| Analytical Center of St. Basil the Great holds its first conference: “The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement: Analysis of Results and Prospects” On October 15, 2016 the Analytical Center of St. Basil the Great held its first conference in Moscow in the House of Journalists, “The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement: Analysis of Results and Prospects,” organized by the center with the participation of well-known priests, public figures, Church and secular experts, and representatives of the academic community. The conference opened with a prayer. Opening remarks were offered by the center’s co-founder M. C. Kozlov-Shulzhenko, who briefly acquainted those gathered with the goals, problems, and work of the new Orthodox organization of analysts from June 16, 2016, the date of the center’s founding, until today. Fr. Andrew Philipps The conference had an international character. Archpriest Andrew Phillips, rector of the church of St. John Maximovitch in Colchester, England, greeted the conference participants via video. Greek theologian Protopresbyter Peter Heers, rector of the church of the Prophet Elijah in Petrokerasa, Greece and doctor in dogmatic theology participated in the conference via Skype. Support and unanimity from Orthodox Georgia was clearly expressed by popular Georgian actor and director David Giorgobiani. The forum was widely representative. Taking part in the conference were members of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, Deputy Chairman of the Executive Committeee of the V. A. Alyoshin “Analytics” Association. Presentations were made by well-known pastors: Fr. George Maximov, Igumen Kirill (Sakharov), and Archpriest Maxim Kolesnik. The expert community was represented by such perennial actors in the anti-ecumenical movement as V. V. Voiko-Veliky, V. P. Semenko, and I. M. Druz. Representatives of Moscow State University and St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Humanitarian University O. A. Efremov and I. S. Vevyurko spoke on the problem of ecumenism from a socio-philosophical and hiostirical-political point of view. The situation of the anti-ecumenical movement in the Greek and Cypriot Churches was outlined by the representative of the Orthodox publishing house “Holy Mountain,” historian and translator A. G. Zoitakis. |
| Especially significant about this new phase in ecumenical relations was that these developments were not simply affecting the clerics and theologians. Especially in America, the laity was becoming interested in the movement to overcome prejudices, to understand differences, and to work for Christian reconciliation. SCOBA responded in a number of significant ways to the emerging ecumenical movement and to some of the issues being raised in the American context. First, a statement entitled «The Discipline of Holy Communion» was issued by SCOBA on 22 January 1965. In this pastoral statement, the SCOBA bishops stated that they «viewed with satisfaction the progress in mutual understanding that is leading the separated Christian bodies closer to each other in faith and life.» With this in mind, the bishops urged the faithful to understand these historic developments and to become «instruments of peace and reconciliation.» 251 At the same time, the bishops clearly stated that developments in the ecumenical movement did not mean that Orthodox Christians were free to participate in the sacramental life of other churches. The bishops reaffirmed the Orthodox position that the Eucharist is not principally the means toward unity but rather primarily the expression of communion with the church and the acceptance of its teachings. In their concluding words, the bishops said: The Standing Conference would at this time remind the children of the Church as they pray, study and work for Christian reunion that the Eucharistic Mystery is the end of our unity not the means to that end; and that, therefore, decisions reached by Christian bodies outside the Orthodox Church have no significance of validity for the Orthodox Church or her members. 252 Second, SCOBA approved on 12 October 1966, and subsequently published, a document entitled Guidelines for Orthodox Christians in Ecumenical Relations. This document was a clear result of the recognition that the Orthodox position on ecumenical witness and dialogue had to be given greater amplification. The primary purpose of this text, therefore, was to provide the clergy and laity of the eleven jurisdictions of SCOBA with concrete guidance for their participation in ecumenical gatherings. The document sought to express the principles of Orthodox involvement in the quest for Christian reconciliation that were not only rooted in the Orthodox understanding of the church but also responsive to the demands of a society that was religiously pluralistic. |
| Kattan A.E. ‘Le concile de Crète: en espérant que nous apprenions’, Le Messager Ormhodoxeб 2016, 2(161), 11-15. Makrides V.N. ‘Le concile panorthodoxe de 2016. Quelques réflexions sur les défis auxquels le monde orthodoxe doit faire face’, Istina, 2017, 72(1), 5-26. Meimaris T.A. The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church & the ecumenical movement, Ant. Stamoulis Publications, Thesaloniki, 2013. Morariu I.-M. ‘Bioethics in the discussions of the pan-Orthodox synod from Crete (2016)’, Astra Salvensis, 2016, 4(7), 247-254. Nissiotis N. ‘The witness and the service of Eastern Orthodoxy to the one undivided Church’, The Ecumenical Review, 1962, 14(2), 192-202. URL: http://doi. org/10.1111/j.1758-6623.1962.tb02001.x. Nissiotis N. ‘Towards a new ecumenical era’, The Ecumenical Review, 1985, 37(3), 326-335. URL: Nissiotis N.A. ‘Ecclesiological foundation os mission from the Orthodox Point of view’, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 1961-1962, 7(1-2), 22-52. Nissiotis N.A. ‘Interpreting orthodoxy’, The Ecumenical Review, 1961a, 14(1), 3-27. URL: Nissiotis N.A. ‘Les Eglises d’Europe et le Monde – Fondement de la mission universelle’, 1961b, Contacts 13(33), 121-131. Nissiotis N.A. ‘The ecclesiological significance of interchurch Diakonia’, The Ecumenical Review, 1961c, 13(2), 1-12. URL: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-6623.1961. tb01934.x Pera R. ‘A canonical analysis of the most controversial phrase of the Holy and Great Council: “The Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of other non-Orthodox Christian churches and confessions that are not in communion with her”’, Studia Universitatis Babe-Bolyai – Series Theologiy Orthodoxa, 2017, 1(62), 131-157. URL: http://doi.org/10.24193/subbto.2017.1.09. The Ecumenical Patriarchate. ‘Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world draft document of the Pan-Orthodox Council, Adopted by the 5th Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference in Chambesy 10-17 October 2015’, The Ecumenical Review, 2016, 68(2-3), 305-311. |
| The success of modernity has been to reduce The Church into an idea, a concept. When Christians of the modern world think of Christian unity, they mean something vague and ethereal, mostly including mutual recognition of sacraments, and open communion. And though American Christians often like to fantasize about a coming persecution, the truth is that they’re simply not worth the effort. Cross procession in honor of the 700th anniversary of St. Sergius of Radonezh In the countries of Eastern Europe and Russia, the Church (Orthodox or Catholic) was a largely unreformed entity. It retained its identity as the One Church and its place in the lives of the people and the culture. What Pope John Paul II said in Poland could bring down a government. They feared him. And though the Church in Russia was deeply wounded by a sustained persecution of 70 years’ length, it remained. Nothing replaced it, nor was it gelded. In Romania, when the Ceauescus were overthrown, the announcement on the radio was, “The anti-Christ is dead! Romania is a Christian country!” That carried power because Romania was 95 per cent Orthodox. The Church had continued to exist in an unreformed condition. Such an announcement in America would naturally bring the question, “Which Christians?” Indeed, many Christians in America today think that their nation is a Christian nation. It is not, nor has it ever been. It has been a country without The Church. All of this brings me to the ecumenical question. For ecumenism is a deeply modern movement. Indeed, it can be said to be an unthinkable movement apart from the concepts of modernity. It is not a movement towards the One Church. It is a movement that assures that One Church will never happen because the inner consciousness of its people will have been completely conformed to this world. What is modern about the contemporary ecumenical movement? The consciousness of the ecumenical movement is of the Church as an abstraction. Beginning primarily in the 18th and 19th centuries, the notion of the Church as an “invisible” or “mystical” reality, not entirely identified with any earthly institution arose. It becomes the “churchless Church.” It could just as easily be asserted that everyone on earth is a citizen of the same country, that individual nations are not actually true nations, but only human constructions of the real nation. |
| На первом же заседании комиссии (май 1913 года) в Нью-Йорке участвовал священномученик протоиерей Александр Хотовицкий (1872-1937). Боровой В., протопр. и Буевский А.С. Русская Православная Церковь и экуменическое движение.//Православие и экуменизм. Документы и материалы 1902-1998. – М.: Отдел внешних церковных сношений Московского Патриархата, 1999 (далее: Боровой В., протопр. и Буевский А.С. Русская Православная Церковь и экуменическое движение). Tatlow T. The Word Conference on Faith and Order//A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517-1948/ed. by Rouse R. and Neil C. (4 ed.) – Geneva: WCC Publications, 2004. – V. 1. – P. 414 (далее: Tatlow T. The Word Conference on Faith and Order). На конференции присутствовало 18 представителей православных. В январе 1920 г. вышло Окружное Послание Вселенского Патриархата 1920 г. «Церквам Христа везде сущим». В нем явно просматривалась экуменическая тенденция. Присутствовало 24 делегата от православных церквей: Константинопольская (четыре), Александрийская (два), Иерусалимская (два), Элладская и Кипрская (четыре), Румынская (один), Сербская (один), Болгарская (три), Польская (три), Русская эмиграция (три), Грузинская (один). Разумовский Г. И., прот.Экуменическое движение и Русская Православная Церковь. Ученики Христа – протестантское церковное объединение, появившееся в 1832 г. В его состав вошли пресвитериане, баптисты и методисты. Они в свою очередь также делились в зависимости от того, какие книги Писания принимали за истинные. С учетом гостей и представителей юношеских организаций, не имевших права голоса, было 504 участника. Tatlow T. The Word Conference on Faith and Order – Р. 431 Goosen G. Brining Churches Together. A Popular Introduction to Ecumenism. – Geneva: WCC Publications, 1993. – P. 19 (далее: Goosen G. Brining Churches Together) Fitzgerald T. The Ecumenical Movement. An Introductory History. – Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2004. – P. 88 (далее: Fitzgerald T. The Ecumenical Movement) Karlström N. Movements for International Friendship and Life and Work, 1910 – 1925//A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517-1948/ed. by Rouse R. and Neil C. (4 ed.) – Geneva: WCC Publications, 2004. – V. 1. – P. 541 (далее: Karlström N.Movements for International Friendship and Life and Work) |
| Orthodox concern over common prayer was taken up seriously at this time and a recommendation was put forward that “a clear distinction is proposed between ‘confessional’ and ‘interconfessional’ common prayer at WCC gatherings. Confessional common prayer is the prayer of a confession, a communion, or a denomination within a confession. ‘Interconfessional common prayer’ is usually prepared for specific ecumenical events.” This distinction was meant to free the traditions to express themselves either in their own integrity or in combination, all the while being true to the fact that Christians do not yet experience full unity together, and that the ecumenical bodies in which they participate are not themselves churches. All in all, Orthodox concerns related to their participation in the ecumenical movement, and in its headquarters at the WCC, predominantly stem from their unique ecclesiology, which in turn defines their attitude towards matters of worship and ethics. However, considering the past giants of the ecumenical movement such as Fr. Georges Florovsky or Prof. Nikos Nissiotis, the qualified eagerness of the Orthodox to stay in the movement and make their witness to the world together with other fellow Christians seems a continuing imperative to the Orthodox worldwide (Nissiotis 1978). The work of the Special Commission has given ground to the Orthodox for developing their participation in fresh and constructive ways. SEE ALSO: Church (Orthodox Ecclesiology); Contemporary Orthodox Theology REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bria, I. (1996) The Liturgy after the Liturgy: Mission and Witness from an Orthodox Perspective. Geneva: World Council of Churches. Chaillot, C. and Belopopsky, A. (1998) Towards Unity: The Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Geneva: World Council of Churches. Clapsis, E. (ed.) (2007) Violence and Christian Spirituality: An Ecumenical Conversation. Geneva: World Council of Churches. Florovsky, G. (1989) The Orthodox Contribution to the Ecumenical Movement, in Collected Works, Vol. 13. Vaduz: Biichervertriebsanstalt, p. 160. |
| Vladimir " s Seminary Press, 1979); Demetrios Constantelos, ed., Orthodox Theology and Diakonia (Brookline, MA: Hellenic College Press, 1981); Thomas Hopko, All the Fulness of God (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir " s Seminary Press, 1982); Theodore Stylianopoulos, Good News of Christ (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1991). A valuable analysis of Orthodox participation in ecumenical dialogues, together with a rich bibliography, is found in Robert Stephanopoulos " s, A Study of Recent Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Relations (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilm, 1970). Gregory Wiggenbach has produced a valuable introduction to Orthodox ecumenism in his Broken, Yet Never Sundered (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1987). A valuable collection of documents dealing with Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement is Constantin Patelos, ed., The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, 1902–1977 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978). A brief review of Orthodox involvement in the contemporary ecumenical movement is Thomas FitzGerald, The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Quest for Christian Unity (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1990). Bishop Maximos Aghiourgoussis of Pittsburgh is regarded as one of the foremost Orthodox theologians involved in Orthodox relations with Roman Catholics. See his most recent essay on this topic, «East Meets West: Gifts of the Eastern Tradition to the Whole Church,» SVTQ 37:1 (1993), 3–22. The grant of autocephaly to the Russian Orthodox Metropolia by the Church of Russia led to the publication of a number of articles and books that dealt with this theme. Alexander Schmemann discusses the position of the Metropolia/Orthodox Church in America in his «A Meaningful Storm: Some Reflections on Autocephaly, Tradition and Ecclesiology,» SVTQ 15:1/2 (1971), 3–27. Alexander Bogelepov provides direction for the actions of the Metropolia in his Towards an American Orthodox Church (New York: Moorehouse Barlow, 1963). A number of valuable documents related to autocephaly are contained in The Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America (Crestwood, NY: St. |
| Address by His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to His Holiness Pope Francis during the Doxology in the Patriarchal Church (November 29, 2014) Source: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople Pope Francis with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I in Istanbul (AP) Your Holiness, In offering glory to the all-good God in Trinity, we welcome You and Your honorable entourage to this sacred place, the hierarchal See of the historical and martyric Church charged by divine providence with a profoundly responsible ministry as being the First-Throne among the local most holy Orthodox Churches. We welcome You with joy, honor and gratitude because You have deemed it proper to direct Your steps from the Old Rome to the New Rome, symbolically bridging West and East through this movement, while translating the love of the Chief Apostle to his brother, the First-Called Apostle. Your advent here, being the first since the recent election of Your Holiness to the throne that “presides in love,” constitutes a continuation of similar visits by Your eminent predecessors Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, but also bears witness to Your own will and that of the most holy Church of Rome to maintain the fraternal and stable advance with the Orthodox Church for the restoration of full communion between our Churches. Therefore, it is with great satisfaction and appreciation that we greet the arrival here of Your Holiness as an historical event filled with favorable signs for the future. This sacred space, where in the midst of diverse historical challenges Ecumenical Patriarchs have for centuries celebrated and celebrate the holy Mystery of the Divine Eucharist, constitutes a successor to other illustrious places of worship in this City, which have been brightened by renowned ecclesiastical personalities already adorning the choir of great Fathers of the universal Church. Such luminaries include our predecessors Saints Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom, whose sacred relics now lie in this holy church, thanks to their gracious return to the Ecumenical Patriarchate by the Church of Rome; their relics are alongside those of Basil the Great and Euphemia the Great Martyr, who validated the Tome of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, as well as other saints of the Church. |
| As a result of the very stringent position of the radical groupings among the Greek Old Calendarists, all of the Old Calendarist movement on the whole remains compromised: by its “zeal not according to knowledge” they have laid a foundation for criticizing all opponents of ecumenism. If we classify the Old Calendarists according to groupings, then we observe an interesting peculiarity in that we can ascribe to each of the three groups not one but several synods (at times there have been between ten and twelve). The Zealot Schism on Mount Athos The decision to go over to the new style was provoked by the schism on the Holy Mountain of Athos. The calendar reform, begun in 1923 by the patriarch of Constantinople, was supported by only one Athonite monastery, that of Vatopedi, but in time it rejected the reform. The Athonite monasteries took the conciliar decision to retain the old style, while at the same time they did not break communion with Constantinople. This decision did not satisfy the radicals who then formed the Zealot movement. The state authorities began to persecute the rebels: the Zealots were expelled from the Holy Mountain and their cells handed over to new inmates. Nevertheless, there are many on Athos to this day who refuse to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch. In particular, they control the monastery of Esphigmenou. Orthodox Traditionalists and the Old Calendarists Movement Why did the Old Calendarist movement fail to become a mass movement? We can answer this question by turning to the legacy the Greek ascetics of piety who are well-known in Russia. Most of them did not support the transfer to the new style and spoke out against ecumenism, but did not separate from the Church, believing that schism was a far greater calamity. We can find out about these lesser-known pages of history by turning to the legacy of the abbot of the monastery of Longovardas on the island of Paros archimandrite Philotheos (Zervakos) – a renowned Greek father confessor, missionary and theologian. Father Philotheos enjoyed great authority. He corresponded with the patriarchs of Constantinople Meletius and Athenagoras, the primates of many Local Orthodox Churches, the prime ministers and presidents of Greece and the leaders of the Old Calendarist movement. The documents which we publish in this article have hitherto been unfamiliar to the Russian reader. |
| Through reflection on the effects of the Kosovo drama, I have spontaneously reached its ecumenical effects. The Kosovo crisis could, in some way, evolve into a new, additional, element of the crisis of the ecumenical movement. And it may be a great ecumenical challenge and a real ecumenical chance. Avoiding unsolicited verbosity, I shall try to clarify my thought. In the Serbian Orthodox Church (and, as far as I know, in other local Orthodox Churches), there are certain circles which experience and understand the West exclusively as an enemy of Orthodoxy. They hold that the source and inspirer of this (according to them, universal and irreconcilable) enmity are the Western Churches, in first place the Roman Catholic Church. In their contacts and articles, they promulgate various insinuations by means of which they are undermining the authority and credibility of bishops and theologians engaged in ecumenical dialogues or organizations, not being particular as to choice of words even in the case of the Ecumenical Patriarch. In certain ecclesiastical environments devoid of proper spiritual and theological culture, particularly amidst those monks and laymen who are characterized by sancta simplicitas, they are successful, lamentably so, in invoking temptations, hesitations, outrage and, sometimes, spiritually pathological emotions. Let us imagine, then, what are the effects on the simple and harmless folk when, in conditions of suffering or NATO bombardment, NATO and Western Christianity become depicted as two faces of the same coin. Such an image is then projected both to Orthodox Serbs and to other Orthodox nations, primarily to the Greeks and Russians, who in any case express spontaneous and universal solidarity for their brothers in faith. It is not easy to resist such a one-sided picture. It is only rare individuals who share an immediate acquaintance with the spiritual physiognomy of the average Roman Catholic or Protestant. Rumors of various activities of the Vatican state are received, unjust accusations from certain Western ecclesial persons are picked up too, historical ‘long memories’ are somewhere near at hand: in some compartment of consciousness or subconsciousness – and NATO missiles at the same time are disseminating dread and death…(In our Serbian case, and perhaps it is not the only one, we have the following curiosity: the same persons are at the same time both political Westernizers and extremist anti-ecumenists. They propagate the idea that we must, at once, leave the World Council of Churches and other ecumenical bodies…). |
|
|
