Why is Ecumenism a heresy?

Father Daniele Marletta | July 13, 2019

 

 

I am often asked why many Orthodox are so opposed to the ecumenical movement and look upon it with such hostility, even seeing in it a heresy. The reasons are in fact many and serious, and they deserve an in-depth treatment. I will limit myself here to a few fundamental notes, starting from the example of a possible unification between Catholics and Orthodox. I have absolutely no pretension of setting forth here, in a few lines, all the possible interpretations of a problem that is in itself quite complex. I will confine myself to stating what I believe can be considered the most obvious—and in certain respects almost banal—critique of ecumenism, and this because such a critique, precisely on account of its obviousness, is often ignored.

I wish to set aside for a moment the question of dogmatic differences—a question to which many today are (quite unjustly) allergic—and to begin from a simply practical point of view. A possible union between Catholics and Orthodox is possible only in three perspectives, or if one prefers, three paths, which I shall proceed to examine.

The first path is that which we might define as a “Catholic” ecumenism. In such a perspective, the Pope of Rome preserves his present position, remaining the “universal” bishop (according to the Roman Catholic definition), with jurisdiction over the entire Church. This is, in fact, still today the position of the Second Vatican Council and of many recent official documents of the Roman See, in which it is reaffirmed that there is no true communion with the Church except in communion with the Pope. It is clear that such a possibility would sanction the end of Orthodoxy as we currently know it. In the Orthodox Church there exists no universal primacy, and all bishops have equal dignity. Each of them has direct jurisdiction within his own territory, and not beyond it. We can say that such a perspective would lead the Orthodox to cease being Orthodox.

It should be noted that this position is by no means new. It is the one that was advanced at the Council of Lyons (in the second half of the thirteenth century), then at that of Ferrara-Florence (in the fifteenth century), and which was later put into effect with the Union of Brest (1595–96) and, in general, with what the Orthodox call “Uniatism.” These attempts at unification (or, more precisely, at the assimilation of the Orthodox to Rome) were always very modest in their results and in fact rather contributed to confirming the Orthodox in a deep anti-Latin attitude, above all because of unpleasant historical events, such as the massacre carried out by Patriarch Bekkos against those Athonite monks who had rebelled against the union of Lyons. This suffices to say that this path is absolutely not practicable on the part of the Orthodox.

The second path is entirely the mirror image of the previous one, and we could define it as an “Orthodox” ecumenism. According to this perspective, the Pope of Rome should renounce his present position, becoming a bishop like the others (or, if one prefers, a Patriarch like the others). Here the argument just made for the Orthodox applies: in the event of such a change within Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox would perhaps preserve their identity, but it would be the Roman Catholics who would lose theirs. Father Georges Florovsky was for a certain time a convinced supporter of this path. He was radically convinced that the Orthodox, by participating in the ecumenical movement, could in some way “bear witness” to the truth. He soon came to disillusionment, realizing how the underlying spirit of ecumenism did not permit such a witness.

“Our salvation is only with the Pope and in the Pope,” said John Bosco. Obviously, since his time much water has flowed under the bridges, and today very few would use an expression of this sort. This, however, does not at all mean that for Catholicism the figure of the Pope has lost importance. In many respects, on the contrary, the Pope manages to maintain popularity despite the profound crisis of Catholicism. Will Catholics truly be willing to abandon the idea that the Church is visibly governed by a single Vicar of Christ? Being Orthodox, I refrain from expressing myself on their behalf, although everything leads me to conjecture a negative answer.

These first two paths start from the presupposition that the path to unity is above all a path of assimilation, because both begin from a very clear perception of the reality of the Church. If in fact there are many doctrinal differences between Orthodox and Catholics (even though for the sake of simplicity I have limited myself only to the problem of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope), it is obvious that there are also points in common. Among these points in common is the firm faith in the fact that the Church is already visibly united and one. Both Orthodox and Catholics recognize themselves in the Church “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic,” according to the words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The difference (which is by no means insignificant) consists rather in the identification of which is the true Church, that is, whether it is the Orthodox Church or Roman Catholicism.

We therefore come to the third path: “Protestant” ecumenism, that is, what is generally called “unity in diversity.” This is the underlying perspective that has animated the ecumenical movement since its origin. It is worth recalling how ecumenism was born within liberal Protestantism and was nourished by some of its fundamental ideas. It goes without saying that an authentic Protestant, who takes seriously the fundamental points of the Reformation, will never be able to accept a compromise on such points. Ecumenism in fact arises in the Protestant world for the Protestant world. Outside the perspective of the Reformation, it fades completely and loses its meaning. In our initial hypothesis, that of a unification of Catholics and Orthodox, unity in diversity could have only two antithetical outcomes. A first possible outcome would be that of a formal unity or communion in which one continues to be divided on everything: if the metaphor is allowed, it would be like moving from divorce to legal separation. Another possible outcome would be that of the relativization of faith: being together while believing that what divides us is only relative, and not absolute. This would mean the loss of identity both for Roman Catholics and for the Orthodox.

It must be noted that this perspective of unity in diversity, unlike the previous ones, starts from the presupposition that the Church is not visibly united. The unity of the Church is here considered either as an invisible unity to be made visible, or as a unity that is only potential and to be, so to speak, put into effect. It is quite curious that both Roman Catholics and Orthodox, while each professing their own form of ecumenism (the first two paths of which I have spoken), have then signed documents such as the Charta Oecumenica, [1] which are clear expressions of this third path.

Here we enter into the problem of dogmatic differences among Christians of different confessions. At this point we must ask ourselves a series of questions: how important are such differences? Are we truly willing to renounce them? A Protestant author, Alphonse Maillot, once wrote concerning relations between Catholics and Protestants the lines that I reproduce:

“One must ask oneself whether it is because of an authentic Christian conviction that Catholics and Protestants today extend a hand to one another, or whether it is not, often, out of lukewarmness and indifference. Like two valiant warriors tired of fighting without clearly knowing the reason, they consent to clasp hands before lying down to sleep or to die. I do not believe that it is always an authentic reconciliation. One may ask whether the cessation of mutual accusations of heresy does not simply prove that both sides have renounced their deep convictions in order to turn their approximations into compromises. The problem must be posed.” [2]

Maillot here touches upon a profound problem. The inter-Christian movement, with its train of dialogues, concelebrations, and common declarations, is perhaps nothing other than the symptom of an illness that today afflicts almost all Christian Confessions: the lack of faith. With the advance of secularization and the ever-growing estrangement between the masses, only nominally Christian, and the Church (whatever one may mean by “Church”), it is clear that all Christian Confessions are passing through a moment of profound spiritual crisis, entirely parallel to the cultural crisis that generally affects the West. The minimalism and dogmatic relativism underlying ecumenism are, from this point of view, the theological version of the cultural relativism that today is so much in vogue. It must be added that, just as cultural relativism is the symptom of the West’s crisis of identity (a West that seems by now to have renounced its Greco-Latin roots at least as much as its Christian ones), in the same way ecumenism is nothing but the symptom of a loss of faith. It is clear that this is not the only symptom of this illness. It is, however, one of the most evident symptoms today.

In conclusion, to the question of whether ecumenism is a heresy, I believe I can reply that it is perhaps much more than a simple heresy.

One might perhaps object to me that the “holy wars” of the past were certainly not a symptom of spiritual health, which in certain respects is true. It is also true, however, that the “wars” (holy or otherwise) among Christians of past centuries always had reasons. The fact of not waging war does not in itself make today’s Christians better than those of yesterday. I believe that it would be a sign of great spiritual pride today, for an Orthodox, to consider himself more Christian than Saint Gregory Palamas (who had words of fire against the Latins), just as it would be a sign of pride, for a Roman Catholic, to believe himself more Christian than that Thomas Aquinas who was the author of a treatise Contra errores graecorum.

 

1. Council of the Episcopal Conferences of Europe – Conference of European Churches, Charta Oecumenica. A text, a process, a dream of the Churches in Europe, Turin, Claudiana – Elledici, 2007. See, in addition to the text of the Charta, also the enthusiastic comments of many theologians, both Orthodox and Catholic, collected in the volume.

2. Alphonse Maillot, Les Miracles de Jesus et nous, Tournon (F), Éditions Réveil, 1977 (“Cahiers de Réveil”); Italian trans.: I miracoli di Gesù, Turin, Claudiana, 1990, p. 75

 

Italian source: https://www.orthodoxia.it/wp/ecumenismo-eresia/