AN ENCYCLICAL LETTER
of Their Eminences, Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston,
Makarios of Toronto,
and His Grace, Bishop Moses of Roslindale
CONCERNING THE THESSALONICA MEETING
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
SOME MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS have taken place recently in the relations between fifteen Orthodox Churches and the World Council of Churches (WCC), dearly beloved. At a meeting held in Thessalonica, Greece, from April 29 to May 2, 1998, the representatives of fifteen Orthodox Churches (which are full, organic members of the WCC) recommended that the Orthodox take part in the upcoming WCC assembly in Zimbabwe next December, but not participate in certain aspects of the assembly, such as joint worship services and common prayers. The Thessalonica communiqué cited also the use of "inclusive" language, the presence of women priests and pastors in WCC worship services, the discussion of issues such as homosexuality, and the WCC’s tendencies toward religious syncretism, as aspects of the WCC which the Orthodox oppose.
John Newbury, a spokesman for the WCC, expressed doubts initially as to how much the Thessalonica communiqué was in accord with the instructions given to the delegates by their respective churches, but he acknowledged that this recent development will have "very far-reaching implications."
One press release emphasized that "the Thessalonica communiqué is highly critical of the arch-conservative factions within the Orthodox Churches, most notably in Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria and Georgia, who want all links cut with the ecumenical movement." According to the Rev. George Tsetsis, a representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch, the recent meeting "unanimously denounced those schismatic and extremist groups within the Orthodox Churches that are using the theme of Ecumenism to criticize the Orthodox leadership, and undermine its authority by deliberately misinforming the faithful, thus attempting to create divisions within the Orthodox Churches."
Ecumenistic churchmen often attempt, as in this instance, to "politicize" the discussion in these matters. Terms such as "arch-conservative," "extremist," "liberal," and "moderate" are employed gratuitously in labelling friend and foe, especially foe. But the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ—that is, the Holy Orthodox Church—does not have "conservative" or "liberal" or "moderate" parties, nor does it have "high" or "low" churches, as the Episcopalians do. In Orthodoxy you are either Orthodox or you are something else. In the period of the Arian controversy, if one was off by one "iota," one was not an Orthodox Christian. There are oftentimes points that may be debatable, but even in these cases the sole authority that determines what is Orthodox is the Church’s Holy Tradition, as embodied in the Holy Scriptures, the decisions of the Local, Ecumenical, and Pan-Orthodox Councils, and the writings of the Church Fathers.
Also, in the Orthodox Church, whether a person is a "schismatic" is determined by the holy canons, and not by those who are themselves guilty of repeated canonical and doctrinal transgressions, as the ecumenists are. Here is what The Rudder says about "schismatics":
Canon XV of the First-and-Second Council
of Constantinople (A.D. 861)
The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede from communion with his own Patriarch and does not mention his name as is ordered and appointed in the divine Mystagogy, but before a synodical arraignment and [the Patriarch’s] full condemnation, he creates a schism, the holy Council has decreed that this person be alienated from every priestly function, if only he be proven to have transgressed in this. These rules, therefore, have been sealed and ordered concerning those who on the pretext of some accusations against their own presidents stand apart, creating a schism, and severing the unity of the Church. But as for those who on account of some heresy condemned by Holy Councils or Fathers, sever themselves from communion with their president, that is, because he publicly preaches heresy and with bared head teaches it in the Church, such persons as these not only are not subject to canonical penalty for walling themselves off from communion with the so-called Bishop before synodal clarification, but [on the contrary] they shall be deemed worthy of due honor among the Orthodox. For not Bishops, but false bishops and false teachers have they condemned, and they have not fragmented the Church’s unity with schism, but from schisms and divisions have they earnestly sought to deliver the Church.
The first heresy of the ecumenists—"condemned by Holy Councils and Fathers," and by the Holy Creed itself—is that the Ecumenical Patriarchate, right from the very inception of the Ecumenical Movement, in its Encyclical of 1920, recognized and addressed the various heterodox denominations as "Churches of Christ" and as "fellow heirs and partakers of the same promise of God in Jesus Christ." From this and from many subsequent developments in Ecumenism—as we have demonstrated on numerous occasions—it is clear that the title "schismatic" is directly applicable to the ecumenists themselves, since it was their own actions and decisions that brought about the schism.
The representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Rev. George Tsetsis, speaks of groups that are engaged in "deliberately misinforming the faithful," but he gives no indication or evidence of what this "misinformation" consists. On the other hand, countless photographs, videos, articles, pamphlets, and books have documented and recorded the un-Orthodox declarations and activities of those churchmen who are involved in Ecumenism. Their own signed statements with the Vatican and the Monophysites proclaim with bold eloquence their doctrinal deviations. Their own Patriarchs have set their signatures to some remarkably heterodox encyclicals and pronouncements. It is they, not others, who misrepresent Orthodox Christianity.
An open letter, written in 1995 by Archimandrite Nektarios Moulatsiotis to his new calendar hierarchy in Greece, is a fitting response to Fr. George’s unsubstantiated accusation that some groups "deliberately misinform" the faithful. As Father Nektarios, a new calendar clergyman, notes:
Unfortunately, we say one thing and do another. We are sometimes Orthodox in what we say, or sometimes unhealthy Orthodox in what we say, but we are certainly unhealthy ecumenists in our deeds. How is it possible for us to say that "Orthodoxy considers dogmatic unity a presupposition to the common Cup; for this reason we do not concelebrate with the non-Orthodox" (as Metropolitan Christodoulos stated on February 21, 1995), while [our encyclicals say] the exact opposite?
Also, how can we say such falsehoods when our Ecumenical Patriarchs have gone to the Vatican in an official capacity and prayed jointly with the Latins, and the Latins come to Orthodox churches and pray with Orthodox hierarchs? How is it possible to fool ourselves and others when we knowingly say these falsehoods? There exist an abundance of videos and photographs of such concelebrations and common Mysteries (weddings); is it possible to say that these things do not go on in Orthodoxy? Why do we deny the truth? Further, the distinguished Professor Evangelos [or, more likely, Andrew] Theodorou wrote an extensive article in Orthodoxos Typos last year and testified that, unfortunately, most of our Orthodox hierarchs are possessed by "unhealthy Ecumenism." Let us, at least, admit our tragic mistakes.
We all make mistakes, but here, for the purpose of this encyclical, we are discussing some very serious doctrinal errors made publicly and repeatedly by the ecumenistic "Orthodox." Let them, at least, admit their tragic mistakes. With this recent meeting in Thessalonica, they have taken a very positive step towards doing exactly this, and if they remain steadfast in upholding their recommendations, they shall most certainly be counted worthy of praise and honor.
ONE DISTURBING ELEMENT about the communiqué from Thessalonica is the immoderate and misleading language ("schismatics and extremist groups," "arch-conservative factions," "deliberately misinform") that seems to betray anger or, at the very least, annoyance with those who are critical of these fifteen Churches’ involvement with the WCC. The use of such uncharitable language against allegedly "schismatic and extremist" groups is odd—especially in view of the fact that the ecumenists are now recommending the very measures that the "schismatic and extremist" groups have said should have been taken years ago!
Are they upset because they are taking these needed steps reluctantly? Are they perturbed because the documentation, videos, and other information provided by the supposed "schismatics and extremists" have proven to be all too true, and that it has been demonstrated that it is actually they, the ecumenists, who are "deliberately misinforming" the faithful?
The case of the Georgian Patriarchate comes to mind. When this church withdrew (reluctantly) from the WCC in the Spring of 1997, it turned about and punished the clergy that had urged it to take this action! Obviously, the Georgian Patriarchal bishops then, perhaps like the representatives in Thessalonica now, were forced to take this step because so many of their faithful were protesting against involvement in the World Council of Churches. In the case of Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II of Georgia, this involvement reached somewhat comic proportions. When he was elected one of the six presidents of the World Council of Churches in 1979 and served in that capacity until 1983, he proudly inserted his cherished new title into the text of his official commemoration during the church services: "For our Great Lord and Father, Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia, Archbishop of Mtskheta and Tbilisi, President of the World Council of Churches, Ilia II"! This single usage, however, did not suffice apparently, and so he began to use this newly-inflated title when issuing all his annual Paschal and Christmas encyclicals, as well as in all the published accounts of his ecumenical activities abroad (see, for example, the official publication of the Georgian Patriarchate, Grapevine Cross, No. 2, 1981, p.3).
PROBLEMS WITH THE WCC began to increase in 1991, when the WCC Canberra Assembly in February of that year included extensive pagan rites and presentations. The Orthodox delegates at the Assembly issued a Statement, expressing their profound concerns. Later, in May, 1991, at St. Bishoi’s Monastery in Egypt, the Orthodox and Monophysite representatives to the WCC held a meeting in which they again expressed their anxieties, but also stated their view that, although there were disturbing developments within the WCC—for example, the animistic rites performed at Canberra, and other similar syncretistic manifestations—they felt, nonethless, that it would be a "disservice" to Orthodoxy to leave the WCC. Regarding the Orthodox Church’s membership in the WCC, they expressed the view that all the Orthodox Churches should either "leave together or remain together." A similar meeting took place in September, 1991 in Chambesy, Switzerland. After this initial flurry of protests, press releases, and soul-searching, silence descended like a curtain. Years passed, and nothing happened. It was back to business as usual.
Then, suddenly, in May of 1997, the Orthodox Church of Georgia, in response to sharp protests from its monasteries, convents, clergy, and faithful, withdrew—albeit reluctantly—from the WCC. This move sent a tremor throughout the "Orthodox" ecumenist world. Similar protests and calls for withdrawal from the WCC shook the Serbian Patriarchate in June of 1997. The WCC ENI Bulletin (Sept. 17, 1997) reported an interview with the Moscow Patriarchate’s Metropolitan Kirill: "In reference to the withdrawal of the Georgian Orthodox Church from the WCC, Metropolitan Kirill told journalists that ‘a small explosion in Georgia can become a tremendous explosion in Russia.’" Previews of that "explosion" were witnessed in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery outside of Moscow, on January 28, 1998, when a delegation headed by the WCC’s General Secretary, Konrad Raiser, came face to face with the dim view that the Orthodox faithful have of the WCC’s activities and its very reason for existence. The confrontation at St. Sergius’ Monastery was not a happy one. Complaints were voiced that the ecumenist representatives—including bishops—were not truly witnessing to the Orthodox Faith, and that they represented only themselves and nobody else (nonetheless, they remain in charge of the ecumenist jurisdictions).
Alarmed and disquieted, the leaders of these jurisdictions saw that they were in real danger of losing the support of their clergy and faithful. Hence, the recent meeting in Thessalonica became an urgent—perhaps tactical—priority, in order to prevent further serious defections from their ranks. But even in Thessalonica, the representatives admitted that their resolutions were, as they said, "a compromise" to forestall further divisions among themselves. Nonetheless, the divisions have not been avoided, for at the end of May, 1998, the Patriarchate of Bulgaria announced that it too was considering leaving the WCC.
WE ARE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS because we remain faithful to the written and oral traditions that we have been taught (II Thess. 2:15). These include the Holy Scriptures and the decisions of the Local, Ecumenical, and Pan-Orthodox Councils. It is impossible to deviate from or reject these traditions and claim to be Orthodox Catholic Christians. Ecumenist churchmen, however, have deviated from and rejected these traditions officially (as we have demonstrated in the past, and will gladly demonstrate again to anyone who asks us to do so).
Since this is the case, the recent recommendations made at the meeting in Thessalonica are good, but they need to be implemented and also supplemented by other courageous and steadfast steps that will bring these churches back into the fullness of the Orthodox Christian Faith. In ascending order of importance, these necessary steps are:
1) The new calendarists have to re-affirm and adhere once again to the decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Councils of Constantinople of 1583, 1587, and 1593 (we won’t even mention the ten other local Synods that condemned the use of the new calendar).
2) Since Freemasonry is the matrix of ecumenism (and the religious syncretism which the recent Thessalonica meeting so rightly deplores), it too must be renounced officially.
3) Since Roman Catholicism has not retracted any of its errors, but has added other new doctrines, such as the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception ("a poor solution to a non-existent problem," as one Orthodox theologian observed) as well as the novel teaching of the infallibility of the pope, the anathema of 1054 needs to be definitively re-affirmed.
4) The jurisdictions of the fifteen Orthodox jurisdictions represented in the WCC—especially the Patriarchate of Antioch—must cease giving communion to those who do not accept and obey the decisions of all seven Ecumenical Councils.
5) The ecumenists need to reject officially their June, 1993 "Balamand Agreement" with the Vatican, just as a number of new calendar theologians and Athonite monks have already rejected it.
6) They need to disavow all those innovating hierarchs—both great and small, living and reposed—who led them into this pit of ecumenist quicksand.
7) And they will do themselves a great favor when they finally stop fooling themselves and abandon their membership in the WCC and all other related syncretistic organizations.
Most mainline Protestant denominations in the WCC are no longer interested in doctrinal orthodoxy. They, as well as hundreds and even thousands of Roman Catholic theologians and priests, no longer affirm such basic Christian doctrines as the virgin birth, deity, and physical resurrection of Christ. They are interested primarily in "reshaping" Christianity. As the Rev. James Morton, head of the Interfaith Center of New York, said, "This is a reality sweeping the human family. The context has changed, people are now interested in a broader canvas." For these people, Orthodoxy is out, the New Age is in, with its all-embracing inclusiveness; no longer "in spirit and in truth," but in all sorts of spirits and relative "truths." The late Patriarch Parthenios of Alexandria (another President of the WCC) was very much in tune with the WCC’s ideals when he declared, "When I speak against Islam and Buddhism, then I am not in agreement with God."
ECUMENISTS SEEM TO FEAR being "marginalized" if they drop their membership in the WCC. But "marginalized" from what? From denominations that adopt increasingly erroneous teachings? From offensive New Age feminists? From unrepentant gay activists? Why should the "world" and our neo-pagan society dictate the Church’s agenda? The Church has its own agenda for the world. As far as the world is concerned, the Church is already "marginalized." In an article entitled "Pastoral Concerns" (First Things, Nov. 1997), author James Nuechterlein observes:
In the nineteenth century religious language and assumptions permeated American public discourse. Today they do not.
That is particularly the case in intellectual circles, and the clergy, like other educated groups, take their cultural signals from the academic and media elites. Informed by those elites of their marginal status—religion in elite realms is not so much repudiated as it is simply ignored—members of the clergy have flitted from one theologically tangential concern to another in search of cultural relevance.
The author cites a symposium on "Religion in America," published in 1968, which noted at that time "that religion is still worth talking about because it is playing a significant part in the social reform causes of the times: civil rights, peace, academic freedom, civil liberties, poverty, social justice in general." But now, in the nineties, writes Nuechterlein, "there are new enthusiasms." These include "sundry versions of feminism, multiculturalism, and ecological correctness." As a result, even "Orthodox" Patriarchs, worried lest they be left behind and become irrelevant, "marginalized," in the world’s eyes, have hastened to jump on the ecological bandwagon. However, as Nuechterlein notes, "clergy anxious to recover lost [worldly] prestige" in our irreligious society "will not likely find it by invoking theologies of recycling" or concerns over pollution in the Black Sea. Judging from what we are taught in the Holy Scriptures and the Lives of the Saints, if Patriarchs—and all of us—were more concerned about being truly Orthodox and holy in God’s eyes, our ecological problems would take care of themselves.
Let us bring to mind the words of our Saviour about how His followers would be "marginalized" by the world:
These things I command you, that ye love one another. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept My saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for My Name's sake, because they know not Him that sent Me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin.
(John 15: 17-22)
We Orthodox have more than enough of our own work to do without getting bogged down in the swamp of the WCC’s inclusive agenda. We have spiritual, liturgical, and catechetical texts that need to be published for our faithful. We have missionary work that has to be done both at home and abroad. Our own people are in desperate need of patristic instruction. And we certainly need to get our own jurisdictional and administrative house in order.
The WCC has proven to be a doctrinal dead-end and, ultimately, a waste of our resources, and an occasion for sin. The representatives at Thessalonica have taken a praiseworthy step in recommending that their jurisdictions curtail their activities in that organization. May God grant them the courage to end this "tragic mistake"—their membership in the WCC—once and for all. And may our Saviour grant us all the fortitude to ever stand fast, together with all the Saints, in the good and holy confession of our blameless Orthodox Christian Faith. Amen.
Sunday of All Saints, 1998 Your faithful suppliants unto God,
Protocol Number 1502
X Ephraim, Metropolitan of Boston
X
Makarios, Metropolitan of TorontoX
Moses, Bishop of Roslindale