HISTORICAL
APPROACH TO THE CONTEXT OF THE DIALOGUE WITH THE NON-ORTHODOX
THE TORONTO
STATEMENT
(This lecture
was presented at the Inter-Orthodox Conference organized by the Initiative
Committee of the Conference «St. John’s Readings» of the Ancient Church of
Saint George (The Rotunda) of Sofia, under the blessing of His Beatitude
Metropolitan of Sofia and Patriarch of Bulgaria, Neophytos, in Sofia, June
9-10, 2017)
Your
Beatitude Patriarch of Bulgaria Neophytos,
Your
Eminences,
Reverend
Fathers,
Dear
brothers,
In 1950, two
years after the first General Assembly of the World Council of Churches in
Amsterdam, the Central Committee of the WCC composed a declaration which
entered in history with the title Toronto
Statement. Along with the Constitution of WCC, the Toronto Statement is considered to be one of the pillars of the
ecumenist movement, sometimes even called the „Magna Carta” of the WCC.
Toronto Statement has been
elaborated by the secretary of the WCC Willem Visser’t Hooft along with his
colleague Oliver Tomkins[1]
and is the result of prior consultations with roman-catholic theologians and
some orthodox theologians, among which a contribution was also
made by the protopresbyter George
Florovski. The purpose of this statement was the development of a
conception in order to determine what the WCC represents and what it does not. The idea behind
this concept was to create a place of dialogue that takes into account the
diversity existing in Christian space, including the ecclesiological and
dogmatic ones. As stated by Russian
ecumenist Vitali Borovoy, it was the
Statement that created a space of ecclesiological diversity.
The manner in
which it was approved, the Toronto Statement seeks to
outline some general principles on how the WCC should work and report to its
member "churches", but also contains some fundamental principles on
what the Church is from an ecumenist point of view.
Orthodox
theologians have long considered that the Toronto
Statement provide the framework for a safe cooperation between the Orthodox
Churches and the Protestant-based heresies within the WCC. Their assessment was
based on some of the premises (assumptions) in the Statement, which were quoted or paraphrased in the document
regarding the relation of the Orthodox Churches and the rest of the Christian
World, under paragraph 19:
Premise
III.1: WCC is not and must not become a
super-Church
Premise
III.2: The purpose of the World Council of Churches is not to negotiate
unions between churches, which can only be done by the churches themselves
acting on their own initiative, but to bring the churches into living contact
with each other and to promote the study and discussion of the issues of Church
unity.
Premise III.3: The World Council cannot and should not be based on
any one particular conception of the Church. It does not prejudge the
ecclesiological problem.
Premise III.4: Membership in the World Council of Churches does not imply
that a church treats its own conception of the Church as merely relative.
Premise III.5: Membership in the World Council does not imply the
acceptance of a specific doctrine concerning the nature of Church unity.
Premise IV.4: The member churches of the World Council consider the
relationship of other churches to the Holy Catholic Church which the Creeds
profess as a subject for mutual consideration. Nevertheless, membership does
not imply that each church must regard the other member churches as churches in
the true and full sense of the word.
Further, we will make a small analysis
of these premises of Toronto Statement:
"The World Council of
Churches is not and must never become a superchurch." (Premise III.1)
The most
attractive promise for Orthodox theologians was that WCC would never become a "super-church" and that in
principle it would never adopt ecclesial characteristics. No later than 1961, on the occasion of the
approval of the Toronto Statement by the New Delhi WCC General Assembly, in a
document called “the Unity Report”,
Article 49[2]
states that "At least we are able to
say that the World Council is not wholly other than the member churches. It is the churches in continuing
council."[3] In other words, WCC does not constitute a "super-church", but the
supreme deliberative organ of the ecumenist "church", its permanent
synod. This idea is reinforced at the
end of the invoked paragraph, which states: „Many christians are now aware that the Council is in some new and
unprecedented sense an instrument of the Holy Spirit for the effecting of God’s
will for the whole Church, and through the Church for the world”.
From the
Orthodox perspective, the synodic leadership of the Church is the one that
gives the measure of its catholicity.
Therefore, by accepting this point of view [of the WCC] as a promise
that the WCC will not become a super-church, the idea of
"catholicity" has henceforth been accepted by default as WCC being
the leader of the "Church of Christ",
as formulated by the New Delhi declaration.
A practical application of branch theory.
The theory of the „lost unity of the
Church” (premise III.2)
The second
premise expresses the purpose assumed by WCC to bring the „churches” into living contact and to promote the study and
discussion of the issues of Church unity. It is obvious that the "Church" that WCC is talking
about is not the Orthodox Church, but what the document calls "the true Church of Christ",
"the Holy Catholic Church that the Creeds confess." Therefore the Orthodox Church assumed,
through the heretical decision of a pan-orthodox synod (Crete 2016), to take
part in the realization of the unity of a „Church”
other than the orthodox, an idea which contradicts the purpose and the mission
of the [Orthodox] Church.
When asked, the
Orthodox participants in this dialogue respond incompletely that the purpose of
the presence of our Church on this platform of religious dialogue is "to confess". The October 26, 2016 decision of the Holy
Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church states that "the great and holy council [of Crete] confessed that the Orthodox
Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
But the premise
III.2 of the Statement declares that
the purpose of the WCC is „to bring the
churches into living contact with each other and to promote the study and
discussion of the issues of Church unity”. It talks about a living contact
between the „churches”, meaning a
real ecclesiastical relationship between orthodox and heterodox with the
purpose to realize the unity of the Church.
But nowhere in
the history of the Orthodox Church we cannot find ideas about bringing the
Church of Christ into a living contact with heresies. A living contact implies
two living entities, which respectively implies the recognition by the Orthodox
Church of some kind of ecclesiality of the dialogue partners.
We cannot
understand the ecumenist concept of the „study
and discussion of the issues of Church unity” if we don’t link it with other
premises of the Statement, which
point out the WCC’s concept about the „Church
of Christ” on one hand and the
„member churches” on the other.
Therefore,
subscribing to the purpose of the WCC to study and discuss the issues of Church
unity, the council of Crete accepts implicitly that „The member churches of the Council believe that conversation,
cooperation and common witness of the churches must be based on the common
recognition that Christ is the Divine Head of the Body” (premise IV.1).
This premise postulates that Christ is the Head of all the denominations which
claim to be christian, which, in turn, would be parts of the Body whose Head is
Christ. Moreover the Statement
endorses this heretical idea on a formula expressed by an orthodox delegation
at the ecumenist meeting in Edinburgh in 1937, which states: „in spite of all our differences, our common
Master and Lord is one –Jesus Christ who will lead us to a more and more close
collaboration for the edifying of the Body of Christ”. The idea that Christ
is the Head of all the heresies is a blasphemy which the orthodox participants
at the Ecumenist Dialogue overlook, or, worse, some of them even believe it.
„Ecclesiological neutrality” (premise
III.3)
Premise III.3
which states: „The World Council cannot
and should not be based on any one particular conception of the Church” is
contradicted by the Statement’s text
itself. The Toronto document’s structure is based on 2 subjects: what is and
what is not the WCC and what is the „Church
of Christ” which WCC is trying to build. It is true that at a declarative
level WCC proclaims its ecclesiological neutrality, but it is self-understood
that a dialogue platform which aims at the unity of the Church must have an
idea about this Church. Otherwise how could it realize this unity?
The Toronto Statement abounds in
ecclesiological assertions, most of which presumably are common for the
protestant majority of the members of the Council. What else if not
ecclesiological principles are these assertions: „the common recognition that Christ is the Divine Head of the Body”
(premise IV.1); „The member churches
believe that the Church of Christ is one” (premise IV.2); „The member churches recognize that the
membership of the Church of Christ is more inclusive than the membership of
their own church body” (premise IV.3); „The
member churches of the World Council recognize in other churches elements of
the true Church” (premise IV.5) ?
Despite the fact
that it proposes ecclesiological neutrality, WCC bases its premises on the most
prominent Protestant ecclesiological concepts: branch theory, baptismal
theology, theory of signs, theory of traditions, theory of „incomplete
churches”.
„Unity in the diversity of the
evangelical experience” (premises III.4, III.5)
Premises III.4
and III.5 postulate that no WCC member "church"
should relativize its own ecclesiological doctrine and that membership in the
World Council does not imply the acceptance of a certain ecclesiology. If they
were real, these two premises would, apparently, invalidate the ultimate goal
WCC proposed, the unification of everyone in the "Church of Christ" to give a common witness of Christ to
the world. In addition, if
none of the WCC members are obliged to relativize their own ecclesiology, then
the Orthodox confession that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and
Apostolic church has no chance at any time to become the official doctrine of
all Christendom, a condition sine qua non
for the realization of that much-desired Christian unity.
The theory of „incomplete churches”
(premise IV.4)
The last of the
premises that the Orthodox Churches which took part in the Council of Crete
consider to be „an indispensable
condition of their participation in the WCC” is the one expressed in
premise IV.4: „The member churches of the
World Council consider the relationship of other churches to the Holy Catholic
Church which the Creeds profess as a subject for mutual consideration.
Nevertheless, membership does not imply that each church must regard the other
member churches as churches in the true and full sense of the word”.
First, it is
said that, despite "doctrinal and
canonical differences", the member „churches”
of WCC recognize one another as serving the one Lord. This heretical idea is
repelled by the patristic theology, which states that there can be no doubt
that „The catholic (universal) Church is
the assembly of the rightful believers who profess the orthodox faith” (St.
Symeon of Thessaloniki, Erminia dumnezeiescului simbol al credinţei ortodoxe,
EIBMBOR, Bucharest, 2010, p. 93).
The Council
Vatican II adopted the principle which in roman-catholic theology is called subsistit in and which states: „The Church of Christ subsists in the
Roman-Catholic Church”[4].
This concept replaces the statement „The
Church of Christ is the Roman-Catholic Church”, leaving the assertion that
outside the [Catholic] Church there are not only abandoned christians, but „elements of the Church” and even „Churches and communities which, despite not
being in full comunion, rightfully belong to the One Church and represent for
their members means of salvation”. By this terminological statement,
Vatican II establishes "a concrete place" of the Church of Christ,
and that place is in the Church of Rome.
The Church of Christ is concretely in the Church of Rome. However, the Council takes note of the
"working presence" of the One Church of Christ and of the other
ecclesial Churches and Communities (according to the encyclical Ut una sint), even if they are not yet
in communion with it.
This concept,
which was adopted by the Council Vatican II as a line of ecclesiological
thought, is called in theological terms as the „Theory of incomplete churches”. It was taken over from the
protestant theological thought of Jean Calvin which talked about the „remnants of the true Church”.
It is a striking
fact that the Orthodox Churches accepted this theory of „incomplete churches”
and legalized it in the document „Relations of the Orthodox Church with the
Rest of the Christian World” through the acceptance of „the historical name of
other non-Orthodox Christian Churches” given to the heresies in article 6
(which in the pre-synodal version of the document was expressed as „recognizes
the historical existance of the churches”, being replaced in the final version
with a sweetened formula, which nevertheless has its roots in the same concept
about different degrees of ecclesiality), as well as through the reasoning of
this recognition with the premise IV.4 of the Toronto Statement, which was added to the pre-synodal version of
the document, where it has not been cited. The distinction between „churches”
and „confessions” used in the article 6 (which does not exist in the ecumenist
documents, because there is used the branch theory) denotes that the document
considers some heresies to be more worthy to be called „churches” and the other
not (various heresies are called invariably „churches”, so this distinction reflects
the perspective of the ecumenist participants in Crete on the confessional
spectre). Or, if we use the terminology of the article 4 from the document
about the relationships with the rest of the christian world, the Church „has always cultivated dialogue with those
estranged from her”, some of them being „nearer”, others being „farther”,
exactly as the theory of the „incomplete
churches” states, an idea that is foreign to the patristic thought, for
which all the heresies are outside the Church, not nearer or farther.
Metropolitan
Seraphim of Kithiron wrote an epistle to the Patriarch of Georgia and to all
heads of the orthodox local churches[5],
where he made an analysis that suggests that Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas of
Pergam tries to impose the theory of „incomplete
churches” in the orthodox space, relating [these incomplete churches] to
the Orthodox Church. From this perspective, one could understand the ease with
which the heresies were given a "sociological" status of
"churches". Even the statement that the Orthodox Church is the One,
Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church receives a new content, since, according to
the logic used by Roman-Catholicism, it does not impede the coexistence of the
Orthodox Church with the other "churches."
The text of
Crete, in paragraph 19 makes a praiseful reference to the participation of the
Orthodox Churches in the «World Council of Churches». Here, those who drew up
and signed the text, mention positively the 1950 Toronto Statement. They wrote: «It is their deep conviction that
the ecclesiological presuppositions of the 1950 Toronto Statement, On the
Church, the Churches and the World Council of Churches, are of paramount
importance for Orthodox participation in the Council». The title of the Toronto Statement expresses fully the
protestant ecclesiology and should have not been accepted by the Orthodox
representatives at that time, because it introduces an invisible «One Church»
and the «other» visible churches, which equally comprise the οne «Church» and, therefore, it
recognizes the same ecclesiastical status to the visible «churches»-members of
the invisible «church». The text of Crete, on one hand, points rightly to
paragraph 2 of the Statement, which
states that the purpose of the «World Council of Churches», is not to negotiate
unions between Churches, but to bring the Churches into living contact with
each other, and on the other, it conceals other paragraphs, which recognize the
ecclesiastical status of the heterodox, and equate the Orthodox Church to the
heterodoxies. Therefore, according to the
Statement, which was embraced by Orthodox signatories (such as the late
Metropolitan of Thyatira Germanos and the late father George Florovsky,
representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate), but also by the signatories of
the text of the “synod of Crete, there is the invisible «Church of Christ» and
the various «churches» on earth, and that it is fuller and more inclusive to
belong to the one invisible «Church of Christ», which is constituted by both the
heterodox and the Orthodox, than belonging to their own Church. Therefore, the
Orthodox Church is not the «Church of Christ», but a part of this «Church».
That is why the Orthodox are asked to have communion with the other, and to
participate, through them, in the «Church of Christ». The Toronto Statement literally says: «The member Churches recognize
that the membership of the Church of Christ is more inclusive than the
membership of their own Church body. They seek, therefore, to enter into living
contact with those outside their own ranks who confess the Lordship of Christ».
In the same
paragraph, it is recognized that there is «church outside the Church» and that «the
baptism of the heretics is valid». It is written literally: «All the
Christian Churches, including the Church of Rome, hold that there is no
complete identity between the membership of the Church Universal and the
membership of their own Church. They recognize that there are Church members
extra muros, that these belong aliquo modo to the Church, or even that there is
an ecclesia extra ecclesiam. This recognition finds expression in the fact that
with very few exceptions the Christian Churches accept the baptism administered
by other Churches as valid».
At another
point, the Toronto Statement
recognizes ecclesiality in the heresies, which allegedly, as it says, is only
incomplete. It is written: «The member Churches of the World Council
consider the relationship of other Churches to the Holy Catholic Church which
the Creeds profess as a subject for mutual consideration. Nevertheless,
membership does not imply that each Church must regard the other member
Churches as Churches in the true and full sense of the word. There is a place
in the World Council both for those Churches which recognize other Churches as
Churches in the full and true sense, and for those who do not. But these
divided Churches, even if they cannot yet accept each other as true and pure
Churches, believe that they should not remain in isolation from each other, and
consequently they have associated themselves in the World Council of Churches.
They know that differences of faith and order exist, but they recognize one
another as serving the One Lord, and they wish to explore their differences in
mutual respect, trusting that they may thus be led by the Holy Spirit to
manifest their unity in Christ».
It is also
written in the Toronto Statement that
the heresies have «elements of the true Church» and «traces of Church», which
are « powerful means by which God works». This, of course, is a complete
reversal of the Orthodox Ecclesiology. The Statement
says: «The member Churches of the World Council recognize in other Churches
elements of the true Church. They consider that this mutual recognition obliges
them to enter into a serious conversation with each other in the hope that
these elements of truth will lead to the recognition of the full truth and to
unity based on the full truth. It is generally taught in the different Churches
that other Churches have certain elements of the true Church, in some
traditions called vestigia ecclesiae. Such elements are the preaching of the
Word, the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, and the administration of the
sacraments. These elements are more than pale shadows of the life of the true
Church. They are a fact of real promise and provide an opportunity to strive by
frank and brotherly intercourse for the realization of a fuller unity.
Moreover, Christians of all ecclesiological views throughout the world, by the
preaching of the Gospel, brought men and women to salvation by Christ, to
newness of life in Him, and into Christian fellowship with one another. The
ecumenical movement is based upon the conviction that these "traces"
are to be followed. The Churches should not despise them as mere elements of
truth but rejoice in them as hopeful signs pointing toward real unity. For what
are these elements? Not dead remnants of the past but powerful means by which
God works. Questions may and must be raised about the validity and purity of teaching
and sacramental life, but there can be no question that such dynamic elements
of Church life justify the hope that the Churches which maintain them will be
led into fuller truth. It is through the ecumenical conversation that this
recognition of truth is facilitated».
It results
from the Toronto Statement, that,
apart from recognizing elements of truth in the other «churches», it is therein
mutually accepted, that in the Orthodox Church does not abode the whole truth,
but the fullness of truth will result from the contact and the dialogue with
each other, namely the Theological Dialogues. It is written literally: «The
member Churches of the Council are willing to consult together in seeking to
learn of the Lord Jesus Christ what witness He would have them to bear to the
world in His Name. A further practical implication of common membership in the
World Council is that the member Churches should recognize their solidarity
with each other, render assistance to each other in case of need, and refrain from
such actions as are incompatible with brotherly relationships».
What is far
worse is that in another paragraph of the Toronto
Statement it was accepted that, without the other «churches», that is to
say without the motley of heresies, the Body of Christ is neither built up nor
renewed, but this is achieved, when we have in connectedness with the others.
The Statement says: «The member Churches enter into spiritual
relationships through which they seek to learn from each other and to give help
to each other in order that the Body of Christ may be built up and that the
life of the Churches may be renewed».
In the Toronto Statement, the other text of
Porto Alegre (2006), which was agreed-upon in common by the Orthodox, also establishes
the mutual recognition of baptism between the heterodox-members of the
so-called World Council of Churches, with the following wording : «We affirm
that there is one baptism, just as there is one body and one Spirit, one hope
of our calling, one Lord, one faith, one God and Father of us all (cf. Eph.
4:4-6). In God's grace, baptism manifests the reality that we belong to one
another, even though some churches are not yet able to recognize others as
Church in the full sense of the word. We recall the words of the Toronto
Statement, in which the member churches of the WCC affirm that "the
membership of the church of Christ is more inclusive than the membership of
their own church body. They seek, therefore, to enter into living contact with those
outside their own ranks who confess the Lordship of Christ»[6]. To the same
end, that of the mutual recognition of Baptism, by the members of the so called
«World Council of Churches», it is noted in the Toronto Statement: «All the Christian Churches, including the
Church of Rome, hold that there is no complete identity between the membership
of the Church Universal and the membership of their own Church. They recognize
that there are Church members extra muros, that these belong aliquo modo to the
Church, or even that there is an ecclesia extra ecclesiam. This recognition
finds expression in the fact that with very few exceptions the Christian
Churches accept the baptism administered by other Churches as valid»[7].
It is clear, therefore, that the Toronto
Statement, with its very serious ecclesiological problems, has acquired,
through the “synod of Crete”, a «synodical» validity, such of a constitutional
text-of-reference for the Orthodox Church.
As it results from the above reference to paragraph 19 of the final and
official text of the “synod of Crete”, and to the Statement of the Central
Committee of the so called World Council of Churches, in Toronto, Canada in
1950, there really prevails in the texts of the World Council of Churches an
unmixable mixture and, finally, a total confusion. Therein one can find and get
what one wants. It results in the assessment that the so called World Council
of Churches, is a «melting pot» with ambiguous, contradictory and mutually
exclusive positions, so that all parts are satisfied. Therefore, Ecumenists of an
Orthodox background, mentioned in this final official text, of the synod of
Crete, from the Toronto Statement,
that which would sound good to the ears of the Orthodox, but they concealed the
rest of the elements, which we have mentioned, and which overturn the Orthodox
Ecclesiology and affirm the comprehensive Ecclesiology of the Protestants, acknowledging
elements of truth in the other «churches», that is to say in heterodoxy.
The positive and laudatory reference to the texts of the so-called «World
Council of Churches», such as the Toronto
Statement, the Lima[8],
Porto Alegre and Busan[9] texts,
documents which it does not reject, means that the final official text, of the
synod of Crete accepts the ecclesiastic status of the non-Orthodox, contests the
uniqueness of the Orthodox Church, even though, it refers, contradictorily and
misleadingly, to Her in the first paragraph, saying that : «The Orthodox Church, being the One, Holy, Catholic,
and Apostolic Church … » et cetera; in this regard it imitates the contradictory, unclear and «inclusive»
texts of the «World Council of Churches».
So, despite the diachronic and the synchronic disapproval of our mixture
with the miscellaneous heretical motley, in the protestant «World Council of
Churches> and the texts of Toronto, Lima, Porto Alegre and Pusan, the final
official text of the “synod of Crete”, instead of raising the issue of an
Orthodox withdrawal from the «World Council of Churches», that circumvented the
decision with aforethought, considering
that it is self-evident and important to participate in it, since this,
as well as other inter-Christian organizations «fulfill an
important mission by promoting the unity of the Christian world» (§16). It simply characterized as «their own particular opinion» the withdrawal of the Patriarchates of Georgia and Bulgaria from the
so-called «World Council of Churches», while this opinion expresses the
self-consciousness of the Orthodox people and is in accord with the diachronic
attitude of the Saints. The worst of all is that «it views
favorably the Commission’s theological documents, which were developed with the
significant participation of Orthodox theologians» (§21) by the «Faith and Order» Commission of the «World Council of
Churches», while it remains in deafening silence regarding the unacceptable
texts of Porto Alegre and Busan. Lastly, it is considered that the
participation of the local Orthodox Churches in the «World Council of Churches»,
is based on the 1950 Toronto Statement,
a text which, as we have shown, ecclesiologically, is very problematic.
In the “Synod of Crete” the words «heresy» and «heterodox» do not appear
even for a single time in its texts, and thus they are essentially amnestied;
also because - contrary to all the preceding and true Synods of the Church,
which had condemned and anathematized heresies and heretics - this one imposed
the recognition of the “historical name” of other “non-Orthodox Christian
Churches”(Monophysitism, Papism and Protestantism) that enjoy honor, validity
and value, as is evident in a phrase of its final official text «Relations
of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian World»[10].
Therein is says that «the Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of
other non-Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions that are not in communion
with her»[11].
The phrase «of other non-Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions» -
itself incomprehensive and difficult to explain - is contradictory
and unacceptable, because, when we speak of the Church, She cannot be named
non-Orthodox, that is to say heretic-heterodox, and when we speak of heterodoxy
(non-Orthodoxy), that is to say about heresy, this cannot be Church, in the
theological sense of the term. The definition of the Church is given to us by
its very Founder, through His very truthful mouth, namely the heaven-dweller
and divine Paul the Apostle, who in his letter to the Ephesians reveals that «[the
Father] gave Him [Christ, to be] the head over all [things] to the Church,
Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all»[12]. The existence of a non-Orthodox
Church is, therefore, impossible, as is impossible the existence of a
non-Orthodox Christ. The above definition of the Church as the Body of Christ
smashes the allegation of the Toronto
Statement that within the framework of the so-called World Council of
Churches, «the Churches themselves have refrained from giving detailed and
precise definitions of the nature of the Church»[13],
because the Church is defined by the Apostle Paul as the Body of Christ.
Thus, not only as pertains to the procedure of convening the Synod and its
operation, but also in terms of its decisions and, particularly, of the
attempted conciliar justification of Ecumenism and the heresies, now regarded
as churches, the gathering of a minority
of bishops in Crete can be considered neither a Synod, nor Holy, nor Great.
The uneasiness and worry expressed through the scientific and theological
criticism of the “Synod of Crete” by
Local Orthodox Churches, Hierarchs, Clerics, Monks and reputable theologians,
scientists and laymen derive from the observance of the theological guideline
of Saints and God-bearing Fathers and they aim, solely and exclusively, at
ensuring man’s salvation.
The final, official, the text of
the “Synod of Crete” entitled «Relations of the Orthodox Church with the
rest of the Christian World», as became clear through the criticism which
has been -and still is- exerted against it, is completely problematic and
unacceptable. This is due, inter alia, to the fact that not only does it ignore
and not take into account the negative experience gained from the Theological
Dialogues with the heterodox, and from the participation of the Orthodox Church
in the so-called «World Council of Churches», but also because, on the
contrary, it praises the involvement of the Orthodox Church in these dialogues
and the afore mentioned Council, as described in paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19 and
21. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church becomes a small part in the
jumble of those hundreds of protestants, condemned by Orthodox Synods, due to
their unbelievable doctrinal teachings, and also of the non-Chalcedonians,
condemned likewise by Ecumenical Councils.
Saint Justine Popovich, in many of his writings, criticizes the
participation of the Orthodox in this Council (WCC). In one of these[14],
addressing the Holy Synod of the Church of Serbia in 1974, writes with much
pain : «How long will we humiliate slavishly our Holy Orthodox Church of the
Holy Fathers and Saint Sava, with our anti-traditional and anti-saintly, of
deplorable and horrible proportions, stance towards Ecumenism and the so-called
World Council of the Churches? ... Alack, unheard-of treason»!
In 2007, the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain with an extensive
memorandum «On the participation of the Orthodox Church in the World Council
of Churches»[15]
made an overwhelming and documented criticism targeting the participation
of the Orthodox in the so-called «World Council of Churches>.
The fallacies of the «World Council of Churches», which are reflected in
its texts, such as of Lima (1982), Porto Alegre (2006) and, especially, of
Busan (2013), provoked the Orthodox self-awareness, resulting in that six
Hierarchs of the Church of Greece, their Eminences Metropolitans of
Dryinoupolis Andreas, of Glyfada Pavlos, of Kythira Seraphim, of Aetolia Kosmas, of Gortyna
Ieremias and of Piraeus Seraphim,
submitted to the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, on 30 April 2014,
their «Memorandum against the decisions of the World Council of Churches in
Busan», expressing their appall for the fact that the text [of Busan] had
been signed by the Greek Orthodox representatives, and calling for the
withdrawal of the Church of Greece from the «World Council of Churches»[16].
So, is it
possible that a text so unacceptable as this one, issued by the “synod of Crete”
and promoted with such machinations, would be accepted by the vigilant
consciousness of the people of the Church?
Your
Beatitude Patriarch of Bulgaria Neophytos,
Your
Eminences,
Reverend
Fathers,
Dear brothers,
Theologians
(clerics and laics) of Orthodox background
not only coexist and cooperate with the so-called «World Council of Churches»,
solely and exclusively for socio-political reasons and issues, but they also
pray together, un-canonically, and jointly sign or adopt unorthodox dogmatic
texts, with the Protestants who are also combating the Saints and are hostile
to Virgin Mary, and with the non-Chalcedon, in the «World Council of Churches»,
and thus humiliate the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, trying to
change it from a «pillar and foundation of the truth»[17], from
Bride of Christ[18]
and Body of Christ[19],
to a counterpart of equal value and honor with even the smallest and most wretched
among protestant and monophysite jurisdiction. We ask for the withdrawal of all
the local Orthodox Churches from the so-called «World Council of Churches», following
the example of the venerable Patriarchates of Georgia and Bulgaria[20]
and the condemnation of the Toronto
Statement and of the “synod of Crete”.
Thank you!
Fr. Matheos Ion-Valentin
Vulcanescu, Protopresbyter of the Holy Metropolis of Piraeus, Greece
Many thanks
to theologian Mihail Silviu Chirila for his important contribution to this
work.
[1] http://ortodoxinfo.ro/2017/05/19/implicatii-eclesiologice-ale-aprobarii-documentului-eretic-declaratia-de-la-toronto-de-catre-pseudosinodul-din-creta/
[2]
https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/assembly/1961-new-delhi/new-delhi-statement-on-unity
[3] Translator’s note: The word council means
synod.
[4] http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20041111_kasper-ecumenism_it.html
[5] http://www.aparatorul.md/recomandam-mitropolitul-serafim-de-kithireon-catre-patriarhul-ilias-al-georgiei
[6]https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/assembly/2006-porto-alegre/1-statements-documents-adopted/christian-unity-and-message-to-the-churches/called-to-be-the-one-church-as-adopted
[8] Faith and Order, «W.C.C.»,
Baptism, Eucharist, Priesthood, Editions of the Orhtodox Centre of Chambesy
1983. PROTOPRESV. ANASTASIOS GOTSOPOULOS, «The Synod of Crete and the World
Council of Churches, in magazine Theodromia 183-4
(July-December 2016) 557-565.
[9] Τhe official text of the «Statement of Unity» of the 10th
Assembly of the so called «World Council of Churches» (WCC), that is to say of
heresies, in Busan of South Korea (8 Νοvember 2013) Statement of Unity –
Revised SOURCE (of the English text) : Document
No. PRC 01.1 (EN Original) For information (webside of WCC.)
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/assembly/2013-
busan/adopted-documents-statements/unitystatement/@@download/file/PRC_01_1_ADOPTED_Unity_Statement.pdf
[10]https://www.holycouncil.org/-/rest-of-christian-world?_101_INSTANCE_VA0WE2pZ4Y0I_languageId=en_US
[14] ΑRCHIM. J. POPOVICH, «Orthodoxy and Ecumenism. An Orthodox
Opinion and Witness», magazine Theodromia 143 (July - September
2012) 425-432.
[15] HOLY COMMUNITY OF MOUNT ATHOS, «Memorandum on the
participation of the Orthodox Church in the World Council of Churches», magazine
Theodromia 102 (April -June 2008) 207-272.
[16] Memorandum of five Metropolitans against the Busan
decisions of the World Council of Churches, www.impantokratoros.gr/D416764F.el.aspx, Memorandum of His Eminence Metropolitan
of Piraeus Seraphim against the Busan decisions of the World Council of
Churches, www.impantokratoros.gr/Α8092Ε5.el.aspx
[19] See Patriarch Joseph’s apology to the emperor Mihail the
eighth Palaiologos, in V. Laurent – J. Darrouzes, Dossier Grec de l’ Union de
Lyon 1273-1277), Paris 1976, p. 289 : «That’s why and we, the Church of
Christ, which is the immaculate and amianthus bride, who Christ gοt married, guard from the miasma,
please, of the Italians; do not contaminate ourselves with this miasma, because
our souls’ bridegroom will turn away from us, and we will be ashamed eternally.
«Do not give the devil a place». Patriarch Joseph is a saint of the Church and is commemorated on the 30th
of October.
[20] ARCHPRIEST. THEODOROS ZISIS, Saint and Great Synod.
Should we hope or worry? Ed. The Palimpsest, Thessaloniki 2016, pp.
154-173.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου