Council of Churches (WCC), does not in any way accept the idea of the equality of confessions and cannot in any way receive the unity of the Church as some kind of interconfessional adaptation [emphasis added]. In this spirit, the unity sought within the WCC cannot be merely the product of theological agreements, but also of the unity of faith, preserved and lived in the Orthodox Church in the Mysteries.”

As seen in the text above, these are typical principles of Orthodox ecumenists—namely, that they acknowledge an inequality among confessions, yet claim that all are, to varying degrees, parts of the Church of Christ. The expression “cannot in any way receive the unity of the Church as some kind of interconfessional adaptation” does not refer to the unity of the Orthodox Church, but to that which supposedly includes even the heretics. The idea is that an interconfessional compromise, a state of amalgamation—such as currently exists and is seen as an expression of the division within the so-called una sancta Church—is not accepted, but that collaboration is desired in order to reach a clearly defined unity. In other words, the Church is now supposedly composed of unequal confessions, which are in a state of division, and it must attain unity not through compromise. But this vision is essentially contrary to the Orthodox perspective.

Moreover, the last part of the paragraph shows us what this so-called uncompromised unity would be: “The unity sought within the WCC cannot simply be the product of theological agreements (that is, through compromises), but also of the unity of faith” (Orthodox). However, the emphasized words mark precisely a compromise; if they were removed, the meaning would be entirely different. Thus, the WCC does not promote an overt compromise, but one through agreements and discussions—yet one that does not represent the strict truth of the faith, but a mixture between authentic tradition and the theological agreements that take place.

If we take into account that His Eminence Teofan [Metropolitan of Moldavia and Bukovina], for example, cited this Article 18 as if it were Orthodox, in order to show that the texts from Crete do not contain dogmatic errors, I believe the picture of betrayal is complete.

[https://mmb.ro/comunicat/comunicat-de-presa-legatura-cu-reactii-ale-unor-credinciosi-din-mitropolia-moldovei]

Our hierarchs do not even realize what the Orthodox faith is, nor do they know what they have signed, nor do they wish to review it, but continue instead to defend the derailed ecumenist line onto which they are inscribing the entire Church.

3. Art. 8: “In the context of its relations with the rest of the Christian world, the Orthodox Church does not rely solely on the human abilities of those conducting the dialogues, but relies first and foremost on the protection of the Holy Spirit through the grace of the Lord, Who prayed ‘that they all may be one’ (John 17:21).”

The supposed presence of grace even among the non-Orthodox world was affirmed through this paragraph. The idea that emerges from it is that the grace of God would be working toward a desired unity with the heretics. Whereas Christ prayed that all Orthodox may be one with God and with one another—not with those outside the Church. Indeed, the Savior’s prayer has in view exclusively the faithful members of the Church.

4. Art. 6: “The Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of the other heterodox Christian Churches and Confessions.”

This paragraph was the most debated and does not deserve to be reopened now. In any case, it is clear that the ecumenists hold to it as to a captured stronghold—namely, to consider the heretics as churches and members of the Church of Christ.

Of course, participation in the WCC alone is sufficient to seal the deviation from Orthodoxy, without even taking into account the aforementioned details. But those only reinforce and reveal the errors.

The Humble but Pure Preservation of Orthodox Tradition

As Professor Tselengidis also warns, ecumenism uses all means to achieve its goal, including any fear or concession made by us. Even the granting of autocephaly to the schismatics in Ukraine can serve as a springboard for receiving into communion—without conditions or limits, through so-called economies—any church formation, from Greek Catholics to all members of the WCC.

[https://theodosie.ro/2019/09/09/scrisoare-tselenghidis-problema-ucraineana/]

There were also Saints who held heretical convictions for a time, such as St. Gerasimos of the Jordan and St. Ioannikios the Great, but they came to their senses; their conscience, pure piety, and sincere seeking led them to the truth. There were also hierarchs who signed documents containing subtly heretical expressions, such as Gregory, the father of St. Gregory the Theologian, and Dianius, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. They retracted their signatures when certain monks, among them St. Basil the Great, broke communion with them. Is it really so difficult for the Romanian synod members (not to mention those of other Local Churches) to renounce these ruinous decisions if they have an Orthodox mindset? I repeat—if they have an Orthodox mindset.

The Church is not at our disposal, so that we may condemn bishops and impose order, but neither is she foreign to us, such that we should be indifferent. Whoever says that he leaves Christ to take care of His Church while he himself does nothing and accepts everything as if all were perfectly well—such a one proves that he does not belong to Christ and that the Lord does not work through him for the defense of His Church. For how can a living member of the Body of Christ not react in any way when the Body is under attack—unless it is a dead or diseased member?

I by no means encourage overreactions, such as breaking communion with all priests and faithful as if it were a contamination, but I emphasize that there can be no spiritual life through the conscious betrayal of the truth of the faith.

[https://theodosie.ro/2019/06/19/rostul-intreruperii-pomenirii/]

Let us be sober, watchful, attentive to the derailments being imposed on us, so that we do not serve foreign masters! Let us at least be like the seven thousand in the time of the Prophet Elijah, who did not bow the knee to Baal—whom only God knew, but through whom the chosen people of that time endured!

 

1. St. Theophan the Recluse, Teachings and Letters on the Christian Life, pp. 133–135.

2. Paul Ladouceur, On Ecumenoclasm: Anti-Ecumenical Theology in Orthodoxy, in “St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly,” 61:3 (2017), p. 331.

 

Romanian source: https://theodosie.ro/2019/09/13/traditia-ortodoxa-sfanta-si-cea-ecumenista/