Eastern Orthodox Ecclesiology: against false unions [my title]

The commotion about union of the churches makes evident the ignorance existing as much among the circles of the simple faithful as among the theologians as to what the Church is.

They understand the catholicity of the Church as a legal cohesion, as an interdependence regulated by some code. For them the Church is an organization with laws and regulations like the organizations of nations. Bishops, like civil servants, are distinguished as superiors and subordinates: patriarchs, archbishops, metropolitans, bishops. For them, one diocese is not something complete, but a piece of a larger whole: the autocephalous church or the patriarchate. But the autocephalous church, also, feels the need to belong to a higher head. When external factors of politics, history, or geography prevent this, a vague feeling of weak unity and even separation circulates through the autocephalous churches.

Such a concept of the Church leads directly to the Papacy. If the catholicity of the Church has this kind of meaning, then Orthodoxy is worthy of tears, because up to now she has not been able to discipline herself under a Pope.

But this is not the truth of the matter. The catholic Church which we confess in the Symbol (Creed) of our Faith is not called catholic because it includes all the Christians of the earth, but because within her everyone of the faithful finds all the grace and gift of God. The meaning of catholicity has nothing to do with a universal organization the way the Papists and those who are influenced by the Papist mentality understand it.

Of course, the Church is intended for and extended to the whole world independent of lands, nations, races, and tongues; and it is not an error for one to name her catholic because of this also. But just as humanity becomes an abstract idea, there is a danger of the same thing happening to the Church when we see her as an abstract, universal idea. In order for one to understand humanity well, it is enough for him to know only one man, since the nature of that man is common to all men of the world.

Similarly, in order to understand what the catholic Church of Christ is, it suffices to know well only one local church. And as among men, it is not submission to a hierarchy which unites them but their common nature, so the local churches are not united by the Pope and the Papal hierarchy but by their common nature.

A local Orthodox church regardless of her size or the number of the faithful is by herself alone, independently of all the others, catholic. And this is so because she lacks nothing of the grace and gift of God. All the local churches of the whole world together do not contain anything more in divine grace than that small church with few members.

She has her presbyters and bishop; she has the Holy Mysteries; she has the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Within her any worthy soul can taste of the Holy Spirit's presence. She has all the grace and truth. What is she lacking therefore in order to be catholic? She is the one flock, and the bishop is her shepherd, the image of Christ, the one Shepherd. She is the prefiguring on earth of the one flock with the one Shepherd, of the new Jerusalem. Within her, even in this life, pure hearts taste of the Kingdom of God, the betrothal of the Holy Spirit. Within her they find peace which "passeth all understanding," the peace which has no relation with the peace of men: "My peace I give unto you."

"Paul, called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ ... to the Church of God which is at Corinth ...." Yes, it really was the Church of God, even if it was at Corinth, at one concrete and limited place.

This is the catholic Church, something concrete in space, time, and persons. This concrete entity can occur repeatedly in space and in time without ceasing to remain essentially the same.

Her relations with the other local churches are not relations of legal and jurisdictional interdependence, but relations of love and grace. One local church is united with all the other local Orthodox churches of the world by the bond of identity. Just as one is the Church of God, the other is the Church of God also, as well as all the others. They are not divided by boundaries of nations nor the political goals of the countries in which they live. They are not even divided by the fact that one might be ignorant of the other's existence. It is the same Body of Christ which is partaken of by the Greeks, the Negroes of Uganda, the Eskimos of Alaska, and the Russians of Siberia. The same Blood of Christ circulates in their veins. The Holy Spirit enlightens their minds and leads them to the knowledge of the same truth.

There exist, of course, relations of interdependence between the local churches, and there are canons which govern them. This interdependence, though, is not a relation of legal necessity, but a bond of respect and love in complete freedom, the freedom of grace. And the canons are not laws of a code, but wise guides of centuries of experience.

The Church has no need of external bonds in order to be one. It is not a pope, or a patriarch, or an archbishop which unites the Church. The local church is something complete; it is not a piece of a larger whole.

Besides, the relations of the churches are relations of churches, and not relations which belong exclusively to their bishops. A bishop cannot be conceived of without a flock or independent of his flock. The Church is the bride of Christ. The Church is the body of Christ, not the bishop alone.

A bishop is called a patriarch when the church of which he is the shepherd is a patriarchate, and an archbishop when the church is an archdiocese. In other words, the respect and honor belongs to the local church, and by extension it is rendered to its bishop. The Church of Athens is the largest and, today, most important local church of Greece. For this reason the greatest respect belongs to her, and she deserves more honor than any other church of Greece. Her opinion has a great bearing, and her role in the solution of common problems is the most significant. That is why she is justly called an archdiocese. Consequently, the bishop of that church, because he represents such an important church is a person equally important and justly called an archbishop. He himself is nothing more than an ordinary bishop. In the orders of priesthood—the deacon, the presbyter, and the bishop—there is no degree higher than the office of the bishop. The titles metropolitan, archbishop, patriarch, or pope do not indicate a greater degree of ecclesiastical charism, because there is no greater sacramental grace than that which is given to the bishop. They only indicate a difference in prominence of the churches of which they are shepherds.

This prominence of one church in relation to the others is not something permanent. It depends upon internal and external circumstances. In studying the history of the Church, we see the primacy of prominence and respect passing from church to church in a natural succession. In Apostolic times, the Church of Jerusalem, without any dispute, had the primacy of authority and importance. She had known Christ; she had heard His words; she saw Him being crucified and arising; and upon her did the Holy Spirit first descend. All who were in a communion of faith and life with her were certain that they walked the road of Christ. This is why Paul, when charged that the Gospel which he taught was not the Gospel of Christ, hastened to explain it before the Church of Jerusalem, so that the agreement of that church might silence his enemies (Gal. 2:1-2).

Later, that primacy was taken by Rome, little by little. It was the capital of the Roman Empire. A multitude of tried Christians comprised that church. Two leading Apostles had lived and preached within its bounds. A multitude of Martyrs had dyed its soil with their blood. That is why her word was venerable, and her authority in the solution of common problems was prodigious. But it was the authority of the church and not of her bishop. When she was asked for her view in the solution of common problems, the bishop replied not in his own name as a Pope of today would do, but in the name of his church. In his epistle to the Corinthians, St. Clement of Rome begins this way: "The Church of God which is in Rome, to the Church of God which is in Corinth." He writes in an amicable and supplicatory manner in order to convey the witness and opinion of his church concerning whatever happened in the Church of Corinth. In his letter to the Church of Rome, St. Ignatius the God-bearer does not mention her bishop anywhere, although he writes as though he were addressing himself to the church which truly has primacy in the hierarchy of the churches of his time.

When St. Constantine transferred the capital of the Roman state to Byzantium, Rome began gradually to lose her old splendor. It became a provincial city. A new local church began to impose itself upon the consciousness of the Christian world: the Church of Constantinople. Rome tried jealously to preserve the splendor of the past, but because things were not conducive to it, it developed little by little its well-known Papal ecclesiology in order to secure theoretically that which circumstances would not offer. Thus it advanced from madness to madness, to the point where it declared that the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks on doctrine, even if because of sinfulness he does not have the enlightenment of sanctity the Fathers of the Church had.

The Church of Constantinople played the most significant role throughout the long period of great heresies and of the Ecumenical Councils, and in her turn she gave her share of blood with the martyrdom of thousands of her children during the period of the Iconoclasts.

Besides these churches which at different times had the primacy of authority, there were others which held the second or third place. They were the various patriarchates, old or new, and other important churches or metropolises. There exists, therefore, a hierarchy, but a hierarchy of churches and not of bishops. St. Irenaeus does not advise Christians to address themselves to important bishops in order to find the solution to their problem, but to the churches which have the oldest roots in the Apostles (Adv. Haer. III, 4, 1).

There are not, therefore, organizational, administrative, or legal bonds among the churches, but bonds of love and grace, the same bonds of love and grace which exist among the faithful of every church, clergy or lay. The relationship between presbyter and bishop is not a relationship of employee and employer, but a charismatic and sacramental relationship. The bishop is the one who gives the presbyter the grace of the priesthood. And the presbyter gives the layman the grace of the Holy Mysteries. The only thing which separates the bishop from the presbyter is the charism of ordination. The bishop excels in nothing else, even if he be the bishop of an important church and bears the title of patriarch or pope. "There is not much separating them [the presbyters] and the bishops. For they too are elevated for the teaching and protection of the Church .... They [the bishops] surpass them only in the power of ordination, and in this alone they exceed the presbyters" (Chrysostom, Hom. XI on I Tim.).

Bishops have no right to behave like rulers, not only towards the other churches but also towards the presbyters or laymen of the church of which they are bishop. They have a responsibility to Oversee in a paternal way, to counsel, to guide, to battle against falsehood, to adjure transgressors with love and strictness, to preside in love. But these responsibilities they share with the presbyters. And the presbyters in turn look upon the bishops as their fathers in the priesthood and render them the same love.

All things in the Church are governed by love. Any distinctions are charismatic distinctions. They are not distinctions of a legal nature but of a spiritual authority. And among the laymen there are charisms and charisms.

The unity of the Church, therefore, is not a matter of obedience to a higher authority. It is not a matter of submission of subordinates to superiors. External relations do not make unity, neither do the common decisions of councils, even of Ecumenical Councils. The unity of the Church is given by the communion in the Body and Blood of Christ, the communion with the Holy Trinity. It is a liturgical unity, a mystical unity.

The common decisions of an Ecumenical Council are not the foundation but the result of unity. Besides, the decisions of either an ecumenical or local council are valid only when they are accepted by the consciousness of the Church and are in accord with the Tradition.

The Papacy is the distortion par excellence of Church unity. It made that bond of love and freedom a bond of constraint and tyranny. The Papacy is unbelief in the power of God and confidence in the power of human systems.

But let no one think that the Papacy is something which exists only in the West. In recent times it has started to appear among the Orthodox too. A few novel titles are characteristic of this spirit, for example, "Archbishop of all Greece," "Archbishop of North and South America." Many times we hear people say of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the "leader of Orthodoxy," or we hear the Russians speaking of Moscow as the third Rome and its patriarch as holding the reins of the whole of Orthodoxy. In fact, many sharp rivalries have begun. All these are manifestations of the same worldly spirit, the same thirst for worldly power, and belong to the same tendencies which characterize the world today.

People cannot feel unity in multiplicity. Yet this is a deep mystery. Our weakness or inability to feel it originates from the condition of severance into which the, human race has fallen. People have changed from persons into separated and hostile individuals, and it is impossible for them now to understand the deep unity of their nature. Man, however, is one and many; one in his nature, many in persons. This is the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and the mystery of the Church.

It is imperative that Christians realize that the Church has sacramental and not administrative foundations; then they will not suffer that which has happened to the Westerners who followed the Pope in his errors because they thought that if they did not follow him, they would automatically be outside the Church.

Today the various patriarchates and archdioceses undergo great pressures from political powers which seek to direct the Orthodox according to their own interests. It is known that the Patriarchate of Moscow accepts the influence of Soviet politics. But the Patriarchate of Constantinople also accepts the influence of American politics. It was under this influence that the contact of the Ecumenical Patriarchate with the similarly American-influenced, Protestant, World Council of Churches was brought about, and its servile disposition toward the Pope started to take on dangerous dimensions and even to exert over-bearing pressure upon the other Orthodox churches.

America thinks that it will strengthen the Western faction against communism if, with these artificial conciliations, it unifies its spiritual forces. But in this way the Church becomes a toy of the political powers of the world, with unforeseeable consequences for Orthodoxy.

Are the Orthodox people obliged to follow such a servile patriarchate forever? The fact that this patriarchate for centuries held the primacy of importance and honor in the Christian world cannot justify those who will follow it to a unifying capitulation with heresy. Rome also once had the primacy of importance and honor in the Christian world, but that did not oblige Christians to follow it on the road of heresy. The communion with and respect for one church on the part of the other churches remains and continues only as long as that church remains in the Church, that is, as long as it lives and proceeds in spirit and truth. When a patriarchate ceases to be a church, admitting communion with heretics, then its recognition on the part of the other churches ceases also.

The Orthodox people must become conscious of the fact that they owe no obedience to a bishop, no matter how high a title he holds, when that bishop ceases being Orthodox and openly follows heretics with pretenses of union "on equal terms." On the contrary, they are obliged to depart from him and confess their Faith, because a bishop, even if he be patriarch or pope, ceases from being a bishop the moment he ceases being Orthodox. The bishop is a consecrated person, and even if he is openly sinful, respect and honor is due him until synodically censured. But if he becomes openly heretical or is in communion with heretics, then the Christians should not await any synodical decision, but should draw away from him immediately.

Here is what the canons of the Church say on this: "... So that if any presbyter or bishop or metropolitan dares to secede from communion with his own patriarch and does not mention his name as is ordered and appointed in the divine mystagogy, but before a synodical arraignment and his [the patriarch's] full condemnation, he creates a schism, the Holy Synod has decreed that this person be alienated from every priestly function, if only he be proven to have transgressed in this. These rules, therefore, have been sealed and ordered concerning those who on the pretext of some accusations against their own presidents stand apart, creating a schism and severing the unity of the Church. But as for those who on account of some heresy condemned by Holy Synods or Fathers sever themselves from communion with their president, that is, because he publicly preaches heresy and with bared head teaches it in the Church, such persons as these not only are not subject to canonical penalty for walling themselves off from communion with the so-called bishop before synodical clarification, but they shall be deemed worthy of due honor among the Orthodox. For not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers have they condemned, and they have not fragmented the Church's unity with schism, but from schisms and divisions have they earnestly sought to deliver the Church" (Canon XV of the so-called First and Second Council).

Finally, someone with whom I can have a conversation.

So long as dogmatic differences exist, we are not united in faith and discipline.

But do dogmatic differences really exist or are they only apparent because of the different theological languages that we use. I will give an example of such misunderstanding from our side. One of the controversies leading up to the Schism was the assumption of the tile of Ecumenical Patriarch by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Leo took great exception with this but he was viewing the meaning of Ecumenical through the Latin translation of Universalis. I doing so he was incorrectly applying a Latin meaning to the term that it did not carry in the Greek. Is it not possible that the Greeks are making the same mistake when looking at the Latin explanations of Filioque? St. Maximus admitted the universal witness of the Latin Fathers to its proper usage. If we are to look at the Fathers for guidance and give equal weight to the witness of the Latin Fathers as we do to the Greek, should we not accept them as better judges of the theological categories in Latin rather than try to judge the issue in Greek categories in translation?

I will give another example. I am American but I have a good friend, Perry, who is English who was a classmate in college. One day we were having a conversation about the various merits of public vs. private education. At one point the conversation started to get heated out of frustration because neither of us could understand why the other could not accept out reasoning. Then it occurred to Perry to stop and define our terms. It turned out that what I would call a public school would be called a state school in England, and what I would call a private school in America would be called a public school in England. We were actually saying the exact same thing but failed to recognize this because of our different use of language. If this can happen between two speakers both using English, image the difficulties that must arrive between Latin and Greek.

Can you imagine how the tension level would rise in every liturgy as the words "Who proceeds from the Father" are spoken?

Why should there be any tension? We have already agree that the Filioque be dropped from the Creed in joint celebrations, as it is when said in Greek.

We don't disallow the possibility but we acknowledge the reality that the Greeks could not cede on certain issues the Latins would demand and vice-versa.

Not at all. In some areas acknowledge that the differences are more apparent than real because of different theological vocabularies; in other areas admit the differences but hold that they are not great enough to cause the scandal of division; agree to disagree in peace. Even before 1054 there was never complete unanimity within the Church. Why need we insist on it today in order to come together in the worship of the one true God?

You example of the mistranslated Greek meaning of the word ecumenical is only a testimony that it didn't even occur to the Pope to check what it really means before lashing out at the Patriarch. What does it say of the level of understanding of the Greek in the highest Roman circles?

You keep drawing parallels between the Greek understanding of Latin and Latin understanding of Greek. The situation is not one of parity. The Creed was set in Greek; the Church used Greek accurately to express theological concepts. It was the duty and the responsibility of those who decided to use a different language to make sure they understood Greek as well as that other language.

This was obviosuly not so. St. Augustine is a prime example of this. His translation of the creation of the world is completely off the mark. Once you start off with a bad translation of the original, God only knows where you will end up. Thus, insisting that the Greeks "understand" your mistranslations on which you formed your own theological concepts is invalid because it is the Latin side that corrupted the original. Why would the Greeks have to understand your misunderstanding? It is up to the Latin side to correct the error.

One day when you shed that pride all of us have when we make an error, and admit it, and repent, you will be free. Until that time you will keep making overtures as if asking the Greeks to pretend it's all "mutual" misunderstanding.

Since you will not listen to reason Petrosius, unless it's your own reason, let me put it to you this way. The Apostolic Canons, i.e. the most ancient canons of One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, forbid me to pray with you under any circumstances under pain of excommunication. Period. Fine'. Over. Through. Final. No discussion.

Incidentally, those canons are binding on ALL Orthodox bishops on pain of defrockment. Pope John Paul II, if he ever was an Orthodox bishop, was immediately defrocked the instant he prayed with any heretic or Jew, the instant he kissed the Koran. Those canons apply also to any Orthodox bishop who ever prayed with Pope John Paul II or with Pope Benedict XVI.

It pains me to see bishops ignoring the canons. They are not ignorant of them. They do know the penalties. And yet they continue to ignore them.

Thus, insisting that the Greeks "understand" your mistranslations on which you formed your own theological concepts is invalid because it is the Latin side that corrupted the original.

Let us be clear, I cede to your point on the insertion of Filioque in the Creed. My discussion about misunderstanding the Latin usage of Filioque is in other theological works. And here I am not insisting that the Greeks understand a mistranslation but that the Latins have and have their own theological usage that is independent of any connection to the Greek language. It is here that the danger of mistranslation arises when Latin usage is translated into Greek. I hope that you are not implying that Greek is the only suitable language for theology and that Latin usage must conform to the Greek language.

I hope that you are not implying that Greek is the only suitable language for theology and that Latin usage must conform to the Greek language

I am not, of course. But the original theology of the Church was accurately expressed in Greek. From the concepts thus set in Greek were drawn valid pronuncements and understandings, in this case, of Trinitarian economy, procession (as from the source), and so on.

If Latin had faithfully translated -- as Church Salvonic does -- the concepts so as not to change their meaning or confuse them, then the Latins could not derive a different concept that is unintelligible to the Greeks.

In other words, if there are any disagreements, the place to look at as the source of error is the copy and not the original.

"Perhaps we do not understand what that means. It doesn't necessarily mean we have to be "married." ...... Christian thing to do would be for the brothers to support and help each other, and stand united against common adversaries, and mutually respect each other's households rather than trying to make each other a clone of the other. That would unite us in Christ without ecclesiological re-union and bureaucratic and legalistic niceties."

Yes I very much agree with you. If there is one thing that Catholics should have learnt from our relationships with Evangelicals it is that standing side by side on picket lines outside of abortion clinics has done far more to enable us to see each other as Christians than all the ecumenical dialogues put together.

It may have not done anything to promote doctrinal or ecclesial unity at the "official levels", but it has enabled people who once viewed each other as anathema to recognise each other as brothers again.

For this reason I see Patriarch Alexy's suggestion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches working together to combat the forces of darkness that are sweeping over Europe, to be more realistic and potentially productive than some of the silly suggestions that Cardinal Kaspar has made recently.

This makes much more sense than continuing ecumenical dialogues with people like the archbishop of Canterbury who are actively working to promote the culture of death and the hegemony of homosexuals over Western society. What kind of signal does this send to the world if on one hand the Church condemns the culture of death, but on the other is actively engaged in "unity talks" with some of its primary liberal proponents?

"And one more thing: keep in mind that the frustration you feel with the Orthodox is because the Orthodox are not asking for reconciliation or re-union."

Please don't see my frustration with the ecumenical charade as something that is directed primarily or particularly at the Orthodox. It is as much directed at the idiot Catholic ecumenists who think they can walk into talks with bits of the Catholic Faith up for negotiation as if they were tradable assets in a merger or acquisition prospectus.

I certainly have some sympathy with the Orthodox response to the continual, embarrassing pleadings for reconciliation and re-union that come out of our hierarchy. When such pleadings become so insistent, they will eventually be perceived as harrassment or even hostility - it seems that there can be a lack of basic "people skills" by senior hierarchs that normal people who have to work for a living would be much more savvy about!

Say something once, and if necessary twice, and then , as you say, "leave it up to God." If He sees something that needs fixing, He will fix it - its His Church!

But the original theology of the Church was accurately expressed in Greek.

Correction: The original theology the Church was accurately expressed in Greek and Latin; the Latin Fathers are of equal authority as the Greek. As you yourself have stated, the truth predates its expression in Council. That fact that the definitions of the Trinity were expressed in Greek is not because of its greater theological merit but because the Greeks were embroiled in the Christological controversies that did not effect the Latins. The Latins have no more requirement to conform their theological language to Greek usage than the Greeks have to Latin usage, nor are the testimonies of the Latin Father to be considered merely translations of Greek thought.

Canon X. (XI.)
If any one shall pray, even in a private house, with an excommunicated person, let him also be excommunicated.
Canon XLV.
Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has only prayed with heretics, be excommunicated: but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed.
Canon XLVI.
We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath a believer with an infidel?
Canon LXV.

If any clergyman shall strike anyone in a contest, and kill him with one blow, let him be deposed for his violence. If a layman do so, let him be excommunicated.

And which one of these says that anyone who believes in Filioque is a heretic; I missed that. As for Canon 65, while I admit that I have often become frustrated with the Orthodox, I deny ever killing anyone.

"You are aware, I trust, of Patriarch Alexei's unrepented past KGB connection?"

I am aware of his connection, however, whether it is repented or not is between him and Almighty God, and I suggest that neither you nor I have been appointed judges of his soul. The same goes for JPII's Koran-kissing incident - only God knows what was going on in his mind when he did that, and only God and his confessor know whether he subsequently repented of that action.

I am not particularly a fan of the Russian Patriarch, however, I do think that his reactions are understandable if one tries to see things from his p.o.v. I don't necessarily agree with some of the positions he takes, but they are quite logical in his circumstances.

There is a further problem, and that is(at least so I'm informed, but I may be mistaken), that HH has declared that, under certain circumstances, RCs may receive Holy Communion in the ROC and the ROCers, again under certain circumstances, can receive from RC clergy. This, if true, violates the Apostolic Canons. A further problem (again, so I'm told and thus may be wrong, God grant), is that he forbids proselytizing (i.e. evangelism), in Roman Catholic areas of the Patriarchate of Moscow, thus dooming thousands to never even once hearing the glorious Orthodox Gospel of Christ.
I pray I am mistaken as to the matters that I just raised.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.