Forthrightness

Submittted January 4, 2005

Forthrightness in Communion

by Christopher Orr

“Orthodox and non-Orthodox are being regularly communed in Orthodox churches throughout America and Canada. Orthodox seminaries are openly teaching that non-Orthodox must be communed. Bishops of numerous jurisdictions are commanding their priests to commune non-Orthodox.”

Statements such as these are unthinkable to the average Orthodox believer who may have a spouse that needed to convert in order to be married in the Orthodox Church. It is equally difficult for converts to Orthodoxy to understand why some non-Orthodox can commune while their own non-Orthodox spouses, parents, and children may not be able to. Unfortunately, hints of a selective open communion are being heard more often throughout North America. What is happening? Are these statements simply rumor and gossip, or are they based in truth? If these actions are taking place, on what basis has this enormous change in practice taken place? Are these the rantings of fringe Orthodox demagogues fear-mongering with nationalistic, reactionary rhetoric?

Specifically, Monophysites seem to be commonly accepted to communion at Orthodox altars. The Monophysite, or non-Chalcedonian churches, refused to accept the Council of Chalcedon and all subsequent Ecumenical Councils, and their teachings have been anathemitized by these same Councils. The Coptic Christians of Egypt, together with the Ethiopians and Eritreans, and the Armenian church are Monophysite in confessing Christ as having one (mono-), undivided nature (physis) unlike the Orthodox who confess Him to be one person in two natures. Some non-Chalcedonians state that this union of natures occurred as of the Incarnation, others as of the Resurrection, others at the Ascension into heaven, while still others hold to a more Orthodox dogma while using Monophysite preferred terminology together with a clarification of definition.

To date, no Monophysite church has accepted the fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh Ecumenical Councils, or the teachings of these Councils.

In addition, no Council of the Orthodox Church has accepted the doctrines of the Monophysite churches as Orthodox- as being simply a misunderstanding of terminology and/or as an obfuscation of agreement due to national, racial, cultural, or political motives.

Nonetheless, many Orthodox theologians, both traditionalists and liberals, believe this to be the case. However, this is beside the point at present.

How could it be- if true- that individual hierarchs and clerics of the Orthodox Church have taken it upon themselves to overturn the solemn authority of four Ecumenical Councils, numerous local Councils, and their own oaths at ordination? Once again, if true, this practice would fly in the face of the Tradition of the Church which allows only an equal or greater authority to overturn a previously proclaimed dogma.

There is some similarity regarding this, as yet still hypothetical, situation and the current relationship between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church. It is the Roman Catholic position that there is no dogmatic issue separating us from full communion, and that in fact all Orthodox are Catholic. The continued visible separation by the Eastern Orthodox is chalked up to a lack of understanding, intransigence, or even bigotry by backwards elements. Still, respect for the authority of their bishops is enjoined by the Vatican on Orthodox parishioners until such time as an official acceptance can be achieved.

Orthodox supporters of union have placed themselves in a similar high-handed stance vis-à-vis the non-Chalcedonian churches. We find ourselves in the position of telling them there is no difference seperating us- except the inability to officially accept the language of our Orthodox Ecumenical Councils. However, we are not enjoining respect for the non-Chalcedonian hierarchy and act more like the Unia and tell them there is no difference.

There is a reason why Orthodox positions have not been accepted by the non-Chalcedonian churches- they would not be accepted by their people, clergy, and monastics with anywhere near unanimity. The same is true as to why no Orthodox Council has approved non-Chalcedonian terminology as being Orthodox. There is disagreement as to whether there is simply a disagreement in terminology, or a difference in theologies.

It is interesting to note that we have more in common with the Roman Catholic Church concerning Christology- the doctrine and teaching of who Jesus Christ is- than we do with the non-Chalcedonian churches. Together with Rome we confess that Jesus Christ is “True God & True man”, one person in two natures; that the humanity of Christ has at one and the same time both a human and a divine will and energia; the anathema of the Three Chapters; and the veneration of images as a Triumph of Orthodoxy

Barring an acknowledgment that the Ecumenical Councils erred, or in the calling of another Ecumenical Council clarifying the issues, or even in an official agreement as to how to understand our understanding of each other’s theology, how can the previous practice change? Once again, how can individual bishops, groups of bishops, or even local Synods surreptitiously alter official practices of the Church mandated by Ecumenical Councils and1500 years of Orthodox conciliar, theological, academic, and practical tradition?

Are we paying the price now for allowing so much of the Rudder to simply be ignored? Have we ossified our past and the canons to allow them to become irrelevant? Are they irrelevant? If they are relevant as they are, why they not enforced? Why do we not explicate as to when economia and akrivia are appropriate?

All of this is not to argue that the whole thing has not been a tragic misunderstanding due to language, culture, and politics. Perhaps our “Ecumenical Councils” were not, in fact, Ecumencial since they were never accepted by large parts of the Christian world. Maybe we transgressed the conciliarity and sobornost which we have come to prize in our contact with the claims to a direct jurisdiction of an “infallible” Papacy.

I am not opposed to union, reunion, or a profession that we have been in agreement all along. But, should this not be done in an official and transparent way matching the public nature of the schism?

Agreement under the table, with a wink and a nod, only serves to breed mistrust in exactly the people who need to be brought to an understanding of the issues to bar schism on each side. Anything less would be a transgression against the conciliarity of the Church.

This tactic would be akin to the (alleged) heavy-handedness of American foreign policy which is resented by many in the world, or in the lasting offense given over the Calendar (where both sides agree the calendar itself is not important enough to break communion.) In dealing with potentially explosive issues such as these, it is the underlying issues which are preeminent. Leaving them unsaid and undiscussed breeds paranoia, judgment, and offense, barring the door to forgiveness in our expecting the worst the worst of each other. Let our people discuss, our theologians write, our hierarchs teach, and the believers accept- all as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Are we afraid the Church is in fact not infallible and must be tricked unknowingly into an enlightened, right belief?

Honest people can disagree, but all sides must be honest and up-front in speaking publicly with each other concerning the very basis of the Faith: the doctrine of who Jesus Christ is and why. Nothing else befits the Gospel: a Light set on a lamp stand to enlighten the world.



Volume 7 Number 2 - Tuesday, January 11th, 2005	A Publication of the ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LAITY