The Synod ofAthenagoras. The response of Orthodoxy

ORTHODOXY IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

THE "GREAT SYNOD" OF PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS: THE RESPONSE OF GENUINE ORTHODOXY

1. Epistle of Metropolitan Philaret to the Ecumenical Patriarch

IN THE EASTER Encyclical (1968) of Patriarch Athenagoras mention was made of "an addition joy" (besides the Paschal joy): the announcement that "our Holy Eastern Orthodox Church is proceeding toward the convening of a Great Synod, for the purpose of renewal of the Church and the establishment of the unity of all Christian churches." To this end a Preparatory Pan-Orthodox Commission met in June in Geneva.

All this, of course, is nothing new. The Pan-Orthodox Conferences in Rhodes were steps on this same path. Frankly, these conferences have not had great success. Representatives from most Orthodox Churches (with the notable exception of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, banned at the demand of the Moscow Patriarchate) have duly met, but little enthusiasm has been shown for the Patriarch's dreamed-of Council, and there has been little agreement among the participants; and always the representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate have been present to speak the Communist party line, to agitate against Russians outside of their jurisdiction, and to prevent discussion of any question that would offend their atheist rulers.

There is, however, a goal in back of all these preparations: the "renewal" (i.e, modernization) of the Church. And it is this that called forth the letter of protest of Metropolitan Philaret to the Patriarch's Easter Encyclical – the Metropolitan's first open letter to the Patriarch since his magnificent protest against the lifting of the Anathemas in 1965 (printed in The Orthodox Word, 1966, no. 1, p. 27; also in Against False Union, p. 106).

The Metropolitan's response is one of Orthodox sobriety and warning. Its main points may be summarized and quoted here. "Not every convocation of a Council calls forth joy, and not every Great Council, however many representatives of autocephalous Churches may have attended it, has been honored by the recognition of the Church... For this every new Council must be in full accord with all previous Ecumenical Councils." The false "Robber Council" of Ephesus is an example of a well-attended Council that was not recognized by the Church.

An Ecumenical Council is convened "in order to condemn and eliminate, in agreement with ancient tradition, innovation in the form of arbitrary doctrine, which is the fruit of human pride, of compliance with the mighty of this world, or of accomodation of the Church to a widespread error." The Ecumenical Patriarch, however, has shown no concern to proclaim Orthodox truth in the face of newly-arisen errors, but on the contrary introduces a novelty called "the renewal of the Church" and looks to the union of Orthodoxy with heretodoxy, of truth with error – a union now known as "ecumenism, which has become the mode of the day for those following the "broad path" of "this world."

We already have before us the example of the Second Vatican Council of the Latin church which, having roughly the same goals as the Patriarch has set forth for his Great Council, aspired not to return to Orthodoxy but rather desired "renewal," accomodation to contemporary society, and ended by introducing modern temptations into her very life with the resulting spiritual anarchy which she now exhibits to the world.

The Russian Church too has experienced the harm of "renovationism" in the form of the "Living Church," which after the Revolution tried to adapt Orthodoxy to Communism; it was rejected by the Russian faithful and, it is to be hoped, will serve as an example for other Orthodox Churches of the path not to follow.

And there is another point that already invalidates the proposed Council: "However numerous may be the participants of the Great Council which you have called, it cannot possess an ecumenical Orthodox authority, for at it will not be heard the genuine voice of the Church largest in number of faithful, the martyrical Russian Orthodox Church." Those hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate who pretend to represent the Russian Church have neither right nor authority to do so, being the servants and collaborators of the enemies of the Church. Of this there has been additional ample proof in recent years in the Open Letter of the two Moscow priests, in several letters of the former Archbishop of Kaluga Germogen, and other documents. "Their voice at the Council will not be the free voice of the Church, but in many cases the voice of her enemies who rule over them. Although behind that voice will stand the external prestige of the Russian Church for those who do not know or do not wish to know its true condition we who are aware of the – true situation of things can attach neither canonical nor moral significance to any decisions made with the participation of the hierarchy enslaved by the godless."

Once again, with this epistle, the head of the Russian Church Abroad expresses clearly and loudly the voice of the undimmed Orthodox conscience in these troubled times. (For full text see inside back cover.)

2. In View of an Eventual Ecumenical Council

The following article, by Fr. Bas;le M. Sakkas, Greek priest of the Swiss Orthodox parish in Geneva, appeared in his bulletin, La foi transmise, for August, 1968, and expresses the Orthodox conscience with equal directness and clarity.

Apart from the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, the Church of Christ has gathered together seven times in Ecumenical Councils and in various other local councils. The Ecumenical Councils were convoked only for an important reason. They were not convoked to make dogmas or to decide whether God is trinitarian or not; rather, the Church, being endangered by the confusion of heresy, came together in council to confess how she had received, from the beginning, the teaching of Divine Revelation, to indicate the line of demarcation between truth and error.

But here a question arises: what is today the new heresy that menaces the Church and against which she has not already taken a position, so that the convocation of a new council would be necessary? Almost everyone tells us that a new council should be convoked, but they do not tell us why. Do we demand councils today, when the situation of almost all the Orthodox Churches is so delicate, when Church and State are so influenced by politics and diplomacy? While we are incapable of applying in our life the teaching of the first seven councils, shall we seek an eighth? Or is it in order to be in fashion, having a complex with regard to Rome? Some say that our canons have need of revision (aggiornamento) because they are medieval! Really, that will not go over with us. With her canons the Church has lived for almost 2000 years, and she will live until the Second Coming of Christ. With her canons the Church has revealed a multitude of saints, martyrs, ascetics, confessors, doctors, and so many other men of God; she has viewed slavery, persecution, death; she has shed rivers of blood, while waiting for us, us... the enlightened ones of the 20th century, with our snobbism, to revise her canons!? Today it is long hair that embarrasses us; tomorrow it will be beards. One will have to make official the Papal calendar, change the canon concerning Easter, pray and sympathize with heretics, marry the bishops, abbreviate the services and the fasts, in order to appear as cultured men with a progressive spirit!

Do you want a council? Make one, then. The Lord's people will put it in the archives together with that of Florence.

Let us never forget that Orthodoxy has a conscience.