Concerning Super Correctness
A Word of Warning to the Orthodox Christians of the West
By Bishop [now Metropolitan] Cyprian of Oropos and Fili
For over fifty years [as of 1976] the Orthodox Old
Calendarists of Greece have fought a courageous battle, in the
face of sometimes fierce persecution, for the preservation of
genuine Orthodoxy against modernism and ecumenism. Unfortunately,
their witness has to some extent been undermined by the presence
among them of extreme views which have caused unnecessary
schisms. In the end, this extremism has only aided the cause of
modernism, which rejoices at every division among those of
traditional views. This "temptation from the right
side" is now making itself felt in America and the Western
world in the form of new schisms, over hasty accusations of
"heresy" and "betrayal", and the spread of
the spirit of suspicion towards everyone not of one's own
"party". The present warning, in the form of a letter
to Saint Herman Brotherhood from one of the most respected
leaders of the Old-Calendarist movement in Greece, is a most
timely one. Bishop Cyprian is also Abbot of the Monastery of Sts.
Cyprian and Justina in Fili, near Athens.
YOU HAVE WRITTEN asking me to put together a
few words describing the dangers of the temptation of a
"super-correctness" in questions of Orthodox faith and
practice, and the damage it has caused to the Greek Church in our
days. This you would like as a warning to those in America who
are troubled by this same temptation, and you would like them to
benefit from our experience here. Very gladly, therefore, we will
attempt to do this, emphasizing from the beginning that we have
no wish to criticize persons, but rather the mentality of
extremism, the danger of temptation "from the right."
We must begin with a few words on our
confession of faith: the Orthodox Church is deeply wounded by the
heresy of ecumenism, the betrayal of the hierarchy in some
communist lands, the abandonment of every vestige of Orthodox
piety in some parts of the Diaspora. We have no doubt that the
leaders of the ecumenical movement, in fully equating Orthodoxy
with heresy, have fallen away from the Church. With such, and
those who commune with them, we can have no communion at all, nor
can we regard them any longer as Orthodox, but wolves, all too
often in the sheep's clothing of Patriarch's and bishops. Every
witness of the Fathers confirms that economy in matters of heresy
constitutes betrayal. We regard the new calendar as the first
step in the ecumenical movement, and thus can have no communion
with new calendarists.
From the above, two questions arise: firstly,
have all those with whom we have severed communion fallen into
heresy, and placed themselves outside the Church? Secondly, if
they have not, what justification do we have in cutting off
prayerful relations with them? Both these questions require much
thought. Insofar as the ecumenists are concerned, one can discern
three categories:
(1) Those who wholly equate Orthodoxy with
heresy, and thus voluntarily place themselves outside the
Church in some sort of vague "superchurch."
(2) Those who, while they in no way negate
their Orthodoxy, nonetheless take part in joint prayer with
heretics in transgression of the canons. We may perhaps call
them anti-canonical rather than openly heretical.
(3) Those who, while they disagree to a
greater or lesser extent with ecumenism, commune with the
ecumenists, perhaps considering that they do so using
economy.
We, pursuing the purity of the faith, can have
no communion of prayer with the clergy who belong to these
categories. But the vexed questions are: how are we to treat
their flock? What degree of economy is permissible in our
dealings with them? Which of the above clergy have definitely
lost the grace of the priesthood through their apostasy? It is
much the same questions, so far as we know, which wracked the
Catacomb Church in Russia in its early years (and perhaps now),
and it is disputes over these questions which have caused the
greatest troubles amongst the Old-Calendarists of Greece.
These troubles we will summarize very briefly:
in 1935, three bishops of the new calendar Church of Greece
returned to the observance of the old calendar, and immediately
consecrated four new bishops. The subsequent history of these
does not concern us here, except for one; he, Bishop Matthew, a
man of great personal virtues but extremist temperament, in 1937
separated himself from the other hierarchs, forming a schism
which exists to the present day. The reason for his action was
that the senior bishop, Metropolitan Chrysostomos, was asked in
an interview if he considered that the State Church had lost the
Grace of the Sacraments in accepting the calendar innovation. He
replied no, only a future council could condemn the
new-calendarists as definitely outside the Church; what we know
is that they are seriously guilty before the Church, its canons
and traditions, and therefore we can have no communion with them
until such time as they return to the traditions and discipline
of the Church. This truly Orthodox ecclesiology, which can be
paralleled particularly in St. Theodore the Studite, met with
incomprehension on both sides. Both the new-calendarists and a
section of the old-calendarists condemned him as illogical: if
they have grace, what justification exists for separation from
them? As noted above, one of the newly-consecrated bishops
departed and formed a schism which exists to the present day. We
can only see this as a fruit of the mentality of
over-correctness,"of a neglect of the economy which the
Church requires to use for the salvation of souls. The damage
caused to the Greek Church is immeasurable, for had this division
not occurred, the State Church of Greece would long have been
obliged to return to the old calendar.
We can cite other examples of this
"overcorrectness" from our own experience. A fearful
example is the following: A few years ago a woman, unfortunately
a nun, reading through the works of St. Nectarios, the great
wonderworker of our times, came across a few passages which she
considered as not in accord with Orthodox teaching. A discerning
mind would see in these passages the influence primarily of the
westernized theological training which the Saint received, and of
the historian Paparigopoulos (from whose book the passages are
taken almost directly), and certainly no intentional
contradiction of Orthodox teaching. The unfortunate nun, however,
proceeded to write three books denouncing St. Nectarios as a
"heretic, iconoclast, ecumenist, and Latin." Simple
people were influenced, many souls were wounded and scandalized.
This fanatical mentality, as so often, had seized a detail while
ignoring the whole—the exemplary and holy life of St.
Nectarios and his innumerable miracles.
Another example is provided for us by a group
of persons who have severed all communion with all the Orthodox
in Greece because the hierarchs will not officially condemn as
heretical the western-style icon of the Holy Trinity (with God
the Father represented as an old man, and the Holy Spirit as a
dove). Neglecting everything else, they have seized on this
detail, and have been led into schism. Their struggle for the
removal of this iconic type has become an obsession, a prelest.
We should, however, in fairness point out that
these disputes have often been made much worse by the opponents
taking an equally fanatical position. Discretion is needed on
both sides. It is also true that extremism amongst the
old-calendarists has been fostered by the savage persecutions
which the State Church has launched from time to time.
One of the most disastrous examples of the
phenomenon of which we are speaking is the disputes between the
zealots of the Holy Mountain. Many, to be sure, are clearminded
and sure of their purpose, but others waste so much time in
useless disputes. In one and the same skete, one can find in each
house a different ecclesiology, a different mentality, and not
one in communion with their neighbors. They have seized on
details, and all too often, in their lack of theological
education, have seized on them quite incorrectly. Often their
opinions are rational, but taken to extremes; others, however,
become very strange; one group believes that the name of Jesus
shares in His Divinity, and that all who do not so believe are
heretics; another, that those who practice frequent Holy
Communion are heretics and excommunicate; another has reached the
old-believer position that the grace of the priesthood has
vanished from the Church; and so forth. We must emphasize again
that we have no wish to criticize persons; many have a holiness
which we never dare hope to attain. We only criticize that
mentality which leads to division and schism.
Now, to return to the questions mentioned at
the beginning, we would like to relate something which we
observed recently. A few months ago I visited Romania, and in one
of the celebrated historical monasteries (belonging, naturally,
to the official Church of Romania), was very kindly received by
the Abbot, a man of evident spiritual qualities and considerable
education. He began to speak enthusiastically about the
ecumenical movement and the reunion of the "churches."
To this I replied with such words as God enlightened me with, and
I observed from his reaction that he had never before heard a
point of view opposed to ecumenism. After the meeting, he told
the Romanian bishop who was accompanying us that he had been much
edified by the conversation. This gave me occasion for thought:
it would be easy to condemn him immediately as an ecumenist and a
heretic. But this was not the case; despite his education, he had
never given the matter deep thought (though certainly he should
have done so), he had never heard any criticism of ecumenism, it
had never occurred to him that it was a denial of Orthodoxy. To
place him in the same category as, let us say, Meliton of
Chalcedon, would be quite unjust. Perhaps it would be fair to use
the same criteria to judge the faithful in the Soviet Union, who,
with few exceptions, are obliged to have recourse to the Moscow
Patriarchate, or the many faithful in outlying parts of Greece
who have no conception of the calendar question. For every
category we must use discretion; it is impossible in all cases to
apply the same strictness, while on the other hand, we must
remember that economy used as a measure in itself becomes an
abuse, and that in matters of real heresy there can be no use of
economy.
In conclusion, we would say that the error of
"over-correctness" is a form of prelest, and like the
other forms, this means a blindness, an obsession. The Fathers
say that prelest begins with self-reliance, and so it is: whilst
pursuing some probably very laudable particular end, the general
picture becomes forgotten, there sets in a hardening of mind and
heart which results in dispute and fanaticism. The history of the
Church provides us with many examples, and most obviously, the
old believers of Russia.
We hope that these few words may help your
American readers in the understanding of the mature Orthodoxy
which your publications always seek to put forth.
From The Orthodox Word, July-August 1980 (93), 164ff.
|