"And the issue of Prof. John Erickson's heretical antics?" & those antics were...?
Dean Erickson comments on the antics of the "Traditionalists":
I was pointing out some of the assumptions behind early Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement as presented, e.g., in
1920 encyclical of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This encyclical took for granted that churches of east and west upheld the same moral values. It took for granted that one could in fact speak of the churches of east and west. It took for granted that the Church Universal was meant to be a communion of local churches. It took for granted that the Orthodox churches were the actualization of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, but it also implicitly recognized that other local churches - even though separated for a variety of reasons, some very grave - nevertheless were not wholly sundered from church fellowship, that some bonds of communion remained, allowing the possibility of dialogue aimed at greater unity and fuller communion.
But not all Orthodox would agree with these assumptions. Some would take Orthodox claims to be the one true Church in an exclusive rather than an inclusive sense, so that outside the canonical limits of the Orthodox Church as we currently perceive them there is simply undifferentiated darkness, in which the pope is no better than a witchdoctor. How are we to evaluate these conflicting views? The exclusive view today claims to represent true Orthodoxy, traditional Orthodoxy. In fact - as I could argue at greater length - this "traditionalist" view is a relatively recent phenomenon, basically an 18th-century reaction to the equally exclusive claims advanced by the Roman Catholic Church in that period. Nevertheless this view has gained wide currency today. But where?And how? And why?
In fact this modern Orthodox "traditionalism" until quite recently made little headway in the traditionally Orthodox lands of eastern Europe. It has developed in the West, and it has thrived in the West, indeed here in the United States, especially in Greek Old Calendarist circles (including several monasteries in the United States) and in the closely allied Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (headquartered on East 93rd Street in New York City). Time does not permit us to trace here the ideological evolution of these groups. What is important to note is that those most committed to the "traditionalism" they preach are not pious old ethnics and emigres but more often zealous converts to Orthodoxy. Like Western converts to Buddhism and other more or less exotic religions (New Age, Native American...), these converts are attracted by their new faith’s spirituality, which seems so unlike what the West today has to offer. They also are especially quick to adopt those elements which they deem most distinctive, most antiwestern, about their new faith - not just prayer ropes and headcoverings but also an exclusive, sectarian view of the church that in fact is quite at odds with historic Orthodoxy.
Superficially their message, proclaimed on numerous websites, may seem to be at one with that of the established, "canonical" Orthodox Churches - at one with some of the statements of Patriarch Bartholomew or the Russian Orthodox Church, which, as we have seen, have been critical of the WCC and the Vatican. But in fact their message is different, even radically different. Their message, in my opinion, is more a product of the late modern or post-modern West than an expression of historic Eastern Christianity. . .
I have argued that the Orthodox retreat from ecumenism over the last decade is not a simple phenomenon, nor is it monolithic. Mainstream "canonical" Orthodox and "traditionalist" Orthodox operate from very different perspectives. But the line between mainstream and traditionalist is becoming fuzzier. Traditionalist rhetoric has been affecting the mainstream.
Let me give one example: the withdrawal of the Orthodox Church of Georgia from the WCC. This withdrawal was prompted by the threat of schism on the part of a significant monastic element if the church did not withdraw. Was this monastic element simply expressing the instinctive civilizational reaction of Orthodoxy to the alien western ideology of ecumenism? Was this a case of the Orthodox now being Orthodox? So readers of Huntington might argue. The story is not so simple. The literature emanating from this monastic element is very interesting. It could have been cribbed from "traditionalist" websites and publications here in the United States - the same rhetoric, the same accusations, the same claims, the same misinformation and disinformation. The Georgian Church as a whole, and certainly the catholicos, was not inclined to turn its back on the rest of mainstream Orthodoxy. Most of the monastic demands - e.g. to break communion with any Orthodox church that continued to participate in the ecumenical movement - in fact were rejected; leaders of the attempted schism were summoned to repent or face deposition. But to defuse the situation, a situation created in large part by alien "traditionalist" propaganda coming in from the West, the Georgian Church did announce its withdrawal from the WCC.
To sum up: Has there been an Orthodox retreat from ecumenism in postcommunist Russia and Eastern Europe? Yes. But this retreat cannot be explained simply by reference to dark and anonymous underlying civilizational forces. Any explanation must also take into account the relative ease with which pressure groups, sometimes quite small, can spread their preferred ideologies in our post-modern world. And any explanation must take into account the fact that such pressure groups are at work not only in the Orthodox east but also in the west and indeed throughout the world today.
From:
A Retreat from Ecumenism in Post-Communist Russia and Eastern Europe?
John H. Erickson
Harriman Institute
Columbia University
April 7, 2000
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/sipa/REGIONA ... ickson.pdf
