by Fotios Apostolos, Rev. Dr. Radu Bordeianu, Paul Ladouceur, Very Rev. Dr. Harry Linsinbigler, and Edward Siecienski
We have joyfully received the text of the Pre-Conciliar document on Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World
and the invitation to comment on it, in the spirit of Orthodox
conciliarity.
We applaud it for its bold statements, which include:
defining the goal of dialogue as the complete restoration of unity in
true faith and love (12), recognizing that not all differences are equal
and the existence of a certain “hierarchy of challenges” (12),
referring to other Christian communities as “Churches” (6, 16, 20), the
censure of those who would break the unity of the Church under the
pretext of defending Orthodoxy (22), and the continued participation of
all Orthodox Churches in the Ecumenical Movement (7) consistent with the
apostolic faith and our tradition (4). We would like to focus here on
the relationship between the Church of Christ, the Orthodox Church, and
the other Churches, as well as its implications for the ecumenical
dialogue.
At times the document runs the risk of being interpreted in an
exclusivist manner, as if the Church of Christ does not exist outside
the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church. Relatedly, some members
of our group have found the document’s reference to “Churches and
confessions” (20) as potentially confusing, inferring that Orthodoxy
endorses the distinction accepted in post-Vatican II Catholic theology
between “Churches” in the proper sense and “ecclesial communities” that
are not truly Churches because they lack one or more elements of the
True Church. We recommend continuing the tradition of the 1920
Patriarchal Encyclical addressed “Unto the Churches of Christ
Everywhere” and thus avoiding the distinction between Churches and
communities or confessions. We uphold that the Orthodox Church has
faithfully maintained the fullness of Revelation and thus manifests the
Church of Christ to a full degree, while other Churches manifest various
degrees of that fullness. In this sense, the Fathers of the Ecumenical
Councils recognized the trinitarian baptism of non-Orthodox faithful and
varying degrees of relationship to the Church of Christ. As St. Basil
explains in his first canonical epistle, “it seemed good to the ancient
authorities to reject the baptism of heretics altogether, but to admit
that of schismatics, on the ground that they still belonged to the
Church” (Letter 188, to Amphilochius). It is for this reason that Fr.
Georges Florovsky distinguished between the canonical and charismatic or
sacramental boundaries of the Church, and that Paul Evdokimov wrote,
“We know where the Church is, but we cannot judge where the Church is
not.”
In discussing Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement we
recognize a tension between our conviction that the Orthodox Church
manifests the fullness and unity of the Church of Christ, and our
recognition of the tragedy of a divided Christendom and the genuine pain
this causes the Orthodox faithful. It is a source of suffering that
Orthodox Christians cannot receive communion with their non-Orthodox
spouses and children, or that Orthodox clergy cannot minister
sacramentally to non-Orthodox and manifest God’s mercy upon all those in
need regardless of their Christian affiliation.
We also know that the Church of Christ does not exist in the
abstract, separate from its concrete manifestations in various contexts.
In times and places where Orthodoxy is absent, other Churches — i.e.,
those outside of perfect communion with the Orthodox Church — have been,
and continue to be, the only manifestation of the Church of Christ,
even if in incomplete form. For this reason, Orthodoxy participates in
dialogue not only to confess its faith and practices, but also to learn
about the ways in which God uses other Churches to manifest the Church
of Christ according to their respective charisms. We therefore recommend
expressing the limits of acceptable diversity when it comes to
theological formulations and pastoral-liturgical practices, in order to
clarify the end purpose of the dialogue in paragraphs 6 and 12.
All suspicions of ecumenical dialogue and rapprochement as compromise
should be discarded, especially in light of the successful dialogues
thus far. Noteworthy among these successes are the recognition that the
Christological differences with the Oriental Orthodox Churches are
terminological rather than theological in nature, that the Filioque need
no longer divide Orthodox and Catholics, and the WCC’s implementation
of the Orthodox suggestion for a consensus-based decision-making process
(17). Moreover, as a result of these dialogues, we happily note other
positive developments — for example, that Orthodox scholars today use
the findings of many Protestant and Catholic theologians who have
carefully researched the Orthodox tradition, that Orthodox missionaries
learn from the successes and failures of Western missionaries; that
Orthodox monks study patristic writings carefully researched in the
West, and that Orthodox priests minister to Catholic and Protestant
spouses and children of our mixed families. Undoubtedly, dialogue has
borne abundant fruit and continues to be a necessity.
We also wish to recommend two practical considerations. First, in
line with paragraph 15 that refers to the successful completion of the
dialogue and its implementation, we propose exploring concrete ways in
which these dialogues can expedite the restoration of communion. The
dialogue with Oriental Orthodox Churches has made significant progress
and is close to that end-point. We suggest an explicit endorsement of
the recently-reconvened Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox dialogue aimed at
clarifying remaining issues between the two families of Orthodox
Churches. We also commend Orthodox representatives for bringing the
dialogue with the Catholic Church to an advanced stage, and we hope to
see some of the practical consequences of this progress. Second, the
document should include a practical dimension of ecumenism, referring to
ways in which Orthodox can participate with other Christians in
manifesting the Kingdom of God together: ministering to the poor, the
displaced, the sick, and strengthening each other in times of
persecution.
We pray that this Council is the beginning of a regular and fruitful
renewal of Orthodox Synodality, as it labors towards the restoration of
unity. We regard the Council as an opportunity to guide the faithful
towards the Kingdom of God in unity with other Christians and to
alleviate the pain of living in a disunited Christendom. We pray that
the Holy Spirit will inspire the works of the Council.
Fotios Apostolos is a scholar of Oriental liturgy and a reacher at the School of Theology at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.Rev. Dr. Radu Bordeianu is Associate Professor of Theology at Duquesne University.
Paul Ladouceur is Adjunct Professor, Orthodox School of Theology at Trinity College (University of Toronto) and Professeur associé, Faculté de théologie et de sciences religieuses, Université Laval (Québec).
Very Rev. Dr. Harry Linsinbigler is Adjunct Instructor of Theology at St. Sophia Ukrainian Orthodox Seminary in South Bound Brook, New Jersey and priest at Holy Protection Orthodox Church in Dover, Florida.
Edward Siecienski is Associate Professor of Religion at Stockton University in New Jersey.
This essay was sponsored by the Orthodox Theological Society in America’s Special Project on the Holy and Great Council and published by the Orthodox Christian Studies Center of Fordham University.
Please join us June 23-25 for our “Tradition, Secularization, Fundamentalism” conference.