Response to Father Steven Salaris

Submitted April 10, 2005

Father Salaris said he does not understand "ranting and raving" against ecumenism.

There was no such "ranting and raving" in my letter. There was simply a single, brief mention of contemporary ecumenism's "blurred vision regarding theology and ecclesiology," which is not an unfair critique of this movement, given its well-documented track record thus far.

Today, ecumenism shows a marked tendency to gloss over doctrinal differences and see everyone in Christendom as an equal or legitimate "branch" of a "divided" Church, in spite of contradicting beliefs and practices among them. Unanimity in true and correct faith does not seem to be its highest priority nowadays. These two trends in contemporary ecumenism are very worrisome to Orthodox Christians.

Why? Because we believe the Church is one (as the Creed states) and undividable, because she is the Body of Christ (Colossians 1:18), and He cannot be divided (1 Corinthians 1:13). "There is one Body and one Spirit... one Lord, one faith, one baptism..." (Ephesians 4:4-5). For this reason, all who would be part of the one Church must "all speak the same thing" and "be perfectly joined in the same mind and the same judgment" in matters of belief (1 Corinthians 1:10) to share communion in the Eucharist, which is what generates and manifests church unity (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).

The word "ecumenical" has more than one meaning, which we must understand aright, lest we be misled and confused by word play.

In its original and Orthodox Christian sense ("Ecumenical Councils"), this word simply means "worldwide," as it comes from the Greek word "oikoumene," which means "the inhabited world." The Ecumenical Councils included bishops from all around the world, in contrast to "local" or "provincial" councils of the Church, which were regional gatherings of bishops.

In its ancient Roman and Byzantine sense, it also was a synonym for "imperial," as the Romans and Byzantines thought of their empires as being the inhabited or civilized world. They used this word as a term of honor for imperial authorities and institutions. For this reason, the archbishop of Constantinople became known as the "Ecumenical Patriarch," as he was bishop of the imperial capital city during Byzantine times.

In its more recent interfaith sense ("ecumenical movement"), it has come to mean "concerned with promoting unity among Christians or religions" -- a commendable goal in principle, but problematic in practice, since ecumenism today has not focused much on working toward unanimity in true and correct faith, which is an absolute essential for Orthodox Christians, for the reasons spelled out above.

The Church is "ecumenical" in the original and Orthodox Christian sense of the word, for she is indeed a worldwide body that has the mission of offering Orthodox Christianity to the whole world: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations" (Matthew 28:19-20). But this word cannot be misused to imply that she uncritically accepts the ideas, activities and tactics of ecumenism as it exists today.

Father Salaris said the function of the Ecumenical Councils was to dialogue with heretics, correct their errors and restore the unity of the Church, not unlike the "ecumenical dialogues" of today.

No, the function of the Ecumenical Councils was to discern truth from error when questions over what constitutes true Christian belief disturbed the peace of the Church and put her integrity at risk.

They drew definitive lines between orthodoxy and heresy in affirmations of true belief and anathemas against false belief as a final word, with the same conviction as their apostolic precedent, the first Council of Jerusalem: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28).

Truth was their ultimate criterion and concern, whether or not their rulings resulted in the reconciliation of heretics and dissenters, which they often did not, as history shows -- so much for "restoring unity"!

Today's "ecumenical dialogues" operate along far different lines. They are not so much concerned with discerning truth from error, but with exchanging views on a particular theological question, documenting points of agreement and disagreement in a final "agreed statement."

Many of these dialogues approach such exchanges as though all views are equally legitimate or justifiable -- an idea called "relativism" (a notion that truth is not objective and absolute, but subjective and conditional according to the different individuals, groups or situations involved). Obviously, Orthodox Christians do not believe in relativism, because we believe truth is not subject to revamping, negotiation or compromise.

Furthermore, many of these dialogues rehash questions already resolved by the Ecumenical Councils or answered in the Bible and the writings of the Holy Fathers. What is there to discuss, if the Sacred Tradition of the Church has already settled the matter, and others do not want to accept it? The Church cannot change anything in her belief to please others, because she is the Body of Christ (Colossians 1:18), and "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).

Unlike today's "ecumenical dialogues," the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils did not sit down and write politically correct and diplomatically phrased "agreed statements" with the Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Iconoclasts and others whom these councils anathematized as an unorthodox when they ruled on Christian orthodoxy. Suggesting a similarity between the Ecumenical Councils and "ecumenical dialogues" is a false comparison.

As an aside, the unity of the Church never has to "be restored." As spelled out above, she is one and undividable by nature. People can be inside or outside of her, but they cannot break up her unity, because even hell will not prevail against her (Matthew 16:18), since the Holy Spirit forever abides in her and guides her into all truth (John 14:16 and John 16:13). So while people may need to be restored to the unity of the Church, her unity remains intact, no matter how many fall away from it.

Father Salaris chided "throwing rocks" with "fancy philosophical words" like "humanocentric."

"Humanocentric" is not a "fancy philosophical word." The intelligence of the readership here deserves more credit than that. Neither did my letter throw it as a "rock" against anyone. It simply set forth an observation made by many Orthodox Christians, philosophers and even secular historians long before me.

Much of Europe did undergo a gradual psychological and cultural change after Rome's break with the Church and loss of Orthodox Christianity. It moved from a medieval "age of faith" (with its religious "theocentric" worldview) into a "modern age" (with its secular "humanocentric" worldview). In this shift, man (rather than God) and the individual (rather than the community) slowly became the measure of all things, even religion and spirituality.

This new mindset is seen full flower in the art, literature and thinking of the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation, but first signs of it are evident in Francis of Assisi. The focus on emotionalism, romanticism and sensual experience in his spirituality is a departure from the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which has always soberly stressed the delusional danger of putting stock in one's ego, senses, imagination and emotions in spiritual life.

No, it is not. "Humanocentric" means man is the measure of all things, which is not the case in Orthodox Christianity, where the God-Man Jesus Christ is the measure of all things. At the risk of using another "fancy philosophical word," the Church is thus "theanthropic," because she is Christ's Body (Colossians 1:18), and He is fully God ("Theos" in Greek) and fully human ("anthropos" in Greek).

The theanthropic nature of the Church is what enables us human beings to become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). We cannot do it apart from her, because union with her is union with the God-Man Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:30). As His Body, she is "full of grace and truth" as He is (John 1:14), and it is this fullness of grace and truth we need for salvation, sanctification and saintliness.

Father Salaris asked why Orthodox Christians cannot venerate the Roman Catholic friar Francis of Assisi as a saint, if the Church so venerates a "Nestorian bishop" (Saint Isaac of Nineveh).

The reason is simple. The Church added Saint Isaac to her calendar, menologia and synaxaria long ago because she deemed his writings orthodox, spiritually sound and in agreement with her Sacred Tradition. But she has not done the same with Francis because some of his beliefs and behavior are unorthodox, spiritually questionable and inconsistent with her Sacred Tradition.

In Orthodox Christianity, public and liturgical veneration of saints is not left to individual taste or whim, where unchurchly emotions, motives and interests might creep in. It is an act of the whole Church, in which the Holy Spirit abides and guides into all truth forever (John 14:16 and 16:13). We honor and celebrate those whose popular, grassroots veneration has been confirmed as orthodox, spiritually sound and grounded in good reason by the bishops, who are charged with "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). When they add them to the church calendar and bless icons, hymns and prayers for them, we venerate them and ask their intercessions publicly and liturgically -- but not beforehand.

Moreover, there is no absolute proof that Saint Isaac was a Nestorian, a notion based on the unlikely assumption that the Churches of Assyria and Persia fell into Nestorianism wholesale, with no Orthodox Christian minority surviving among them at all. The orthodoxy of his writings and Nestorian criticism of some of them suggest otherwise, as Persian and Arab rule in his lifetime did isolate pockets of Orthodox Christians geographically from the rest of the Church.

While the Church cannot venerate Francis as a saint in the here and now because of his well-documented unorthodox beliefs, behavior and religious affiliation, we do not presume to know his eternal fate, leaving it in the hands of God, who will justly judge all who "do not have the law" of the Church by "the law written in their hearts" on Judgment Day (Romans 2:14-16). But this is only more reason not to second-guess God's will and the future by daring to venerate him as a saint before then, knowing that "now we see in a mirror, darkly" and will only see "face to face" in the age to come (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Father Salaris said he visited an Orthodox Christian monastic community where Francis of Assisi's icon and relics are venerated, with the blessing of its bishop.

This monastic community sounds like New Skete (Cambridge, New York), which was a group of Uniate (Byzantine Rite Roman Catholic) monks and nuns within the Franciscan Order long before its conversion to Orthodox Christianity.

Some of New Skete's work and scholarship is controversial among Orthodox Christians because it diverges from the mainstream of Orthodox Christianity (such as its veneration of Francis and "branch theory" ecclesiology including Monophysites, Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics, despite their lack of unanimity in faith).

One single (and rather idiosyncratic) exception can never be held up as a rule, norm or standard, particularly if it goes against the grain of the Sacred Tradition kept unchanged by the Church for nearly 2,000 years.

I do not know if New Skete's bishop actually approves of its idiosyncrasies or if he is simply being patient with them for pastoral reasons. Many have claimed episcopal approval for their actions, but never had it. And many ignore their bishops and do as they please, based on their own reasoning and agendas, when it comes to liturgics, church life and sundry other matters.

But even if New Skete does have its bishop's approval for these things, it does not automatically make them right. Like all Orthodox Christians, bishops are bound by the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which they publicly vow to keep free of heresies and innovations during their consecrations. It is a promise for which they must answer before the Lord Jesus Christ on Judgment Day. Their decisions must not contradict the Church's Sacred Tradition for them to be orthodox, spiritually sound and acceptable.

Father Salaris suggested the repentant thief (Luke 23:39-43) is an example of salvation "outside the Church."

How could the repentant thief (icons of whom the Church has, depicting him as a saint) be outside the Church, when the Church is precisely union with the God-Man Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:30), and Christ Himself received this repenting man to Himself and said "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43)? (Note that He did not say the thief would merely be in Paradise, but "with Him" in Paradise.)

Father Salaris said this thief's conversion and salvation took place "before the birth of the Church at Pentecost." The Church was filled with the Holy Spirit and thus given an unprecedented power and life on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), but was it nonexistent before then?

What of Israel, the Old Testament Church, where Christ was present and active before His incarnation (see 1 Corinthians 10:1-4)?

What of the following the Lord Jesus Christ built up before the Passion, Pascha and Pentecost, in which He and His apostles baptized (John 3:22), performed holy unction (Mark 6:7-13) and celebrated the Eucharist (Matthew 26:25-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-25)?

What of the Old Testament saints ransomed before Pentecost by Christ during His descent into the realm of death (Sheol, Hades, the Pit) on Holy Saturday (1 Peter 3:18-19), whom we venerate on our church calendar?

Was the Church "born" out of nonexistence on Pentecost, or did she exist as the Old Testament custodian of the Law and the stock out of which the Messiah came before then, becoming the New Testament Body of Christ and bearer of the Spirit on that momentous day? Can one say she did not exist when Christ and the thief were on Golgotha, while her Head (Ephesians 1:22) was present on the Cross with some of His disciples on hand (Matthew 27:55-56, Mark 15:40-41, Luke 23:49, John 19:25-27)?

As for Father Salaris' remarks about this conversion and salvation taking place "before" notions of orthodoxy, orthopraxy, ecclesiology and sanctity, all of those things are present from the start, right in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. I hope and pray he is not suggesting they have no bearing on our salvation, for Orthodox Christianity thinks differently and has done so for nearly 2,000 years.

Like Father Salaris, I too read the Bible, the Book of the Church, as I imagine much of our readership does. Yes, it tells us to love our neighbors (Mark 12:31) and our enemies (Matthew 5:44), do good to all (Galatians 6:10) and live peaceably with everyone insofar as it lies in our power (Romans 12:28). But it also tells us:

"Stand fast and hold the tradition which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

"Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge -- by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith." (1 Timothy 6:20)

"In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ... withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

Theology and ecclesiology obviously mattered to the Lord Jesus Christ's apostles who wrote these words, and they have to matter to us as well. "Loving others" does not mean minimizing or negating Orthodox Christian theology and ecclesiology, allowing ourselves to be "tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting" (Ephesians 4:14). It simply requires us to be "speaking the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15) to those outside the Church, trying to bring them around by prayer, persuasion and personal example, as Saint Nilus of Sora and numerous other saints taught us.

Father Salaris' letter begs the questions: why bother with the Orthodox Church if salvation, sanctification, holiness and sainthood can be found outside of her? If this is the case, why not go down to the local Roman Catholic parish or Protestant megachurch, often closer, larger, easier, more convenient, better funded and offering more in programs and activities than our often small, poor American parishes and fractious "jurisdictions"? Was Saint Peter the Aleut foolish for laying down his life rather converting to Roman Catholicism, if salvation is there as well? Did Saint Alexis Toth put tens of thousands of Uniates (Byzantine Rite Roman Catholics) through unnecessary trouble by leading them into the Orthodox Church, if they could have found salvation by "staying put" where they were?

The answer to these questions is, obviously, that truth -- orthodoxy – does matter and make a difference, for grace is coupled with truth (John 1:14) in the God-Man Jesus Christ, whose Body is the one Church (Colossian 1:18, Ephesians 4:4-5) that remains "the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8) in her preaching of the Sacred Tradition received from Him and His apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:15).



Volume 7 Number 15 - Tuesday, April 12th, 2005	A Publication of the ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LAITY

Gregory Orloff