The commotion about union of the churches makes evident the ignorance existing as much
among the circles of the simple faithful as among the theologians as to what the Church
They understand the catholicity of the Church as a legal cohesion, as an
interdependence regulated by some code. For them the Church is an organization with laws
and regulations like the organizations of nations. Bishops, like civil servants, are
distinguished as superiors and subordinates: patriarchs, archbishops, metropolitans,
bishops. For them, one diocese is not something complete, but a piece of a larger whole:
the autocephalous church or the patriarchate. But the autocephalous church, also, feels
the need to belong to a higher head. When external factors of politics, history, or
geography prevent this, a vague feeling of weak unity and even separation circulates
through the autocephalous churches.
Such a concept of the Church leads directly to the Papacy. If the catholicity of the
Church has this kind of meaning, then Orthodoxy is worthy of tears, because up to now she
has not been able to discipline herself under a Pope.
But this is not the truth of the matter. The catholic Church which we confess in the
Symbol (Creed) of our Faith is not called catholic because it includes all the Christians
of the earth, but because within her everyone of the faithful finds all the grace and gift
of God. The meaning of catholicity has nothing to do with a universal organization the way
the Papists and those who are influenced by the Papist mentality understand it.
Of course, the Church is intended for and extended to the whole world independent of
lands, nations, races, and tongues; and it is not an error for one to name her catholic
because of this also. But just as humanity becomes an abstract idea, there is a danger of
the same thing happening to the Church when we see her as an abstract, universal idea. In
order for one to understand humanity well, it is enough for him to know only one man,
since the nature of that man is common to all men of the world.
Similarly, in order to understand what the catholic Church of Christ is, it suffices to
know well only one local church. And as among men, it is not submission to a hierarchy
which unites them but their common nature, so the local churches are not united by the
Pope and the Papal hierarchy but by their common nature.
A local Orthodox church regardless of her size or the number of the faithful is by
herself alone, independently of all the others, catholic. And this is so because she lacks
nothing of the grace and gift of God. All the local churches of the whole world together
do not contain anything more in divine grace than that small church with few members.
She has her presbyters and bishop; she has the Holy Mysteries; she has the Body and
Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Within her any worthy soul can taste of the Holy
Spirit's presence. She has all the grace and truth. What is she lacking therefore in order
to be catholic? She is the one flock, and the bishop is her shepherd, the image of Christ,
the one Shepherd. She is the prefiguring on earth of the one flock with the one Shepherd,
of the new Jerusalem. Within her, even in this life, pure hearts taste of the Kingdom of
God, the betrothal of the Holy Spirit. Within her they find peace which "passeth all
understanding," the peace which has no relation with the peace of men: "My peace
I give unto you."
"Paul, called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ ... to the Church of God which is
at Corinth ...." Yes, it really was the Church of God, even if it was at Corinth, at
one concrete and limited place.
This is the catholic Church, something concrete in space, time, and persons. This
concrete entity can occur repeatedly in space and in time without ceasing to remain
essentially the same.
Her relations with the other local churches are not relations of legal and
jurisdictional interdependence, but relations of love and grace. One local church is
united with all the other local Orthodox churches of the world by the bond of identity.
Just as one is the Church of God, the other is the Church of God also, as well as all the
others. They are not divided by boundaries of nations nor the political goals of the
countries in which they live. They are not even divided by the fact that one might be
ignorant of the other's existence. It is the same Body of Christ which is partaken of by
the Greeks, the Negroes of Uganda, the Eskimos of Alaska, and the Russians of Siberia. The
same Blood of Christ circulates in their veins. The Holy Spirit enlightens their minds and
leads them to the knowledge of the same truth.
There exist, of course, relations of interdependence between the local churches, and
there are canons which govern them. This interdependence, though, is not a relation of
legal necessity, but a bond of respect and love in complete freedom, the freedom of grace.
And the canons are not laws of a code, but wise guides of centuries of experience.
The Church has no need of external bonds in order to be one. It is not a pope, or a
patriarch, or an archbishop which unites the Church. The local church is something
complete; it is not a piece of a larger whole.
Besides, the relations of the churches are relations of churches, and not relations
which belong exclusively to their bishops. A bishop cannot be conceived of without a flock
or independent of his flock. The Church is the bride of Christ. The Church is the body of
Christ, not the bishop alone.
A bishop is called a patriarch when the church of which he is the shepherd is a
patriarchate, and an archbishop when the church is an archdiocese. In other words, the
respect and honor belongs to the local church, and by extension it is rendered to its
bishop. The Church of Athens is the largest and, today, most important local church of
Greece. For this reason the greatest respect belongs to her, and she deserves more honor
than any other church of Greece. Her opinion has a great bearing, and her role in the
solution of common problems is the most significant. That is why she is justly called an
archdiocese. Consequently, the bishop of that church, because he represents such an
important church is a person equally important and justly called an archbishop. He himself
is nothing more than an ordinary bishop. In the orders of priesthoodthe deacon, the
presbyter, and the bishopthere is no degree higher than the office of the bishop.
The titles metropolitan, archbishop, patriarch, or pope do not indicate a greater degree
of ecclesiastical charism, because there is no greater sacramental grace than that which
is given to the bishop. They only indicate a difference in prominence of the churches of
which they are shepherds.
This prominence of one church in relation to the others is not something permanent. It
depends upon internal and external circumstances. In studying the history of the Church,
we see the primacy of prominence and respect passing from church to church in a natural
succession. In Apostolic times, the Church of Jerusalem, without any dispute, had the
primacy of authority and importance. She had known Christ; she had heard His words; she
saw Him being crucified and arising; and upon her did the Holy Spirit first descend. All
who were in a communion of faith and life with her were certain that they walked the road
of Christ. This is why Paul, when charged that the Gospel which he taught was not the
Gospel of Christ, hastened to explain it before the Church of Jerusalem, so that the
agreement of that church might silence his enemies (Gal. 2:1-2).
Later, that primacy was taken by Rome, little by little. It was the capital of the
Roman Empire. A multitude of tried Christians comprised that church. Two leading Apostles
had lived and preached within its bounds. A multitude of Martyrs had dyed its soil with
their blood. That is why her word was venerable, and her authority in the solution of
common problems was prodigious. But it was the authority of the church and not of her
bishop. When she was asked for her view in the solution of common problems, the bishop
replied not in his own name as a Pope of today would do, but in the name of his church. In
his epistle to the Corinthians, St. Clement of Rome begins this way: "The Church of
God which is in Rome, to the Church of God which is in Corinth." He writes in an
amicable and supplicatory manner in order to convey the witness and opinion of his church
concerning whatever happened in the Church of Corinth. In his letter to the Church of
Rome, St. Ignatius the God-bearer does not mention her bishop anywhere, although he writes
as though he were addressing himself to the church which truly has primacy in the
hierarchy of the churches of his time.
When St. Constantine transferred the capital of the Roman state to Byzantium, Rome
began gradually to lose her old splendor. It became a provincial city. A new local church
began to impose itself upon the consciousness of the Christian world: the Church of
Constantinople. Rome tried jealously to preserve the splendor of the past, but because
things were not conducive to it, it developed little by little its well-known Papal
ecclesiology in order to secure theoretically that which circumstances would not offer.
Thus it advanced from madness to madness, to the point where it declared that the Pope is
infallible whenever he speaks on doctrine, even if because of sinfulness he does not have
the enlightenment of sanctity the Fathers of the Church had.
The Church of Constantinople played the most significant role throughout the long
period of great heresies and of the Ecumenical Councils, and in her turn she gave her
share of blood with the martyrdom of thousands of her children during the period of the
Besides these churches which at different times had the primacy of authority, there
were others which held the second or third place. They were the various patriarchates, old
or new, and other important churches or metropolises. There exists, therefore, a
hierarchy, but a hierarchy of churches and not of bishops. St. Irenaeus does not advise
Christians to address themselves to important bishops in order to find the solution to
their problem, but to the churches which have the oldest roots in the Apostles (Adv.
Haer. III, 4, 1).
There are not, therefore, organizational, administrative, or legal bonds among the
churches, but bonds of love and grace, the same bonds of love and grace which exist among
the faithful of every church, clergy or lay. The relationship between presbyter and bishop
is not a relationship of employee and employer, but a charismatic and sacramental
relationship. The bishop is the one who gives the presbyter the grace of the priesthood.
And the presbyter gives the layman the grace of the Holy Mysteries. The only thing which
separates the bishop from the presbyter is the charism of ordination. The bishop excels in
nothing else, even if he be the bishop of an important church and bears the title of
patriarch or pope. "There is not much separating them [the presbyters] and the
bishops. For they too are elevated for the teaching and protection of the Church .... They
[the bishops] surpass them only in the power of ordination, and in this alone they exceed
the presbyters" (Chrysostom, Hom. XI on I Tim.).
Bishops have no right to behave like rulers, not only towards the other churches but
also towards the presbyters or laymen of the church of which they are bishop. They have a
responsibility to Oversee in a paternal way, to counsel, to guide, to battle against
falsehood, to adjure transgressors with love and strictness, to preside in love. But these
responsibilities they share with the presbyters. And the presbyters in turn look upon the
bishops as their fathers in the priesthood and render them the same love.
All things in the Church are governed by love. Any distinctions are charismatic
distinctions. They are not distinctions of a legal nature but of a spiritual authority.
And among the laymen there are charisms and charisms.
The unity of the Church, therefore, is not a matter of obedience to a higher authority.
It is not a matter of submission of subordinates to superiors. External relations do not
make unity, neither do the common decisions of councils, even of Ecumenical Councils. The
unity of the Church is given by the communion in the Body and Blood of Christ, the
communion with the Holy Trinity. It is a liturgical unity, a mystical unity.
The common decisions of an Ecumenical Council are not the foundation but the result of
unity. Besides, the decisions of either an ecumenical or local council are valid only when
they are accepted by the consciousness of the Church and are in accord with the Tradition.
The Papacy is the distortion par excellence of Church unity. It made that bond
of love and freedom a bond of constraint and tyranny. The Papacy is unbelief in the power
of God and confidence in the power of human systems.
But let no one think that the Papacy is something which exists only in the West. In
recent times it has started to appear among the Orthodox too. A few novel titles are
characteristic of this spirit, for example, "Archbishop of all Greece,"
"Archbishop of North and South America." Many times we hear people say of the
Patriarch of Constantinople, the "leader of Orthodoxy," or we hear the Russians
speaking of Moscow as the third Rome and its patriarch as holding the reins of the whole
of Orthodoxy. In fact, many sharp rivalries have begun. All these are manifestations of
the same worldly spirit, the same thirst for worldly power, and belong to the same
tendencies which characterize the world today.
People cannot feel unity in multiplicity. Yet this is a deep mystery. Our weakness or
inability to feel it originates from the condition of severance into which the, human race
has fallen. People have changed from persons into separated and hostile individuals, and
it is impossible for them now to understand the deep unity of their nature. Man, however,
is one and many; one in his nature, many in persons. This is the mystery of the Holy
Trinity, and the mystery of the Church.
It is imperative that Christians realize that the Church has sacramental and not
administrative foundations; then they will not suffer that which has happened to the
Westerners who followed the Pope in his errors because they thought that if they did not
follow him, they would automatically be outside the Church.
Today the various patriarchates and archdioceses undergo great pressures from political
powers which seek to direct the Orthodox according to their own interests. It is known
that the Patriarchate of Moscow accepts the influence of Soviet politics. But the
Patriarchate of Constantinople also accepts the influence of American politics. It was
under this influence that the contact of the Ecumenical Patriarchate with the similarly
American-influenced, Protestant, World Council of Churches was brought about, and its
servile disposition toward the Pope started to take on dangerous dimensions and even to
exert over-bearing pressure upon the other Orthodox churches.
America thinks that it will strengthen the Western faction against communism if, with
these artificial conciliations, it unifies its spiritual forces. But in this way the
Church becomes a toy of the political powers of the world, with unforeseeable consequences
Are the Orthodox people obliged to follow such a servile patriarchate forever? The fact
that this patriarchate for centuries held the primacy of importance and honor in the
Christian world cannot justify those who will follow it to a unifying capitulation with
heresy. Rome also once had the primacy of importance and honor in the Christian world, but
that did not oblige Christians to follow it on the road of heresy. The communion with and
respect for one church on the part of the other churches remains and continues only as
long as that church remains in the Church, that is, as long as it lives and proceeds in
spirit and truth. When a patriarchate ceases to be a church, admitting communion with
heretics, then its recognition on the part of the other churches ceases also.
The Orthodox people must become conscious of the fact that they owe no obedience to a
bishop, no matter how high a title he holds, when that bishop ceases being Orthodox and
openly follows heretics with pretenses of union "on equal terms." On the
contrary, they are obliged to depart from him and confess their Faith, because a bishop,
even if he be patriarch or pope, ceases from being a bishop the moment he ceases being
Orthodox. The bishop is a consecrated person, and even if he is openly sinful, respect and
honor is due him until synodically censured. But if he becomes openly heretical or is in
communion with heretics, then the Christians should not await any synodical decision, but
should draw away from him immediately.
Here is what the canons of the Church say on this: "... So that if any presbyter
or bishop or metropolitan dares to secede from communion with his own patriarch and does
not mention his name as is ordered and appointed in the divine mystagogy, but before a
synodical arraignment and his [the patriarch's] full condemnation, he creates a schism,
the Holy Synod has decreed that this person be alienated from every priestly function, if
only he be proven to have transgressed in this. These rules, therefore, have been sealed
and ordered concerning those who on the pretext of some accusations against their own
presidents stand apart, creating a schism and severing the unity of the Church. But as for
those who on account of some heresy condemned by Holy Synods or Fathers sever themselves
from communion with their president, that is, because he publicly preaches heresy and with
bared head teaches it in the Church, such persons as these not only are not subject to
canonical penalty for walling themselves off from communion with the so-called bishop
before synodical clarification, but they shall be deemed worthy of due honor among the
Orthodox. For not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers have they condemned, and
they have not fragmented the Church's unity with schism, but from schisms and divisions
have they earnestly sought to deliver the Church" (Canon XV of the so-called First
and Second Council).
XXX. AT THE END OF TIME
The world and the devil are leading the Church to such frightening trials that the day
might come when all the bishops of the land will enter into communion with the heretics.
What will the faithful do then? What will the few do who have the heroism not to follow
the masses, not to follow their kin, their neighbors, and their fellow citizens?
All the faithful will have to understand that the Church is not there where it appears
to be. Liturgies will continue to be performed and the churches will be filled with
people, but the Church will have no relation with those churches or those clergy and those
faithful. The Church is where the truth is. The faithful are those who continue Orthodoxy,
that work of the Holy Spirit. The real priests are those who think, live, and teach as the
Fathers and the Saints of the Church did, or at least do not reject them in their
teaching. Where that continuity of thought and life does not exist, it is a deception to
speak of the Church, even if all the outward marks speak of it.
There will always be found a canonical priest, ordained by a canonical bishop, who will
follow the Tradition. Around such priests will gather the small groups of the faithful who
will remain until the last days. Each one of these small groups will be a local catholic
Church of God. The faithful will find in them the entire fullness of the grace of God.
They will have no need of administrative or other ties, for the communion that will exist
among them will be the most perfect there can be. It will be communion in the Body and
Blood of Christ, communion in the Holy Spirit. The golden links of the unalterable
Orthodox Tradition will connect those churches among themselves as well as with the
churches of the past, with the Church triumphant of heaven. In these small groups the One,
Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church will be preserved intact.
Of course, it is wonderful that order and coordination should exist in the outward
functionings of the various churches, and that the less important churches should receive
their direction and guidance from the more important churches, the way it is now between
dioceses, metropolises, archdioceses, and patriarchates. But in the last days, such
outward relations and contacts will be impossible most of the time. There will be such
confusion in the world that one church will not be able to be certain of the orthodoxy of
another because of the multitude of false prophets who will fill the world and who will be
saying, "Here is Christ," and "There is Christ." There might even be
misunderstandings among the really Orthodox churches because of the confusion of tongues
which exists in the contemporary Babel. But none of that will sever the essential unity of
A contemporary example of that condition is presented by the Russians of the dispersion
who have been divided into three opposing factions. One group wishes to belong to the
Patriarchate of Moscow. Another, in order to be free from Soviet political influence,
belongs to the Patriarchate of Constantinople and is influenced by pro-Papal politics. The
third and most down-to-earth group, the Russian Synod Abroad, remains independent. And the
three groups, at least up to the present, are Orthodox with full essential communion among
them. Formal intercommunion and external contacts, however, they do not have, and this
because they have been lost in the web of legalistic concepts and debates about which
patriarchate should govern them. Such a mentality is wrong in its very basis since there
is no essential need for dependence on a patriarchate, particularly at a time when immense
distance and frontiers of nations separate them from these patriarchates. Nothing impedes
an Orthodox church in Paris, for example, from being in essential communion with the
Patriarchate of Moscow or with the Church of Constantinople, even though it has no
jurisdictional dependence upon them. The notion that the interruption of jurisdictional
dependence of a local church from a patriarchate cuts this church off from the Orthodox
Church is not Orthodox but Papal. Besides, even the existence of jurisdictional dependence
of churches upon one patriarch is of Papal inspiration. An Orthodox patriarch is a
president, a coordinator of efforts, an adviser of great importance, but he is not a
despot, not a sovereign. He can do nothing beyond the bounds of his diocese without the
agreement of all the other bishops (XXXIV Apostolic Canon).
It is possible, then, in the last days when the various churches and religions will
have been united and will appear as a single whole, that the genuine Orthodox Church will
appear disintegrated, fragmented into small, scattered, sparse parishes, so that it is
even possible that one will suspect the other from lack of confidence, just as soldiers
suspect each other when it is learned that the enemy is wearing the same uniform.
In the last days all will claim to be Orthodox Christians, and that Orthodoxy is as
they understand it to be. But in spite of all this, those who have a pure heart and a mind
enlightened by divine grace will recognize the Orthodox Church despite the apparent
divisions and utter lack of external splendor. They will gather around the true priests,
and they will become the pillars of the Church. Let the people of the world do whatever
they will. Let there be ecumenical conferences; let the churches be united; let
Christianity be adulterated; let the Tradition and life be changed; let the religions be
united. The Church of Christ will remain unaltered, as Chrysostom says, because if even
one of her pillars remains standing, the Church will not fall. "Nothing is stronger
than the Church. She is higher than the heavens and broader than the earth. She never
grows old; she always flourishes."
A pillar of the Church is every true believer who adheres to the Tradition of the
Fathers in spite of all the frightful currents of the world which attempt to pull him
away. Such pillars will exist until the end of the world, whatever might happen. Besides,
when these things come to pass, the coming of the Lord will not be far off. That state of
affairs will be the most fearful sign that His coming is approaching. Precisely then will
the end come.
From Against False Union, by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros (Seattle, WA: St. Nectarios Press, 1990
), pp. 53-56. Translated from the Greek by Mr. George Gabriel. Reprinted with the kind permission of