Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos Examines "The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II" -- Part 1 of 2

Editor's Note: In a newly translated book from Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos, he takes two sections to praise and summarize the main arguments from Fr. Peter's celebrated book: The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II: An Orthodox Examination of Rome’s Ecumenical Theology Regarding Baptism and the Church. We present the first of these two sections in this post. In this section, Met. Hierotheos summarizes Fr. Peter's presentation on the comparison between two ecclesiologies: on one hand, that of the Orthodox tradition and its basis on the Holy Fathers, and on the other hand, the newer teachings put forward by the Vatican in their Council of Vatican II and its basis on a desire to conform to Ecumenism.

Available now at Uncut Mountain Press!

5. The Second Vatican Council and its New Theology and Ecclesiology[1]

Much is said today about ecclesiology, about what the Church is and who her members are, in connection with the relations between the Orthodox Church and the heterodox. There is also much talk about ‘baptismal theology’, which investigates Orthodox and heterodox baptism to discover what they have in common.

These issues are interrelated, because the ecumenists attempt to define Christian unity from the perspective of baptismal theology. They base the unity of the Church on baptism, and this is essentially ‘the principle of inclusiveness’, because they try to see common points of unity between the Confessions. Instead of basing the unity of the Church on faith combined with the sacraments, they base it on baptism, which they detach from the revealed faith and the other sacraments, particularly the Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist.

These two subjects, ecclesiology and baptismal theology, were discussed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Decisions were taken that constitute the new ecclesiological viewpoint of the Roman Catholics, and two decrees were issued, one on the Church and the other on Ecumenism. These decisions and decrees assert that there are sacraments even outside the boundaries of their Church.

The strange thing is, however, that there are Orthodox theologians who are inspired by the decisions of the Second Vatican Council and regard this Council as returning to the sources of the faith. What is more, they assert that, even from the point of view of Orthodox theology, there are sacraments outside the Orthodox Church. Both these issues, however, are deviations from the Orthodox faith and the theology of the Fathers of the Church and of ecclesiastical consciousness as a whole, as it has been expressed down through the centuries.

A significant thesis was published recently entitled The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II: An Orthodox Examination of Rome’s Ecumenical Theology Regarding Baptism and the Church. This thesis was the work of Protopresbyter Peter Heers. It was submitted to the Theological School of the University of Thessaloniki and was supported by Professor Demetrios Tselingides. This is an extremely erudite thesis, utterly Orthodox and a confession of faith. It is written with knowledge of the primary and secondary sources, using the academic method of researching into the subject. The thesis was published by Uncut Mountain Press.[2]

I shall now draw attention to some essential points, because most of the Orthodox Christians who will read this thesis do not take an interest in such serious theological and ecclesiological matters, and therefore do not activate their Orthodox self-awareness. This amounts to being in a state of spiritual hypnosis, and it has direct consequences for the Orthodox Church, and ultimately for the salvation of her members.

1. The Subject Matter of Protopresbyter Peter Heers’s Thesis

This academic study begins with a preface that points out the attention paid to baptism by those theologians who are involved in the ecumenical movement. Baptism has been made the basis for Christian unity. It is noted that the Second Vatican Council recognised the validity and effectiveness “of non-Roman Catholic Baptism”, and the already existing ecclesiastical unity of all Christians, although it is imperfect, because they do not recognise the Pope as the supreme authority.

This study highlights the historical and theological contradictions in the Council’s decree on Ecumenism, on the basis of the patristic and theological view of the issue, and investigates whether the Second Vatican Council represents a return to the sources. In the end, the author asserts that this Council not only failed to return to the sources, but it also produced a new theology and ecclesiology.

The introduction analyses the historical and theological context of the Second Vatican Council. This Council was described as the Twenty-First Ecumenical Council for the Roman Catholics, and it was announced by Pope John XXIII on 25 January 1959. Its first meeting was held on 11 October 1962 and the final one on 8 December 1965; 178 meetings took place between these dates.

Four dogmatic constitutions, nine decrees and three declarations resulted from this Council. The thesis analyses and criticises the fifth in order of the decisions of the Council, the decree on Ecumenism, which was approved on the 21 November 1964 and announced by Pope Paul VI on the same day. This decree is examined alongside the decree on the Church.

The subject is looked at historically, and the two basic concepts that had dominated among Roman Catholics up until then are described. The first was the uncompromising polemical attitude to the ecumenical movement, and the second was the search for a new approach to this subject, with

a “new ecclesiology” and a “return to the sources”, and was “decidedly ‘ecumenical’ in outlook”.

The main body of the thesis is divided into two major parts.

The first part is entitled ‘Key Aspects of the Historical Development of the Roman Catholic Teaching on Baptism and the Church’ and includes chapters on ‘Baptism as the Basis for a New Ecclesiology’, ‘Pre-Conciliar Teaching: An Expression of Sacramental Minimalism’, ‘Sacramental Minimalism and Fullness’, ‘The Deeper Roots in Augustine: Continuity and Discontinuity’, ‘The Aquinian Break with Augustine on the Significance of Baptism for Those Outside the Church’, ‘The Meaning of Membership in the Church’ ‘Congar, Blessed Augustine, and the Formulation of the New Ecclesiology’, and ‘Sidestepping Mystici Corporis: Cardinal Bea’s Overture on the Eve of the Council’.

The second part, ‘Baptism and the Church According to the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio’, analyses the particular decision of the Second Vatican Council on Ecumenism and the Church. There are six chapters in this part dealing with various specific topics. The introductory section is followed by chapters on ‘Baptism and the Unity of the Church in Unitatis Redintegratio’, ‘Discernment of the Spirit in Unitatis Redintegratio’, ‘Communio: The New Ecumenical Insight and Guiding Concept’, ‘Fullness, Unity, and the Identity of the Church’, ‘Baptism and the Unity of the Faith’ and ‘Ressourcement [return to the sources] or Renovation?’

At the end of the thesis there is a summary, a conclusion, an appendix[3] containing the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, and a bibliography.

It is clear simply from the chapter headings and subheadings, but much more from reading its contents, that this is an important thesis. It offers new information to the wider reading public, as well as to the clergy and theologians, many of whom are absorbed in the Church’s pastoral activity and do not follow developments in the heterodox and inter-Christian world. It must be read by all those who have responsibility for Orthodox ecclesiastical issues, but also by all Orthodox Christians who care about the Orthodox faith and confession, who want their Orthodox self-awareness to be activated, and wish to remain steadfastly within the Orthodox patristic tradition.

2. The Basic Views of the Thesis

It is not easy in a general presentation of this important thesis to set out the central points that interest us from the point of view of the Orthodox Church and theology. I shall simply emphasise the most essential points, which will spur on the reader to read it in full.

a) A basic teaching of the early united Church, which is accepted by the Orthodox Church, is that there are no sacraments outside the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ and a communion of deification. Within the Church mankind tastes the mystery of the divine economy in Christ, and no one who departs from the Church through heresy or schism receives the gift of the divine economy. In general, the canonical boundaries of the Church coincide with her charismatic boundaries.[4]

The thesis mentions the unanimous teaching on this subject of the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church, of the Apostle Paul, St John the Theologian, St Cyprian of Carthage, St Ignatius the God-Bearer, St Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons, St Athanasius the Great, St Basil the Great, St Clement of Alexandria, St John Chrysostom, St Cyril of Jerusalem, St Maximus the Confessor, St Gregory Palamas, St Nicholas Cabasilas and others, as well as the interpretational analyses of various contemporary theologians.

The Fathers of the Church accepted the use of economy and exercised a certain leniency towards schismatics and heretics who repented, but they never divorced sacramental theology from ecclesiology.[5] They did not recognise the sacrament of baptism administered outside the Church, but they used economy to adjust the manner in which heretics and schismatics were received into the Church.

The writings of St Basil the Great record the practice of the early Church of receiving certain groups of heretics into the Church with the aim of their being united, unified and coming into communion with the Church, but without the intention of recognising any ‘objective’ sacraments among the heretics.[6]

b) In dealing with the Donatists, Blessed Augustine distanced himself from the tradition of the Fathers, which had been common to all until then, and upheld the view that outside the Church, among heretics and schismatics, there are genuine sacraments, but they lack the grace of the Holy Spirit. According to Augustine, from the moment that water is used and the ‘words of the Gospel’ are pronounced, the power of the sacrament remains in latent form in the sacrament, and consequently it is genuine, but ineffective. In this way Blessed Augustine made a distinction between the ‘validity’ and ‘efficacy’ of baptism, differentiating between the sacramentum (the sacrament itself) and the res sacramenti (its efficacy or usefulness).[7]

c) In the thirteenth century, the scholastic theologian Thomas Aquinas modified the views of Blessed Augustine regarding the so-called ‘baptismal character’ of the sacrament of baptism of schismatics and heretics outside the Church. For Thomas Aquinas the baptism of schismatics and heretics outside the Church is not only valid, but, what is more, “the baptismal character produces spiritual effects and is sealed on the soul of all who are validly baptized.” This means that the theory is beginning to take shape that the Holy Spirit is present and active even outside the Church, in the sacraments of schismatics and heretics.[8]

This theory of Thomas Aquinas influenced the decisions of the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century, which teaches that, through baptism “we are all made members of Christ and of the body of the Church,” and that true baptism is administered not only by a priest but by a layperson - male or female - or even by an idolater or heretic, provided that the form of baptism is preserved and the one performing the act “has the intention of doing as the Church does.”[9]

d) Later Roman Catholic theology on this subject was expressed in the teaching of Pope Pius XII, particularly in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi of 1943. This stated that, although it is recognised that there are Christians outside the ‘Catholic Church’, they are not regarded as “really and truly” members of the Church, “nor can they be living the life of its own divine Spirit.” These views “were consistent with the ‘Augustinian’ ecclesiology as it was expressed in the late Middle Ages.”[10]

This teaching was restated in 1949 from the point of view that outside the Church (meaning outside Roman Catholicism) there is no salvation - the familiar maxim iextra ecclesiam nulla salus - but the possibility is granted to those who are not Roman Catholics to be united with the Church without being members.[11]

e) Various theologians, however, began to distance themselves from this view, and developed the principle that the sacrament of baptism also exists among the heterodox and produces ecclesiastical results. In this way they prepared the ground for moving from the ‘exclusivity’ of the papal encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi to the ‘inclusiveness’ of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council,[12] which presented “a united ecclesiology and baptismal theology that was inclusive of the separated brethren.” In this way baptism would set the boundaries of the Church, in the sense that wherever there is “a valid Baptism, there [is] the Body of Christ.”[13] The purpose of this was to support the participation of Roman Catholicism in the ecumenical movement, and to provide an opening towards the heterodox, in that non-Roman Catholic Christians, by virtue of their baptism, participate in the life of the Church at different levels.

f) The Second Vatican Council was convened in this perspective. Its leading protagonists were the theologian Yves Congar and Cardinal Augustin Bea, who were also the main architects of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council and the structure of the new theology and ecclesiology.

The Second Vatican Council is presented as a reforming Council that returned to the sources of faith and ecclesiastical life. When, however, its decisions are studied from the Orthodox point of view, it is found to be a revisionary Council that created a new theology and a new ecclesiology, unknown within the common patristic tradition, and even within the tradition of the Latins themselves.

This Council upheld the view that the Church of Rome is not the whole of the Body of Christ, but a part of it, and that there are also Churches, albeit imperfect in form, outside this Church. It is obvious that this Council dissociated itself from the view, stated in papal encyclicals, that the Church of Christ is identical to the ‘Roman Catholic Church’, and replaced it with the declaration that “the Church of Christ subsistit in [exists in] the Catholic Church.” They moved from saying that the Church is the Catholic Church to saying that the Church of Christ exists in the ‘Catholic Church’. This expression is interpreted as meaning that “while the unity of the Church and the fullness of the Grace and gifts of God exist within the Roman church alone, in the ecclesial communities ‘the one sole Church of Christ is present, albeit imperfectly ... and by means of their ecclesiastical elements the Church of Christ is in some way operative in them.’[14] Consequently all who have been baptised “within or outside the Roman Catholic Church - ‘have been incorporated into Christ and His Church.’” They are therefore “considered to have been baptized into the one single body, and thus ‘a sacramental bond, a unity in grace, has been formed between them,”[15] although there are imperfections, because those outside the Roman Catholic Church do not yet recognise the Pope. When, however, these churches acknowledge the global power and authority of the Pope, they too will acquire perfect communion with the Church, and will cease to be imperfect.

3. The New Theology and the New Ecclesiology

It is clear from the above that the Second Vatican Council produced a new ecclesiological theory, under the influence of the ecumenical movement. This theory has three characteristic features. The first is the proclamation of the “universal brotherhood of Christians”, and particularly that “this brotherhood is of a sacramental nature.” Reference is made to “Churches and ecclesial communities,” which are bearers of grace and have “means of salvation.” The second feature is that it abandoned the “exclusive identity between the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church” that had been claimed until then, and asserted that the one and only Church of Christ is also present, although imperfectly, in the ecclesial communities outside the ‘Roman Catholic Church’. The third basic feature is that between all who are baptised there is a fundamental unity or communion, “communio ecclesiology...sharing in the sancta or the sacramenta” “as an icon of the Trinity in the image of the Trinitarian communio.”[16]

In this way four levels of a pyramid were formed: the recognition of the baptism of schismatics and heretics, the recognition of the energy of the Holy Spirit among schismatics and heretics, the recognition of ‘ecclesiality’ among schismatics and heretics, and the recognition of the Una Sancta, the One Church, “as consisting of both the Roman Catholic Church and the schismatic and heretical assemblies.”[17]

This decision of the Council has a modernising and pastoral purpose, but it also aims to reorientate Roman Catholics towards the ecumenical movement.[18]

Some of the characteristic points of this new theology and new ecclesiology defined by the Second Vatican Council will now be highlighted.

The first is that it makes a distinction between the visible and invisible Church on earth, which is contrary to the teaching of the Fathers, for example, St Irenaeus, who teaches that the Holy Spirit acts sacramentally within the Church. In the Fathers of the Church we find the teaching that the Church is one in both her forms: visible on earth and invisible in heaven. The Second Vatican Council, however, was influenced by Augustine, the Protestants, and even the views of some Russian theologians, such as Evdokimov, for example, who held that “We know where the Church is; it is not for us to judge and say where the Church is not”, Nicholas Berdiaev, and others.[19] Under their influence it formulated the idea of sacramental energy outside the ‘visible limits’ of the Church on earth, implying that the Church on earth has ‘invisible limits’ and that there is “a portion of the Church that is invisible.”[20]

The second point is that it regards baptism as the basis of the new ecumenical brotherhood, and considers unity to be “rooted in recognition of the oneness of Baptism.” This means that baptism “performed by those formally separated from the Church is thought ‘to produce all its fruits and is a source of grace.’”[21] This gave rise to so-called ‘baptismal theology’, which considers baptism as a unifying element among Christians, even if they differ with regard to faith. The patristic criteria for the recognition of the Church were changed, so that, according to baptismal theology, “heretical Baptism is the one Baptism”, and the sacramental unity of the Church “is no longer to be found in an identity based upon unity in faith, apostolic succession, the episcopate, and the mysteries.”[22] Thus someone can, on account of baptism performed by heretics, schismatics or even those who are unbaptised, be a member of the Body of Christ, regardless of faith, apostolic succession and the sacraments. This goes against Orthodox teaching, which closely links Orthodoxy with the Church and the Divine Eucharist. Thus “Christ of the Mysteries” (of baptism) is distinguished from “Christ of dogmatic truth”.[23]

A serious theological issue exists because, where there is no faith or dogma, there can be no mention of sacraments. Dogma cannot be separated from spirituality. Ecclesiastical authenticity is connected with Orthodox dogma and the sacraments that are within the boundaries of the Church.[24] The link between baptism and unity of faith is obvious,[25] and there can be no division between “Christ in the Mysteries and Christ in dogmatic truth.”[26] The unity of the Church consists, according to the Fathers, of sharing “the same sacraments”, the “same faith” and the bishop.[27]

The third point, which follows on from the previous one, is that a division is made between the sacraments of the Church. Whereas the fundamental teaching of the Fathers of the Church is that there is unity between Baptism, Chrismation and the Divine Eucharist, so that Baptism is perfected by (and in) the Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist, this Council broke up the unity of the sacraments. This was already the case among Roman Catholics, because in their ecclesiastical practice they dissociate Baptism from Chrismation and Holy Communion, as they are baptized in infancy, but later, during adolescence, they are chrismated and take communion for the first time at the Divine Eucharist. The Second Vatican Council, however, went on to recognise the baptism of most Protestants but not their Divine Eucharist, whereas it acknowledges the validity of the Divine Eucharist among the Orthodox, but considers them to be deprived, not of the fullness of Christ, but of the fullness of communion with Christ’s representative, the Pope.[28]

The difference between the Orthodox Church and the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ is obvious. The Orthodox Church does not break up the unity between the sacraments, as Baptism is connected with Holy Communion, so the sacramental basis of communion is all the sacraments, “united in a common life and a common cup.” By contrast, in the ‘Roman Catholic Church’, according to the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council, the sacramental basis of communion is the one baptism, together with participation in the Divine Eucharist, which is, however, reserved for those who are in full communion.[29]

The fourth point is that the Body of Christ is severed from the Church, and someone can be incorporated into Christ through the sacrament of baptism without being a member of the ‘Catholic Church’. According to the Second Vatican Council, the same sacrament of baptism can produce different results outside and inside the ‘Roman Catholic Church’.[30] In this Council’s view, heretics and schismatics (Protestants and Orthodox) can be united with Christ, but without “being members of the Roman Catholic Church.”[31] This introduces the anti-patristic and anti-ecclesiastical principle of “non plene (incomplete) or non perfecta (imperfect) communione”. Thus there are two standards, “one for the Church that Christ founded and another for a church that emerged out of historical circumstances.” There are “two different classes of the baptized, two kinds of unity, Baptism, communion and church.” This is incompatible with the patristic tradition.[32]

Following on from this, the fifth point is that the “full realization of the Church requires communion with the Pope.” For fullness to exist in the Divine Eucharist, over and above the presence of Christ, there must be recognition of the primacy of the Pope and communion with him. Without the Pope no bishop can exercise his authority and “the local church is ‘wounded’ and cannot be ‘fully realized’ as a particular church.” Recognition of the Pope is an “essential” element above all other elements, “even the ‘element’ of the Lord Himself in the Eucharist.” This “essential” element “is the Supreme Pontiff.”[33] Those ecclesiastical communities outside the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ “may have Christ in the Eucharist, but they are nonetheless ‘wounded’ because they lack His Vicar on earth, the Supreme Pontiff.”[34]

The sixth point is that the Second Vatican Council’s decision completely lacks the discernment of the energies of the Holy Spirit.[35] It actually asserts that God’s grace acts outside the Church, even among heretics and schismatics, without making clear which grace acts. According to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, God’s energy is single, but there are different degrees of participation in it, depending on its results. Although the whole creation shares in the creative, sustaining and providential energy of God, “the Holy Spirit acts to purify, illumine, and sanctify in the Church alone.”[36] If the energies were identical, there would be no distinction, so all creatures would participate in the deifying energy of God, which is unacceptable from the patristic point of view.[37]

The seventh point is that there is no reference at all in the Second Vatican Council’s decrees on the Church and Ecumenism to the wiles of the devil before and after baptism. These decrees “lack a developed demonology.” Christ came into the world “that He might destroy the works of the devil” 1 John 3:8), so the absence of any kind of demonology has consequences for Christology and ecclesiology.[38] As is well known, baptism is preceded by ‘exorcisms’ and by the renunciation of the devil and his energies.

The thesis concludes that the Second Vatican Council “represented a break with its immediate past and the ecclesiology of Pius XII.” It did not however, mark a return to the original roots, particularly to the patristic tradition concerning the Church expressed by St Ignatius the God-Bearer.[39] The decisions of the Council belong within the perspective of ecumenism and the view that unity exists between all Christians, even if in a simple form, and that they are called upon to acquire full unity by accepting the authority of the Pope. According to this Council, therefore, ecclesiastical division is not dogmatic; it does not refer to the faith and it is not ecclesiastical, but it is merely canonical. It is connected with the recognition of the Pope as the leader of all Christians. This explains the way in which many ecumenists speak about the dialogue between “the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics”.

The author of this treatise concludes with the following note:

“The new ecclesiology expressed in Unitatis Redintegratio is a spiritual and theological challenge of our day to which every Orthodox Christian remains indifferent to his own peril, for it carries with it soteriological consequences. In the face of a terribly divisive and deceptive heresy, we are all called to confess Christ today, as did our ancient forebears in the days of Arianism. Our confession of faith, however, is not only in His Person in the Incarnation, but His Person in the continuation of the Incarnation, the Church. To confess the faith today is to confess and declare the unity of His divine and human natures in His Body, the one and only Orthodox Church - ‘unmixed, unchanged, undivided and inseparable’.”[40]

This is an important thesis because, on the one hand, it comments from an Orthodox point of view on the Second Vatican Council’s decision concerning ecclesiology and ecumenism, which shows the way in which modern Roman Catholics approach these issues, in spite of reactions from some others. On the other hand, it is also important because we know of some Orthodox ecumenists, Hierarchs and theologians who are animated by the same ideas about ecclesiology and baptismal theology, and who express themselves “in terms nearly identical to those used in the texts of Vatican II and contemporary Roman Catholic theology.”[41]

The fact is that there are Orthodox clergy and theologians who analyse the relevant Canons of the Ecumenical Councils about the manner in which heretics returning to the Church are to be received from the point of view that the Fathers recognised that there were elements of ‘ecclesiality’ even outside the boundaries of the Church. They are unwilling to understand that the economy used by the Fathers for the return of heretics and schismatics to the Church does not mean that they accepted the existence of sacraments outside the Church. In any case, even economy has an absolutely clear theology.

Ultimately, “the theory of baptismal unity presented in Unitatis Redintegratio is incompatible with the ecclesiology of the Holy Fathers.”[42]

October 2014

Available now at Uncut Mountain Press!

ENDNOTES

[1] Published in Greek in Ekklisiastiki Paremvasi, vol. 220, November 2014 [Metropolitan Hierotheos is referring to the Greek edition of Fr Peter Heers's book. In the English edition, the book's subtitle and a few chapter headings vary slightly from the Greek edition, and I have used the English wording for ease of reference. - Translator's note]

[2] Protopresbyter Peter Heers, Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II: An Orthodox Examination of Rome's Ecumenical Theology Regarding Baptism and the Church, Uncut Mountain Press, Simpsonville SC 29680, 2015 - Greek edition, Uncut Mountain Press, Petrokerasa, Thessaloniki, 2014

[3] This appendix is omitted from the English edition. - Translator's note

[4] Heers, p. 55 (all page numbers refer to the English edition)

[5] Ibid. pp. 100-101

[6] Ibid. p. 55

[7] Ibid. pp. 52-3

[8] Ibid. pp. 76-7

[9] Ibid. pp. 79-80

[10] Ibid. p. 107

[11] Ibid. pp. 26-7

[12] Ibid. p. 106

[13] Ibid. p. 108

[14] Ibid. pp. 125-6

[15] Ibid. p. 150

[16] Ibid. pp. 122-8

[17] Ibid. p. 142

[18] Ibid. p. 129

[19] Ibid. pp. 281-2

[20] Ibid. pp. 160-61

[21] Ibid. pp. 21-3

[22] Ibid. p. 165

[23] Ibid. p. 230

[24] Ibid. p. 227

[25] Ibid. p. 258

[26] Ibid. p. 230

[27] Ibid. p. 198

[28] Ibid. p. 291

[29] Ibid. p. 184

[30] Ibid. p. 203

[31] Ibid. p. 211

[32] Ibid. pp. 213-14

[33] Ibid. pp. 218-21

[34] Ibid. p. 258

[35] Ibid. p. 179

[36] Ibid. p. 144

[37] Ibid. pp. 145-6, 151, 167-72, 175-9

[38] Ibid. pp. 179-80

[39] Ibid. pp. 182, 235, 251

[40] Ibid. p. 302

[41] Ibid. p. 297

[42] Ibid. p. 293

SOURCE:

Vlachos, Metropolitan Hierotheos, The Orthodox Church and the Rest of the Christian World: The 'Holy and Great Council' in Crete 2016, translated by Birth of the Theotokos Monastery (Pelagia) (Levadia, Greece: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery (Pelagia), 2025), pp. 98-110.