The Boundaries of the Church — A Necessary Comment on the Parish Bulletin of the Church of the Transfiguration of Christ (2010)

Fr. Anders Åkerström | October 25, 2010 (O.S.)

 

 

In the October 2010–January 2011 issue of the parish bulletin of the Church of the Transfiguration of Christ [in Stockholm], there is an article entitled “A Clarification — On Canonicity and the Calendar Question,” to which we unfortunately feel compelled to respond, since the article, among other things, singles out our church in Sweden.

The priest Father Angel [Velichkov] writes that “today it is especially important to examine... certain schismatics on Orthodox grounds,” and continues by commenting that these are some whom we “must shun like fire.” He explains that “schismatics are Orthodox persons and communities that break Eucharistic communion with the local canonical Churches of the worldwide Orthodox Church.” He explains that “the rupture takes place immediately” and that “the communication of grace” among them has ceased.

One might perhaps illustrate his argument by means of a light switch with “on” and “off,” “light” or “darkness.” Either one is in communion with the worldwide Orthodox Church, the “on switch,” or one is not, the “off switch.” If the “off switch” is pressed, there is no grace. Father Angel explains that the schismatics’ “sacraments become ineffectual... graceless acts. The bread is not transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, sins are not forgiven, the covenant of marriage is not sealed, and grace is not conveyed in ordinations.”

Father Angel then gives the following illustrative example: “if schismatics have blessed chrism, it differs hardly at all from any ordinary scented oil.”

Here, then, a simple and clear ecclesiology is presented concerning where the boundaries of the Orthodox Church lie and where the grace of God is to be found. The Church exists among those who have preserved Eucharistic communion among the local Orthodox Churches. Put simply, one usually means the Churches that are in communion with Constantinople. And the grace of God through the sacraments is efficacious only there. Father Angel notes “that outside the Church [i.e., outside the Churches that are in communion with Constantinople], neither fasts, lengthy prayers, abstinence, nor any other ascetic practice has any saving power.”

The argument may seem very simple and appealing. An “off” and “on” switch, outside and inside, all or nothing, black or white. What is remarkable is that one seldom hears this kind of reasoning from an Orthodox priest who actively participates in the so-called ecumenical movement. We clearly recognize the argument from the “fanatical” Old Calendarists, who have a fondness for simple models. For them, most things are either “black” or “white.” Either you are Orthodox within their “group,” or you are condemned. “Orthodoxy or Death” is the text that one group has on its flags. The difference here is that it is the ecclesiastical communion to which Father Angel belongs that is declared to be without grace, where the wine and bread of the Eucharist remain wine and bread, and chrism is no more than any scented oil. Anyone who wishes to delve more deeply into this “black-and-white” mentality can read the writings of Bishop Matthaios of Vresthena (1861–1959), which make for depressing reading, much like what Father Angel presents.

Imagine an Orthodox priest from the World Council of Churches using Father Angel’s rhetoric at an ecumenical meeting where ecclesiology is to be discussed with the Roman Catholic Church! What would this sound like? The Pope is an unordained office-holder who does not possess the grace of God. Catholic “churches” have no efficacious sacraments, and their chrism is merely ordinary scented oil like that from a perfumery. Does anyone believe that the Roman Catholic delegates would continue the dialogue?

In any case, Father Angel’s ecclesiastical representatives do not say this in such contexts. Instead, they eagerly speak of the Roman Catholic Church as a “sister church.” The “black-and-white” rhetoric is brought out only when it comes to intra-Orthodox “problems.” Here one can speak of a forked tongue.

The question then arises: why does he argue in such a simplistic and unnuanced manner on this issue? Well, there is probably a pastoral reason. Father Angel wants to cast suspicion and frighten people. What if one of his parishioners were to listen to what a conservative Orthodox Christian has to say? When this is one’s motive, perhaps one can also “bend” the truth a little!

Father Angel writes: “At present there is no one on Athos or in the other local canonical Churches, whether they follow the new or the old calendar, who is in communion with the Greek Old Calendarists.” Here he avoids mentioning that there are Old Calendarist groups within many of the larger Churches, such as in Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Ukraine, and Russia.

But what, then, is the truth concerning Athos, the heart of Orthodoxy? Of the 20 “ruling” monasteries, one, namely Esphigmenou, has completely broken with Constantinople and commemorates an Old Calendarist bishop. Among the smaller monastic dwellings there are several that commemorate only Old Calendarist bishops. The former Archbishop of Athens, Christodoulos, estimated that approximately 35–40% of the monks on Athos refused to mention the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople at the Liturgies and belonged to the Old Calendarist movement. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware gives a somewhat lower figure, approximately 500 of the roughly 2,000 monks.

Having clarified this, Father Angel goes on to comment on the mentality of schismatics. He remarks that “they are people who are constantly seeking, but never finding, [and] who are constantly studying but never becoming fully learned... they search with microscopic precision for both existing and non-existing problems.” In the same context, he comments on their “fondness for disputes over the calendar.” Naturally, he says nothing about the canonical problem posed by the fact that three Pan-Orthodox Councils condemned the new calendar. Nor, naturally, does he mention the problem concerning the First Ecumenical Council and the Paschalion. Instead, he returns to the claim that this mentality indicates a “lack of spiritual maturity” and concludes by characterizing such people as “unreasonable.”

What, then, can be said about all this?

What we chiefly wish to comment on is Father Angel’s ecclesiology, which unfortunately is an overly simplistic model. We criticize the “fanatical” Old Calendarists for the same problem. The boundaries of the Orthodox Church and the question of where grace is present are not a “black-and-white” matter; it is not like an “off” and “on” switch. One can take a clear example from the Church in which Father Angel himself is a priest, namely the Russian Exarchate in Paris under Constantinople. The Exarchate was originally formed through a schism in which its ruling bishop left his “lawful” communion in 1927, to use Father Angel’s own terms. The same bishop was then deposed by his Mother Church in 1930, and from 1965 to 1971 the Exarchate was not in communion with any Church before it was received back by Constantinople. Did schism and the absence of communion mean that grace had disappeared—the “off switch”?

Moreover, one may note that when Churches become independent, this has historically almost always begun with a schism and a lengthy period without communion with their Mother Church. Today there is an example of this in the Macedonian Orthodox Church, which, like us, lacks communion with its Mother Church. Another example may be found in the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia who were reunited with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007 after 90 years of schism from one another.

Another clear example from the same Church is perhaps Saint John (Maximovitch) of Shanghai and San Francisco. The Church to which he belonged during his lifetime was in communion with us and lacked communion with Constantinople and its Mother Church. Was his asceticism then “without saving power”? to quote Father Angel. If so, how can he now be venerated as a saint even in the Moscow Patriarchate? What we simply wish to say is that Father Angel’s argument concerning schisms is too simplistic. If one wishes to take examples from Church history, one may mention Saint John Chrysostom, who opposed the ecclesiastical administration in Constantinople after he had been driven out. Did he lose “grace” and become “uncanonical” when he did this? No, hardly!

Much of the ecclesiological problem in Father Angel’s argument lies in the word found in the title of the article: “canonicity.” As we usually say, the word “canonical” is the most abused word in the Orthodox Church. We do not know how many times we have pointed out that the word “canonical” in Orthodox theology has nothing to do with being “recognized by Constantinople.” What is canonical is simply that which is in accordance with the canons of the Church. It is not the decision of a patriarch or synod that creates canonicity; on the contrary, it is the canonicity of the decision that gives it true authority and force. Truth, not power, is the criterion.

It is therefore possible for a few to be “right” against the “great communion,” as was the case with Saint John Chrysostom or Saint Maximos the Confessor, or during periods when the “true believers” were in the minority, such as during the Arian or Iconoclastic controversies. We all know the saying: Athanasium contra Mundum! [“Athanasios against the World!”]

Temporary and transitory schisms within the Orthodox Church do not affect the unity of the Church, and we consider ourselves to be a temporary movement of resistance within the Church. We do not consider that the responsibility lies with us to justify our preservation of the Orthodox Faith; rather, the responsibility lies with those Orthodox who have introduced “innovations” into the Church.

Father Angel’s view of the Old Calendarists has, however, been made abundantly clear through his article, but what do other Orthodox say? Here we choose to quote two Orthodox Christians in communion with Constantinople. The first example is the now-reposed Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem (†2000), who, during a visit to one of our monasteries, made the following statement concerning our Synod of Bishops:

“Most ... Reverend Hierarchs of the Church, beloved children in Christ: It is with special joy and emotion that I find myself in this holy place... My joy and emotion are especially great because I am in the midst of Bishops and Priests who, in the course of the last decade, have spread the light of Orthodoxy to nearly every continent: to Europe, Africa, America, and wherever there exists an opportunity to proclaim the Orthodox Church. Thanks to the labors of the Most Reverend Metropolitan Cyprian and his Bishops, the voice of Orthodoxy has reached the most distant corners of the world.”

Here the message is not about schism and an incorrect interpretation of the Orthodox phronema, but consists entirely of praise for our activity and witness.

The second example we take from Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: “What future have the Old Calendarists? It is tempting to dismiss them as a survival from the past, doomed to gradual extinction... Such a conclusion, however, may be premature. Following the collapse of Communism... there has emerged throughout Eastern Europe a growing conservatism within the Orthodox Church... Although at present marginalized, the Greek Old Calendarists — and their allies in Russia, Romania, Bulgaria and Georgia — may still have a part to play in the Orthodox world.”

We of course hope and pray that Metropolitan Kallistos’ words will prove true. We wish to ensure that the Orthodox Faith is preserved and thereby prepare the way for the divisions that exist within the Orthodox Church to receive a final resolution and end through a Pan-Orthodox Council. A first step on this arduous path must be mutual humility in the face of difficult ecclesiological questions.

If anyone truly wishes to delve more deeply into questions such as Orthodox ecclesiology and canonicity, I would like to recommend two articles. These could serve as a basis if Father Angel is interested in a serious dialogue. The first, on ecclesiology, is entitled “Who Determines Who Is Orthodox?” and is found in Orthodox Insights — Volume II, Chrysostomos, Auxentios, Akakios, Florovsky, Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, Etna, California, 2009. The second, on canon law, is entitled “The True Meaning of Canonicity.”

 

Swedish source:

https://www.ortodoxakyrkan.se/_files/ugd/f29474_0d8221610c5b4f84bcc8ba80c8feedc3.pdf