| |
The
Three Sorrowful Epistles of Metropolitan Philaret to the Hierarchs
of World Orthodoxy
1. THE
FIRST SORROWFUL EPISTLE (1965):
A
Protest to Patriarch Athenagoras on the Lifting of the Anathemas of
1054
December 2/15, 1965
Your Holiness,
We have inherited a legacy from the Holy Fathers
that everything in the Church should be done in a legal way,
unanimously, and conforming to ancient Traditions. If any of the
bishops and even primates of one of the autocephalous churches does
something which is not in agreement with the teaching of the whole
Church, every member of the Church may protest against it. The 15th
Canon of the First and Second Council of Constantinople of the year
861 describes as "worthy to enjoy the honour which befits them
among Orthodox Christians" those bishops and clergymen who
secede from communion even with their patriarch if he publicly
preaches heresy and openly teaches it in church. In that way we are
all guardians of the truth of the Church, which was always protected
through the care that nothing of general importance for the Church would
be done without the consent of all.
Therefore our attitude toward various schisms
outside of the local limits of particular autocephalous churches was
never determined otherwise than by the common consensus of these
churches.
If in the beginning our separation from Rome was
declared in Constantinople, then later on it became a matter of
concern to the whole Orthodox world. None
of the autocephalous churches, and specifically not the highly
esteemed Church of Constantinople from which our Russian Church has
received the treasure of Orthodoxy, may change anything in this
matter without the foregoing consent of everybody. Moreover we, the
bishops ruling at present, may not make decisions with reference to
the West which would disagree with the teaching of the Holy Fathers
who lived before us, specifically the Saints Photios of
Constantinople and Mark of Ephesus.
In the light of these principles, although being
the youngest of the primates, as the head of the free autonomous
part of the Church of Russia, we regard it our duty to state our
categorical protest against the action of Your Holiness with
reference to your simultaneous solemn declaration with the Pope of
Rome in regard to the removal of the sentence of excommunication
made by Patriarch Michael Cerularius in 1054.
We heard many expressions of perplexity when Your
Holiness in the face of the whole world performed something quite
new and uncommon to your predecessors as well as inconsistent with
the 10th Canon of the Holy Apostles at your meeting with the Pope of
Rome, Paul VI, in Jerusalem. We have heard that after that, many
monasteries on the Holy Mount of Athos have refused to mention your
name at religious services. Let us say frankly, the confusion was
great. But now Your Holiness is going even further when, only by
your own decision with the bishops of your Synod, you cancel the
decision of Patriarch Michael Cerularius accepted by the whole
Orthodox East. In that way Your Holiness is acting contrary to the
attitude accepted by the whole of our Church in regard to Roman
Catholicism. It is not a question of this or that evaluation of the
behaviour of Cardinal Humbert. It is not a matter of a personal
controversy between the Pope and the Patriarch which could be easily
remedied by their mutual Christian forgiveness; no, the essence of
the problem is in the deviation from Orthodoxy which took root in
the Roman Church during the centuries, beginning with the doctrine
of the infallibility of the Pope which was definitively formulated
at the First Vatican Council. The declaration of Your Holiness and
the Pope with good reason recognises your gesture of "mutual
pardon" as insufficient to end both old and more recent
differences. But more than that, your gesture puts a sign of
equality between error and truth. For centuries all the Orthodox
Church believed with good reason that it has violated no doctrine of
the Holy Ecumenical Councils; whereas the Church of Rome has
introduced a number of innovations in its dogmatic teaching. The
more such innovations were introduced, the deeper was to become the
separation between the East and the West. The doctrinal deviations
of Rome in the eleventh century did not yet contain the errors that
were added later. Therefore, the cancellation of the mutual
excommunication of 1054 could have been of meaning at that time; but
now it is only an evidence of indifference in regard to the most
important errors, namely new doctrines foreign to the ancient
Church, of which some, having been exposed by St. Mark of Ephesus,
were the reason why the Church rejected the Union of Florence.
We declare firmly and categorically:
No union of the Roman Church with us is possible
until it renounces its new doctrines, and no communion in prayer can
be restored with it without a decision of all churches, which,
however, can hardly be possible before the liberation of the Church
of Russia which at present has to live in catacombs. The hierarchy
which is now under Patriarch Alexis cannot express the true voice of
the Russian Church because it is under full control of the godless
government. Primates of some other churches in countries dominated
by communists also are not free.
Whereas the Vatican is not only a religious
center but also a state, and whereas relations with it have also a
political nature, as is evident from the visit of the Pope to the
United Nations, one must reckon with the possibility of an influence
in some sense of the godless authorities in the matter of the Church
of Rome. History testifies to the fact that negotiations with the
heterodox under pressure of political factors never brought the
Church anything but confusion and schisms. Therefore we find it
necessary to make a statement that our Russian Orthodox Church
Outside of Russia as well as, certainly, the Russian Church which is
at present in the catacombs, will not consent to any
"dialogues" with other confessions and beforehand rejects
any compromise with them, finding union with them possible only if
they accept the Orthodox Faith as it is maintained until now in the
Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. While this has not happened,
the excommunication proclaimed by the Patriarch Michael Cerularius
is still valid, and the canceling of it by Your Holiness is an act
both illegal and void.
Certainly we are not opposed to benevolent
relations with representatives of other confessions as long as the
truth of Orthodoxy is not betrayed. Therefore our Church in due time
accepted the invitation to send its observers to the Second Vatican
Council, as well as it used to send observers to the Assemblies of
the World Council of Churches, in order to have firsthand
information in regard to the work of these assemblies without any
participation in their deliberations.
We appreciate the kind reception of our
observers, and we are studying with interest their reports showing
that many changes are being introduced into the Roman Church. We
will thank God if these changes will serve the cause of bringing it
closer to Orthodoxy. However, if Rome has much to change in order to
return to the "expression of the Faith of the Apostles,"
the Orthodox Church, which has maintained that Faith impeccable up
to now, has nothing to change.
The Tradition of the Church and the example of
the Holy Fathers teach us that the Church holds no dialogue with
those who have separated themselves from Orthodoxy. Rather than
that, the Church addresses to them a monologue inviting them to
return to its fold through rejection of any dissenting doctrines.
A true dialogue implies an exchange of views with
a possibility of persuading the participants to attain an agreement.
As one can perceive from the Encyclical "Ecclesiam Suam,"
Pope Paul VI understands the dialogue as a plan for our union
with Rome with the help of some formula which would, however, leave
unaltered its doctrines, and particularly its dogmatic doctrine
about the position of the Pope in the Church. However, any
compromise with error is foreign to the history of the Orthodox
Church and to the essence of the Church. It could not bring a
harmony in the confessions of the Faith, but only an illusory
outward unity similar to the conciliation of dissident Protestant
communities in the ecumenical movement.
May such treason against Orthodoxy not enter
between us.
We sincerely ask Your Holiness to put an end to
the confusion, because the way you have chosen to follow, even if it
would bring you to a union with the Roman Catholics, would provoke a
schism in the Orthodox world. Surely even many of your spiritual
children will prefer faithfulness to Orthodoxy instead of the idea
of a compromising union with the heterodox without their full
harmony with us in the truth.
Asking for your prayers, I am your Holiness'
humble servant,
X
Metropolitan Philaret
President of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
2. THE
SECOND SORROWFUL EPISTLE (1972):
The
Second Sorrowful Epistle of Metropolitan Philaret of New York
Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
PRESIDENT
OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA
75 EAST 93rd STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10028
Telephone: LEhigh 4-1601
A SECOND SORROWFUL EPISTLE
TO THEIR HOLINESSES AND THEIR BEATITUDES
THE PRIMATES OF THE HOLY ORTHODOX CHURCHES
THE MOST REVEREND METROPOLITANS, ARCHBISHOPS, AND BISHOPS:
The People of the Lord residing in his Diocese
are entrusted to the Bishop, and he will be required to give account
of their souls according to the 39th Apostolic Canon. The 34th
Apostolic Canon orders that a Bishop may do "those things only
which concern his own Diocese and the territories belonging to
it."
There are, however, occasions when events are of
such a nature that their influence extends beyond the limits of one
Diocese, or indeed those of one or more of the local Churches.
Events of such a general, global nature can not be ignored by any
Orthodox Bishop, who, as a successor of the Apostles, is charged
with the protection of his flock from various temptations. The
lightening-like speed with which ideas may be spread in our times
make such care all the more imperative now.
In particular, our flock, belonging to the free
part of the Church of Russia, is spread out all over the world. What
has just been stated, therefore, is most pertinent to it.
As a result of this, our Bishops, when meeting in
their Councils, cannot confine their discussions to the narrow
limits of pastoral and administrative problems arising in their
respective Dioceses, but must in addition turn their attention to
matters of a general importance to the whole Orthodox World, since
the affliction of one Church is as "an affliction unto them
all, eliciting the compassion of them all" (Phil. 4:14-16; Heb.
10:30). And if the Apostle St. Paul was weak with those who were
weak and burning with those who were offended, how then can we
Bishops of God remain indifferent to the growth of errors which
threaten the salvation of the souls of many of our brothers in
Christ?
It is in the spirit of such a feeling that we
have already once addressed all the Bishops of the Holy Orthodox
Church with a Sorrowful Epistle. We rejoiced to learn that, in
harmony with our appeal, several Metropolitans of the Church of
Greece have recently made reports to their Synod calling to its
attention the necessity of considering ecumenism a heresy and the
advisability of reconsidering the matter of participation in the
World Council of Churches. Such healthy reactions against the
spreading of ecumenism allow us to hope that the Church of Christ
will be spared this new storm which threatens her.
Yet, two years have passed since our Sorrowful
Epistle was issued, and, alas! although in the Church of Greece we
have seen the new statements regarding ecumenism as un-Orthodox, no
Orthodox Church has announced its withdrawal from the World Council
of Churches.
In the Sorrowful Epistle, we depicted in vivid
colors to what extent the organic membership of the Orthodox Church
in that Council, based as it is upon purely Protestant principles,
is contrary to the very basis of Orthodoxy. In this Epistle, having
been authorized by our Council of Bishops, we would further develop
and extend our warning, showing that the participants in the
ecumenical movement are involved in a profound heresy against the
very foundation of the Church.
The essence of that movement has been given a
clear definition by the statement of the Roman Catholic theologian
Ives M. J. Congar. He writes that "this is a movement which
prompts the Christian Churches to wish the restoration of the lost
unity, and to that end to have a deep understanding of itself and
understanding of each other." He continues, "It is
composed of all the feelings, ideas, actions or institutions,
meetings or conferences, ceremonies, manifestations and publications
which are directed to prepare the reunion in new unity not only of
(separate) Christians, but also of the actually existing
Churches." Actually, he continues, "the word ecumenism,
which is of Protestant origin, means now a concrete reality: the
totality of all the aforementioned upon the basis of a certain
attitude and a certain amount of very definite conviction (although
not always very clear and certain). It is not a desire or an attempt
to unite those who are regarded as separated into one Church which
would be regarded as the only true one. It begins at just that point
where it is recognized that, at the present state, none of the
Christian confessions possesses the fullness of Christianity, but
even if one of them is authentic, still, as a confession, it does
not contain the whole truth. There are Christian values outside of
it belonging not only to Christians who are separated from it in
creed, but also to other Churches and other confessions as
such" (Chretiens Desunis, Ed. Unam Sanctam, Paris, 1937,
pp. XI-XII). This definition of the ecumenical movement made by a
Roman Catholic theologian 35 years ago continues to be quite as
exact even now, with the difference that during the intervening
years this movement has continued to develop further with a newer
and more dangerous scope.
In our first Sorrowful Epistle, we wrote in
detail on how incompatible with our Ecclesiology was the
participation of Orthodox in the World Council of Churches, and
presented precisely the nature of the violation against Orthodoxy
committed in the participation of our Churches in that council. We
demonstrated that the basic principles of that council are
incompatible with the Orthodox doctrine of the Church. We,
therefore, protested against the acceptance of that resolution at
the Geneva Pan-Orthodox Conference whereby the Orthodox Church was
proclaimed an organic member of the World Council of Churches.
Alas! These last few years are richly laden with
evidence that, in their dialogues with the heterodox, some Orthodox
representatives have adopted a purely Protestant ecclesiology which
brings in its wake a Protestant approach to questions of the life of
the Church, and from which springs forth the now-popular modernism.
Modernism consists in that bringing-down, that
re-aligning of the life of the Church according to the principles of
current life and human weaknesses. We saw it in the Renovation
Movement and in the Living Church in Russia in the twenties. At the
first meeting of the founders of the Living Church on May 29, 1922,
its aims were determined as a "revision and change of all
facets of Church life which are required by the demands of current
life" (The New Church, Prof. B. V. Titlinov,
Petrograd-Moscow, 1923, p. 11). The Living Church was an attempt at
a reformation adjusted to the requirements of the conditions of a
communist state. Modernism places that compliance with the
weaknesses of human nature above the moral and even doctrinal
requirements of the Church. In that measure that the world is
abandoning Christian principles, modernism debases the level of
religious life more and more. Within the Western confessions we see
that there has come about an abolition of fasting, a radical
shortening and vulgarization of religious services, and, finally,
full spiritual devastation, even to the point of exhibiting an
indulgent and permissive attitude toward unnatural vices of which
St. Paul said it was shameful even to speak.
It was just modernism which was the basis of the
Pan-Orthodox Conference of sad memory in Constantinople in 1923,
evidently not without some influence of the renovation experiment in
Russia. Subsequent to that conference, some Churches, while not
adopting all the reforms which were there introduced, adopted the
Western calendar, and even, in some cases, the Western Paschalia.
This, then, was the first step onto the path of modernism of the
Orthodox Church, whereby Her way of life was changed in order to
bring it closer to the way of life of heretical communities. In this
respect, therefore, the adoption of the Western Calendar was a
violation of a principle consistent in the Holy Canons, whereby
there is a tendency to spiritually isolate the Faithful from those
who teach contrary to the Orthodox Church, and not to encourage
closeness with such in our prayer-life (Titus 3:10; 10th, 45th, and
65th Apostolic Canons; 32nd, 33rd, and 37th Canons of Laodicea,
etc.). The unhappy fruit of that reform was the violation of the
unity of the life in prayer of Orthodox Christians in various
countries. While some of them were celebrating Christmas together
with heretics, others still fasted. Sometimes such a division
occurred in the same local Church, and sometimes Easter [Pascha] was
celebrated according to the Western Paschal reckoning. For the sake,
therefore, of being nearer to the heretics, that principle, set
forth by the First Ecumenical Council that all Orthodox Christians
should simultaneously, with one mouth and one heart, rejoice and
glorify the Resurrection of Christ all over the world, is violated.
This tendency to introduce reforms, regardless of
previous general decisions and practice of the whole Church in
violation of the Second Canon of the VI Ecumenical Council, creates
only confusion. His Holiness, the Patriarch of Serbia, Gabriel, of
blessed memory, expressed this feeling eloquently at the Church
Conference held in Moscow in 1948.
"In the last decades," he said,
"various tendencies have appeared in the Orthodox Church which
evoke reasonable apprehension for the purity of Her doctrines and
for Her dogmatical and canonical Unity.
"The convening by the Ecumenical Patriarch
of the Pan-Orthodox Conference and the Conference at Vatopedi, which
had as their principal aim the preparing of the Prosynod, violated
the unity and cooperation of the Orthodox Churches. On the one hand,
the absence of the Church of Russia at these meetings, and, on the
other, the hasty and unilateral actions of some of the local
Churches and the hasty actions of their representatives have
introduced chaos and anomalies into the life of the Eastern Orthodox
Church.
"The unilateral introduction of the
Gregorian Calendar by some of the local Churches while the Old
Calendar was kept yet by others, shook the unity of the Church and
incited serious dissension within those of them who so lightly
introduced the New Calendar" (Acts of the Conferences of the
Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalic Orthodox Churches,
Moscow, 1949, Vol. II, pp. 447-448).
Recently, Prof. Theodorou, one of the
representatives of the Church of Greece at the Conference in
Chambesy in 1968, noted that the calendar reform in Greece was hasty
and noted further that the Church there suffers even now from the
schism it caused (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1969,
No. 1, p. 51).
It could not escape the sensitive consciences of
many sons of the Church that within the calendar reform, the
foundation is already laid for a revision of the entire order of
Orthodox Church life which has been blessed by the Tradition of many
centuries and confirmed by the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.
Already at that Pan-Orthodox Conference of 1923 at Constantinople,
the questions of the second marriage of clergy as well as other
matters were raised. And recently, the Greek Archbishop of North and
South America, Iakovos, made a statement in favor of a married
episcopate (The Hellenic Chronicle, December 23, 1971).
The strength of Orthodoxy has always lain in Her
maintaining the principles of Church Tradition. Despite this, there
are those who are attempting to include in the agenda of a future
Great Council not a discussion of the best ways to safeguard those
principles, but, on the contrary, ways to bring about a radical
revision of the entire way of life in the Church, beginning with the
abolition of fasts, second marriages of the clergy, etc., so that
Her way of life would be closer to that of the heretical
communities.
In our first Sorrowful Epistle we have shown in
detail the extent to which the principles of the World Council of
Churches are contrary to the doctrines of the Orthodox Church, and
we protested against the decision taken in Geneva at the
Pan-Orthodox Conference declaring the Orthodox Church to be an
organic member of that council. Then we reminded all that, "the
poison of heresy is not too dangerous when it is preached outside
the Church. Many times more perilous is that poison which is
gradually introduced into the organism in larger and larger doses by
those who, in virtue of their position, should not be poisoners but
spiritual physicians."
Alas! Of late we see the symptoms of such a great
development of ecumenism with the participation of the Orthodox,
that it has become a serious threat, leading to the utter
annihilation of the Orthodox Church by dissolving Her in an ocean of
heretical communities.
The problem of unity is not discussed now on the
level at which it used to be considered by the Holy Fathers. For
them unity with the heretics required them to accept the whole of
Orthodox doctrine and their return to the fold of the Orthodox
Church. Under the prism of the ecumenical movement, however, it is
understood that both sides are equally right and wrong; this is
applicable to both Roman Catholics and Protestants. Patriarch
Athenagoras clearly expressed this in his speech greeting Cardinal
Willebrands in Constantinople on November 30, 1969. The Patriarch
expressed the wish that the Cardinal's activities would "mark a
new epoch of progress not only in regard to the two of our Churches,
but also of all Christians." The Patriarch gave the definition
of the new approach to the problem of unity by saying that,
"None of us is calling the other to himself, but, like Peter
and Andrew, we both direct ourselves to Jesus, the only and mutual
Lord, Who unites us into oneness" (Tomos Agapis, Rome-lstanbul,
Document No. 274, pp. 588-589).
The recent exchange of letters between Paul Vl,
the Pope of Rome, and the Patriarch Athenagoras further elaborates
and develops this unorthodox idea to our great vexation. Encouraged
by various statements of the Primate of the Church of
Constantinople, the Pope wrote to him on February 8, 1971: ''We
remind the believers assembled in the Basilica of St. Peter on the
Week of Unity that between our Church and the venerable Orthodox
Churches there is an already existing, nearly complete communion,
though not fully complete, resulting from our common participation
in the mystery of Christ and His Church" (Tomos Agapis, pp.614-615).
A doctrine, new for Roman Catholicism but of
long-standing acceptance for Protestanism, is contained in these
words. According to it, the separations existing between Christians
on earth is actually illusory—they do not reach the heavens. So it
is that the words of our Savior regarding the chastisement of those
who disobey the Church (Matt. 18:18) are set at naught and regarded
as without validity. Such a doctrine is novel not only for us
Orthodox, but for the Roman Catholics as well, whose thought on this
matter, so different from that of the present, was expressed in 1928
in Pope Pius IX,s Encyclical Mortaliun Animos. Though the
Roman Catholics are of those "without" (I Cor. 5:13), and
we are not directly concerned with changing trends in their views,
their advance nearer to Protestant ecclesiology interests us only
insofar as it coincides with the simultaneous acceptance of similar
attitudes by Constantinople. Ecumenists of Orthodox background and
ecumenists of Protestant-Roman Catholic background arrive at a
unanimity of opinion in the same heresy.
Patriarch Athenagoras answered the above quoted
letter of the Pope on March 21, 1971, in a similar spirit. When
quoting his words, we will italicize the most important phrases.
While the Pope, who is not interested in dogmatical harmony, invites
the Patriarch "to do all that is possible to speed that much
desired day when, at the conclusion of a common concelebration, we
will be made worthy to communicate together of the same Cup of the
Lord" (ibid.); the Patriarch answered in the same spirit
addressing the Pope as ''elder brother" and saying that,"
. . . following the holy desire of the Lord Who would that His
Church be One, visible to the entire world, so that the
entire world would fit in Her, we constantly and unremittingly
surrender ourselves to the guidance of the Holy Spirit unto the firm
continuation and completion of the now-begun and developing holy
work begun with You in our common Holy desire, to make visible and
manifest unto the world the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church
of Christ" (ibid., pp. 618-619).
Further on the Patriarch writes: "Truly,
even though the Church of both east and west have been estranged
from each other for offenses known but to the Lord, they are not
virtually separated from the communion in the mystery of the God-man
Jesus and His Divine-human Church" (ibid., pp. 620).
The Patriarch bitterly mentions that "we
were estranged from reciprocal love and the blessed gift of
confession in oneness of mind of the faith of Christ was taken from
us." He says that, "we were deprived of the blessing of
going up together to the one altar .... and of the full and together
communion of the same eucharistic honorable Body and Blood, even
though we did not cease to recognize each in the other the validity
of apostolic priesthood and the validity of the mystery of the
Divine Eucharist" (ibid.). It is at this point in time,
however, that the Patriarch notes that, "we are called
positively to proceed to the final union in concelebration and
communion of the honorable Blood of Christ from the same holy
cup" (ibid., pp. 620-623).
In this letter many un-Orthodox ideas are
expressed, which, if taken to their logical end, lead us to the most
disastrous conclusions. It follows from the quoted words that the
ecumenists led by Patriarch Athenagoras do not believe in the Church
as She was founded by the Savior. Contrary to His word (Matt.
16:18), that Church no longer exists for them, and the Pope and
Patriarch together would "make visible and manifest" a new
church which would encompass the whole of mankind. Is it not
dreadful to hear these words "make visible and manifest"
from the mouth of an Orthodox Patriarch? Is it not a renunciation of
the existing Church of Christ? Is it possible to render a new church
visible without first renouncing that very Church which was created
by the Lord? But for those who belong to Her and who believe in Her,
there is no need to make visible and manifest any new Church. Yet
even the "old" Church of the Holy Apostles and Fathers is
presented by the Pope and the Patriarch in a distorted manner so as
to create the illusion in the mind of the reader that She is somehow
connected with the new church that they wish to create. To that end
they attempt to present the separation between Orthodoxy and Roman
Catholicism as if it never existed.
In their common prayer in the Basilica of St.
Peter, Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul Vl stated that they find
themselves already united "in the proclamation of the same
Gospel, in the same baptism, in the same sacraments and the
charismas" (ibid., p.660).
But even if the Pope and Patriarch have declared
to be null and void the Anathemas which have existed for nine
centuries, does this mean that the reasons for pronouncing them,
which are known to all, have ceased to exist? Does this mean that
the errors of the Latins which one was required to renounce upon
entering the Church no longer exist?
The Roman Catholic Church with which Patriarch
Athenagoras would establish liturgical communion, and with which,
through the actions of Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad and others,
the Moscow Patriarchate has already entered into communion, is not
even that same church with which the Orthodox Church led by St. Mark
of Ephesus refused to enter into a union. That church is even
further away from Orthodoxy now, having introduced even more new
doctrines and having accepted more and more the principles of
reformation, ecumenism and modernism.
In a number of decisions of the Orthodox Church
the Roman Catholics were regarded as heretics. Though from time to
time they were accepted into the Church in a manner such as that
applied to Arians, it is to be noted that for many centuries and
even in our time the Greek Churches accepted them by Baptism. If
after the centuries following 1054 the Latins were accepted into the
Greek and Russian Churches by two rites, that of Baptism or of
Chrismation, it was because although everyone recognized them to be
heretics, a general rule for the entire Church was not yet
established in regard to the means of their acceptance. For
instance, when in the beginning of the XII century the Serbian
Prince and father of Stephan Nemania was forced into having his son
baptized by the Latins upon his subsequent return later to Rasa he
baptized him in the Orthodox Church (Short Outline of the
Orthodox Churches, Bulgarian, Serbian and Rumanian, E. E.
Golubinsky, Moscow, 1871, p. 551). In another monumental work, The
History of the Russian Church (Vols. I/II, Moscow, 1904, pp.
806-807), Professor Golubinsky, in describing the stand taken by the
Russian Church in regard to the Latins, advances many facts
indicating that in applying various ways in receiving the Latins
into the fold of the Orthodox Church, at some times baptizing them
and at others chrismating them, both the Greeks and Russian Churches
assumed that they were heretics.
Therefore, the statement that during those
centuries "we did not cease to recognize each in the other the
validity of apostolic priesthood and the validity of the mystery of
the Divine Eucharist" is absolutely inconsistent with
historical fact. The separation between us and Rome existed and
exists; further, it is not illusory but actual. The separation
appears illusory to those who give no weight to the words of the
Savior spoken to His Holy Apostles and through them, to their
successors: "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on
earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
The Savior says, "Verily I say unto
you," and the Patriarch contradicts Him and declares His words
to be untrue. It must be concluded from the Patriarch's words that,
although the Latins were regarded as heretics by the whole Orthodox
Church, although they could not receive Holy Communion, even though
they were accepted into the Church over many centuries by
Baptism—and we know of no decision in the East reversing this
stand—still, they continued to be members of the Corpus Christi
and were not separated from the Sacraments of the Church. In
such a statement there is no logic. It evidences a loss of contact
with the actual history of the Church. It presents us with an
example of application in practice of the Protestant doctrine
according to which excommunication from the Church because of
dogmatical error does not bar the one excommunicated from membership
in Her. In other words, it means that "communion in the mystery
of the God-man Jesus" does not necessarily depend upon
membership in the Orthodox Church.
In an attempt to find some justification for
their ecumenical theory, they are trying to convince us that
membership in the Church without full dogmatic agreement with Her
was permitted in the past. In his official statement at the Phanar,
made when his letter to the Pope was published, Patriarch
Athenagoras tried to convince us that notwithstanding the facts
mentioned earlier, the Eastern Church did not rupture its communion
with Rome, even when dogmatical dissent was obvious.
One can indeed find some solitary instances of
communion. In some places even after 1054, some Eastern hierarchs
may not have hastened to brand as heresy various wrong doctrines
that appeared in the Church of Rome.
But a long ailment before death is still a
disease, and the death it causes remains a death, however long it
took for it to come to pass. In the case of Rome that process was
already evident at the time of St. Photios, but only later, in 1054,
did it become a final separation.
The exchange of letters between the Patriarch of
Constantinople and the Pope of Rome have made it necessary for us to
dwell to no little extent upon the relationship of the Orthodox
Church toward the Latins. But Patriarch Athenagoras goes yet beyond
equating Papism with Orthodoxy. We speak here of his statement to
Roge Schutz, a pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church of
Switzerland. "I wish to make you an avowal," he said.
"You are a priest. I could receive from your hands the Body and
Blood of Christ." On the next day he added, "I could make
my confession to you" (Le Monde, May 21, 1970).
Ecumenists of Orthodox background are willing to
undermine even the authority of the Ecumenical Councils in order to
achieve communion with heretics. This happened during the dialogue
with the Monophysites. At the meeting with them in Geneva, a clear
Orthodox position was held actually only by one or two of the
participants, while the rest manifested the typical ecumenistic
tendency to accomplish intercommunion at any cost, even without the
attainment of a full dogmatic agreement between the Orthodox and
Monophysites. Rev. Dr. John Romanides, the representative of the
Church of Greece, was fully justified in stating the following of
the Orthodox members at the conference: "We have all along been
the object of an ecumenical technique which aims at the
accomplishment of intercommunion or communion or union without an
agreement on Chalcedon and the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical
Councils (Minutes of the Conference in Geneva, The Greek Orthodox
Theological Review, Vol. XVI, p. 30). As a result of such
tactics, one of the resolutions of this conference is actually an
agreement to investigate the possibility of drawing up a formula of
Concord which would not be a dogmatical statement on the level of a
confession of faith, but would rather serve as a basis upon which
the Orthodox and the Monophysites could proceed toward union in a
common Eucharist (ibid., p. 6).
Despite the categorical statements on the part of
the Monophysites that on no account would they accept Chalcedon and
the rest of the Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox delegation signed
a resolution recognizing it as unnecessary that the Anathemas be
lifted, or that the Orthodox accept Dioscorus and Severus as saints,
or that the Monophysites acknowledge Pope Leo to be a saint. The
restoration of communion, however, would bear with it the
implication that the Anathemas on both sides would cease to be in
effect (ibid., p. 6).
At yet another conference in Addis Abbaba, the
un-Orthodox statements of representatives of the Orthodox Churches
were buttressed by Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad and Rev. V.
Borovoy, resulting in a resolution that the mutual Anathemas simply
be dropped. "Should there be a formal declaration or ceremony
in which the Anathemas are lifted? Many of us felt that it is much
simpler to drop these Anathemas in a quiet way as some Churches have
begun to do" (ibid., p. 211).
Here again we see in practice the Protestant
concept of ecclesiology whereby the excommunication of one for
dogmatical error does not prevent heretics from belonging to the
Church. Rev. Vitaly Borovoy clearly expresses this attitude in his
paper "The Recognition of Saints and the Problem of
Anathemas" presented at the conference at Addis Abbaba, clearly
asserting that both Monophysites and Roman Catholics are
full-fledged members of the Body of Christ. He claims that Orthodox,
Roman Catholics and Monophysites have "one Holy Writ, one
Apostolic Tradition and sacred origin, the same sacraments, and in
essence, a single piety and a single way of salvation" (ibid.,
p. 246). With such attitudes, is it any surprise that compromise
reigns supreme in the relationship between the Orthodox promoters of
ecumenism and the Roman Catholics, Protestants and Anti-Chalcedonians?
Outdoing even Patriarch Athenagoras, Metropolitan
Nikodim, the representative of the Moscow Patriarchate gave
communion to Roman Catholic clergymen in the Cathedral of St. Peter
on December 14, 1970. He served the Divine Liturgy there, while in
violation of Canons, a choir of the students of the Pontifical
College sang and Latin clergymen accepted communion from his hands (Diakonia
No. 1, 1971).
Yet, behind these practical manifestations of the
so-called ecumenical movement, other broader aims are discernible
which lead to the utter abolition of the Orthodox Church.
Both the World Council of Churches and the
dialogues between various Christian confessions, and even with other
religions (such as, for instance, Islam and Judaism) are links in a
chain which in the manner of thinking of ecumenists must grow to
include all of mankind. This tendency is already evident at the
Assembly of the World Council of Churches at Uppsala in 1967.
According to ecumenists, all this could be
accomplished by a special Council, which in their eye would be truly
"ecumenical" since they do not recognize the historical
Ecumenical Councils as being truly so. The formula is given in the
Roman Catholic ecumenical Journal Irenicon, and is as
follows:
1. The accomplishment of gestures of
reconciliation for which the lifting of the Anathemas of 1054
between Rome and Constantinople can serve as an example.
2. Communion in the Eucharist; in other words a
positive solution to the problem of intercommunion.
3. Acceptance of a clear understanding that we
all belong to a universal (Christian) entity which should give place
to diversity.
4. That Council should be a token of the unity of
men in Christ (Irenicon, No. 3, 1971, pp. 322-323).
The same article states that the Roman Catholic
Secretariat for Union is working to achieve the same result as
Cardinal Willibrands said at Evian. And the Assembly on Faith and
Constitution has chosen as its main theme "The Unity of the
Church and the Unity of Mankind." According to a new
definition, everything relates to ecumenism "which is connected
with the renewal and reunion of the Church as a ferment of the
growth of the Kingdom of God in the world of men who are seeking
their unity" (Service d'information, No. 9, February, 1970, pp.
10-11). At the conference of the Central Committee in Addis Abbaba,
Metropolitan George Khodre made a report which actually tends to
connect the Church in some way with all religions. He would see the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit even in non-Christian religions so
that, according to him, when we communicate of the Body of Christ we
are united to all whom our Lord embraces in His love toward mankind
(Irenikon, 1971, No. 2, pp. 191-202).
This is where the Orthodox Church is being drawn.
Outwardly this movement is manifested by unending
"dialogues"; Orthodox representatives are engaged in
dialogues with Roman Catholics and Anglicans; they in turn are in
dialogue with each other, with Lutherans, other Protestants, and
even with Jews, Moslems and Buddhists.
Just recently, the Exarch of Patriarch
Athenagoras in North and South America, Archbishop Iakovos, took
part in a dialogue with Jews. He noted that as far as he knew, at no
other time in history has such "a theological dialogue with
Jews taken place under the sponsorship of the Greek Church."
Besides matters of a national character, "the group also agreed
to examine liturgy, with Greek Orthodox scholars undertaking to
review their liturgical texts in terms of improving references to
Jews and Judaism where they are found to be negative or
hostile" (Religious News Service, January 27, 1972, pp. 24-25).
So it is that Patriarch Athenagoras and other ecumenists do not
limit their plans for unia to Roman Catholics and Protestants; their
plans are more ambitious.
We have already quoted the words of Patriarch
Athenagoras that the Lord desires that "His Church be one,
visible to the entire world so that the entire world would fit
within Her." A Greek theologian and former Dean of the
Theological Faculty in Athens writes in much the same vein. In
evolving the ecumenical idea of the Church, his thought arrives at
the same far-reaching conclusions. He asserts that the enemies of
ecumenism are thwarting the will of God. According to him, God
embraces all men in our planet as members of His one Church
yesterday, today and tomorrow as the fullness of that Church (Bulletin
Typos Bonne Presse, Athens, March-April 1971).
Although it is obvious to anyone with an
elementary grasp of Orthodox Church doctrine that such a conception
of the Church differs greatly from that of the Holy Fathers, we find
it necessary to underscore the depth of the contradiction.
When and where did the Lord promise that the
whole world could be united in the Church? Such an expectation is
nothing more than a chiliastic hope with no foundation in the Holy
Gospels. All men are called unto salvation; but by no means do all
of them respond. Christ spoke of Christians as those given Him from
the world (John 17:6). He did not pray for the whole world but for
those men given Him from the World. And the apostle St. John teaches
that the Church and the world are in opposition to each other, and
he exhorts the Christians, saying, "Love not the world, neither
the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the
love of the Father is not in him" (I John 1:16). Concerning the
sons of the Church, the Savior said, "They are not of the
world, even as I am not of the world" (John 17:16). In the
persons of the Apostles the Savior warned the Church that in the
world She would have tribulation (John 16:33), explaining to His
Disciples: "If you were from the world, the world would love
its own; but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you
out of the world, therefore the world hateth you" (John 15:19).
In Holy Scriptures, therefore, we see that a clear distinction is
made between the sons of the Church and the rest of mankind.
Addressing himself to the faithful in Christ and distinguishing them
from unbelievers, St. Peter writes, "But ye are a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood, a peculiar people" (I Peter
2:9).
We are in no manner assured in Scripture of the
triumph of truth on earth before the end of the world. There is no
promise that the world will be transfigured into a church uniting
all of mankind as fervent ecumenists believe, but rather there is
the warning that religion will be lacking in the last days and
Christians will suffer great sorrow and hatred on the part of all
nations for the sake of our Savior's Name (Matt. 24:9-12). While all
of mankind sinned in the first Adam, in the second
Adam—Christ—only that part of humanity is united in Him which is
"born again" (John 3:3 and 7). And although in the
material world God "maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on
the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust"
(Matt. 4:45), He does not accept the unjust into His Kingdom.
Rather, He addresses them with these menacing words: "Not
everyone who saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the Kingdom
of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in
Heaven" (Matt. 7:21). Doubtlessly our Savior is addressing the
heretics when He says: "Many who say to me in that day, Lord,
Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast
out devils, and in they name done many wonderful works? And them I
will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that
work iniquity" (Matt. 7:22-23).
So it is that our Lord tells the heretics,
"I never knew you"; yet Patriarch Athenagoras tries to
convince us that "they were not separated from the communion in
the mystery of the God-man Jesus and His Divine-human Church."
It is the belief in the renewal of the whole of mankind within the
new and universal church that lends to ecumenism the nature a of
chiliastic heresy, which becomes more and more evident in the
ecumenistic attempts to unite everyone, disregarding truth and
error, and in their tendency to create not only a new church, but a
new world. The propagators of this heresy do not wish to believe
that the earth and all that is on it shall burn, the heavens shall
pass away, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat (II Peter
3:1-12). They forget that it is after this that a new Heaven and a
new Earth on which truth will abide will come to be through the
creative word of God—not the efforts of human organizations.
Therefore the efforts of Orthodox Christians should not be directed
to the building of organizations, but toward becoming inhabitants of
the new Creation after the Final Judgment through living a pious
life in the one true Church. In the meantime, activities aimed at
building the Kingdom of God on earth through a fraudulent union of
various confessions without regard for the Truth, which is kept only
within the Tradition of the Holy Orthodox Church, will only lead us
away from the Kingdom of God and into the kingdom of the Antichrist.
It must be understood that the circumstance which
prompted our Savior to wonder if at His Second Coming He would find
the Faith yet upon the earth is brought about not only by the direct
propagation of atheism, but also by the spread of ecumenism.
The history of the Church witnesses that
Christianity was not spread by compromises and dialogues between
Christians and unbelievers, but through witnessing the truth and
rejecting every lie and every error. It might be noted that
generally no religion has ever been spread by those who doubted its
full truth. The new, all-encompassing "church" which is
being erected by the ecumenists is of the nature of that Church of
Laodicea exposed in the Book of Revelation: she is lukewarm,
neither hot nor cold toward the Truth, and it is to this new
"church" that the words addressed by the Angel to the
Laodicean Church of old might now be applied: "So that because
thou are lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of
my mouth" (Rev. 3:16). Therefore because they have not received
"the love that they might be saved," instead of a
religious revival this "church" exhibits that of which the
Apostle warned: "And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be
damned who believe not the truth, but had pleasure in
unrighteousness" (II Thes. 2:10-12).
It is, therefore, upon the grounds stated above
that the Most Reverend Members of our Council of Bishops unanimously
agreed to recognize ecumenism as a dangerous heresy. Having observed
its spread, they asked us to share our observation with our Brother
Bishops throughout the world.
We ask them first of all to pray that the Lord
spare His Holy Church the storm which would be caused by this new
heresy, opening the spiritual eyes of all unto understanding of
truth in the face of error.
May our Lord help each of us to preserve the
Truth in the purity in which it was entrusted to us undefiled, and
to nurture our flocks in its fidelity and piety.
X
Metropolitan Philaret
3. THE
THIRD SORROWFUL EPISTLE (1975):
The
Third Sorrowful Epistle of Metropolitan Philaret of New York Primate
of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
"The Thyateira Confession"
by Metropolitan Philaret
Chief Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
An Appeal to the Primates of the Holy Churches of
God, and their Eminences the Orthodox Hierarchs
Instructing us to preserve firmly in everything
the Orthodox Faith which has been commanded us, the Holy Apostle
Paul wrote to the Galatians: But though we, or an angel from
heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we
preached unto you, let him be anathema (Gal. 1:8). His disciple
Timothy he taught to remain in that in which he had been instructed
by him and in that which had been entrusted to him, knowing by whom
he had been instructed (II Tim. 3:14). This is a pointer which every
Hierarch of the Orthodox Church must follow and to which he is
obligated by the oath given by him at his consecration. The Apostle
writes that a Hierarch should be one holding fast the faithful
word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine
both to exhort and to convict the gainsayers (Titus 1:9).
At the present time of universal wavering,
disturbance of minds and corruption, it is especially demanded of us
that we should confess the true teaching of the Church no matter
what might be the person of those who listen and despite the
unbelief which surrounds us. If for the sake of adaptation to the
errors of this age we shall be silent about the truth or give a
corrupt teaching in the name of pleasing this world, then we would
actually be giving to those who seek the truth a stone in place of
bread. The higher is the standing of one who acts in this way, the
greater the scandal that is produced by him, and the more serious
can be the consequences.
For this reason a great sorrow has been evoked in
us by the reading of the so-called "Thyateira Confession,"
which was recently published in Europe with the special blessing and
approval of the Holy Synod and the Patriarch of the Church of
Constantinople.*
We know that the author of this book, His
Eminence Metropolitan Athenagoras of Thyateira, previously has shown
himself to be a defender of Orthodox truth, and therefore all the
less could we have expected from him such a confession, which is far
removed from Orthodoxy. However, if this had been only a personal
expression of his, we would not have written about it. We are moved
to do this, rather, because on his work there rests the seal of
approval of the whole Church of Constantinople in the person of
Patriarch Demetrius and his Synod. In a special Patriarchal Protocol
addressed to Metropolitan Athenagoras it is stated that his work was
examined by a special Synodical Committee. After approval of it by
this Committee, the Patriarch, in accordance with the decree of the
Synod, gave his blessing for the publication of "this excellent
work," as he writes. Therefore, the responsibility for this
work is transferred from Metropolitan Athenagoras now to the whole
hierarchy of Constantinople.
Our previous "Sorrowful Epistles" have
already expressed the grief which takes possession of us when, from
the throne of Sts. Proclus, John Chrysostom, Tarasius, Photius, and
many other Holy Fathers we hear a teaching which without doubt they
would have condemned and given over to anathema.
It is painful to write this. How we would have
wished to hear from the throne of the Church of Constantinople,
which gave birth to our Russian Church, a message of the Church’s
righteousness and of confession of the truth in the spirit of her
great hierarchs! With what joy we would have accepted such a message
and transmitted it for the instruction of our pious flock! But on
the contrary, a great grief is evoked in us by the necessity to warn
our flock that from this one-time fount of Orthodox confession there
now comes forth a message of corruption that causes scandal.
If one turns to the "Thyateira
Confession" itself, alas, there are so many internal
contradictions and un-Orthodox thoughts there that in order to
enumerate them we would have to write a whole book. We presume that
there is no need to do this. It is sufficient for us to point out
the chief thing, that upon which is built and from whence proceeds
the whole of the un-Orthodox thought which is contained in this
confession.
Metropolitan Athenagoras in one place (p. 60)
writes, with full justification, that Orthodox Christians believe
that their Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
and transmits the fullness of Catholic truth. He likewise
acknowledges that the other confessions have not preserved this
fullness. But later he as it were forgets that if any teaching
departs in any respect from the truth, by this very fact it is
false. Belonging to a religious communion which confesses such a
teaching, people by this are already separated from the one true
Church. Metropolitan Athenagoras is ready to acknowledge this with
regard to such ancient heretics as the Arians, but when speaking
about his contemporaries he does not wish to take their heresy into
consideration. And with regard to them he calls us to be guided not
by ancient tradition and canons, but by the "new understanding
which prevails today among Christians" (p. 12) and by "the
signs of our time" (p. 11).
Is this in accordance with the teaching of the
Holy Fathers? Let us recall that the first Canon of the Seventh
Ecumenical Council gives us a completely different criterion for the
direction of our church thought and church life. "For those who
have received the priestly dignity," it is stated there,
"the canons and decrees which have been set down serve for
witness and guidance." And further: "The Divine canons we
accept with pleasure and hold entirely and unwaveringly the decrees
of these canons which have been set forth by the all-praised
Apostles, the holy trumpets of the Spirit, and by the Six Holy
Ecumenical Councils, and by those who have gathered in various
places for the publication of such commandments, and by our Holy
Fathers. For all of these, being enlightened by one and the same
Spirit, have decreed what is profitable."
In defiance of this principle, in the "Thyateira
Confession" emphasis is made the whole time on the "new
understanding." "Christian people," it says there,
"now visit churches and pray with other Christians of various
traditions with whom they were forbidden in the past to associate,
for they were called heretics" (p. 12 ).
But who was it that previously forbade these
prayers? Was it not the Sacred Scripture, not the Holy Fathers, not
the Ecumenical Councils? And is the matter really one of those who
were only called heretics and were not such in actual fact?
The first Canon of Basil the Great gives a clear definition of the
naming of heretics: "They (that is, the Holy Fathers) have
called heretics those who have completely broken away and have
become aliens in faith itself." Does this really not refer to
those Western confessions that have fallen away from the
Orthodox Church?
The Holy Apostle Paul instructs us: A man that
is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject (Tit.
3:10), while the "Thyateira Confession" calls us to a
religious coming together and communion in prayer with them.
The 45th Canon of the Holy Apostles
commands: "Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon who has only
prayed with heretics be suspended." The 64th Canon
of the Apostles and the 33rd Canon of the Council of
Laodicea speak of the same thing. The 32nd Canon of the
latter prohibits receiving a blessing from heretics. The "Thyateira
Confession," on the contrary, calls to prayer together with
them and goes so far that it even allows Orthodox Christians both to
receive communion from them and to give it to them.
Metropolitan Athenagoras himself gives the
information that in the Anglican Confession a large part of the
bishops and believers do not acknowledge either the grace of the
hierarchy, nor the sanctity of the Ecumenical Councils, nor the
transformation of the Gifts at the Liturgy, nor other Mysteries, nor
the veneration of holy relics. The author of the
"Confession" himself points to those articles of the
"Anglican Confession" in which this is expressed. And yet,
disdaining all this, he allows Orthodox Christians to receive
communion from Anglicans and Catholics and finds it possible to give
them communion in the Orthodox Church.
Upon what is such a practice based? On the
teaching of the Holy Fathers? On the canons? No. The only basis for
this is the fact that such a lawless thing has already been done and
that there exists a "friendship" which has been manifested
by the Anglicans for the Orthodox.
However, no matter what position might be
occupied by one who allows an act forbidden by the canons, and no
matter what kind of friendship might be the cause which has inspired
this—this cannot be a justification for a practice condemned by
the canons. What answer will be given to the Heavenly Judge by the
hierarchs who advise their spiritual children to receive, in place
of true communion, that which often the very ones who give it do not
acknowledge as the Body and Blood of Christ?
Such a lawless thing proceeds from the completely
heretical, Protestant, or—to express oneself in contemporary
language—ecumenical teaching of the "Thyateira
Confession" regarding the Holy Church. It sees no boundaries in
the Church. "The Holy Spirit," we read there, "is
active both within the Church and outside the Church. For this
reason its limits are ever extended and its bounds are nowhere. The
Church has a door but no walls" (p. 77). But if the Spirit of
God acts alike both within the Church and outside it, why then was
it necessary for the Savior to come to earth and found it?
The care for the preservation and confession of
the authentic truth, a care which has been handed down to us by our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Apostles and Holy Fathers, turns out to
be superfluous in this conception. Although the
"Confession" does say on page 60 that the Orthodox Church
can "rightly claim at this moment of history to be the One
Church that Christ the Son of God founded upon earth," it does
not see any necessity for the inviolate preservation of her faith,
allowing thereby the co-existence of truth and error.
Despite the words of the Apostle, that Christ has
presented her to Himself as a glorious Church, not having spot,
or wrinkle, or any such thing (Eph 5:27), the "Thyateira
Confession" presents the Church as uniting in herself both
truth and that which it itself acknowledges as apostasy from it,
that is, heresy, although the latter expression is not used here.
The refutation of such a teaching was clearly expressed in the
renowned Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith:
"We undoubtingly confess, as firm truth. that the Catholic
Church cannot error go astray, and utter falsehood in place of
truth: for the Holy Spirit, always active through the Fathers and
teachers of the Church who faithfully serve her, preserves her from
every error" (Sect. 12).
Submitting to the new dogma of pleasing the
times, the author of the "Thyateira Confession" clearly
forgets the instruction of the Savior that if your brother neglect
to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen and a publican
(Matt. 18:17), and the same instruction of the Apostle: A
heretic, after the first and second
admonition, reject (Tit. 3:10).
Therefore, with great sorrow we must acknowledge
that in the so-called "Thyateira Confession" there has
resounded from Constantinople not the voice of Orthodox truth, but
rather the voice of the ever more widespread error of ecumenism.
But what will be done now by those whom the
Holy Spirit hath made overseers, to shepherd the Church of God,
which He hath purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28)? Will
this false teaching, officially proclaimed in the name of the whole
Church of Constantinople, remain without protests by the Hierarchs
of God? Will there be further, in the expression of St. Gregory the
Theologian, the betrayal of truth by silence?
Being the youngest of those who preside over the
Churches, we had wished to hear the voices of our elders before
speaking out ourselves. But up to now this voice has not been heard.
If they have not yet become acquainted with the content of the
"Thyateira Confession," we entreat them to read it
attentively and not to leave it without condemnation.
It is frightful that there might be referred to
us the words of the Lord to the Church of Laodicea: I know thy
work, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou wert cold or
hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I
will spew thee out of My mouth (Apoc. 3:15-16).
We now warn our flock and call out to our fellow
brethren, to their faith in the Church, to their awareness of our
common responsibility for our flock before the Heavenly Chief
Shepherd. We entreat them not to disdain our announcement, lest a
manifest mutilation of Orthodox teaching remain without accusation
and condemnation. Its broad distribution has moved us to inform the
whole Church of our grief. We would wish to hope that our cry will
be heard.
President of the Synod of Bishops
of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
X
Metropolitan Philaret
December 6/19, 1975
Day of St. Nicholas, Wonderworker of Myra in Lycia
* "The Thyateira Confession, or The Faith
and Prayer of Orthodox Christians," by His Eminence Athenagoras
Kokkinakis, Archbishop of Thyateira and Great Britain. Published
with the Blessing and Authorization of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
of Constantinople, The Faith Press, 1975.
|
