Alexander Tsvetkov
Greek source: Ὀρθόδοξος Τύπος,
Issue Nos. 2,225 (September 7, 2018), 2,226 (September 14, 2018), and 2,227 (September
21, 2018).
The ratification of the so-called
“Toronto Statement” of the World Council of Churches in the texts of the aspiring
Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church (as the Synod of Crete itself
undoubtedly declared, despite the desire of some to see it only as a
“Pan-Orthodox Conference”), obliges every Orthodox Christian who, in his Faith,
follows the voice of the Holy Church, which is expressed in the Decisions of
the Holy Ecumenical Councils, to give special attention to this document and to
read it carefully, because, by its reference and approval in the text of the [aspiring]
Ecumenical Council, this Statement becomes part of the dogmatic Tradition of
the Orthodox Church, as happens with all the texts of decisions of the
Ecumenical Councils.
And then the following question
immediately arises:
It is known that in the drafting
of this document, there took part not only the representatives of the Orthodox
Church, but also heretics and schismatics of the various Christian
denominations, who have been cut off from the Church.
“As a result
of constructive and persistent criticism, the World Council of Churches adopted
the so-called ‘Toronto Declaration,’ which secured for the Orthodox the right
to bear witness clearly and explicitly, within the framework of the WCC, to
their ecclesiology and to the essence of the division of Christians, to the
rejection of the demand for ‘equality’ and the recognition of various
confessions as churches, and established the ecclesiological neutrality of the
WCC, that is, that the WCC is not regarded as a ‘super-Church’ and in no way
seeks to create one. The Toronto Declaration was the response of the World
Council of Churches to the criticism directed at the ‘aims of the WCC’ at the
Moscow [Pan-Orthodox] Conference of 1948.” [1]
In relation to this, the question
is raised concerning the legality in general of the [aspiring] Ecumenical
Council approving and citing such a document, which it composed together with
those cut off from the Church.
For example, I am not aware of
any decision of an Ecumenical Council which — apart from citing the decisions
of previous Councils and works of the Holy Fathers — cited any common documents
composed together with heretics and schismatics cut off from the Church, who
are not in communion with the Orthodox Church and who have formed their own unlawful
communities, called by themselves “the church.”
An Orthodox Ecumenical Council
has never approved or endorsed a similar document, and this fact already
demonstrates the contradiction of the Synod of Crete with the practice and the
voice of the Church, as this was expressed in previous Orthodox Councils.
The Ecumenical Councils not only
did not endorse cooperation with heretics, but also did not permit excerpts
from the works of heretics to be cited in the decisions of the Council.
Can we imagine, for example, the
Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council suddenly deciding in the Council to
ratify their thoughts in its decisions or to endorse, in part, for example, the
writings of the heretic Nestorius?
And not everything that the
heretics said is a lie; in their works there are also certain Orthodox
statements, because it is known that the devil does not offer pure falsehood,
but mixes it with the truth, in order thereby to deceive man easily.
However, despite all this, not
only do we not find in the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils the endorsement
of any common documents, but, moreover, in the decisions and canons of the
Council, the citation of statements exclusively of the Orthodox Fathers is
permitted.
And this is understandable,
because it is an Orthodox Council, which expresses the Orthodox Faith
concerning the matters under discussion, and consequently it is necessary that
the Orthodox Teachers and Fathers be cited.
Otherwise, if the source of an
idea has no significance and it is important only that it be interpreted
correctly in the Orthodox Faith, we enter into the temptation of
misinterpreting the decision of the Council as an approval, on the part of the
Fathers of the Council who cite this work, not only of the specific ideas from
this work, but also of the whole work and, in part, of the activity of this
heretic, or of the heretics, from whose work the excerpt was taken.
To permit this free citation in
the texts of the Ecumenical Council is impossible, especially because all the
decisions and approvals in the decisions of such a Council, because of their
authority, have exceptional significance for Orthodox Christians, and any
misuse with regard to authorities cited or approved here has serious
consequences for the whole Church.
Already the very citation and
approval of the Statement in question is sufficient reason to reject the text
in which it is mentioned, that is, the Text “Relations of the Orthodox Church
with the Rest of the Christian World,” and indeed in its entirety, because the
whole Text, with all its introductions and paragraphs, has as its purpose, at
its foundation, to ratify this Statement and the participation of the Orthodox
in the WCC, something which we must mention later.
But let us suppose that this is
not so, that the designation “Churches” applies to the Communities cut off from
the Church in the decisions of the [aspiring] Ecumenical Council,
something which in reality is nonsense; let us suppose that this “Toronto
Statement” is a completely Orthodox document, that we can rely on its decisions
and accept them as texts that do not come into contradiction with the Orthodox
Faith.
Then there would be nothing
blameworthy in excerpts from this document being mentioned in the Text of the [aspiring]
Ecumenical Council and its usefulness for all Orthodoxy being recognized, as
had already been done in the draft of the Text of the Synod of Crete “Relations
of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”:
“19. The
Orthodox member-Churches consider as an indispensable condition of
participation in the WCC the basis article of its Constitution, according to
which its members may be those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as God and
Savior according to the Scriptures and confess, according to the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
They have, moreover, the deep conviction that the ecclesiological
presuppositions of the Toronto Statement (1950), entitled ‘The Church, the
Churches and the World Council of Churches,’ are of capital importance for
Orthodox participation in the Council. Therefore, it is self-evident that the
WCC is not, and in no case is it permitted to become, a super-Church. ‘The
purpose of the World Council of Churches is not to negotiate unions between the
Churches, which can be done only by the Churches acting on their own
initiative, but to bring the Churches into living contact with one another and
to promote the study and discussion of questions of Christian unity.’ (Toronto
Statement, § 2).” [2]
Therefore, neither more nor less,
the Toronto Statement writes that it has certain “ecclesiological
presuppositions,” which “are of capital importance for the participation of the
Orthodox in the Council.”
Since in the present decision of
the Synod it is not explained what these “ecclesiological presuppositions” are,
which even today must be considered important for every Orthodox Christian,
because, if they are ecclesiological, by definition they have significance for
the whole Church, for all her members, let us turn directly to the text of the
Statement.
First of all, I will note that it
is very difficult to find the text of the Statement itself, although it had
been signed by the representatives of the Orthodox Church, and it would be
expected that the text of the Statement would exist in the official sources of
the Russian Orthodox Church, but there I did not find this text.
It is very strange, taking into
account that this text is presented fragmentarily in the texts of the Synod,
while it is impossible to find it not only in the official ecclesiastical
sources of the ROC [Russian Orthodox Church], but also generally in Orthodox
sources.
The text was taken from here: https://web.archive.org/web/20160816172602/http://www.ortho-hetero.ru/doc-ecum/51
[original link deleted; archived link used], although, for the sake of
accuracy, the official signed text of the Russian Orthodox Church should be
used, because, taking into account the citation of this Statement and its
approval as the basis for the participation of the Orthodox in the WCC, the
text of the Statement acquires an ecumeni(stic) character. For this reason, it
is absolutely justified that there be access to the full text of the document
which the members of the Church are being asked to approve.
We shall, of course, examine this
Statement from the standpoint of Orthodoxy, as though we were now being asked
to place our signature beneath all its formulations and to confirm, in its
expressions, the correct understanding of the Orthodox Church.
* * *
“I.
Introduction. The first Assembly in Amsterdam accepted the following
decision ‘on the authority of the Council.’
The World
Council of Churches is composed of ‘Churches which recognize Jesus Christ as
God and Savior. They find their unity in Him. They are not the creators of
their unity. It is the gift of God. But they know that it is their duty to work
together, so that this unity may be manifested in work and life.’”
■ It is said that the Orthodox
Church is part of the WCC because she “recognizes Jesus Christ as God and
Savior,” which is understandable, but with this phrase that she “found her
unity in Christ” (heretical expression 1), it is impossible
to agree.
Here a false ecclesiology is
attributed to the Orthodox Church: as though she were seeking her unity and found it in Christ, thus denying the
part of the Symbol of Faith: “In One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,”
since it appears that, until she found this unity in Christ, the Orthodox
Church was not the One Church, but only strove to become it.
Or it is recognized that the
heretics and schismatics found unity in Christ, something which it is likewise
impossible for the Orthodox to recognize and to place their signature beneath
this phrase, because the heretics and schismatics revile Christ and His Church
by their heresies and divisions, and in no way can they “find their unity in
Christ,” and it appears that they found it without the Orthodox Church.
* * *
“II. The need
for a newer statement. It will therefore be salutary if we state clearly
and definitively what the World Council is, and what it is not. This more
precise definition contains certain difficulties. It is not without
significance that the Churches avoided giving detailed and precise definitions
concerning the nature of the Church. If this is true of them, one should
not expect that the Council will easily be able to achieve a definition which
must take into account all the various ecclesiologies of the member-Churches
which compose it.”
■ It is mentioned that the
Orthodox Church “avoided giving detailed and precise definitions concerning
the nature of the Church” (heretical expression 2).
Here, in essence, this expression
contains the complete denial of the Orthodox dogma concerning the Church,
attributing to the Orthodox an inability to formulate this dogma.
It is enough for one to open the
Catechism in order to understand the hypocrisy of this phrase:
“WHAT IS THE CHURCH? The
Church is the society of people established by God, united by Orthodox Faith,
Divine Law, Hierarchy, and Mysteries.” [3]
* * *
Here it is explained what the
World Council of Churches is:
“I.
Introduction. The Council desires to serve the Churches which are its
constituent members, as an instrument through which they may bear witness
together that they obey Jesus Christ and may cooperate in matters requiring
common action. But the Council in no way wishes to usurp any work which already
belongs to the Churches composing it, or to exercise control over them or to
legislate for them. It is prevented by its Constitution from doing this.
Moreover, the Council, although seriously seeking commonality of thought and
action for all its members, rejects every thought of becoming a single
ecclesiastical structure, independent of the Churches which have united in
order to constitute the Council, or a construct dominated by one centralized
administrative authority.”
“III. What
the World Council of Churches is not. a. The WCC is not and must never
become a “Super-Church.” It is not a Super-Church. It is not the Universal
Church. It is not the One Holy (Una Sancta) Church, of which the
Symbol of Faith speaks.
…To be a member
of the Council in no way means that the Churches belong to one Body which can
make decisions for them.
b. The
purpose of the WCC is not to negotiate unions between the Churches, which can
be done only by the Churches acting on their own initiative, but to bring the
Churches into living contact with one another and to promote the study and
discussion of questions of Christian unity. …No Church, therefore, should fear
that the WCC will force it to make decisions relating to union with other
Churches.”
■ They declared that the WCC is
only a tool, a forum for communication, “living contacts between” its members,
that is, between the members of the Orthodox Church and the members of the
Communities cut off from Her; there is no compulsion toward the union of the
members of the WCC. This forum does not draft and does not make Statements; nor
is it some super-Church with its own ecclesiology which is designed to become
common for all its members.
This is understandable, but below
we read the following:
“The chief
problem is how one will be able to formulate the ecclesiological conclusions of
a body in which so many different conceptions concerning the Church are
represented, without employing the categories or the language of one particular
conception concerning the Church.”
■ Wait a minute! Just above it
was said that “the World Council of Churches is not and must never become a
Super-Church.” What [then] “formulation of the ecclesiological conclusions of a
body [the WCC]” are we talking about, since it had been stated that the WCC is
not a Church? If the WCC is not a Church, there is nothing to “formulate.”
What “ecclesiological conclusion”
can arise in a simple “forum for communication”?
That is, already within two
paragraphs, the Document begins to mislead and to contradict what was said
earlier.
And here is yet another proof of
the deception of the Toronto Statement: the fact of the introduction by the WCC
of the practice of some “ecumenical worship.”
“More
specifically, it has been proposed in the WCC that the use of the term
“ecumenical worship” be completely rejected. The WCC does not have and
cannot have its own ecclesiology, and therefore it also cannot have its own
worship.” [4]
■ That is, in words the WCC is a
simple forum for communication, while in reality the WCC has its own
ecclesiology and its own “ecumenical worship.”
And pay attention once again,
that the Text of the Synod of Crete repeats this Statement, likewise finding
certain “ecclesiological presuppositions” in the participation of the Orthodox
in the WCC.
“They also have
the deep conviction that the ecclesiological presuppositions of the Toronto
Statement (1950), entitled “The Church, the Churches and the World Council of
Churches,” are of capital importance for Orthodox participation in
the Council.” [5]
● In the remaining paragraphs of
the chapter “III. What the World Council of Churches is not,” the opposite is
again stated, that
“the WCC cannot
and must not be based on any particular conception concerning the Church. It
therefore does not prejudge the ecclesiological problem.” And again, if it does
not “prejudge the ecclesiological problem,” then it also does not have the
right to “formulate the ecclesiological conclusions of a body.”
■ Probably, when it is said that
“the World Council of Churches is not and must never become a super-Church,”
what is meant is that it is not planned to use the structures of the WCC for
the organization of this “super-Church”; however, the Statement itself does
not deny the “super-Church.”
This becomes still more evident
from the paragraphs which we shall examine next.
Below it writes:
“e. Being a
member of the WCC does not entail the acceptance of a special teaching
concerning the nature of ecclesiological unity.”
■ Here it seems as though it
denies the existence of some single ecclesiology in which the participation of
all — “being a member” — in the WCC appears; but in reality, if we look at this
entire fifth paragraph, what is meant here is that the members of the WCC have,
as they say, different ecclesiologies, and none of them is imposed as common.
* * *
In reality, however, the
heretical ecclesiology of the “Invisible Church,” which is “more
inclusive” than the Orthodox Church, is imposed by this document, in the
following definitions:
“IV. The
basic conceptions of the WCC. c. The member-Churches recognize that being a
member of the Church of Christ is more inclusive than being a member of their
own Church” (heretical expression 3).
“Hence, they
also seek to enter into living contact with those outside their own ranks who
confess the Fellowship of Christ. All Christian Churches, including the
Roman one, accept that there is no complete identity between being a member of
the universal (catholic) Church and being a member of His own Church,
recognizing that there are members of the Church extra muros, that these
aliquo modo belong to the Church, and even that there is a ‘church
within the Church’” (heretical expression 4).
“This
recognition is manifested by the fact that the Churches, with few
exceptions, accept as valid the Baptism performed by other Churches” (heretical
expression 5).
■ And here are the
“ecclesiastical presuppositions” that were meant:
● the expression “The
member-Churches recognize that being a member of the Church of Christ is more
inclusive than being a member of their own Church,”
● which contrasts
participation in the Orthodox Church with participation in some super-Church —
“the Church of Christ” — which is “more inclusive,” that is, includes
participation in the Orthodox Church,
● as well as the expression:
“there is no complete identity between being a member of the universal
(catholic) Church and being a member of His own Church.”
But it is exactly so! For the
Orthodox members of the WCC to be members of “their own” Orthodox Church is
equal to being members of the Ecumenical Church, and the Text is an identity
which Orthodox Christians must approve.
The Text denies this, approving
the ecclesiology of some “super-Church,” participation in which is not
identical with participation in the Orthodox Church.
And under this heresy, as it
turns out, the representatives of Orthodoxy placed their signatures, since they
signed this Statement.
■ Certain members of the Church
outside Her walls are recognized, on the basis that the Church recognizes
Baptism: “The Churches accept as valid the Baptism performed by other
Churches.”
This is a lie, because if the
Orthodox Church recognized the performance of Baptism by those cut off as
“valid,” and from this it followed that there are certain “members of the
Church extra muros,” then she would have to recognize everything
among those cut off as “valid”: the priesthood, the saving Mysteries, and
ultimately the faith, because the faith and the validity of the Church’s
priesthood give validity to the performance of the Mystery: Outside the
Church there are no valid Mysteries. [6]
If the Mystery is valid, then we
must treat it “as valid”; then Baptism may also be performed for members of the
Orthodox Church by heretics.
But this is not permitted,
precisely because Baptism by those cut off is lawless in its essence, and can
be valid only with regard to its form and only by the economia of the
Church, when it is recognized by the Orthodox Church as Baptism at the return
of these cut-off ones into the bosom of the Orthodox Church. [7]
And if this is so, then no “being
a member of the Church” can follow from the above for those who are outside Her
walls.
“d. But these
separated Churches, although they cannot accept one another as true and pure
Churches, believe that they must not remain in isolation from one another, and
for this reason they have united in the WCC. They know that there are
differences of faith and order, but they recognize one another as serving the
same Lord and desire to examine their differences in mutual respect, in the
conviction that they can thus be led by the Holy Spirit, so that they
may manifest their unity in Christ” (heretical expression 6).
■ In this paragraph, the Orthodox
who have signed this must recognize one of two ecclesiological heresies:
either that the Orthodox manifest their unity with all the members of
the WCC cut off from the Orthodox Church, which unity already exists and is
simply revealed; or, if “their unity in Christ” is understood as unity
within the Church of the separate member of the WCC, they agree that the
remaining members of the WCC are already united in Christ in their own “church”
without any unity whatsoever with the Orthodox Church.
Both the first and the second
interpretation overturn the dogma concerning the Church, declaring the unity of
the Church without the unity of faith, or declaring the “Branch Theory,” where
there are several churches, united in Christ, each one separately from the
others.
* * *
“IV. The
basic conceptions of the WCC. Moreover, Christians of all
ecclesiological views throughout the whole world, through the preaching of
the Gospel, have led men and women to salvation by Christ, to a
community of life in Him, and to Christian fellowship with one another” (heretical
expression 7).
■ Here, in essence, it asserts
that the Dogma concerning the Church is not important for salvation.
By signing this paragraph, the
representatives of the Orthodox Church in essence agreed that “salvation is
possible not only in the Orthodox Church, but also in the cut-off heretical
Communities, independently of the correct faith.”
“The Churches
must not despise these as merely elements of truth, but must rejoice in them as
auspicious signs tending toward real unity. For what are these signs? Not dead
relics of the past, but powerful means through which God acts. Questions can be
raised concerning the validity and purity of teaching and sacramental life, but
no question can be raised that such dynamic elements of ecclesiastical life
justify the hope that the Churches which retain them will be led into the
full truth” (heretical expression 8).
■ Here it asserts that the
Orthodox Church has not yet reached the truth, that she is not “the pillar and
ground of the truth.”
Someone could perhaps disagree
with this interpretation of this paragraph by the Orthodox, saying that by
Church here are meant the non-Orthodox churches: “The Churches which retain
these will be led into the full truth”; however, in the context of the whole
Text no such distinction is made, because, when it speaks of the churches, it
so names all the members of the WCC.
● Therefore, the meaning of
this paragraph is clear (unambiguous): all the churches of the WCC do not
possess the fullness of the truth, including the Orthodox Church.
“h. The
member-Churches enter into spiritual relationships, through which they seek
to learn from one another and to help one another, so that the Body of Christ
may be built up and the life of the Churches renewed.”
■ The entrance into “spiritual
relationships” here is understandable as to what it is: common prayer,
liturgical assemblies.
This view comes into conflict
with the Orthodox Canons which forbid prayers with heretics:
“If any bishop, or presbyter, or
deacon merely prays together with heretics, let him be excommunicated; but if
he has permitted them to perform any function as clergymen, let him be deposed”
(Apostolic Canons, 45).
Obviously, those who criticize
the Orthodox representatives in the WCC for common prayers with heretics have
not read this Statement, because in this paragraph these common prayers are
directly declared to be “THE BASIC CONCEPTIONS OF THE WCC.”
* * *
Thus, in conclusion:
■ We may say that the Text [of
Crete]: “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian
World,” cites and in essence approves a false and heretical Statement, which
overturns the dogma concerning the Orthodox Church.
This dogma concerning the
Orthodox Church is overturned, on the one hand, by the Text itself and, on the
other hand, by the Synod, which would recognize the authority of this Statement
by adopting this Text as its Decision.
■ I would also like to emphasize
one additional point: It is important to determine the correct position both
toward the Synod of Crete and toward its Texts.
a. As regards the Texts of the
Synod of Crete:
Documents concerning the
faith, composed jointly with those cut off from the Church, have no reason for
existence in the synodal Decisions of the Church.
To be precise, we can from the
outset completely reject the Text of the Synod of Crete, in which these WCC
documents common with the heretics are approved, without even examining what it
contains.
In reality, what matters is not
only the content of the Document, but also its position, the admissibility of
the existence of such a Document in the dogmatic “field” of the Church.
If the position of the
unacceptable Document is established and the Document itself is approved as
acceptable, then this is apostasy, regardless of the fact that all the false
doctrines and ambiguities of such a Document may have been examined and refuted.
b. As regards the Synod of Crete
itself:
This Synod, which overturned
the dogma concerning the Church and established the heresies related to it,
should not have been accepted as part of the [aspiring] Orthodox Ecumenical
Council, as a preparatory Synod within the framework of the Orthodox synodal
process, as many hierarchs of various Local Churches said, expressing their
opinion about the position of the past Synod of Crete.
For example, Metropolitan Jeremias
of Gortyna and Megalopolis: “This is how it happened in the history of the
Councils, we say again. There were many sessions which lasted many years. And
these Sessions were then regarded as one Council.” [8]
Even if all the Decisions of the
Synod of Crete are revised and corrected in subsequent Councils, this approval
of the pseudo-synod is already unacceptable.
The conclusion concerning the
heretical character of the Texts of the Synod of Crete must inevitably lead to
the corresponding conclusion concerning the position of this Synod as a
pseudo-synod.
To recognize this pseudo-synod as
a Council is as if the robber iconoclastic council [of Hieria -754] were
accepted as Orthodox and characterized as a first pre-council of the Seventh
Ecumenical Council.
It is as though we were saying,
everything is fine: first the Fathers gathered and rejected the Icons, and then
others gathered and changed the formulations into radically opposite ones.
Were there, then, in the history
of the Church pre-councils which approved a heresy, which they corrected at the
next council, and both these councils were considered Orthodox within the
framework of one single Ecumenical Council?
This is impossible, because then
what “pillar and ground of the truth” is the Church, if falsehood and truth are
regarded as equal?
For this reason, as regards
the position of the Synod of Crete, I consider as the only correct one the
conclusion of the Athonite fathers in the well-known Epistle: “The Synod of
Crete becomes condemnable,” that is, this whole Synod must be rejected entirely
as a pseudo-synod (and not merely that some of its texts be corrected or
rejected).
The recognition of a Synod which
approved heresy as one part of the future Orthodox Ecumenical Council is
unacceptable.
Incidentally, this is what
Ecumenism consists in: equating Truth and falsehood.
We must reject Ecumenism not
only in the Texts of the Synod of Crete, but also in this pseudo-synod itself,
which by the very character of its synodal proceedings and regulation approved
the pan-heresy of Ecumenism.
1. “The
Basic Principles of the Russian Orthodox Church’s attitude toward the
heterodox.” See patriarchia.ru/db/text/418840.html.
2. “Relations
of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World.” See https://www.holycouncil.org/.
3. St.
Philaret of Moscow, “The Longer Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic
Eastern Church.”
4. “Orthodox
Encyclopedia, World Council of Churches” (pravenc.ru/text/155520.hml).
5.“Relations
of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World.”
See https://www.holycouncil.org/.
6. ■
“Whoever withdraws from the Church is joined to the adulterous woman and
becomes a stranger to the oaths of the Church. Whoever abandons the Church is
deprived of the good things appointed for him by Christ. He is a stranger to
Her, useless and Her enemy. He cannot have God as his Father who does not have
the Church as his Mother. Whoever is outside the Church could be saved in the
same way as someone who was outside Noah’s ark could be saved. The Lord tells
us the following for our enlightenment: “He that is not with Me is against Me;
and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad” (Matt. 12:30). The
transgressor of the peace and concord of Christ acts against Christ. Whoever
takes refuge somewhere else and not in the Church scatters the Church of Christ.
The Lord says: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). And again concerning
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit he writes: “And these three are one”
(1 John 5:7). Who can conceive that this unity, which is founded upon divine
immutability and is joined with the heavenly Mysteries, can be violated in the
Church and divided by the discord of rival desires? No, whoever does not
preserve this unity does not keep the Word of the Lord either, does not have
faith in the Father and the Son, and does not follow the right path to
redemption.” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, On
the Unity of the Catholic Church).
7. ■ “For
the heretics whom the Church receives, after they have shaken off the heresy
and been joined to the Catholic Church, although they had possessed the faith
deficiently, received perfect Baptism; hence, having later acquired the perfect
faith, they are not rebaptized.” (“Responses
of the Eastern Orthodox to the ‘Proposals’ sent from Britain concerning union
and concord with the Eastern Church”).
● [Ed. note]
This concerns the Correspondence exchanged between the Orthodox Patriarchs and
the Non-Juring Anglicans (1716-1725). ● The Orthodox had appended to their
Responses to the Anglican “Proposals” also the Confession of Faith (1672) of
the sacred Dositheus of Jerusalem, in whose Decree 15 the above is found: “For
the heretics...” See I. Karmiris, D.S.M., vol. II, p. 863 ff., p. 838, 2nd ed.,
1968.
8. ■ “Many
ask us: Will we recognize this Synod? This will be decided by all the Hierarchs
of our Church of Greece. In any case, our Archbishop, Mr. IERONYMOS, provides
freedom of speech for every expressed opinion and is receptive to all
positions. We thank him for this. In any case, from the history of the
Councils we know that in the Ecumenical Councils many Sessions took place over
many years. The Church of Romania decided that the texts of the Synod at
Kolymbari in Crete can be differentiated in certain points and developed by a
future Holy and Great Synod of our Church, and perfected, and thus have a
pan-Orthodox agreement. For why did four Patriarchates not participate in the
Synod of Crete: Antioch, Russia, Bulgaria, and Georgia? This is how it
happened in the history of the Councils, we say again. There were many sessions
which lasted many years. And these Sessions were then regarded as one Council.”
(On the Synod of Crete, by Metropolitan
Jeremias Foundas of Gortyna and Megalopolis, pravoslavie.ru/99476.html), (http://aktines.blogspot.com/2016/12/blog-post_57.html).
Translated
from the formatted edition shared by the G.O.C. Metropolis of Oropos and Phyle:
https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2019/02/06/20190206aDilosiToronto.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.