Ecumenism: Orthodox or Pan-Heresy?
Exploring ecumenism and it's relationship to sacramental rigourism.
Few topics cause so much controversy and stir up so much vitriol in the Orthodox Church. For some, the question of Orthodoxy’s relationship to ecumenism creates high levels of existential angst. This question has not only begotten a large corpus of polemical articles online, which scare-monger and condemn the hierarchy as heretics, and has even caused schismatic groups to break off from canonical Orthodoxy. My hope for this article is to offer a balanced and measured perspective without the extremism normally surrounding the subject.
Defining Ecumenism
From the off we have a bit of a challenge; how do we define ecumenism? Many of the critiques that are launched against the movement are based on a very particular definition of what it actual is. It is clear that for some participants, usually those that are Protestant, ecumenism means simply merging the various Christian “denominations” to achieve Eucharistic communion;
“Since the sphere of ecumenical endeavours is properly the Una Sancta, it is self-evident that the goal of such efforts is not to create the unity of the church. The unitas of the Una Sancta is given with the faith that joins all Christians to their one Head, Christ, and to each other in the little holy flock which is without sect or schism. The unity of the church is the presupposition, not the goal, of ecumenical endeavours. Ecumenical endeavours are directed toward achieving unity in the church. While unitas is a constant characteristic of the church, concordia is not. Instead of concord, agreement, and peace, there are dissensions and religious disputes which cause “divisions.”” (A Lutheran Stance Towards Ecumenism, 1974)
This is of course, is based on a Protestant understanding of the Church. If the various “denominations” merely represent branches of the one, true Church, then schism is no more than a legal separation that presents no existential threat, and entails no ontological change. According to them, the Church is still “one”, even if there are divisions within. Of course, this version of ecumenism should be rightly rejected. This is however, not how the Orthodox Church has historically understood ecumenism or it’s participation in it. Fr John Meyendorff, a giant in Orthodox theology, and participant in the ecumenical movement has this to say;
Unfortunately, Orthodox thought in the matter is too often polarised between two equally wrong positions: "open" relativism and "closed" fanaticism.... Between these two positions - which are both unfaithful to the present Orthodox responsibility - lies the road of a conscious and sober participation in the ecumenical movement, implying no compromise, but much love and understanding. This road is the right one, not simply because it is the "middle" road, but mainly because it reflects the truly catholic spirit of the Orthodox faith. It is also the only truly responsible one: for if Orthodoxy does not bear its witness, who else will?” (Orthodoxy and Ecumenism II)
And;
The Orthodox Church has participated in the ecumenical movement since its very inception at the beginning of this century. The reason for this participation was not - as some negativists pretend - to water down Orthodox witness, to accept a Protestant view of Christianity and to drop the claim of Orthodoxy to be the true Church of Christ. Quite to the contrary, the Orthodox participants simply considered it their duty, and the duty of the Orthodox Church itself, to be present wherever unity in Christ was sought. It is precisely because the Orthodox Church is the true Church, i.e., the Church for all, that it could not escape the responsibility -- and the opportunity -- which was offered to it to be heard and understood. (The Ecumenical Dilemma)
As Orthodox Christians, we must understand ecumenism in this manner. We are the one true Church, witnessing to the other Christian groups, and seeking unity based on the Orthodox faith. It should also be noted that sometimes dialogue must come to an end when it becomes clear that an impasse has been reached. Quite famously, the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II ended his dialogue with the newly formed Lutheran Church regarding their ‘Ausburg Confession’ saying;
“Go your own way, and do not write any more on doctrinal matters; and if you do write, write only for friendship's sake.” (Letter to the Lutheran theologians at the University of Tubingen, 1581)
Truly a Pan-Heresy?
“Ecumenism is a common name for the pseudo-christianities, for the pseudo-churches of Western Europe. Within it is the heart of all European humanisms led by the Papacy. All these pseudo-christianities, all these pseudo-churches are nothing more than one heresy next to the other. Their common name is pan-heresy.”
This famous quote from St Justin Popović is often referenced in relation to ecumenism. With all due respect to the great Saint, this is a rather extreme take. What this really comes down to if our definition of “Church”. Much controversy has arisen in recently decades in Orthodoxy about how we define heterodox Christian communions. Many object to the use of the word “Church” to describe because it suggests there is some sort of ecclesial legitimacy outside of the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church. To understand why this isn’t as problematic as it first sounds, I’d point us to Fr Georges Florovsky in his famous paper ‘The Limits of the Church’, which is worth quoting at length;
“It is sufficient to state that there are occasions when, by her very actions, the Church gives one to understand that the sacraments of sectarians— and even of heretics— are valid, that the sacraments can be celebrated outside the strict canonical limits of the Church. The Church customarily receives adherents from sects— and even from heresies— not by the way of baptism, thereby obviously meaning or supposing that they have already been actually baptised in their sects and heresies. In many cases the Church receives adherents even without chrism, and sometimes also clergy in their existing orders. All the more must this be understood and explained as recognising the validity or reality of the corresponding rites performed over them outside the Church.
If sacraments are performed, however, it can only be by virtue of the Holy Spirit, and canonical rules thus establish or reveal a certain mystical paradox. In what she does the Church bears witness to the extension of her mystical territory even beyond her canonical borders: the outside world does not begin immediately. St Cyprian was right: The sacraments are accomplished only in the Church. But he defined this in hastily and too narrowly.”
Opponents to the view outlined above subscribe to something that has been called “sacramental rigourism”. This concept, that is often touted as the clear witness of the Church Fathers, claims that there is not, and cannot be, any sacramental or ecclesial reality outside of the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church. This, they say, would contradict the teaching that the Orthodox Church is the one true Church.
In his article ‘Sacramental Rigourism: Tradition or Modern Phenomenon?’, arche-athanatos disproves this thesis, showing that the patristic witness actually leans the opposite way. Whilst I would recommend that everyone interested in this topic reads the entire article, the conclusion can be summarised by the following quote from Fr Daniel Sysoev (which the article quotes);
“The sacraments of heretics are recognised by the Fathers of the First, Second, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils. Among the Fathers of the Church — St. Stephen of Rome, St. Vincent of Lerins, Blessed Augustine, St. Basil the Great, St. John of Damascus, St. Mark of Ephesus, St. Theophan the Recluse, St. Philaret of Moscow, and are rejected by St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Hilarion Troitsky.”
The article also quotes the Jubilee Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church;
“The Orthodox Church, through the mouths of the holy fathers, affirms that salvation can be attained only in the Church of Christ. At the same time, however, communities which have fallen away from orthodoxy have never been viewed as fully deprived of the grace of God. Any break from communion with the Church inevitably leads to an erosion of her grace-filled life, but not always to its complete loss in these separated communities. This is why the Orthodox Church does not receive those coming to her from non-orthodox communities only through the sacrament of baptism. In spite of the rupture of unity, there remains a certain incomplete fellowship which serves as the pledge of a return to unity in the Church, to catholic fullness and oneness… The ecclesial status of those who have separated themselves from the Church does not lend itself to simple definition. In a divided Christendom, there are still certain characteristics which make it one: the word of God, faith in Christ as God and saviour come in the flesh (1 Jn. 1:1-2; 4, 2, 9), and sincere devotion. (Basic Principles of Attitude to the Non-Orthodox)
The article goes on to say;
“What this leaves is the attitude of the Church towards Roman Catholics and Protestants. It is worth noting that the consistency of the Church is often in question with respect to these. Even within union and pre-schism, we have examples of Latins demanding the re-baptism of Greek Christians within their borders, such as in Norman Sicily, and reciprocal orders by the Greeks in their own territory. These are less guided by ecclesiological and sacramentological concerns, and evidently are political in nature. Certainly, it’s absurd to consider such things to their logical extent, for during this time both churches retained mutual recognition and communion. What this does tell us is that at certain points, members of the Church can be guided more by antipathy and political considerations than by consistent application of doctrine.”
What this shows is that the Orthodox Church does, and always has, recognise a limited ecclesial reality within schismatic and heretical groups. With this in mind, we should not be afraid of dialogue nor seeking unity with heterodox groups. This is not to deny the truth of Orthodoxy, or her claim to be the one true Church. It is however, to recognise that those outside the Church can be properly called Christian, even if they are lacking the fullness of the truth. When we consider schism to be a spectrum instead of a binary, seeking to heal those schisms should not feeling threatening. These considerations should give us pause next time we attempt to denounce ecumenism as a “pan-heresy”.
ROCOR’s Statement Against Ecumenism
Many of those who wish to oppose ecumenism will point to ROCOR’s 1983 statement as proof the Church has condemned ecumenism as a heresy;
“Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ’s Church is divided into so-called “branches” which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all “branches” or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and Eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!” (Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia)
The issue with this is threefold;
When ROCOR made this statement they were not in communion with most of the canonical Orthodox synods, and were under the influence of, and in and out of communion with several old calendarist sects.1
It was well understood that this ruling only applied to ROCOR and should be submitted to the whole Church for discernment (no other synods has adopted it since).2
The statement was rendered null when ROCOR reunited with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007.3
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be noted that there is both good and bad ways to participate in ecumenism. We want to avoid compromise or pluralism, but we also want to avoid exclusionism and sectarianism based on a faulty ecclesiology. If we are to seek union with other Christians, which I believe we should, this should always be on the basis of the Orthodox faith. Ecumenism then, properly understood, is another form of evangelism. It may be worth ending with a quote by St Sophrony of Essex;
“The argument is not at all that unity with Westerners is to be achieved through “compromises” in our faith itself, but that union, or at least rapprochement, is impossible other than through fearless contact in our spiritual life itself, in life together…. But for this it is necessary to take a step toward fellowship in prayer with them.” (Quoted in The Cross of Loneliness: The Correspondence of Saint Sophrony and Archpriest Georges Florovsky, p. 105)
NB: Everything expressed in this article is merely my opinion, and should not be taken as authoritative in any way. I am not a bishop, nor a saint, nor an academic, nor a spiritual father. If anything I say contradicts the teachings of your bishop, ignore me, and follow him. Additionally, all my articles are living documents, and so may be updated or refined over time, as I learn more, or discover better ways of articulating my points.
“By proclaiming this anathema, we have protected our flock from this apocalyptic temptation and, at the same time, have reluctantly put before the conscience of all the local Churches a serious issue, which sooner or later they must resolve in one way or the other. The future spiritual fate of the universal Orthodox Church depends on the resolution of this problem. The anathema we have proclaimed is de jure a manifestation of a purely local character of the Russian Church Abroad, but de facto it has immense significance for the history of the universal Church, for ecumenism is a heresy on a universal scale.” (Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal and Canada, Orthodox Observer, No. 58 (April 1984))
“Decisions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church extend to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia”. (Act of Canonical Communion of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia with the Russian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate)