The Orthodox Church on "Inter-communion" and Ecumenism

As delegates to the North American Faith and Order Study Conference, appointed by His Eminence, Archbishop Michael, to represent the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, we want to make the following preliminary statements.

We are glad to take part in a study-conference, devoted to such a basic need of the Christian World as Unity. All Christians should seek Unity. On the other hand, we feel that the whole program of the forthcoming discussion has been framed from a point of view which we cannot conscientiously admit. "The Unity we seek" is for us a given Unity which has never been lost, and, as a Divine gift and an essential mark of Christian existence, could not have been lost. This unity in the Church of Christ is for us a Unity in the Historical Church, in the fullness of faith, in the fullness of continuous sacramental life. For us, this Unity is embodied in the Orthodox Church, which kept, catholikos and anelleipos, both the integrity of the Apostolic Faith and the integrity of the Apostolic Order.

Our share in the study of Christian Unity is determined by our firm conviction that this Unity can be found only in the fellowship of the Historical Church, preserving faithfully the catholic tradition, both in doctrine and in order. We cannot commit ourselves to any discussion of these basic assumptions, as if they were but hypothetical or problematic. We begin with a clear conception of the Church’s Unity, which we believe has been embodied and realized in the age-long history of the Orthodox Church, without any change or break since the times when the visible Unity of Christendom was an obvious fact and was attested and witnessed to by an ecumenical unanimity, in the age of the Ecumenical Councils.

We admit, of course, that the Unity of Christendom has been disrupted, that the unity of faith and the integrity of order have been sorely broken. But we do not admit that the Unity of the Church, and precisely of the "visible" and historical Church, has ever been broken or lost, so as to now be a problem of search and discovery. The problem of Unity is for us, therefore, the problem of the return to the fullness of Faith and Order, in full faithfulness to the message of Scripture and Tradition and in the obedience to the will of God: "that all may be one".

Long before the breakup of the unity of Western Christendom, the Orthodox Church has had a keen sense of the essential importance of the oneness of Christian believers and from her very inception she has deplored divisions within the Christian world. As in the past, so in the present, she laments disunity among those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ Whose purpose in the world was to unite all believers into one body. The Orthodox Church feels that, since she has been unassociated with the events related to the breakdown of religious unity in the West, she bears a special responsibility to contribute toward the restoration of the Christian unity which alone can render the message of the Gospel effective in a world troubled by threats of world conflict and general uncertainty over the future.

It is with humility that we voice the conviction that the Orthodox Church can make a special contribution to the cause of Christian unity, because since Pentecost she has possessed the true unity intended by Christ. It is with this conviction that the Orthodox Church is always prepared to meet with Christians of other communions in inter-confessional deliberations. She rejoices over the fact that she is able to join those of other denominations in ecumenical conversations that aim at removing the barriers to Christian unity. However, we feel compelled in all honesty, as representatives of the Orthodox Church, to confess that we must qualify our participation, as necessitated by the historic faith and practice of our Church, and also state the general position that must be taken at this interdenominational conference.

In considering firstly "the nature of the unity we seek," we wish to begin by making clear that our approach is at variance with that usually advocated and ordinarily expected by participating representatives. The Orthodox Church teaches that the unity of the Church has not been lost, because she is the Body of Christ, and, as such, can never be divided. It is Christ as her head and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that secure the unity of the Church throughout the ages.

The presence of human imperfection among her members is powerless to obliterate the unity, for Christ Himself promised that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church." Satan has always sown tares in the field of the Lord and the forces of disunity have often threatened but have never actually succeeded in dividing the Church. No power can be mightier than the omnipotent will of Christ Who founded one Church only in order to bring men into unity with God. Oneness is an essential mark of the Church.

If it be true that Christ founded the Church as a means of unifying men divided by sin, then it must naturally follow that the unity of the Church was preserved by His divine omnipotence. Unity, therefore, is not just a promise, or a potentiality, but belongs to the very nature of the Church. It is not something which has been lost and which should be recovered, but rather it is a permanent character of the structure of the Church.

Christian love impels us to speak candidly of our conviction that the Orthodox Church has not lost the unity of the Church intended by Christ, for she represents the oneness which in Western Christendom has only been a potentiality. The Orthodox Church teaches that she has no need to search for a "lost unity," because her historic consciousness dictates that she is the Una Sancta and that all Christian groups outside the Orthodox Church can recover their unity only by entering into the bosom of that Church which preserved its identity with early Christianity.

These are claims that arise not from presumptuousness, but from an inner historical awareness of the Orthodox Church. Indeed, this is the special message of Eastern Orthodoxy to a divided Western Christendom.

The Orthodox Church true to her historical consciousness declares that she has maintained an unbroken continuity with the Church of Pentecost by preserving the Apostolic faith and polity unadulterated. She has kept the "faith once delivered unto the saints" free from the distortions of human innovations. Man-made doctrines have never found their way into the Orthodox Church, since she has no necessary association in history with the name of one single father or theologian. She owes the fullness and the guarantee of unity and infallibility to the operation of the Holy Spirit and not to the service of one individual. It is for this reason that she has never felt the need for what is known as "a return to the purity of the Apostolic faith." She maintains the necessary balance between freedom and authority and thus avoids the extremes of absolutism and individualism both of which have done violence to Christian unity.

We re-assert what was declared at Evanston and what has been made known in the past at all interdenominational conferences attended by delegates of the Orthodox Church. It is not due to our personal merit, but to divine condescension that we represent the Orthodox Church and are able to give expression to her claims. We are bound in conscience to state explicitly what is logically inferred; that all other bodies have been directly or indirectly separated from the Orthodox Church. Unity from the Orthodox standpoint means a return of the separated bodies to the historical Orthodox, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

The unity which Orthodoxy represents rests on identity of faith, order, and worship. All three aspects of the life of the Church are outwardly safeguarded by the reality of the unbroken succession of bishops which is the assurance of the Church's uninterrupted continuity with apostolic origins. This means that the uncompromised fullness of the Church requires the preservation of both its episcopal structure and sacramental life. Adhering tenaciously to her Apostolic heritage, the Orthodox Church holds that no true unity is possible where episcopacy and sacraments are absent, and grieves over the fact that both institutions have either been discarded or distorted in certain quarters of Christendom. Any agreement on faith must rest on the authority of the enactments of the seven Ecumenical Councils which represent the mind of the one undivided Church of antiquity and the subsequent tradition as safeguarded in the life of the Orthodox Church.

We regret that the most vital problem of Ministry and that of the Apostolic Succession, without which to our mind there is neither unity, nor church, were not included in the program of the Conference. All problems of Order seem to be missing in the program. These, in our opinion, are basic for any study of Unity.

Visible unity expressed in organizational union does not destroy the centrality of the spirit among believers, but rather testifies to the reality of the oneness of the Spirit. Where there is the fullness of the Spirit, there too will outward amity be found. From Apostolic times the unity of Christian believers was manifested by a visible, organizational structure. It is the unity in the Holy Spirit that is expressed in a unified visible organization.

The Holy Eucharist, as the chief act of worship, is the outward affirmation of the inner relation rising from unity in the Holy Spirit. But this unity involves a consensus of faith among those participating. Intercommunion, therefore, is possible only when there is agreement of faith. Common worship in every case must presuppose a common faith. The Orthodox Church maintains that worship of any nature cannot be sincere unless there is oneness of faith among those participating. It is with this belief that the Orthodox hesitate to share in Joint prayer services and strictly refrain from attending interdenominational Communion Services.

A common faith and a common worship are inseparable in the historical continuity of the Orthodox Church. However, in isolation neither can be preserved integral and intact. Both must be kept in organic and inner relationship with each other. It is for this reason that Christian unity cannot be realized merely by determining what articles of faith or what creed should be regarded as constituting the basis of unity. In addition to subscribing to certain doctrines of faith, it is necessary to achieve the experience of a common tradition or communis sensus fidelium preserved through common worship within the historic framework of the Orthodox Church. There can be no true unanimity of faith unless that faith remains within the life and sacred tradition of the Church which is identical throughout the ages. It is in the experience of worship that we affirm the true faith, and conversely, it is in the recognition of a common faith that we secure the reality of worship in spirit and in truth.

Thus the Orthodox Church in each locality insists on agreement of faith and worship before it will consider sharing in any interdenominational activity. Doctrinal differences constitute an obstacle in the way of unrestricted participation in such activities. In order to safeguard the purity of the faith and the integrity of the liturgical and spiritual life of the Orthodox Church, abstinence from interdenominational activities is encouraged on a local level. There is no phase of the Church’s life unrelated to her faith. Intercommunion with another church must be grounded on a consensus of faith and a common understanding of the sacramental life. The Holy Eucharist especially must be the liturgical demonstration of the unity of faith.

We are fully aware of deep divergences which separate Christian denominations from each other, in all fields of Christian life and existence, in the understanding of faith, in the shaping of life, in the habits of worship. We are seeking, accordingly, an unanimity in faith, an identity of order, a fellowship in prayer. But for us all the three are organically linked together. Communion in worship is only possible in the unity of faiths. Communion presupposes Unity. Therefore, the term "Intercommunion" seems to us an epitome of that conception which we are compelled to reject. An "intercommunion" presupposes the existence of several separate and separated denominations, which join occasionally in certain common acts or actions. In the true Unity of Christ’s Church there is no room for several "denominations." There is, therefore, no room for "'intercommunion." When all are truly united in the Apostolic Faith and Order, there will be all-inclusive Communion and Fellowship in all things.

It has been stated by the Orthodox delegates already in Edinburgh, in 1937, that many problems are presented at Faith and Order Conferences in a manner and in a setting which are utterly uncongenial to the Orthodox. We again must repeat the same statement now. But again, as years ago in Edinburgh, we want to testify our readiness and willingness to participate in study, in order that the Truth of the Gospel and the fullness of the Apostolic Tradition may be brought to the knowledge of all who, truly, unselfishly, and devoutedly seek Unity in Our Blessed Lord and His Holy Church, One, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Bishop Athenagoras Kokkinakis, Chairman
Very Rev Georges Florovsky
Very Rev Eusebius A. Stephanou
Rev George Tsoumas
Rev John A. Poulos
Rev John Hondras
Rev George P. Gallos

The Orthodox are not centralized. The many Patriarchates of the Orthodox Church have differing views about a great many things but the one thing they are never allowed to do and have no means to do is to change the Divine Liturgy.

A few Orthodox priests may consider ecumenism as a topic of discussion. A few may gather and make statements about ecumenism. The Synod, however, has no mandate nor authority to ‘unite’ around ecumenism. The Synod’s authority is granted only to regulate what is and what is not Orthodox according to a thousands-year-old tradition that has no provision for change.

In other words, “to present them as being unified against false ecumenism” is a false proposition on its face. The negation “to present them as being unified completely or in part for ecumenism” is also false. Such assertions cannot exist under Orthodoxy.

Such assertions can be discussed but they can never be acted upon. At root, Orthodox members are human, like anyone else, and they exhibit human sin and weaknesses like anyone else. What makes them Orthodox is that they have no means, no control over changing Orthodoxy. They are all, even recognized Patriarchates, subordinate to the Divine Liturgy. It is like the US Constitution without any means to amend it. The only way to change it is to overthrow it, to bury it.

So when people say so-and-so of the Orthodox Church said this or that, it means nothing. Only the Divine Liturgy matters and the prescriptions for the construction of Churches, for the Monasteries, Convents, training of Monks, Priests, Nuns, all revolve around the Divine Liturgy.

Personally, I have heard one Orthodox Priest say some bizarre things. He was quickly chastised by members of his own parish. The Orthodox members are very independent, very tuned out of Earthly things while inside the Church. Outside the Church they are regular people with assorted views. If they talk about Ecumenism, it goes no further because it can’t go further. If a group tries to push Ecumenism on the Orthodox, they are demoted or made as outcasts, eventually. If they discuss how Ecumenism is to be treated as the letter of this thread lays out, then that is a ‘view’ that helps guide members but nothing can come of it one way or another in terms of adding it to the Divine Liturgy. And if it’s not in the Divine Liturgy, then it is never nor ever will be an attribute of Orthodoxy.

We can go to an Orthodox parish, participate in the rites of the service, join members afterward at lunch to discuss President Trump, Ecumenism, the latest on the Moscow Patriarch or the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and so on. But no matter how ‘high’ our position in the Church, we can never change Orthodoxy. It is separate from all of us. It exists apart from every member.

That is certainly true. And such statements apply to many churches and sects.

The Roman Catholic Church comprises more than a billion members under one Pope, one Vatican.

The Orthodox comprise about 200 million under a loose confederation of Patriarchates.

With Churches of this size, one can say just about anything about them and with near certainty, there will be an example where it is true.

The point I was trying to make is the Orthodox Church is ‘stationary’, not dependent on ‘personalities’. Because of this it may appear ‘boring’ to some who look for spiritual inspiration from a fire-breathing pastor. For those that seek that, the Orthodoxy is probably not for them.

The Orthodox Church is the Church of the Apostles. Peter and Paul were first in Macedonia before they were in Rome. The Orthodox Church is the Church they established. The Roman Church was established by Peter and it was united with the Churches that he and Paul established in the East. The West separated from the Eastern Churches in early Christian history.

The Orthodox Church distinguishes itself as the original Church that has never changed. That is not to say that other churches that came later held no special role to play in God’s plan. For example, the Anglican Churches. I see them as having a special role in history.

But for those that seek the origins, the way it was and has always been, that would be the Orthodox Church and its Divine Liturgy. Theologians generally agree on this but also make a case that other sects are organized better for other purposes such as evangelization. The Orthodox Church is not generally an evangelical Church. But it is always there as a refuge, as a place for the confused and disillusioned to take rest and meditate.

> “It has certainly changed on the indissolubility of sacramental marriage.”

I don’t believe that is true. The Roman Catholic Church established the indissolubility They are credited for that. The Orthodox were never so strict. The Orthodox today do not sanction divorce, they remain outside of any matters of divorce. If anything, they try to save marriages but recognize that where love has failed and has eclipsed, the person’s salvation may be at stake.

The Orthodox allow remarried members to attend Church services because in general there is no screening of those that come into the Church. Anyone can attend and seek membership. The Orthodox clergy take the same tact on almost every social issue; repent, sin no more, try to do better, try to be a better Christian. If this were a doctrine, it would be a doctrine of the ‘Second Chance’.

The Law of Moses allowed for divorce. Christ acknowledged that Mosaic law but also did not endorse it. He condemned it in general but allowed it under special circumstances. Divorce has no place in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. Marriage has a place in it. Therefore, Orthodoxy concerns itself with marriage and families, never divorce.

The Churches of Peter and Paul, recognized by Emperor Constantine, which are survived by the Orthodox, were heavily constituted by Levitical customs, much by the insistence of the Apostle Peter. Divorce was granted under Mosaic Law. It was not continued as an absolute under Peter but it was not forbidden in general. If the State grants a divorce, it is not the Church’s role to condemn. It is also not its role to endorse or acknowledge. The Church’s role is primarily helping people to be closer to God, and insofar as families, the Church plays a special role in Baptism and Marriage.

In my experience, I have never heard of any Orthodox history referring to when divorce was forbidden by the Church. I have never heard of it as a Church matter. It was never a part of the Divine Liturgy. The Orthodox Church does not try to ‘control’ people and their choices. It tries to be that special place where a person can feel solitude in communion with God. A place where people can learn by watching, by praying, by receiving prayer books, by confessing, by gentle counseling to do better.

“Throughout its history, the Orthodox Church has dealt with controversial issues by a process which addresses the “mind of the Church.”
https://www.goarch.org/-/the-stand-of-the-orthodox-church-on-controversial-issues

Some people respect and need the rigid code of the Roman Catholic Church. It has its place. Some need to have a more gradual transformation to becoming a devoted Christian. This is where the Orthodoxy brings its “mind of the Church”. Again, Orthodox Christianity is not existing to control people, it is not there to force its way, it is there to show how one walks with God. A person chooses to walk or not walk with God. Persons may stop walking and drift away, then rejoin later. The Orthodox “mind of the Church” is to welcome such persons back and to counsel them to try to do better. Eventually, a friendship is established and the wanderer will not drift away again. That is the aim.

From a spiritual Church perspective context, you are correct.

From a historical context of the Church, the Catholic (Western + Eastern) Churches were the original Churches established by the Apostles and later recognized by Emperor Constantine.

Because the Apostles were in the East before they were in Rome, the Churches of the Eastern Catholic (Orthodox) are the original Churches of the Apostles, thus the oldest. That context is according to the timeline of history.

The Orthodox Church never changed, thus when a Christian observes Orthodox rites, they are observing what is closest to the ancient Churches.

It means nothing in terms of favor or priority. It is simply historical fact. The value comes in when different Christian sects become so twisted that its members look for an alternative that is stable, that is unchanging, Such members, and there are many, find refuge in the Orthodox Church.

The Orthodox Church does not attempt to ‘capture’ or retain fleeing members of other Christian sects. It simply accommodates them and responds to these Christians who are in distress. Many such Christians heal and renew their faith while praying within the Orthodox Church. Some of them stay and some return to their previous denominations feeling stronger in faith. That is a wonderful attribute of the Orthodox Church in that it is always a place of refuge and goes forward unchanged, symbolizing the Eternal.

There is no question that historically the church spread from east to west. To say that the church, including the Orthodox church, has never changed since Pentecost would be intellectually dishonest.

There was a great schism in 1054. One might say it's presumptuous and arrogant for the Orthodox church to claim sole unchanged continuity back to Pentecost simply because the church spread from east to west. The Roman Catholic church claims the same continuity and it does not cede exclusivity or ownership of the first eastern churches to the Orthodox. Rather, the Roman Catholic church claims that it maintains exclusive apostolic secession back to Peter. Ergo, the Pope is said to occupy the "chair of Peter". Paul and supposedly Peter were martyred in Rome. The Vatican is said to sit on Peter's grave.

On a different note, I never knew the Orthodox church's role in ministering spiritual healing to those of other Christian sects. This is news to me.

> "To say that the church, including the Orthodox church, has never changed since Pentecost would be intellectually dishonest."

You might want to devote some study to the subject before condemning good people for being dishonest.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/eastern-orthodoxy

The Eastern Orthodox communion bases its teachings on Scripture and "the seven ecumenical councils"—I Nicaea (325), I Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), II Constantinople (553), III Constantinople (680), and II Nicaea (787). Catholics recognize these as the first seven ecumenical councils, but not the only seven.

While Catholics recognize an ensuing series of ecumenical councils, leading up to Vatican II, which closed in 1965, the Eastern Orthodox say there have been no ecumenical councils since 787, and no teaching after II Nicaea is accepted as of universal authority.

One of the reasons the Eastern Orthodox do not claim to have had any ecumenical councils since II Nicaea is that they have been unable to agree on which councils are ecumenical. In Orthodox circles, the test for whether a council is ecumenical is whether it is "accepted by the church" as such. But that test is unworkable: Any disputants who are unhappy with a council’s result can point to their own disagreement with it as evidence that the church has not accepted it as ecumenical, and it therefore has no authority.

So there it is. The Orthodox cannot agree on any ecumenical change, thus are suspended in time. Could there be a divine reason for that? The reason I dwell on it is that I have witnessed distressed Christians find the Orthodox Church as a confirmation of the faith they carried from other sects and denominations.

For example, one woman about 40 years of age came from an Episcopal Church that was compelling its members to accept same-sex marriage. She stayed with the Orthodox Church for nearly a year and recovered her spiritual strength. She vowed to return to her Church and defend its traditions. I heard later that she had returned to her Church and was emboldened to stand up against the changes being made that she knew were not in the Spirit. I am told the Episcopal Church to this day is still split.

Another Episcopalian, a man almost 70 years of age started to attend the Orthodox Church. He attended for many weeks and then one day as he was exiting the Church while following members to the dining hall, he turned around and said to those behind him " I am so happy, I am so happy that here, it never changes." He stayed with the Orthodox Church because he said at his age he needed stability in his spiritual life.

I am told the Orthodox Church has had a flood of thousands and thousands of such Christians from other sects enter its Churches seeking answers. I have witnessed dozens. It is why I say the Orthodox Church has a unique value as a display of how ancient churches conducted themselves.

I imagine for people that don't know how to run a dairy, make butter, cheese, or build their own homes and craft their own furniture, or their own clothes, and all without electricity, machinery, no shopping malls, no cars and no telephone or internet, that the Amish farmers of Pennsylvania and Ohio would be a curious sight. Watching such farmers work and live a good life should be a teachable moment.

Perhaps the practice of Orthodoxy can be viewed analogously as it pertains to the ancient Divine Liturgy. Of course, the Orthodox clergy are quite up to date on technology in their homes and offices. But in their Church practice, they have an 'unworkable' means of accepting change and are therefore kept stationary in history.

You have shown no evidence that the Orthodox Church has changed from the original Churches that grew into recognition by Emperor Constantine. That Church’s history is marked by Old Testament worship practices and the establishment of a Divine Liturgy.

If you are so insistent in calling people dishonest, you should at least have the temerity to show the history where there is a marked change in the rites of those churches that came to be known as Orthodox.

The Divine Liturgy is the body of work that defines the Orthodox faith. Scholars throughout the centuries have pointed out that it remains intact from the original Greek. There have been minor arguments concerning translation but it is agreed that the original Greek and Old Testament rites have never changed. As its rites and customs are tracible to Old Testament worship practices, I have never seen any literature where changes in it are marked in history. On the contrary, I have seen numerous scholarly works that show how the Greek and Old Testament Hebrew have remained intact as they were from the beginning.

The same scripts for ceremonies, rites, and readings are carried out today. Each day, week, month is detailed to be the same year after year. The Divine Liturgy is a complete script for every date. There is no need to invent, to innovate anything around it. It is a prescription. The priests follow it to the letter. If any were to depart from it, it would immediately be noticed, inquiries would be made to the Orthodox Bishops. I have never seen or heard of any priest departing from the scripts of the Divine Liturgy.

If such changes that you claim exist from the original Greek and Old Testament origins of the Orthodox faith, you are free to point them out.

... show the history where there is a marked change in the rites of those churches that came to be known as Orthodox. A few observations. Earlier, you cited https://www.catholic.com/tract/eastern-orthodoxy

In the catholic.com article you cite we read the following:

The Pope’s Authority

Since the Eastern schism began, the Orthodox have generally claimed that the pope has only a primacy of honor among the bishops of the world, not a primacy of authority. But the concept of a primacy of honor without a corresponding authority cannot be derived from the Bible. At every juncture where Jesus speaks of Peter’s relation to the other apostles, he emphasizes Peter’s special mission to them and not simply his place of honor among them.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom" and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not. In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32).

In John 21:15–17, with only the other disciples present (cf. John 21:2), Jesus asks Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?"—in other words, is Peter more devoted to him than the other disciples? When Peter responds that he is, Jesus instructs him: "Feed my lambs" (22:15). Thus we see Jesus describing the other disciples, the only other people who are present, the ones whom Jesus refers to as "these," as part of the lambs that he instructs Peter to feed, giving him the role of pastor (shepherd) over them. Again, a reference to Peter having more than merely a primacy of honor with respect to the other apostles, but a primacy of pastoral discipline as well."

The above excerpts from catholic.com argue that the the Orthodox are not faithful to "orthodoxy" because they have rejected the primacy of Rome, i.e., Peter's chair. What we see here is not temerity, but a very good argument. You claim continuity to the 1st century. Others would argue that your rejection of Peter's (Rome's) authority is not constant with the early church.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.