New York - April 13, 2016
Translation into Greek of the Decision of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia Regarding the Pre-synodical texts of the Great and Holy Synod:
Announcement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Diaspora
(ROCOR), New York - April 13, 2016
To the Most Reverend and
Venerable Clergy, Venerable Monks and
the pious faithful people of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Diaspora
In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit!
In view of the publication of the texts to be discussed at the upcoming 'Pan-Orthodox' Synod, which is scheduled to take place in Crete June 16-27, 2016, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Diaspora has taken responsibility to examine these texts, together with a multitude of other Hierarchs, clergy and laity who do the same, while the preparations of the Synod continue and to converse with her God-guarded flock and others about her proposals, regarding the texts of the Synod which are a point of interest and concern for many people. We remember, in this case but also in general, the words of our Lord to the Apostle Peter, when he told him that the work of the future Shepherd will be to feed His sheep. (Jn. 21.17); similarly, for those who love Christ, it is food to diligently observe the
The Plenary of the Hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, with zeal for these divine commands and wanting to implement what the righteous Solomon said, "let your ear obey wisdom, and turn your heart to wisdom" (Proverbs 2.2) indulged in the texts that they were brought before us, with humility, humility and obedience. This work is undertaken in a spirit of freedom from all fear or care, since we firmly believe that God is the Head of the Church, and as He has led it through the ages to this day, so He will continue to guide and protect us now and forever, until His Second Coming.
We therefore submit our comments on some of the texts in question, in order to join our thoughts with those many others who are working to make all our orthodox efforts successful and who include His Holiness the Patriarch and those who collaborate with him , at this preparatory stage, members of the Russian Orthodox Church.
While some of the texts, which were produced in the pre-synod conferences to be brought to the attention of the Synod - and certainly not final texts, but necessarily preparatory ones - do not trouble us when reading and in fact, some contain elements of useful clarification (cf. the text entitled "Autonomy and Means of its Declaration"), however, in some other texts, the use of controversial terminology, the absence of theological precision and the choice of ecclesiastical language foreign to the sacred Tradition of the Church, require commentary that may lead to their correction. This is particularly evident in two specific texts entitled: "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of Christendom" and "The Mission of the Orthodox Church in today's world",
The text "The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of Christendom"
We cannot read the text in question "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of Christendom" without noticing the sharp inconsistency that characterizes it, both in terms of terminology and in terms of conceptualization; but we are more pained by the failure of the text to adopt the correct Orthodox Ecclesiology, in a manner appropriate for the full realization of the Truth of Christ in a divided world. We consider this to be the most problematic of the Pre-Synod texts and one that will need to undergo substantial corrections during the sessions of the Synod if it is to be in a form suitable for approval by it.
The contradictions-inconsistencies regarding ecclesiastical terminology are obvious and have already been pointed out by many (Reverend Metropolitan of Nafpaktos, Reverend Metropolitan of Limassol, as well as other erudite Orthodox clergy and academic theologians). While the text begins by defining the self-awareness of the Orthodox Church "as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" (Art. 1), which "establishes its unity in the fact that it was founded by our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as in the communion of the Holy Trinity and the Mysteries" (art. 2), although the terminology, which is used throughout the rest of the text, makes these normally clear and true phrases controversial. Not only the proclamation of the Orthodox Church as "the One" Church creates confusion because of the choice of the following phrase - that "The Orthodox Church recognizes the historical existence of other Christian Churches and confessions not in communion with it" (art. 6) - but also because of the repeated references to "various Christian Churches and Confessions" (art. 6 & 20). Completely absent from the text is the reference to the fact that the Church was not only founded by our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ (art. 2), but also that it is His mystical Body, always united and indivisible (Eph. 5.30, Col. 1.24). Although everyone certainly recognizes the historical existence of groups who want to follow the Savior, separate from the Orthodox Church, and who may themselves define themselves as "churches", however, Orthodox Ecclesiology in no way allows pluralism in what it is and must always be: the One Church, the Body of Christ himself. It is occasionally possible, on occasion, to use such terminology (eg 'other churches'), for the sake of convenience, but this can have no place in an official document of the Church, which must be characterized by scrupulous accuracy and to echo in a clear and indisputable way the sacred traditions that we received from our God-bearing Fathers and that they received from the Lord.
More serious are the shortcomings of this text, as regards the basic distinction it deals with: the Church and its relations with those outside of it. The words of the Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), who spoke about the schism in Christendom, echo in our hearts, "Which conscientious Christian is not filled with sorrow in his soul, when he sees enmity and division between people who should be united in their faith, among whom the peace given by Christ to His Apostles and the love poured into the hearts of Christians by the Holy Spirit should reign!" At the same time, however, we recognize that the emergence of such a peace, for those who are divided, can only come with the proclamation of the only right path to union: of the saving life offered "in the Church". And the understanding of how they will return to the One undivided Church begins with the correct understanding of their separation from it. Here the text is extremely unclear. At no point does he take into account the example of the Holy Fathers, the Synods and the sacred Canons of the Church, in defining the division among Christians as the result of schism and heresy (terms which, surprisingly, do not appear anywhere in the text ), that is, in relation to the increasing degree of deviation and detachment from the Body of Christ and the Truth. [1] On the contrary, the text adopts the para-ecclesiastical approach, locating the division within a framework of broadly understood "Christian unity" (art. 4), a phrase controversial in the relevance of the text, which serves to imply a supreme "unity of believers in Christ" and which extends beyond the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", incorporating many other confessions. [2]
Thus, in this context of relevance of the text, of a heterodox para-ecclesiology, the text speaks of Christian unity as something "lost" (art. 5: "of the lost unity of Christians") and of the "restoration of unity of Christians" as one of the main goals of the Church (art. 4, 5, 12 & 24). Such formulations contradict the otherwise valid declaration that "according to the ontological nature of the Church, its unity is impossible to disturb" (art. 6). Furthermore, the mixing of the correct declaration, that the Church bears witness "to those who are outside of Her", with the proposal to be involved with such bodies "at the end of the search, based on the faith and tradition of the ancient Church of seven Ecumenical Synods, of the lost unity of Christians" (art. 5), makes it clear that the so-called "unity" spoken of is that in which the Holy Orthodox Church of the said Synods is but a part or constituent part and not the indivisible whole, (the Body) which Christ sustains always as His Bride (Eph. 5.25-26, 32). In all of the above, not only is a heterodox ecclesiology implied, which interfered in the draft of a possible pan-Orthodox communiqué, but also a great pastoral opportunity is overlooked.
The real disharmony that exists among Christians today is the loss of unity of heterodox Christians with the Orthodox Church; and the way to healing, which can make divided humanity truly united, is to leave the schism in repentance and heresy and the return to the One Church, whose unity was never disturbed. [3] We pray for the preservation of said internal unity from above, when we ask for "the union of all" in the Holy Masses, while at the same time, we keep in our hearts the hope that those who have left will return. A pan-Orthodox communiqué, which fails to proclaim this evangelical hope to the world, rightly misses the opportunity to bring it the message of salvation.
The same text contains other incorrect wordings, which cannot be ignored. First of all, his remarks in the 23rd article, about the necessity of inter-Christian theological dialogue (in itself a good and possibly fruitful undertaking), "excluded from any act of proselytism or other provocative action of confessional rivalry (art. 23). The loose association of the term "proselytization" with "inter-confessional competition" is problematic, because the Lord commands the active preaching (leading to the baptism) of "all nations" (cf. Matt. 28. 19-20) and assures His Church for His special preservation of converts - a reality which we praise in the psalms of the Typical during the Divine Liturgy ("The Lord keeps the converts...", Ps. 145.9).
We assume that this distinctly anti-evangelical prohibition was not in the intentions of the text, which combines the term "proselytization" with "flagrant manifestations of inter-confessional rivalry," but that, instead, it uses the term in a commonly accepted colloquialism, referring to deceitful and often insidious tactics, sometimes used in the preaching of the Gospel, rather than the preaching of the Gospel itself (this is how we interpret the use of the term in the recent joint communique of His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and the Roman Catholic Pope of Rome). [4] However, while the informal use of the term, referring to behavioral distortions, may be accepted in informal and non-binding documents, it is nevertheless impermissible in official ecclesiastical statements.
The text "The Mission of the Orthodox Church in today's world"
The problems contained in the text entitled "The Mission of the Orthodox Church in today's world" are of a more subtle and theological nature than those related to the text about the relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of Christendom, but for this very reason they require special attention. The Venerable Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Ag. Vlasiou has already painstakingly pointed out the basic anthropological errors that run throughout this text and make its otherwise noble focus - on the work of Orthodoxy to promote peace, prevent war, fight against discrimination, etc. - deeply problematic, until its wording is corrected.
The heart of the problem lies in the text's persistent use of the term "human person" instead of the correct use of the term "man" and the anchoring of the text's humanistic references to various variations of this phrase. [5] The use of the term "human person" for man appears to a remarkable extent in Orthodox discourse only from the time of Vladimir Lossky, (he himself recognized his innovation in the use of the term); and although it has been roughly established in modern dialogues, the Holy Fathers have been consistent in their use of the Scriptural and liturgical term "man". [6] In the Orthodox Secretariat, the term "person" is used mainly in relation to the Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity, to confirm the unique Being of each Person - the Father, of the Son and the Holy Spirit - but also the unique hypostatic reality of the Only Begotten Son, in Whom the Divine and the human nature coexist "unconfusedly, unalterably, indivisible, inseparably" (terms of the 4th Ecumenical Council). This term is almost never used for the human being (in which no such distinctions exist), except when the reference to man is made in the context of the Triadological terminology, precisely to demonstrate the absolute distinction between the creation-building and the Uncreated - because although man is "in the image and likeness of God", he is in no way similar in his creation to Him, Who is Anarch. inseparably" (terms of the 4th Ecumenical Council). This term is almost never used for the human being (in which no such distinctions exist), except when the reference to man is made in the context of the Triadological terminology, precisely to demonstrate the absolute distinction between the creation-building and the Uncreated - because although man is "in the image and likeness of God", he is in no way similar in his creation to Him, Who is Anarch. inseparably" (terms of the 4th Ecumenical Council). This term is almost never used for the human being (in which no such distinctions exist), except when the reference to man is made in the context of the Triadological terminology, precisely to demonstrate the absolute distinction between the creation-building and the Uncreated - because although man is "in the image and likeness of God", he is in no way similar in his creation to Him, Who is Anarch.
This clarification, which at first sight may seem excessive or even pedantic, is of fundamental importance for Orthodox theology and anthropology; it indicates the need for the greatest possible care when examining texts intended for wide circulation (even in this case case, where the text does not intend to speak about the Trinitarian doctrine, as here, but inadvertently raises problematic doctrinal issues). The spread of the incorrect use of the term "human person" for man, over the last 75 years, has led to many distortions of theological terminology, in the field of Dogmatics - one of the most notable being the idea that there is a "community of divine persons" in the Holy Trinity, a position that is explicitly stated in the text in question (art. 2. a). [7] Precise theological debates during the 4th and 5th centuries made it clear that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are united in one communion of essence (with distinct hypostatic idioms of the Three Persons - the begotten of the Son, the emanation of of the Holy Spirit and the monarchy of the Father), and while they always coexist in mutual respect, there is no communion of their Personal (hypostatic) Idioms between them. The erroneous use of the term "human person", for man, however, has led to views which take the communion of the human race as an application of the nature of the Holy Trinity in a manner contrary to the clear teaching of the (theo-bearing) Fathers and the Ecumenical Sessions. Moreover, such incorrect terminology about the Holy Trinity creates new anthropological problems, which result from a view of "the human person" "as a society of persons reflecting by grace through the unity of the human race the life and society of the divine persons in the Holy Trinity" (art. 2.a - one of the most problematic phrases of text). Although it is true that man's freedom (the subject of article 2) is a gift that emanates from the fact that he has been created "in the image" of God, yet neither his life in the wider society of the human race, nor the freedom he exercises within it, is comparable to the freedom of the Divine Persons, which is expressed in their eternal interdependence. 2.a – one of the most problematic phrases of the text). Although it is true that man's freedom (the subject of article 2) is a gift that emanates from the fact that he has been created "in the image" of God, yet neither his life in the wider society of the human race, nor the freedom he exercises within it, is comparable to the freedom of the Divine Persons, which is expressed in their eternal interdependence. 2.a – one of the most problematic phrases of the text). Although it is true that man's freedom (the subject of article 2) is a gift that emanates from the fact that he has been created "in the image" of God, yet neither his life in the wider society of the human race, nor the freedom he exercises within it, is comparable to the freedom of the Divine Persons, which is expressed in their eternal interdependence.
In many places in the Text there are indications of this false anthropology, which are summed up in the desire of its editors to promote "the general recognition of the high value of the human person" (art. 1.iii) as a source for the apostolic language of the text. However, when man is identified, erroneously, as a human person, which reflects a false conception of a "community of Divine Persons" in the Holy Trinity, then his "high value" is necessarily considered in imprecise terms. The value of man it is indeed high, but the right foundation of his value lies precisely in his created distinction from the Persons of the Holy Trinity, into Whose life he is nevertheless called and Whose image he himself secretly bears, which makes him unique in all creation,
In short, we want to emphasize that this specific text, regarding the mission of the Church, contains many good elements, such as its emphasis on the correct exercise of human freedom, the pursuit of peace and justice, the fight against discrimination, recognition of the diverse problems in terms of the secular and consumerist ideology of our modern culture, and so on - these are all laudable and cherished goals, but they should not be achieved by applying false anthropological and theological concepts. The phrase "human person" should be replaced throughout the text with the more satisfactory term "human being", especially in key phrases such as "the value of the human person" (art. 1.iii). Respectively, some other controversial or misapplied anthropological terms need to be scrutinized and corrected (such as the use of the term "gender" when they actually mean sex). Pv. Foreword, no. 5 [ii, iii]).
Observations on the proceedings and authority of the Synod
Finally, we must say a few words about the operational procedures established for the Synod, in relation to the (binding) force of the official texts it may approve, for the Orthodox world.
We are not the first to comment on the erroneous ecclesiological statement in article 22 of the text - entitled "The relations of the Orthodox Church to the rest of the Christian world" - which states that "the preservation of the genuine Orthodox faith is ensured only through the synodical system, the Who in the Church has always been the competent and final judge on matters of faith". The Holy Synods of the Church, even those considered Ecumenical in the Church's consciousness, have never been "the competent and final judge in matters of faith," but rather the Holy Spirit-driven confirmation of the one criterion of Faith, which is the clear will of Christ. The true Orthodox Faith is not preserved "only ... thanks to the synodal institution" of the Church,
This is achieved through the charismatic, Apostolic Grace, entrusted to the Hierarchs of the Church, which, with synodical prayer and contemplation, secretly reveals the Will of God, Who speaks to His ministers and through them. For this reason, those synods which have been evaluated by the Church as having binding authority for its work and life, are those in which the full freedom of episcopal grace is preserved. Each bishop equally manifests the Apostolic charism and, in the synod, each bishop is free to raise his voice in the plenary assembly. Only in this way can the synods decide to be glorified... to the Holy Spirit and us (Acts 15:28) and authentically proclaim the will of the Lord.
Both the determinations made through the Pre-Synod process, as well as the decision of the Primates of the Autocephalous Churches, as set forth in articles 3, 12 and 13 of the "Regulation of Organization and Operation of the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church", make it clear that the Pan-Orthodox this gathering, which is to take place this year, will not have the character of these Synods. We hasten to add, in a spirit of fullness of faith and love, that this in no way means that the coming session cannot have value and importance. In fact, we pray for a constructive meeting to take place, which will allow the upgrading of the Orthodox dialogue and the joint work that is being carried out. However, a synod, which includes only a predetermined number of representative bishops (art. 3. whatever texts are approved in this synod, may indeed have "a pan-orthodox validity", (art. 13.ii.) but this validity cannot be binding nor doctrinal, but will only represent the opinion of those hierarchs in whom were allowed, under these arrangements, to be present, to express their position, and to have a vote. Although we are satisfied with the insistence on the question of unanimous consent for any amendment (art. 11.ii), as well as the adoption of the texts themselves (art. 13.i), as a sufficient safeguard against the possibility of imposing any text by a mere "majority" vote, yet the fact remains that, even in such cases, where decisions are taken at the meeting by the unanimous consent of those present,
Conclusion
We wrote the above, on the one hand, to contribute with some key corrections to the texts to be considered at the next session, in a spirit of fraternal cooperation, agreement and support of the brother Hierarchs and clergy of the other Local Orthodox Churches, who were mentioned above in this letter, contributing and they in a similar way; on the other hand, we do not want to reassure the faithful flock entrusted to us by Christ, on the other hand, because of the special attention with which these texts were examined by their pastors. The process of dealing with pastoral needs in any given season requires intense prayer and ascetic devotion from all Christians, as well as decisive, dedicated work to ensure - in every official document published by the Church - fidelity to our Gospel, our holy heritage. All these texts are now, as throughout the course of history, passing through many stages of preparation and revision; the fact that we, together with others, have identified serious problems in some of the texts, which are pending examination by the upcoming Synod should in no way be a cause for fear or concern. The Holy Spirit, Who ever guides the Church in love, is not far from us in our day; and the Church is not in our time, nor ever was, deprived of the leadership of her True Head, our Christ and God, in Whom we fully place our faith that He will lead His Body, the Church,
We ask for the fervent prayer of all our faithful, so that they, well supported on the rock of the Church, can indeed support all the Hierarchs who will work for the good of these dialogues and the upcoming Synod with their prayers.
Signed,
The Perpetual Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Diaspora
+ HILARION,
Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York, President of the Synod of Bishops.
+ MARK,
Archbishop of Berlin and Germany.
+ KYRILL,
Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America, Secretary of the Synod of Bishops.
+ GABRIEL,
Archbishop of Montreal and Canada.
+ PETER,
Bishop of Cleveland.
+ NICHOLAS,
Bishop of Manhattan.
[Translated from English by Hara Lianatonaki]
1. E.g. in the clear language of M. Vassiliou in the 1st Canonical letter (Ep. 188), as well as in his 1st Canon, in the interpretation of St. Nicodemus of Agioreitos on the same topic but also on many topics of the Church Tradition.
2. From this point of view, we are especially grateful to the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Agios Vlasios, Mr. Ierotheos, for the clarity of his letter to the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece (January 18, 2016), where he draws attention to the implied presence of the so-called " of Baptist Theology", which is raised through the reference of the (pre-synodal) document to the 7th canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, and to the 9th Canon of Pentecost and which, His Eminence notes, calls into question the decision of the Patriarchs, of 1756, according to with which the one baptism of the Orthodox Church has no equal in other denominations.
3. We are grateful, regarding the above-mentioned points, for the clarity offered by the recent letter of the Venerable Metropolitan of Limassol Mr. Athanasios (dated February 11, 2016), whose views we agree with.
4. See the joint statement of Patriarch Cyril and Pope Francis, Feb. 12, 2016, section 24.
5. We point out the careful precision required in this matter, as the text uses both some correct references to 'man' and some incorrect references to 'human person'. The latter, which constitute the heart of the theological problems, are found in the following (Article 1 Title; 1. C, 2.a, c; 3.a; 6.e). For readers of these texts from translations, the problem is sometimes complex (e.g., the widely circulated English translation, which is not an official translation of the pre-Conciliar Conferences, often confuses the issue at hand because it fails to distinguishes between the different terms of the official text, attributing in almost all cases the term man as "Human person" pv.. Pref. paras. 2, 4; art. 1.i; multiple instances in 2.i; 6.iii , x; multiple instances in 6.
6. We note here an important distinction concerning the use of theological terminology in Russian and in the Greek language: Russian differentiates the term Лицо (which is used in reference to the Divine Persons, Лицы, of the Holy Trinity) from the term пистофисть, which is sometimes used in reference to with man, because it maintains the distinction between the type of Persons identified in the Trinity and the existence of human beings. Therefore, in the official Russian version of the present text the phrase in question is always rendered человекая профессиональный and not человексое лицо. On the contrary, in the Greek language there is no such linguistic distinction and therefore the phrase is rendered in every case as 'human person', a completely unacceptable term. So this raises, apart from questions of theological precision and a procedural problem regarding the Texts of the Synod, because the official version of the Russian text uses differentiated terminology, which is not used correspondingly in Greek. A further inconsistency of terms exists in the French version of the Text, which mentions about twelve times the term "la personne humaine" (or a variant thereof) - instead of seven times in the Russian and Greek language versions - using it often where in the corresponding Greek text we read ὁ ἄντροπος and in the corresponding Russian we read человек (cf. in the Prologue; ch. 1.ii.). Consequently we have three different Texts rather, with different distinctions and linguistic expressions, rather than a tripartite presentation of a single text in translation. because the official version of the Russian text uses differentiated terminology, which is not used correspondingly in Greek. A further inconsistency of terms exists in the French version of the Text, which mentions about twelve times the term "la personne humaine" (or a variant thereof) - instead of seven times in the Russian and Greek language versions - using it often where in the corresponding Greek text we read ὁ ἄντροπος and in the corresponding Russian we read человек (cf. in the Prologue; ch. 1.ii.). Consequently we have three different Texts rather, with different distinctions and linguistic expressions, rather than a tripartite presentation of a single text in translation. because the official version of the Russian text uses differentiated terminology, which is not used correspondingly in Greek. A further inconsistency of terms exists in the French version of the Text, which mentions about twelve times the term "la personne humaine" (or a variant thereof) - instead of seven times in the Russian and Greek language versions - using it often where in the corresponding Greek text we read ὁ ἄντροπος and in the corresponding Russian we read человек (cf. in the Prologue; ch. 1.ii.). Consequently we have three different Texts rather, with different distinctions and linguistic expressions, rather than a tripartite presentation of a single text in translation. A further inconsistency of terms exists in the French version of the Text, which mentions about twelve times the term "la personne humaine" (or a variant thereof) - instead of seven times in the Russian and Greek language versions - using it often where in the corresponding Greek text we read ὁ ἄντροπος and in the corresponding Russian we read человек (cf. in the Prologue; ch. 1.ii.). Consequently we have three different Texts rather, with different distinctions and linguistic expressions, rather than a tripartite presentation of a single text in translation. A further inconsistency of terms exists in the French version of the Text, which mentions about twelve times the term "la personne humaine" (or a variant thereof) - instead of seven times in the Russian and Greek language versions - using it often where in the corresponding Greek text we read ὁ ἄντροπος and in the corresponding Russian we read человек (cf. in the Prologue; ch. 1.ii.). Consequently we have three different Texts rather, with different distinctions and linguistic expressions, rather than a tripartite presentation of a single text in translation. which mentions about twelve times the term "la personne humaine" (or a variation thereof) - instead of seven times in the Russian and Greek language versions - using it often where in the corresponding Greek text we read ὁ ἄντροπος and in the corresponding Russian we read человек (cf. in the Prologue; ch. 1.ii.). Consequently we have three different Texts rather, with different distinctions and linguistic expressions, rather than a tripartite presentation of a single text in translation. which mentions about twelve times the term "la personne humaine" (or a variation thereof) - instead of seven times in the Russian and Greek language versions - using it often where in the corresponding Greek text we read ὁ ἄντροπος and in the corresponding Russian we read человек (cf. in the Prologue; ch. 1.ii.). Consequently we have three different Texts rather, with different distinctions and linguistic expressions, rather than a tripartite presentation of a single text in translation.
7.Both the Russian and the Greek versions include this incorrect theological formulation, identifying the Holy Trinity as "общение Дививыйных Лиц" and "Society of Divine Persons.
Comments