A Protest to Patriarch Athenagoras
On the Lifting of the Anathemas of 1054
December 2/ 15 1965
Your Holiness,
We have inherited a legacy from the Holy Fathers that
everything in the Church should be done in a legal way,
unanimously, and conforming to ancient Traditions. If any of the
bishops and even primates of one of the autocephalous churches
does something which is not in agreement with the teaching of the
whole Church, every member of the Church may protest against it.
The 15th Canon of the First and Second Council of Constantinople
of the year 861 describes as "worthy to enjoy the honour
which befits them among Orthodox Christians" those bishops
and clergymen who secede from communion even with their patriarch
if he publicly preaches heresy and openly teaches it in church.
In that way we are all guardians of the truth of the Church,
which was always protected through the care that nothing of
general importance for the Church would be
done without the consent of all.
Therefore our attitude toward various schisms outside of the
local limits of particular autocephalous churches was never
determined otherwise than by the common consensus of these
churches.
If in the beginning our separation from Rome was declared in
Constantinople, then later on it became a matter of concern to
the whole Orthodox world. None of the
autocephalous churches, and specifically not the highly esteemed
Church of Constantinople from which our Russian Church has
received the treasure of Orthodoxy, may change anything in this
matter without the foregoing consent of everybody. Moreover we,
the bishops ruling at present, may not make decisions with
reference to the West which would disagree with the teaching of
the Holy Fathers who lived before us, specifically the Saints
Photios of Constantinople and Mark of Ephesus.
In the light of these principles, although being the youngest
of the primates, as the head of the free autonomous part of the
Church of Russia, we regard it our duty to state our categorical
protest against the action of Your Holiness with reference to
your simultaneous solemn declaration with the Pope of Rome in
regard to the removal of the sentence of excommunication made by
Patriarch Michael Cerularius in 1054.
We heard many expressions of perplexity when Your Holiness in
the face of the whole world performed something quite new and
uncommon to your predecessors as well as inconsistent with the
10th Canon of the Holy Apostles at your meeting with the Pope of
Rome, Paul VI, in Jerusalem. We have heard that after that, many
monasteries on the Holy Mount of Athos have refused to mention
your name at religious services. Let us say frankly, the
confusion was great. But now Your Holiness is going even further
when, only by your own decision with the bishops of your Synod,
you cancel the decision of Patriarch Michael Cerularius accepted
by the whole Orthodox East. In that way Your Holiness is acting
contrary to the attitude accepted by the whole of our Church in
regard to Roman Catholicism. It is not a question of this or that
evaluation of the behaviour of Cardinal Humbert. It is not a
matter of a personal controversy between the Pope and the
Patriarch which could be easily remedied by their mutual
Christian forgiveness; no, the essence of the problem is in the
deviation from Orthodoxy which took root in the Roman Church
during the centuries, beginning with the doctrine of the
infallibility of the Pope which was definitively formulated at
the First Vatican Council. The declaration of Your Holiness and
the Pope with good reason recognises your gesture of "mutual
pardon" as insufficient to end both old and more recent
differences. But more than that, your gesture puts a sign of
equality between error and truth. For centuries all the
Orthodox Church believed with good reason that it has violated no
doctrine of the Holy Ecumenical Councils; whereas the Church of
Rome has introduced a number of innovations in its dogmatic
teaching. The more such innovations were introduced, the deeper
was to become the separation between the East and the West. The
doctrinal deviations of Rome in the eleventh century did not yet
contain the errors that were added later. Therefore, the
cancellation of the mutual excommunication of 1054 could have
been of meaning at that time; but now it is only an evidence of
indifference in regard to the most important errors, namely new
doctrines foreign to the ancient Church, of which some, having
been exposed by St. Mark of Ephesus, were the reason why the
Church rejected the Union of Florence.
We declare firmly and categorically:
No union of the Roman Church with us is possible until it
renounces its new doctrines, and no communion in prayer can be
restored with it without a decision of all churches, which,
however, can hardly be possible before the liberation of the
Church of Russia which at present has to live in catacombs. The
hierarchy which is now under Patriarch Alexis cannot express the
true voice of the Russian Church because it is under full control
of the godless government. Primates of some other churches in
countries dominated by communists also are not free.
Whereas the Vatican is not only a religious center but also a
state, and whereas relations with it have also a political
nature, as is evident from the visit of the Pope to the United
Nations, one must reckon with the possibility of an influence in
some sense of the godless authorities in the matter of the Church
of Rome. History testifies to the fact that negotiations with the
heterodox under pressure of political factors never brought the
Church anything but confusion and schisms. Therefore we find it
necessary to make a statement that our Russian Orthodox Church
Outside of Russia as well as, certainly, the Russian Church which
is at present in the catacombs, will not consent to any
"dialogues" with other confessions and beforehand
rejects any compromise with them, finding union with them
possible only if they accept the Orthodox Faith as it is
maintained until now in the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
While this has not happened, the excommunication proclaimed by
the Patriarch Michael Cerularius is still valid, and the
canceling of it by Your Holiness is an act both illegal and void.
Certainly we are not opposed to benevolent relations with
representatives of other confessions as long as the truth of
Orthodoxy is not betrayed. Therefore our Church in due time
accepted the invitation to send its observers to the Second
Vatican Council, as well as it used to send observers to the
Assemblies of the World Council of Churches, in order to have
firsthand information in regard to the work of these assemblies
without any participation in their deliberations.
We appreciate the kind reception of our observers, and we are
studying with interest their reports showing that many changes
are being introduced into the Roman Church. We will thank God if
these changes will serve the cause of bringing it closer to
Orthodoxy. However, if Rome has much to change in order to return
to the "expression of the Faith of the Apostles," the
Orthodox Church, which has maintained that Faith impeccable up to
now, has nothing to change.
The Tradition of the Church and the example of the Holy
Fathers teach us that the Church holds no dialogue with those who
have separated themselves from Orthodoxy. Rather than that, the
Church addresses to them a monologue inviting them to return to
its fold through rejection of any dissenting doctrines.
A true dialogue implies an exchange of views with a
possibility of persuading the participants to attain an
agreement. As one can perceive from the Encyclical "Ecclesiam
Suam," Pope Paul VI understands the dialogue as a plan
for our union with Rome with the help of some formula which
would, however, leave unaltered its doctrines, and particularly
its dogmatic doctrine about the position of the Pope in the
Church. However, any compromise with error is foreign to the
history of the Orthodox Church and to the essence of the Church.
It could not bring a harmony in the confessions of the Faith, but
only an illusory outward unity similar to the conciliation of
dissident Protestant communities in the ecumenical movement.
May such treason against Orthodoxy not enter between us.
We sincerely ask Your Holiness to put an end to the confusion,
because the way you have chosen to follow, even if it would bring
you to a union with the Roman Catholics, would provoke a schism
in the Orthodox world. Surely even many of your spiritual
children will prefer faithfulness to Orthodoxy instead of the
idea of a compromising union with the heterodox without their
full harmony with us in the truth.
Asking for your prayers, I am your Holiness' humble servant,
+ Metropolitan PHILARET
President of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
|