By Protopresbyter Peter Heers,
Professor of Old and New Testament, Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary,
Jordanville, NY
Lecture
delivered at the Clergy Retreat
Audio
and video versions of this lecture will be forthcoming; please check
back to orthodoxethos.com for
these.
Howell,
New Jersey
Tuesday,
March 21st, 2017
Your
Eminence, Metropolitan HILARION
Your
Eminence, Metropolitan JONAH
Your
Grace, Bishop NICHOLAS,
Your
Grace, Bishop IRENEI,
Venerable
fathers and brothers in Christ,
Christ is
in Our Midst!
I
consider it an honor to stand before you today, to speak to the
Shepherds and Pastors of Christ's rational flock, and in particular
to the successors of the great work begun in the Russian Diaspora by
such holy ones as St. John the Wonderworker and Metropolitans
Anthony, Anastasi, Philaret, and Vitaly, Archbishop Averky and
Metropolitan Laurus and many others, who are revered fathers not only
of the Russian Church Abroad, but indeed of the Church Catholic.
The
witness given by the Fathers of the Russian Church Outside of Russia
with regard to the Holy Tradition, the monastic and ascetic ideal and
in particular the ecclesiology of the Church, continues to inspire
and guide Orthodox throughout the world.
Today, as
the Ark of the Church sways in the wake of the passing of the
self-styled 'Great and Holy Council" of Crete, we have great
need of their exactitude in life and faith - or, better, we have
great need to follow and imitate them in these.
In the
short time allotted me today, I hope to succinctly but clearly lay
out before you what of notability and significance happened in Crete
in June of last year, that being informed you may act according to
God's will. In particular I will briefly examine and critique the
following three aspects of the "Council" and its aftermath:
- Organization and Execution
- Documents
- Outcome and Implications
We will
focus, in particular on those aspects of the gathering which
represent departures from the Holy Tradition and Holy Faith of the
Church, for these necessarily merit a response from the fullness of
the Church.
Before
I begin this analysis, it is necessary to state the following, in
order to remove what has become a kind of "red herring" in
the whole discussion of Crete and its significance. Supporters,
sympathizers and those indifferent to the event respond to criticism
of it in a variety of ways. One
hears them say, for example:
- The success of the meeting was the meeting itself!
- This is just a beginning and it will be improved upon!
- Nothing of consequence transpired, so there is no need to make a fuss!
- Why even bother with Crete now? It has died and been buried! Within a few years it will be forgotten. (And other such sentiments.)
We can
all be sympathetic to the "power of positive thinking,"
however, I am afraid all of these nice thoughts only function to
skirt the issue: what of the "Council" itself? What of its
decisions and its impact? One cannot be expected to believe that
we've waited more than 50 years (or by other counts 100!) for a grand
council the main purpose of which was. . .to happen! Certainly,
whatever happened in Crete will and already has impacted the Church
(in some places greatly) and will become a precedent for the future.
Indeed,
it is for this reason that those clerics who ignore it or downplay it
do so to their own - and their flock's - detriment. In the history of
the Church, councils - whether false or ecumenical - are either
accepted or rejected by the pleroma [the fullness] of the Church.
They are not and must not be ignored, especially when they innovate
and introduce false teachings into the Church. Just as a fall must be
repented of, not swept under the rug, so too errors introduced and
accepted in council must be rejected and corrected [ideally in
council]. We do not ignore illnesses when they infect our body. How
much more should be our care for the Body of Christ! We are all
co-responsible, bearing one another's burdens.
1.
Organization and Execution:
Let us
begin by looking briefly at the basic statistic composition of the
"Council:"
- Participating Churches: 10 of the 14 Local Churches (71%)
- Representation of Orthodox Christians: close to 30%.
- Participating Orthodox Bishops: 162 participated of the 350 invited (46%)
- Representation of Orthodox Bishops: 162 of a total of 850 (19%)
- Total number of Voting Bishops: 10 of the 162 bishops present (6%), or 10 of the 850 bishops in the Orthodox Church (1.1%).
If we
compare this with the truly "Great and Holy Councils" of
the Church, those later recognized as "Ecumenical," the
difference is enormous, especially when we consider the obstacles the
ancient hierarchs faced in terms of travel and communication. For
example, the First Ecumenical Council had 325 fathers, the Fourth 630
fathers and the seventh 350 fathers - all of which participated with
the right to vote.
What,
then, did the world go to Crete to see? A "Great and Holy
Council"? What went they out to see? A free gathering of the
Orthodox Bishops from around the world? Behold, most of them were not
invited and nearly all that came were not given a vote. So, what went
they out to see in Crete? "A council of primates with their
entourages."[1]
This last
phrase - "a council of primates with their entourages" - is
how Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktou characterized the
gathering, which he attended and which he now severely criticizes for
introducing novelties with regard to our Faith. The great irony and
tragedy is that for all of the organizers' grand claims that
conciliarity had led to and would be on display in Crete, it was
rather a new eastern form of Papal primacy - of the Primates - which
took center stage.[2]
The
tragic irony is that while representatives of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate criss-crossed internet highways touting the conciliarity
of the pre-synodical process and Council-to-be, the Holy Synods of
the several Local Churches were only beginning to examine the
orthodoxy of the texts accepted by their Primates without their
approval. This illustrates that the failure of this "council of
Primates with their attendees" was assured ahead of time.
A.
Pre-Conciliar Portents of the Impending Disaster
Much has
been made of the long conciliar process which led up to the Cretan
gathering. Undoubtedly, much sweat and ink had been spent to bring
the event to pass. During the 55 years of active, organizational
preparation for the convocation there took place:
- Six meetings of the "Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission"
- Three gatherings of the "Special Inter-Orthodox Commission"
- Five Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conferences
- Three meetings of the Synaxis of the Primates of the Local Churches
- Two special theological conferences for the drafting of the Rules of Operation of the Episcopal Assemblies in the Diaspora
- Two academic conferences, on the issue of a common ecclesiastical calendar and a common celebration of the feast of Pascha with the heterodox and another on contemporary bioethical issues.
- And one academic conference on the issue of the Ordination of Women in Rhodes, in 1989.
It
is truly tragic that after such an extensive amount of time and
effort the outcome pleases virtually no one, nor brings honor or
glory to the organizers or to the Church. Perhaps the hierarch of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate who characterized the council as a "fiasco"
or the ecclesiastical reporter who called it "the headline which
ended up a footnote" were unjust? {It is apparent that the
ancient saying has been fulfilled in Crete: "it
bore a mountain and gave birth to a fly."
Would that it were only this and not worse! For such travail in
giving birth to such a "council" is a shame upon the entire
Church.}
One has
to ask: what was at fault, that, in spite of so much work - unique in
the conciliar annals - we've had such a tragic outcome?
We have
an expression in Greece: "a good day is apparent from the
outset." Well, the opposite is also true in the case of the
grand council. Early on in the conciliar process it was apparent that
the normally sunny Crete would not shine brightly for Orthodoxy. As I
have examined elsewhere at length,[3] the visionaries behind Crete
sealed their Council's fate to not follow the Holy Fathers by
imbibing the "spirit" of another, even grander and
thrice-flawed gathering of recent memory: the Second Vatican Council.
The two
councils shared common roots and beginnings, a similar methodology
and similar aims, and at least a superficial allergy to dogma. Both
gatherings aimed at, and claimed to, solidify their hierarchies'
commitment to ecumenism and both allowed for their conciliar decrees
and documents to be shaped by academic theologians. And, most
importantly, both gatherings saw the introduction of a new
"inclusivist" ecclesiology, foreign to the Church's Faith
in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.[4]
Another
point which unfortunately forges kinship between the two gatherings
is the absence of any demonology. It is indicative as to the mindset
and priorities of the drafters of the conciliar texts that nowhere,
in any of the texts, does one find the following terms:
- Devil, demon, diabolical, or evil one [5]
- Heresy,[6] heretic, schism or schismatic
However,
discernment of the methods of the fallen spirits, or demonology, is a
requirement in the formation of Christology and Ecclesiology.[7] As
the Evangelist John writes, “For this purpose the Son of God was
manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John
3:8). The absence of any mention of the evil one or his machinations
(heresy, schism, etc.) from any conciliar text is indicative of a
worldly, secularized outlook, not the patristic mindset.
Finally,
following Vatican II and not the holy fathers, the "Council"
in Crete not only made no reference to heresy but invited
representatives of heretical confessions to attend as observers,
including those recognized as such by previous Ecumenical Councils.
Although unprecedented in the history of the councils, it had been
practiced in the Vatican councils, confirming once again the spirit
and mindset which unfortunately animated the organizers.
B.
The "Conciliar" Abolition of Conciliarity
Let us
look now more particularly at the conciliarity (or lack thereof) of
the pre-synodal period and the Council itself. The unity of the
Church is manifest and molded through conciliarity. As the 34th
Apostolic canon states: "for so there will be unanimity, and God
will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit." When the
conciliar way is lost the first and often immediate victim is the
unity of the Church.
A careful
examination of the "Council" of Crete in this regard
reveals that, paradoxically, there occurred a "conciliar"
abolition of conciliarity. In the history of the Church, with the
exception of the robber councils, no other council showed so much
disdain for the very meaning of conciliarity as did the "Council"
of Crete.
Firstly,
the people of God, the pleroma of the Church (which includes clergy,
monastics and laymen), was bypassed entirely in the run-up and
execution of the "Council." This is not only a major
oversight, it is a serious ecclesiological flaw. The Orthodox
Patriarchs declared to the Pope in 1484 that in the Church of Christ
"neither Patriarchs nor Councils could have introduced novelties
amongst us, because the protector of religion is the very body of the
Church, even the people themselves...".[8]
However,
not only was the body of the Church kept in the dark but even much of
the hierarchy itself. The majority of the bishops and even synods of
the Local Churches were uninvolved in the preparation of the
"Council," including the drafting of its texts. In this
regard, we recall the painful cry of protest issued by Met.
Hierotheos of Nafpaktou months before the "Council" that
the pre-conciliar texts "were unknown to most hierarchs and to
myself, remain hold-up in committee and we don't know their
contents." [9]
It is not
overstating our case to state that the judgement of the Seventh
Ecumenical Council with regard to the false iconoclast council of
Hieria is applicable here: "their things were said as in a
corner, and not upon the mountain of orthodoxy." This is because
those responsible for the preparation of the texts knew very well the
people of God's opposition to the problematic texts and for this
reason refused to publish them. As is apparent from the minutes of
the 5th (and final) Pre-Conciliar Conference (in October of 2015), it
was only upon the insistence of the Patriarchate of Georgia and
(later at the Synaxis of the Primates in January of 2016 - just 5
months before the "Council") the request of the
Patriarchate of Moscow that the texts were finally released to the
Church. With this in mind, then, one can better understand why four
Patriarchates ended up pulling out at the last minute.
Metropolitan
Irenei of Batskas (Serbian Church) had this to say about that last,
crucial meeting of the Pre-Conciliar Commission which took place in
October of 2015:
"With
regard to the text 'Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of
the Christian World' serious review and correction was,
unfortunately, proven impossible, because for most of the
meeting...in spite of the disapproval of many and the sharp criticism
exacted, the text - for reasons never divulged - was not seriously
re-evaluated. Rather, it was sent on as is, essentially untouched, to
the Council, where, due to a lack of time and consensus, only
cosmetic changes were made."
[10]
A careful
study of the minutes of the 5th Pre-Conciliar, Pan-Orthodox
Conference (October of 2015) reveals that the work was carried out in
a atmosphere of pressure and haste with responsibility for this
resting with the president of the meeting, Met. John of Pergamon, who
was subsequently replaced.
It is
apparent and a view commonly held among critics of the "Council"
that one of the main causes for turning Crete into a "fiasco"
was this anti-synodical, unorthodox methodology and pre-conciliar
secrecy enforced by the organizers.
We said
previously that the hierarchies of the Local Churches were kept in
the dark with respect to the preparatory period and texts. This is
also apparent when one considers that the rules of preparation for
the Council only required the signatures of two representatives of
each Church in order to confirm the pre-conciliar texts - that is,
without the approval of the Holy Synods. Thus, the unorthodox text on
the heterodox was considered "approved" by the Local
Churches after the October 2015 meeting without being sent, without
being discussed, and without being confirmed by the Holy Synods of
the Local Churches. In this way, on the strength of two
representatives' signatures, the text was considered accepted and
binding for the Church of Greece, and then forwarded to the Council.
Where
is the conciliar character of the Church at work here?
But that
is not all. For the text to be amended, or even one phrase of it to
be changed in Crete, it required the approval of all the Local
Churches. If only one disagreed with the change, it remained as it
was because it was considered already approved by all the Churches at
the 5th Pre-Conciliar Conference!
Once
again, here we can see why the Churches of Bulgaria and Georgia
declined to attend: they understood that essential changes to the
texts would be impossible.
This same
process was at work with the Rules of Operation for the Council
itself. The texts were approved by the Primates (with the exception
of the Church of Antioch) without discussion or approval of the Local
Church Hierarchies.
Objectionable
and unfortunate as the pre-conciliar process appears, it is rather
benign in comparison to the pinnacle of disdain of conciliarity on
display at the Council itself. There the right and proper function of
each bishop to vote on the proposed texts was scorned and denied and
reserved for the Primate alone. Unbelievable, unprecedented, and
total inadmissible canonically speaking.
The irony
is that many of the bishops in attendance enthusiastically declared
that there was great freedom and ease for the bishops to speak. While
this is significant, it is obviously secondary in importance to
voting. What matters is not who speaks first but who has the last
word, that is, who decides. Even if all 152 non-voting bishops
disagreed with a word or passage or even an entire document, it
mattered little, for the votes of the 10 Primates was all that was
registered.
As is
well known, according to Orthodox ecclesiology, bishops are equal.
The Primate is not above all the bishops. Rather, he is the "first
among equals." In this context, then, does not the practice in
Crete to recognize the vote of the Primate alone, and not that of the
whole of the hierarchy, represent a fall from conciliarity and slide
into papism? This "papal" elevation of the Primates is
extremely dangerous for the entire Church, for besides meaning the
abolition of conciliarity in each Local Church, it will quickly lead
to the Primate of Primates being elevated to the status of Pope of
the East sine paribus (without equal), to use the preferred term of
Met. Elpidophoros of Brusa.
Allow me
to provide three examples which illustrate that in Crete there
occurred a "conciliar abolition of conciliarity."
Before
the "Council" of Crete, the Hierarchy of the Church of
Greece unanimously agreed and stated their position that in the
conciliar texts heterodox communities must not be referred to as
"Churches." The hierarchy mandated that the Archbishop and
his entourage convey and champion this decision. There was no
conciliar authorization for any modification of the decision of the
Hierarchy. Nevertheless, the Archbishop of Athens and his entourage
(with the exception of Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktou) changed
their stance and voted for a modified version of the text in question
(#6) which clearly contradicted the unanimous decision of the entire
hierarchy. In doing this he and those with him disdained the 34th
Apostolic Canon, which reads: "neither let him (who is the
first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be
unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy
Spirit."
In our
second example, of the Church of Serbia, we have an even more
flagrant example of creeping papalism. The Serbian Church's entourage
consisted of 24 bishops. Of these only 7 stood in favor of the final
text on the Heterodox (#6). Seventeen of the 24 hierarchs refused to
sign it. Nevertheless, because the Patriarch of Serbia was favorable
and signed the text, the "Council" considered that the
Church of Serbia accepted the text! Once again, the Council disdained
the 34th Apostolic Canon which calls upon the First Hierarch "to
do nothing without the consent of all." The irony is, of course,
that while Orthodox representatives to the dialogue with Rome
underline the need of the Vatican to base relations between a Primate
and Local Church upon the 34th Apostolic Canon, the Pan-Orthodox
"Council" violated it repeatedly.
In our
third example, we have the tragic anti-synodical and papal approach
of the Archbishop of Cyprus. Four of the 17 bishops in attendance
from Cyprus refused to sign the final text on the Heterodox (#6),
including Metropolitan Athanasius of Lemesou. After these bishops had
departed, the Archbishop's response was to sign it for them, as if he
had their agreement! In an interview which he later gave to a
Greek-American newspaper, the Archbishop characterized these
dissenting bishops of his own Church as a "fifth column" at
the Council.
It is
apparent here that these examples indicate not only a disdain for the
conciliar system and even its abolition, but also contempt for the
episcopal dignity by the "first hierarchs." These
innovations and diversions were not only tolerated and accepted by
the "Great and Holy Council;" upon them the "Council"
was carried out. Indeed, without such anti-conciliar activity the
"Council" would have disintegrated entirely.[11]
In
hindsight, given the anti-conciliar foundation and the failure of the
"Council" to unite the Orthodox, the following idiom is
applicable: "a house is only as good as the foundation upon
which it is built" (see Luke 6:48). The "Great and Holy"
Council's house was not built on the rock of conciliarity - "it
seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" - but on the sand of
papalism - "our holy patriarch has spoken"!
2.
The Documents and Declarations of the Council
Let us
now turn from the organization of the "Council" to its
documents.
Three of
the six documents presented serious problems for several of the
Churches. These were: The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today's
World,[12] The Sacrament of Marriage and Its Impediments, and
Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian
World. I will speak only briefly concerning the second text and focus
on the third, which really constituted the basis of the Council.
A.
The Sacrament of Marriage and Its Impediments
In the
document on Marriage, three statements are made in succession
concerning the issue of "mixed-Marriages," that is marriage
of an Orthodox Christian with the member of a Heterodox confession or
one of the non-Christian religions of the world:
1.
Marriage between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians is forbidden
according to canonical akriveia (Canon 72 of the Penthekte Ecumenical
Council).
2.
With the salvation of man as the goal, the possibility of the
exercise of ecclesiastical oikonomia in relation to impediments to
marriage must be considered by the Holy Synod of each autocephalous
Orthodox Church according to the principles of the holy canons and in
a spirit of pastoral discernment.
3.
Marriage between Orthodox and non-Christians is categorically
forbidden in accordance with canonical akriveia.
Now, to
be sure, this question of mixed-Marriages is a thorny and difficult
pastoral matter, especially for the Church outside of traditional
Orthodox lands, such as America. Without wanting in the least to
belittle this pastoral challenge, a challenge rightly dealt with by
the pastors on a case by case basis, it is imperative that the
pastoral practice never be loosed from its dogmatic moorings. My
interest here are the dogmatic implications of this decision.
According
to Professor Demetrios Tselengides, the move "to legitimize the
service of mixed marriage [is] something clearly forbidden by canon
72 of the Penthekte Council. [It is unacceptable, therefore,] for a
council such as the "Great and Holy Council" in Crete to
explicitly turn a decision of an Ecumenical Council into something
relative." [13]
In the
relevant excerpt I read of the conciliar document, note that while
the kat'oikonomia marriage of the Heterodox with the Orthodox is
considered possible, the same is strictly forbidden for the
non-Christians. Why the difference? On what basis are the Heterodox
admitted to a mystery of the Church? What are the criteria of
acceptance?
Let us
remember Canon 72, which could not be stated more clearly to show
that it is a canon based on the dogma of the Church and thus does not
admit of oikonomia:
An
orthodox man is not permitted to marry a heretical woman, nor an
orthodox woman to be joined to a heretical man. But if anything of
this kind appear to have been done by any [we require them] to
consider the marriage null, and that the marriage be dissolved. For
it is not fitting to mingle together what should not be mingled, nor
is it right that the sheep be joined with the wolf, nor the lot of
sinners with the portion of Christ. But if any one shall transgress
the things which we have decreed let him be cut off. [But if any who
up to this time are unbelievers and are not yet numbered in the flock
of the orthodox have contracted lawful marriage between themselves,
and if then, one choosing the right and coming to the light of truth
and the other remaining still detained by the bond of error and not
willing to behold with steady eye the divine rays, the unbelieving
woman is pleased to cohabit with the believing man, or the
unbelieving man with the believing woman, let them not be separated,
according to the divine Apostle, “for the unbelieving husband is
sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by her husband.]”
What is
significant here is that the Council in Crete introduced, for the
first time in history, a synodical decision which allows for the
overturning of a canon of an Ecumenical Council and - most
importantly - its underlying dogmatic basis. I don't see how one
could understand it otherwise, for on what basis are they allowing
for mixed marriages if not some (new) consideration of the Church and
Her Boundaries, now including the heterodox (somehow - "because
they are baptized"?). For, otherwise, it would be madness to
speak of marriage - a true mystery of unity in Christ - between a
baptized and initiated member of the Body of Christ and one not
baptized and not initiated.
Therefore,
the implication, even when the decision is referred to as
"kat'oikonomia" here, is that the heterodox are "baptized"
and on this basis they (as opposed to those of other religions) can
participate in the mystery of marriage. Indeed, this is what one
hears when he pays attention to the reasoning of those champions of
mixed marriages. This, however, means that underlying the supposed
"oikonomia" of mixed-Marriages is the so-called "baptismal
theology" and "inclusive church" theories, which lie
at the heart of syncretistic ecumenism. This is consistent with the
fruits we have seen from mixed-Marriages, namely, that on the basis
of mixed-Marriages the ecumenically-minded justify other violations
of the canons, such as joint prayer with the heretics, or even
communing them during the marriage ceremony. (I am told that, in
fact, this is practiced by a prominent professor at a North American
Orthodox seminary).
It is
clear that there is no theological basis for mixed-Marriages, that it
cannot be considered "oikonomia" since it does not lead to
akriveia, but rather overturns the unity-identity of the mysteries
with the One Mystery of Christ, and that it opens the door to further
erosion of the canonical and sacramental order of the Church.
B.
Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World
Let us
turn now to the text which many consider constituted the basis of the
Council: "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the
Christian world." [14] It is the common view that this text, the
sixth and final text accepted by the "Council," is fraught
with error and confusion, notwithstanding occasional praiseworthy
passages.
1.
The Product of an Ecumenistic Outlook
As a text
with a clear dogmatic-ecclesiological orientation this text ought to
have been distinguished by an absolute clarity of meaning and
exactitude in formulation, such as to exclude the possibility of a
variety of interpretations or intentional misinterpretations.
Unfortunately, to the contrary, in key passages we encounter
obscurity and ambiguity, as well as theological contradictions and
antinomy, which permit polar opposite interpretations.
It is
characteristic with what difficulty the "Council" met the
task of approving this text that nearly thirty bishops refused to
sign it and many others only signed it after the termination of the
Council, after the four versions (in four languages) had finally been
completed.
To see
that the text is a product of an ecumenistic - and not truly
ecumenical - mindset, one only need to consider what Metropolitan
Hierotheos (Vlachos) wrote concerning the text and the debate
surrounding it during the "Council":
"When
the minutes of the Council are published, where the true views of
those who decided on and signed the text are recorded, then it will
be clear that the Council was dominated by the branch theory,
baptismal theology and especially the principle of inclusiveness,
i.e. a retreat from the principle of exclusivity to the principle of
inclusiveness. During the works of the Council in Crete various
distortions of the truth were said [in order to bolster the text]
regarding St. Mark of Ephesus, the Council of 1484 and the Synodical
encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1848, with regard to the word
“Church” as applying to Christians cut off from the One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church."
The
Metropolitan relates elsewhere that proponents of the text and the
recognition of the "ecclesiality" of the Western
confessions employed aggression and much pressure, including
explicatives against those opposed.
2.
Endorsement of Ecumenism
We
mentioned earlier that one of the aims of this "Council"
was to solidify the Orthodox Church's commitment to ecumenism. This
text on relations to the Heterodox achieves this goal. It contains
positive references to the World Council of Churches, made with
apparent enthusiasm.
In
paragraph 21 of the text, the following is stated:
"The
Orthodox Church wishes to support the work of the Commission on
'Faith and Order' and follows its theological contribution with
particular interest to this day. It views favorably the Commission’s
theological documents, which were developed with the significant
participation of Orthodox theologians and represent a praiseworthy
step in the Ecumenical Movement for the rapprochement of Christians."
The
positive evaluation of the texts accepted within the WCC alone is
sufficient for an Orthodox Christian to reject the text. Is it
possible for a Pan-Orthodox Council to favorably view theological
documents of the WCC when these very texts are filled with heretical
Protestant views that have been repeatedly criticized by many Local
Orthodox Churches?
In
paragraph 19 of the text, the Toronto Statement of the WCC is
referred to positively, as a foundational document for Orthodox
involvement. What, however, does this statement express? Among other
things it states that the WCC includes churches which hold that:
- the Church is essentially invisible,
- there is a distinction between the visible and invisible body of the Church,
- the baptism of other churches is valid and true,
- there are "elements of a true Church" and "traces of Church" in other member churches in the WCC and the ecumenical movement is based on this
- there are church members extra muros (outside the walls), and that
- these aliquo modo (in some way) belong to the Church, and that
- there is a "Church within a Church."
Upon this
foundation the Orthodox participate in the WCC, an organization in
which the anti-Orthodox "invisible and visible Church"
theory clearly dominates, overturning the whole of Orthodox
ecclesiology.
The
"Council" of Crete is the only council of bishops ever to
recognize, promote, praise and accept ecumenism and the World Council
of Churches. This stands in direct opposition to the witness of the
choir of saints, including - among many others - the great elder
Ephraim of Katounakia who by revelation was informed that ecumenism
is dominated by unclean spirits.
The
implications are enormous: what experience and inspiration of the
Holy Spirit could they be expressing in Crete when they stand in
opposition to the saints of the Church?
3.
A Long Path to the Recognition of the Ecclesiality of the Heterodox
This path
to the conciliar acceptance of ecumenism has been long and
tumultuous. The passage of this text on Ecumenism was clearly the
number one goal of the visionaries of the "Council" - a
goal which was apparent as early as 1971.
The first
text produced within the pre-conciliar process that recognizes the
so-called ecclesiality of the heterodox confessions is the
Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission text from 1971 entitled
"Oikonomia in the Orthodox Church," which stated: "For
our Orthodox Church recognizes - even though being the One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church - the ontological existence of all
those Christian Churches and Confessions."[15] (This text was
severely criticized by theologians in Greece at the time and
eventually removed.)
This
phrase was later modified at the Third commission meeting in 1986 to
"recognizes the actual existence of all the Christian Churches
and Confessions."
It was
changed again in 2015, at the Fifth such meeting of the preparatory
commission, to "recognizes the historic existence of other
Christian Churches and Confessions not found in communion with Her."
When, in
January of 2016 the final text was finally made public, this phrase
provoked a host of reactions and protests from the fullness of the
Church and Local Church Synods, including the Russian Church Abroad.
After the
last minute proposal in Crete by the Archbishop of Athens was
generally accepted by the Primates and their entourages (although
nearly 30 bishops refused to sign), the final text included the
formulation: "the Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of
other heterodox[16] Christian Churches and Confessions that are not
in communion with her."
One can
see that progressively, over the last 45 years, the phrase has been
modified in response to objections advanced by the Local Churches.
Nevertheless, the final version remains unorthodox and unacceptable,
or, as Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) writes, "anti-orthodox."
There are several important points to make in this regard.
4.
Anti-Orthodox and Synodically Condemned as a Heresy
Firstly,
as Metropolitan Hierotheos remarks, it may be that, in accepting the
term "church" for the heterodox confessions, an important
distinction was lost on the participating hierarchs. St. Gregory
Palamas clearly defined this issue in the Synodical Tomos of the
Ninth Ecumenical Council of 1351. He writes there: "it is one
thing to use counterarguments in favor of piety and another thing to
confess the faith." That is, one should use every argument in
countering something, while confession should be brief and
doctrinally precise. Hence, in this context, in council, for the sake
of doctrinal precision the use of the term "church" for the
heterodox is clearly inadmissible.
We can
only hope, together with Metropolitan Hierotheos, that the hierarchs
in Crete "were 'misled' by those who argued - without extensive
references - that during the second millennium the Orthodox
characterized heretical groups as Churches. The truth is that it
wasn't until the 20th century that Western Christianity was
characterized as a church, when Orthodox terminology and theology was
differentiated from the terminology and theology of the past,
especially with [and after] the 1920 Encyclical of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate" "Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere."
One has only to recall that St. Gregory Palamas likened the Latin
heresy akin to Arianism and the Latins as being obedient organs of
the evil one.
The term
Church is used not simply as a description or an image. Rather, it
indicates the actual Body of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church is
identified with the very Theanthropic Body of Christ and because as
Head He is one, His Body is one. As the Apostle Paul wrote:
"...and
[He] gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is
his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all" (Eph.
1:22-23)
"There
is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of
your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of
all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Eph. 4:
4-6).
Although
it has been claimed that the offensive phrase referring to
"churches," particularly in its last form, is consistent
with Orthodox ecclesiology and the Apostle Paul, the truth is that it
is, rather, consistent with the new, "inclusivist"
ecclesiology. As Metropolitan Hierotheos stated: "while prima
facie it seems harmless, it is anti-Orthodox."
Why
"anti-Orthodox?" Firstly, it is impossible to speak of
"simply" "accepting the historical name" of
"other heterodox Christian Churches," for there is no name
without existence, because otherwise an ecclesiological nominalism is
expressed.
Secondly,
far from hearkening back to the Apostle Paul, "the mouth of
Christ," the phrase "the Orthodox Church accepts the
historical name of other heterodox Christian Churches," when
understood in context, reminds one of the invisible church theory of
Calvin and Zwingli, what Vladimir Lossky called a "Nestorian
ecclesiology." This ecclesiology supposes that the Church is
split into invisible and visible parts, just as Nestorius imagined
the divine and the human natures in Christ to be separated. Other
heretical theories have sprung from this idea, such as the branch
theory, baptismal theology and ecclesiological inclusiveness. This
invisible church theory has actually already been rejected in council
by the Orthodox Church.
The idea
that a church can be characterized as heterodox (heretical) was
condemned by the Councils of the 17th century on the occasion of the
so-called "Confession of Loukaris," supposed to have been
written or adopted by Kyrillos Loukaris, Patriarch of Constantinople.
The condemned phrase was: "it is true and certain that the
Church may sin and adopt falsehood instead of the truth." On the
contrary, the Councils of the Church at the time condemned this
faithlessness to Christ declaring that the Church cannot err.
This
conciliar teaching is very important and must be stressed again in
our day, for it comes to heal the delusion of those humanists in our
midst who have lost faith in Christ and the continuation of the
Incarnation. It is this faithlessness that lurks behind the
unwillingness of many to embrace the "scandal of the
particular," the scandal of the Incarnation, and to declare that
the Church is One as Christ is One, and it is in a particular time
and place, being the continuation of the Incarnation and the One,
Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. This faithlessness amounts to an
abandonment of orthodoxy as a pre-requisite of ecclesiality and it is
not simply a crisis of convictions, but, as Fr. George Florovsky
wrote some 60 years ago, it signals that people "have deserted
Christ."
To be
sure, the contemporary forms that the heresy of the "invisible
church" theories take are a bit more nuanced than those in the
16th century, but not by much. Let us look again at the offensive
phrase in context and we'll see the similarities more clearly. The
text reads:
"In
accordance with the ontological nature of the Church, her unity can
never be perturbed. In spite of this, the Orthodox Church accepts the
historical name of other Heterodox Christian Churches and Confessions
that are not in communion with her, and believes that her relations
with them should be based on the most speedy and objective
clarification possible of the whole ecclesiological question, and
most especially of their more general teachings on sacraments, grace,
priesthood, and apostolic succession." (Paragraph 6)
It begins
by stating that according to the ontological nature of the Church,
unity cannot be disturbed. Here the invisible, united Church in the
heavens is implied. This is the meaning of "ontological."
This is immediately followed by, "but in spite of this..."
and reference is made to the fractured, visible aspect of the Church,
with the acceptance of other, "Heterodox Churches."
5.
An Already Accepted Expression of the New Ecclesiology
This is
not the first time this dichotomy of the ontologically united Church
in heaven, outside of time, with the divided Church on earth, in
time, has appeared among the Orthodox hierarchy. Here is how the
Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew, expressed it in the Holy
Sepulchre in Jerusalem of 2014:
"The
One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,
founded by the "Word in the beginning," by the one "truly
with God," and the Word "truly God", according to the
evangelist of love, unfortunately, during her engagement on earth, on
account of the dominance of human weakness and of impermanence of the
will of the human intellect, was
divided in time.
This brought about various conditions and groups, of which each
claimed for itself "authenticity" and "truth." The
Truth, however, is One, Christ, and the One Church founded by Him.
Both
before and after the great Schism of 1054 between East and West, our
Holy Orthodox Church made attempts to overcome the differences, which
originated from the beginning and for the most part from factors
outside of the environs of the Church. Unfortunately, the
human element dominated,
and through the accumulation of "theological," "practical,"
and "social" additions the
Local Churches were led into division of the unity of the Faith, into
isolation, which developed occasionally into hostile polemics."
The
similarity with the invisible Church theory condemned by the Church
and these words of the Patriarch are apparent in the sharp
distinction of the ontologically united heavenly Church with the
supposedly fragmented earthly Church. This mirrors the "Nestorian"
division of the divine and human natures of the Body of Christ. This
view is, however, not surprisingly, in harmony with the new
ecclesiology propounded at the Second Vatican Council, which posits
an earthly church with greater or lesser degrees of fullness[17] due
to the so-called "tangles of human history."[18]
These
views of the Church imply the identification of the Church with
heresy, of the holy things with the fallen and worldly. With pain of
heart the words of Saint Tarasios, Patriarch of Constantinople, to
the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, are brought to mind,
when he rebuked the decisions of the iconoclasts' false-council of
Hieria:
"O
the derangement and distraction of these [men]. They did not separate
between the profane and the holy, and as tavern-keepers mix wine with
water they mixed the true word with the perverted, truth with
falsehood, just as [as if they were] mixing poison with honey, to
whom suitably does Christ our God address through the prophet: 'the
priests set aside my law, and defiled my sanctuaries. They did not
distinguish between the profane and the holy."
It should
be clear, then, that the offensive text with its heretical
ecclesiology must be rejected by the Church (by every Local Church
separately and then in a future Council), and replaced, for it will
undoubtedly be the source of a falling away from Orthodoxy.
There is
still time to correct course and heal the wound already inflicted
upon the Church. One practical solution, given by Metropolitan
Hierotheos, which would help facilitate the restoration of Orthodoxy,
is for a future council to correct the errors and to issue a new,
orthodox document. There is both contemporary support for this (from
the Patriarchates of Antioch, Serbia, Russia, Georgia, Bulgaria and
even Romania) as well historical precedent (the meetings of the
Ecumenical Councils extended for months and years, the Penthekte
Council completed the 5th and 6th Councils and the Ninth Ecumenical
Council was actually four separate councils).
Let us
hope that bishops everywhere take immediate steps in this direction,
for the matter is most urgent in those Local Churches which have
accepted the text and Council.
3.
The Aftermath and Implications of the "Council" of Crete
A.
The Responses of the Local Churches
Let us
now turn briefly to the aftermath of the council and the current
state of things.
Firstly,
among those who attended the Council, there were nearly 30 bishops
who refused to sign its final document on the Heterodox and
Ecumenism. Among those are the well-known bishops, Metropolitans
Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktou (Greece), Athanasius of Lemesou
(Cyprus), Neophytos of Morphou (Cyprus), Amphilochios of Montenegro,
(Serbia), and Irenei of Batskas (Serbia).
Bishop
Irenei of Batskas in Serbia summarized the stance of many
post-Council:
"Concerning
the recently concluded, triumphantly yet not entirely persuasively,
"Great and Holy Council" of our Church in Columbari of
Crete: it is already not recognized as such by the Churches that were
absent, indeed even characterized by them as a "gathering in
Crete", and also disputed by most of the attending Orthodox
hierarchs!"
The
supporters and sympathizers of the Council call upon the example of
the Second Ecumenical Council as precedent, as an example of a
council at which some Local Churches were absent (namely Rome and
Alexandria). What they do not say, however, is that the Second
Ecumenical Council was not called as an Ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox
Council to begin with, but rather as one of many Local Councils of
the Eastern Empire and on account of the Orthodox decisions that were
made it was later accepted by all of the Local Churches as
Ecumenical.
In Crete
we actually have the opposite: it was called as Pan-Orthodox and four
Patriarchates refused to attend. Moreover, and most importantly, they
also have refused to recognize it as a Council, even after the fact.
The
Patriarchate of Antioch, in its June 27th decision of last year,
stated that it considered the meeting in Crete as "a preliminary
meeting towards the Pan-Orthodox Council," that it "refuses
to assign a conciliar character to any Orthodox meeting that does not
involve all of the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches," and, thus,
that "the Church of Antioch refuses to accept that the meeting
in Crete be called a “Great Orthodox Council” or a “Great and
Holy Council.”
The
Patriarchate of Moscow (in the July 15, 2016 decision of its Holy
Synod) stated that "the Council which took place in Crete cannot
be considered Pan-Orthodox, nor can the documents which it ratified
constitute an expression of Pan-Orthodox consensus."
The
Patriarchate of Bulgaria (in its decision dated November 15, 2016)
stated in a gathering of the entire hierarchy that "the Council
of Crete is neither great, nor holy, nor Pan-Orthodox. This is due to
the non-participation of a number of Local autocephalous Churches, as
well as the accepted organizational and theological mistakes. Careful
study of the documents adopted at the Crete Council leads us to the
conclusion that some of them contain discrepancies with Orthodox
Church teaching, with the dogmatic and canonical Tradition of the
Church, and with the spirit and letter of the Ecumenical and Local
Councils. The documents adopted in Crete are to be subject to further
theological consideration for the purpose of amending, editing and
correcting, or replacing with other (new documents) in the spirit and
Tradition of the Church."
The
Patriarchate of Georgia met in December of last year and issued a
final decision on the Council of Crete. In that it stated that it is
not a Pan-Orthodox Council, that it abolished the principle of
consensus and that its decisions are not obligatory for the Orthodox
Church of Georgia. Furthermore, the documents issued by the Council
of Crete do not reflect important critiques made by the Local
Churches and they are in need of correction. A truly Great and Holy
Council does need to be held and the Georgian Church is confident
that it will take place in the future and it will make decisions by
consensus, based on the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Towards this
goal, the Holy Synod has formed a theological commission to examine
the documents accepted in Crete and to prepare for a future Council
which will be Pan-Orthodox.
The
Patriarchate of Romania, which participated in the Council, later
stated that "the texts can be explained, nuanced in part or
further developed by a future Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox
Church. However, their interpretation and the drafting of new texts
on a variety of issues must not be made hastily or without
Pan-Orthodox agreement, otherwise they must be delayed and perfected
until agreement can be reached.
The
Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Greece, while not cataphatically
ruling in favor of the final decisions of the Council, has issued an
encyclical representing it as an Orthodox Council. Many have
concluded that this stance signals agreement, even though within the
hierarchy there are bishops which have sharply rejected and condemned
the "Council." This confusion has given rise to disgust on
the part of the faithful.
B.
The Post-Cretan Developments in Greece and Romania
Before I
close, I believe it is also important to inform you of the latest
developments with respect to the reception or rejection of the Cretan
"Council" by the people of God.
There
have been positive responses, especially among the official organs of
the participating churches, which have take the form of lectures and
small conferences on the significance of the "Council,"
sometimes involving the Heterodox. One can also observe a surprising
dissatisfaction among supporters that the "Council" did not
do enough or go far enough in recognition of the Heterodox or in
terms of other "hot button" issues for, mainly, Orthodox
academics in the West. No doubt there will be a continued effort to
influence the faithful in favor of the "Council" - a hard
task, given that most never felt the "Council" was at all
relevant to them.
In spite
of the official, positive reception given the "Council" in
Greece and Romania, the overwhelming response among the people of God
has been negative. The implications of the Cretan Council are
far-reaching for many in those Local Churches which have accepted the
Council. The response of many clergy, monastics and theologians to
the favorable reception given to the Cretan "Council" by
their hierarchy has ranged from written and verbal rejection by
well-known theologians to the grave decision to cease commemoration
of erring bishops by monastics and pastors.
The
cessation of commemoration of the Patriarch of Constantinople which
began on Mt. Athos in the Fall of last year, with perhaps 100
monastics participating, has now spread to many dioceses in the
Church of Greece, as also Romania, where several monasteries and
clergy ceased commemorating their bishops.
One
of the most significant developments occurred just two weeks ago. The
eminent Professor of Patrology Protopresbyter
Theodore Zisis
announced
on the Sunday of Orthodoxy that he was ceasing commemoration of his
bishop, the Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, Anthimos, due the latter's
enthusiastic reception of the Cretan "Council" and its
texts. Due to his stature and high profile (he was the teacher of
many of the current hierarchs in Greece), this decision has
influenced others and "shaken up" the ecclesiastical status
quo in Greece. This path has been followed by four clergy on the
island of Crete, three monasteries in the Diocese of Florina, clergy
and monastics in the Dioceses of Thessaloniki, Cephalonia, Syros and
Andros, and elsewhere.
In
addition to this, just a few days ago Archimandrite Chrysostom, the
Abbot of the Holy Monastery of the Life-Giving Spring in Paros,
Greece (where the Holy Elder Philotheos Zervakos shone in the ascetic
life) submitted to the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece an historic
formal accusation of heresy against Patriarch Bartholomew. Abbot
Chrysostom has petitioned the Holy Synod to recognize, repudiate and
condemn the Patriarch's "eterodidaskalia" (heterodox
teachings) as contrary to the right teaching of the One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ. He wrote to the Holy Synod:
"In
submitting this letter to you, we place before the honorable Body of
the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece the scandal caused to myself,
our brotherhood, clergy, monks and countless laity, by the successive
waves of heterodox teachings which have been expressed at various
times by His Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew, the
pinnacle of which being [expressed at] the Holy and Great Council
held in Kolympari of Crete."
The
formal petition provides 12 examples of heterodox teaching issued by
the Patriarch over several decades, as well as 9 relevant canons of
the Church, and ends with a list of 13 bishops, 14 abbots, hieromonks
and clergy, and 9 theologians which the abbot is suggesting be called
as supportive witnesses before the Holy Synod when he will be
formally called to defend his accusation.
Your
Eminences, Graces and reverend fathers,
These and
other, similar developments in the Ukraine, Moldavia and Romania
serve to underscore the mounting pressure upon all the shepherds of
the Church to respond patristically to the danger posed to the unity
of the Church by the ill-planned and executed, and finally,
anti-Orthodox, Cretan "Council."
Church
history clearly instructs us that this priceless unity in Christ
exists and flourishes only when all are of "one mind" and
confess the same faith in the One Church. Moreover, recent history
also teaches us that accommodation of, or indifference to, a new,
innovative ecclesiology, such as that expressed in word and deed in
Crete, is not an option and will only lead to further polarization
and shipwrecks on both the left and the right of the Royal Path. It
is in such rocky spiritual seas as these that the skill of the
spiritual leader is tested and confirmed, showing that he not only
knows Truth but is also skilled in the WAY by which all can arrive at
it safely.
By God's
providence, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad continues to occupy a
unique place in the Orthodox Church from which it can speak freely
and even prophetically the word of Truth - "a word" which
unites the faithful, healing old schisms and averting new ones. The
Church Catholic has need of it now in these trying times.
Through
the prayers of our holy fathers, and especially the holy new martyrs
and confessors, and by the wise pastoral guidance of our chief
Shepherds, may we all continue in the saving confession of faith in
the One Church, which is the continuation of the Incarnation - to the
up-building of the Church and salvation of the world!
I thank
you all for your attention and graciousness in listening to me today
and I wish you all a bright and radiant Pascha!
SELECT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Γκοτσόπουλος,
Ἀναστάσιος,
Πρωτοπρεσβύτερος,
«Πῶς
δ’
αὖθις
Ἁγία
καί
Μεγάλη,
ἣν
οὔτε…,
οὔτε…,
οὔτε…;»,
Πάτρα,
10 Δεκεμβρίου
2016
Metropolitan
Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and St. Vlassios, Intervention and Text in
the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece (November 2016) regarding the
Cretan Council:
Notes:
[1]
Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos), Intervention and Text in the
Hierarchy of the Church of Greece (November 2016 Regarding the Cretan
Council: https://orthodoxethos.com/post/intervention-and-text-in-the-hierarchy-of-the-church-of-greece-november-2016-regarding-the-cretan-council.
[2]
This is but one of several alarming ecclesiological innovations
introduced in Crete, superseded in gravity only by the acceptance of
the self-contradictory "heterodox Churches." It was,
however, the former - the sundering of conciliarity - which made
possible the latter - the acceptance of the incongruity (if not
monstrosity) that is "heterodox Churches." This is true in
more than one way. If all of the bishops had had a vote, and not only
the Primates, it is unlikely the offending text on the Heterodox
would have been accepted. However, it is also the case that if the
Archbishop of Athens had respected the the clear, conciliar mandate
given him by his hierarchy, which voted unanimously to refuse to
accept the term "church" for the heterodox, he would not
have accepted the specious and ill-advised "correction."
[3]
See: From the Second Vatican Council (1965) to the Pan-Orthodox
Council (2016): Signposts on the Way to
Crete: https://orthodoxethos.com/post/from-the-second-vatican-council-1965-to-the-pan-orthodox-council-2016-signposts-on-the-way-to-crete.
[4]
In an article dating back from when Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
was still a Metropolitan, in the journal The National Catholic
Reporter, the Patriarch said the following, revealing his intentions
for the Pan-Orthodox Council: “Our aims are the same an John's
(Pope John XXIII): to update the Church and promote Christian
unity... The Council will also signify the opening of the Orthodox
Church to non-Christian religions, to humanity as a whole. This means
a new attitude toward Islam, toward Buddhism, toward contemporary
culture, toward aspirations for brotherhood free from racial
discrimination...in other words, it will mark the end of twelve
centuries of isolation of the Orthodox Church.” See: “Council
Coming for Orthodox", interview by Desmond O'Grady, The National
Catholic Reporter, in the January 21, 1977 edition. See
also:http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/towards.aspx.
[5]
In the texts of the Second Vatican Council matters are slightly
better. In Lumen Gentium the devil is referred to four times,
although in Unitatis Redintegratio he is not mentioned.
[6]
The only exception to this latter case, is when the ecclesiological
heresy of phyletism is mentioned in the Encyclical of the Primates,
which is also quite indicative of the priorities of the meeting.
[7]
See: J. S. Romanides, “The Ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of
Antioch,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 7:1 and 2
(1961–62), 53–77.
[11]
This section of my lecture is based extensively upon the excellent
research and writing done by Fr. Anastasios Gotsopoulos, Rector of
the Church of St. Nicholas in the Diocese of Patra, Greece, with his
permission.
[12]
Due to its importance and the nature of the subject matter, an
analysis of this text will be undertaken in a separate paper.
[14]
My analysis will follow and be largely based upon that of
Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktou, Greece.
[15]
Συνοδικἀ, ΙΧ, σ. 107, Γραμματεία Προπαρασκευής
της Αγίας και Μεγάλης Συνόδου της
Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας, Διορθόδοξος
Προπαρασκευαστική Επιτροπή της Αγίας
και Μεγάλης Συνόδου 16-28 Ιουλίου 1971, έκδ.
Ορθόδοξο Κέντρο Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου
Chambesy Γενεύης 1973, σ. 143, και Γραμματεία
Προπαρα-σκευής της Αγίας και Μεγάλης
Συνόδου της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας, Προς
την Μεγάλην Σύνοδον, 1, Εισηγήσεις, της
Διορθοδόξου Προπαρασκευαστική Επιτροπή
επί των εξ θεμάτων του πρώτου σταδίου,
έκδ. Ορθόδοξο Κέντρο Οικουμενικού
Πατριαρχείου Chambesy Γενεύης 1971, σ. 63.
[16]
Translator’s note: The official English version says “non-Orthodox”
while the original Greek version says “Heterodox."
[17]
"One can think of the universal Church as a communion, at
various levels of fullness,
of bodies that are more or less fully churches. . . . It is a real
communion, realized at various degrees of density or fullness, of
bodies, all of which, though some more fully than others, have a
truly ecclesial character" (Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., “The
Significance of the Vatican II Declaration that the Church of Christ
‘Subsists in’ the Roman Catholic Church,” in René Latourelle,
ed., Vatican II: Assessment and Perspectives, Twenty-five Years After
(1962–1987) (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), 283).
[18]
267. Joseph Ratzinger, “The Ecclesiology of Vatican II,” a talk
given at the Pastoral Congress of the Diocese of Aversa (Italy),
Sept. 15, 2001, http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECCV2.HTM.
(L-R) His
Grace Bishop IRENEI of Sacrament, His Eminence Metropolitan JONAH,
His
Eminence Metropolitan HILARION, First Hierarch of ROCOR,
His
Grace Bishop NICHOLAS of Manhattan
Clergy of
the Eastern American Diocese of ROCOR listening to the lecture
on the
"Council" of Crete
The Very
Rev. Fr. Peter Jackson (Ph.D.), a priest of the Eastern American
Diocese
of
ROCOR,
asks a question of Fr. Peter
Clergy of
the Eastern American Diocese of ROCOR listening to the lecture
on
the "Council" of
Crete
Priest
Gregorio Justiniano (St. John Climicus Mission in Puerto Rico) and
Fr. Stephen Webb
(St.
Nicholas Orthodox Church, Asheville, NC) listen to the lecture
His
Grace Bishop Irenei of Sacramento as he gave the morning lecture
on
St. Andrew of Crete's Great Canon to the assembly
Metropolitan
HILARION and Bishop NICHOLAS of Manhattan
as
they listen to the lecture
Πηγή:
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου