WCC

[AndyHolland]

I must admit it is an exceedingly fine line. Arguing against calling the Archbishop a heretic and accepting the wcc as something "good" are different things. The press release sentences lack specificity as to the Archbishop's role - we know he was the lead-off "speaker", not necessarily the one who led the prayer.

"Friendship with the world is enmity with Christ." The wise virgins tell the foolish to go trade in the city and they do not share their oil with the foolish.

St. Seraphim of Sarov appearing in a vision to St. John Kronstadt and the book of Revelations consistently point out there are seven Churches on the lampstand - that is seven Churches eternally blessed by God:

http://www.orthodox.net/articles/vision ... stadt.html

andy holland
sinner

[The Apostate]

I must admit that issues of whom I agree with aside, I find AndyHolland's conduct of himself on this thread to be humble, charitable and embodying those qualities of Christian virtue that we are all called to espouse.

I, too, reject the Branch Theory. However, there are various courses of action that a faithful Orthodox Christian can take from this starting point.

One is to reject all dialogue with the heterodox due their being heretics, schismatics, apostates &c, &c.

Another is to engage in dialogue with them, refusing to compromise one's principles, and witnessing the Truth of Orthodoxy to them. Just because a bishop is involved in the WCC, it doesn't mean that he accepts branch theory ecclesiology.

Let us not forget that ROCOR used to take part in inter-confessional gatherings. However, it was clear that this was no recognition of the other confessions as part of th Church - oh no! To the contrary, this is the statement of the SOBOR of Bishops in 1931:

Preserving faith in the One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church, the Synod of Bishops affirms that the Church never divided itself. The question lies only in who belongs to her and who does not. At the same time, the Synod of Bishops fervently welcomes all attempts of the heterodox to study Christ's teaching on the Church in the hope that through this study, especially with the participation of representatives of the Holy Orthodox Church, they will ultimately come to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church, as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), fully and without error preserved the teaching handed down by Christ the Saviour to His disciples.

This came from the same ROCOR that produced the following in 1983:

To those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that the Lord's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" of sects or denomination, and even religions, will be united into one body, and who 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; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians: Anathema.

So it is quite clear that one's participation in inter-confessional gatherings does not automatically mean that one is a branch-theory-subscribing ecumenist.

We must indeed be charitable to our misguided brothers and sisters of heterodox confessions, and show them the warmth and love that comes with the light of the Truth of Christ in Orthodoxy. If all we allow them to see is a hard and fast "You're outside the Church, we shall have nothing to do with you!", and bickering amongst ourselves about which of our bishops we've fallen out with this week, then what perception are they going to have of the Faith? Surely we would be doing more harm than good - not so?

Less fighting, more prayer.

[Chrysostomos]

Another is to engage in dialogue with them, refusing to compromise one's principles, and witnessing the Truth of Orthodoxy to them. Just because a bishop is involved in the WCC, it doesn't mean that he accepts branch theory ecclesiology.

We must indeed be charitable to our misguided brothers and sisters of heterodox confessions, and show them the warmth and love that comes with the light of the Truth of Christ in Orthodoxy.

Agree wholeheartedly!

Your fellow struggler in Christ,

Rd. Chrysostomos

[Kollyvas]

Let me begin by saying: ORTHODOXY OUT OF "the ecumenical movement" IMMEDIATELY AND ANATHEMAS TO IT FROM ALL THE LOCAL CHURCHES!!!

Without addressing persons or conduct, "charity at heretical gatherings" would be embodied by WITNESSING ORTHODOXY or at least mentioning the word "Orthodox." ON the thread regarding the recent brazilian activities, it became clear that no Orthodox witness was put forward and that branch theory was the rule of the day. The Orthodox behaved shamefully and spoke as if ashamed of their Faith.

ROCOR, firstly, never participated in the wcc as an active member, not that it would matter if it did. In the pre-war era, ROCOR was clear in indicating the boundaries between heresy, schism and Orthodoxy, and it was not ashamed of witnessing Orthodoxy. It's witness culminated in the era of Blessed +Metropolitan Philaret who clearly regarded the wcc as heretical. Saint Justin of Chelje regarded the wcc and its mode of dialogue as utterly heretical. So too the Romanian Elder Cleopa of Blessed Memory. They did not mince words or grasp at chimeras in the hopes of finding something Orthodox in a mode of dialogue which clearly is not NOR WAS IT EVER FOUNDED TO BE. I find comfort in their examples of humility and I honour their incorrupt relics.

Vladimir Lossky lead the charge in condemning Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement as pointless and unworthy of Orthodox witness, for he understood the ecclesiological model under which the wcc operated, and he affirmed it was heretical. Fr. Georges Florovsky, one of the fathers of the ecumenical movement, rejected it and spoke against it when he saw that it would not recognize Orthodox witness--THE TYPE OF WITNESS HE PUT FORWARD AT THEIR "assemblies." The wcc instead demanded that dialogue take place under the preconditions of moral equivalence, with the understanding that the wcc was the mechanism for unity, not the Church, that Orthodoxy was a "most ancient branch" (a museum piece) of the church which was a part of a hoped for "pan-unity," the operative word being "part" and not WHOLE. Fr. Florovsky rejected this ecclesiology AS HERETICAL and came to regret his role in the wcc. He expressly condemned the type of sell out the archbishop of albania now engages in. Fr. John Romanides indicates in his articles that, indeed, when frameworks of Orthodox witness even agreement have been pursued at the wcc and affiliated organizations, that pressure has been brought to bear on certain Orthodox "leaders" to revise the frameworks and suppress the agreed statements--he maintains that in 1964 the Non Chalcedonians came to the Orthodox accepting all seven Ecumenical Councils and sought integration into the Church but the ecumenists then dissuaded them and forced the Orthodox "to not be hasty." That isn't all Fr. Romanides has to say about the "dialogue of love."

This last assembly had all the semblance of a democrat national convention in San Francisco and no resemblance at all to a gathering interested in unity in Truth. No matter of rhetoric or posturing negates the FACT that the wcc operates under the model of branch theory. What part can Orthodoxy have with that? What record of witness do the Orthodox have? Did they influence any groups to further dialogue and unification in the Church? DID THEY EVEN TRY?! Did they even come closer to reuniting the Non-Chalcedonians to the Church? We know they condemned the Iraq war and US prosperity and that they danced in tribal dances and put icons in displays next to pagan scrawlings and heretical "images," but what does this have to do with Orthodox witness? Orthodox witness should be based in Orthodox dialogue at encounters where Orthodoxy is approached for unity, not the wcc. A separate statement--which it seems there are so few of at this juncture--does not witness Orthodoxy nor does it promote unity of the heterodox to Truth.

If humility would speak, it would say, in its unworthiness, that this leftist cabal was unworthy of the Master and His glorious Church. Without condemnation, it would say it was unworthy of participating at such gatherings for weight of its sins. And it would finish its statements by saying that Orthodoxy was the only love and charity its sinful mind and heart could appreciate and nothing else...

ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

How does one reject branch theory while at the same time support Orthodox participation in an organization structured on it as a foundational principle? It speaks to me as notions of African Americans joining the kkk or Jewish people neo-nazi parties or perhaps latins becoming members of the freemasons. Ridiculous.

[Kollyvas]

http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/damascuspost-04-e.html

Orthodox Participation in the World Council of Churches:
Concerns about "equity, equality, adequate representation, equal footing"
by Leonid Kishkovsky

---

The call for Christian unity comes to us from the Gospel, and our common confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour obligates us as Christians to seek unity.

Yet Christians are divided in ecclesiology and theology, in the practice and understanding of the sacraments, in ethos and historical perspective, and in cultural context.

The calling of the World Council of Churches (WCC) is two-fold: a) to give an ecumenical context and expression to the call for Christian unity; b) to give an ecumenical context to the (sometimes difficult) encounters between different ecclesiologies, theologies, etc.

The most fundamental ecclesiological division in the WCC is the division between churches of the Reformation traditions and those of the Orthodox traditions. (This division is an expression of the Eastern Christian/Western Christian divide. In terms of ecclesiology, the churches in the South emerged and are emerging from the presuppositions and experiences of Western Christianity.)

The Orthodox have participated in the structures of the WCC, but as a permanent structural minority have not in fact influenced the priorities and programmes of the WCC on an equal footing.

To put it another way, the Orthodox influence has been that of a permanent "opposition", and has sometimes been expressed through "minority reports".

Consequently, within the life of the WCC the Orthodox participation has been felt as an obstacle to ecumenical progress, and not as a contribution to a deeper understanding of what Christian unity means.

These tensions have been expressed most often in the framework of majority/minority debates and decision-making procedures.

The principles and rules governing the WCC membership and WCC decision-making procedures have both expressed and encouraged "denominationalism", placing the Orthodox in a context in which they themselves function like denominations.

A major development in the ecumenical movement has been the achievement of communion and mutual recognition of ministries among churches of the Reformation traditions.

This suggests that all member churches of the WCC would be well-served by providing a new shape for WCC membership, giving more adequate expression and visibility to the realities of ecclesiological traditions and understandings.

For the achievement of equity, equality, adequate representation, and "equal footing" in the WCC, some form of radical change will be necessary in the WCC governing bodies. At root, what is required is a new style and ethos of decision-making. It is, however, unlikely that a new style and ethos will be achieved in the WCC context without changes in the rules which govern representation.

It is instructive that the Special Commission is structured according to the principle of equal representation. This suggests that the discussion of Orthodox participation in the WCC would not be adequately pursued if equal representation were not ensured – from constituency as well as from staff.

This further suggests that the continued participation of Orthodox churches in the WCC will depend on some form of equal representation in governing bodies.

Since the "families of churches" style of representation has been adopted in several regional and national councils of churches, this model requires serious reflection by the Special Commission.

There are, of course, other options that may be considered. If the model offered by the Special Commission itself is taken as a point of departure, we may reflect on the terminology of "communion" or "eucharistic communion" seeking to understand its relevance to the life of the WCC. The Orthodox participants of the Special Commission represent two distinct families of eucharistic communion. The participants broadly representing the Reformation traditions are, generally speaking, churches in eucharistic communion with one another, either as the result of bilateral or multilateral agreements, or as a result of established ecumenical or inter-church practice.

The matter of staff balances is also important for the future of the WCC. It is clear that the Orthodox churches are under-represented in the WCC staff, no matter what criterion is used to assess staff balances. In the staff, the tensions of "majority/minority" and "ethos" are the same as the tensions experienced in the WCC governing bodies. According to my observations of many years, the relationship of staff to their churches is a significant factor in the life of the WCC. The Orthodox staff are, on balance, more closely related to their churches than are the staff from the churches of the Reformation traditions. This means that Orthodox staff are, on balance, more aware of a responsibility to give voice to the ecclesial traditions from which they come.

For the Orthodox, the above concerns are not "anti-ecumenical", nor are they expressions of a "struggle for power". To the contrary, these concerns are expressions of a desire for a deeper ecumenism and a more authentic expression of ecumenical life.

---

Return to Documents from Damascus

© 2001 World Council of Churches / Remarks to: webeditor

[Kollyvas]

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_marches.aspx

The Patristic Position and the Witness of Archimandrite Justin (Popovich) Regarding Ecumenism

The World Council of Churches: A Visible Expression of the Una Sancta?

1. In 1971, the then Patriarch of Serbia, German, as one of the Presidents of the "World Council of Churches (WCC)," co-signed the following "Message" of this ecumenical organization in Geneva:

And the powerful Breath of renewal will blow into the mighty arena of the Church, as well as into each of her communities; for these are not simple administrative units, but they all constitute a part of the one great Christian Church. (1)

This is a clear formulation of the ecclesiological heresy known as the Branch Theory: that the one and great Christian Church is comprised of its constituent Christian communities.

The Church of Serbia entered the WCC in 1965 (2); thereafter, as Patriarch German began to participate actively in the ecumenical movement—in fact, immediately after his aforementioned declaration—, the ever-memorable dogmatist, Archimandrite Justin (Popovich), ceased to consider him an Orthodox Hierarch and ceased his canonical commemoration, as well as all ecclesiastical relations with him. (1)

It is hence noteworthy that the Patriarch did not attend the funeral of Father Justin (†March 25, 1979)…. (3)

The prestige and authority of Father Justin, this stalwart contemporary Patristic figure, are well known:

‘His repute as a universal Father and Teacher of the Church, who cleaved unremittingly to the Cross of his witness and who bore the marks of Christ, transcended the boundaries of Serbia and spread to the whole world’ (4); ‘Fr. Justin did not speak as an individual, but as the mouth of the Church; he expressed the conscience of the Church, the Faith of the Church’; ‘The preaching of Fr. Justin is a continuation of the preaching of the Holy Fathers of our Church and especially of the last great Father, St. Gregory Palamas.’ (5) (6)

1. We consider it worthwhile, given this reference to the Patristic stature and witness of Father Justin (Popovich), but also in view of recent events, to deal once more, in brief, with the nature and work of the WCC.

A well-known ecumenist sets forth in the form of a question the prevailing set of problems at issue within the bosom of this ecumenical organization in Geneva:

Is the WCC the instrument by which the Christian Churches express their unity in God, or is it that instrument by which the divided Churches attempt to restore the unity of their faith, structures and witness? (7)

One faction of the members of the WCC sees the Council as a visible expression of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (Una Sancta), while another part regards it as a simple ancillary tool for the attainment of unity:

The Orthodox Churches took part already at the inception of the Council, because they firmly believed that they were dealing with a simple tool…. (7)

First and foremost, we must strongly emphasize the falsity of this view that "the Orthodox Churches took part...at the inception of the Council."

The truth is that there was no Pan-Orthodox participation in the first and founding General Assembly of the WCC [emphasis that of the translators] in Amsterdam, Holland (August 22-September 4, 1948): "Only the Œcumenical Patriarchate, the Church of Cyprus, and the Church of Greece sent representatives."(8)

And not only was the Orthodox Church not fully represented, but precisely one month earlier it expressed strong protest—virtually Pan-Orthodox in character—thereto: ten leaders and representatives of the Autocephalous Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Georgia, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Albania, at the Congress of Moscow (July 8-18, 1948), refused to take part in the ecumenical movement, since they saw the WCC as aiming towards the creation of an "Ecumenical Church." (9)

Their view was proved indisputably true by the subsequent course of this ecumenical organization in Geneva.

1. The WCC has never ceased to feel and to act explicitly as though it were a super-church, and this has all along been, together with many other factors, the source of various misgivings regarding the multifaceted outlook of the Council.

Some twenty years ago, a veteran ecumenist summarized the Orthodox critique of the World Council of Churches as follows:

But such extremes and deviations and modernist ideas, the polarization and secularization of the World Council of Churches, as well as the tendency of theological dialogue to skirt the truth itself, dispose the Orthodox Church towards a critical attitude towards it. Thus, competent Orthodox judge that the Orthodox Church should rethink her decision to participate in the World Council of Churches, if it does not overcome its present crisis and the impending danger of secularization and ‘horizontalism’ [a preoccupation with worldly issues—Trs.], and if it does not return to its original, purely ecclesiastical purpose. Others, again, maintain the same opinion from a theological standpoint also, that this Council, as it was shaped and acts ecclesiastically, without being a Church, poses a great ecclesiological problem that is difficult to solve, a problem which the Orthodox Church will eventually be forced to confront. (10)

This most profound crisis of the WCC, with regard to its ecclesiological identity and bearings, something pointed out even before its inception, has certainly not been solved, and the WCC is keenly preoccupied with it, as evidenced by two recent consultations in Geneva. The first (June 1995) dealt at length with the theme, "A Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches," and had as its goal the "total reappraisal of the ecumenical commitment of the Orthodox Churches and the removal of specific uncertainties over their relations with the WCC". (11)

The second (September 1995) dealt with a text of the General Secretary about the "meaning of being a member of the WCC" and ultimately resolved that study "concerning the future orientation of the WCC" should be continued. (12)

Quite correct, then, is the observation that

This non-existence of an essential (ecclesiological) identity creates unlimited room for confusion, disagreements, and arbitrariness in every instance of a decision that involves the orientation and the basic goals of the WCC. (13)

1. Perhaps, however, the Orthodox anti-ecumenists exaggerate in maintaining that the WCC is possessed, apart from other things, by a super-church syndrome and the tendency to manifest itself as a kind of supreme authority supra Ecclesiam.

To prove our point, let us cite, apart from the foregoing "Message" in 1971, that in 1991, the then General Secretary of the WCC stated the following:

We believe that the WCC has a mission to embrace all of the churches, members or not. All of our programs are designed for all Christians, not only for those within our member churches...! (14)
In 1993, the eight-member Presidency of the WCC, in its Pentecost "Message," which is addressed to its member "churches" and which was signed by Patriarch Parthenios of Alexandria, wrote the following:

We can, as the Church, affirm our solidarity with women…! (15)
In 1994, again in their Pentecost "Message" the Presidents wrote similar, and even worse, things, and it was signed by the same Patriarch:

Our world has become very different since we sent you our last Pentecost message. Changes have come about that have wide repercussions. The Church is obligated by her calling to provide spiritual reserves and examples of virtuous human behavior, in a world that is so persistent in its search for the values of life.... Let us, then, be vigilant and courageous, as members of the body of Christ, as we build our faith in the family anew, in the context of the search for a new world order! (16)
These few testimonies are sufficient to prove the paternalistic syndrome of the WCC, to the extent that they have unquestionable ecclesiological weight, and the criticism of those Orthodox opposed to ecumenism focuses primarily on this point, in asserting that the ecumenical movement constitutes an ecclesiological heresy.

1. The one theme to which we constantly return is that the Orthodox members of the WCC sin very gravely because—apart from other considerations—, in their participation in the organization, their joint prayer, their coöperation, and their co-signing of its pronouncements, they help this confederation in Geneva to cultivate its consciousness as an "Ecumenical Church" and its tendency to project itself as a visible expression of the Una Sancta.

In vain do veteran Orthodox ecumenists state emphatically that "the Orthodox will never recognize the WCC as an ecclesiastical body, with the traits of the Una Sancta." (17)

In vain do Orthodox ecumenists formulate "a whole series of desiderata for a more profitable and more fruitful participation of the Orthodox Churches" in the WCC. (18)

In vain, finally, do they refer to the "positive and useful services which" the WCC "has offered and continues to offer" on a social and philanthropic level "to its member Churches." (18)

And we underscore the word "in vain," since none of the foregoing can dissuade us from a purely theological and ecclesiological evaluation of the ecumenical movement (and of the WCC), which genuinely constitutes "a tragic alienation from the actuality of the Church." (19)

The resolute stand of the ever-memorable Father Justin (Popovich) points us in the right direction, and the facts underline the dire necessity and "the duty of Orthodoxy to withdraw from the WCC" (20)

We repeat, that the Orthodox ecumenists sin very gravely,

—because the very fact of their participation in a man-made confederation constitutes de facto a withdrawal from an Orthodox ecclesiology and an alteration and corruption of the truth of the Church;
—because, by their participation in the WCC, they diminish beyond measure the prestige of the One (and Only) Holy Orthodox Church, "accepting like mendicants yearly economic assistance on the part of the Protestant Council of Churches" (21) and finding themselves linked together in various ways as "organic members" of a chain of heterodox communities, "each one of which (is) spiritual death"; (22)
—because they contribute irrevocably to the realization of the syncretistic dreams of the WCC, on an inter-Christian and inter-religious level, in that it has been admitted that "attempts" are being made, "chiefly by certain Third World theologians[,] to broaden the scope of the WCC, by embracing other religions, with the assertion that ‘the term oikoumene suggests the whole inhabited earth, and not only the Christian part of it’"; (23)
—because, finally, they fully confirm the accurate contention that the ecumenical movement, as was otherwise expected, has "long since degenerated, and aims towards being a kind of pan-religion." (21)
In conclusion, once again we address an anguished question, stemming from brotherly love, to the ecumenists among us Orthodox:

"Quo vadite, Orthodoxi Oecumenisti?"

"Whither go ye, O Orthodox ecumenists?"

Endnotes
(1) Orthodoxos Typos, No. 144/June 15, 1971, p. 4, abstract of the text.

(2) At the Assembly of the Central Committee of the WCC in Enungu, Nigeria, January 12-21, 1965 (see Vasilios T. Stavrides, History of the Ecumenical Movement, Analekta Vlatadon 47, pp. 150 and 157, Thessaloniki, 1984).

(3) We have before us the relevant accounts by living Serbian spiritual children of Father Justin. See also Tasos Michalas, Ten Days with the Orthodox Serbs, p. 37, "Heptalophos" Publications, Athens, 1983, where there is a reference to this event, naturally without any mention of the reasons. The recent Orthodox position paper by Bishop Artemije of Rashka-Prizren confirms the attitude of the Serbian Confessor. Bishop Artemije, who is of Father Justin’s stature, submitted to the Serbian Synod this memorandum, entitled, "The Serbian Orthodox Church and the World Council of Churches" (November 17, 1994), in which he declares that ecumenism constitutes an ecclesiological heresy, cites the Patristic position of his Elder at length, and proposes that the Serbs withdraw from the WCC, which—according to the memorandum—is a gathering of heretics (see the English text in Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIII, No. 2 [1996]—Tr.).

(4) Father Vasilios Voloudakis, "Before the Grave of Fr. Justin," in Orthodoxos Typos, No. 356/May 11, 1979, p. 2 (emphasis ours).

(5) Archimandrite George, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of St. Gregory (Mt. Athos), "Memorial Address in Honor of the Blessed Father Justin Popovich on His Forty-Day Memorial Service," in Ho Hosios Gregorios, No. 5/1980, pp. 45-47 (emphasis ours).

(6) We remind [our readers] that the ever-memorable Father Justin, in his historic Memorandum to the Serbian Synod (November 13/26, 1974), characterized the WCC as a heretical, humanistic, man-made, man-worshipping association; regarded the position of the Orthodox towards the ecumenical movement and the WCC as deplorably and hideously at odds with Holy Tradition, slavishly degrading the Holy Church; and finally, emphatically underscored that the decision (a Pan-Orthodox one!) that the Orthodox Church should be an organic member of the WCC was apocalyptically atrocious in its un-Orthodoxy and anti-Orthodoxy and a monstrous indignity and unprecedented betrayal! (See the full text of the Memorandum in Koinonia, March-April 1975, pp. 95-101; also in Orthodoxos Typos, No. 235/June 1, 1975, and in Orthodoxos Enstasis kai Martyria, Nos. 18-21/January-December 1990, pp. 166-173.)

(7) Prof. Father Emmanuel Clapsis, "‘What the Spirit is Saying to the Churches’/ Missionary Implications of the 7th General Assembly of the WCC," in the collective volume of G.N. Laimopoulos, The 7th General Assembly of the World Council of Churches—Canberra, February 1991—Chronicle, Texts, Evaluations, p. 247, "Tertios" Publications, Katerini, 1991.

(8) V.T. Stavrides, History of the Ecumenical Movement, op. cit., p. 113. Especially noteworthy is the fact that the few participating Orthodox representatives, "chosen at the last moment" and "not knowing that they would be voting on the first charter" of the WCC, which passed itself off as "a fellowship of Churches jure profano [according to secular law], in accordance with Article 66 of the Swiss Civil Code," were divided; "a debate was provoked" and "a disagreement arose," and finally "separate reports were submitted to the Holy Synod (of Greece), and a war of words between the members of the delegation was brought to pass"! (See Gerasimos J. Konidaris, "Amsterdam," entry in the Threskevtike kai Ethike Enkyklopaideia, Vol. 2, cols. 395-396, Athens, 1963.)

(9) V.T. Stavrides, ibid., pp. 111-112. It should be noted that in Amsterdam the Dutch General Secretary, Visser ‘t Hooft cited, among other things, the following characteristics, which express the self-awareness of the WCC at its creation: "(1) we are building a type of inter-church community, for which there is no prior model in the history of the Church; (2) the Ecumenical Council, without substituting for the Churches, constitutes above all a fellowship (Gemeinschaft), which attempts to express the unity in Christ of the 147 Churches (i.e., those which took part in the 1st General Assembly—our note), among which are the historic Holy Orthodox and other Churches; (3) …the sole purpose, which deserves the attention of the Council of Churches, is the manifestation of the one undivided Church." (See G.J. Konidaris, op. cit., emphasis ours.)

(10) John Karmiris, The Orthodox Church in Dialogue with the Heterodox Churches, pp. 79-80 (emphasis ours), in V.T. Stavrides, ibid., p. 204. Cf. Nicholas A. Matsoukas, The Ecumenical Movement/History-Theology, Philosophical and Theological Library, No. 4, p. 278, n. 67, "P. Pournaras" Publications, Thessaloniki, 1991. See also, Vasilios Stavrides, "Orthodox coöperation in the Ecumenical Movement," Episkepsis, No. 205/ March 1, 1979, p. 14.

(11) Episkepsis, No. 519/June 30, 1995, p. 24. The "Meeting" took place following an invitation from the General Secretary of the WCC at the "Orthodox Center of the Œcumenical Patriarchate" in Chamblésy, Geneva, and Orthodox, Non-Chalcedonians, and senior executives of the Council participated in it (June 19-24, 1995). See a detailed report in Enimerosis (Geneva), 11-1995/7-8, pp. 3-5: "The Future Course of the World Council of Churches[:] the Subject of a Consultation of Its Leadership with the Orthodox and Ancient Oriental Christians," and pp. 10-12: "Orthodox and the World Council of Churches—the Difference between Responsible Criticism and Malicious Misinformation" ("Note" by Protopresbyter George Tsetsis) (reprinted in Ekklesiastike Aletheia, No. 401/September 1-16, 1995, p. 10). Cf. "Response by Mr. Nicholas Psaroudakis" in Orthodoxos Typos, No. 1144/October 13, 1995, pp. 1 and 3, No. 1145/ October 20, 1995, pp. 1 and 3. While certainly not agreeing with the "Note" of Father G. Tsetsis and his severe characterizations of those who react against ecumenism, it is impossible for us to agree with the "Response" of Mr. Psaroudakis, which expresses a purely fundamentalist spirit in both its tone and essence.

(12) Enimerosis, 11-1995/9, p. 2: "World Council of Churches—the 46th Regular Meeting of the Central Committee."

(13) Chrestos Yannaras, The Truth and Unity of the Church, chapter 4, "The Problem of Unity Today," 10, "Confederational Unity," p. 206, "Gregore" Publications, Athens, 1977 (emphasis ours).

(14) One World, No. 168/August-September 1991, p. 17: "A Mirror of Diversity—A Conversation with Emilio Castro" (emphasis ours).

(15) Ecumenical Press Service, No. 10/93.04.15: "Pentecost Message from the WCC".

(16) Ecumenical Press Service, No. 9/94.04.36: "Pentecost Message from the WCC Presidents."

(17) Enimerosis, 11-1995/7-8, p. 4. This statement is that of Metropolitan John of Pergamon, who spoke at the aforementioned Consultation in Geneva (see footnote 11) on the subject of "The Self-Understanding of the Orthodox and the Participation of the Orthodox Churches in the Ecumenical Movement."

(18) Protopresbyter George Tsetsis, "Orthodox and the World Council of Churches—the Difference between Responsible Criticism and Malicious Misinformation," in Enimerosis, 11-1995/7-8, pp. 10-12.

(19) Yannaras, op. cit., p. 216.

(20) V.T. Stavrides, op. cit., p. 216. See also Episkepsis, No. 205/March 1, 1979, p. 13.

(21) Archimandrite Spyridon Bilalis, Orthodoxy and Papism, Vol. 1: Critique of Papism, pp. 376 and 377, "Orthodoxos Typos" Publications, Athens, 1969.

(22) Archimandrite Justin (Popovich), Memorandum (see footnote 6).

(23) Enimerosis 9-1993, p. 8 (emphasis ours): "An Orthodox Self-Examination of the Ecumenical Movement Today: Topic of an Address in the Context of Presentations in Memory of Georges Florovsky." Protopresbyter George Tsetsis lectured on this topic, as the keynote speaker, in Boston in May of 1993.

Translated from the Greek by Hieromonk Patapios and Archbishop Chrysostomos from the periodical Hagios Kyprianos, Nos. 267-268 (July-October, 1995), pp. 67-72. This appeared in Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIII, Nos. 3&4, pp. 4-10.

[Kollyvas]

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/01n ... oneku.html

Deacon Nikolai Savchenko (St. Petersburg)
Introductory Speech at the Round Table on Ecumenism

Nyack, NY 8-12 December 2003

Probably everyone without exception desires that both parts of the Russian Church, the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, find communion in Truth. There is hope for this, for over the last few years, the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate has taken a notable stride away from ecumenism. Still, complete emancipation from ecumenism has not yet occurred and obstacles to our communion remain. In all fairness, one cannot say now that the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate as a whole preaches ecumenism. Individual representatives preach it, but the overwhelming majority of the people and clergy decisively reject its false teaching. Now it is even difficult to imagine that books defending ecumenism could be offered in churches in Russia. All of monasticism is directly opposed to ecumenism. Demands for withdrawal from the WCC have weakened somewhat because the leadership of the MP convinced the monastics and laity that the attitude towards the WCC underwent essential changes and now there are no more joint ecumenical prayers and ceremonies, and that representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate are simply observers in the WCC.

The leadership of the MP also convinced the people and clergy that the Balamand and Chambesy documents were not approved by the church leadership and so there is no need for alarm, although we note that these documents were also not rejected or even evaluated properly. Ecumenical prayers have almost ceased, having previously been held regularly in the largest cathedrals. Still, we notice that as before, they are still allowed with the blessing of the ruling bishop. There are changes noticed in the pages of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate (JMP). Before, one could find one or two references to ecumenical and even interfaith prayers in every issue of the JMP. It is difficult to find even one such mention today. The official journal of the Moscow Patriarchate now contains almost no reports of ecumenical activities. At one time there were instances when all the members of the Synod of the MP, headed by the Patriarch, participated in silent prayer together with Hindus and Buddhists at interfaith congresses in Moscow (1987-1988). Now this does not occur, although there has not been a proper evaluation of this manifestation. There are many such laypersons and clergymen in Russia today who are convinced, based on their own experience, that ecumenism no longer exists, that it has died. Such religious people as a rule are genuinely baffled as to why the ROCOR even now does not withdraw its rebukes towards the MP for its ecumenism. In their eyes, we are unwillingly and unwittingly unfair. This must also be taken into account. The opinion is widespread in Russia that our Church ostensibly calls for complete exclusion of any contact with the heterodox. It is felt that we call any conversation or dialog with those of other faiths ecumenism and demand complete so-called "isolation." Over the last two years, Patriarch Alexy said several times in the media that the Russian Orthodox Church cannot be isolated, and for this reason will continue its membership in the WCC. These views are also widely held in Russia. Now, when conversations have begun with the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, we must calmly consider all the questions of the ecumenical movement and membership in the WCC. We must peacefully and with sound arguments show that our communion is hindered by the matter of ecumenism, and, first of all, in the question of membership in the WCC.

There are two levels of participation in inter-confessional activities. One is the participation with the rights of a simple observer, that is, not as a member, but as a bystander. The other is full membership in an ecumenical organization. Unfortunately, the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate today participates in the work of the WCC as a full member of the Council. It is this problem, I feel, upon which we must concentrate. For it is this membership of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in the WCC that more than anything contradicts the canons of the Orthodox Church, which intentionally or not threatens its very teachings and so remains as an obstacle to our communion. One can list the reasons why membership in the WCC becomes such a problem:

1. The first important reason is that the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate today remains a member of the higher leadership of the WCC and participates in the administration, planning and financing of the entire operation of the WCC.
   Official representatives of the ROC MP are in the Central Committee of the WCC. The Central Committee is the administrative organ of the WCC. It determines the policies of the WCC, makes official statements of a faith-teaching nature, and makes moral evaluations of various phenomena of contemporary life in those areas presented to it by member churches. The membership of the latest CC of the WCC was selected at the assembly of the WCC in Harare in 1998. The official list of members of the CC of the WCC shows that there are 5 people from the MP in the Central Committee, headed by Bishop Illarion (Alfeev). There are some 150 members of the CC overall, including 9 women priests, according to the official list. The last session of the CC of the WCC with the participation of the members of the ROC MP was held at the end of August 2003.

Besides participation in the CC, representatives of the MP are also members of the Executive Committee of the WCC, the aims of which are the direct supervision of the entire operation of the WCC and the organization of all activities. The official list of members of the Executive Committee consists of 24 persons, including the representative of the MP, Bishop Illarion (Alfeev). Besides him, the Executive Committee includes representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Rumanian Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church of America. The last session of the Executive Committee with the participation of the representatives of the MP was held in August 2003. At this session, a new "Committee on Prayer" was formed with the aim of preparing the text and rite of ecumenical prayer. There are 10 persons on this Committee, including a representative of the MP, Fr. Andrei Eliseev. At the same time, the Vice President of the "Committee on Prayer" is a Protestant woman priest.

Based on the participation of the ROC MP in the higher leadership of the WCC, in the guidance, planning and financing of the work of the Council, one can conclude that the ROC MP is in fact responsible for all the decisions of the WCC, which contradict the dogmatic and moral teaching of the Orthodox Church.

1. The second reason for the incompatibility of membership in the WCC with the laws of the Church is that the Constitution of the WCC considers membership not of individual representatives, but specifically of the entire Local Church in its fullness. Every Local Church in the WCC is considered a full member, that is, a part of a heterodox association.
   In accordance with the "Basis of the WCC," it is a "fellowship of Churches." In this definition lies the essential difference from its original formulation proposed by the committee called "Faith and Order" in 1937, when the future WCC was offered as a "community of representatives of Churches." The difference is significant. A community of churches themselves is not the same thing as a community of representatives of churches, as had been stated earlier. In the present situation it turns out that the Orthodox Church is considered a part of some wider fellowship under the name of the WCC. The Council is not a simple association of churches. The founding documents provide that it is a "body" possessing "ecclesiological significance," as the heading of the Toronto Statement says.

The understanding of membership in the WCC as a membership of the entire Orthodox Church exists in documents of the Local Churches. As an example, the following citation from the document entitled "The Orthodox Church and the World Council of Churches."

This document was adopted at a session of inter-Orthodox consultation in Chambesy in 1991. Point 4 states: "The Orthodox Churches participate in the WCC's life and activities only on the understanding that the WCC ‘is a council of churches’ and not a council of individuals, groups, movements or religious bodies which are involved in the Council's goal, tasks and vision." (JMP No. 1, 1992, p. 62).

Membership in the WCC is not simply the observation of the activities of the Council. Membership means actually becoming a part of the ecumenical fellowship. The ROC MP cannot be a member of the WCC, since this means becoming a part of the ecumenical fellowship.

1. The third reason why membership in the WCC contradicts Orthodoxy is that membership necessarily signifies agreement with the constitutional principles of the WCC and its rules. For example, the Constitution of the WCC (part III) states that the Council was formed by member churches to serve the one ecumenical movement. Does this mean that the member churches should or must completely serve the ecumenical movement? By all appearances, yes. Further, the Constitution (part III) uses the following words to describe the duties of the churches joining the Council: In seeking koinonia [fellowship—ed.] in faith and life, witness and service, the churches through the Council will facilitate common witness in each place and in all placesЙand nurture the growth of an ecumenical consciousness."

One other important constitutional document is the declaration "Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches." This document was adopted by the Central Committee in 1997 with the participation of representatives of the Local Churches. It also contains views inconsistent with Orthodox teaching on the Church. First of all this concerns how to properly understand the cornerstone term of the "Basis of the WCC," that the Council is a "fellowship of Churches." It follows from this that the member churches of the WCC are considered to have entered into an organic ecclesiastical communion with other members of the WCC with all their ills and heresies. The document "Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches," point 3.5.3, directly spreads this ecclesiastical communion over the entire Orthodox Church with all her people.

The main document of the WCC possessing constitutional significance, continues to be the Toronto document "The Church, the Churches and the World Council of Churches." It was on the basis of this document that the Local Churches joined the WCC in the 1960’s. It also contains clearly-defined principles which at their root contradict Orthodoxy. For instance, point 4.8 of the Toronto document states: "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." It is obvious that the principle of "building up the Body of Christ" contradicts Orthodox teaching of the Church, yet it is prescribed in the founding document of the WCC and has remained unchanged.

From the above, we can conclude that membership in the WCC presupposes consent with its constitutional principles, which contradict Orthodoxy. The ROC MP should not be a member of an organization the constitutional principles of which contradict Orthodoxy.
The All-Orthodox Conference of 1998 in Thessaloniki decreed that it is necessary to reform the WCC. In December 1998, a "Special Committee" was established on Orthodox membership in the WCC. Half of this committee consisted of representatives of the Local Churches and half of the heterodox. The goal of the Committee was to clarify the problems of Orthodox participation and to designate ways to resolve them. It was even assumed that the activity of the Committee would result in such changes that would not contradict the laws of the Orthodox Church.
The "Final Report of the Committee" contains ideas that preach the branch theory. "The Commission envisions a Council that will hold churches together in an ecumenical space where churches through dialogue continue to break down the barriers that prevent them from recognizing each other as churches that confess the one faith, celebrate one baptism and administer the one eucharist" (section A, point 11). This citation on the removal of barriers hindering the attainment of unity clearly reflects the branch theory in a document signed by representatives of the Local [Orthodox] Churches.

In addition, the "Report," in point 30, section A, calls for the all to remain members of the WCC to "renew the commitment to stay together," and in point 39 states directly that the member churches of the WCC "experienced progress towards unity."

The final documents do not give any hope for reforming the WCC. At one time, the Office of External Church Affairs of the MP made a proposal to divide the structure of the WCC into several parts, reserving one for the so-called traditional churches. Yet the WCC rejected outright the proposal of its own fragmentation. The General Secretary of the WCC, Konrad Reiser, in his report during the next-to-last session of the Central Committee spoke of the need to reform the WCC, but in his opinion this reform is needed because of the problems of globalization, both social and economical, while the desires of the Orthodox he only briefly mentioned somewhere in his seventh point.

The final documents also give no hope for the cessation of ecumenical prayers. The report does not state anywhere that Orthodox may not participate in joint prayers with the heterodox. It speaks only of the need to differentiate between "confessional" and "inter-confessional" prayer. The document does not reject in principle joint prayers with women priests or adherents of unnatural sins. In the matter of the priesthood of women, these two final documents speak roughly the same thing that the Damascus document of June 1998 does, where it was declared that questions of agreement or disagreement with the priesthood of women, abortion and unnatural sins should not separate members of the WCC.

There is no need to speak at length about the contemporary ecumenical movement. Its spirit is well known to us all. But we must speak of, and effectuate the departure from it, the need to cease to be its member or participant. Now the choice is clear for participants in the ecumenical movement. With whom do they stand? With us, Orthodox, or with the ecumenical movement? With the overwhelming majority of people and clergymen in Russia and abroad or with Protestants who are alien to us? Can there be true peace in the Russian Church if this choice is not made? Can there be true unity in the Truth without this choice? But if, the Lord help us, this choice is made correctly, then true peace will return to the Church, which we desire and for which we pray before the Holy Gifts at every liturgy.
Deacon Nikolai Savchenko
Nyack, NY