the recognition of the baptism of the heterodox as the basis for a new ecclesiology by...

8/18/2019 The Recognition of the Baptism of the Heterodox as the Basis for a New Ecclesiology by Protopresbyter Peter Hee…

1/18

1

Theological – Academic Conference

The Great and Holy Council:

Great Preparation without Expectations

Conference Hall of the “Peace and Friendship” Stadium

Piraeus, Greece – Wednesday, March 23, 2016

The Recognition of theBaptism of the Heterodox asthe Basis for a NewEcclesiology (In Step with

Vatican II)Protopresbyter Peter Heers, Rector of the Holy Church of the Prophet Elias,

Petrokerasa, Greece

ith the push for a pan-Orthodox acceptance of the Pre-Synodical text,“Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian

World,” a century long process of distortion of Orthodox ecclesiology iscoming to fruition !nsomuch as the Pan-Orthodox Council accepts the

erroneous teaching that heretical ministrations are mysteries of the One Church, somuch so will it ac"uiesce to the adoption of a new ecclesiology

W !n this lecture, in the #rief time allotted me, my intention is to succinctly presentthe origins of this erroneous teaching, two of the pillars of the new $atican !!ecclesiology which largely rest on this teaching, the adoption of this error #y Orthodox ecumenists and the attempt to secure pan-Orthodox reception of it %ia thepre-Synodical text on the heterodox

1. The Post-Schism, Western Origins of the Acceptance of HereticalBaptism Per Se

&he historical origins and de%elopment of the idea that the Church shares the “one #aptism” with heretics, and that, indeed, this is the #asis for recognition of the“ecclesial nature” of heresy, lie exclusi%ely in the West, and indeed in the post-schism

West 'lthough it cannot #e denied that the peculiar (atin sacramental theology owes much to )lessed 'ugustine, the decisi%e #rea* with the patristic consensus onheretical #aptism came with the %iews of &homas '"uinas

&homas '"uinas, in de%eloping the medie%al doctrine of )aptismal character+

cites )lessed 'ugustine as his main source '"uinas use of the term character is,howe%er, "uite different than 'ugustines or '"uinas, character is an indeli#lemar* on the soul ,. which can ne%er #e remo%ed/ or 'ugustine it is an external sign0e is “referring "uite literally to a mar* on the #ody, and using it as an analogy to

1 Cf Summa Theologica III ! "#, 1, "" (especially $%) an& "%


2/18

'explain the %alidity of the sacred sign of )aptism” 1 0is theory is #ased upon the ideathat the external sign of )aptism can #e possessed #y someone who is actually internally alien to the #ody of the Church and so #ereft of the sacramentseffecti%eness &his difference has gra%e implications for the meaning of sacramentalefficacy

or '"uinas the )aptismal character produces spiritual effects and is sealed on thesoul of all who are %alidly #apti2ed &he sign, therefore, simply on account of #eingexternally %alid #rings a#out an enduring effect on the soul &his is exactly what doesnot happen in 'ugustines theory3 %alid sacraments can #e and many times aretotally without spiritual efficacy4 !n this teaching of '"uinas we may ha%e the firststep toward the full, conciliar acceptance at $atican !! of the presence and wor*ingsof the 0oly Spirit in the mysteries of the schismatics and heretics 5

's with 'ugustine, whose “new theology” of the church was intended as a guardedde%elopment of the patristic concensus expressed #efore him, #ut who ne%erthelesslaid the first foundation stone for much greater inno%ations, '"uinas can also #e saidto ha%e laid the groundwor* for later theological de%elopment

!n his Summa Theologie, "uestion 51, answer 6, '"uinas does maintain inprinciple what $atican !! will later a#andon with regard to the “separated #rethren,”namely the 'ugustinian distinction #etween the “sacrament” and the “reality” of thesacrament &herein he states that there are heretics who “o#ser%e the formprescri#ed #y the church” and that they “confer indeed the sacrament #ut not thereality” 0e is referring, howe%er, as he stresses, to those “outwardly cut off from theChurch,” such that one who “recei%es the sacraments from them, sins andconse"uently is hindered from recei%ing the effect of the sacrament” !t is importantto stress here, that their sin in recei%ing the sacrament from *nown heretics is whato#structs their reception of the reality, not the impossi#ility of the sacramentalreality #eing imparted outside of the Church

' Ii&, "#1

# Ii&, "# $s *ohn P +ocu writes concernin- $.uinas/ 0iew of the in&eliility

of character as oppose& to -race in the soul of the recipient of the sacraents

23hoas &istin-uishes the two e4ects of the sacraents, -race an& character,

accor&in- to their peranence 3he character is a kin& of &eputation to the

ser0ice of &i0ine worship, in which one is epowere& to -i0e or to recei0e the

sacraents $s such it is in&i4erent to -oo& or e0il use, an& ay e isuse&, ut

is not e4ace& (S3, III, "#, '5 "#, 6) 7hile -race, he says, is in the soul as a forit is chan-eale as lon- as the soul itself is chan-eale5 that is, it is su8ect to

the e4ects of the e9ercise of free will, ecause its su8ect is the person who

recei0es it 3hecharacter, howe0er, is a kin& of instruental power an& its

su8ect is the principal a-ent, Christ, whose priesthoo& lasts fore0er: (+ocu,

*ohn P, 2Sacraents in $.uinas: in Aquinas on Doctrine: A Critical Introduction,

e&ite& y 3hoas G 7einan&y, et al (;on&on 3 < 3 Clark, '==6, p 1>'?1>#)

6 Cary, Philip, 2@utwar& Si-ns,: p '=1

Ii&


3/18

# '"uinas writes that anyone who recei%es the sacraments from one

excommunicated or defroc*ed “does not recei%e the reality of the sacrament, unlessignorance excuses him” &hus, for '"uinas, the o#stacle to efficaciousness and thereality of grace in the mystery is not necessarily the lac* of unity, as 'ugustine wouldha%e it, #ut *nowingly participating in the sin of diso#edience and re#ellion “&he

power of conferring sacraments” remains with the schismatic or heretical cleric, suchthat one ignorantly recei%ing )aptism from him has not only recei%ed a truesacrament, #ut has also recei%ed the spiritual reality of )aptism, which includesinitiation and incorporation into Christ

'"uinas writes the same in his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter (om#ard,holding that “heretics and those cut off from the Church confer true sacraments, #utthat no grace is gi%en, not from defect in the sacraments, but because of the sin of those who receive sacraments from such against the prohibition of the Church”7&his is the most crucial point and that point which separates post-schismCatholicism from 'ugustine and the pre-schism Church in the West When, later

with $atican !!s re-e%aluation of schismatics and heretics as “separated #rethren,”

the Council will not only lift any such prohi#ition #ut e%en encourage limitedintercommunion, then the “life of grace” will #e seen as springing from thedissidents liturgical life and prayer, a life which opens up access to the assem#ly of those #eing sa%ed 8Unitatis Redintegratio /c9!t is precisely on this point of efficaciousness #y way of ignorance and in seeing“character” as the sign of ecclesiastical mem#ership that the fashioners of the new ecclesiology will form their new %iew of schism, heresy and the church '"uinaspro%ided, as it were, the #uilding #loc*s with which to shape the new %ision of the

" In contrast to oth $u-ustine/s an& $.uinas/ un&erstan&in- of the ter 2seal,:

for the Church Aathers of the East, accor&in- to *ohn B iDioulas, 2the terFJK LsealM woul& ne0er ac.uireNa strictly ontolo-ical eanin- in the sense

of OQ Lthin-M5 it woul& e un&erstoo& rather as TK LrelationM, which is

usually contrasted y the with OQ: (iDioulas, *ohn B, Being As

Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwoo&, U+ St

Vla&iir/s Seinary Press, 1%%#, p '#) It is also iportant to note that the

uni.ue $.uinan &e0elopent of 2character: or 2seal: is totally asent in the

sacraental theolo-y of St Uicholas Caasilas, who sees 2seal: as essentially

synonyous with 2anointin-: an& the other ters use& to &escrie aptis

2aptis is calle& Wanointin-/ ecause on those who are initiate& it en-ra0es

Christ, who was anointe& for us It is a Wseal/ which iprints the Sa0iour Hiself

$s the anointin- is actually applie& to the whole for of the o&y of hi who is

anointe&, so it iprints on hi the $nointe& @ne an& &isplays His for an& is

really a sealin- y what has een sai& it has een shown that the seal has the

sae e4ect as the irth, 8ust as the clothin- an& the plun-in- LaptisM e4ect

the sae as the sealin- Since the free -ift, the illuination, an& the washin-

ha0e the sae e4ect as the new creation an& the irth, it is e0i&ent that all the

noenclature of aptis si-niXes one thin- Y the aptisal washin- is our irth

an& the e-innin- of our life in Christ: (Caasilas, Uicholas, The Life in Christ

(Crestwoo&, U+ St Vla&iir/s Seinary Press, 1%>6, p "%)

> ;eein-, p 61 (ephasis ine)


4/18

6Church &he most important of these is that which would ha%e e%ery %alid sacramentproducing spiritual effects for all #ut those who knowingly commune with schismand heresy 0ence, following '"uinas, )ernard (eeming could state, e%en in +65:,

#efore the ad%ent of $atican !!, that “if the sacrament is %alid, its fruitfulnessdepends exclusi%ely upon the disposition of the recipient”;

2. Two Essential haracteristics of the !ew Ecclesiolog" at #atican $$


5/18

Church,” ma*ing the dissident a mem#er of the Church, tending toward “an entireand practical incorporation in the ecclesiastical Catholic #ody” +.

!t is this critical assumption, that “elements” of the Church, such as )aptism, can #e extracted from the whole and still ha%e life to gi%e, which underlies and supportsthe entirety of the new ecclesiology ar from #eing a return to the athers, this

theory of autonomous ecclesiastical elements has its origins in none other than EohnCal%ins doctrine of vestigia ecclesiae, which Congar de%eloped with a slight changeof emphasis+/ !n his theory, the schismatic and heretic is made a mem#er of theChurch on the account of the F#aptismal character, in spite of lac*ing an orthodoxconfession of faith, full sacramental life or communion or unity in faith and lo%eCongar writes3 “!n this way it is that the Church includes mem#ers who appear to #eoutside her &hey #elong, in%isi#ly and incompletely, #ut they really #elong” +1

) Recognition of the “?cclesiality” of 0eterodox Confessions

!t is a %ery short step from recognition of “ecclesial elements” among the heterodox

to recognition of the “ecclesiality” or “ecclesial nature” of heterodox confessions &hisstep was easily ta*en at $atican !! +4 !t is now a step that Orthodox ecumenists wouldli*e the Pan-Orthodox Council to ta*e

11 Uichols, p 1=' (\phasis in the ori-inal) $0ery Bulles, S*, in his article The

Church, The Churches, The Catholic Church, pro0i&es ack-roun& inforation on

Con-ar/s iportant 2eleents: theory 2It asserts that althou-h the Church of

Christ e9ists fully or perfectly in one counion alone, it is foun& iperfectly or

y participation in others, inasuch as they too possess certain -ifts or

en&owents that elon- y ri-ht to the one true Church 3his nuance& position&eri0es fro the &octrine of vestigia ecclesiae, which has een trace& ack as

far as *ohn Cal0in (*ohn Cal0in, Institutes of the Christian !eligion 6 (1% e&),

chap ', nos 11?1') $fter ein- re0i0e& in the twentieth?century ecuenical

o0eent, this &octrine was taken into Roan Catholic theolo-y y +0es Con-ar

an& others Since aout 1%=, howe0er, it has een custoary to speak not so

uch of ]0esti-es] of the Church as of ]eleents,] ]-ifts,] ]en&owents,] etc^

e9pressions which see ore irenic an& positi0eL_Mhe i&ea that there are

]eleents] of the true Church outsi&e of Roan Catholicis has -i0en rise to

theories that other Christian counions ay e ]iperfect realiDations] of the

Church of Christ or e0en, in an analo-ous sense, ]Churches: (3heolo-ical

Stu&ies, ##' (1%>'), 1%%?'#6)

1' Con-ar, Divided Christendom, p '#6?# $s Bou-las [ `oskela notes in his

stu&y #cclesiality and #cumenism: "ves Congar and the !oad to $nity , one of the

ost strikin- chan-es to take place with Vatican II is that, prior to the Council,

ore pro-ressi0e Roan Catholic theolo-ians were only willin- 2to speak in

ters of non?Catholic individual Christians ein- iperfect eers in the

church of Christ: $fter Vatican II, theolo-ians e-an to speak 2in ters of the

iperfect presence of the church of Christ in non?Catholic communities:

(`oskela, Bou-las [, #cclesiality and #cumenism: "ves Congar and the !oad to$nity ([ilwaukee [ar.uette ni0ersity Press, '==Z), p %)


6/18

" 'llow me to "uote a prominent theologian and interpreter, Eohannes einer, to

descri#e the cele#rated “communio” ecclesiology of $atican !!, which will ma*e itclear what recognition of “ecclesiality” means in post-$atican !! ecumenism3

)ecause the Church is seen as a “communio,” or a “complex reality in the form

of a communion, the unity of which has #een #rought a#out #y numerous and %arious factors, the possi#ility remains open that the constituent elements of the Church may #e present e%en in Christian communities outside theCatholic Church, and may give these communities the nature of a Church &hus, the one Church of Christ can also #e present outside the CatholicChurch, and it is present, and also, indeed, %isi#le, in so far as factors andelements which create unity and therefore the Church are here” +5

1# See *ohn Cal0in, Institutes of the Christian !eligion 6 (1% e&), chap ', nos

11?1' an& Con-ar, Divided Christendom, pp ''6?'6Z See also the recent stu&y

$renas, San&ra, 2[erely !uantiXale Realitiesb 3he Vesti-ia Ecclesiae in the

3hou-ht of *ohn Cal0in an& its 3wentieth Century Reception,: in %ohn Calvin&s#cclesiology: #cumenical Pers'ectives (#cclesiological Investigations), Gerar&

[annion an& E&uar&us Van &er or-ht e& (;on&on 3 < 3 Clark, '=11), pp "%?

Z% Cal0in &e0elops his theory of vestigia #cclesiae as a part of his reections on

the nature of the Church an& criti.ue of Roan Catholicis In spite of hol&in-

that the Roan Catholic Church hol&s false &o-as an& practices, he

nonetheless conce&es to the e9istence of soe ecclesiastical eleents in it,

eleents he calls vestigia #cclesiae Cal0in conclu&es that on the stren-th of

aptis the papal institution contains certain vestigia of the ancient church

which testify to the presence of Go&, howe0er, since 2those arks Lof the true

churchM are e4ace&, I say that the whole o&y, as well as e0ery sin-leassely, want to the for of a le-itiate Church: (6', 11?1') See also 7alter

àsper/s essay 23he Becree on Ecuenis Y Rea& $new $fter Aorty +ears,:

where he also infors us that this i&ea 2was Xrst rou-ht into play in an

e*tension of the anti?Bonatist position of $u-ustine y + Con-ar: an& that 2In

the 3oronto Beclaration (1%=) it also entere& into the usa-e of the 7orl& Council

of Churches:

16 Con-ar, Bi0i&e& Christen&o, '#6

1 See ;G 11, 15 R ''5 Acta Synodalia, IIId', ## Car&inal àsper e9plains this

thus 2aptisNis the sacraent of faith, wherey those who ha0e een

aptiDe& elon- to the one o&y of Christ which is the church Uon?Catholic

Christians are therefore not outsi&e of the one church, they alrea&y elon- to it

in a ost fun&aental way @n the asis of the one coon aptis

ecuenis has an ontolo-ical foun&ation an& an ontolo-ical &epth It is an

e0ent of the Spirit: (àsper, 23he Becree on Ecuenis Y Rea& $new $fter Aorty

+ears,: Section IV, para-raph #)

1" Ii&, p "Z?"% (ephasis ine) 3he 2eleents ecclesiolo-y: put forth yCon-ar, which was initially &rawn fro Cal0in, is apparent here Aeiner/s


7/18

>

&his, then, is the purpose of recogni2ing elements of the Church, such as #aptism,outside of the Church, and also the ecclesiality of the heterodox3 in order to #roadenthe Church such that the Orthodox Church is not identified exclusively with the One,0oly, Catholic and 'postolic Church

!ndeed, the aim of the introduction at $atican !! of the incendiary phrasesubsistit in to replace the earlier formula est , which expressed a strict identity

#etween the One Church and Catholicism was to differentiate #etween the Church of Eesus Christ and Catholicism &he new phrase was meant to say that, while theChurch of Christ is really present or concretely real and is to #e found in Catholicism,it is not to be strictly identified with it

' similar effect has #een achie%ed in the consciousness of many Orthodox withthe widely heard phrase first made popular #y Paul ?%do*imo% and later throughBetropolitan Gallistos Wares wor*s3 “We *now where the Church isH it is not for usto @udge and say where the Church is not” +7 &his sort of apophatic, almost agnostic,

%iew of the Church was, not surprisingly, influential in the formation of the new

ecclesiology of $atican !!+; !t appears to #e connected to a gross, out of contextmisreading of St !renaeus famous phrase “or where the Church is, there is theSpirit of IodH and where the Spirit of Iod is, there is the Church” +6 'lthough theSaint spo*e these words in the context of @uxtaposing those with “per%erse opinions”

with the “apostles, prophets, teachers” and mysteries through which the Spirit wor*sin the Church, his words are ta*en out of context to claim that where%er 8and in

interpretation is consistent with the ocial e9planation, or !elatio, which refers

to the 2ecclesial counities: in the 7est thus 2LtheyM are not erely a su or

collection of in&i0i&ual Christians, ut they are constitute& y social ecclesiasticaleleentsNwhich confer on the a truly ecclesial character In these

counities the one sole Church of Christ is present, aleit iperfectlyN: Acta

Synodalia, IIId', ## (ephasis ine)

1> P E0&okio0, ;/@rtho&o9ie (Ueuchatel Belachau9 et Uiestl, 1%%), #6#

[etropolitan `allistos 7are echoes these wor&s of E0&okio0 in his ook The

+rthodo* Church 2[any people ay e eers of the Church who are not

0isily so5 in0isile on&s ay e9ist &espite outwar& separation 3he Spirit of

Go& lows where it will, an&, as Irenaeus sai&, where the Spirit is, there is the

Church 7e know where the Church is ut we cannot e sure where it is not5 an&so we ust refrain fro passin- 8u&-ent : 3iothy 7are L[etropolitan

`allistos of BiokleiaM, The +rthodo* Church (;on&on Pen-uin, 1%%>), #=Z

1Z Orthodox friendly theologians at Vatican II, such as Bishop Christopher Butler from England, cited thissentiment of P. Evdokimov as influential in the formation of the ne ecclesiology of Vatican II. ChristopherButler, The Theology of Vatican II !"ondon# $arton, "ongman and %odd, &'()* rev. ed. &'+&. Evdokimov alsostates, as cited -y Butler, that the non/Orthodox, considered from the point of vie of their denominationalallegiance, are no longer in the Orthodox Church* -ut for all their separation, the Church continues to -e presentand to act in presence of their faith and their correct intention of salvation0 !as 1uoted in Christopher Butler, %he

Idea of the Church 2Baltimore# 3elicon Press, &'(45. Evdokimov as an official o-server at Vatican II and had personal contact ith those theologians ho shaped the ne ecclesiology.


8/18

Z whate%er manner9 the Spirit wor*s 8among the heterodox especially9 the Church ispresent ma*ing mem#ers.:

&his in%ersion of St !renaeus %iew of the Church is consistent with theecumenists refusal to identify the canonical and charismatic #oundaries of theChurch,.+ which was certainly the patristic consensus of the ancient Church,..

without which the canons lose their meaning and force./

!n light of these %iews, it isnot surprising that some ha%e ceased %iewing the Church as the continuation of the!ncarnation.1 't the root of these inno%ations lies an ina#ility to crucify the intellectand accept “the scandal of the particular,” #ut also a failure to explain in terms

1% 6or in the Church 7od hath set apostles, prophets, teachers and all the other means through hich the8pirit orks* of hich all those are not partakers ho do not 9oin themselves to the Church, -ut defraudthemselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous -ehavior. 6or here the Church is, there is the8pirit of 7od* and here the 8pirit of 7od is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace* -ut the 8pirit is

truth.0 Ireneaus, :gainst 3eresies, ;# 4


9/18

%consistent with Orthodox incarnational ecclesiology the nature of the wor* of the0oly Spirit outside of the ?ucharistic Synaxis.4

&he new image of the Church which has emerged, on the #asis of the recognitionof the “ecclesiality” of the %arious Christian confessions, is well-descri#ed #y Eesuitscholar rancis Sulli%an3

“one can thin* of the uni%ersal Church as a communion, at %arious le%els of fullness, of #odies that are more or less fully churchesJ it is a real communion,reali2ed at %arious degrees of density or fullness, of #odies, all of which, thoughsome more fully than others, ha%e a truly ecclesial character” .5

!t is crucial to ha%e this idea of the Church in mind when reading the pre-synodical draft text “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian

'# 3he authority to in& an& loose woul& e hollow if the e9counicate&

schisatic or heretic were ale to continue on his own in the counion of the

@ne Church/s ysteries Canonical oun&aries which are ereft of charisatic

force are eanin-less

'6 Cf Car&inal 7alter `asper, That They /ay All Be +ne: The Call to $nity Today

(;on&ond Uew +ork urns an& @ates, '==6), =Y >6, especially p >= (ephasis

a&&e&) Aor the 0iews of Car&inal *oseph RatDin-er (y this tie Pope ene&ict

ˆVI), see [a9iilian Heinrich Hei, %ose'h !at0inger: Life in the Church and

Living Theology: 1undamentals of #cclesiology ith !eference to Lumen

2entium, trans [ichael * [iller (San Arancisco I-natius Press, '==>), #==Y ##=

Aor the @rtho&o9, to &eny that the Church is the continuation of the incarnationis nothin- less than to &epart fro the iracle of Chalce&on^the unutterale

union of the two natures in the Person of the 3heanthropos Christ ^ which is the

essence of the [ystery of the Church $s St *ustin Popo0ich states

une.ui0ocally 23he Church is Christ the 3heanthropos e9ten&in- throu-h all

a-es an& all eternity: (‰TQ ŠjK xO‹TK LSt *ustin Popo0ichM, €Qj\

K €OTqŒK ‰Oxq q OK €F\K LInterpretation of the

Epistle of the $postle Paul to the EphesiansM (3hessaloniki \{ Ž Oq,

1%Z%), "6)

' See chapter 1= in y ook, The #cclesiological !enovation of 3atican II An+rthodo* #*amination of !ome4s #cumenical Theology !egarding Ba'tism and

the Church (3hessaloniki ncut [ountain Press, '=1), 1">?1Z1 2$ll en, then,

of whate0er ack-roun& or elief, participate in the creati0e, sustainin-, an&

pro0i&ential ener-ies of Go&, without which the worl& woul& cease to e In this

sense, an& only in this sense, there is a &i4erentiate& participation for

schisatics an& heretics, not in the life of the Church, as Con-ar an& his

collea-ues suppose&, ut in those &i0ine ener-ies coon to all creation^ the

creati0e, sustainin-, an& pro0i&ential ener-ies of Go& 3his participation,

howe0er, &oes not ake the eers of the Church, for they, not ha0in-

fulXlle& the necessary presuppositions for such participation, are notparticipatin- in the purifyin-, illuinatin-, an& &eifyin- ener-ies of Go&: (1>1)


10/18

1= World” !n the warped ecumenical ecclesiological framewor* of post-$atican !!ecumenism, the mere identification of the Orthodox Church with the One, 0oly,Catholic, and 'postolic Church does not preclude the simultaneous recognition of other Churches as possessing an “ecclesial nature” or e%en as #eing “more or lessfully churches” Such an unorthodox reading is, of course, "uite li*ely when the text

ma*es particular references to heterodox confessions as “churches” !n a dogmatictext of this nature it should #e o#%ious that the term must #e used strictly inaccordance with the Orthodox meaning of the word, so as to exclude any possi#lemisinterpretation

Ii%en the unorthodox ecclesiological paradigm of post-$atican !! ecumenism,there is sufficient #asis for the hierarchs of the (ocal Churches to re@ect the draft texton relations with the 0eterodox !f, howe%er, we also consider the %iews of leadingecumenist theologians among the Orthodox, some of whom ha%e #een in%ol%ed inthe drafting of the pre-Synodical texts, there is pressing need for a condemnation of the new ecclesiology, lest the heterodox notions of the Church #e accepted asOrthodox

%. The A&option of 'e" omponents of the !ew Ecclesiolog" (" Ortho&o)Ec*menists

'lthough lac*ing the de%eloped sophistication found in $atican !!, the ecclesiological %iews of leading ecumenists find agreement with their (atin counterparts in thefundamentals of the new ecclesiology &he two foundational characteristics of thenew ecclesiology referred to a#o%e K the recognition of heterodox #aptism per se andthe su#se"uent recognition of the “ecclesial nature” of heterodox confessions K ha%e

#een em#raced #y todays leading ecumenists, such as Patriarch )artholomew,Betropolitan Eohn Li2ioulas, Betropolitan 0ilarion 'lfeye%, Betropolitan

Chrysostom of Bessenia, Professor Stylianos &sompanides, Betropolitan Gallistos Ware, Professor Bichel Stru%e, and others 0ere ! can only #riefly refer to the mostrepresentati%e %oices, focusing mainly on the %iews of those theologians directly in%ol%ed in the drafting of the pre-synodical document

0is 'll-0oliness, Patriarch )artholomew, the main protagonist in the calling of the Pan-Orthodox Synod, has consistently expressed himself, #oth in word and deed,in harmony with the new ecumenical ecclesiology.7 'ccordingly, following the)alamand 'greement, he declared with Pope Eohn Paul !! that the Orthodox Churchand the Papacy are “Sister Churches, responsi#le together for safeguarding the oneChurch of Iod” and called upon all Orthodox to recogni2e that we share with the(atins a common #aptism and sacramental life.;

&he de facto di%ision of the Church, which flows from the acceptance of acommon #aptism and common ?ucharist, was also stated cataphatically #y thePatriarch as recent as .:+1 in the 0oly Sepulcher in Eerusalem &here, he preached

'" Arancis $ Sulli0an, S*, 23he Si-niXcance of the Vatican II Beclaration that the

Church of Christ WSusists in/ the Roan Catholic Church,: p 'Z# (ephasis

ine) ;ikewise, accor&in- to I Spiteri, 2Lfro a rea&in- of the encyclical SM a

new ia-e of the Church eer-es, a Church which is constitute& y a

counion of Churches, in which, in soe way, all Christian Churches elon-:

(Š OTK, ‘’ “”qT{Œ €{{q {T T qq\K TTjT{K €{{q\K L3he

Catholic Church an& the other Christian ChurchesM, ~ “jK (\OTQ), 56789;9?, ‰”Œj '===, p '6")


11/18

11 #are headed the pan-heresy of the new ecumenical ecclesiology, which posits adi%ided church and a multiplicity of partially true churches 0e presented clearly ama@or tenet of the new ecclesiology, namely, that the One Church does not existtoday exclusi%ely within one or another Church, and that in spite of ha%ing lost theunity of the aith the separated Churches are still one.6

Please note that, li*e the pre-synodical draft text, the Patriarch states twocontradictory ideas3 that the Church is one, apparently only outside of time, and yetit exists in separated local churches &his supposed paradox is a cornerstone of thenew ecclesiology which re@ects the so-called “ecumenism of return” and insists on the“ecumenism of integration”/:

&he most notorious example of such an “ecumenism of integration” is the)alamand 'greement 't )alamand, the recognition of mysteries and “ecclesiality,”essentially the same di%ided #ut somehow still united church ecclesiology held #y thePatriarch and apparent in the pre-synodical text in "uestion, was em#raced/+ &his is

what led r Eohn Romanides to refer to )alamand as a se"uel to $atican !!/.


12/18

1'Christians, who are in a state of di%ision #ecause they cannot express the same faithtogether”/4

'nother mem#er of the drafting committee of the pre-synodical text,Betropolitan 0ilarion 8'lfeye%9 of $olo*olams*, has also expressed %iews inharmony with the new ecclesiology 0e does not #elie%e that there are fundamental

differences #etween Orthodoxy and Catholicism/5

0e has said that, “to all intent andpurposes, mutual recognition of each others Bysteries already exists #etween us” “!f a Roman Catholic priest con%erts to Orthodoxy in RussiaD, we recei%e him as apriest, and we do not re-ordain him 'nd that means that, de facto, we recogni2e theBysteries of the Roman Catholic Church”/7

'% 3he pertinent para-raphs (6 an& ) are the followin- 23he @ne, Holy Catholic

an& $postolic Church, foun&e& y the 7or& Win the e-innin-,/ y the one Wtruly

with Go&,/ an& the 7or& Wtruly Go&,/ accor&in- to the e0an-elist of lo0e,

unfortunately, &urin- her en-a-eent on earth, on account of the &oinance of

huan weakness an& of iperanence of the will of the huan intellect, was

&i0i&e& in tie 3his rou-ht aout 0arious con&itions an& -roups, of which each

claie& for itself Wauthenticity/ an& Wtruth/ 3he 3ruth, howe0er, is @ne, Christ,

an& the @ne Church foun&e& y Hi oth efore an& after the -reat Schis of

1=6 etween East an& 7est, @ur Holy @rtho&o9 Church a&e attepts to

o0ercoe the &i4erences, which ori-inate& fro the e-innin- an& for the ost

part fro factors outsi&e of the en0irons of the Church nfortunately, the huan

eleent &oinate&, an& throu-h the accuulation of Wtheolo-ical,/ Wpractical,/

an& Wsocial/ a&&itions the ;ocal Churches were le& into &i0ision of the unity of the

Aaith, into isolation, which &e0elope& occasionally into hostile poleics: See the

ori-inal speech, in Greek httpddwwwec?patror-d&oc&isplayphpblan-—-r


13/18

1#!t is apparent that, despite the patristic renaissance of the early .: th century,/;

Betropolitan 0ilarion and the leadership of the Boscow Patriarchate are still wor*ing within the pre-re%olutionary Russian ecclesiological paradigm hea%ily influenced #y (atin scholastic thin*ing

Betropolitan Chrysostom of Bessenia, representati%e of the Church of Ireece to

the pre-synodical meetings, along with Stylianos &sompanides, Professor of &heology at the &heological School of &hessaloni*i, ha%e gi%en us the most direct insights into

what the ecumenist-minded theologians understand our text to #e saying )othmaintain that in referencing the 7th canon of the .nd ?cumenical Council and the 64th

canon of the Muinisext Council paragraph .: of the pre-synodical text supports the“F*atoi*onomian recognition of the Freality and F%alidity of #aptism” among the

ishops^cannot e consi&ere& the e9clusi0e property of one of our Churches In

this conte9t it is clear that reaptis ust e a0oi&e&:

#' Theologia, the perio&ical of the Church of Greece, Vol VI 1%%#, Issue no 6,pa-es >=?Z= $0ailale online at

httpddwwwecclesia-rd-reekdpressdtheolo-iadarchi0e˜all˜%=%%aspbetos—1%%# Ar

*ohn wrote 2Uow that the alaan& a-reeent has ecoe a can&i&ate to

ecoe a se.uel to Vatican II an& in which case niatis will no lon-er ha0e any

reason for e9istin-, the @rtho&o9 will e face& with the conse.uences of their

continue& refusal of counion with the ;atins an& niates 7hat is ost

interestin- is the fact that accor&in- to the alaan& a-reeent ysteries are

0ali& whether one accepts > or '' Ecuenical Councils an& their teachin-s an&

practices 3he ipression will e certainly create& that only lack of lo0e coul& e

the reason why the @rtho&o9 ay continue to refuse inter?counion an& con?celeration with the Vatican:

## Ba'tism and Sacramental #conomy , $n $-ree& Stateent of 3he Uorth

$erican @rtho&o9?Catholic 3heolo-ical Consultation, St Vla&iirs @rtho&o9

Seinary, Crestwoo&, Uew +ork, *une #, 1%%% 3he @rtho&o9 an& Catholic

eers of our Consultation acknowle&-e, in oth of our tra&itions, a coon

teachin- an& a coon faith in one aptis, &espite soe 0ariations in practice

which, we elie0e, &o not a4ect the sustance of the ystery 7e are therefore

o0e& to &eclare that e also recogni0e each other&s a'tism as one and the

same 3his reco-nition has o0ious ecclesiological consequences The Church is itself oth the ilieu an& the e[ect of a'tism, an& is not of our akin- This

recognition requires each side of our dialogue to ac\noledge an ecclesial

reality in the other In our coon reality of aptis, we &isco0er the

foun&ation of our &ialo-ue, as well as the force an& ur-ency of the ;or& *esus/

prayer ]that all ay e one] ]ere, .nally, is the certain asis for the modern

use of the 'hrase, ^sister churchesQ^5 2$ustalian Churches Co0enantin-

3o-ether,: Uational Council of Churches of $ustralia,which the $ustralian

&ioceses of the Patriarchates of Constantinople, $ntioch, Roania an& Seria

si-ne&, y which they reco-niDe the Sacraent of aptis which is perfore& in

hetero&o9 counities (Roan Catholic, $nti?Chalce&onian, $n-lican, ;utheran,niate, an& Con-re-ationalist) an& a-ree to proote the use of one aptisal


14/18

16heterodox/6 Professor &sompanides also claims that this recognition “has significantconse"uences for the way we loo* at the ecclesiastical state of other Churches andother Christians,”1: thus following Congar and $atican !! in connecting recognition of

#aptism with recognition of “ecclesiality”

+. The attempt to sec*re pan-Ortho&o) reception of per se recognition of hetero&o) (aptism ia the pre-S"no&ical te)t on the hetero&o)

We must consider closely the %ery pro#lematic phrase used #y #oth BetropolitanChrysostom and Professor &sompanides, “F*atoi*onomian recognition of theFreality and F%alidity of #aptism of the heterodox” &he canons cited in paragraph .:

certiXcate Aor the entire &ocuent, see

httpddwwwnccaor-audXlesdBepartentsdAaithãn&ñitydCo0enantin-d'=1=˜*uly

˜$ustralian˜Churches˜Co0enantin-˜3o-etherp&f5 In @ctoer of '==6 the

representati0e of the Ecuenical Patriarchate in Gerany, [etropolitan

$u-ustine, si-ne& a &eclaration with the E0an-elical Church in Gerany

reco-niDin- a coon aptis an& 0owin- not to aptiDe con0erts Žq

httpddwww-oarchor- dnewsd-oanews1'1#5 In '==>, the Coission of the

@rtho&o9 Church in Gerany (`@ìB), hea&e& y [etropolitan $u-ustine, 8oine&

ele0en Geran &enoinations in si-nin- a coon aptis &eclaration 3his,

the Xrst national a-reeent on a coon aptis in Gerany, was initially

propose& y Car&inal 7alter àsper in '=='

#6 iDioulas, 2nitatis Re&inte-ratio $n @rtho&o9 Reection: in Searching 1or

Christian $nity , pp #>?6

# iDoulas, *ohn B (present?&ay [etropolitan of Per-aon, Ecuenical

Patriarchate) 2@rtho&o9 Ecclesiolo-y an& the Ecuenical [o0eent,: SouroDh

Biocesan [a-aDine (En-lan&), $u-ust 1%Z, Vol '1, pa-e '# Here is the full

.uotation 2If we take into consi&eration the canons of the early Church, then we

can speak of the liits of the Church on the asis, I woul& su--est, of aptisal

unity y this I ean that aptis is such a &ecisi0e point in our e9istence that it

autoatically creates a liit etween the pre?aptisal an& post?aptisal

situation if you are aptiDe& you ie&iately cease to e what you were +ou

&ie, as St Paul says, with re-ar& to the past an& there is therefore a newsituation aptis &oes create a liit to the Church Uow with this aptisal

liit it is concei0ale that there ay e &i0ision, ut any &i0ision within these

liits is not the sae as the &i0ision etween the Church an& those outsi&e of

the aptisal liitNI think we ust take seriously the aptisal liits of the

Church an& accept that outsi&e of aptis there is no Church 7ithin aptis,

e0en if there is a reak, a &i0ision, a schis, you can still speak of the Church

E0en if you take the Eucharistic o&el as your asis, you will see that this

applies to e0ery Christian ;et us take the ;itur-y of the early Church as an

e9aple up to the point of the rea&in- of the Scriptures, or, as we still ha0e in

the ;itur-y to&ay, up to the kiss of peace which is the si-n of unity in lo0e an&the Cree&, which is the si-n of unity in faith Y up to this point it was concei0ale


15/18

1do not contain this phrase !n fact, none of the canons of the Church ha%ing to do

with the reception of con%erts contain this phrase !ndeed, none of the canons e%enrefer to “recognition of #aptism,” let alone “F*atoi*onomian recognition” What dothe canons refer toN

&he reference point for the correct interpretation of those canons dealing with the

“*atoi*onomian” reception of heretics is Saint )asil the Ireats +st

and 17th

canons!n his first canonical epistle, St )asil, after explaining why %arious schismatics8Cathari, ?ncratites, and 0ydroparastatae9 ought to #e #apti2ed upon their return tothe Church, still allows for oikonomia, if need #e, saying3 “ See 2Verto-ra& @rtho&o9 *ournal, Uewsletter,: Uo >", @ct '1, '==% 27e &o

not ha0e counion in the [ysteries, ut we &o reco-niDe each other/s

[ysteries:, &eclare& $rchishop Hilarion ($lfee0) on the air &urin- a roa&cast of

the pro-ra 23he Church an& the 7orl&: on the tele0ision channel 2Russia:, on

@ctoer 1>th (0i&eo an& te9t, httpdd0era0estirud&ochtlbi&—'#>6#')

#Z See, for e9aple, the works of the hieroartyr an& chapion of the Boctrine

of the Church, $rchishop Hilarion 3roitsky (1ZZ"?1%'%)

httpddwwwpra0osla0ieruden-lishd#'1'%ht an& wwwortho&o9infoco

d-eneraldsaint?hilarion?holy?scripture?an&?the?churchp&f

#% See their respecti0e speeches

httpddlo-sauth-rdoschos-d'=1d1'd=ZdQOqK?Q\jK?

xQK?'d an& httpddlo-sauth-rdoschos-d'=1d1'd1>dqTjxK?

QOjK?”x–?\{{qd [etropolitan Chrysostoos sai& the followin-

27ith this para-raph the oun&aries of the @rtho&o9 Church are lai& &own withrespect to the other Christian Churches an& Confessions 3heir e9istence was not


16/18

1"ἰQ=T ἕ QU Vῶ Q XX ῶ QD, their #aptism should #e accepted, let it #e acceptedἔYVZ [UV> QD”1+

&he canon spea*s of accepting, not recogni2ing, the #aptism of the schismatic&here is a significant difference &he first, acceptance, is used in the context of thereturn of particular persons in repentance, that is, with respect to pastoral

management of their sal%ation &he second, recognition, as employed #y Betropolitan Chrysostom and Professor &sompanides, is used in relation toschismatic and heretical groups as such, that is, with respect to ecclesiology 1. !n thefirst instance, the context is the acceptance of a returning heretic, whereas in thesecond instance the context is the recognition of the #aptism of the heterodox group

per se 0ence, the phrase “F*atoi*onomian recognition of the Freality and F%alidityof #aptism” is an unaccepta#le and misleading mixture of pastoral theology withecclesiology &here is no such thing as “F*atoi*onomian recognition” of #aptism,only “F*atoi*onomian acceptance

&he phrase is also shown to #e foreign to the patristic mind insomuch as it refersto recognition of the “reality” and “%alidity” of heretical #aptism, that is, recognition

per se !n the canons of the Church you will not find heretical #aptism referred to inthis manner or example, in his 17th canon,1/ Saint )asil attri#utes the practice of Rome in accepting certain heretics without #aptism to some need for oikonomia8ἰQ=T V\Q? @T ἕ QU9, #ut nonetheless insists on #aptism, despite the fact thatthey #aptised in the th of the

'n& Ecuenical Syno& an& the %th of the !uinise9t, which are entione& in

para-raph '= of the th Pre?Syno& [eetin-, in the new reality of the o&ern

Ecuenical [o0eent an& the peaceful &ialo-ues, is iplicit in the reco-nition

of the Wreality/ an& W0ali&ity/ of aptis 3he reco-nition of aptis Wy

econoy/ has si-niXcant conse.uences for the way we look at the ecclesiastical

state of other Churches an& other Christians:

61 oxQ Š ‰{j”xOq, 6_;


17/18

1> When, in later synodical decisions or patristic texts, during the second

millennium, (atin #aptisms are referred to as %alid this K properly spea*ing - isreferring to whether or not the form or V]T of #aptism, namely three-foldimmersion, had #een retained11 &he purpose of recogni2ing a #aptism as “%alid,”that is, in the case of the (atins, as done #y immersion, was to determine if the

presuppositions for oikonomia existed, not to recogni2e it per se14

!n exercisingeconomy the Church does not recogni2e the “reality” of heretical ministrations,15 #utonly examines its %alidity in the sense of retaining the apostolic form 17 &herefore,there is no #asis, and it is once again misleading and a departure from the Orthodox

phronema, to spea* of recognition of the “reality” and “%alidity” of heretical #aptism!f there is tal* of “recognition” of the ministrations of heretics it is only in the senseof it #eing %alidly, ie properly, carried out in the apostolic manner &his is for thepurpose of determining the possi#ility K not the necessity K of reception #y oikonomia, as is clear in St )asils + st and 17th canons

&he misunderstanding or re@ection of the katoikonomian practice of acceptingheretical or schismatic #aptism is at the root of the adoption of the new ecumenical

ecclesiology among ecumenist-minded scholars &hey fail to grasp that theoikonomia of the Church is essentially the freedom of the Church^s 0ead to wor* sal%ation in the midst of the Church as 0e sees fit 8if, indeed, it is oikonomia and notsimply paranomia 8illegality99 &he (ord, Who said all must #e #apti2ed of waterand of the Spirit 8En /349 to enter the Gingdom of Iod also said to the un#apti2ed

66 See 23he [anner of Reception of Roan Catholic Con0erts into the @rtho&o9

Church,: y $rchpriest Aather Geor-e Bra-as

httpddortho&o9infocodecuenisd3he?[anner?of?Reception?of?Roan?Catholic?

Con0erts?into?the?@rtho&o9?Church?Ar?Geor-e?Bra-asp&f, also a0ailale here Ar

Geor-e Bra-as, The /anner of !ece'tion of !oman Catholic Converts into the+rthodo* Church, ith S'ecial !eference to the Decisions of the Synods of MO

(Constantino'le),MJJ (Constantino'le) and MKK (/osco),

httpddwwwyrioilos-rdte9tsd en-lishdBra-as˜RoanCatholichtl

6 Aor the ost part, when the Church un&erstoo& that the ;atins were carryin-

out aptis with one iersion or y a4usion, ;atins con0ertin- to @rtho&o9y

were aptiDe&, the presuppostions for oi\onomia not ein- present 7hen, on

the other han&, those 2coin- o0er to the portion of the sa0e&: ha& een

aptiDe& y the ;atins accor&in- to the apostolic for, oi\onomia was seen as

acceptale, althou-h not re.uire&

6" 3his asic an& lon- hel& un&erstan&in- was recently restate& y [etropolitan

Geranos of Ilias in his presentation to the Hierarchical Syno& of the Church

Greece ([arch Z, '=1"), representati0e to the [eetin- of Airst Hierarchs in

Gene0a

6> 3his is clear in the case of the Eunoeans, for which the possiility of

reception 2kat/oikonoia: was re8ecte& y the 'n& Ecuenical Council ecause

they &i& not retain the apostolic for of three iersions, ut rather aptiDe&with one iersion 2into the &eath of Christ:


18/18

1Zthief on the cross, _Today shalt thou be with me in paradise_ 8(* ./31/9 Boreo%er,many martyrs were #apti2ed in their #lood and not water, and others who were hungor died some other #loodless death &hus, it is clear that the (ord is not #ound #y 0isown commandments and is free to wor* his di%ine oikonomia in the midst of !isChurch

>et, this is the *ey3 in the Church "ikonomia, which is not withoutpresuppositions, can ne%er #e a #asis for ecclesiology, @ust as the (ord^s freedom canne%er #e pitted against his own commandments "ikonomia does not e"ualrecognition of mysteries per se &his is, howe%er, exactly what some of the authors of the text in "uestion would li*e the pan-Orthodox Council to endorse &hey arepushing for pan-Orthodox recognition of another %ision of the Church, a heretical

%ision, that which has already #een accepted #y $atican !! and many in the WCC

the recognition of the baptism of the heterodox as the basis for a new ecclesiology by...

Documents