Observations on the “Thyateira Confession”

Priestmonk Haralampos

(Then of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Brookline, MA; currently of St. John of San Francisco Orthodox Monastery, Cobleskill, NY)

Source: Orthodox Christian Witness, Vol. IX, No. 27 (391), February 23 / March 7, 1976, pp. 1-10. (St. Nectarios Educational Series No. 75)

 

 

When the Orthodox Churches first began participating in the World Council of Churches, the fear was expressed by many of the faithful that participation implied a parity of belief between the Orthodox Church and the other confessions. The proponents of this move disclaimed any such belief, stating that they only wished to proclaim the true Church to all, not to debate but to project Orthodoxy on the world scene. At the Evanston Assembly of the World Council of Churches, the Orthodox Churches stated that they were present at the deliberations only to proclaim and witness to the truth. These noble sentiments eased, but did not completely appease, the disquiet of many Orthodox over the preservation of doctrinal purity.

The question of common prayer with the other faiths remained; for in many canons, in authoritative writings and exhortations of the Holy Fathers of the Church, and not the less in the epistles of the Apostles Ss. Paul and John, it was forbidden for the faithful to hold assembly with those who were not of one mind and belief with them. All men who professed different doctrines from those confessed by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church were heretics, that is, separated from the Church, followers of private teachings, according to the Saviour: "If one neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

Although the apologists for ecumenism admitted that the canons and the laws of the Church were explicit in forbidding communion of prayer with non-Orthodox, they argued that the overriding imperative of witnessing to Christ and preaching salvation justified the economy of disregarding these canons. So the Orthodox participated in joint prayer services with the various denominations, breaking the canons for the sake of a higher good.

However, instead of remaining steadfast in proclaiming the truth, the Orthodox witness in the World Council of Churches became inaudible, and eventually became indistinguishable. As they did not hold firm to the canons concerning prayer, so did they weaken in doctrine also. No longer was Orthodoxy projected or proclaimed, but only individual opinions.

The foregoing thoughts arose after reading the “Thyateira Confession” of Archbishop Athenagoras Kokkinakis. Having known the man when he was Bishop of Boston and Dean of Holy Cross Theological School in Brookline, we see a similar development in his doctrinal thought. In his correspondence with Cardinal McIntyre of Los Angeles (1957), he resolutely maintained the truth of Orthodoxy, and pointed out clearly the divergences of the Roman Church. But in the “Confession,” Athenagoras states that the Roman Catholics have the same baptism as the Orthodox, a valid and true priesthood—true sacraments, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and that they may receive the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church, as may the Orthodox in theirs. How great a difference from 1957 to 1975! He entered the ecumenist dance in order to make Orthodoxy known, but his many bows and his bendings of the canons, all necessary to remain in the good graces of the ecumenists, have resulted in his now displaying only a mish-mash of personal opinions. When he was Dean at Holy Cross, he quoted the Holy Fathers, but in the “Confession” he barely mentions any Fathers by name, let alone quote them—although he does quote Socrates and mentions other pagan Greek philosophers by name. Understandably so, since his teachings in the “Confession” are certainly not taken from the Fathers.

Archbishop Athenagoras writes on page 80 that disunity is the “Sixth Wound” (of Christ) and it “has remained open since the Apostolic era.” Apparently, Judas Iscariot was the first schismatic, therefore the Church was not whole because he separated himself from the Last Supper. Since one can never say, according to the ecumenists, that any one is ever wrong in any article of their faith, further and worse absurdities will arise. But there are even worse inconsistencies in the “Confession,” for on pages 15 and 16, Athenagoras says that Arius was “mistaken,” “had many wrong ideas.” How can such a judgment be made and on what grounds? If he uses the authority of the Church to judge Arius, he has no right to deny Her judgments on other heresies, those of the Latins and Protestants as well. If he uses the authority of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, how can he ignore their authority on the matter of the Creed and the filioque? For no matter that Athenagoras claims on page 17 that the Latins and Anglicans have come to an acceptable decision with the Orthodox concerning the filioque, there has been no official denial on their part of the theology of that term, nor its removal from the Creed. In fact, he apparently accepts the Latin and Western doctrine of the Trinity without qualms, for on page 46 he makes the Holy Spirit the bond of union between the Father and the Son, a belief totally rejected by Orthodox theology, and impossible, since it confuses the energies, hypostases and essence of God.

It is obvious that the author is attracted to Rome, for he regards them in the most favourable light, stating that Orthodox may take communion in Roman churches, and the reverse (page 69). Certainly no one at all familiar with the canons and Orthodox Church-life could make such a statement. But if one believes, contrary to the Canons, that the Papists have true baptism, valid priesthood and sacraments, well then, there is no logical reason to forbid it. Since he states on page 68 that the "Schism of 1054" is no longer valid, because of the agreement and signatures of Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul, he confesses openly that he is united with the Latins. All differences are mere quibbles according to him, which must be explained away so that the laity can also embrace this union.

On page 62, he maintains that the Roman Catholics and Anglicans are already part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, mainly because they retain an ordained clergy and have formal sacraments. The embarrassment of the Low Church Anglicans, he brushes by with barely a word. So far as Athenagoras is concerned, only a few human details and problems must be rectified in order for the essential unity between the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican communities to be manifested.

However, an inconsistency is evident here also. He states, on page 77, that the other Protestants are "charismatics," that they disseminate the Holy Spirit, in short that they possess the Holy Spirit. Since he states that salvation is from the Holy Spirit, then in what do they differ from the Orthodox, Romans and Anglicans? Although obviously Athenagoras prefers the hierarchical churches (a form of job insurance for him perhaps!), his denial of Orthodox theology and his espousal of a simplistic, ecumenist theology, in order to implicate an external and physical union with the other two communions, have logically forced him to accept even the most radical of the Protestant sects. Indeed, he is forced to accede Divine inspiration and revelation even to present-day Judaism and Islam (pp. 136 ff.). He attempts to whitewash membership in Freemasonry by saying that it is not a religion, but it merely has “services of wedding, of funeral, of baptism, etc.” But these elements do not provide an argument proving that Masonry is a religion even though “there are books expounding the theology of Masonry,” according to Athenagoras. Formerly he condemned Masonry, but apparently since the Roman Church “has ceased its condemnation” he follows along.

Ecumenical relations seem to be the greatest concern of this book, but the author does broach other articles of Faith, since the avowed purpose is that of a general outline of the Faith. We must point out that for a formal document, it contains many inconsistencies, vague and ambiguous phraseology, errors of logic and muddled language and thinking. Part of the language problem is caused, perhaps, by a too literal translation from the Greek; yet the inconsistencies and errors remain even in the Greek. Acknowledgements are made to Archimandrite Kallistos Ware for offering valuable suggestions, who unfortunately did not make the valuable suggestion of stopping the printing of the “Confession.” Even if he now accepts the extreme ecumenist theology, as is evident from his other writings, Archimandrite Ware should have stopped Archbishop Athenagoras from making a fool of himself with the muddled presentation and glaring inconsistencies and ambiguities; for example: “The Church has doors but no walls” is obviously written by a man who is searching for a pithy phrase. The result however is total nonsense. It sounds as if the Church ran out of funds and could not finish its construction! A wall without a door is possible, but a door without a wall is a joke. Naturally Athenagoras disregards the parables of our Saviour about the vineyard, which is hedged about, about the sheepfold, which has only one Door, Christ Himself, and the writings of the Fathers, which state that the boundaries of the Church are indelibly marked by the blood of the Martyrs.

One wonders why Patriarch Demetrios and his Synod gave it such whole-hearted endorsement and blessing, “considering it as a fit aid even for our own catechists and the benefit of the non-Orthodox who desire to receive general information concerning our Orthodox

Church.” Perhaps their ecumenist theology of “love,” which blinds them to the divergencies of the heterodox “churches” from the sacred canons, also blinds them to discrepancies of logic and common sense. Whatever the reason, this is the first formal and most complete profession, whatever its quality, of the theology of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate. Up till now there have been isolated statements and many incidents implying the new ecumenist theology, but here the abandonment of Orthodox theology by Constantinople is formally ratified.

Since, as we said, the principal concern of the “Confession” is ecumenist ecclesiology, a definite millennialism results, with God’s Kingdom being established on earth. On page 90, “the Kingdom of God is spread . . . until all the people become God’s people and the Earth becomes the realm of God.” Our Saviour was apparently incorrect when He said “The Kingdom of God is within you,” and “My Kingdom is not of this world,” and “When the Son of Man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8).

The other sections tend to be sketchy, subordinated to ecumenist and social considerations, but brief note must be made of some of the glaring departures from Orthodox teaching:

1. In his discussion of God’s existence, on pages 31 and 32, he mentions the Greek philosophers and the so-called “proofs” of God’s existence taken from children’s catechisms, but he says nothing of God’s revelation to Israel. All Orthodox Fathers insist that the only way we can possibly know God is if He should reveal Himself, and that the only true God was only revealed really to the Righteous of the Old Testament. Before the Incarnation, there was no other source for knowledge of the true God. Everything else was mere shadow or deception.

2. An Origenistic “second chance” is taught on page 43, for he equates the descent into Hades and the preaching to those held captive by death with the Second Coming of our Lord. He says that as then they received “forgiveness of sins and friendship with God” the same “will happen to all of us when Christ will come for the second time into the world.” This teaching is coupled with a strange teaching of Heaven and Hell, on page 44. Heaven or Hell are the state of seeing God either from near or from afar. “We will see God from afar or near according to the measure of our love and moral and spiritual preparation. This measure for those who will be far away from God is called punishment or damnation, and the measure of being near God is called justification and paradise.”

3. He insists on page 47 that the terms “Spirit of God” in the Old Testament and “Spirit of Christ” in the New Testament do not refer to the Holy Spirit, in contradiction to the inspired interpreters of Scripture.

4. “The Will of God is God Himself” (from page 90) indicates a confusion between the essence, hypostases, and operations or energies of God. Many Holy Councils and Fathers have set the limits, based on revelation, of how we are to speak of God, in order that we do violence neither to His immanence nor to His transcendence. It is inexcusable to abandon this terminology in order to form meretricious phrases.

5. When defining sin, on page 93, he does not even mention the human will, but says that it is “power which comes out of our own depths moving against God, against others, and against ourselves.” If sin is “some irresistible power, which we perform” — then according to the Scriptures and the Fathers, we have no guilt. Virtue is “the normal and right and natural and just.”

6. “Only in the Divine Liturgy do we worship” is a flabbergasting statement, but Athenagoras clearly states that all other prayers and services “do not in themselves constitute Christian worship.” What would the Apostles have said, who “continued in prayer and supplication” before Pentecost, and afterwards “continued steadfastly in breaking of bread and in prayer”?

7. The section on the sacrifice of the Cross and of the Liturgy, pages 110-113, is not a little confusing, but he does say: “It is He Who is sacrificed in the Church by the hands of the priest,” which is clearly the traditional Latin theology, condemned by the teaching of the Orthodox Church as set forth in the clear exposition by Nicholas Cabasilas. This attempt to force Latin theology down the throats of the Orthodox leads the author to an egregious error when he calls the words of institution the anaphora (page 107). The term is always used for the whole Eucharistic prayer. A rather obvious ploy to smuggle in the Latin belief that the words of institution sanctify the Holy Gifts and not the prayer of the Church.

Any objective reader can see that the “Confession” is not a compendium of Orthodox beliefs. However, it is more than a collection of merely private opinions also, for it was published with the authorization of the Constantinopolitan Synod. Reading the works of Archbishop Athenagoras in the ’fifties,’ one sees the teacher of Orthodox doctrine now become the mouther of confused and contradictory ecumenical shibboleths. It is the same development we noted before with the witness of the Orthodox Churches in the World Council of Churches from Evanston to New Delhi.

The purported purpose of Archbishop Athenagoras when he first initiated ecumenist dialogue was to witness to the truth, to proclaim the true Church, to project Orthodoxy, as it was also of the Orthodox delegates to the World Council of Churches. But the very foundation of the World Council of Churches is dialogue, debate, discussion and compromise. One cannot continue to proclaim the truth and refuse discussion, because others will say that they do not accept this, and since there can be no discussion, don’t bother coming back! In order to remain on good terms with the ecumenists, they had to make concessions and compromises. Eventually, being received in international circles became more important than truth. We can conclude then that the reason given us in the beginning, that of projecting Orthodoxy, was false. They only desired to project themselves. To ensure the continuation of this display, and to further display themselves, they had to abandon Orthodoxy, for as St. Ephraim the Syrian says: “Pride cannot bear ancient things, but must invent new doctrines.” Pride, the egotistical projection of oneself, cannot bend itself to follow the teachings and the precepts of the Church, to admit that someone else is right, but must discover new and original doctrines.

The whole situation reminds us of the Council of Florence. The Orthodox left Constantinople with an avowed determination to witness to the truth, to preach Orthodoxy, and to show the Latins their errors. Bessarion was of the foremost delegates of the Orthodox, and in the first sessions he used his erudition and rhetorical ability to good advantage. But events proved that he had no genuine love for the truth, but was merely displaying his intellectual powers. For, when he became jealous of St. Mark of Ephesus, who was the other leading delegate of the Orthodox, he did an about-face and placed his abilities at the service of the Papists, and defended the Latin heresies with as much fervour as formerly he had used to defend the Orthodox. He was not truly defending Orthodoxy, but his real motivation was to project himself, and when he came to a falling-out with St. Mark, his pride forced him to switch allegiance. For the chance to project themselves, to exercise their pride, Athenagoras and the Phanariotes have also sold their Faith, just as Bessarion sold his Faith for a pension and a cardinal’s hat.