The ROCOR's Anathema Against Ecumenism (1983)
by Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal and Canada
The Council of Bishops of 1983 was a most special council,
whose distinctiveness lay in its modesty and inconspicuousness.
This was, of course, the first time in the history of our Church
that a council had been held at Holy Transfiguration
Skete—not even in a monastery. The fourteen hierarchs who
took part in the Council traveled from all parts of the free
world—at their head the First Hierarch of our Church, His
Eminence Metropolitan Philaret. Ten of them were elderly men over
seventy years old. In addition, no previous council had been so
brief, continuing in all for just under two weeks. The skete, in
which all the sessions were held, is situated in a very beautiful
locale, far from heavily-traveled roads and surrounded on all
sides by coniferous and deciduous forests: one might even
describe its location as overgrown.... The wooden
"tent" church of our skete, designed by our Russian
architect V. G. Glinin, who reposed in the same year of 1983,
blends quietly with the tops of the pine trees that crowd around
on all sides
Of course, neither the international nor the local press made
a single mention of our very insignificant council, which only
further emphasizes its modesty. Indeed, none of these members of
the press had time for us when at the other end of Canada, 4,800
kilometers from Mansonville (Quebec), a world-wide ecumenical
council was being held. All religions were represented there:
Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Protestants of every sort, Jews,
Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, and even simple shamans (or to put it
more directly and simply: sorcerers). If one adds to this motley
collection women priests and the presence among the participants
of bare-footed dancers in the style of Eleanora Duncan then one
simply cannot find words fit to describe the character of this
great world-wide assembly.
It has been almost a hundred years now since ecumenism began
its attack upon the one true Church of Christ, invested by Him
with the authority to bind and to loose, and began to unite all
the countless heresies, both small and great, acknowledging them
to be, as it were, sparks of the truth, from which the future
ecumenical church is to be formed in place of the historical
Church of Christ, which in their opinion has proved to be a
failure. Against this monstrous teaching a vast literature has
grown up, revealing ecumenism to be the heresy of heresies, but
we cannot in such a short article review it in detail. Without
doubt, the time for discussion and polemics has passed and the
time has come to judge this movement and, however insignificant
our Council of 1983 may seem, it has at last condemned ecumenism
and anathematized it in the following words:
Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that
Christ'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" or sects
or denominations, 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!
The Russian Church Abroad, now headed by Metropolitan
Philaret, professes itself to be an inseparable part of the
historic Russian Church. As a local Church it has the right to
summon its regular Councils and to enforce its resolutions, which
are thereupon fully obligatory for all of its children, scattered
throughout the world. Time will tell whether or not the other
local Churches will adopt our resolution on ecumenism as the acts
of the Ten Local Councils were, in their time, entered into the Book
of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Sacred Ecumenical
Councils, and the Holy Fathers of the Universal Church. We
well know that all our conciliar resolutions against the Moscow
Patriarchate, whose hierarchy is completely subject to the
atheist Communist Party, were merely taken note of by the other
local Churches—to their spiritual detriment. The local
Orthodox Churches tried to justify themselves by saying that
their silence was due to the difficulty of discerning all the
internal affairs of Russia and that our resolutions against the
Soviet Moscow Patriarchate were more political than
ecclesiastical, although it is now clear to all reasonable
persons that the doctrine of Communism is atheistic and
materialistic. Russia is not Nicaragua, and when such a great
people, occupying one sixth of the earth suffers, the whole world
suffers. The disease of Communism has now penetrated every nation
and to say that anyone cannot understand the internal affairs of
Russia would be, to put it mildly, amusing if they had not had
such a tragic influence on all the Orthodox Churches and peoples.
In regard to ecumenism, every local Church has had ample time,
more than a century, to spend examining it and, if the local
Churches base their teachings and life upon the canons of the
Holy Apostles and the other Orthodox Councils, then they cannot
but recognize that ecumenism is clearly the most pernicious of
heresies, for it has gathered all the heresies that exist or have
existed and has called this union a Church—a deed that
savors of Antichrist.
By proclaiming this anathema, we have protected our flock from
this apocalyptic temptation and, at the same time, have
reluctantly put before the conscience of all the local Churches a
serious issue, which sooner or later they must resolve in one way
or the other. The future spiritual fate of the universal Orthodox
Church depends on the resolution of this problem. The anathema we
have proclaimed is de jure a manifestation of a purely
local character of the Russian Church Abroad, but de facto it
has immense significance for the history of the universal Church,
for ecumenism is a heresy on a universal scale. The place of the
Russian Church Abroad is now plain in the conscience of all the
Orthodox. The Lord has laid a great cross upon us, but it is,
however, no longer possible to remain silent, for continued
silence would be like a betrayal of the Truth, from which may the
Lord deliver us all!
Translated from the Russian from Orthodox Observer, No.
58 (April 1984).
Fr. Alexander Lebedeff's Comments on the Implications of the 1983 Anathema
When considering the approach to be used with regard to the
current state of World Orthodoxy, we must remember that the
situation with ecumenical heresy is much less clear than it was
with the ancient heresies. If the ancient Church could apply
Economy to those who had been misled by Arian and Nestorian
heretics, whose heresies had been denounced by Ecumenical
Councils, how much more do we have to apply Economy to those
whose leaders have become entangled in heresy of Ecumenism, when
this heresy has not yet settled into the minds of the majority of
the faithful, and has been denounced not by an Ecumenical
Council, but only by the Synod of Bishops itself?
Let us look once more at the Anathema of 1983, which is being
used as the cornerstone of the attacks against the Synod. Here it
is:
"Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that
Christ'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' or
sects or denominations and even religions will be united into one
body; who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the
Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and
eucharist of the 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!"
… But are the Serbian and Jerusalem Patriarchates not
excommunicated by the 1983 anathema because of their
participation in the ecumenical movement?
The answer must be an unequivocal no.
An excellent analysis of why this is so was written by John
Hudanish, starosta of Our Lady of Kursk Chapel in Woodburn,
Oregon…. After restating the text of the 1983 Anathema, John
Hudanish writes:
"This is an eloquent condemnation of ecumenism and a
clear statement of our Synod s rejection of it. What s not so
clear, however, is the fact that this anathema is legislative
in nature, rather than judicial, i.e., it is a
codification of a theological principle into law, but not a
verdict—much less a sentence. In other words, it
identifies a specific phenomenon (ecumenism) as a heresy, and
prescribes the penalty (Anathema!) for those who embrace and
defend it, or "knowingly have communion" with those
who do*, but it excommunicates no one! It is legislation. It
is not judgment. And this is borne out by Metropolitan
Vitaly in an article he wrote for "Orthodox Life"
(No. 4, 1984, p. 32) while he was still Archbishop of
Montreal and Canada. He wrote:
"Time will tell whether or not the other local
Churches will adopt our resolution on ecumenism as the
acts of the Ten Local Councils were, in their time,
entered into the Books of the Canons of the Holy
Apostles, the Sacred Ecumenical Councils and the Holy
Fathers of the Universal Church."
"It is important to understand that since the 1983
anathema was promulgated by our Synod of Bishops, we now have
a canonical basis for dealing with ecumenism and its
adherents within our midst. But as with all other
laws, the penalty prescribed by the 1983 anathema cannot be
meted out to anyone without due process. Stated
otherwise, before anyone can be excommunicated, there must be
a determination of guilt in a canonical trial or synodical
investigation….
"Therefore, strictly speaking, neither the Patriarch
of Constantinople nor the Patriarch of Jerusalem has been
excommunicated by the anathema of 1983... Furthermore, the
Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has
not subsequently convened to investigate allegations against
either patriarch, nor to anathematize them under the 1983
resolution.
"Why not?! Why hasn't the Synod excommunicated the
Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem for their
transgressions? Well, for one thing, it's a matter of
jurisdiction. As Metropolitan Vitaly had written in the
aforementioned article:
"The anathema we have proclaimed is de jure a
manifestation of a purely local character of the Russian
Church Abroad…."
"No Orthodox body outside the Russian Church
Abroad is bound by it, just as the anathema against the
three-fingered sign of the cross proclaimed by the Council
of the One Hundred Chapters (Moscow 1552) was not binding
on the Greeks at that time. About all our Russian Church
Abroad can do is to refrain from concelebrating with or
admitting to the Holy Mysteries the clergy and laity of those
Orthodox jurisdictions which appear to be involved in the
ecumenist heresy. Our bishops have no authority to discipline
any but their own." (pp. 8-9)
Metropolitan Vitaly confirmed this as the official view of the
Church on the 1983 Anathema in his recent Nativity Epistle. In it
he also clearly stated that those individual Synod clergymen who,
in isolated incidents, have concelebrated with clergy of
ecumenist or new calendar jurisdictions have done so by
economy. In this Epistle, Metropolitan Vitaly wrote:
"We proclaimed an anathema against ecumenism only for
the children of our Church, but by this we very humbly but
firmly, gently but decisively, as if invite the local
churches to stop and think. This is the role of our most
small, humble, half-persecuted, always alert, but true
Church. We, de facto, do not serve with either
new-calendarists or ecumenists, but if someone of our clergy,
by economy, would presume to such a concelebration,
this fact alone in no way influences our standing in the
truth." (emphasis added)
…[T]he Anathema of 1983 did not excommunicate everyone in
world Orthodoxy.
The Synod of Bishops is not an Ecumenical Council, whose
decrees would be binding on all Orthodox Churches. Its decisions
apply only to the members of the Synod itself.
It is impossible to determine exactly how many Orthodox
Christians there are in the world today, because a majority of
them are under Communist oppression, and no accurate figures are
available. But assuming that reports in the Soviet press are
correct, about half of the population of the Soviet Union is
baptized. On this basis, one could assume that there are
somewhere in the area of 200 million Orthodox Christians in the
world today.
If one were to believe [certain extremists] one would get the
impression that on one day in 1983, some 200 million Orthodox
were excommunicated and declared heretics by the action of the
Synod's proclamation of the anathema against ecumenism.
One moment they are Orthodox, then—poof!—heretics.
This is nonsense.
The Orthodox Church has always understood that heresy takes
centuries to become entrenched in the minds of the faithful, and
that in the meantime, the overwhelming majority of the individual
believers in a Church do not even know about, much less
understand, the questions that are being disputed.
In order to be proclaimed a heretic, a person must consciously
accept the heresy and believe in it wholeheartedly, and he must
reject all attempts to persuade him to return to the true faith.
The overwhelming majority of the faithful in any of these
local churches has never even heard of Ecumenism. How can
they be heretics?
I can guarantee that of the 200 million Orthodox in the world
today, only several thousand, if that, have ever even heard of
the Synod's anathema of 1983. Even more than that, I can
guarantee that the overwhelming majority of the members of the
Synod church itself have never heard of this Anathema. I am
confident that we have many members of the Synod clergy who never
heard of it.
How then can we even think of sentencing to excommunication
say the entire Serbian Orthodox church with all its faithful, or
any other local Orthodox Church, no matter how wrong their
leaders are in tolerating ecumenical activity? …
The Synod recognizes the fact that even in the new-calendar
jurisdictions there are only a handful of fervent
ecumenists—the type who would advocate the "branch
theory" or who would encourage receiving sacraments from the
non-Orthodox.
Although the Synod deplores all ecumenical activity, and in
its publications openly criticizes those who participate in such
activities, at the same time the Synod is very cognizant of the
fact that there are many among the clergy and laymen of the other
jurisdictions (especially in the Serbian Church), who are openly
opposed to ecumenism, and who are working to turn the direction
of their Churches to be more consistently Orthodox.
Because of this, the Synod is proceeding very carefully and
deliberately on this issue. In the beginning, at the time the
Synod was organized, the Synod freely concelebrated with all
Orthodox jurisdictions. As time passed, and the Synod watched the
Eastern Patriarchates being gradually being swept up by modernism
and the new calendar, the Synod gradually began to withdraw from
these concelebrations, while continuing to call upon these
Churches to return to Orthodox strictness. Later, as these
Churches lost their discernment to the point that they recognized
the Moscow Patriarchate as being the valid Church of Russia, and
as the infection of Ecumenism began to spread into these
Churches, the Synod withdrew almost completely from any
concelebration with them.
The Synod fervently hopes that the leaders of these Churches
will recognize their errors, and that they will take steps to
correct them. The Synod will continue to call upon these leaders
and inspire them to change their direction.
In the meantime, the Synod continues to advocate a measured
approach, with each bishop given the responsibility to determine
exactly how the clergy of his individual diocese should proceed.
* Actually, on
this point John Hudanish errs. If one reads the anathema
carefully, one will see that the words 'aforementioned heretics'
do not mean the objects of the Anathema. i e. the ecumenists.
These words refer to the heretics mentioned in the first phrases
of the anathema. i.e. the heretics previously identified by the
Church, such as Roman Catholics, Protestants, etc. The Anathema
therefore denounces those who would have communion with Roman
Catholics, for example.
From Orthodox Life,
Vol. 37, No. 2, March-April 1987, pp. 12-17.
+ + +
"[At the urging of Saint Maximus the] Pope
convened his bishops, one hundred and five in number, with Abba
Maximus in their midst. This was the Lateran Council (A.D. 649):
it reviewed the errors of Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, and
also the Emperor's heretical confession. The false teachings were
anathematized, and the Pope wrote to the faitful in all places,
confirming them in their Orthodoxy, explaining the errors of the
heretics and warning them in every way to be on their guard
against them." [The Life of Our Holy Father Saint
Maximus the Confessor (Boston: Holy Transfiguration
Monastery, 1982) p. 7. Recall also the Patriarchal Encyclicals of
1848 and 1895 in response to proselytizing papal bulls. These are
examples of how true bishops have responded in the past to
innovations threatening the Church.—Patrick Barnes.
|