THE UNITY OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH – part 1
http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/1467.html
Vladimir Moss
There can be no doubt that the main problem facing the True Orthodox Church today is the establishment of unity in prayer between its various jurisdictions. In view of the urgency of the problem it is surprising that it is so little discussed in print. One reason for this is probably the sheer intractability of the problem; another – the opinion that the solution is actually is very simple: everybody must submit to such-and-such a jurisdiction.
However, where angels fear to tread Fr. Gregory Lourié has boldly stepped forward in a four-part report for portal-credo.ru (October 12, 2006) . Of course, it is ironical that this sower of heresy and schism should now be discussing ways of achieving unity in the truth. But this should not prevent us from examining his arguments, which, even if flawed, can perhaps help us to come to a clearer assessment of the way forward.
Lourié does not look at the whole Church, nor even the whole of its Russian part, but only those jurisdictions - some only in the process of being formed - which derive their origin from the Russian Church Abroad: ROAC (under Metropolitan Valentine), RTOC (under Metropolitan Tikhon), ROCOR (V) (Bishops Vladimir, Bartholomew, Anthony and Anastasy), ROCOR (V-A) (Bishops Victor and Anthony) and ROCOR (A) (Bishop Agathangelus).
I. Dogmatic Differences. First he looks at dogmatic differences, and concludes, somewhat optimistically, that while there is a dogmatic abyss separating True Orthodoxy from “World Orthodoxy”, there are no serious dogmatic differences among the True Orthodox jurisdictions.
(a) Cyprianism. With regard to Cyprianism, Lourié notes that while ROCOR in 1994 officially accepted the Cyprianite ecclesiology, and while there is still some sympathy for it in RTOC and ROCOR (A), “in the True Orthodox Churches of the Russian tradition Cyprianism has not found firm and consistent supporters”.
So that’s alright then… Or is it? Certainly, the general rejection of Cyprianism in this group of Churches is to be welcomed. But it is worth noting that the assumption that Cyprianism is a heresy in the full sense of the word creates problems for Lourié’s approach to unity. For if ROCOR officially accepted a heresy that is called Cyprianism in 1994, then according to the strict, anti-Cyprianite ecclesiology, all those Churches that consider ROCOR to have remained Orthodox after 1994 and to have derived their own existence from the post-1994 ROCOR trunk – that is, all of the Churches under consideration except ROAC - fell away into heresy with ROCOR at that time!
In fact, the further consequence follows that if one considers a Church which officially accepts the heresy of Cyprianism to be still Orthodox, one is oneself – a Cyprianite! For then one is forced to accept that there can be heretics who are still members of the True Church. They may be “sick” in the faith through their acceptance of heresy, but they are still in communion with the “healthy” members, and therefore still in the Church – which is precisely the doctrine of Cyprianism!
As far as I know no bishop – with the single exception of the maverick “Archbishop” Gregory of Colorado, USA – believes that ROCOR fell away from the Church in 1994 as a result of its acceptance of Cyprianism. It follows either that Cyprianism is not a heresy in the strict sense of the word but only a “leftist deviation”, or that the label of “Cyprianism” has been used unscrupulously as a stick with which to beat others by those whose own ecclesiology is only a little to the right of Metropolitan Cyprian’s. In either case, the issue needs to be studied more closely and honestly than Lourié has done here…
(b) The Gracelessness of World Orthodoxy. The second dogmatic difference considered by Lourié is closely related to the first: the recognition of the gracelessness of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Churches of World Orthodoxy.
Lourié first congratulates the Russian True Orthodox that, unlike the Greek True Orthodox, they have not adopted the so-called “switch off” theory, “that is, as if by certain actions of Church authorities the grace of sacraments could be ‘switched off’ suddenly. Glory to God, in the Russian Church environment there dominates the understanding that the loss of grace in heretical and schismatic communities is a process, and not a moment. If we don’t have to discuss this, it will be simple enough to understand each other in all the rest.”
Such a sharp contrast between the Greeks and the Russians on this question is, I think, highly debatable. Moreover, the difference between the “process” and “switch-off” theories, as we shall see, is not as simple as that. However, let us continue with his argument.
“If we do not dispute that ecumenism is a heresy, nor that all the church organizations of World Orthodoxy that confess ecumenism are heretical communities, then we are all agreed that this leads to the loss by these communities of the grace of church sacraments. There can be disagreements only about whether to consider the process of this loss to be already completed by such-and-such a period of time. At the same time, none of us will dispute that it is impossible for the Church to produce a formula to calculate the ‘half-life’ of grace. The gracelessness of this or that community that has fallen away from the Church is established only by ‘the expert path’ – through the consensus of the Fathers, that is, the agreed opinion of the saints. I think that none of these principles can elicit objections on the part of any of the True Orthodox Churches of the Russian tradition.
“If that is so, then the difference in views regarding the presence of the grace of sacraments in the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and in World Orthodoxy as a whole lies in the domain of economy, and not dogmatics (where there can be no economy of any kind). In other words, if anybody admits the presence of the grace of sacraments in the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, and this opinion is unjust, it does not follow that this person is a heretic with whom there must not be any ecclesiastical communion…”
On this basis Lourié suggests: “It is sufficient only to anathematize ecumenism and define all the ecclesiastical organizations of World Orthodoxy as heretical communities, ecclesiastical communion with whom is not possible in any circumstances. As regards the question of the grace or lack of grace of the sacraments of the ecumenists, this can be left to time to decide. In a peaceful atmosphere undisturbed by unneeded polemics, the overwhelming majority of the believers will themselves come to the correct conclusion.”
But what about the anathema against ecumenism of 1983? Is that not valid? Why introduce a new anathema when the old one – passed under a leader, Metropolitan Philaret, of undisputed authority – stands? And if the old anathema stands, does it not anathematize those very people who consider that there is the grace of sacraments among the heretics, since they “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”? So would not the new anathema proposed by Lourié have the effect of contradicting the old anathema, or at any rate of weakening it?
Lourié anticipates this objection in part when he writes: “The anathema against the heresy of ecumenism produced by the ROCOR Council in 1983 turned out to be powerless to guard against this Church from falling into ecumenism because at that time, in 1983, the Council described the sickness, but did not indicate who were the sick – which left an open door to unscrupulous re-interpretations that began immediately after the death of the holy First-Hierarch Metropolitan Philaret (1985).”
Fair enough: but what is Lourié’s conclusion: that the anathema of 1983 did in fact fall upon the heretics of World Orthodoxy, or not? If it did, then the need for a new – and weaker – anathema falls away: in fact it becomes harmful as casting a shadow on the validity and sufficiency of the 1983 anathema. If, on the other hand, it did not, then is not Lourié a “crypto-Cyprianite” in that, like the Cyprianites, those “crypto-ecumenists”, as Lourié calls them, he considers the heretics to be “as yet uncondemned”? The fact that no specific heretics were named does not entail that no specific heretics were anathematized, both because there have been many “anonymous” anathemas in Church history, and because, as “I.M.” writes: “There is no heresy without heretics and their practical activity. The WCC in its declarations says: The Church confesses, the Church teaches, the Church does this, the Church does that. In this way the WCC witnesses that it does not recognize itself to be simply a council of churches, but the one church. And all who are members of the WCC are members of this one false church, this synagogue of Satan. And by this participation in the WCC all the local Orthodox churches fall under the ROCOR anathema of 1983 and fall away from the True Church. In their number is the Moscow Patriarchate…”
The above, “strong” statement, relying on the conciliar definition of ROCOR’s 1983 anathema, and on the consensus of the great majority of the hierarch-confessors of the Catacomb Church, is a sounder basis on which dogmatic unity among the True Orthodox of Russia can be attained than Lourié’s weaker statement, which while “walling off” the True Orthodox from the heretics of World Orthodoxy, and while anathematizing them precisely as heretics (and presumably by name), nevertheless refuses to say whether they have grace or not. Lourié’s proposed anathema might indeed have been useful if there had not already been an anathema against ecumenism, and if Cyprianism were now, as in the period 1986-2001, the de facto (and, from 1994, the de jure) ecclesiology of the Russian Church Abroad. But now the Russian Cyprianites (unlike the Greek Cyprianites, who have proved firmer in the faith) have either died or signed the Act of Canonical Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate; so there is no good reason why there should not be a substantial consensus for the stronger statement among the hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church.
Instead of bringing to an end arguments about the faith, Lourié’s anathema might give an excuse for their renewal. For if the question of grace is deliberately fudged, and left, in effect, to the discretion of individual hierarchs, then Hierarch X will receive penitents from the Moscow Patriarchate in a strict manner, as not only heretics, but also graceless heretics, while Hierarch Y will be more lenient, arguing á la Lourié that “the loss of grace is a process, and we cannot be sure that it has been completed” - which will give the supporters of Hierarch X the excuse to call Hierarch Y and his supporters “crypto-ecumenists” or worse. In other words, the scenario of the Greek Old Calendarist Church after 1937 will be repeated in Russia – but with much less reason, because the leaders of World Orthodoxy are much more obviously and deeply heretical now than then.
The important point is that, however we understand the process of the loss of grace in a Church, there is no way in which the imposition of an anathema on the Church, if it is accepted as valid and canonical, can be understood in any other way than that the Church in question has lost the grace of sacraments. Before the imposition of the anathema, there is room for argument, for a diversity of opinions: after the anathema, there can be no more arguing, the Church has spoken, the candlestick has been removed (Revelation 2.5), for that which the Church binds on earth is bound also in heaven. Dissenters may argue that the anathema is not valid for one reason or another – for example, because the hierarchs have not understood the essence of the question, or because they are too few in number, or because only Ecumenical Councils have the authority to anathematize. What they cannot deny is that if the anathema is valid, then those anathematized are outside the Church and therefore deprived of the grace of sacraments; for there are no sacraments outside the Church.
For the zealots of True Russian Orthodoxy, the question in relation to the Moscow Patriarchate has already been decided, for the Church has already spoken with sufficient clarity and authority: first in the early Catacomb Councils that anathematized it because of sergianism (it was on the basis of these anathemas that Metropolitan Philaret declared that the Moscow Patriarchate was graceless already in 1980), and then in ROCOR’s 1983 anathema, which anathematized it because of ecumenism. What is needed now is not a new anathema that denies for itself the force of an anathema, but the signatures of the new generation of hierarchs under the old anathemas. And if further clarification is needed, that clarification should come only in the form of specifying precisely those patriarchs who fall under the anathemas.
(c) Sergianism. Lourié says nothing directly about Sergianism as a possible source of dogmatic differences. The reason for that is simple: it is because Lourié himself is a Sergianist. (And a Stalinist: we remember his famous “thank you to Soviet power” and his statements: “I respect Stalin” and “Comrade Stalin was completely correct in his treatment of the intelligentsia”.) Lourié’s Sergianism is obvious from many of his articles, in which he describes even the pre-revolutionary Church as “Sergianist”, thereby depriving the term of its real force, and also from his Live Journal, where he writes most recently: “It is necessary to recognize in general any authority whatever. It is wrong only to allow it [to enter] within Church affairs.” With such a statement not even “Patriarch” Sergius would have disagreed, and it differs not at all from the “Social Doctrine” of the Sergianist Moscow Patriarchate as approved in their Jubilee 2000 Council. But it was rejected by all the confessing hierarchs of the Catacomb Church and ROCOR. For those hierarchs refused to recognize Soviet power, considering it to be that “authority” which is established, not by God, but by Satan (Revelation 13.2). It was in recognition of this fact that the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which Lourié rejects as “a tragic-comic farce” (!), anathematized it in January, 1918. And so Sergianism is not, as Lourié implies, simply one historical, rather extreme instance of “caesaropapism”, but the recognition of, and submission to, the power of the Antichrist.
In essence, the power of the Antichrist is both political and religious; for, like the Pope, he combines in himself both political and religious authority. Therefore one cannot recognize his power on the grounds that it is “merely” political, and that “all [political] power is from God”; one cannot say to the Antichrist: “I recognize you, but please stay out of my internal affairs.” One has to anathematize it and treat it as an enemy to be resisted in every way and to the limit of one’s strength.
But is this relevant now, after the fall of communism, the Soviet Antichrist? Yes, for several reasons. First, Church life must be built on a correct evaluation of her past history, otherwise those past conflicts will come back to haunt us again. Secondly, the Soviet Antichrist is not dead, but only wounded: since the year 2000, Putin’s regime has been turning the clock back to the Soviet Union in many ways, making it more and more a “neo-Soviet” regime that considers itself, and is, the “lawful” successor to the Soviet Antichrist. Therefore the True Church will sooner or later again have to define its attitude to the regime, and probably reject it as the Local Council of 1917-18 rejected it. And thirdly, since 1917 the Church has entered the era of the Antichrist, and can expect only temporary relief from the struggle against it until the Second Coming of Christ. The Antichrist appeared openly for the first time in 1917 in a relatively crude form. His next appearance will be more subtle, and probably still more lethal. Sergianism is therefore only the first appearance of what is likely to be the dominant phenomenon of Church life in the last days: the attempt, in ever more subtle and “reasonable” ways, to make the Church make its peace with the enemy of God, forgetting that “friendship with the world is enmity with God” (James 4.4).
II. Canonical Differences. Lourié goes on to consider the canonical differences between the True Orthodox jurisdictions, which, he says, constitute 99% of their mutual accusations. He divides these into two kinds: those that relate to injustices of one kind or another, and those which involve schisms, the break-up one group of bishops into two or more sub-groups. The latter kind is the more important, in his view, and therefore he concentrates on that.
He begins by pointing out that, apart from the Holy Canons of the Universal Orthodox Church as published in The Rudder, there is only one Church decree generally accepted by all that is relevant to determining the guilty party in a schism – the famous ukaz N 362 of November, 1920 issued by Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. It was on the basis of this ukaz that the Russian Church Abroad based its autonomous existence in the 1920s (although the ukaz almost certainly did not envisage the creation of an extra-territorial Church on the global scale of ROCOR), as did ROAC in the 1990s and RTOC in the 2000s. The problem is that not only does the ukaz not provide any sanctions against schismatics: it also fails to provide a criterion for determining who is schismatical - for the simple reason that it in effect decentralizes the Church on the presupposition that a central Church authority, in relation to which alone a church body could be defined and judged as schismatical, no longer exists or cannot be contacted. In 1990s the Synod of ROCOR in New York briefly tried to set itself up as the central authority for the whole of the Russian Church, inside as well as outside of Russia. But this attempt had a firm basis neither in the Holy Canons of the Universal Church nor in the ukaz N 362, and therefore only succeeded in creating schisms and weakening its own, already shaky authority. In view of this, Lourié comes to the conclusion that “no decrees of ecclestiastical authorities issued specially in order to regulate the life of the True Orthodox Church of the Russian tradition can include any special rules that the hierarchs are obliged to carry out. The only thing that is obligatory is all that is decreed by the Canons of the Universal Church.”
With this conclusion (to his surprise) the present writer is in broad agreement. (It is an interesting question whether a similar conclusion can be drawn with respect to the Greek Old Calendarist Church. But that question goes beyond the bounds of this article.) De jure, there has been no central authority in the Russian Church since the death of Metropolitan Peter in 1937. De facto, depending on one’s opinions, there has been no such authority since 1986, 1994, 2001 or 2006 – and that only if we allow that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia had the right to regulate Church life within Russia. Now, with the fall of the New York Synod into heresy and the death of Metropolitan Vitaly, no Church grouping or Synod can claim, whether de jure or de facto, to be that unique Church centre in relation to which all other independent groupings and Synods are schismatical. This is not to say that no grouping or Synod has acted in a schismatic spirit or been guilty of the sin of dividing the flock of Christ. What it does mean that there is at present no grouping or Synod that can claim to be the judge of that, and impose sanctions for it, from a strictly canonical point of view.
This might appear to be a dispiriting conclusion that can only lead to chaos. However, chaos has existed in Russian Church life since at least 1937, if not 1927 or even 1922; and it can be argued that ukaz N 362 was composed in anticipation of that chaos and in order to mimimize its effects – to control it, as it were, and stop it spreading and deepening. The tragedy of the last twenty years has consisted not so much in the presence of chaos, which has already existed for many decades, but in the misguided attempts to restore order by unlawful means, by creating a Church centre that did not have the sanction of a lawfully convened Church Council. The result, as pointed out earlier, has been the creation of further chaos, as this artificial Church centre, ignoring not only the Holy Canons of the Universal Church, but also ukaz N 362 and even its own “Statute”, has expelled large groups of bishops and parishes without even a trial or summons to a trial. This unlawful usurpation of Church power has now received its just reward, as, suddenly feeling that its own authority rested on sand, it surrendered itself and the flock that still remained loyal to it to what it perceived to be the “real” Church centre – the Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate.
But there is a silver lining to this cloud: there has never been a more opportune time in recent history to convene that lawful Church Council which alone can create a lawful Church centre having the power finally to resolve the chaos within the True Orthodox Church. On this, at any rate, we can agree with Lourié. The question is: is there the will to adopt this, the only way?
(To be continued)