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
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 protopresbyterGeorge 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 Statementseeks 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 theone
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,isonly 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 «elementsof 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 recognizingelements of truth in the other «churches», it is therein mutually
accepted, that in the Orthodox Church does not abode the whole truth, but the
fullnessof 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 Statementsays:«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 Churchesan 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 ofan 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, acknowledgingelements 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 ourmixture with the miscellaneoushereticalmotley,
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 decisionwith 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» -itselfincomprehensive
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 Councilof 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 sounacceptable 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 Orthodoxbackground 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 Protestantswho
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 wretchedamong
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
[7]Ibid, paragraph 3
[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
[11] Ibid., paragraph 6
[12] Eph. 1, 17-23
[13]https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/central-committee/1950/toronto-statement
[14]ΑRCHIM.
J. POPOVICH, «Orthodoxy and
Ecumenism. An Orthodox Opinion and Witness», magazine Theodromia143
(July - September 2012) 425-432.
[15]HOLYCOMMUNITYOFMOUNTATHOS, «Memorandum on the
participation of the Orthodox Church in the World Council of Churches», magazine
Theodromia 102 (April -June 2008) 207-272.
[16]MemorandumoffiveMetropolitansagainst the Busan
decisions of the World Council of Churches, www.impantokratoros.gr/D416764F.el.aspx,Memorandum of His EminenceMetropolitan of Piraeus
Seraphimagainst the Busan decisions of the World Council of Churches, www.impantokratoros.gr/Α8092Ε5.el.aspx
[18]Α´ Κor. 12, 27, Eph. 1, 23 andEph. chap. 4 and 5.
[19]SeePatriarch 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 ashamedeternally. «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. THEODOROSZISIS, Saint and Great Synod.
Should we hope or worry? Ed. The Palimpsest, Thessaloniki 2016, pp.
154-173.
Δείτε και:
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου