ORTHODOXY
& ECUMENICS:
GOOD & BAD ECUMENISM
© 2000-2003 by Orchid Land Publications
[updated 20001010, 20030523]
What is generally agreed on by the Orthodox may be summed up in the itemized points laid out below (but see HERE & HERE).
|
Certain commonly
held heretical assumptions about Christ, Christianity, and the Church
in official ecumenical bodies, as currently constituted and
functioning, are rejected by the Orthodox--in particular the idea of
"sister" Churches across interfaith lines and the "branch
theory." The widespread relativism and pagan observances at
some gatherings are naturally repugnant to the Orthodox. But there
is a thinkable approach to interfaith discussions on the non-official
level that--if practical, which it may not be--would not be
objectionable to the greater number of thinking Orthodox. This is
laid out below. |
1. The Orthodox reject the "branch theory" of Christianity; according to Denzinger, the Latins have also rejected the "branch theory of the Church." For most Orthodox, "sister Churches" are other Orthodox bodies that they are in communion with. Despite many jurisdictions' disagreeing on the calendar and indeed ecumenical relations, the Orthodox Faith is agreed on by all, including most fringe bodies; the rejection of "bad" ecumenics is based on the conviction that the Orthodox Church is the one genuine or actual (authentiké) continuation of ancient Christianity--that the true Church does not await some future realization through the amalgamation of groups of logically conflicting beliefs and paradigms. (SEE HERE & HERE.) Strangely, it is often true that the higher the status a person achieves in the Orthodox Church, the more "bad"-ecumenical he--or she, if a theologian or monastic--becomes.
|
CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINKS TO OTHER PAGES ON THIS WEB- SITE TO READ ABOUT IMPORTANT GROUND RULES AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS NECESSARY FOR DISTINGUISHING GOOD ECUMENICS FROM BAD ECUMENICS--THAT IS, DISADVANTAGEOUS DISCUSSIONS OR THOSE ENTAILING UNAVOIDABLY NON-DURABLE RESULTS--AT THE OFFICIAL (AS DISTINCT FROM A PRIVATE) LEVEL |
|
ON PARADIGMS AND APPROACHES TO INTERFAITH DISCUSSIONS, SEE HERE & HERE & HERE |
|
FR. A. SCHMEMANN'S
MESSAGE |
|
|
DON'T
MISS DIDDLE & DAWDLE'S ADVISORY ON HOW TO
LOSE AT |
|
While the Orthodox differ in how they treat converts from various other Christian bodies, the reasons for doing what they do are the same--just differently applied. Further, such treatments are subject to change, as more denominations give up--explicitly or for all practical purposes--belief in the Trinity as characterized in the Creed. The Orthodox position is not based on a conclusion that otherdox Christians are without hope; it does mean that, in the eyes of the Orthodox, the Christian hope is not guaranteed outside of Orthodoxy, as it is held to be for those who hold fast to the true Faith of the all-holy Trinity (as characterized in John 15:26) and the Incarnation of the LOGOS; those who participate with repentance and faith as well as with regularity in true Worship and in the various Orthodox Mysteries; and those who with constant repentance for their sins walk in the way of traditional Christian piety--prãxis and áskesis--doing good to others and avoiding evil, fasting during fast periods, etc., and encouraging others to become Orthodox. What God may offer otherdox believers "by economy" is up to Him; we humans cannot know who those so treated are.
|
There
are certain things that not just the Orthodox should be appalled
at. Many are detailed by Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose; may he repose
in peace) in his influential book, Orthodoxy and the religion of the
future--viz. an ecumenical and trans-religious amalgam of
demonic practices which Scripture predicts will precede the great
dénoument of creation, during which only a remnant of true Christians
are to remain. Fr. Seraphim mentions a "charismatic revival"
with New-Age practices (Yoga and Zen meditation) and more sightings of
demons (in alien guise, as from UFOs)--all of which, as Fr. Seraphim
predicted, will be adopted by some otherdox Christians. An Epilogue to
the fourth edition of the book in question, written after Fr. Seraphim's
repose, cites new-age fads reported among the Latins (monastics as well
as "secular" clergy), in an Episcopalian cathedral (a talk on
"Luciferian initiation") as well as in another parish, at the American Baptist Convention (Nestorian preaching, with
Salvation through Kundalini Yoga), and so on--as well as worship of a
goddess named Sophia at conferences of pastors and leaders in the
Methodist, Presbyterian, and other Denominationist churches. It
is alleged (I haven't confirmed by checking) that Lucifer is held to be
a fourth
Hypothesis of the Trinity (Quaternity?) in a book called The
illness that we are by Fr. J. Dourley. Similar things
are reportedly embraced in Episcopalian, Methodist, and other Denominationist
churches. [I must repeat that I haven't checked
the facts--scarcely believable as they may seem; but they are stated in
the book's Epilogue.] A laughter movement begun in Toronto has spread to
the Church of England, Roman Catholic, and Pentecostal groups. One
chiliastic non-Christian group expects a New Age of a "new
religious consciousness" and a messiah named "Maitreya--the
Christ." The official ecumenical movement has reportedly been
by no
means exempt from some of these deviations from historic
Christianity, officially allowing them to take place at their
assemblages. Even some Orthodox have not been exempt from
these divagations. (In passing, I may be allowed to advert to the
chapter on "Anglican Unitarians" in E. L. Mascall, Whatever
happened to the human mind? [SPCK, 1980], where the author cites
explicit disavowals of the Trinity and of the Divinity of OLGS Jesus
Christ by Church of England clergy holding important professorships at
institutions such as the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.)
Fr. Seraphim pointed out that Orthodox participants in the
Ecumenical Movement do not accept these ideas entirely, though he
claims that their presence in gatherings of ecumenical bodies
compromises the Orthodox witness--and at all events violates the canon
prohibiting prayer with the heterodox--something that the Orthodox
delegates in fact did refrain from participating in at recent
assemblages in
Kenya.
As the tide has turned away from traditional Trinitarian Christianity in the denominations, both mainline and often Evangelical also, so the Orthodox have been turning away from them. Is there hope for a "good" ecumenics still left; or is there nothing but "bad" ecumenics? Read on, Brother and Sister! |
||||
2. Many (perhaps not all Orthodox) would be willing to coöperate with other groups in circumscribed charitable and political matters, provided the canon prohibiting prayer with non-Orthodox is not violated. Many Orthodox are grateful to other religious groups for lending us a place of Worship when we have lacked one in a given place. An example of charitable coöperationamight concern helping people in some part of the world desolated by a catastrophe "of nature" that requires more help than the group on the ground can offer. Political coöperation might include concerted action on some legal issue concerning, say, church property that is under legislative purview or excluding from schools religious practices that are biased against Faiths (whether Orthodox or heterodox) other than those carrying them out, broadcasting them publicly, etc. Some moral or social values could be jointly espoused, as when the Greek Archbishop marched with Dr. Martin L. King. But one must be careful in a free society (if not out of conviction, at least for one's own future protection, especially when one is a minority) not to force one's moral values on those who do not accept them. For religion and morality both have to be freely willed to have any validity, and there are a number of important moral issues that members of any society have the legal right to differ over; there are matters like cloning and donating body parts not yet fitted into our holy Tradition (which proceeds by looking at all possible ways of responding to issues and then, in time, finding a consensus over the right position consistent with what has gone before on other matters). The Orthodox object to society's requiring embalming of the bodies of those departed and to the practice of cremating the bodies of the departed except during plagues, where arguments based on health and disease have some validity; note that Saints' bodies are routinely found to be uncorrupted decades after their deaths, and that this is an important clue to their sanctity--since the Orthodox do not reject the rôle of the body in our incarnational [infleshmental, so to speak] religion. This example shows that we have to be wary of stepping on others' toes in civil matters. We may require our moral views only for those in our own ranks.
|
Three approaches to ecumenics: two bad and one good |
|
1st bad: "The sides are saying the same thing." |
|
2nd bad: "The others have no rights; they must join us." |
|
1st good: "Allow all to tell others what they believe." |
3. Going further by holding interfaith discussions would be acceptable apologetics to some Orthodox when there is no diminution of point 1 above--i.e. when Orthodox views get an un-watered-down airing, and no attempts are made to reconcile Orthodox views with views (e.g. non-Trinitarian views) incompatible with Orthodoxy. No Orthodox should concede that non-Trinitarian religions (whether they go by the name of "Christian" or not) are to be treated as religiously (rather than politically) reconcilable with Orthodox Trinitarianism. Moreover:
|
The Orthodox would be foolish to engage in any discussion whose
parameters are those of either of the late-Mediæval paradigms--Latin or
Reformed; and it is difficult for Latins and Denominationists (other
than the--not seldom predominant--relativists in the ecumenical movement)
to step
out of their late-Mediæval/early Renaissance frameworks to a neutral ground. (See
the table above and also
HERE.)
The
relativistic "framework" (which is really no framework at all)
is of course not worth wasting time on in the eyes of the Orthodox; St. John
of Damaskos said that it's better to die for the truth than to live
without it. Further, it is hardly "good" ecumenics to fail to rise above a
list of items
that mean different things in different presuppositional paradigms (see
the table above) to engage one another with coherent,
reticulated (retiform) systems of belief
and prãxis. The usual approach of simply settling on words that mean
conflicting things to different participants is not the kind of agreement that will stand up
"back home": This approach has been the fatal flaw of
all such agreements as
the Orthodox have (generally under duress) made over the centuries with
the Latins. Honesty (a
necessity in these matters) must be honored; the cryptorelativism of
agreeing only in words, not in intent and import, should be eschewed like eating hot
coals.
Third to be stipulated is that the rôle of the papacy after the Great Schism will not be discussed without an understanding that the status of a patriarchate (Rome) that defected from the patriarchial consensus (of the other four, Eastern patriarchates that remained faithful to the tradition without unilaterally altering, by addition or subtraction, the Creed and other important beliefs), was--whatever it may have been previously--no longer the same afterwards. For it is unalterably clear to the Orthodox that whatever promises were bestowed by Christ on any part of the Church, as it existed prior to the breaking off of the Latins, are retained only by the parts of that Church that remained faithful, without unilaterally innovating.
Fourth, the Orthodox should never enter into discussions with the papacy without a
prior and irrevocable understanding that formal validity will not be
discussed apart from energetic authenticity (exousía, afthentikótes)--involving
whether
a Mystery is genuine (alethinón, afthentikón) and indeed licit
(gnésion) as well as simply being "valid" (ischý,
vévaion, kýrion; CLICK
HERE &
HERE
& HERE, noting that validity
stands to authenticity as dýnamis stands to enéryeia in
the Greek-language conceptual paradigm of holy Orthodoxy).
What information is accepted as authoritative for each side should be discussed prior to the main discussions, if any headway is foreseeable.
It is especially lamentable that ecumenists reject Greek terminology in favor of latter-day Latinate (and Latin-dependent, German, French, and English) terminology; it is even sillier to suppose that glosses on one by the other language would necessarily convey the same semantic import--or even be able to do so in the same manner. The only thinkable instance is Church Slavonic vis-à-vis Hellenistic Greek. |
||||||||||
Joint prayer at the local, non-hierarchical level is canonically forbidden when it involves non-Orthodox bodies. Others' concepts of Worship (e.g. pulpit-oriented services carried out with no reference to any relation to a sacrificial Altar) may be so opposed to the Orthodox view as to create a conceptual barrier to any sort of common "worship" of that sort--even if the Creed should be sincerely affirmed in its every article. When the Deity that others worship is so differently conceptualized from ours--either described in ways incompatible with the God we worship, or else just ill-defined or optionally conceptualized--as to call into question just Who it is that is being worshiped, common worship is not on. In this situation, the controverted question of "how" God is to be properly worshiped cannot even be broached. What point could joint "worship" have (beyond appearing to be Liberal) when our Deities are not conterminous, or when we cannot agree on how our Deities are to be worshiped--whether by Sacrifice or not, whether with liturgical prayers or prayers composed on the spot, and so on?
|
Going a step further to intercommunion, it is to be observed that the Orthodox reject the idea that the Holy Communion (conceptualized, as it is, in many disparate ways and in some groups hedged in with various pre-requisites) is a means to unity: The Orthodox contend that Communion is the result of unity. |
Giving or receiving the most pure Gifts--if one thinks that is what is done, as the Orthodox indeed do--to members of a group that one is "not in communion with" poses nothing short of a contradiction in terms. In many Orthodox parishes, non-Orthodox Christians are invited to receive the Blessed Bread (antídoron; this is not the consecrated Body and Blood of OLGSJ Christ).*
|
That intercommunion is not the route or means to unity--that unity of belief and practice is the means and route to intercommunion--is a substan-- tive issue in ecumenics that is not acknowledged or well understood by many non-Orthodox. The idea that incompatible views can "grow together" through actions of vastly different interpretations is pure fantasy. The "Church of South India" is no exception, for reasons that need not be gone into, involving, as they did at the beginning, the form rather than content (action) of what is done. |
|
An UNACCEPTABLE PRECONDITION for interfaith talks is to require others to acknowledge one's own validity or authenticity or virtues as a condition for such discussions, for just having friendly relations with them, even for joining them in civic endeavors of importance to one's own side (which endeavors should avoid any attempt to impose the religious or moral ideas of the helpers on those being helped when the participating bodies differ over their religious or moral views; helping anyone in dire need is good, just as the Samaritan helped a member of a religion that despised his). |
It cannot be stressed too often that the Great Divide in Christianity is not between "catholic" (Orthodox, non-Chalcedonian Oriental Christians, and Latins, even Old Catholics, etc.) and "Protestant" groups. (After all, the Latins and Reformers depend on something approaching similar conceptuologies, both having arisen out of late-Mediæval paradigms--and they once spoke a common language, one that lacked some basic concepts embedded in the Greek of the Bible and Fathers. The main cognitive divide is between East and West. That this is the greatest of typological gaps among Christians would be antecedently likely in view of three considerations:
|
(i) The ca. 750 years of the illiterate and barbaric Latin/Teutonic Dark Ages that separated and cut off the Mediaeval West from Greek-speaking early and Patristic Christianity: Note how even the pre-Dark-Age Latin Vulgate mistranslates LOGOS and enéryeia; note also how the four founders of Western theology were jurists: Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine were; three were from the Semitic foundation of Carthage. |
|
(ii) The fact that the West's two leading paradigms (Dominican or Thomist and Franciscan-Augustinian or Scotist-Ockhamist/Nominalist-via moderna) were variant derivates of the same Islamic-Cordovan conceptual framework (based on a third-hand Aristotelianism--Latin translations of Arabic translations of the original Greek). |
|
(iii) The fact that incompatible paradigms both exclude and impose different specific ranges of possible meanings ("forms") on the common "matter" of, in this instance, the words of our Savior's Gospel--as translated or mistranslated into Latin and other languages. |
The dimensions of the gulf
between East and West can be gauged by the failure of even Latin theologians and
historians to understand or sympathize with so important an Orthodox
figure (one of four Orthodox Saints called "theologian") as St. Gregory
Palamas--as well as by the inability of
Latin apologetes and commentators on the Internet to grasp the
fundamental premise of Eastern Christianity. (An exception, not on
the Internet, is Duncan
Reid, a knowledgeable Anglican who contrasts two twentieth-century
Latin theologians and two twentieth-century Protestant theologians
groupwise with two twentieth-century Orthodox theologians in a doctoral thesis
worth reading--given that "energy" is the basis of much of the East-West
divide--though
Reid may not see it quite that way; SEE
HERE.)
The reasons why the divide between East and
West is not recognized to be greater than the "catholic"-vs.-Protestant
divide lie
(i) in the list mentality (as opposed to a system mentality) of
many theologians, administrators, historians, and apologetes involved in ecclesiastical
doings; and
(ii) the
probability that more words are used in common by the "catholics"
than by Latins and Protestants; note that even the use of "development"
by Latins on the Internet--that
favorite bon mot of Latin apologetes, who justify it by the
well-known writing of Cardinal Newman, when he was still and Anglican,
cognizant of very little of "developed" Orthodox theology and
wholly innocent of our current concept of paradigms--and also the evolutive
use of the term by Liberal Protestants do not touch on the real
issue--the replacement of one paradigm (or of nothing, as in the Dark
Ages) by another. The reason why there is no continuity between
paradigms [except possibly when both are subvariants of a pre-existing
paradigm] is that they are accepted in opposition to former paradigms
that have been found to be unworkable, unless indeed they replace
the absence of a cognitive paradigm in an illiterate and barbaric
society, where the only paradigm was or is that of traditional law and/or
force. The worth of a paradigm can be recognized in its utility
for addressing problems, even when the premises that constitute that
paradigm, like axioms and definitions generally, cannot be proved to be
true or false or right or wrong as such.
On (ii), there seems
to be a widespread lack of awareness among theologians and apologetes
(in contrast with practicioners of other disciplines) of how different paradigms
(especially those over a dozen centuries apart and with no direct lineal
connection) impose a "form" or meaning on the common
"matter" of the words of the Gospel, etc.
On (i),
those who lack a systematic mind unavoidably lack interest in WHY
beliefs on their lists are as they are. Each belief is
independent of any sort of reticulate relationship with the others; each belief can
(contrary to items in a coherent retiform system) supposedly be added
or subtracted without affecting the rest of the list one way or the
other. To take an example,
despite the political motives originally causing the Filioque to
be inserted in the Western version of the Creed, its defence by later
Latins has been based on a belief maintained by Latins but one that is
incompatible with Orthodoxy's view of the difference between uncreated Being beyond
being and being--viz.
Augustine's analogy of being (analogia entis)--which
postulates a parallelism between created being and uncreated Being.
In the present instance, it posits a necessary parallelism between the
energetic mission of the Holy Spirit (by Christ in the economy or
dispensation of the created cosmos) and the procession of the Holy Spirit (in
the uncreated divine Essence; Latins do not distinguish energies
from essence and, in the instance of uncreated Being, include Aquinas's
closest equivalent to energy--actus (operatio), in the
divine Essence as a way of conceptualing that there is no potential
unactualized in the divine Essence.) Besides the fact that this runs
directly contrary to John 15:26 (where the [energetic] mission or ékpempsis
of the divine Paraclete is explicitly not combined with the ekpórefsis
or procession of the Paraclete from the Father in the divine Essence), the analogy between uncreated and
created essences is unthinkable in the East, where the uncreated Essence
of God (but not the uncreated Energy of God) is considered to be wholly
unknowable except by apophasis, i.e. reasoning about what the
Creator would not be, perhaps from our perception of order in the
world, or by accepting a credible revelation--especially in the incarnate
Jesus Christ.
Thomists even claim that members of Christ can participate in the
imparticipable divine
Essence (though latter-day Latins obviate the contradiction by averring that this is happens only
intentionally, not entitatively--ontologically). For
the Orthodox tradition, God is Being beyond
being, and His Being is participated in by the faithful
ontologically--but not in the imiparticipable Essence--since it is participation in the uncreated Energies of
God. This is done through uncreated Grace, whereas Latin saving
Grace is created--a habitus non operativus--one that is
explicitly not energetic. HERE IS THE GREAT
DIVIDE--energies on the Eastern side
and, one the Western side, a failure to distinguish energies from essences, or even to
acknowledge the idea of energies in the Greek-language sense. This divide of course
blocks rational solutions to various theological problems.
One
further matter warrants consideration in this connection. In
accord with John 1:1,3 and a few passages in the Pauline Epistles, the
Orthodox hold YHWH,
the Creator of the cosmos and the Revelator of the Decalogue to Moses on
the mountain, to be the LOGOS
("Reason") of God,
the Rational Principle of creation, and SOPHIA
or the Wisdom of God. While the Father is the Source and Font of all
being--uncreated being as well as being created by the LOGOS--Orthodox icons of the Savior
inscribe above images
of the Savior YHWH's
Greek name--o ON
"the being
One" or "the One Who IS"--read
in the LXX
version of Exod. 3:14 (older than the earliest surviving dated
Hebrew Bible texts). It was YHWH
the LOGOS
that delivered the Decalogue to Moses on the mountain. This understanding is unlikely to be
abandoned or understood as optional by the Orthodox in ecumenical
encounters.
Agreeing on the first point above does not mean that the implications of that and other points stated above universally characterize Orthodox people as a whole. Some Orthodox would reject the latter points, though carefully circumscribed activities falling under those headings are acceptable to the larger jurisdictions in the USA. Further to be noted is the fact that participation by an Orthodox hierarch or theologian in an ecumenical gathering or other activity is no guarantee that the group s/he belongs to will espouse it, as ecclesiastical newspapers amply attest. In fact, one recently projected patriarchial meeting with the patriarch of Rome failed to take place because of the resistance of the faithful. Agreements reached with the Latins (as recently as the one at Balamand) inevitably--like the thirty reported attempts at unity during the Middle Ages--are dead on arrival back home, pretty much a waste of time, if not of good intentions. The Latins have always won on the spot (when the delegations have been together) because the Orthodox have, either under political necessity or else for some unfathomable reason, let themselves be duped into allowing the discussion be framed and templated in Western (i.e. late-Mediæval, Muslim-Cordova-derived) parameters, not insisting on the pre-condition of having Greek-Apostolic conceptuology on an equal or higher footing with any others in such proceedings.
|
To
recapitulate what cannot be asserted too often, it is naïve in the extreme to discuss items in a list apart from the systems
they belong to--e.g. the energy-based thinking of the East vs.
the static thinking of the West (intellect-as-being Latins and will-based
Protestants). The presuppositions of the vastly different ancient
and Mediæval conceptual frameworks need to be clarified BEFORE
going on to details whose import is dependent on and indeed imposed on
them by each framework--whose assumptions and premises that every
argument hinges on are taken to be axiomatic by its own adherents. The most
untenable, dishonest, and transient sort of agreement is one of mere
words--words that mean different things in different frameworks--as
nearly all of the important words indeed do: the all-holy Trinity, Grace,
Salvation, the omoíosis or Assimilation to God, théosis (partaking
of the uncreated Energies--vs. apotheosis, partaking of the
divine Essence), Chrismation, Theophany, Transfiguration, etc. (SEE
HERE.) Papering over such differences does not end the
differences--after delegates return to their home bases! |
Private, unofficial contacts with other varieties of Christians or even with other religions are of course generally unobjectionable in the view of most Orthodox, at least when that are not publicized as more than friendly discussions among people of goodwill. And participation in quasi-political funerals of outstanding human luminaries has been tolerated "by economy" (dispensation) because of the odium and lack of respect or even gratitude that would be shown to a saintly individual (e.g. Mother Theresa in India) or protector of Orthodox people (e.g. the ruler of some non-Orthodox nation) in refusing to participate--assuming that nothing in this humane or political gesture overtly detracts from or compromises the unicity of the holy Orthodox Faith. Purists might not go even that far.
|
Ecumenical discussions err in so often focusing on a formal validity--Apostolic succession and Mysteries--given that these are meaningless apart from the theological system that gives them meaning--a matter that should be discussed first. What meaning or importance can attach to the ordinations of priests by a seventeenth-century bishop who denied the catholic sense of ordination, or ordinations served by twentieth-century bishops who have rejected the Trinity and other doctrines of the universal creed? Isn't it time for ecumenics to get off of that topic and leave it aside in favor or more BASIC beliefs, without which "Apostolic succession" has no reference or underpinning? Isn't it time to get to the most basic beliefs that distinguish non-Trinitarian bodies (whether mainline or sectarian-Denominationist or Christian Science or Mormon or Jehovah's Witnesses--Christian in name but not in accepting Jesus as God equal and co-essential with the Father? Such basic beliefs come first; if they are absent, then the remaining issues are not worth bothering with. |
As for the Latins, they are wont to speak of
formal validity. But that does not count for much in Orthodox eyes
without energization of any potential the Mysteries of others might have
by the Orthodox Church to bestow authenticity (actualization,
genuineness) on so-called "valid" (perhaps, for Latins, even
an uncanonical) acts--an energization which actuates, actualizes, vitalizes, and
makes real whatever potential formal validity might have.
Protestants make sacraments secondary to (symbols of) faith and
repentance--which for the Orthodox are conditions of the
Mysteries that energize. If the tables are turned upside-down like that, how can
a compromise, let alone an agreement that does not compromise any party,
emerge? Denominationist frameworks do not accept material and
temporal--in brief, Incarnational (including, in the case of time,
tradition) or ontological--aspects of Christianity as vital or of the
essence of the Christian religion. They emphasize the juridical aspects of the Crucifixion,
more often than not having no
time for its latreutic nature, and virtual realites in which God
overrules ontological reality. Ignoring the ontological aspects of the Incarnation and
Resurrection the way Gnostics always have,
they can only claim that unity with Christ is simply "moral" or
"intentional" or "covenantal."
|
No Orthodox should enter into discussions under the umbrella of proceedings that take for granted that the Incarnation and Resurrection have no ontological value--nor under the will-first imputational or virtual reality premises of the Reformers--e.g. Luther's simul justus et peccator ("at the same time [virtually] righteous and [actually] sinner") or Calvin's virtualist (as-if bodily Presence) in the Lord's Supper--with the additional contradiction that a "body" can be eaten non-corporeally. The right place to begin is at the beginning, e.g. John 6:48-58, sayings that repelled so "many" kosher Jews appalled at the notion of drinking blood! |
All of this makes it more reasonable to begin
with theology--with a God-oriented view of the One we Worship--rather
than with human-centered Soteriology or the
holy Mysteries (especially the episcopal
succession of a heterodox episcopate, on which so many wasted words have
been spent)--or indeed any other aspect of human-oriented piety. But
such an approach
cannot be implemented without first agreeing that theology is
important--that faith is more than fideism or Luther's
will-based fiducia.
Such an approach cannot be successfully implemented without a prior
distinction between the ancient Greek-language energetic framework of
holy Orthodoxy and the two Cordova-derived, late-Mediæval juridical frameworks
of the West--neither the intellectualized (not the same as intellectual!)
scholasticism of the Latins, which pries into the unknowable architecture of
infinite Mysteries in an un-Orthodox way, nor the will-based virtual-reality of the
Reformers.
On a lower level, it cannot be denied that some Orthodox are more
interested in seeing their hierarch praying at a presidential inauguration or blessing something
in a public assembly than
in establishing and funding missions and advertisements to the un-churched
and thus adding
those who are lost to the rolls of saved members of Christ. One
recalls also the need to turn the tide against the
eighty per cent of Orthodox that marry heterodox spouses and, for the most part,
give up an Orthodoxy that they have never been shown the rationale of in favor
of a
modish Westernized religion. Sometimes, they hardly have a choice--say,
where no Orthodox temple exists--if they want their children to grow up as
Christians. It is not that honorific
functions are bad; that is
not so. But what will count in eternity is simply whether a bishop or
the members of a parish have followed in
the footsteps of the Apostles and those Slavic monks that missionized the northerly parts of
half of the time zones of the world--including the north-west corner of North
America, where Orthodoxy provided America early Orthodox Martyrs and Saints--including
the native American--St. Peter the Aleut. What will matter, in
short, is whether a parish has reached those non-Orthodox who could
have been converted if sufficient efforts had been exerted in that direction.
And that may well depend on whether a parish has educated its members in any
adequate way; the opposite is still not infrequently the case. If
contributions are niggardly and the parish is supported by ethnic festivals, if big
donations are made only for items that will have one's name engraved
on or otherwise prominently appended to them, if more is
spent on parish suppers or ethnic festivals than on reaching the lost, then priorities have been
up-ended, and the Orthodox go into ecumenical discussions in a vastly inferior
position, one incommensurate with the exaltation and radiant beauty and consistency of
the holy Orthodox Faith. If we allow alien, latter-day paradigms and terminology to
obtrude into our thinking and use the language of ecumenical or whatever other discourse that we opt to take part
in inplace of Orthodox terminology, that
will be "bad" ecumenics for all concerned.
It is paradoxical that we can be so loyal to our Faith at home
and abandon all insistence on even a neutral framework (or Greek terminology) in discussions with others. After all, we are the
second-largest group of Christians in the world and we know what our terms mean; many Orthodox
exponents have now grown up
as native-speakers of some of the languages prominent in ecumenical
discussions. Why are we so tame about laying down parameters and
reasonable conditions ahead of time in the interests of a level playing field,
one that is not uphill toward our goal? Don't we know that agreements based on other paradigms and
terminology have always been repudiated when the negotiators have
returned home and hence are not worth the time or cost? For that matter, why would those we
agree to negotiate with accord any worth to that
kind of discussion or transient and evanescent agreement?
It is even true that the first priority
of holy Orthodoxy in North America is a sort of "ecumenical movement" among
our own various Orthodox jurisdictions. But
this is for the most part blocked by forces outside of North America,
rather than by any remaining ethnic factors that would block unity here at home--factors that, while
remaining relevant to all in some historical fashion, are no longer meaningful in
terms of separating ourselves from other
native-born Orthodox faithful. On the other hand, apart from jurisdictional divisions, Orthodox
Faith, Worship, and pious practices are benefiting from the happy trend toward educating
the laity through parish newsletters, parish classes, and better Church
newspapers. If done properly and going beyond routine announcements
and pious quotations, this can be expected to bring
improvements in every direction. It is worth pointing out that some things
can best be understood comparatively, i.e. quasi-apophatically by contrasting
what is held with what is not accepted, as opposed to an approach of some Orthodox
exponents in the seventeenth and following centuries, which often organized our beliefs
around the cacodox systems that we reject (see
comments HERE).
This has not entirely disappeared in some quarters.
For the trouble is that, unless comparison proceeds with a minimal sophistication,
it ends
up disorganizing one's presentation.
That is in fact what is wrong in
addressing questions of the "validity" of this or that--or dealing
with what we
agree on in place of proceeding logically from what is prior to what is
dependent. Proceeding listwise and piecemeal may not be necessarily
out of order in every non-ecumenical activity. Most sermons and parish
newsletters, which are addressed to the faithful, not least when they include an
educative goal, are based on the liturgical calendar. When notices
or newsletters or handouts explicitly or implicitly address otherdox along with Orthodox parishioners
(certainly so in an ecumenical environment), this approach may not be as
commendable as
taking up in turn, week by week, our beliefs in such a way that what follows is cognitively
built on what precedes. Admonitions with respect to
practical matters need not, of course, be so strictly ordered; even though they
are the goal of--and, in this sense, higher than--their pistic fundaments--i.e.
our beliefs. While the worth of what we do depends on what we think or intend to be
doing, the energization of belief and intention in what we do makes them real. The parishioner
standing outside of the iconostasion and sanctuary is not expected to be a theologian; but s/he should avoid relating things in
an indefensible manner of what depends on what.
The same is true of presentations by Orthodox delegates
to any ecumenical gatherings that should be characterized as "good" ecumenics.
While the purpose of such gatherings is not, because of several considerations,
proselytic, neither should it or any other activity be devoid of
mission--proseleutic explaining, educating, putting a good light on what we
believe and do--and of course also not caving in to cacodox formulas.
Ancillary to
ecumenical endeavors and indeed to prosecuting them is protesting false views of history in the media--such as
the allegation that the four Orthodox patriarchates "broke off" or
"drifted away" from the body that
innovated heresies in opposition to the former consensus among the four
steadfast
patriarchates. While this might be the obverse of ecumenical discourse, it
is, from a true ecumenical perspective, a duty (of all Orthodox able to do
so)
to contest every distortion of our religion in the various media of our time.
Of relevance to inter-Orthodox ecumenics--which
is in turn relevant to inter-Christian ecumenics, is the tenure of his
all-holiness the ecumenical Patriarch resident in Turkish
Constantinople. His position there is looking ever more parlous
inasmuch as he must be a Turkish citizen of Orthodox belief and hence selected from an
ever diminishing pool of suitable candidates--candidates who, even if suitable,
are unrepresentative of world
Orthodoxy. His election has to receive the approval of the Muslim government of Turkey--which
government in
fact rejects the claim that he is the "ecumenical"
patriarch. Though it used to be true that one could not be pope
without the approve of the Western emperor, can one imagine that today?
Can one imagine the leader of the Methodists or Baptists or Presbyterians, or
even the Archbishop of Canterbury, as requiring the approval of any government,
let alone a heretical régime--rather than the approval of those he represents, advises, and
governs with an understanding of the various cultures they belong to? What
a weak position his all-holiness offers when he enters ecumenical debates; this
in turn weakens the lower-ranking representatives of the Phanar in such
undertakings. One sometimes gets the impression that a quasi-political
matter like Uniatism requires more stamina than a matter of pure belief.
Convincing others, either in the ecumenical movement
or in the pagan society of our time, means
knowing enough of the whys and wherefores ofthe others and enough about what we are
advocating to avoid confusing or misleading, to avoid falling into the trap of letting others set the parameters for
interfaith discussions, to avoid putting things in what to others may be an
unfavorable light or in the wrong perspective--with distorting terminology, basing
what we say on untenable premises or on premises not accepted by our interlocutors. At
least our arguments should not merely persuade others' senses with the
beauty of our faith and of its Worship and appurtenances but appeal to the
whole person--to reason as well as to feelings and the will.
For us, the beauty of our Worship (when properly carried out, which is as often
as not the case) is attractive, but an Orthodox service
(notorious for its repetitions and length) or an Orthodox
icon is not necessarily beautiful to the heterodox. Truth must come first,
though virtue and piety (as exemplified by the Saints) should not be left out,
since they energize the potential that belief creates. Conversely,
energizing the wrong potential yields a wrong result.
Talk about beauty and virtue can truly embellish a reasoned presentation to others.
What has been said about ecumenism--and missions--in the foregoing has attempted to offer an objective picture of the matters discussed, though subjective concerns have not been overlooked. Since no writer is infallible, and since being forewarned is to be fore-armed, it should be made clear to readers that hardly anything that one can say is immune to being contested by some Orthodox--some of whom are genuinely saintly. Many topics broached above are sensitive subjects. It is of course especially true and very relevant to ecumenics that the acceptance of otherdox Baptisms--even those administered in the declining numbers of groups that still profess a Trinitarianism something like that of the holy Fathers--is not uniform in place or time among the Orthodox, just as Baptism is not uniform in ceremony or rite or intention outside of Orthodoxy; but all Orthodox deduce their positions form principles jointly subscribed to. One takes note that most Orthodox and some Orthodox no longer baptize by trine immersion, though baptisteries are an increasingly detected feature of temples in North America--or so one hears without being able to confirm it.
|
One must explicitly reject the untenable notion that something vaguely referred to as "Baptism" defines the limits of the true Church of those saved by Christ. |
Some otherdox Christians baptize only in the name of Jesus, in some instances without requiring the belief that Jesus is God as well as one's "personal" Lord and Savior--or, if God, that Christ is the LOGOS Who is co-eternal and co-essential with the Father. (Non-Trinitarian heterodox Baptisms scarcely come into consideration, being referred to here only for purposes making the point concrete.) Baptisms performed with rose petals or anything other than water don't count, except perhaps in emergencies when death is imminent--in which contingency some Orthodox accept, by "economy," even a Baptism "by air" performed by a non-Orthodox nurse or doctor in a hospital. (But then, the Orthodox don't believe that young children are guilty of Adam's sin, let alone totally depraved.) Ecumenists as well as inquirers and Orthodox catechumens may wish to ask ahead of time what sort of practices prevail in the jurisdiction whose temple they frequent.
Three points summarizing what
is generally agreed on
with regard to ecumenical activity by the Orthodox
--The "branch theory" of the Christian Church is rejected as erroneous,
seeing that the holy Orthodox
Church is in Orthodox eyes the only true or guaranteed Christian Church. (References to the Latin
Church as a "sister Church" are taken with many grains of salt by the
Orthodox and are in fact generally rejected; the same goes for the statement
that a prelate who is not Orthodox is "accepted by the Orthodox as first
among equals.")
--Belief, not simply practice, is the basis for unity among Christians; even the
highest Christian activity, Worship (as the Orthodox understand the term), depends on true belief for its worth. (CLICK HERE FOR
FURTHER ON
THIS.) On the other hand, faith must, in
St. Paul's words, "be energized by love" to be realized.
--Intercommunion is the CONSEQUENCE, not the MEANS,
of unity. Likewise--though this is contested by some Orthodox
ecumenists--Baptism is not a means or definer of unity, as already noted.
One might of course wish that there were further
points concerning ecumenical activity agreed on by the various Orthodox
jurisdictions. But the foregoing actually suffice as guidelines for a
"good" official Orthodox ecumenics, provided that:
|
Substantive discussions should be prefaced with talks over what is logically necessary--including the logical demand that some discussion and agreement on (a) frameworks and terminology should precede substantive talks and (b) the logical methodological demand that substantive talks should be ordered AFTER discussions of basic views derived from and depending on fundamentals. |
If no agreement over the all-holy Trinity or on the ontological consequences of the Incarnation--the rôles of matter (e.g. resurrection of the body in Salvation) and time (the sifting rôle of the authentic collective tradition)--can be reached, agreements between otherdox and Orthodox on dependent or derivative issues can hardly be meaningful or viable--if they should even be possible. In fact, assuming our final authority to be the Bible as interpreted by the consensus of the Fathers who codified it in the latter fourth century and interpreted it before and after that stands in direct contradiction with assuming one's final authority to be Luther, Calvin, a pope, or the founders of the Campbellites or Methodists or Nazarenes or Adventists or Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists--or any other group. Didn't Luther, like Marcion of old, assume to himself the rôle--probably a greater rôle than a contemporary pope would claim--of deleting some books of the Old Testament and deuterocanonizing the parts of the New Testament that disagreed with his beliefs, relegating them to a quasi-apocryphal appendix at the end of his translation of the Bible? Didn't Luther, like Marcion and Liberal and unitarian Bible critics of our time, also edit the Biblical text--at least Rom. 3:28 ("allein durch den Glauben") in order to make the text agree with his own convictions? Don't popes claim rights nearly as expansive--though not the rôle of altering Scripture, even as unitarian and unbelieving biblical critics still do?
Before dealing with Worship, other doctrines (e.g. the Mysteries), or pious practices, the Orthodox should, as already re-iterated, insist that the following rule govern such official meetings:
|
The only "good" ecumenics is a kind in which preliminary agree- ments, or at least understandings, about the each party's framework and premises as well as terminology and methodology have got to be made if substantive ecumenical discussions are to be mutually meaningful; and in the area of templating discussions and the use of terminology, the Orthodox should absolutely insist on a level playing field rather than one that runs uphill toward the Orthodox goal and downhill toward the Western goal. |
|
IF IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THERE TO BE A FAIR PLAYING FIELD, IT IS UP TO ECUMENISTS TO DO WHAT HAS HERETOFORE NEVER BEEN DONE--VIZ. TO SHOW US WHAT A PARADIGMATICALLY LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WOULD BE |
If ecumenists cannot come up with such a thing, we should not engage in what will be, by definition, "bad" ecumenics.
The
dismal history
of negotiations between the Latins and the Orthodox has always followed the
same dreary pattern--which one can wonder why the Latins would want to
repeat it (most recently at Balamand) any more than the Orthodox--viz. the
pattern in which Latins find Orthodox negotiators who will let themselves be manipulated
into accepting Latin premises and terminology--something that virtually
assures a
shut-out for the Orthodox--and something that has always been evident after the Orthodox negotiators
have returned home. The resulting Latin victory has always proved to be a
pyrrhic, transient victory. IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS
PROCEDURE IS A WASTE OF EVERYONE'S TIME, AND THAT IT ONLY SERVES TO WIDEN
THE BREACH. Unless there is some reasonable
hope of a non-recurrence of this "bad" ecumenics, official
ecumenical meetings with the Latins should not even be considered by the
Orthodox. The twenty important innovations
of the Latins that the Orthodox reject should be dealt with in an
orderly manner but not as isolated items in a list; the agenda should
postpone what is dependent till after coming to some understanding over what such dependent beliefs and practices depend
on for their tenability. In other words, a discussion and
understanding of axiomatic frameworks and their rôle in belief should
precede discussions of basic beliefs about God and the Incarnation; and
these should precede discussions of human concerns and other dependent
beliefs, which depend on the preceding. Mysteries, clergy,
polity, etc. can be fitted in as
appropriate.
It is not feasible to ignore certain salient
considerations as these:
But it's hard to envision any possible compromise on the Epíklesis
of the Holy Spirit to consecrate the eucharistic Gifts; for neither the Latins nor the
Orthodox can very well repudiate their own past consecrations of the eucharistic
Gifts. At all events, the Western position makes no sense to the
Orthodox, just as the energy-based theology of Eastern Christianity is
unintelligible to the West.
(This does not gainsay unions among Christians of a different mould; they have obviously taken place, as in the Church of South India.)
The Conclusion restated: It would be a waste of time to open official negotiations if it is foreseeable that no voluntary agreement acceptable to the body of the faithful on one or the other side of a difference can be reached--say, over the papacy or the Filioque--or any ex cathedra innova- tion that the Orthodox view as heretical--a set of items that includes virtually all of the ex cathedra innovations since the Seventh Ecumenical Synod except possibly a small number of beliefs about the all-holy Theotokos. |
||||||
To avoid wasting time, there is, humanly speaking, no point in discussions with Orthodox by any who are not open to accepting traditional Orthodox Patristic views on the TRINITY and THEOSIS--interpreted in terms of the distinction between ENERGY-- WHICH TIES EVERYTHING TOGETHER IN ORTHODOXY! (DO NOT FAIL TO CLICK HERE ALSO--AND PERHAPS MOST OF ALL, HERE TOO!) Any group that is certain that, after any amount of persuasion, they are not going to agree to these traditional teachings, should (humanly speaking) reconsider bothering with discussions. Christ wants unity; but Christ also wants integrity. We don't dissect what is an finite Mystery unknowable by finite intellects; but we reject that as a lame excuse for not treating what IS analysable by finite intellects.
There are many difficult, perhaps irresoluble, issues;
but the three mentioned in the
summary above are foundational. If any refuse to budge on, say,
filioquism or are certain that they will never view Salvation as Theosis through
participating in the uncreated
Energies of Grace--the
Life of Christ--it makes little sense to waste everyone's time just to make
a show of being committed to interfaith amity to engage in a discussion
that one foreknows will not have any satisfactory outcome. (One must remember
that the idea put forward by Latin
popes and apologists to the effect that the Orthodox and Latins are
"very similar" is not, as with Liberal Denominationists, a
way to avoid facing the, for them, unpleasant fact that others are
different; it is rather a way to get everyone under the pope's umbrella,
perhaps on good terms like those that some Uniates at least claim to enjoy. But who would sell his
soul for a nice bowl of oatmeal? |
|
ST.
ATHANASIOS THE GREAT, ST. PHOTIOS, |
From the
point of view of intellectual honesty, it is very questionable and indeed inappropriate to
interpret or judge the theological statements of the first millennium in terms of
Nominalist-Reformation premises (e.g. will-based virtual-imputational reality) not invented until a millennium and a half after
Christ--especially
when the assumptions of this presuppositional framework--notably the virtual
reality of imputative Grace and imputed sin, merit, righteousness, and
Christ's bodily Presence in the Lord's Supper--are so directly at odds with
the thought ways that prevailed in the Hebrew-influenced Greek-language
Hellenistic culture of the Apostolic age and early Christianity--not to
speak of the Orthodox Church down to the present. If this is not acknowledged, discussions of the Orthodox with
Protestants can lead nowhere. |
READ THE CHIEF CAUSE OF DIFFERENCES IN CHRISTIAN BELIEF
LETTERS TO A LATIN ON INTERFAITH DIFFERENCES
LETTER TO A REFORMED CHRISTIAN
ON INTERFAITH DIFFERENCES
CLICK HERE FOR THIS
BOOKLET:
"The question of union"
concerning the Orthodox and the Latins
FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
HOLISM AND
SYNCRETISM, CLICK HERE
FOR YET MORE ON THIS TOPIC:
CLICK
HERE & HERE
THE THREE ANSWERS OF PATRIARCH
JEREMIAH II
TO THE LUTHERAN REFORMER-THEOLOGIANS
AND DON'T MISS HERE
OR HERE-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The Blessed Bread (ant3doron) is not the same thing as the
prosphorá biscuits that a parishioner obtains in a Russian temple. These are given, along with
requests for special prayers for the living and those fallen asleep, to the
acolyte or other person that takes them
to the Sanctuary to be blessed during the divine Liturgy. A small pie-shaped
wedge of each of these is removed for the most holy Mystery of Communion, and the
remainder is returned to
the donor to eat at home, take on a trip, or whatever. This remainder is
likewise not the
consecrated Body and Blood of OLGSJ Christ.
