(The schism between Rome and the Ecumenical Church is undoubtedly the greatest calamity that humanity has ever been exposed to. The greatest blessing that humanity can hope to achieve is the union of East and West, and the restoration of great Christian unity)…. General Alexander Kiryev (1832-1910)

One, holy, universal, apostolic Church

Orthodoxy humbly believes that it is the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” that the Constitution of Faith speaks of. This is the basic certainty on which Orthodox relations with other Christians are based. There may be divisions among Christians, but the Church itself is indivisible.

Protestant Christians might say that this assertion is unacceptable. It may seem to them that this exclusive tendency among the Orthodox prevents any real “ecumenical dialogue” and any constructive activity for the sake of union. But their conclusions are wrong nonetheless, because for more than half a century, much encouraging and productive contact has taken place between Orthodox Christians and others. Although significant obstacles remain, there has also been significant progress towards reconciliation.

But if the Orthodox claim that they belong to the true Church, what is the situation of Christians from other sects according to them? Not all Orthodox will answer this question in the same way, because if all orthodox Orthodox are in agreement about the teaching of their Church about what the Church is, then not all of them are in agreement regarding the practical results of this teaching. There is a first category that leans toward moderation, and includes the majority of Orthodox who are in personal contact with other sects. They believe, despite their belief that Orthodoxy is the true Church, that it is wrong to conclude that those who are not Orthodox do not belong to the Church at all, since many of them are members of the Church, even if it does not seem so outwardly, and that there are unseen relationships between them and The Church, despite external differences: The Spirit of God blows wherever He wishes, and as Irenaeus said (wherever the Spirit is, there is the Church). We know where the church is, but we cannot be sure where it is not. Therefore, we are not justified in passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians. As Khomyakov eloquently said: (Since the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and totality of the universal Church that God has prepared to be fully revealed on the last day, it only acts according to what it knows within its own limits... It does not condemn the rest of humanity, and does not consider outside its fellowship except those Those who want that for themselves, and as for the rest of them who are strangers to it or belong to it through connections that God did not want to reveal to it, for it, they are preserved in God’s special plan that will be clearly revealed on the last day) {(The Church is One) Section Two}.

There is only one Church, but there are many forms of connection with it, as well as forms of separation from it. We find many non-Orthodox people very close to Orthodoxy, while we find others less close. Some we find completely sympathetic to it, while others are indifferent or hostile. The Orthodox Church is the one who, thanks to God's grace, possesses all the truth, but some other Christian denominations also have some degree of truth. These matters must be taken into consideration. It cannot simply be said that all non-Orthodox are outside the Church. We cannot be certain that all Christians are on the same level as non-believers.

Alongside this point of view, there is a more extreme group that says: Since Orthodoxy is the Church, all those who are not Orthodox cannot be members of the Church. This is what Metropolitan Antoine Khrabovsky, who headed the Russian Church Beyond Borders, wrote in his book of religious education:

(Question): Is it permissible to say that a schism could occur in the church or between the churches?

Answer: No. There are heretics and schismatics who separated from the one and indivisible Church, and by doing so they lost their membership in the Church. But the Church itself can never lose its unity.

This extremist group adds that God's grace must work among the non-Orthodox, and if these people sincerely love the Lord, then He will surely have mercy on them. However, in their present state, we cannot consider them to be members of the Church.

Because they believe that their Church is the true Church, the Orthodox have only one desire: to call all Christians to embrace Orthodoxy. But here we should not think that they want to be subjected to some Orthodox see {(Orthodoxy does not want to submit to anyone, but rather wants to convince all people), Sergius Bulgakov, (Orthodoxy), p. 264}. The Orthodox Church is a family of sister, non-centralized churches, which allows splinter groups to join Orthodoxy without affecting their autonomy. Orthodoxy does not want to absorb these groups, but rather wants to reconcile with them. In all (ecumenical) discussions, the Orthodox leader was - or at least should have been their leader - the call for the principle of unity in diversity. They did not seek to transform Western Christians into Byzantines or Eastern Christians, and they did not wish to impose blind obedience on them, because in Orthodoxy there is a place for multiculturalism, diversity of forms of worship, and even differences in external systems.

Only in the field of faith does Orthodoxy refuse to allow any difference. Before any union can occur between Christians, there must be an agreement between them about the faith. This is the basic principle that the Orthodox adhere to in all their ecumenical relations. It is the unity of faith that matters, not the unity of organization, and achieving unity of organization at the expense of unity of belief means throwing away the core and clinging to the peel. The Orthodox do not agree to a minimum unity that achieves agreement on only some points and leaves the rest to personal opinions. Orthodoxy views the faith as a whole, and for it the fullness of faith alone serves as a basis for union.

One Evangelical wrote: “It has been said that faith is more likely to form a network than to be a gathering of a number of beliefs. If you cut one thread, the whole will lose its meaning.” {T. Mother. Parker, (Honoring the Mother of God), in (The Mother of God), Mascall Publications, p. 74}. The Orthodox therefore demand that all other Christian denominations accept the tradition in its entirety. But a distinction must be made between honorable tradition and traditions (customs). Many of the things that the Orthodox believe in do not form part of the honorable tradition, but rather are merely theological opinions (Theologoumena) and may not be imposed on others. It is possible for people to be completely united in faith, and at the same time their theological opinions differ in some areas.

It results from the basic principle that there is no meeting without unity in faith - that there cannot be sharing of the sacraments between Christians belonging to different sects, until unity of faith becomes something achieved.

Participation in the Lord's Table cannot be used as a means to achieve unity of faith, but rather should come as a result and culmination of the unity that has been achieved. The Orthodox reject the concept of participation in the holy things (Intercommunion) between different Christian sects, and do not agree to any form of participation in the sacraments outside the framework of full faith communion. The churches are either in communion with each other or they are not, and there are no half-measures. (But we must add that if a non-Orthodox is found far from the care of his own church, he can, with special permission, receive Communion from an Orthodox priest, but the opposite is not applicable, as it is prohibited for an Orthodox to receive Communion from a non-Orthodox priest.)

Relations of Orthodoxy with other churches

Old Eastern Church:

When it comes to union, the Orthodox do not think about the West alone, but they also direct their thoughts towards their Eastern brothers, the non-Chalcedonian Nestorians. The Orthodox are, in many respects, closer to those Eastern churches than to the Western denominations.

Today there are a small number of Nestorians, about 50,000, and there are no theologians among them, which makes official dialogue with them very difficult. However, a partial union arose between the Orthodox and Nestorian Christians. In the year 1898, a Nestorian Assyrian named Mar Ivanios, Bishop of Oromia in Persia, joined the Russian Church with his people. This process came at the initiative of the Nestorians themselves, without being subject to any political or non-political pressure. In 1905, this former Nestorian diocese included 80 parishioners and 70,000 believers. But between the years 1915 and 1918, the Turks slaughtered the Orthodox Assyrians without them doing anything. Only several thousand survived the massacre. Despite this painful end, reconciliation with this ancient Christian community sets an encouraging precedent. So why cannot the Orthodox Church today reach a similar understanding with the rest of the Nestorian sect?

The position of the non-Chalcedonians is very different from that of the Nestorians, because their number is large in comparison - more than ten million - and among them are competent theologians who are able to present and explain their traditional doctrinal position. Some theologians, both Orthodox and Western, now believe that the teachings of those who were called monotheists have been misunderstood in the past, and that the difference between the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians is, in its entirety, nothing more than a verbal difference. This is what the Most Merciful Athenagoras, Patriarch of Constantinople, expressed when he visited the Coptic Church in Egypt in 1959. He said: (In fact, we are all one, we are all Orthodox Christians. We have the same sacred secrets, the same history, and the same traditions. Our differences are merely verbal differences) {His speech at the Coptic Higher Research Foundation, in Cairo, on December 10, 1959}. Through all the ecumenical communications of the Orthodox Church, it seems that the feelings of friendship towards the non-Chalcedonians are what generate hope for tangible results in the near future. The issue of uniting with them was on everyone’s mind during the Orthodox conferences held in Rhodes, and it will be one of the most prominent issues on the agenda of the upcoming general Orthodox meetings. In August 1964, an informal meeting was held in Denmark and included Orthodox theologians from Chalcedon and non-Chalcedonians. In their last meeting, they issued a joint statement in which they said: (Each of us learned from the other... and the misunderstanding that we inherited from the past has begun to disappear. Each of us has found in the other the one Orthodox faith. The fifteen centuries of estrangement have not kept us away from the one faith of our fathers.) . This first meeting was followed by other meetings in Bristol (1967), Geneva (1970), and Addis Ababa (1971).

Catholic Church:

Among Western Christians, Orthodox-Anglican relations are the closest, despite the closeness of Orthodoxy to Catholics due to the presence of commonalities between them. There are, of course, major difficulties that must be resolved between Romans and Orthodoxy, especially psychological barriers. Among the Orthodox, as well as among the Catholics, there are many preconceived and inherited attitudes that are not easy to get rid of. The Orthodox cannot forget those dark periods they lived through in the past, such as the Crusades, the (Union of Brest-Litovsk), and the Antiochian schism in the eighteenth century {See (Aren’t We All Schisms), by Bishop Elias Zoghbi, Al-Nour Publications (publisher)} , or the persecution to which the Orthodox Church in Poland was subjected by the Catholic government in the interwar period. Catholics are not sufficiently aware of the types of reproaches and fears that the Roman Church raises among many Orthodox - regardless of their cultural levels. More important than that are the doctrinal issues, the forefront of which is the issue of the emanation of the Holy Spirit and papal claims. Here too, Catholics do not sufficiently take into account the seriousness of these theological differences and the extent of the importance that the Orthodox attach to them. However, despite the ideological and spiritual differences, and the different outlook on many other matters, many things bring the two parties together and make them very agreeable with each other.

Since they have so many things in common, is there no hope for reconciliation? At first glance, we may despair, especially if we consider the issue of papal allegations. The Orthodox cannot agree to the definitions made by the First Vatican Council in 1870, related to the comprehensive papal authority and the infallibility of the Pope. Catholics acknowledge that this Vatican Council is an ecumenical council, and therefore view its determinations as irrevocable. However, the dilemma is not an impossible one, as it can be asked to what extent the Orthodox understand the true meaning of the Vatican’s decisions? Perhaps the familiar meaning that Western theologians have given to these definitions over the past ninety years is not the only possible explanation. Catholics are also more and more inclined to agree to consider the decrees of the First Vatican Council incomplete and distinct, as they only discuss the powers of the Pope without mentioning the bishops. But now, after the Second Vatican Council issued a doctrinal clarification regarding the authority of bishops, the Catholic doctrine regarding papal claims began to appear to the Orthodox world from a different perspective.

If Rome gave little importance to the status of bishops in the Church in the past, then the Orthodox must study the issue of “primacy” with more attention. They acknowledge that the Pope is the first among the bishops, but have they asked themselves a serious and objective question about what this recognition could mean? If the See of Rome is restored to the first place in the fellowship of the Orthodox churches, what do you think its status will be in practice? The Orthodox are not willing to grant the Pope direct and comprehensive authority over the entire Christian world, but can they not give him - as head of the College of Bishops and the first among them - a comprehensive responsibility, expressed in a pastoral concern that includes the entire Church? The Orthodox Youth Movement of the Antiochian See presented two compromise formulas some time ago: (In the absence of the Father, the Pope is considered the elder brother of the bishops), and (The Pope is the mouth of the Church and the bishops). These two formulas are, of course, far from the definitions made by Vatican I regarding the authority and infallibility of the Pope, but they at least serve as a basis for constructive discussion. Until now, Orthodox theologians have mostly contented themselves - in an intense back-and-forth - with attacking the Roman doctrine of the papacy (as they understand it), without trying to look beyond that and determine, positively, the Orthodox point of view about the natural truth of the Pope's primacy. The differences may seem less wide, if the Orthodox take a more positive stance, while avoiding speaking in negative and controversial terms.

After a long break, the Orthodox and Catholic churches returned to meet in 1979, and have recently begun an official theological dialogue. But much was also done informally, through personal contacts. The Catholic Monastery of Unity in Chevetonie, Belgium (founded in 1926 in Amais-sur-Meuse) has done tremendous work in this field. It is a monastery that adopts a dual ritual in which monks can follow the services according to the Roman or Byzantine ritual. The periodical Shiftoni magazine, entitled Irenikon, provides a very accurate and friendly presentation of current affairs related to the Orthodox Church, and also publishes many very in-depth articles, many of which are written by Orthodox writers.

Despite all this, the union between the Orthodox Romans remains a difficult task, and it cannot be accomplished, if it is accomplished, except by making tremendous efforts. However, indicators of rapprochement increase year after year, and Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras met three times: in Jerusalem (1964), and in Constantinople and Rome (1967). On December 7, 1965, the mutual excommunication between the two churches was lifted in the year 1054. But we must not forget that these actions, despite their importance, are only symbolic actions and do not provide solutions to theological difficulties.

Old Catholics:

It was natural for the Old Catholics, who separated from Rome following the Vatican Council in 1870, to enter into negotiations with the Orthodox. Their understanding was to return to the faith of the first church before the schism, based on the writings of the Fathers and the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and the Orthodox declared that this faith was not a matter of the past only to be found as a result of archaeological research, but rather it was a living reality, which they still possess, by the grace of God. Therefore, numerous conferences were held between Old Catholics and Orthodox, especially in Bonn (1874 and 1875), in Rotterdam (1894), and also in Bonn (1931), and agreements were reached on doctrinal issues, but without reaching other tangible results. Although relations between the Orthodox and Old Catholics remain friendly, no union between them has been declared. In 1975, the two churches continued the theological dialogue on a broad level and held many meetings for this purpose, from which a set of important theological statements were issued that once again indicated the extent of agreement between them.

Anglican Church:

Today, as well as yesterday, many Anglicans still consider the Reformation movement that took place in England in the sixteenth century as a temporary situation, and like the old Catholics, they call for following the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, the Fathers of the Church, and the tradition of the one Church as it was before the schism. This return to ancient times led many Anglicans to look at the Orthodox Church with much sympathy and interest, and it also led many Orthodox to look at the Anglican Church with the same affection and interest. Anglican-Orthodox relations have developed very positively over the past hundred years.

To date, several formal conferences have been held between Anglican and Orthodox theologians. In the year 1930, an Orthodox delegation representing ten independent churches (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Greece, Cyprus, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland) was sent to England during the period in which the Lambeth Conference was held, and the members of the delegation discussed with an Anglican committee. . The following year, a joint Anglican-Orthodox committee met in London and included representatives of the previous churches, except for the Church of Bulgaria. During 1930 and 1931, all doctrinal differences were raised in an atmosphere of good faith. A similar conference was held in Bucharest in 1935, which included Anglican and Romanian delegates. The most important theological conference between Anglicans and Orthodox held since the war was the Moscow Conference in 1956. Both sides seemed more cautious than they had previously, that is, during the 1930s. The two churches continued the official theological dialogue in the year 1973, but this dialogue faltered in the years 1977/1978 when the Anglican churches agreed to the principle of ordaining women as priests. The dialogue is still ongoing, albeit without tangible progress.

In addition to the official negotiations between the Orthodox and Anglican churches, many meetings took place between them on a personal level. In England there are two organizations dedicated entirely to Anglican-Orthodox rapprochement:

• 1) The Association of the Anglican and Eastern Churches. Its parent organization (the Association of the Eastern Church) was founded in 1863.
• 2) The Brotherhood of Saint Alban and Saint Sergius, which was founded in 1928 and organizes an annual conference and issues an excellent periodical published twice a year (Sopor Nost).

The main obstacle preventing the union of Anglicans and Orthodox lies in the comprehensiveness of Anglicanism, the lack of clarity in defining its doctrines, and the presence of great diversity in interpretations related to them. As appeared in two important pamphlets (Orthodoxy and the Apostasy of England) written by Darwas Shetty, and (Englicanism and Orthodoxy) written by H. a. Hodges, some Anglicans are very close to Orthodoxy. Professor Hodges concludes by saying: (The ecumenical issue involves returning the West to correct spirituality and correct life, and that means returning it to Orthodoxy... The Orthodox faith, to which the Fathers of the Church testified, and of which the Orthodox Church is considered a faithful guardian, is the Christian faith in its essential and true form. ) {(Anglicanism and Orthodoxy), pp. 46 and 47}. However, many Anglicans completely disagree with this opinion, and view many Orthodox doctrines as corrupt and heretical. No matter how deep the Orthodox Church's desire for union is, it cannot establish closer relations with the Anglican churches until the Anglicans reach a higher level of precision regarding their own doctrines. General Kiriev's words still maintain their meaning after seventy years: (We, the Easterners, sincerely desire to reach an understanding with the Anglican Church, but this desired result cannot be achieved... unless the Anglican Church becomes more homogeneous, and the doctrinal concepts of its various groups agree.) {(General Alexander Kiryev and the Old Catholics), published by Olga Novikov. p. 224}.

Other Protestant denominations:

The Orthodox Church is in close contact with a number of Protestant sects in Europe, especially in Germany and Osage. In the twentieth century, the dialogue that had begun in Tübingan in the sixteenth century was revived, and this led to more positive results than before.

World Council of Churches:

The Orthodox Church has two positions regarding the World Council of Churches and the Ecumenical Movement. Some find that Orthodox should not participate in the activities of the World Council, and if attendance is necessary, let it be limited to observers only, because full participation in the ecumenical movement harms Orthodoxy’s assertion that it alone is the true Church of Christ. It suggests that all (churches) are on the same level. One of the statements of the Synod of the Russian Church Beyond Borders, issued in 1938, summarizes this point of view clearly:

(Orthodox Christians view the Holy Universal Orthodox Church as the one and only true Church of Christ. For this reason, the Russian Extraterritorial Church prevented its sons from participating in the ecumenical movement, which is based on the principle of equality between all Christian religions and sects.)

But there are those in the Orthodox Church who think that this position ignores the true nature of the World Council of Churches, as the joining of the Orthodox does not assume belief in equality between all Christian sects and does not harm their assertion that they belong to the true Church. As declared in the Toronto Declaration, issued in 1950 by the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches: “The status of membership in the World Council of Churches does not presuppose approval of a special doctrine concerning the nature of the unity of the Church... This membership does not presuppose that each church views the other churches as (churches) in all The meaning of the word and the clarity of the phrase). Based on this declaration, the Orthodox from the majority of churches believe that they can participate in the ecumenical movement, without offending their Orthodoxy. If the Orthodox can participate, they should do so because their belief in the validity of the Orthodox faith requires them to bear witness to this faith as widely as possible.

These contradictory views are responsible for the ambiguity and hesitation that characterized the Orthodox Church's policy on ecumenism in the past. Some churches regularly sent their delegates to most of the ecumenical movement's conferences, while others participated in some meetings or did not attend at all.

Here is a graphical presentation of Orthodox representation in the period between 1927 and 1968:

• Lausanne (1927) Committee meeting (Faith and Order): Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Greece, Cyprus, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland.
• Edinburgh (1937) Commission on Faith and Order: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Poland, Albania.
• Amsterdam (1948) First General Assembly of the World Council of Churches: Constantinople, Greece, Romania Church in America.
• Lund (1952) Commission of Faith and Order: Constantinople, Antioch, Cyprus, Serbia, Administration of the Russians in North America.
• Evanston (1954) General Assembly of the World Council of Churches: Constantinople, Antioch, Greece, Cyprus, Russian Administration in North America, Roman Church in America.
• New Delhi (1961) General Assembly of the World Council of Churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Greece, Cyprus, Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Administration of the Russians in North America, Roman Church in America.
• Uppsala (1968) General Assembly of the World Council of Churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Georgia, Poland, Administration of the Russians in North America, Roman Church in America.

Thus we can see that the Patriarchate of Constantinople was always represented at the conferences, and from the beginning it supported the policy of participation in the ecumenical movement without reservation. In January 1920, this patriarchate issued an important letter addressed to “all the churches of Christ wherever they exist,” in which it urgently called on all Christians to cooperate closely, and proposed concluding an alliance between the churches, similar to the League of Nations that had been established at that time.

We find in this letter many ideas that were later implemented within the ecumenical movement. But if Constantinople firmly adhered to the principles proposed in 1920, other churches were more conservative towards ecumenical work. The situation improved in 1961 when the Moscow Patriarchate requested admission to the Council of Churches, which opened the way for other Orthodox churches in communist countries.

The contribution of the Orthodox is a very important factor for the ecumenical movement, because their participation prevents the movement from appearing as a kind of alliance between Protestants. On the other hand, the ecumenical movement would benefit Orthodoxy, as it provided several Orthodox churches with the opportunity to emerge from their relative isolation and prompted them to meet among themselves and establish live communication with non-Orthodox Christians.

To learn from each other

In one of his letters, Khomyakov used an example to describe the Orthodox position toward all Christians. He said that one of the teachers traveled, leaving his teachings to his three students. The eldest faithfully repeated what his teacher had taught him and did not change anything. One of the remaining two added to this teaching, and the other deleted part of it. When the teacher returned, he did not feel angry towards any of them, but he said to the two younger students: (Thank your older brother, for without him you would not have been able to preserve the truth that I handed over to you. Then he said to the elder: Thank your two younger brothers, because without them I would not have understood the truth that I handed over to you).

The Orthodox believe with all humility that they are in a position similar to that of Big Brother, in that, thanks to God's grace, they have been able to preserve the truth without any change and (without addition or decrease). They affirm that they are in a living connection with the early Church, and with the tradition of the Apostles and Fathers, and they believe that it is their duty, in light of a fragmented and lost Christian world, to bear witness to this original, unchanged tradition. There are many Westerners, both Catholics and Protestants, who today seek to liberate themselves from (the ossification and convulsion of the sixteenth century), and who wish to return to the era (before the Reformation and the Middle Ages). It is precisely in this regard that the Orthodox can help them. Orthodoxy falls outside the circle of thinking in which Western Christians have lived for the past eight centuries. It has not known the verbal revolution, nor has it known the reform or counter-reformation movement, but it has never stopped living in the tradition of the fathers to which the West seeks to return. The ecumenical role of Orthodoxy therefore lies in raising questions about the formulas accepted by the Latin West in the Middle Ages and the Reformation.

In order to best fulfill such a role, the Orthodox must understand their own tradition more than they did before, and in this way the West can help them. They should feel gratitude towards their “younger brothers” in the West - Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Clunians, and Quakers - because through their contact with them they gained a new vision of Orthodoxy.

East and West are beginning to discover each other, and one can take a lot from the other. For this and that party, the split was a great tragedy and a cause of poverty, but today the rapprochement between them has become a source of enrichment for both parties. It is the duty of the West, thanks to its deepening study of the Bible and the heritage of the Fathers, to bring Orthodoxy to a new understanding of the historical depth of the Bible, and to read... Criticism of the heritage of the fathers. The Orthodox, for their part, can push Western Christians to become aware of the deep meaning of the Tradition, by showing the Fathers in their living reality. The Roman edition of the Philokalia shows how Western critical standards help us better understand the Orthodox spiritual tradition. The example of Western Christians is also considered an encouragement to Orthodox who seek to return to continuous Communion. Likewise, many Western Christians - thanks to Orthodox icons, the Jesus Prayer and the Byzantine liturgy - have deepened their understanding of their own prayers and rituals. When the Orthodox Church in communist countries is able to obtain more freedom, the experiences of the West will help it with regard to Christian witness in secular, industrial society. Now, this persecuted Orthodox Church reminds the West of the importance of martyrdom with blood, and it also embodies a living example of the value of suffering in Christian life.

Book: The Orthodox Church: Faith and Doctrine
Chapter Seven: The Orthodox Church and the Christian Union
Written by: Bishop Callistus (Timothy) Ware