PATRIARCHAL AND SYNODICAL ENCYCLICAL OF 1920

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
Post Reply
User avatar
Seraphim Reeves
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun 27 October 2002 2:10 pm
Location: Canada

PATRIARCHAL AND SYNODICAL ENCYCLICAL OF 1920

Post by Seraphim Reeves »

I just read through this official document of the EP from 1920. I'm curious about other people's thoughts. I think it very clearly puts to rest the idea that the new calendar and ecumenism are not joined at the hip - for the encyclical explicitly says otherwise!

You can read the official transcript of this at http://www.patriarchate.org/encyclicals ... lical_1920

Since (for whatever reason), the official EP site doesn't want people taking excerpts off of their website without explicit permission, I'm going to quote a copy found here - http://www.plasticsusa.com/ortho/enc1920.htm

"Unto the Churches of Christ everywhere"

Given the context of the letter itself, it's obvious this is being addressed not only to Orthodox Churches, but to all manner of bodies (presumably Protestant and Roman Catholic.)

Our own church holds that rapprochement between the various Christian Churches and fellowship between them is not excluded by the doctrinal differences which exist between them. In our opinion such a rapprochement is highly desirable and necessary. It would be useful in many ways for the real interest of each particular church and of the whole Christian body, and also for the preparation and advancement of that blessed union which will be completed in the future in accordance with the will of God.

Once again, it is quite clear that the various "churches" spoken of are not Orthodox, but still are clearly being regarded as actual "Churches" - the term is simply not being used as a courtesy or matter of convention.

Most strikingly, it is stated here that doctrinal differences are not an overwhelming obstical to unity. Given that the genuine "Churchness" of these various heterodox bodies is recognized throughout this text, it's understandable why the EP is here saying that doctrinal differences are not that important - since this is an issue of fraternity and fellowship, not the integration into the Church of bodies foreign to Her.

First, we consider as necessary and indispensable the removal and abolition of all the mutual mistrust and bitterness between the different churches which arise from the tendency of some of them to entice and proselytize adherents of other confessions.

Presumably this would include Orthodox "proselytizing" of heterodox Christians. Such a statement is reprehensible. Such a view would only be possible if one genuinely did not believe these other "Christians" did not in fact need to be missionized and converted to the truth - that is to say, that they already somehow were in the Church.

Secondly, that above all love should be rekindled and strengthened among the churches, so that they should no more consider one another as strangers and foreigners, but as relatives, and as being a part of the household of Christ and "fellow heirs, members of the same body and partakers of the promise of God in Christ" (Eph. 3. 6).

If there was any doubt left by the earlier part of this encyclical about the Patriarch's erroneous ecclessiology, it is confirmed here.

In our opinion, such a friendship and kindly disposition towards each other can be shown and demonstrated particularly in the following ways:

a. By the acceptance of a uniform calendar for the celebration of the great Christian feasts at the same time by all the churches.

This is a two fold wake up call to those who refuse to admit the Old Calendarist position on why the "new calendar" was instituted in the first place. This official enyclical of the EP explicitly states this innovation was instituted in order to facilitate the ecumenical agenda; it is also clear that this "ecumenism" is itself heretical, for it is founded upon a false understanding of the Church's identity (and not a simple desire to missionize heterodox groups to the full, authentic teachings of the Church, and by so doing receive them into the Church of Christ.)

d. By relationships between the theological schools and the professors of theology; by the exchange of theological and ecclesiastical reviews, and of other works published in each church.

e. By exchanging students for further training between the seminaries of the different churches.

How is sending a seminarian to a theological school whose dogmatic courses undermine Orthodox doctrine productive in the task of bringing heterodox Christians into the Church? Simply stated, it is not - however, it does make sense if one's goal is unification under the banner of a "pan-Christian" organization in which dogmatic differences are marginalized.

h. By mutual respect for the customs and practices in different churches.

Presumably, this would include those practices which are founded upon heretical teachings, or otherwise condemned by the Church of Christ (ex. the Latin use of azymes in their eucharist)?

i. By allowing each other the use of chapels and cemeteries for the funerals and burials of believers of other confessions dying in foreign lands.

While historical circumstances have forced such situation upon Orthodox Christians before, this agenda makes it clear that this is something encouraged for the sake of fostering fraternal relations. The author was surely aware that the Church also historically (in such situations) calls for the prayerful "cleansing" of such shared spaces by Orthodox Priests when they are utilized after heretics have utilized them, yes?

k. Lastly, by wholehearted mutual assistance for the churches in their endeavors for religious advancement, charity and so on.

What if that "religious advancement" is the advancement of anathematized heresy?

For all these reasons, being ourselves convinced of the necessity for establishing a contact and league (fellowship) 1 between the churches and believing that the other churches share our conviction as stated above, at least as a beginning we request each one of them to send us in reply a statement of its own judgment and opinion on this matter so that common agreement or resolution having been read, we may proceed together to its realization, and thus "speaking the truth in love; may grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Christ; from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." (Eph.4: 15,16).

IOW, the Church of Christ is not something existing already in unity, but a "becoming"?

I fail to see how anyone can say the ecclessiology implicitly/explicitly stated at various points of this document is not heretical?

Sincerely,

Seraphim

Addenda

Testimonies from the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers on the Necessity of Having No Communion with Heretics and Schismatics, the Enemies of Christ

By Dr. Vladimir Moss

"And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the law of the Passover: no stranger shall eat of it. And every slave or servant bought with money him thou shalt circumcise, and then shall he eat of it. A sojourner or hireling shall not eat of it. In one house shall it be eaten." (Exodus 12:43-46)

St. Apraphat of Syria writes that the "one house" in which the Passover is to be eaten is "the Church of Christ", and that just as the slave could not eat the Passover unless he was circumcised, so the sinner "comes to Baptism, the true Circumcision, and is joined to the People of God, and communicates in the Body and Blood of Christ". (St. Apraphat of Syria, Demonstrations 12, 525.8, 525.12.)

"Let no-one communicate who is not of the disciples. Let no Judas receive, lest he suffer the fate of Judas I would give up my life rather than impart of the Lord's Blood to the unworthy; and I will shed my own blood rather than give such awful Blood contrary to what is right." (St. John Chrysostomos, Homilies on Matthew, 83.6.)

St. John the Almsgiver said: "We shall not escape sharing in that punishment which, in the world to come, awaits heretics, if we defile Orthodoxy and the holy Faith by adulterous communion with heretics." (The Life of St. John the Almsgiver)

"With all our strength let us beware lest we receive Communion from or give it to heretics. 'Give not what is holy to the dogs,' says the Lord. 'Neither cast ye your pearls before swine', lest we become partakers in their dishonour and condemnation." (St.John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, IV, 13.)

"Holy things to the holy!" (The Divine Liturgy)

"And the Lord said to Joshua, Rise up: why hast thou fallen upon thy face? The people has sinned, and transgressed the covenant which I made with them; they have stolen from the accursed things (Greek: anathema), and put it into their store. And the children of Israel will not be able to stand before their enemies, for they have become an accursed thing (anathema); I will no longer be with you, unless ye remove the accursed thing (anathema) from yourselves." (Joshua 7:10-11)

"Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he has permitted them to perform any service as clergymen, let him be deposed." (Apostolic Canon 45)

"Let any clergyman or layman who enters a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray be both deposed and excommunicated." (Apostolic Canon 65)

"Concerning the necessity of not permitting heretics to come into the house of God, so long as they persist in their heresy." (Canon 6 of the Council of Laodicea)

"That one must not accept the blessings of heretics, which are rather misfortunes than blessings." (Canon 32 of the Council of Laodicea)

"That one must not join in prayer with heretics or schismatics." (Canon 33 of the Council of Laodicea)

St. Maximus the Confessor said: "Even if the whole universe holds communion with the [heretical] patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching." (The Life of St. Maximus the Confessor)

"Chrysostomos loudly declares not only heretics, but also those who have communion with them, to be enemies of God." (St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle of Abbot Theophilus)

"Guard yourselves from soul-destroying heresy, communion with which is alienation from Christ." (St. Theodore the Studite, P.G. 99.1216.)

"Some have suffered final shipwreck with regard to the faith. Others, though they have not drowned in their thoughts, are nevertheless perishing through communion with heresy." (St. Theodore the Studite)

"The divine and sacred canons say: 'He who has communion with an excommunicate, let him be excommunicated, as overthrowing the rule of the Church.' And again: 'He who receives a heretic is subject to the same indictment' The great apostle and evangelist John says: 'If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching with him, do not greet him and do not receive him into your house; for he who greets him communicates with his evil deeds' (II John 10-11). If we are forbidden merely to greet him on the way, and if inviting him into our house is prohibited, how can it be otherwise not in a house, but in the temple of God, in the sanctuary at the mystical and terrible Supper of the Son of God Whoever belches out the commemoration of him who has been worthily cut off by the Holy Spirit for his arrogance towards God and the Divine things, becomes for that reason an enemy of God and the Divine things." (From an Epistle of the Martyred Fathers of the Holy Mountain to Emperor Michael Palaeologus against the heretical Patriarch John Beccus of Constantinople)

"All the teachers of the Church, and all the Councils, and all the Divine Scriptures advise us to flee from the heterodox and separate from their communion." (St. Mark of Ephesus)

"Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God." (II Corinthians 6:14-16)

"Come out of her, My people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues." (Revelation 18:4)

OrthodoxyOrDeath

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

:ohvey:

Daniel
Member
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu 10 July 2003 9:00 pm

Post by Daniel »

I just read through this official document of the EP from 1920. I'm curious about other people's thoughts. I think it very clearly puts to rest the idea that the new calendar and ecumenism are not joined at the hip - for the encyclical explicitly says otherwise!

Seraphim,
Thank you very much for posting the link to the "encyclical". If memory serves, I read on the WCC website that this paper is sort of the cornerstone of the ecumenical movement, that this is what really got the ball rolling. I find is some what humorous that they neglect to put Meletious Metaxakis' name, of very sorrowful memory, on it.

Justin Kissel

Post by Justin Kissel »

seraphim reeves

...it's understandable why the EP is here saying that doctrinal differences are not that important...

The EP (in multitudes of quotes I've seen) say that we should leave the theology to the "theologians" (ie. those academics approved by the EP). Yet they later say that unity can be brought about through theological discussion, exchanging seminarians, etc. This is nothing but an intentional double-talking (whether the intention is held by the bishops, or just by Satan who is using the bishops as pawns). On the one hand, you must try to persuade people not to explore theology and "worry our pretty little heads" over "complex issues that hardly anyone can understand." This is perhaps, generally speaking, good advice: but the EP does not advise it for the sake of our salvation, but rather so when the innovations come we will be too clueless to realise what is going on. On the other hand, once people awake to what is going on (e.g., with the monophysites), they will ask questions. However, the questioners will have made no attempt on their own to understand theology, having thought it too advanced for them (as though theology was something explored best by Ph.D's, and not pious, simple men). Therefore, the EP can now trot before everyone various dialogues and agreed statements and say "Look! The theologians, who have spent countless hours researching and discussing, have found the answer."

Presumably this would include Orthodox "proselytizing" of heterodox Christians. Such a statement is reprehensible.

Indeed it is, and foundations for supporting this continue to be laid. I doubt anyone (that's Orthodox) is going to come out and say "we affirm the branch theory," but we keep going in that direction, nonetheless. This is perhaps best seen in the recognition of heterodox sacraments, coupled with the emphasis on an ecclesiology that focuses too heavily on the eucharist (not that the eucharist can be thought too highly of, but it is certainly not the end of all communion). Eventually, what more will need to be said (to convince much of Orthodoxy) than: "we have the same holy spirit working among us [ie. different groups], we therefore have the same sacraments: therefore, what hinders us from uniting and being one Church?"

This official enyclical of the EP explicitly states this innovation was instituted in order to facilitate the ecumenical agenda

I just read this today, and I think it's somewhat relevant (regarding how some like to dismiss the calendar change as unimportant): "'Tolstoyism' is the result of the laborious efforts of a mediocre intelligence to test all the foundations of human life, created by men of genius, by saints, by the spirit of great nations. And because that mediocre intelligence proves incapable of understanding the meaning of all these foundations, laws, and institutions, it is brought to deny them (Church, matrimony, religious rites, dress, etiquette, and so on." (Alexander Elchaninov, The Diary of a Russian Priest, p. 74) We call ecumenism the pan-heresy, but have we (I mean we at this forum, and people in general) really meditated on what that means?? PAN-heresy!? And yet the methods and fruits of it are dismissed as unimportant with barely even a second glance? It reminds me of that Chesterton idea, where there is a gate standing (with no walls connected) on a street. One man (the modernist, or ecumenist in this case) wants to tear it down as it seems to serve no purpose. The traditionalist will not allow that man to tear it down, exactly because he doesn't know it's purpose. Someone put that gate up, and it's foolish to tear it down without understanding the reason for it being there. (of course Chesterton said it so much more eloquently :) ). Likewise with so many issues today.

Justin

bogoliubtsy
Sr Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed 16 April 2003 4:53 pm
Location: Russia

Post by bogoliubtsy »

Paradosis wrote:

This is perhaps best seen in the recognition of heterodox sacraments, coupled with the emphasis on an ecclesiology that focuses too heavily on the eucharist (not that the eucharist can be thought too highly of, but it is certainly not the end of all communion).

Justin,
Not to change the topic entirely(maybe we can place this in another thread if interested in discussing it) but I'm interested in your statement on the Eucharist.
I spent the last couple of years in a parish where the Eucharist or "Eucharistic Banquet" or "Eucharistic Gathering" was mentioned in nine sermons out of ten. This huge emphasis on the Eucharist in some of today's parishes and Orthodox literature, I believe, is a direct result of Fr.Schmemann's teachings- perhaps stemming from the teachings of his Parisian predecessors. I spoke with a ROCOR priest about this Eucharistic emphasis that was taking place at my (former) parish and he said something like "Yes, the Eucharist is central, but that's not all Orthodoxy is!" Which seems like a good approach.(I'm sure he would have gone into more detail if I asked more questions)
In some Orthodox circles the belief is that the Eucharist is the point of corporate Christian worship. Also, that the Eucharist was the central theme running through every Christian's mind up until the 4th century or so when the Eucharist was eclipsed by certain kinds of pietism and "excessive" veneration of the saints. There has been a drive in some Orthodox circles to minimize the feast days of the saints during the week(and some even go so far as to omit certain Kontakion to saints during the liturgy) so as to have more of a focus on the "real" meaning of worship- the Eucharist.
Of course, there is the other extreme- You can see in some parishes that people don't really seem to care for what's actually happening on the altar, as if the transmutation is not of emmense importance. Or that, if they're not personally receiving communion, then why should they pay attention to it or honor it.
Of course, the first approach to the Eucharist seems a concerted effort on the part of academics and clergy to instill a certain way of thinking in the laity, whereas the actions of the "we don't care" bunch are taking place amongst the laity, and not the priests of any jurisdiction- I'd imagine.

Anyway, those are some thoughts...and I thought you might have more to add to your comment above about an ecclesiology that "focuses too heavily on the eucharist". I've been interested in discussing this for quite awhile.

Justin Kissel

Post by Justin Kissel »

Peter,

The eucharist and the other sacraments (and the divine virtues) are a "glue" that keeps the local bodies (the arms and legs) and the individual cells (you and I) bound together. Yet, many times I don't see anything said of such mystical/ontological realities, but it's as though the eucharist is spoken of as "bringing us together" as a contract or signed agreement might. Also, it's as though the eucharist is almost the end all of ecclesiology, which I think is a dangeous focus to have. Again, I've got nothing against speaking all day about the awesomeness of the eucharist... yet it seems to me that the focus of Orthodox ecclesiology should not be on the eucharist in itself, but on the Holy Trinity, and the secondary focus should be on Christ and the Holy Spirit as they relate to us (ie. the divine economy). The sacraments are but one part of the divine economy (though admittedly an amazingly, indescribably wonderful part). What do you think?

Post Reply