| 153 G.Williams, A Collection of Documents relating chiefly to the Visit of Alexander, Archbishop of Syros and Tenos, to England in 1870, London, 1876; D. Balanos, “Archbishop A. Lykourgos,” in Theologia, Vol. I, 1923, pp. 180 – 194 (in Greek); cf. Karmiris, op. cit., pp. 337 f. There seems, however, to have been a darker side to the visit of Alexander. He was closely in touch with the group of Timothy Hatherly (see p. 206), for whom he carried out ordinations; and there is reason to believe that he went so far as to “reordain” one who was already an Anglican priest. 154 For the full German title of this book, and for other material on Baader, see Bibliography in A History of the Ecumenical Movement (London: SPCK, 1954). 156 For literature on Overbeck, see Bibliography in A History of the Ecumenical Movement (London: SPCK, 1954). 157 Professor Langen summarized the whole discussion in his book Die Trinitatische Lehrdifferenz zwischen der abendländischen und der morgenländischen Kirche, Bonn, 1876. On the Russian side, similar statements were made by S. Kokhomsky, The Teaching of the Early Church on the Procession of the Holy Ghost, St. Petersburg, 1875, and N. M. Bogorodsky, The Teaching of St. John of Damascus on the Procession of the Holy Ghost, St. Petersburg, 1879. 158 Brief survey and analysis: Dr. Otto Steinwachs, “Die Unionsbestrebungen im Altkatholizismus,” in the Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1911, pp. 169 – 186, 471 – 499. For the early period of the movement consult the minutes of the Congresses, and Bericht über die Unions-Konferenzen, ed. Dr. H. Reusch, Bonn, 1874, 1875; English translation – Reunion Conference at Bonn, 1874, London, 1874; Report of the Union Conferences… , New York, 1876. 159 Published in German translation by Kireev, without the name of the author, in the Revue Internationale, 1898, pp. 681 – 712. 160 Brief survey in the articles of Steinwachs (see previous note). The course of negotiations and discussions can be followed in the articles and chronicle of the Revue Internationale (1893 – 1910) and Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift (since 1911). Summary of Kerensky by Kireev, III, 1895, 2. Bishop Sergius, “Qu’est-ce qui nous sépare des anciens-catholiques,” ibid., XII, I, 1904, pp. 159 – 190. Extracts from the articles by Svetlov: “Zur Frage der Wiedervereinigung der Kirchen und zur Lehre von det Kirche,” ibid., XIII, 2, 3, 1905; cf. his Russian book, Christian Doctrine, I, Kiev, 1910, pp. 208 ff. On Kireev, Olga Novikoff, Le Général Alexandre Kiréeff et l’ancien-catholicisme, Berne, 1911. |
| The ecclesiological challenge has proved to be the major obstacle for some Orthodox envisaging legitimate participation of the church in the global ecumenical movement. This comes to a crisis often over the issue of common prayer. All actors in the ecumenical movement are aware of the difficulties related to common worship. There are theological, canonical, traditional, historical, and ethical reasons behind the question, but in general two sets of problems can be identified. Firstly, there is a canonical problem for the Orthodox who have an authoritative canonical statement to the effect “Do not pray with heretics” (Apostolic Constitutions 45; Laodicea 33–4) which some have interpreted as meaning that Orthodox today ought not to worship or even pray with Christians of other communions. Secondly, there is the ethical problem related to the nature of ecumenical prayer. The Orthodox do not have a single approach to the matter of praying ecumenically (with the exception of “intercommunion” or “Eucharistic hospitality,” which in the ecumenical context is excluded by the Orthodox entirely). Regarding common prayer, those Orthodox who are willing to participate actively in the ecumenical movement accept the practice of offering prayers along with fellow Christians as an important one. However, this is not a standard behavior, as many Orthodox simply refuse to allow this as viable. At the level of the churches, at present, there are some Orthodox churches which find it immensely difficult to hold a common prayer service with non-Orthodox, and others which are more open to common prayer; though even among the latter there are voices among the clergy, monastics, and laity who refuse to participate in the common prayer their church organizes. In other words, there is no one established rule or attitude shared by all the Orthodox at present. The key to such a resistance on the part of some Orthodox lies in their ecclesiology and the role of the Eucharist in Orthodox theology which claims that true spiritual unity can be expressed only through the shared body and blood of Christ. |
| He noted that the council was necessary to address problematic issues such as the Orthodox diaspora, which his patriarchate perceives as rightfully falling under his jurisdiction as “barbarian lands,” before focusing on the council’s role in ratifying “Orthodox participation in the efforts toward the reconciliation of unity among Christians through the so-called ‘Ecumenical Movement,’” which until then had been decided upon by each individual autocephalous Church. The first-among-equals invoked the Lord’s High Priestly Prayer that all of them may be one (Jn. 17:21), saying, “We Orthodox strongly believe that the aim and the raison d’être of the Ecumenical Movement and of the World Council of Churches is to fulfil the Lord’s final prayer,” expressing the implicit conviction that the Church is not yet whole. He quoted several times from the document “ Relations of the Orthodox Church With the Rest of the Christian World ,” which has proven to be the most controversial of the council’s six documents, and which stated that Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement and worship services of the WCC does not violate the nature of the Orthodox Church as the one, true Church of Christ, but rather constitutes a valid expression “of the apostolic faith and tradition in new historical circumstances” (Relations, 4). It should be noted that not all agree on this use of the John 17. Concerning the Lord’s High Priestly Prayer, Fr. John Romanides writes, “Christ prays here that His disciples and their disciples may in this life become one in the vision of His glory (which He has by nature from the Father) when they become members of His Body, the Church, which would be formed on Pentecost and whose members were to be the illuminated and glorified in this life… Of course this prayer implies the entry into these states of cure by non-members of the body of Christ, but it is certainly not a prayer for the union of churches.” The documents of the council, signed by ten of the fifteen Orthodox primates, and various members of their respective twenty-four member entourages, constitutes the “synodal voice” of the Church, in the patriarch’s words, through which the Orthodox Church reiterated its commitment to dialogue, especially with non-Orthodox Christians. Quoting again from the Relations document, he styled the efforts of those individuals and groups opposed to ecumenical activities, zealous for emphasizing the already-existing unity of the Orthodox Church of Christ, as “efforts to break the unity of the Church… worthy of condemnation.” |
| On the level of action, ecumenical activists take advantage of the fact that the intellectuals and theologians are irresolute and unrooted in Orthodox tradition, and use their very words concerning “fundamental agreement” on sacramental and dogmatic points as an excuse for flamboyant ecumenical acts, not excluding the giving of Holy Communion to heretics. And this state of confusion in turn gives an opportunity for ecumenical ideologists on the most popular level to issue empty pronouncements that reduce basic theological issues to the level of cheap comedy, as when Patriarch Athenagoras allows himself to say: “Does your wife ever ask you how much salt she should put in the food? Certainly not. She has the infallibility. Let the Pope have it too, if he wishes” ( Hellenic Chronicle, April 9, 1970). The informed and conscious Orthodox Christian may well ask: where will it all end? Is there no limit to the betrayal, the denaturement, the self-liquidation of Orthodoxy? It has not yet been too carefully observed where all this is leading, but logically the path is clear. The ideology behind ecumenism, which has inspired such ecumenistic acts and pronouncements as the above, is an already well-defined heresy: the Church of Christ does not exist, no one has the Truth, the Church is only now being built. But it takes little reflection to see that the self-liquidation of Orthodoxy, of the Church of Christ, is simultaneously the self-liquidation of Christianity itself; that if no one church is the Church of Christ, then the combination of all sects will not be the Church either, not in the sense in which Christ founded it. And if all “Christian” bodies are relative to each other, then all of them together are relative to other “religious” bodies, and “Christian” ecumenism can only end in a syncretic world religion. This is indeed the undisguised aim of the masonic ideology which has inspired the Ecumenical Movement, and this ideology has now taken such possession of those who participate in the Ecumenical Movement that “dialogue” and eventual union with the non-Christian religions have come to be the logical next step for today’s denatured Christianity. The following are a few of the many recent examples that could be given that point the way to an “ecumenical” future outside of Christianity. |
| The Synod Abroad also became a vocal opponent of Orthodox participation in ecumenical dialogues and organizations. This position appears to have become more acute after the conciliar decisions of the Pan-Orthodox conferences of 1961 and 1963 and especially after the entrance of the Patriarchate of Moscow into the World Council of Churches in 1961. The Orthodox Church both at the worldwide level and in the United States viewed ecumenical witness as an expression of the mission of the church. However, one of the bishops of the Synod Abroad viewed ecumenical witness as «a path which leads to the embrace of godless communism and prepares for the kingdom of the anti-Christ.» He declared that those Orthodox who participate in ecumenical forums «mutilate the teachings concerning the Church of Christ and adjust it to the demands of the current mode.» 261 Between 1965 and 1969, Metropolitan Philaret (Voznessensky), who became primate of the Synod Abroad in 1964, wrote four public letters of protest that opposed the conciliar movement in Orthodoxy as well as Orthodox ecumenical witness. These letters not only further isolated the Synod Abroad from world Orthodoxy but also depicted the Synod Abroad as the «remnant» in which the faith is held in purity free from all forms of modernism, Communism, and ecumenism. Because of this, some in the Synod Abroad viewed it as «the only Orthodox Church remaining in America and the entire world whose hierarchy stands fully behind traditional Orthodoxy and against the approaching union.» 262 During this same period especially, the Synod Abroad became a haven for those clergy and laity of other Orthodox jurisdictions in America who opposed Orthodox ecumenical witness. Certainly, the Synod Abroad continued to maintain a strongly Russian identity and character. However, because of its opposition to developments in the Orthodox world, it began to attract persons who were not of Russian background but who were opposed to the policies articulated by the auto-cephalous churches and by those jurisdictions that were part of SCOBA. On this trend, one member of the Synod Abroad said: |
| The episode of Constantine Anglikos as such had no results. The Calixtine party grew weaker rather than stronger and the further development of the Hussite movement took other directions. Yet it is interesting to note that again in 1491 delegates of the Czech Brethren were sent to the East in search of a living faith and a pure tradition. Unfortunately, very little is known of the results of this mission, though it seems probable that one of the delegates at least reached Moscow. Even more remarkable is the fact that in 1599, at the meeting with the Orthodox at Wilna with a view to the reopening of negotiations, Simon Turnovsky, one of the prominent Brethren leaders in Lithuania, referred in his proposals to the negotiations undertaken by Constantine Anglikos nearly one hundred and fifty years before. 109 III. East and West Relationships From the Reformations Until the 19th Century The Reformation was a crisis of the Western Church and did not directly affect the Church in the East. But before long the Reformation spread to some countries with a large Orthodox population, and the Orthodox were thereby compelled to face the implications of the new religious situation in the West. Poland was specially important in this respect. The Orthodox, and especially the Greeks, were vitally interested in the political changes brought about by the religious strife in the West. They still cherished the hope of liberation, and still hoped that some help might come from the Western powers. But now the situation was markedly changed. The West itself was divided. The main political consequence of the Reformation was that Europe was split into two hostile camps; religious divisions gradually hardened into the two great political alliances which were to struggle for victory in the Thirty Years War (1618 – 1648). The Greeks had now to decide with which of the two power blocs it was wisest to associate their hope of freedom. These Western powers themselves were interested in the moral support of the Orthodox, at that time under Turkish domination. We can trace through the centuries the close interest taken by foreign embassies at Constantinople in all discussions between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the various European Churches. All ecumenical conversations unfortunately came to be complicated by diplomatic intrigues and political calculations. The inescapable fact was that at that period no political alliance with any European power – whether Roman Catholic or Protestant – was possible without some regulation of relationships in the religious as well as in the political field. Thus many of these ecumenical conversations were initiated, not so much because of any immediate theological concern, as from heavy diplomatic pressure arising from the general international situation. |
| 533 See, for example, the prayer of ordination of the presbyter in Hippolytus’ Apost. Trad. 7 (ed. Botte, p. 20 f.). For more sources cf. J. D. Zizioulas in Katholizität and Apostolizität (see note 527(?) above), pp. 48 ff. 534 Ignatius, Philad. 1, 2. Cf. Katholizität… p. 48, n. 91. Also, H. Chadwick, “The silence of bishops in Ignatius,” The Harvard Theological Review, 43 (1950), pp. 169 – 172. 536 Hippolytus, Philos. 9, 12, 21, PG 15:3386: the “catholic Church” is not a “school” (didaskaleion). 537 Cf. Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, prayer of the anaphora: “Commemorating this command of our Savior and all that was endured for our sake, the cross, the grave, the resurrection after three days, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second and glorious coming again, thine own of thine own we offer to Thee…” 538 J. D. Zizioulas, “The Development of Conciliar Structures to the Time of the First Ecumenical Council,” in Councils and the Ecumenical Movement (World Council of Churches Studies 5, 1968), pp. 34 – 51. 540 Cf. the paschal controversies in the second century, as described by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. V, 16, 10 and 28, 9, 9. 541 All doctrinal decisions of the ancient Church ended with anathemas, i.e. excommunications from the eucharist. Eucharistic communion was the ultimate aim of doctrine, and not doctrine itself. 542 The case of bishops who have been deprived of their communities by force, being in a certain sense under persecution, could not apply to this rule, which refers only to the “retired” and the so-called “titular» and “assistant” bishops. 543 For an Orthodox discussion of this problem, see: L. Stan “Concerning the Church’s Acceptance of the Decisions of Ecumenical Synods,” in Councils and the Ecumenical Movement (see note 535(?) above), pp. 68 – 75. Cf. W. Küppers, “Reception, Prolegomena to a Systematic Study,” Ibid. pp. 76 – 98. 544 We should like to emphasize the distinction between forms of ministry requiring ordination and institutions which are not based directly on ordination. |
| Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world: Draft document of the Pan-Orthodox Council Source: DECR Draft document of the Pan-Orthodox Council, adopted by the 5th Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference in Chambésy on October, 10-17, 2015. Photo: http://www.patriarchia.ru/ Published in compliance with the decision of the Synaxis of Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches, Chambésy, January, 21-28, 2016. 1. Orthodox Church, being the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in her profound ecclesiastical consciousness firmly believes that she occupies a central place in matters relating to the promotion of Christian unity within the contemporary world. 2. The Orthodox Church grounds her unity on the fact that she was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as on the communion in the Holy Trinity and in the Sacraments. This unity is manifested through the apostolic succession and the patristic tradition and to this day is lived within her. It is the mission and duty of the Orthodox Church to transmit and proclaim the truth, in all its fullness, contained in the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition, the truth which gives to the Church her catholic character. 3. The responsibility of the Orthodox Church and her ecumenical mission with regard to the unity were expressed by the Ecumenical Councils. These, in particular, stressed the indissoluble link existing between true faith and the sacramental communion. 4. The Orthodox Church, which unceasingly prays “ for the union of all ,” has always promoted dialogue with those separated from her, both far and near, playing a leading role in seeking ways and means to restore the unity of believers in Christ, participating in the ecumenical movement since its inception, and contributing to its formation and further development. In addition, the Orthodox Church, due to the ecumenical spirit and love for mankind by which she is distinguished and in accordance with the divine dispensation to “ have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4), has always fought for the restoration of Christian unity. Therefore, the Orthodox participation in the movement for the restoration of Christian unity does not run counter to the nature and history of the Orthodox Church. It is the consistent expression of the apostolic faith and Tradition in a new historical context. |
| Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, The Inner Kingdom 495 One of the striking features of Eastern Orthodox theology in the twentieth century was the role played by the West in the thinking of its most authoritative writers as theological context, as realm of fascination, and as focus of criticism. Georges Florovsky was a founder of the modern ecumenical movement and was at home in Western theological institutions and debates. But he also saw the West as the source of a troubling «pseudomorphosis» or »Babylonian captivity» of Orthodox theology. Vladimir Lossky learned much of his theology at the Sorbonne and had a lifelong interest in Meister Eckhart. But his The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (1944), the first systematic presentation of the Neo-patristic synthesis championed by Florovsky, underlined the deformations in Western theology that the filioque had introduced into Western Christian thought. Almost all the leading names of modern Orthodox theology studied in the West, engaged its ideas and became friends with the very theologians whose ideas they rejected. Indeed, at the opening of a centre for ecumenical studies in Cambridge, attended by many veteran ecumenists, Fr Ephrem Lash (one of the contributors to this volume) gave a talk entitled " Now We Are Friends». His point was that, after fifty years of the modern ecumenical movement, the Orthodox and their Western counterparts had become colleagues and friends to the extent that they could move beyond mere civilities and get to the heart of the very real theological issues that continue to divide us. So we may expect that the debates may become sharper. But such honesty can be fruitful only in an atmosphere of genuine friendship and respect. Twentieth-century ecumenical contacts – particularly with Russian theologians – were in large part made possible by the dispersion caused by the terrible aftermath of the Bolshevik revolution and then the Second World War. Various centres of Orthodox theology in the West have further contributed to this cross-pollination; but it remains true that most Western seminaries and university faculties of theology or religion offer no programmes and few (if any) courses in Eastern Christianity. |
| Spirit of Truth: Ecumenical Perspectives on the Holy Spirit: Papers of the Holy Spirit Consultation, October 24–25, 1985, Brookline, Massachusetts. Sponsored by the Commission on Faith and Order, NCCCUSA; edited by Theodore Stylianopoulos and S. Mark Heim. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1986. vi, 197 p. Suttner, Ernst Christoph. Church Unity: Union or Uniatism?: Catholic-Orthodox Ecumenical Perspectives. Translated by Brian Mcneil. Rome: Centre for Indian and Inter-Religious Studies; Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications, 1991. x, 151 p. (Placid lecture series; n. 13.) Swidler, Leonard J., ed. Scripture and Ecumenism: Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1965. vii, 197 p. (Duquesne studies. Theological series, 3.) Towards the Healing of Schism: The Sees of Rome and Constantinople: Public Statements and Correspondence Between the Holy See and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, 1958–1984. Edited and translated by E. J. Stormon; introduction by Thomas F. Stransky. NY: Paulist Press, 1987. vii, 559 p. (Ecumenical documents; 3.) Wingenbach, Gregory Charles. Broken, Yet Never Sundered: Orthodox Witness and the Ecumenical Movement. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1987. 184 p. Bibliography: p. 165–172. World Council of Churches. Commission on Faith and Order. Standing Commission. Minutes of the Meeting of the Standing Commission Held at the Orthodox Academy, Crete, Greece, 6th-14th April 1984. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1984. 96 p. (Faith and order paper; n. 121.) World Council of Churches. Orthodox Task Force. Orthodox Contributions to Nairobi: Papers. Compiled and presented by the Orthodox Task Force of the WCC. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1975. iii, 35 p. Zander, Leon Alexander. Vision and Action. Translated from the Russian by Natalie Duddington, with an introduction by the Bishop of Chichester. London: Gollancz, 1952. 224 p. Zernov, Nicolas. Fellowship of St. Alban & St. Sergius: A Historical Memoir. In collaboration with Militza Zernov. Oxford: The Fellowship, 1979. ii, 32 p. |
|
|
