'One Holy Catholic Church':
what do we mean?
The Orthodox Church in all humility believes itself to be the
‘one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,’ of which the Creed speaks: such
is the fundamental conviction which guides Orthodox in their relations with
other Christians. There are divisions among Christians, but the Church itself is
not divided nor can it ever be.
Christians of the Reformation traditions will perhaps
protest, ‘This is a hard saying; who can hear it?’ It may seem to them that
this exclusive claim on the Orthodox side precludes any serious ‘ecumenical
dialogue’ with the Orthodox, and any constructive work for reunion. And yet
they would be utterly wrong to draw such a conclusion: for, paradoxically
enough, over the past half century there have been a large number of encouraging
and fruitful contacts between Orthodox and other Christians. Although enormous
obstacles still remain, there has also been great progress towards a
reconciliation.
If Orthodox claim to be the one true Church, what then do
they consider to be the status of those Christians who do not belong to their
communion? Different Orthodox would answer in slightly different ways, for
although all loyal Orthodox are agreed in their fundamental teaching concerning
the Church, they do not entirely agree concerning the practical consequences
which follow from this teaching. There is first a more moderate group, which
includes most of those Orthodox who have had close personal contact with other
Christians. This group holds that, while it is true to say that Orthodoxy is the
Church, it is false to conclude from this that those who are not Orthodox cannot
possibly belong to the Church. Many people may be members of the Church who are
not visibly so; invisible bonds may exist despite an outward separation. The
Spirit of God blows where it will, and, as Irenaeus said, where the Spirit is,
there is the Church. We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it
is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians.
In the eloquent words of Khomiakov: ‘Inasmuch as the earthly and visible
Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord
has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and
knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind,
and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who
exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or
united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves
to the judgment of the great day’ (The Church is One,
section 2 (italics not in the original)).
There is only one Church, but there are many different ways
of being related to this one Church, and many different ways of being separated
from it. Some non-Orthodox are very close indeed to Orthodoxy, others less so;
some are friendly to the Orthodox Church, others indifferent or hostile. By God’s
grace the Orthodox Church possesses the fullness of truth (so its members are
bound to believe), but there are other Christian communions which possess to a
greater or lesser degree a genuine measure of Orthodoxy. All these facts must be
taken into account: one cannot simply say that all non-Orthodox are outside the
Church, and leave it at that; one cannot treat other Christians as if they stood
on the same level as unbelievers.
Such is the view of the more moderate party. But there also
exists in the Orthodox Church a more rigorous group, who hold that since
Orthodoxy is the Church, anyone who is not Orthodox cannot be a member of the
Church. Thus Metropolitan Antony, head of the Russian Church in Exile and one of
the most distinguished of modern Russian theologians, wrote in his Catechism:
Question: Is it possible to admit that a split within
the Church or among the Churches could ever take place?
Answer: Never. Heretics and schismatics have from time
to time fallen away from the one indivisible Church, and, by so doing, they
ceased to be members of the Church, but the Church itself can never lose its
unity according to Christ’s promise’ (Italics not in the
original).
Of course (so this stricter group add) divine grace is
certainly active among many non-Orthodox, and if they are sincere in their love
of God, then we may be sure that God will have mercy upon them; but they cannot,
in their present state, be termed members of the Church. Workers for Christian
unity who do not often encounter this rigorist school should not forget that
such opinions are held by many Orthodox of great learning and holiness.
Because they believe their Church to be the true Church,
Orthodox can have but one ultimate desire: the conversion or reconciliation of
all Christians to Orthodoxy. Yet it must not be thought that Orthodox demand the
submission of other Christians to a particular center of power and jurisdiction (‘Orthodoxy
does not desire the submission of any person or group; it wishes to make each
one understand’ (S. Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, p. 214)). The
Orthodox Church is a family of sister Churches, decentralized in structure,
which means that separated communities can be integrated into Orthodoxy without
forfeiting their autonomy: Orthodoxy desires their reconciliation, not their
absorption (Compare the title of a famous paper written by Dom
Lambert Beauduin and read by Cardinal Mercier at the Malines Conversations, ‘The
Anglican Church united, not absorbed’). In all reunion discussions
Orthodox are guided (or at any rate ought to be guided) by the principle of
unity in diversity. They do not seek to turn western Christians into Byzantines
or ‘Orientals,’ nor do they desire to impose a rigid uniformity on all
alike: for there is room in Orthodoxy for many different cultural patterns, for
many different ways of worship, and even for many different systems of outward
organization.
Yet there is one field in which diversity cannot be
permitted. Orthodoxy insists upon unity in matters of the faith. Before there
can be reunion among Christians, there must first be full agreement in faith:
this is a basic principle for Orthodox in all their ecumenical relations. It is
unity in the faith that matters, not organizational unity; and to secure unity
of organization at the price of a compromise in dogma is like throwing away the
kernel of a nut and keeping the shell. Orthodox are not willing to take part in
a ‘minimal’ reunion scheme, which secures agreement on a few points and
leaves everything else to private opinion. There can be only one basis for union
— the fullness of the faith; for Orthodoxy looks on the faith as a united and
organic whole. Speaking of the Anglo-Russian Theological Conference at Moscow in
1956, the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Michael Ramsey, expressed the
Orthodox viewpoint exactly: ‘The Orthodox said in effect: ‘…The Tradition
is a concrete fact. Here it is, in its totality. Do you Anglicans accept it, or
do you reject it?’ The Tradition is for the Orthodox one indivisible whole:
the entire life of the Church in its fullness of belief and custom down the
ages, including Mariology and the veneration of icons. Faced with this
challenge, the typically Anglican reply is: ‘We would not regard veneration of
icons or Mariology as inadmissible, provided that in determining what is
necessary to salvation, we confine ourselves to Holy Scripture.’ But this
reply only throws into relief the contrast between the Anglican appeal to what
is deemed necessary to salvation and the Orthodox appeal to the one indivisible
organism of Tradition, to tamper with any part of which is to spoil the whole,
in the sort of way that a single splodge on a picture can mar its beauty (‘The
Moscow Conference in Retrospect,’ in Sobornost, series 3, no. 23, 1958,
pp. 562-563).
In the words of another Anglican writer: ‘It has been said
that the Faith is like a network rather than an assemblage of discrete dogmas;
cut one strand and the whole pattern loses its meaning’ (T. M.
Parker, ‘Devotion to the Mother of God,’ in The Mother of God, edited
by E. L. Mascall, p. 74). Orthodox, then, ask of other Christians that
they accept Tradition as a whole; but it must be remembered that there is
a difference between Tradition and traditions. Many beliefs held by Orthodox are
not a part of the one Tradition, but are simply theologoumena,
theological opinions; and there can be no question of imposing mere matters of
opinion on other Christians. Men can possess full unity in the faith, and yet
hold divergent theological opinions in certain fields.
This basic principle — no reunion without unity in the
faith — has an important corollary: until unity in the faith has been
achieved, there can be no communion in the sacraments. Communion at the Lord’s
Table (most Orthodox believe) cannot be used to secure unity in the faith, but
must come as the consequence and crown of a unity already attained. Orthodoxy
rejects the whole concept of ‘intercommunion’ between separated
Christian bodies, and admits no form of sacramental fellowship short of full
communion. Either Churches are in communion with one another, or they are not:
there can be no half-way house (Such is the standard Orthodox
position. But there are individual Orthodox theologians who believe that some
degree of intercommunion is possible, even before the attainment of full
dogmatic agreement. One slight qualification must be added. Occasionally
non-Orthodox Christians, if entirely cut off from the ministrations of their own
Church, are allowed with special permission to receive communion from an
Orthodox priest. But the reverse does not hold true, for Orthodox are forbidden
to receive communion from any but a priest of their own Church). It is
sometimes said that the Anglican or the Old Catholic Church is ‘in communion’
with the Orthodox, but this is not in fact the case. The two are not in
communion, nor can they be, until Anglicans and Orthodox are agreed in matters
of faith.
Orthodox relations with other communions: opportunities and problems
The ‘Separated’ Eastern Churches. When they think of
reunion, the Orthodox look not only to the west, but to their neighbours in the
east, the Nestorians and Monophysites. In many ways Orthodoxy stands closer to
the ‘Separated’ Eastern Churches than to any western confession.
The Nestorians are today very few in number — perhaps
50,000 — and almost entirely lacking in theologians, so that it is difficult
to enter into official negotiations with them. But a partial union between
Orthodox and Nestorian Christians has already occurred. In 1898 an Assyrian
Nestorian, Mar Ivanios, bishop of Urumia in Persia, together with his flock, was
received into communion by the Russian Church. The initiative came primarily
from the Nestorian side, and there was no pressure — political or otherwise
— on the part of the Russians. In 1905 this ex-Nestorian diocese was said to
number 80 parishes and some 70,000 faithful; but between 1915 and 1918 the
Assyrian Orthodox were slaughtered by the Turks in a series of unprovoked
massacres, from which a few thousand alone escaped. Even though its life was so
tragically cut short, the reconciliation of this ancient Christian community
forms an encouraging precedent: why should not the Orthodox Church today come to
a similar understanding with the rest of the Nestorian communion? (When
visiting a Russian convent near New York in 1960, I had the pleasure of meeting
an Assyrian Orthodox bishop, originally from the Urumia diocese, likewise called
Mar Ivanios (successor to the original Mar Ivanios). A married priest, he had
become a bishop after the death of his wife. When I asked the nuns how old he
was, I was told: ‘He says he’s 102, but his children say he must be much
older than that’).
The Monophysites, from the practical point of view, stand in
a very different position from the Nestorians, for they are still comparatively
numerous — more than ten million — and possess theologians capable of
presenting and interpreting their traditional doctrinal position. A number of
western and Orthodox scholars now believe that the Monophysite teaching about
the person of Christ has in the past been seriously misunderstood, and that the
difference between those who accept and those who reject the decrees of
Chalcedon is largely if not entirely verbal. When visiting the Coptic
Monophysite Church of Egypt in 1959, the Patriarch of Constantinople spoke with
great optimism: ‘In truth we are all one, we are all Orthodox Christians ...
We have the same sacraments, the same history, the same traditions. The
divergence is on the level of phraseology’ (Speech before the
Institute of Higher Coptic Studies, Cairo, 10 December 1959). Of all the
‘ecumenical’ contacts of Orthodoxy, the friendship with the Monophysites
seems the most hopeful and the most likely to lead to concrete results in the
near future. The question of reunion with the Monophysites was much in the air
at the Pan-Orthodox Conferences of Rhodes, and it will certainly figure
prominently on the agenda of future Pan-Orthodox Councils. During August 1964 an
extremely friendly ‘Unofficial Consultation’ took place at Aarhus in Denmark
between Orthodox and Monophysite theologians. ‘All of us have learned from
each other,’ the delegates from the two sides declared in the ‘agreed
statement’ issued at the end of the meeting. ‘Our inherited
misunderstandings have begun to clear up. We recognize in each other the one
orthodox faith of the Church. Fifteen centuries of alienation have not led us
astray from the faith of our Fathers.’ Further consultations met at Bristol
(1967), Geneva (1970), and Addis Ababa (1971).
The Roman Catholic Church. Among western Christians,
it is the Anglicans with whom Orthodoxy has at present the most cordial
relations, but it is the Roman Catholics with whom Orthodoxy has by far the most
in common. Certainly between Orthodoxy and Rome there are many difficulties. The
usual psychological barriers exist. Among Orthodox — and doubtless among Roman
Catholics as well — there are a multitude of inherited prejudices which cannot
quickly be overcome; and Orthodox do not find it easy to forget the unhappy
experiences of the past — such things as the Crusades, the ‘Union’ of
Brest-Litovsk, the schism at Antioch in the eighteenth century, or the
persecution of the Orthodox Church in Poland by a Roman Catholic government
between the two World Wars. Roman Catholics do not usually realize how deep a
sense of misgiving and apprehension many devout Orthodox — educated as well as
simple — still feel when they think of the Church of Rome. More serious than
these psychological barriers are the differences in doctrine between the two
sides — above all the filioque and the Papal claims. Once again many
Roman Catholics fail to appreciate how serious the theological difficulties are,
and how great an importance Orthodox attach to these two issues. Yet when all
has been said about dogmatic divergences, about differences in spirituality and
in general approach, it still remains true that there are many things which the
two sides share: in their experience of the sacraments, for example, and in
their devotion to the Mother of God and the saints — to mention but two
instances out of many — Orthodox and Roman Catholics are for the most part
very close indeed.
Since the two sides have so much in common, is there perhaps
some hope of a reconciliation? At first sight one is tempted to despair,
particularly when one considers the question of the Papal claims. Orthodox find
themselves unable to accept the definitions of the Vatican Council of 1870
concerning the supreme ordinary jurisdiction and the infallibility of the Pope;
but the Roman Catholic Church reckons the Vatican Council as ecumenical and so
is bound to regard its definitions as irrevocable. Yet matters are not
completely at an impasse. How far, we may ask, have Orthodox controversialists
understood the Vatican decrees aright? Perhaps the meaning attached to the
definitions by most western theologians in the past ninety years is not in fact
the only possible interpretation. Furthermore it is now widely admitted by Roman
Catholics that the Vatican decrees are incomplete and one-sided: they speak only
of the Pope and his prerogatives, but say nothing about the bishops. But now
that the second Vatican Council has issued a dogmatic statement on the powers of
the episcopate, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Papal claims has begun to
appear to the Orthodox world in a somewhat different light.
And if Rome in the past has perhaps said too little about the
position of bishops in the Church, Orthodox in their turn need to take the idea
of Primacy more seriously. Orthodox agree that the Pope is first among bishops:
have they asked themselves carefully and searchingly what this really means? If
the primatial see of Rome were restored once more to the Orthodox communion,
what precisely would its status be? Orthodox are not willing to ascribe to the
Pope a universal supremacy of ‘ordinary’ jurisdiction; but may it not be
possible for them to ascribe to him, as President and Primate in the college of
bishops, a universal responsibility, an all-embracing pastoral care extending
over the whole Church? Recently the Orthodox Youth Movement in the Patriarchate
of Antioch suggested two formulae. ‘The Pope, among the bishops, is the elder
brother, the father being absent.’ ‘The Pope is the mouth of the Church and
of the episcopate.’ Obviously these formulae fall far short of the Vatican
statements on Papal jurisdiction and infallibility, but they can serve at any
rate as a basis for constructive discussion. Hitherto Orthodox theologians, in
the heat of controversy, have too often been content simply to attack the Roman
doctrine of the Papacy (as they understand it), without attempting to go deeper
and to state in positive language what the true nature of Papal primacy
is from the Orthodox viewpoint. If Orthodox were to think and speak more in
constructive and less in negative and polemical terms, then the divergence
between the two sides might no longer appear so absolute.
After long postponement the Orthodox and Roman Catholic
Churches set up a mixed international commission for theological discussions in
1980. Much is also being done informally through personal contacts. Invaluable
work has been done by the Roman Catholic ‘Monastery of Union’ at Chevetogne
in Belgium, originally founded at Amay-sur-Meuse in 1926. This is a ‘double
rite’ monastery in which the monks worship according to both the Roman and the
Byzantine rites. The Chevetogne periodical, Irénikon, contains an
accurate and most sympathetic chronicle of current affairs in the Orthodox
Church, as well as numerous scholarly articles, often contributed by Orthodox.
Certainly one must be sober and realistic: reunion between
Orthodoxy and Rome, if it ever comes to pass, will prove a task of extraordinary
difficulty. But signs of a rapprochement are increasing year by year. Pope Paul
the Sixth and Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople met three times
(Jerusalem, 1964; Constantinople and Rome, 1967); on 7 December 1965 the
anathemas of 1054 were simultaneously withdrawn by the Vatican Council in Rome
and the Holy Synod in Constantinople; in 1979 Pope John Paul the Second visited
Patriarch Dimitrios. Through such symbolic gestures mutual trust is being
created.
The Old Catholics. It was only natural that the Old
Catholics who separated from Rome after the Vatican Council of 1870 should have
entered into negotiations with the Orthodox. The Old Catholics desired to
recover the true faith of the ancient ‘undivided Church’ using as their
basis the Fathers and the seven Ecumenical Councils: the Orthodox claimed that
this faith was not merely a thing of the past, to be reconstructed by
antiquarian research, but a present reality, which by God’s grace they
themselves had never ceased to possess. The two sides have met in a number of
conferences, in particular at Bonn in 1874 and 1875, at Rotterdam in 1894, at
Bonn again in 1931, and at Rheinfelden in 1957. A large measure of doctrinal
agreement was reached at these gatherings, but they have not led to any
practical results; although relations between Old Catholics and Orthodox
continue to be very friendly, no union has been effected. In 1975 a full-scale
theological dialogue was resumed between the two Churches, and an important
series of doctrinal statements has been issued, showing once more how much the
two sides share in common.
The Anglican Communion. As in the past, so today there
are many Anglicans who regard the Reformation Settlement in sixteenth-century
England as no more than an interim arrangement, and who appeal, like the Old
Catholics, to the General Councils, the Fathers, and the Tradition of the ‘undivided
Church.’ One thinks of Bishop Pearson in the seventeenth century, with his
plea: ‘Search how it was in the beginning; go to the fountain head; look to
antiquity.’ Or of Bishop Ken, the Non-Juror, who said: ‘I die in the faith
of the Catholic Church, before the disunion of east and west.’ This appeal to
antiquity has led many Anglicans to look with sympathy and interest at the
Orthodox Church, and equally it has led many Orthodox to look with interest and
sympathy at Anglicanism. As a result of pioneer work by Anglicans such as
William Palmer (1811-1879) (Received into the Roman Catholic
church in 1855). J. M. Neale (1818-1866), and W. J. Birkbeck (1859-1916),
Anglo-Orthodox relations during the past hundred years have developed and
flourished in a most animated way.
There have been several official conferences between Anglican
and Orthodox theologians. In 1930 an Orthodox delegation representing ten
autocephalous Churches (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Greece,
Cyprus, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland) was sent to England at the time of
the Lambeth Conference, and held discussions with a committee of Anglicans; and
in the following year a Joint Anglican-Orthodox Commission met in London, with
representatives from the same Churches as in 1930 (except the Bulgarian).
Both in 1930 and in 1931 an honest attempt was made to face
points of doctrinal disagreement. Questions raised included the relation of
Scripture and Tradition, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the doctrine of the
sacraments, and the Anglican idea of authority in the Church. A similar joint
Conference was held in 1935 at Bucharest, with Anglican and Romanian delegates.
This gathering concluded its deliberations by stating: ‘A solid basis has been
prepared whereby full dogmatic agreement may be affirmed between the Orthodox
and the Anglican communions.’
In retrospect these words appear over-optimistic. During the
thirties the two sides seemed to be making great progress towards full doctrinal
agreement, and many — particularly on the Anglican side — began to think
that the time would soon come when the Anglican and Orthodox Churches could
enter into communion. Since 1945, however, it has become apparent that such
hopes were premature: full dogmatic agreement and communion in the sacraments
are still a long way off. The one major theological conference between Anglicans
and Orthodox held since the war, at Moscow in 1956, was much more cautious than
its predecessors in the thirties. At first sight its findings seem comparatively
meager and disappointing, but actually they constitute an important advance, for
they are marked by far greater realism. In the conferences between the wars
there was a tendency to select specific points of disagreement and to consider
them in isolation. In 1956 a genuine effort was made to carry the whole question
to a deeper level: not just particular issues but the whole faith of the two
Churches was discussed, so that specific points could be seen in context against
a wider background.
An official theological dialogue, involving all the Orthodox
Churches and the whole Anglican communion, was started in 1973. A crisis in the
talks occurred in 1977-1978, because of the ordination of women priests in
several Anglican Churches. The conversations continue, but progress is slow.
In the past forty years a number of Orthodox Churches have
produced statements concerning the validity of Anglican Orders. At a first
glance these statements seem to contradict one another in a curious and
extraordinary way:
1) Six Churches have made declarations which seem to
recognize Anglican ordinations as valid: Constantinople (1922), Jerusalem and
Sinai (1923), Cyprus (1923), Alexandria (1930), Romania (1936).
2) The Russian Church in Exile, at the Karlovtzy Synod of
1935, declared that Anglican clergy who become Orthodox must be reordained. In
1948, at a large conference held in Moscow, the Moscow Patriarchate promulgated
a decree to the same effect, which was also signed by official delegates
(present at the conference) from the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Serbia,
Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia, and Albania.
To interpret these statements aright, it would be necessary
to discuss in detail the Orthodox view of the validity of sacraments, which is
not the same as that usually held by western theologians, and also the Orthodox
concept of ‘ecclesiastical economy;’ and these matters are so intricate and
obscure that they cannot here be pursued at length. But certain points must be
made. First, the Churches which declared in favour of Anglican Orders have not
apparently carried this decision into effect. In recent years, when Anglican
clergy have approached the Patriarchate of Constantinople with a view to
entering the Orthodox Church, it has been made clear to them that they would be
received as laymen, not as priests. Secondly, the favourable statements put out
by group (1) are in most cases carefully qualified and must be regarded as
provisional in character. The Ecumenical Patriarch, for example, when
communicating the 1922 decision to the Archbishop of Canterbury, said in his
covering note: ‘It is plain that there is as yet no matter here of a decree by
the whole Orthodox Church. For it is necessary that the rest of the Orthodox
Churches should be found to be of the same opinion as the most holy Church of
Constantinople.’ In the third place, Orthodoxy is extremely reluctant to pass
judgment upon the status of sacraments performed by non-Orthodox. Most Anglicans
understood the statements made by group (1) to constitute a ‘recognition’ of
Anglican Orders at the present moment. But in reality the Orthodox were
not trying to answer the question ‘Are Anglican Orders valid in themselves,
here and now?’ They had in mind the rather different question ‘Supposing the
Anglican communion were to reach full agreement in faith with the Orthodox,
would it then be necessary to reordain Anglican clergy?’
This helps to explain why Constantinople in 1922 could
declare favorably upon Anglican Orders, and yet in practice treat them as
invalid: this favorable declaration could not come properly into effect so long
as the Anglican Church was not fully Orthodox in the faith. When matters are
seen in this light, the Moscow decree of 1948 no longer appears entirely
inconsistent with the declarations of the pre-war period. Moscow based its
decision on the present discrepancy between Anglican and Orthodox belief: ‘The
Orthodox Church cannot agree to recognize the rightness of Anglican teaching on
the sacraments in general, and on the sacrament of Holy Order in particular; and
so it cannot recognize Anglican ordinations as valid.’ (Note that Orthodox
theology declines to treat the question of valid orders in isolation, but
considers at the same time the faith of the Church concerned). But, so the
Moscow decree continues, if in the future the Anglican Church were to become
fully Orthodox in faith, then it might be possible to reconsider the question.
While returning a negative answer at the present moment, Moscow extended a hope
for the future.
Such is the situation so far as official pronouncements are
concerned. Anglican clergy who join the Orthodox Church are reordained; but if
Anglicanism and Orthodoxy were to reach full unity in the faith, perhaps such
reordination might not be found necessary. It should be added, however,
that a number of individual Orthodox theologians hold that under no
circumstances would it be possible to recognize the validity of Anglican Orders.
Besides official negotiations between Anglican and Orthodox
leaders, there have been many constructive encounters on the more personal and
informal level. Two societies in England are specially devoted to the cause of
Anglo-Orthodox reunion: the Anglican and Eastern Churches Association
(whose parent organization, the Eastern Church Association, was started
in 1863, mainly on the initiative of Neale) and the Fellowship of Saint Alban
and Saint Sergius (founded in 1928), which arranges an annual conference and
has a permanent center in London, Saint Basil’s House (52 Ladbroke Grove,
W11). The Fellowship issues a valuable periodical entitled Sobornost,
which appears twice a year; in the past the Anglican and Eastern Churches
Association also published a magazine, The Christian East, now replaced
by a Newsletter.
What is the chief obstacle to reunion between Anglicans and
Orthodox? From the Orthodox point of view there is one great difficulty: the
comprehensiveness of Anglicanism, the extreme ambiguity of Anglican doctrinal
formularies, the wide variety of interpretations which these formularies permit.
There are individual Anglicans who stand very close to Orthodoxy, as can be seen
by anyone who reads two remarkable pamphlets: Orthodoxy and the Conversion of
England, by Derwas Chitty; and Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, by H. A. Hodges.
‘The ecumenical problem,’ Professor Hodges concludes, is to be seen ‘as
the problem of bringing back the West ... to a sound mind and a healthy life,
and that means to Orthodoxy ... The Orthodox Faith, that Faith to which the
Orthodox Fathers bear witness and of which the Orthodox Church is the abiding
custodian, is the Christian Faith in its true and essential form’ (Anglicanism
and Orthodoxy, PP- 46-7). Yet there are many other Anglicans who
dissent sharply from this judgment, and who regard Orthodoxy as corrupt in
doctrine and heretical. The Orthodox Church, however deep its longing for
reunion, cannot enter into closer relations with the Anglican communion until
Anglicans themselves are clearer about their own beliefs. The words of General
Kireev are as true today as they were fifty years ago: ‘We Orientals sincerely
desire to come to an understanding with the great Anglican Church; but this
happy result cannot be attained ... unless the Anglican Church itself becomes
homogeneous and the doctrines of its different constitutive parts become
identical’ (Le Général Alexandre Kiréeff et l’ancien-catholicisme,
edited by Olga Novikoff, Berne, 1911, p. 224).
Other Protestants. Orthodox have many contacts with
Protestants on the Continent, above all in Germany and (to a lesser degree) in
Sweden. The Tubingen discussions of the sixteenth century have been reopened in
the twentieth, with more positive results.
The World Council of Churches. In the Orthodox Church
today there exist two different attitudes towards the World Council of Churches
and the ‘Ecumenical Movement.’ One party holds that Orthodox should take no
part in the World Council (or at the most send observers to the meetings, but
not full delegates); full participation in the Ecumenical Movement compromises
the claim of the Orthodox Church to be the one true Church of Christ, and
suggests that all ‘churches’ are alike. Typical of this viewpoint is the
statement made in 1938 by the Synod of the Russian Church in Exile:
Orthodox Christians must regard the Holy Orthodox
Catholic Church as the true Church of Christ, one and unique. For this
reason, the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile has forbidden its children to
take part in the Ecumenical Movement, which rests on the principle of the
equality of all religions and Christian confessions.
But — so the second party would object — this is
completely to misunderstand the nature of the World Council of Churches.
Orthodox, by participating, do not thereby imply that they regard all Christian
confessions as equal, nor do they compromise the Orthodox claim to be the true
Church. As the Toronto Declaration of 1950 (adopted by the Central
Committee of the World Council) carefully pointed out: ‘Membership in the
World Council does not imply the acceptance of a specific doctrine concerning
the nature of Church unity ... Membership does not imply that each Church must
regard the other member Churches as Churches in the true and full sense of the
word.’ In view of this explicit statement (so the second party argues),
Orthodox can take part in the Ecumenical Movement without endangering their
Orthodoxy. And if Orthodox can take part, then they must do so: for since they
believe the Orthodox faith to be true, it is their duty to bear witness to that
faith as widely as possible.
The existence of these two conflicting viewpoints accounts
for the somewhat confused and inconsistent policy which the Orthodox Church has
followed in the past. Some Churches have regularly sent delegations to the major
conferences of the Ecumenical Movement, others have done so spasmodically or
scarcely at all. Here is a brief analysis of Orthodox representation during
1927-68:
Lausanne, 1927 (Faith and Order): Constantinople,
Alexandria, Jerusalem, Greece, Cyprus, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland.
Edinburgh, 1937 (Faith and Order): Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Poland, Albania.
Amsterdam, 1948 (World Council of Churches):
Constantinople, Greece, Romanian Church in America.
Lund, 1952 (Faith and Order): Constantinople,
Antioch, Cyprus, North American Jurisdiction of Russians.
Evanston, 1954 (World Council of Churches):
Constantinople, Antioch, Greece, Cyprus, North American Jurisdiction of
Russians, Romanian Church in America.
New Delhi, 1961 (World Council of Churches):
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Greece, Cyprus, Russia,
Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, North American Jurisdiction of Russians,
Romanian Church in America
Uppsala, 1968 (World Council of Churches):
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Russia, Bulgaria,
Romania, Serbia, Georgia, Poland, North American Jurisdiction of Russians,
Romanian Church in America.
As can be seen from this summary, the Patriarchate of
Constantinople has always been represented at the conferences. From the start it
has firmly supported a policy of full participation in the Ecumenical Movement.
In January 1920 the Patriarchate issued a famous letter addressed ‘To all the
Churches of Christ, wheresoever they be,’ urging closer cooperation between
separated Christian bodies, and suggesting an alliance of Churches, parallel to
the newly founded League of Nations; many of the ideas in this letter anticipate
later developments in the Ecumenical Movement. But while Constantinople has
adhered unwaveringly to the principles of 1920, other Churches have been more
reserved. The Church of Greece, for example, at one point declared that it would
only send laymen as delegates to the World Council, though this decision was
revoked in 1961. Some Orthodox Churches have gone even further than this: at the
Moscow Conference in 1948, a resolution was passed condemning all participation
in the World Council. This resolution stated bluntly: ‘The aims of the
Ecumenical Movement ... in its present state correspond neither to the ideals of
Christianity nor to the task of the Church of Christ, as understood by the
Orthodox Church.’ This explains why at Amsterdam, Lund, and Evanston the
Orthodox Churches behind the Iron Curtain were not represented at all. In 1961,
however, the Moscow Patriarchate applied for membership of the World Council and
was accepted; and this has opened the way for other Orthodox Churches in the
communist world to become members as well. Henceforward, so far as one can
judge, Orthodox will play a far fuller and more effective part in the Ecumenical
Movement than they have done hitherto. But it must not be forgotten that there
are still many Orthodox — including a number of eminent bishops and
theologians — who are anxious to see their Church withdraw from the Movement.
Orthodox participation is a factor of cardinal importance for
the Ecumenical Movement: it is mainly the presence of Orthodox which prevents
the World Council of Churches from appearing to be simply a Pan-Protestant
alliance and nothing more. But the Ecumenical Movement in turn is important for
Orthodoxy: it has helped to force the various Orthodox Churches out of their
comparative isolation, making them meet one another and enter into a living
contact with non-Orthodox Christians.
Learning from one another
Khomiakov, seeking to describe the Orthodox attitude to other
Christians, in one of his letters makes use of a parable. A master departed,
leaving his teaching to his three disciples. The eldest faithfully repeated what
his master had taught him, changing nothing. Of the two younger, one added to
the teaching, the other took away from it. At his return the master, without
being angry with anyone, said to the younger: ‘Thank your elder brother;
without him you would not have preserved the truth which I handed over to you.’
Then he said to the elder: ‘Thank your younger brothers; without them you
would not have understood the truth which I entrusted to you.’
Orthodox in all humility see themselves as in the position of
the elder brother. They believe that by God’s grace they have been enabled to
preserve the true faith unimpaired, ‘neither adding any thing, nor taking any
thing away.’ They claim a living continuity with the ancient Church, with the
Tradition of the Apostles and the Fathers, and they believe that in a divided
and bewildered Christendom it is their duty to bear witness to this primitive
and unchanging Tradition. Today in the west there are many, both on the Catholic
and on the Protestant side, who are trying to shake themselves free of the ‘crystallizations
and fossilizations of the sixteenth century,’ and who desire to ‘get behind
the Reformation and the Middle Ages.’ It is precisely here that the Orthodox
can help. Orthodoxy stands outside the circle of ideas in which western
Christians have moved for the past eight centuries; it has undergone no
Scholastic revolution, no Reformation and Counter-Reformation, but lives still
in that older Tradition of the Fathers which so many in the west now desire to
recover. This, then, is the ecumenical role of Orthodoxy: to question the
accepted formulae of the Latin west, of the Middle Ages and the Reformation.
And yet, if Orthodox are to fulfil this role properly, they
must understand their own Tradition better than they have done in the past; and
it is the west in its turn which can help them to do this. Orthodox must thank
their younger brothers, for through contact with Christians of the west —
Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist, Quaker — they are being enabled
to acquire a new vision of Orthodoxy.
The two sides are only just beginning to discover one
another, and each has much that it can learn. Just as in the past the separation
of east and west has proved a great tragedy for both parties and a cause of
grievous mutual impoverishment, so today the renewal of contact between east and
west is already proving for both a source of mutual enrichment. The west, with
its critical standards, with its Biblical and Patristic scholarship, can enable
Orthodox to understand the historical background of Scripture in new ways and to
read the Fathers with increased accuracy and discrimination. The Orthodox in
turn can bring western Christians to a renewed awareness of the inner meaning of
Tradition, assisting them to look on the Fathers as a living reality. (The
Romanian edition of the Philokalia shows how profitably western critical
standards and traditional Orthodox spirituality can be combined). As Orthodox
strive to recover frequent communion, the example of western Christians acts as
an encouragement to them; many western Christians in turn have found their own
prayer and worship incomparably deepened by an acquaintance with such things as
the art of the Orthodox icon, the Jesus Prayer, and the Byzantine Liturgy. When
the Orthodox Church behind the Iron Curtain is able to function more freely,
perhaps western experience and experiments will help it as it tackles the
problems of Christian witness within a secularized and industrial society.
Meanwhile the persecuted Orthodox Church serves as a reminder to the west of the
importance of martyrdom, and constitutes a living testimony to the value of
suffering in the Christian life.
