Ecumenism is a Heresy Against the Dogma of the Church – One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic

By Archimandrite Seraphim (Aleksiev) and Archimandrite Sergiy (Yazadzhnev)

Excerpted from Почему православному христианину нельзя быть экуменистом [Why an Orthodox Christian Cannot be an Ecumenist]

A) The Church According to the Symbol of Faith. The “Branch Theory.” Pluralism

The dogma of the Church is expressed very concisely and precisely in the ninth article of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith: “I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” By these words is expressed the firm and unchanging conviction of the Orthodox Christian that the Church in which we believe is existing, and not awaited; already established, and not awaiting establishment; fully real, and not imagined.

There was a time when the Church was promised by the Savior in the words: I will build My Church (Matt. 16:18). But this promise was fulfilled on the day of the first Christian Pentecost, and since that time no one has doubted the existence of the Church, founded upon faith in Christ—the Cornerstone of it (cf. Eph. 2:20). For the Orthodox Christian, it exists as a real God-man organism for the salvation of souls.

Only in our time, on the basis of ecumenism, has there appeared the idea that the Church must be created not upon the Rock of Christ’s truth, but upon the sand of all manner of human errors, which contradicts the Symbol of Faith and Holy Scripture. The only things spoken of in the Symbol of Faith as expected in the future are the eschatological events—the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come—which is why of them it is said “I expect” (i.e., “I await”), whereas of the rest—“I believe” (“I confess”).

In contrast to heretical societies that claim to be “churches,” the Church of Christ is called “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” What do these definitions mean? Let us set them forth briefly.

1. The Church is one because of the unity of its confession of faith. It would not be one and unique, but would be multiple, if various approaches to the faith were permitted within it;

2. The Church is holy and sanctifying through the Divine grace imparted by it. If it had not received such grace from above, it could not be called holy, but would be merely a human graceless organization, such as heretical communities are;

3. The Church is catholic and universal by virtue of the Divine truth which it preserves and proclaims, intended for dissemination throughout the whole world. If it did not possess this Truth, it would be merely a grand earthly entity that had absorbed into itself the various false religious teachings existing in the world, and not the Church of Christ. And finally,

4. The Church is apostolic by reason of its apostolic origin; it preserves apostolic succession and is faithful to the apostolic traditions. If it had broken with this, it would not have the right to be called apostolic.

This teaching, concisely expressed in the ninth article of the Symbol of Faith by the words “…in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,” constitutes the fullness of the Orthodox faith in the Church. … If one compares the faith of a true Orthodox Christian in the Church with the views of heterodox ecumenists, a great difference becomes immediately apparent. Ecumenists do not believe in the existence of a single—unique, true, free from all error—holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. According to their understanding, none of the existing Christian confessions has fully preserved fidelity to the ancient apostolic Church and none possesses the fullness of truth. Ecumenists hold that the Church must be created by means of the ecumenical movement, through the rapprochement of the so-called “churches” with mutual concessions in doctrine and practice.

Already in 1937, the Protestant ecumenist Eli Hunel openly expressed his ecumenical “faith” in a universal church: “I believe in that which does not yet exist… but which must necessarily be. For I believe in the Holy Spirit, Who from the historical hour of Pentecost in Jerusalem unceasingly again and again creates experiments, projects of the church, until there arises the exemplary (church)… I see a multitude of churches: scattered, divided… I see churches sinning to such an extent that they cause scandal, pursued by a legion of demons: formalism, intellectualism, dogmatism (!).” The author concludes this tirade by repeating his belief in the coming “universal church.”

An Orthodox Christian can only be horrified upon hearing such blasphemous words. The Church founded by Christ is presented as non-existent, and the Holy Spirit is accused of being unable to create at once an exemplary Church, as though from Pentecost until now He has been producing unsuccessful projects of “churches,” whereby there have appeared in the world churches that lead into temptation and are populated by a “legion of demons”! To ascribe all this to the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable blasphemy, of which the Lord speaks in the Gospel (cf. Matt. 12:32)! The Church was created by the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. ibid. 16:18) and established by the grace of the Holy Spirit, poured out upon it in all fullness on the day of Pentecost (cf. Acts 2:1–12). The Savior loved it (cf. Eph. 5:25); for it He shed His blood (cf. Acts 20:28), that He might sanctify it, having cleansed it with the washing of water by the word; that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:25–27).

In a conversation with the ecumenist Michael Moore, we asked whether there is a church that today would confess a completely correct and irreproachable faith. “No!” he answered. “We must combine the faith of all the churches, and then everything will become one.” As this answer shows, at the foundation of ecumenism lies the dogmatically inadmissible principle of syncretism.

The Anglican “Bishop” of Gloucester, who participated in the Athens conference of Greek and Anglican theologians in May 1941, vigorously objected to the Orthodox dogma that only the Orthodox Church is the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,” asserting that “the Church has lost its unity and now exists only in schisms—an Eastern schism, a papal schism, an Anglican schism.” Certain Western ecumenists have gone even further and deny not only the factual, but also the principled unity of the Church. Henry van Dusen writes: “The notion of a single original ‘undivided Church’ is an absolute fiction… History knows nothing of the sort. There has never been an ‘undivided Church.’ Even in the first fifteen centuries there was hardly a century in which at least one new major falling away from the ‘Body of Christ’ did not occur.”

The author of these words—a liberal Protestant—sees in every heresy a new branch of Christ’s Church and assigns to each separate part the right to be called a “church.” Being outside the Church, he cannot understand or perceive that communities which fall away through heresy depart from the Church and can no longer belong to it, and can be united with it only by renouncing all their errors. Being false churches, they have no right to be called churches, whereas the true Church of Christ, by cutting off heretics from itself, continues to exist as a whole, internally united in faith, an indivisible Church.

The great Serbian Orthodox dogmatic theologian, (Venerable) Archimandrite Dr. Justin (Popović), speaks excellently: “Just as the Person of the God-man Christ is one and unique, so also the Church founded by Him and upon Him is one and unique. The unity of the Church inevitably follows from the unity of the God-man Christ. … Any division (of the Church) would signify its death. It is wholly already in the God-man and is first and foremost a God-man organism, and only then a God-man organization. Everything in it is God-man: its life, and its faith, and its love, and Baptism, and the Eucharist, and every one of its holy Mysteries, and all its teaching, and all its life, and all its immortality, and all its eternity, and all its structure. … In it everything is God-man and indivisible … In it everything is organically and by grace united into one God-man Body, under one Head—the God-man Lord Christ. … United with Christ, all the members of the Church from all nations and all times are one in Christ Jesus (cf. Gal. 3:28).

This unity of the faithful begins with the first Mystery—holy Baptism, continues and is strengthened through the other holy Mysteries, and reaches its summit in the holy Eucharist, by which the most perfect unity of the faithful with the Lord Christ is realized, as also unity among the faithful. … The foundation of the whole Church of Christ is built upon the unity and uniqueness of the God-man FAITH. And in this faith, everything is the God-man Lord Jesus Christ, Who in Himself and through the Church has united forever heaven with earth, angels with men, and, most importantly, God with men. … The God-man faith gives us, men, absolutely everything that is needed for eternal life. … With this faith we stand and exist from top to bottom; it has once for all been delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 1:3). … Like the holy Apostles, the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church also confess the unity and uniqueness of the Orthodox Church. From this is understandable also the fervent zeal of the holy Fathers of the Church, manifested at every separation and falling away from the Church, as well as their strict attitude toward heresies and schisms … Just as the Lord Christ cannot have several bodies, so also, He cannot have several churches. … Hence the division of the Church, ontologically, in its very essence, is impossible. There has never been, nor can there be, a division of the Church; there have existed and will exist only departures from the Church. … From the one indivisible Church of Christ, heretics and schismatics have fallen away at various times, and thereby they ceased to be members of the Church … Thus, there fell away from the Church the Gnostics, Arians, Pneumatomachi, Monophysites, iconoclasts, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Uniates, and … all other separatists belonging to the heretical-schismatic legion.”

B) The Church - One. The Anglican Principle of Comprehensiveness

If in the Orthodox Church, which is guided by the canons, every teaching at variance with the Church’s faith would lead to ecclesiastical trial and condemnation, in Anglicanism innovations develop without hindrance, for the Anglican “church” has lost love for the truth and therefore allows all manner of opinions and false teachings to spread within it. It even prides itself on its openness to the world, to philosophies and the elements of this world (cf. Col. 2:8), and reproaches the Orthodox Church for its unchanging steadfastness in the faith and its withdrawal from the vain life of this world!

The late Athenagoras (Kokkinakis), Greek Archbishop of Thyateira and Great Britain, known as a convinced ecumenist and Anglophile, nevertheless said with reproach: “In the Anglican Church, thinkers-intellectuals and theologians do not expect from the Church any official condemnation. The openness of their church to world history and the principle of ‘comprehensiveness’ gives them a kind of theological boldness in relation to history and adaptation to the formulations of faith… These attempts expand the boundaries of ‘comprehensiveness’ to such a degree that they raise problems both within and outside the Anglican community.” However, further on Archbishop Athenagoras enters into contradiction with himself, attempting in some way to justify the Anglican principle of “comprehensiveness,” identifying it with the Orthodox principle of ecclesiastical economy (oikonomia—from Greek “household management”—condescension toward the repentant for the sake of strengthening them on the path of salvation. —Ed. note).

This attempt must be recognized as unsuccessful, for:

1. The Orthodox Church never applies the principle of economy in the sphere of dogmas, whereas the Anglican principle of “comprehensiveness” extends also to this most important sphere of faith;

2. the two principles differ greatly from one another, since among the Anglicans the concrete result of comprehensiveness in the sphere of faith is the destruction of human souls, whereas in Orthodoxy the application of the principle of economy has as its aim the salvation of the soul—according to the ancient patristic expression—through “healing at the root.” In recent times, in Anglicanism there have appeared modernists who deny the very foundations of Christianity as a God-revealed religion. One of the most prominent representatives is the “bishop” Dr. John Robinson, author of the book Honest to God, published in 1963, whose worldview may be characterized as “Christian” atheism. He denies the existence of a personal God—the Creator and Providence of the world—as well as the existence of the spiritual world in general and of the future eternal life in particular. For him, Jesus is a mere man. But this man—Jesus—is the highest and unique manifestation in history of the divine principle of the universe… In this sense He is consubstantial with the Father, although for the Father there is no place in Robinson’s worldview. According to him, the Resurrection of Christ does not mean a bodily rising from the tomb, but “a certain inner experience of the apostles, which happened to them on the third day after the Crucifixion and inwardly transformed them.” And this “Christian” atheism is tolerated by the Anglican church! No sanctions on the part of the church authorities followed with regard to “bishop” Robinson, and his teaching has remained uncondemned by the Anglican church, which avoids condemning heretical views.

More than that! The corrupt principle of “comprehensiveness,” extended not only to faith but also to Christian morality, is used by Anglicanism for openly immoral purposes. For example, in Church Times, the official organ of the Anglican Church, on October 14, 1983, there was published a shameful advertisement of the “Christian (!) Union of Homosexuals,” in which books are recommended containing religious rites for… sodomite “marriages” between persons of the same sex!!! Concerning one such “marriage,” which took place on January 21, 1983 with the participation of the Anglican “priest” Holt—a “marriage” that provoked deep indignation and vigorous protests from local laity—the general secretary of the aforementioned “Christian” union, Kirker, shamelessly declared that the number of such “marriages” is continually increasing and that many of them are performed in Anglican churches according to a specific rite. It is unnecessary to demonstrate how God-opposing these unnatural “marriages” are, which the holy Apostle Paul stigmatized as shameful passions (cf. Rom. 1:25), placing them among the gravest sins, the perpetrators of which shall not inherit the Kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21).

Such are the fruits of the Anglican principle of “comprehensiveness,” by means of which not only all kinds of dogmatic false teachings are justified, but also the most shameful moral crimes.

This principle has, unfortunately, begun to infect certain Orthodox theologians as well, for example, Protopresbyter Liveriy Voronov, professor of dogmatics at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Having visited the Theological Institute at the Sergievskoe Podvorye in Paris, he delivered a lecture on the views of the heretic Protopresbyter Sergius Bulgakov, condemned by the Russian Orthodox Church, and in the name of Christian “love” attempted to present them as tolerable and acceptable, inviting all those present at the end to sing “Memory Eternal” to the heretic!

The acceptance of the Anglican principle of “comprehensiveness” will not lead to genuine unity and a single right faith, for everyone will be given the right to follow his own erroneous convictions. By means of this principle one may attain not unity in truth, but only a complete falling away from it, a departure from the God-revealed faith and, consequently, a falling away from the Church and from personal salvation. Such are the sorrowful results to which the denial of the unity of the Church will lead!

C) The Church - Holy

Ecumenists sin not only against the dogma of the unity of Christ’s Church, but by including heretics within its composition, they also sin in their understanding of the Church as holy.

According to Orthodox teaching, both of these properties—unity in truth and holiness—are in a close mutual relationship. Just as unity in truth binds all Orthodox Christians by one faith through their rejection of errors and false teachings, so also holiness unites them by means of grace and truth that came through Jesus Christ (cf. John 1:17), which exclude every union with impiety and heresy (cf. 2 Cor. 6:15)—these being the offspring of the evil spirit, who devised falsehood in order to undermine saving Truth. The concepts of holiness and truth are akin to one another, as the Savior said in His High-Priestly prayer to God the Father: Sanctify them [the disciples] by Thy truth (John 17:17). The Lord Jesus Christ inseparably links holiness and truth. Do you wish to be holy—embrace the God-revealed truth! Do you wish to understand the divine truth—strive for holiness, for it alone can make the truth near and dear to you! The Church could not be called holy if, in its essence, it could be infected by error. “The infallibility of the Church rests upon its holiness; the Church is infallible because it is holy,” as the Russian dogmatic theologian Protopresbyter N. Malinovsky beautifully said (Protopresbyter N. Malinovsky, An Outline of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Sergiev Posad, 1912).

In what does the holiness of the Church consist, and in what sense is it called holy?

First of all, because its Head is holy, and because the Holy Spirit, who governs and guides it, sanctifies it, being the source of all holiness. From Christ—the Head of the Church—(cf. Eph. 1:22) streams of holiness flow to the entire Body of the Church. And the Holy Spirit—the source of our sanctification—abiding in the Church, sanctifies its members by the grace imparted in the Mysteries. By means of this grace, He impels every believer to the labors of holiness. The presence of sinners in the Church does not diminish its holiness, but, on the contrary, even more strongly emphasizes it, for it reveals the following spiritual fact: under the influence of the grace distributed in the Church’s Mysteries, even the most notorious sinners often repent and become truly holy! The grace of the Holy Spirit inherent in the Church constitutes its holiness. Only in the bosom of the Church can true holiness be attained, for in it grace is imparted. The people of the Church are called a “holy people” (cf. 1 Peter 2:9). The Lord Jesus Christ came and gave Himself up to death so that His Church might be a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or anything of the kind, but that it should be holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:27).

The word “spot” may be referred to the purity of the Church’s dogmatic faith, and “blemish” to its moral purity. Both a spot and a blemish are fatal obstacles on the path to the attainment of holiness, which is the fundamental property of God (cf. 1 Peter 1:15–16) and without which no one will see God (Heb. 12:14). Every believer who strives for holiness can acquire it by combining both means: by guarding himself from the dark spots of false teachings, which stain the purity of the faith and render it non-saving, and by overcoming moral corruption, that is, by freeing himself from moral sins that distance the soul from God. Such holiness is attainable in its fullness only in the Orthodox Church, since in it there are no spots of false teachings, and by its grace it can heal the moral infirmities and vices of its faithful children, on the indispensable condition of their personal repentance.

Excellent thoughts on the holiness of the Church may be found in Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), who in his report at the Moscow [Pan-Orthodox] Conference of 1948 said: “The Church is called Holy because it is the dispenser of the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is communicated to the faithful in the Mystery of Chrismation when Baptism is performed over them. This regenerating, sanctifying, and saving grace is the most precious and highest good for us, for the granting of it to us was the purpose of Christ’s coming into the world and of His sufferings on the Cross and death… The regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit is the source of our holy life. But this most precious good for us, this regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit with its holiness, is not and cannot be among Protestants, for they do not have the Mystery of Chrismation. In this Mystery the Holy Spirit is imparted to us with all His gifts, which nurture and strengthen us in the spiritual holy life. This grace-filled holy life is likewise impossible for those heterodox Christians (Roman Catholics) who, although they have the Mystery of Chrismation, nevertheless, by reason of their rejection by the Orthodox Church for heresies, this grace among them is ineffective and non-saving.”

The Church is called holy also because it unites all the saints of all epochs and all countries—those who have reposed and passed into the life beyond the grave—with those who are still in this earthly life and with those who will live on earth until the end of the world. Niketas of Remesiana, a Western Church writer of the fourth century, in his work Explanation of the Symbol of Faith, writes: “What is the Church, if not the society of saints? From the beginning of the world, the patriarchs, prophets, martyrs, and all the other righteous, whether they lived in the past, or live now, or will live in the future—all of them constitute the Church, for they are sanctified by one faith and one life, sealed by one Spirit, and united into one Body, whose Head is Christ … Therefore, believe that in this Church you will attain communion with the saints.”

What has been said may be summarized as follows:

1. The Church is holy as the Body of Christ, being sanctified by its Head, Christ, and by the Holy Spirit abiding in it;

2. it is holy because it imparts holiness (cf. Heb. 12:10) to its members—not only to the righteous, but also to repentant sinners—through the grace communicated by means of the holy Mysteries performed within its bosom;

3. it is holy also because it links the Orthodox Christians sanctified by it—those now living and those who will yet live on earth—with all the sanctified who have departed to God in the heavenly Church (cf. Heb. 10:23).

All this is entirely inapplicable to the distorted ecumenical concept of the Church and to the projected “universal church,” since:

1. within ecumenism are united heretical communities which do not recognize the Mystery of Chrismation and arbitrarily call themselves “churches,” while not being such;

2. ecumenism itself, being a heretical gathering, is devoid of grace and is incapable of imparting it;

3. ecumenism does not lead its adherents to holiness. On the contrary, it leads even those “Orthodox” ecumenists who are inclined toward holiness away from it!

D) The Church - Catholic

Ecumenists interpret incorrectly also the catholicity (universality) of Christ’s Church. As has already been said, they underestimate the truth, confessed in an absolutely uncorrupted form only in Orthodoxy; they disregard the God-revealed dogmas of the Church as an essential mark of its universality and catholicity, i.e., of true ecumenicity, and they place in the foreground numerical strength, so that the Church might be an influential international force. For this purpose, ecumenists propose that all “churches” be united, including among them heretical communities long since cut off from Christ (cf. John 15:6); but this external, graceless union cannot create the true universal catholic Church of Christ!

Already in the fourth century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem excellently and fully explained that property of the Church which in the Symbol of Faith is designated in Greek by the word (katholike, and in Slavonic—“sobornaya,” i.e., “catholic”). He writes in the 18th Catechetical Lecture, § 23: “The Church is called catholic because it is throughout the whole world, from the ends of the earth to its limits, and because it universally and without any omission teaches all that ought to come into human knowledge—dogmas concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; also because it subjects the whole human race to piety …; and finally, because everywhere it heals and cures every kind of sin committed by soul and body; and in it is acquired everything that is called virtue …—in deeds, and in words, and in every spiritual gift.”

… Thus, the Church of Christ, in St. Cyril, is described by the word “catholic” as:

1. universal, in the geographical sense—“to the ends of the earth,” and even more in the qualitative sense of the word—as embracing people of various races, cultures, and social conditions;

2. as possessing the fullness of truth;

3. as possessing the fullness of holiness and grace; and

4. consequently—as the only one.

… Similar thoughts are expressed also by Archimandrite Justin (Popović). He writes: “The very God-man being of the Church is all-embracing, universal, catholic, integral, conciliar. By its God-man organism the Church embraces all that is in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible: whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers (Col. 1:16). All is in the God-man, and He is the Head of the Body of the Church (cf. ibid., 17–18). … The God-man Person of the Lord Christ is the soul of catholicity in the Church. … Into the conciliar life of the Church are included the existences of angels and of men, of the repentant and of sinners, of the righteous and the unrighteous, of the departed and of those still living on earth; and the righteous and the saints help the less righteous and less holy to grow toward ever greater righteousness and holiness. … Thus we all grow into the Church, holy in the Lord (Eph. 2:21), being grace-organically united among ourselves by one faith, by the same holy Mysteries and virtues, by one Lord, one Truth, one Gospel. … All of us the faithful constitute one body in the Church. For what purpose?—To live one holy and catholic life of the Church, the holy and catholic faith of the Church, the holy and catholic mind of the Church, the holy and catholic will of the Church. … Very often the concept of catholicity is presented in a Catholic, geographical sense. But according to the Orthodox understanding, catholicity is not a topographical, geographical concept, but an inner, essential, psychological concept …, founded upon the integrity of the confession of faith, upon the uncorruptedness of the confession of faith, upon the holy and apostolic unity of faith” (Archimandrite Justin (Popović), Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church, Belgrade, 1978).

In the words of the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Christ is the Head and we are the members, and therefore we must constitute “one body through our unanimity and unity of faith” (Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, Kazan, 1865).

The care and attention of the Ecumenical Councils were directed toward confirming the original Orthodox faith, handed down to us by Christ through the holy Apostles, and toward condemning and removing the destructive false teachings that arise through diabolical suggestion. The Church tolerates even the greatest sinners, hoping to heal them, but it excommunicates heretics, since they distort the holy dogmas—eternal God-man sanctities—which “the human mind cannot fully comprehend” (Archimandrite Justin (Popović), Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church, Belgrade, 1978).

No one is able fully to comprehend the mystery of Christ, the incarnate Son of God, Who revealed to us the truth of our salvation, being Himself the Truth (cf. John 14:6). Therefore, the proper approach to the God-revealed dogmas consists not in a bold rationalistic investigation of them, but in reverent veneration with faith in the unerring Incarnate Word of God. The holy Fathers humbly embraced faith in Christ’s Truth and defended it with their blood against distortions, in which they perceived the cunning of the devil and of the antichrist with his forerunners. In the words of Archimandrite Justin, “just as the appearance and activity of the antichrist will be according to the working of Satan (cf. 2 Thess. 2:3), so also the activity of every heresy proceeds according to the working of the devil” (Archimandrite Justin (Popović), op. cit.). Therefore, the holy Fathers unanimously anathematized all heresies and heretics, seeing in them enemies of the salvation of the human soul.

Only in the Church of Christ are immortality and eternal life contained for man. Heresy, however, is a destructive force that plunges man into eternal death, that is, into eternal separation from God. To this also leads contemporary antichrist ecumenism, imposing its universalism and denying the grace-filled universality of the Orthodox Church of Christ as the sole bearer of the genuine saving Truth.

D) The Church – Apostolic. The Concept of Apostolic Succession and the Protestant Teaching of the Universal “Priesthood” of the Laity

Ecumenism likewise falls into a profound error when it touches upon the definition of the Church as apostolic. The Orthodox Church is called apostolic because it proceeds from the holy Apostles, faithfully preserves their teaching, strictly adheres to apostolic succession, and is guided by apostolic Tradition in its dogmas, in its liturgical life, and in its ecclesiastical structure. The cornerstone of the Church is Christ Himself (cf. Eph. 2:20), but around Him stand the holy Apostles of Christ—the twelve stones, upon which the Seer beheld the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb written (Rev. 21:14). Various confessional communities that call themselves “churches” cannot be recognized as apostolic, for they are not founded upon the foundation of the Apostles (Eph. 2:20), they have not received from them the succession of ordinations, they do not preserve the uninterrupted oral apostolic Tradition, which has authority equal to Holy Scripture (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15). They are not included in the spiritual chain ascending to the Apostles, through which the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit are transmitted in the Church. By their innovations they alter the teaching handed down by the Apostles, whether orally or in writing, and they do not preserve in fullness the truth entrusted to us as a pledge for our salvation (cf. ibid., 13). In one way or another, they diminish the spiritual inheritance left by the Apostles of a dogmatic, liturgical, sacramental, and canonical character.

With full justification, Archbishop Seraphim [Sobolev] writes with indignation: “Strange as it may be, ecumenists include in this apostolic Church also the so-called ‘Christian churches’ which have no apostolic origin or succession at all. They consider all heretical confessions to belong to the apostolic Church, despite the fact that Paul, the greatest of the apostles, excommunicates all heretics from the Orthodox Church and delivers them to anathema, saying: even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you a gospel other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema (Gal. 1:8)” (Acts of the Conference of the Heads and Representatives of the Orthodox Churches, Moscow, 1949, vol. II, p. 369).

And indeed, can such societies be considered “apostolic” as the Unitarians, who reject the dogma of the Holy Trinity, or the National Czechoslovak “church,” which does not recognize the divinity of Christ, or the religious organization of the Remonstrants-Arminians in Holland, who deny all dogmatic and ecclesiastical obligations, or religious associations that consider water baptism non-obligatory, as well as many other religious communities that call themselves “Christian churches” but do not confess the fullness of Christ’s truth? Their faith is so distorted that it directly contradicts the Apostolic faith. Despite this, the WCC continues to call all these and similar communities “churches.” Moreover, new bold steps are being taken toward the elimination of the original and age-old Orthodox ecclesiology, according to which the Church is called Apostolic.

At the Sixth Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Vancouver (Canada), held from July 24 to August 10, 1983, the General Secretary of the WCC, Dr. Philip Potter, in his opening address gravely sinned against the truth, incorrectly interpreting the words of the holy Apostle Peter: you yourselves, as living stones, are being built up into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ… you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation… (1 Peter 2:5, 9). Proceeding from these words, Potter declared: “One of the great achievements of the Reformation, which belongs to Martin Luther, is the discovery (!), based on the words (1 Peter 2:5, 9), that everyone—whether woman or man—is a priest before God.” Further, the General Secretary of the WCC calls upon all to become a “true priesthood, consisting of all believers, regardless of whether they are ordained or lay.”

By these words Potter attempts to undermine the Orthodox teaching on apostolic succession as a necessary mark of the legitimate sacramental priesthood: he seeks to abolish the boundary, on the one hand, between clergy and laity, and on the other—within the priesthood—between women and men. For him, all believers, including the laity, both men and women—all are priests!

But does the holy Apostle Peter, in the cited words of his First Epistle, establish such a universal “priesthood” in the Protestant sense, which would displace the lawful sacramental priesthood existing in the Church through apostolic succession? Does he include women in this general “priesthood”? Not at all!

Rising up against the original age-old tradition of the Orthodox Church, Potter in his speech calls to “cast aside the heresy (!) of authority and teaching power in the Church.” This statement, met with applause by Protestants, provoked strong opposition and protests from many delegates. They demanded that Potter retract his words, which he supposedly did. This is testified by the Greek professor of theology G. Galitis, who was present at the assembly, in an article entitled “The Protestant majority must not decide on behalf of the Orthodox!” However, in reality, Potter’s outrageous phrase was not removed from his speech and continues to remain in it, poisoning souls with yet another new ecumenical heresy, which is cloaked under a slanderous accusation against Orthodoxy of “heresy.” Potter, who as an ecumenist generally avoids the word “heresy,” uses it in order to declare as “heresy” the Orthodox teaching on the apostolic succession of the hierarchy and on the “authority and teaching power in the Church” that rightfully belong to it. Seeking brazenly to push through his blatant heresy, he acts according to the principle: “Stop thief!”

The well-known Russian exegete (exegesis—a branch of theology in which biblical texts are interpreted; the study of the interpretation of texts. —Ed. note), Bishop Michael, at the end of the nineteenth century interpreted the words of the holy Apostle Peter, addressed to Christians: You yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5), as follows: “A spiritual house… is a spiritual temple in contrast to a material one, spiritual because it is built of living stones, animated by the Spirit of God, being morally perfected—in spirit, living by the spirit.” Commenting on “a holy priesthood,” i.e., be a holy society of priests, Bishop Michael writes: “This entire discourse of the Apostle is not literal, but figurative, which must be understood in a metaphorical sense, that is, not in the sense of the priesthood as a special class of persons appointed in the Church for teaching, the performance of the Mysteries, and governance; this latter is not governed by that universal priesthood, but, on the contrary, serves only as an image for expressing the thought of the high calling of all Christians” (Explanatory Apostle, Kiev, 1890).

And in the Old Testament God calls the people of Israel a “kingdom of priests” (cf. Exod. 19:6), but only in a general figurative sense, for the special priesthood that served the Jerusalem Temple was given by God not to the whole people, but to one of the twelve tribes of Israel—the tribe of Levi (cf. Num. 3:6–12; cf. Heb. 7:11). Consequently, the universal priesthood of the people of Israel did not at all exclude the necessity of a special priesthood, the ministry of which was inaccessible even to royal persons, as is evident from the case of King Uzziah, who was punished by God with leprosy for daring to burn incense in the Temple of the Lord (cf. 2 Chron. 26:19).

Accordingly, in the New Testament, alongside the universal “royal priesthood” (cf. 1 Peter 2:9), consisting of Orthodox Christians as a “holy people” (in the sense of being dedicated to God), there exists a grace-filled ministerial priesthood chosen from among them, which does not extend to the laity who have not received special consecration through apostolic succession. … Against this Old Testament background, one must understand the words of the holy Apostle Peter about the New Testament people of God, likened to a “spiritual house” being built from “living stones,” in which spiritual sacrifices are offered, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (ibid., 5). … The Lord Jesus Christ Himself likens Himself to a temple, speaking figuratively of the temple of His body (John 2:21). And the holy Apostle Paul calls all Christians the “temple of the living God” (cf. 2 Cor. 6:16), whose foundation is Christ as the Cornerstone (cf. Eph. 2:20; cf. 1 Peter 2:4), upon which the whole building … grows into a holy temple in the Lord, and all believers are built into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit (Eph. 2:21–22), continually offering through Christ to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips that confess His name (Heb. 13:15).

Independently of this universal priesthood of the people of God, received by every Orthodox Christian in the Mystery of holy Chrismation, there exist in the Church special ministries connected with official grace-filled gifts, received in the Mystery of the Priesthood through ordination by apostolic succession. And all this is according to the will of the Founder of the Church, Christ, Who said to His apostles: He who hears you hears Me (Luke 10:16). Concerning these grace-filled gifts, the holy Apostle Paul writes to Christians: And God has appointed these in the Church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers … Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? (1 Cor. 12:28–29). Continuing the Apostle’s thought in the spirit of the undoubtedly negative answers to these questions, we may rightly ask: “Are all priests in the grace-filled official sense of hierarchical ministry in the Church of Christ?” And we must answer: “Of course not all!” …

Consequently, the Orthodox interpretation of the text (cf. 1 Peter 2:5, 9) does not allow any disparagement of the divinely established hierarchy, any neglect of apostolic succession, or any leveling of the apostles with the laity, of shepherds with the flock. On the contrary, at the end of the same epistle the holy Apostle Peter instructs the shepherds-presbyters how to tend the flock of God, setting it a personal example, for which they will receive a reward from the Chief Shepherd—Christ (cf. ibid., 5:1–4). The holy Apostles were appointed by Christ Himself to govern the Church, to celebrate in it the holy Mystery of Communion (cf. Luke 22:18), to teach and to baptize (cf. Matt. 28:19), to bind and to loose (cf. ibid., 18:18), to anoint and to heal (cf. Mark 6:13), and so forth. The Apostles constitute the first hierarchy in the Church of Christ. They also ordained deacons (cf. Acts 6:6), presbyters (cf. ibid., 14:23; Titus 1:5), and bishops (2 Tim. 1:6). Although they were at times accompanied by women (cf. 1 Cor. 9:5), they never ordained a woman as a presbyter or as a bishop. On the contrary, they commanded women not to teach, but to learn in silence and full submission (cf. 1 Tim. 2:11–12): Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but to be in submission, as also the law says (1 Cor. 14:34).

Now, in the WCC, the exact opposite is observed—women are accepted as “priestesses” and even “female bishops.” The first woman “bishop” was among the Methodists, and in July 1988, as already mentioned, a council of Anglican “bishops” resolved that women may be “bishops”! These outrageous innovations undoubtedly have as their aim the destruction of the very concept of apostolic succession in the Church, cleverly replacing it with a vague “apostolic tradition,” in order to evade the concrete question of apostolic succession and ordinations descending from the holy Apostles, which Protestants do not possess. Unfortunately, in order to accommodate them, even “Orthodox” ecumenists yield to such a confusion of concepts. Protopresbyter Professor Vitaly Borovoy, one of the compilers of the Lima document of 1982 on the Mysteries of Baptism, Eucharist, and Priesthood, without mentioning apostolic succession at all, writes of the “organic continuity of apostolic tradition” and of the “foundations of the historical continuity of apostolic tradition.”

Fortunately, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, under the chairmanship of Patriarch Pimen of Moscow and All Rus’, in the “Message on the Fifth Assembly of the WCC and its results,” reacted negatively to the priesthood of women: “The Orthodox Church cannot join the position of the Protestant majority, which allows the possibility of women’s priesthood and often expresses its attitude toward this problem in secular categories alien to Divine Revelation. In the mysterious unity, all members of the Body of Christ are possessors of an incomparable treasure of life. But the calling of all to holiness, to the inheritance of eternal life, and to universal apostleship does not mean the calling of all to sacramental priestly ministry. The Divine wisdom of Christ—the Founder of the Church—has indicated to us the solution of this question. Among those close to Christ there were also women, but not one of them was included in the apostolic Twelve. We cannot admit that Christ, acting thus, made a concession to the spirit of the times. The Orthodox Church considers it obligatory for itself in this matter to follow the ever-existing and universal Church Tradition thus established by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Church history knows no examples of the sacramental ministry of women” (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1976, no. 4).

However, these considerations pertain to the true divinely established grace-filled ecclesiastical hierarchy, which, through succession, ascends to the holy Apostles, and which the Orthodox Church of Christ possesses as its most precious divine gift. Anglicanism, its “hierarchy,” does not possess apostolic succession and, consequently, does not differ in any way from the so-called “hierarchy” of Protestant religious associations.

E) The Church – Infallible. Confessions of the Heterodox in Favor of the Orthodox church against Papal “Infallibility”

To the marks of the true Church one may add yet another of its distinguishing features—infallibility. The Orthodox Church is infallible in the confession of the faith entrusted to it by Christ through His holy Apostles.

The renowned French church historian Fr. Vladimir Guettée (1816–1892), a former Catholic abbé who, by deep conviction, converted to Orthodoxy, writes in his article The Fundamental Principles of Orthodoxy: “From the standpoint of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the dogma of the infallibility of the Church is entirely reasonable and may be accepted by even the most exacting philosophy; in essence, it reduces to the trustworthy testimony necessarily borne by the Christian society concerning that teaching which Christ and the Apostles communicated to this society. The reliability of this testimony is confirmed, as a historical fact, by continuous witness-bearing, which begins and is linked together from the first century to our own days. Such testimony is so indisputable that, in order to refute it, one would have to reject all history, for there is no other historical fact that continues so uninterruptedly as the testimony of this whole society, a society living in all epochs and continuously affirming the teaching it has received. …

Truly, the Orthodox Church presents a most beautiful spectacle by its remarkable constancy in doctrine! It has witnessed many disputes; it has withstood numerous hostile attacks; it has been subjected to unheard-of cruelties and persecutions… Yet both in misfortune and in humiliation, as well as in days of glory, it has preserved its teaching: its fundamental principles have remained identical with those of true Christianity. Even in our days it can offer to heretical “churches” its most excellent teaching that the world has ever heard!” (Faith and Reason, 1884, Jan., pp. 25–26).

Further, Fr. Guettée contrasts with Orthodox teaching the errors of the Roman “church” concerning the dogma of infallibility, which “clearly proceed from the errors it adopted in its doctrine of the Church. Even before that church introduced the division into a teaching church and a taught church, its bishops had already attributed exclusively to themselves the authority of teaching, derived from their episcopal character; then they placed this infallibility in the episcopal body united with its head, that is, with the pope. And in our days, we have already heard how the pope (at the First Vatican Council of 1870) said to his bishops: ‘I alone can define dogmas; the bishops have only a consultative voice; I alone am infallible!’ Thus, an error which once appeared a very innocent invention of theological subtlety has, in the end, led the Roman church to heresy and absurdity” (ibid., p. 26).

Today one observes the complete collapse of the Roman false teaching on papal “infallibility,” which in essence is denied even by such a zealot of papist “tradition” as the French “Archbishop” Marcel Lefebvre. After the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), he declared his opposition to Rome, not accepting the conciliar innovations, and founded in Switzerland (Écône) his own “traditionalist” seminary. Since then, Lefebvre has been ordaining “traditionalist priests,” and on June 30, 1988, without the permission of the pope, he ordained four “bishops,” for which he, together with the ordained “bishops,” fell under excommunication by Pope John Paul II. Responding to the question of how he felt in view of the impending excommunication, Lefebvre said: “I am calm, for such an excommunication has no significance: I shall be excommunicated by a modernist pope, although the modernists themselves had been excommunicated by popes before John XXIII. The present-day Rome itself is in schism, for it separates itself from, and even opposes, Tradition. … Thus, we are in schism with those who themselves are in schism with their predecessors” (Monde et vie, 24.6.1988, p. 11). … The aforementioned Fr. Guettée, after his conversion to Orthodoxy, wrote: “The Church, for Orthodox Christianity, is the Christian society existing from the apostolic times; it lives one life; it does not change, because it changes nothing in the God-revealed teaching; having received this teaching from the beginning, it transmits it from age to age as it received it. The faithful (the laity) constitute in it as essential a part as the bishops. The latter have the special duty of watching over the Christian communities so that no innovation may penetrate into them; but all the faithful also have the right to participate in the preservation of Orthodoxy, and they are obliged to warn even the bishop himself, if he, betraying his duty, should wish to become an innovator.

In the Roman church, those people are condemned who rise up against the errors and abuses of episcopal authority. This was clearly revealed at the time of the proclamation of the latest false dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility. When several conscientious priests raised their voice against this innovation, they were condemned; they were persecuted in every possible way …”

In the Orthodox Church it is impossible that all the bishops should betray their duty, because they do not have as their head a so-called infallible man; however, in particular, this or that bishop, such as Nestorius, may fall into error. But in such a case, a priest or even a simple believer who points out the heretic not only is not subjected to reproach, but will even deserve glorification and gratitude from the entire Orthodox Church” (Faith and Reason, 1884, Jan., pp. 23–24).

… The holy Orthodox Church owes its high prestige as the sole constant and infallible bearer of Truth to its unchanging fidelity to that dogmatic faith which it inherited from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and His holy Apostles, and which it has affirmed at the Ecumenical and recognized Local Councils. From this it is clear that the dogmatic inheritance which the holy Church received from the Savior and assimilated from His immediate disciples constitutes an unshakable and firm foundation (cf. Luke 1:4), upon which it abides through the centuries always unchanged and indivisible.

The Orthodox Church is a stronghold against all errors on the ideological-dogmatic plane; it has preserved until now the truth in which it believes for salvation (cf. 2 Thess. 2:13), and it will preserve it until the end of the world, so that the true children of God, even in the last times—the times of the antichrist—may, on its basis, distinguish truth from error. Thus, the Orthodox Church of Christ will help all who sincerely desire to attain the truth in times of general apostasy (cf. ibid., 3), so that they may not yield to the cunningly woven deceptive teaching of the adversary of Christ, but, in an atmosphere of universal betrayal of Christ, may remain faithful to their Lord and Savior and, through right faith and a virtuous life in accordance with it, attain eternal communion with Him in the Kingdom of immortality. This lofty task as guardian of the truth the holy Orthodox Church must also fulfill today through fidelity to the dogmas and canons entrusted to it, firmly and once for all formulated, in fulfillment of the irrevocable promise given to it by the Savior that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18).

An Orthodox Christian cannot be an ecumenist, because:

1. ecumenism does not believe in the existence of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church;

2. it heretically undermines Orthodox ecclesiology (the teaching on the Church. —Ed. note);

3. it manifests unbelief in the power of Christ’s words, unchanging until the end of the world, concerning the indivisibility of the Church (cf. ibid., 28:20);

4. it preaches an entirely new teaching about the Church, contrary to the Orthodox faith!

 

Abridged Russian edition from the Bulgarian original:

https://verapravoslavnaya.ru/?Pochemu_pravoslavnomu_nelmzzya_bytmz_ekumenistom