«The Third Way» between Orthodoxy and ecumenism

Synodal Decision Of The Official Georgian Church And «The Third Way» Between Ecumenism And Orthodoxy.

Having withdrawn, in 1997, from international ecumenical organizations, the official Georgian Patriarchate has recently made its next step away from ecumenical jurisdictions. Upon recommendation of the Georgian Patriarchate-s Divinity Commission, in its Synodal meeting of October 8, the Georgian Church officially denounced a number of recent ecumenical documents, branding them «unacceptable.» These documents included: 1) the Shambesy documents of 1990 and 1993 (Union with Non-Chalcedonic (Oriental) Churches); 2) the Framework Agreement between the Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Oriental (Non-Chalcedonic) Church of Antioch [1]; 3) the Balamand Union with the Latins (Roman-Catholic Church) of 1993; 4) Easter Celebration by the Autonomious Orthodox Church of Finland according to the Papal Paschalion [2]; 5) the so-called «Branch Theory» was also denounced; as well as 5) common prayers and intercommunion with non-Orthodox denominations [3].
It is quite obvious that this step back from ecumenism, certain signs of which became apparent as far back as last spring at the Thessaloniki Forum, has been driven by Orthodox zealots who have, over the past two years, been particularly vocal in Georgia. However, this statement of the Georgian Synod represents an unprecedented act of an all but completerejection of the ecumenical policy, not just a cancellation of membership in a few ecumenical organizations. This move could be assumed to signify the beginning of a comeback of the official Georgian Patriarchate to Orthodoxy, if it was not for certain very important circumstances.
Even if we ignore the fact that the Patriarchate would never have initiated the persecution of Georgian Orthodox zealots, who have recently established the True Orthodox Church of Georgia, if its goals had not been completely at variance with those of True Orthodox Christians; even if we decline to discuss the identity of Patriarch Elias, a veteran ecumenist and follower of Nicodim, and a KGB agent code-named Iverieli since 1962, for whom the beginning of repentance would mean the end of his term in office; and even if we are completely unaware of what is really going on in Georgia-s ecclesiastical life, we can still discern one very essential inconsistency in the above-mentioned Georgian Synodal document which brings to naught all its purported «Orthodox» merits, thus effectively downgrading the document to the level of a mere tactical loophole. Although the Synod does raise its voice against some random particulars of the ecumenical movement, reasonably citing their non-orthodox, i.e. heretical, nature, it proceeds to conclusions which no genuine Orthodox believer facing a heresy would ever make.
Denunciation of any ecumenical developments as erroneous is no proof of the denouncer-s own adherence to Orthodox faith. Denouncement of a heresy from a truly Orthodox standpoint would, first and foremost, involve a severance of ecclesiastical communion with the parties guilty of the heresy. In other words, as Georgian Orthodox zealots reasonably reminded the Georgian Patriarchate back in 1997, it is not enough to withdraw from all manner of ecumenical activities; it is necessary to break communion with all ecumenical jurisdictions, especially with Constantinople which is at the helm of the Orthodox chapter of this heresy. It is necessary to give up the vision of «World Orthodoxy» whereby it is presented as an assembly of local Orthodox churches; instead, it should be viewed as a conglomeration of communities each infected with the ecumenical heresy to a different extent.
For true Orthodox Christians, the issues of «intercommunion,» «common prayers,» or «ecclesiastical commission» acquire relevance only in relation to pseudo-Orthodox ecumenical jurisdictions: for example, he who administers a common service with the New Calendarists is an ecumenist. Although the Georgian Patriarchate no longer hails Roman Catholic Church as its «sister church,» it still maintains a «sisterly» relationship with the Constantinople Patriarchate and, therefore, the Georgian Patriarchate cannot be recognized as Orthodox, and the causes of Georgia-s ecclesiastical schism still persist in their undiminished entirety.
Meanwhile, the above considerations do not cover the most outstanding singularity of the Georgian Synod-s decision. If this decision was, indeed, a tactical move, the question is: what sort of object could such a tactic possibly further? I daresay, I do have an answer, and it is based on an analysis of all the reshuffles that have occurred in the Orthodox world over the last 15 years.
The acceleration of the «ecumenical build-up» in a bid to attain «Pan-Christian unity» in most of the world by the year 2000 has made it absolutely imperative to create some kind of «collector» for «the conservatives» since it will obviously take at least one or two generations before «the conservatives» become completely extinct. It was, therefore, necessary to give them a provisional modus vivendi enabling them to avoid the psychological discomfort of being involved in ecumenical activities «too directly» while at the same time preserving them as part of the «great and boundless» ecumenical Babel. Orthodox Church was certainly unable to provide assistance in this task, but a ready-to-wear model did exist: Anglican Church with its two ramifications, High Church and Low Church, which have no dogmatic accord between them and completely abhor each other-s rites (for instance, High Church does not admit women to priesthood and does not recognize homosexual marriages), yet they consider themselves parts of a single church and retain full communion with each other.
Starting in mid-1980s, certain postulates of mid-20th century Saints dating back to the time when hope was still alive that the New Calendarist Greek Church and the Moscow Patriarchate would mend their ways (as they were not aloof to the teachings of Archbishops Chrysostom of Florina and John Maximovich [4]) created a foundation for a semblance of «special divinity» formulated as follows: we are divorcing ourselves from the «official» jurisdictions» on account of their heresies, yet we will continue to regard them as members of Orthodox Church, albeit ailing members. In other words, according to this ecclesiology, the sojourn of such «ailing» members within the Church may be (spiritually) harmful, but at least there is no threat of their full defection from the bosom of the Church, since full defection of ecumenical jurisdictions from the Church may not be effected outside some extraordinary Council involving the participation of the jurisdictions concerned.
In Greece, this theology drove the extrapolation of the Synod of Resisters into a separate organization headed by Cyprian, Metropolitan of Phili and Oropos. Within ROCA, a similar attitude practiced by some of its members vis-a-vis the Moscow Patriarchate made it possible to hold talks with MP which received the enthusiastic backing of what looked like the entire German Diocese. In a rather typical development, the same Council of ROCA Bishops (1994) that gave its go-ahead for the talks with the Moscow Patriarchate, also gave its full approval for Metropolitan Cyprian-s ecclesiology.
«The Third Way» between Orthodoxy and ecumenism may yet prove suitable for small official «local churches» with pronounced traditionalist sentiment among their laity and lower clergy (Georgia, for instance), not just for conservative factions within Old-Calendar Greek or Russian communities. The ecumenical «ocean» will not become any shallower without such a small country as Georgia. However, as far as the building of the new and tortuous «Third Way» is concerned, Georgia could make a good heap of sand and rocks. This new way is, essentially, a way of distancing oneself from ecumenical lies without causing confrontation. It is a way of coming to terms (and even ecclesiastical unity) with lies and, hence, yet another hopeless journey somewhere away from truth.
[1] This agreement, signed in 1991, established very close – to the point of intercommunion – ties between the two churches. The agreement formalized the relationship that had already existed between them for many years.
[2] It was noted that this «canonical violation» did not constitute a schism. The document refers to Letter No. 1214/1997 of the Patriarch of Constantinople wherein he urges the Finnish church, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Constantinople Patriarchate, to return to the Orthodox Paschalion.
[3] As prescribed by Paragraph 13, Art. B of the Summary Memorandum of the Inter-Orthodox Forum held in Thessaloniki, Greece, from April 29 to May 2, 1998. Cf: «Evaluation of New Developments in the Relations Between Orthodox Christianity and the Ecumenical Movement.»
[4] Regarding the latter-day views of St. John Maximovich, please refer to the critical essay by Subdeacon Nikolai Savchenko featured in this issue. As for Archbishop Chrysostom, in 1950 he released a Circular Memorandum affirming his utter denial of the ecclesiastical philosophy of the «New Calendarists.» His stance remained unchanged until the day he died (in 1955).
​
Bishop Gregory (Lourié) of Petrograd and Gdov.
Source : http://vertograd-eng.blogspot.co.nz/1998_11_01_archive.html