Presented by Archpriest Gregory Razumovsky (+1967)
Source: Acts
of the Conference of the Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous
Orthodox Churches in Connection with the Celebration of the 500th Anniversary
of the Autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church. July 8-18, 1948: In 2
volumes, Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate, Moscow, 1949, Vol. 2,
pp. 187-195.
We feel ourselves
to be exceedingly disappointed. Not having, until quite recently, been
acquainted with all the materials concerning the ecumenical movement and
receiving only fragmentary information, we had imagined its ultimate aim to be
the organization of a new Ecumenical Council, in order once and for all, with
the help of the grace of God, to put an end to the sinful division among the
churches. The seventeen points of the Edinburgh Conference of 1937 put an end
to this illusion.
For a long period
of time, the family of the Sister Orthodox Churches did not consider it
necessary to ask the many-millioned voice of our Church, a full member of the
Catholic Church. Our Church was passing through a painful crisis in the
transition to a new form of its existence — separation from the State. And
certain sister Churches, doubting the promise of God and regarding these our
sufferings as a mortal agony, without making any effort toward fraternal
assistance, hastened unlawfully to seize, while still alive, a significant
portion of our rational flock and our church property for the unworthy purpose
of extending their own personal influence. But the Russian Church successfully
endured this crisis, because it did not extinguish the grace-filled spirit of
faith, hope, and love. And tomorrow, honored by the visit of the sisters in
response to our humble invitation to a fraternal council, she must again feel
the fullness of family happiness and brotherly concord.
The Russian
Orthodox Church even now experiences offense both from the sister Churches and
from the primates of other Christian confessions. Some of them, instead of
contributing to the restoration of peace in the Russian Church in connection
with the falling away from her during the crisis of disobedient sons, continue,
contrary to the canons, both morally and materially to support their
disobedience. The Russian Church cannot believe in the sincerity and love
toward her on the part of these sisters or primates of confessions. What common
ground can the Russian Orthodox Church have with those who do not respect her
canonical rights and who shield their violators? The manifestation of such a
semblance of love contradicts the sacred canons common to us all, and these
forbid communion even with the accomplices of disobedience.
The Russian
Orthodox Church gives thanks to God for the admonition which He granted to our
Russian brethren abroad, who understood the complete remoteness from true
churchliness of the actions and intentions of the Oxford Conference of 1937 and
refrained from entering the ecumenical movement at the Karlovci Council of
1938.
The Russian
Orthodox Church refrains from reproach and even greets those Russian Orthodox
theologians abroad who still remain in disobedience to her, who, according to
the strength and measure of the inalienable grace of God, defended Orthodox
foundations both in their writings and in their addresses at ecumenical
conferences. She hopes that the events of 1937 will compel them to share our
disappointment, which we mentioned with bitterness at the beginning of this
section. Taken together, all this strengthens our hope in the boundless mercy
of God toward them, which is able to remove from their eyes the blindness of
disobedience to the Mother Church.
Such are our
dispositions, intuitively experienced and determining our attitude toward the
ecumenical movement. Further, we shall attempt to summarize the conclusions
drawn from the premises set forth in the report into a kind of criterion for
the present time.
The aim of the
ecumenical movement, united in 1938, was concentrated on the creation of a
supranational ecumenical church in order to acquire international influence
over worldly, and in particular economic, life among the peoples. Let us apply
to this, as a criterion, our Orthodox understanding of the One Holy Catholic
Church:
1. A farmer,
preparing to cultivate the land, calculates what fruit and how much of it he
will obtain; as the fruit grows, he observes the signs of its ripeness. Thus it
is also proper for us, intending to establish an ecumenical church, to ask
ourselves: what fruits will it produce and what will be the signs of their
ripeness.
“The fruit of the
Spirit consists in all goodness, righteousness, and truth,” while the works of
darkness are unfruitful, says the Apostle Paul (Eph. V:9 and 11). These are the
fruits.
“And these signs
will accompany those who believe: in My name they will cast out demons; they
will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink
anything deadly, it shall not harm them; they will lay hands upon the sick, and
they shall recover” (Mark XVI:17–18) — these are the signs of the ripeness of
the fruits of the Spirit.
It must be supposed
that the ecumenical church will consist not only of pastors but also of the
flock. The pastors labor in the field of God, while the fruits are borne by the
flock.
Can it be
considered that this flock will bear the fruit of goodness, that is, kindness
and mutual love, if we place them in equal social conditions with identical
economic security? Yes, you will answer, because there will be no place for
envy, greed, and so forth. But where, then, will be the sacrificial love
commanded and manifested by Christ? This would not be the fulfillment of the
commandment, but its circumvention — and therefore a barren condition. And
barren are only the works of darkness, which the Apostle exhorts us to avoid,
since barrenness deprives us of the right to the Kingdom of God.
Can that man be
recognized as “righteous” who insists upon the right of justice as applied to
himself? This is far removed from the true ascetics of the Spirit, who until
now have shone forth to the whole world as a reward for renouncing the right to
economic and social justice! Such pleasers of God, by the mercy of God, adorn
also our Holy Church: Venerable Anthony and Theodosius, Venerable Sergius of
Radonezh, Venerable Seraphim of Sarov, and many others; their fruits possessed
all the signs of ripeness given by Christ.
We fear to answer
according to human reason that question to which Christ Himself gave no answer
to Pilate: “What is truth?” (John XVIII:38). But if the Apostle John dared to
affirm that “the Spirit is truth” (1 John V:6), then we also dare to state that
the third promised fruit of the Spirit — “truth” — in human application may be
understood as “spirituality eternal and unshakable by anything.” Will such a
fruit be produced by a member of the ecumenical church as the result of his
struggle for earthly goods? In the past we have had only contrary examples.
The future will
show whether the ecumenical strivers, in their pursuit of earthly justice, will
manifest the signs of the ripened fruits of faith indicated by Christ.
Let us state
plainly: the ecumenical church may be corporately united and, in its external
organization, universal, but it will not be holy and apostolic. We have no
common path with such a church.
2. Our Orthodox
Church recognizes for herself only one authority — to bind and to loose the
sins (Matt. XVIII:18) of each individual repentant Christian. Even moral
authority, such as the establishment of international influence in the earthly
sphere on the part of an ecumenical church, has not been given to us either by
the teaching or by the personal example of Christ. Let us imitate Christ and
not follow the temptation of Satan, who continues to tempt us also, making use
of the barren darkness of our worldly desert.
3. Christ teaches
us to avoid direct contact with evil. Evil is a real quantity, but not a
variable one. Evil cannot be transformed into good. Our ecclesiastical sphere
is to multiply good, because this is a spiritual concept; from us is required
instruction in good and preventive instruction in the avoidance of evil. If
social injustice is evil (because the world lies in evil), this already is a
sign that it does not belong to our field. Christ teaches not to resist evil —
we would clarify: not to resist evil by evil means, but only by good ones. Evil
can be destroyed only by the positive and active multiplication of good as a
spiritual value. We cannot serve God and mammon at the same time (Matt. VI:24).
4. The
“righteousness of God” is not the same as human “justice.” The righteousness of
God is in the Kingdom of God, which we must seek. Justice, however, belongs to
that which is added, which is promised to be given to the one who seeks first
the Kingdom of God and His (and not our) righteousness. Here also our paths
diverge from those of the ecumenical church.
5. As the
ecumenical conferences have shown themselves, they proceed neither by the paths
nor toward the goal which, with respect to church unity, can be attained only
by an Ecumenical Council.
6. The very
circumstance that the Orthodox at all the conferences have in fact found
themselves almost solely in the role of observers confirms the complete
foreignness of ecumenical ideology (as it exists today) to the Orthodox
worldview.
7. Of course, it is
to be regretted that the Church has not yet succeeded in attaining the ideal of
uniting all peoples into one Christian family of the children of God, and that
atheism, in its application to certain social systems, often makes use of Christian
principles, that is, it wrests from our hands our own weapon and employs it for
the establishment of the external well-being of peoples. But this does not mean
that the Church has the right to do the opposite, that is, to make use of
existing social deficiencies and to elevate her prestige by worldly means not
entrusted to her. This can only discredit Christianity, since in essence it
would constitute a rejection of the proclamation, by human word, of the Word of
God, which in itself is a real and abundantly fruitful seed for the human soul.
8. The ecumenical
movement, like every previous unionist movement, has not become a popular one.
This movement is exclusively ecclesiastical. The truly believing people, who
eagerly heed the Word of God and strive to put it into practice, will not go
into ecumenical temples. And that people who are capable of accepting together
with the Word of God material gifts and material arrangements should know that
their faith is no higher than the faith of demons: “The demons also believe,
and tremble” (James II:19) and obey the commands of the apostles given in the
name of Christ (Luke X:17). One must believe and not seek to receive good deeds
from others, but oneself to do good. A flock acquired by means of worldly
benefits, taking into account postwar devastation, relying upon its inability
to refuse assistance and upon a sense of obligation for it — this is not an
acquisition for Christ. The Orthodox flock is acquired for Christ only by the
example of personal sacrifice, even “unto blood” (Heb. XII:4), as the Orthodox
Church proved in the recent war. That which is fitting for sectarians is not
permitted to the Church.
9. Christ commands
us to enter the Kingdom of God “by the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and
broad is the way that leads to destruction” (Matt. VII:13). What could be
broader than the destructive global international paths leading to the wide
gate? But let us rather remain at the narrow gate, not fearing to be overcome
by the broad and seductive gates of hell.
10. Ecumenism
creates its church as an instrument for opposition to the Roman Catholic
Church. But the Orthodox Church will not struggle against the Roman Catholic
Church as such; she defends herself only against Roman papism. And all the more
so since the same world papism seeks to replace the latter, though under the
new name of the World Church.
All the grounds and
premises set forth above are entirely sufficient for the Russian Orthodox
Church to be able to declare:
No, the Russian
Orthodox Church cannot agree to participation in the ecumenical movement in the
form which it has assumed after 1937 and at the present time, since she is
convinced —
1. in the
fundamental contradiction of ecumenical arguments with the teaching of the
Orthodox Church in the matter of understanding the highest aims of the
Christian Church;
2. in the lack of
assurance of the work of (dogmatic and doctrinal) union of the churches by the
path and means of the ecumenical movement;
3. in the close
affinity of ecumenical activity with other contemporary non-ecclesiastical,
political, and at times secret international movements. Our Church does not
wish, cannot, and must not be under the influence of non-ecclesiastical
organizations. We shall preserve our spiritual freedom as an inestimable
treasure.
In the Acts of the
Karlovci Council of 1938, I provided materials intended to demonstrate the
participation of Freemasonry in the ecumenical movement. We shall not repeat
them here, and thereby either confirm or deny this participation and influence.
However, we cannot refrain from giving a place in our report to one documentary
self-testimony of Freemasonry.
In the journal Le
Temple, published in Paris, No. 3 for September–October 1946 (the official
organ of Freemasonry of the Scottish Rite), in the article “The Union of the
Churches,” the following acknowledgment is given by Freemasonry concerning
its successes:
“They
ask us why we intervene in disputes of a religious nature. In what way can
questions of the union of the churches, ecumenical congresses, and the like be
of interest to Freemasonry?
Within
our Lodges all doctrines are studied, so that no apriorism may penetrate our
conclusions. Descartes and Leibniz, the determinism of Jean Rostand, and so
forth — everything interests us in which there is contained even the slightest
portion of truth.
And
they would have us take no interest in the problem of the evolution of
Christian thought? Even if we attempted to forget that Freemasonry has a
religious origin, the very fact of the existence of religions would
nevertheless provoke in us a constant effort to bind all mortals together in
unity — that unity of which we have always dreamed.
The
study of philosophies and religious systems always occupies an important place
in our Lodges of the Scottish Rite…
The
problem put forward by the project of the union of the churches confessing
Christ closely interests Freemasonry and is akin to Freemasonry, since it
contains within itself the idea of universalism.
Let
it be permitted us to add that, if this union — at least insofar as the
non-Roman confessions are concerned — stands upon the right path, this is owed
in part also to our Order.
In
any case, at the emergence of the first ecumenical congresses, the intervention
of our Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian brethren was decisive, and their activity
was tirelessly directed toward the organization of Christian unity.”
The Russian
Orthodox Church, notwithstanding this, does not refuse further contact with the
confessions supporting the ecumenical movement for the purposes of personal and
printed information concerning its activity. She does not lose hope for a
bright future, when all Christians will be in the One Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church.
With all this, the
Russian Orthodox Church calls upon all Christians of the world not to turn
aside from the true path to the Kingdom of God and not to waste, without
benefit for the soul, either precious time or strength in participation in the
creation of a substitute for the True Church of Christ — a mirage-like and
seductive ecumenical church — since by this the problem of the unity of the
Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is not resolved.
The Russian
Orthodox Church calls upon all the other sister Orthodox Churches, all Russian
Orthodox dioceses abroad, as well as individual hierarchs and clergy,
regardless of their present jurisdiction or self-governance, to adopt the most
effective measures for the safeguarding of the foundations of Orthodoxy and
even, in general, of the principles of true Christianity in the world from the
great temptation contained in the contemporary ecumenical movement. The Russian
Church calls upon them to follow her example and to refuse participation in it.
Russian source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.