The Tragedy of Our Uniate Brothers
by Hieromonk [now Bishop] Auxentios
Since the time of the Protestant Reformation, there has been a painful separation of
Orthodox brothers to parallel the separation introduced into Western Christianity by this
great religious upheaval. This separation among Orthodox came about through the so-called
Unia, in which Eastern Orthodox Christians were joined with Rome, a good deal of the
timein fact, more times than we wish to admit, in this ecumenically blinded and
historically uncareful ageby force and political compromise, not by
"treaty" and with free will. These poor brothers find themselves today neither
wholly Orthodox nor fully Roman, having no real recognition by the Orthodox and being
separated from Rome by their Liturgical customs, which, to varying degrees, despite the
erosion of such under the effects of Latinization (and in some practices, these poor
people have succumbed to total abandonment of Orthodox customs), they preserve from their
Orthodox past. These Uniates are organized under various exarchates (as they would be
properly termed in Orthodoxy), with their surviving Byzantine organizational structures
variously tolerated according to the whim of their largely Latin Bishops. Some of these
Uniates have been nothing short of "Jesuitical" betrayers of the East,
deceptively taking simple Orthodox Faithful away from their past. But great numbers of
them are suffering, sincere people who are the victims of a terrible history and who would
wish to find some place in which their hearts and consciences might be restored. To this
number of the Uniates (or Greek [Byzantine] Catholics, as they sometimes call themselves),
something must be said about the effects of the contemporary irresponsibility among
Orthodox Prelates who are playing with souls by embracing un-Orthodox standards.
Stones instead of bread. In the pages of this journal we have many times chided
those Orthodox who embrace modernism, who foolishly exercise "economy" in such a
way as to compromise the meaning of the word, and who embrace the non-Orthodox in
deceptive and foolish ecumenismthe falsity of which is well-known to us. We have
also constantly warned that the overall effect of such things is to harm the souls of the
Faithful, since the canons, true Orthodox standards, and Orthodox sobriety are established
by the Fathers for the purpose, not of making us rigid and conservative, but of
controlling our behaviors in a way that preserves the salvific force of the Faith.
Recently, in the visit of several very fine and sincere Uniates to our monastery, I saw
these points vividly brought home.
In the first place, in speaking with these people, I saw how clearly we Orthodox must
avoid the exercise of "economy" in a foolish way in days when this sound
Orthodox principle is used to serve ecumenical purposes. They were clearly confused as to
the proper reception of Uniates. Uniates are sometimes "re"-Baptized, sometimes
Chrismated, and, in the case of priests, received in various ways. In effect, for the sake
of bringing back separated Orthodox to the fold, especially in Russia, extreme economy was
often used: accepting Priests by vesting, bringing in the Faithful by simple confession or
by Chrismation, and even accepting the Faithful and the clergy by Chrismation. One
cannot deny this. And one cannot deny the wisdom of doing this in the past, at a time when
many Uniates were so close to the Orthodox Faith. Economy was appropriate because it fit
the situation. But always it was understood that the Church was filling an empty vessel,
in extreme cases even bestowing the Priesthood and all aspects of Grace by Chrismation or
vesting. When, in modern times, Orthodox are embarrassed, because of prevailing ecumenical
ideas, to admit that Rome and the Uniates do not have Orthodox Mysteries, then they are
offering stones, not bread.
These poor Uniate brothers who visited us are literally confused by Orthodox practices.
As they told us, we would be shocked at the instances in which they participate in
Orthodox services, even to the point, we are sorry to say, of inter-communion and
concelebration! They are even convinced that we Old Calendarists and traditionalists, who
are the majority of Orthodox outside America, hold a minority view. Of course, they do not
understand the inner world of the Orthodox, since they are outside of it, but the actual
fact is that these things do not surprise us. After all, this is why we have walled
ourselves off from the irresponsibility of ecumenism and from Bishops in the Orthodox
Church who, we are fully aware, preach that Orthodox recognize Grace in the Mysteries
(Sacraments) of non-Orthodox to the non-Orthodox and ecumenists. The sad thing is that
they do not say this to us, as all Orthodox know. They would be, and perhaps are
self-deposed by such a denial of the primacy of Orthodoxy. As they embrace Uniates with
false love and wine and dine them, if not concelebrate with them, they tell us, the
traditionalists whom they so fear, that they even despise the Uniates. And here is the
real problem. We do not hate these brothers, who live in tragedy, but love them. It
is for this reason precisely that we refuse to present them an Orthodoxy which is false.
And it is for this reason that we hasten to explain to them what the genuine Orthodox
position is with regard to their orders and Mysteries.
Living by the exception. It is primarily in America where these distortions of
Orthodox teaching are offered to our Uniate brothers, but many of the Patriarchates are
not innocent of this, too. In a Latinized theological atmosphere (in which Orthodox
teaching is even purposely distorted), these poor Uniates, thinking that the Patriarchs
are "Popes" of the East, rather than simple Bishops with honor among their
equals, are led to believe that the vast majority of world Orthodoxy is represented by the
little handful of Orthodox in America or by the small communities around the
Patriarchates. This is further complicated by the irresponsible action of the
communist-dominated Patriarchate of Russia, which often gives Roman Catholics Communion
(though the guidelines for this, which we have read, are not what the Latins pretend them
to be). The rest of the Orthodox world has condemned thisin fact even by official
pronouncement from the Ecumenical Patriarch, but Orthodox are, again, afraid to
admit this. Thus, we let the Uniates fancy themselves truly Orthodox, living by the
uncanonical and theologically illiterate exception put forth to them by some Orthodox, who
violate Christ's injunction to care for our little brothers.
The psychology of the Uniates is such that they truly wish to think that their
Mysteries and Priesthood are Orthodox. And this is something which should endear them to
us! It shows that deep in their souls they hunger for Orthodoxy. It is a yearning, at
times, that must mystically bring them to the very door of Orthodoxy. But it is we who
must show them how to open that door, not to leave them on the porch, telling them that
they are already inside Orthodoxy!
Of course, there are cases of misrepresentation and deception by some Uniates. All
guilt involves two parties, in such matters, and we must fairly say that some, though not
all, Uniates have not been truthful. There are instances in which Uniates represent
themselves as Orthodox and commune and concelebrate. There are also various rumors spread
around to support the idea that the most conservative Orthodox accept Uniates and
non-Orthodox. I was recently told, much to my shock, that my own mentor, who led me to
Orthodoxy (the late Father Georges Florovsky), had communed Anglicans! This is simply
nonsense, since Father George's advice to me in preparation for Priesthood was that, while
I must do all possible to expand the perimeters of Orthodoxy (true ecumenism), I must do
so within the honest boundaries of the Church, certainly never extending the Eucharist,
which represents the fullness (pleroma) of unity in the Faith, to non-Orthodox. He
has, of course, said the same in print. Self-serving notions and rumors to the side, his
position, while non-Orthodox may not agree with it, is one which I have always followed
obediently and as an expression of true ecumenism and love for my non-Orthodox brothers.
Furthermore, as many of our readers know, since the accusation appeared in print, our
monastery was once accused of communing Uniate clergy, who wished to legitimize their
position by claiming that the moderate Old Calendarists (the Old Calendarist
"scholars" as we were flatteringly called) avoid extremism and accept Uniates.
Not only do we not allow such (nor do we, indeed, commune Uniate lay people), but we
actually had never, until we read of this and received a letter from the accusing
modernist Hierarch (a Hierarch who, ironically enough, would have told these Uniates that
they were "Orthodox," but who condemned us as violators of Holy Canons!), heard
of these Uniates. They have never actually met us, and we do not know them.
History, too, is often misused by Uniates in such a way as to feature the exception.
Exceptional communities, like the tiny Church of Finland (which uncanonically and in
violation of the First cumenical Synod uses the Western formula for Pascha) and, as we
have mentioned, the communist-dominated, suffering Church of Russia, are cited as the norm
in establishing that Orthodox do, indeed, accept Uniate practices and invite Greek
Catholics to full participation in the fullness of the Faith. Also, the understandable
instances, well into the fifteenth century, of inter-communion in Southern Italy and the
Byzantine West, after the Great Schism, are cited as though the Great Schism did not,
indeed, separate Latins from the Orthodox and remove those with Rome from the Orthodox
Church and Apostolic Succession as we preserve it. The fact that every conservative and
respected theologian in our Church flatly rejected Athenagoras' pronouncements, in the
1960s, with regard to the mutual excommunications (a strange thing, since Uniates, of all
people, should know that an Orthodox Bishop cannot act unilaterallyafter all that is
why we reject Papism!), seems to escape those who wish to live by the un-Orthodox
exception. As for Uniates in Russia and Eastern Europe, many pastoral uses of economy mark
the Slavic Churches well into the last century. One can support these exceptions; however,
Uniates cannot live by them. The Church extends herself where she wishes and when she
wishes. As we pointed out in the last issue of Orthodox Tradition, these exercises
of economy, with regard to the burial of non-Orthodox, were very carefully defined by the
Church in the nineteenth century and in the early years of this century, so as to insure
that misunderstanding of this economy did not mislead Uniates. An Orthodox Christian must
always show economy in order to feed the hungry man. He must never use economy as daily
foodbut only in need. If ecumenism has so blinded many Orthodox Bishops of a
modernist bent, and if they forget this point, the Uniates, if they are of a serious bent,
must not forget this.
Finally, in speaking with certain Greek Catholics, I heard the strange accusation that
Orthodox (even first "Old Calendarists") are so beset by immorality that Greek
Catholics do not know what to do. I am a convert to Orthodoxy. I converted and became an
Old Calendarist after much study, having left the sciences at Princeton to study religion.
I studied every religion that I could. At Father Florovsky's advice, after studying
Orthodoxy by travelling to Mt. Athos and seeing the healthiest examples of Orthodoxy there
(something Uniates seldom do with an open mind, if at all), I became Orthodox in the Old
Calendar Greek Church. I did not do this lightly. One of the most impressive things about
Orthodoxy to me to this day is that it is open, honest, and fully able to admit the errors
of the humans within it. Despite this, I could count on one hand the actual instances of
immorality that I have known of in Orthodoxy among traditionalists (and since converting,
I have traveled through much of the Orthodox world, including places in Eastern Europe
that most people have never seen). They are among the most moral people I have ever met.
Out of propriety I will not mention what I saw in other, non-Orthodox communities,
including monastic settings. (I think that modern American television has said whatever
need be said about non-Orthodox monasticism in this country!) And I will be obvious about
my objectivity in saying that, in my near decision to be a Buddhist monastic, I also saw
the strictest morality among these people. In the end, too, these kinds of accusations are
shadows that cloud the truth and which, once more, try to establish a rule by the
exception. Such thinking never truly compromises the Orthodox witness. More importantly,
though, it never really serves our Uniate brothers in their quest for
Orthodoxysomething to which we should be honestly calling them by a clear
distinction between that which is the exception and that which is the norm. This is
particularly true at a time when the Orthodox Church is being tried by modernism and is
being prepared, many Fathers say, for the advent of the remnant Church.
The exception on a larger scale. One must also note that Uniates in the United
States (and they are now largely a church in diaspora) live with a view of Orthodoxy which
separates them from the truly mainstream spiritual and theological life of Orthodoxy.
There is not a great deal to be said here about the poverty of Orthodox theological
studies in the United States. It has all been adequately said before. Because of this poor
theological atmosphere, the core of practical theology, ecclesiology, has been largely
ignored. Uniates, therefore, have little exposure to what is the burning issue in the
Orthodox world today theologically: ecclesiology. While one jurisdiction in this country
has rightly condemned the branch theory of the Church as heretical and wholly incompatible
with Orthodox ecclesiological dogma, the majority of Orthodox clergymen in the U.S. hardly
even understand this point. When they interact with Uniates, who bring to their dialogues
with Orthodoxy a wholly Latin view of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox themselves are
influenced by these views. One rather poorly schooled modernist Prelate in the U.S. was
actually shocked to read the introduction to one of Archimandrite Chrysostomos' books
recently, commenting that he had really never before understood the Orthodox notion of
Grace and the consequent dogmatic formulation that non-Orthodox (including Uniates) do not
have Grace as the Orthodox Church understands it. One wonders what kind of dialogue he
must have carried on with his Uniate friends in the past!
Another consequence of the theological atmosphere among modernist Orthodox in America
is that Uniates do not come to an Orthodox understanding of the Church. This is essential.
If they understood traditional Orthodox ecclesiology, Uniates would not be Uniates. They
are Uniates because if there is any place in which they are wholly outside an Orthodox
mentality, it is in the area of ecclesiology. In fact, they rage and scream when we bring
up the Donation of Constantine, Papism, and Apostolic Succession from an Orthodox
perspective. In the first place, Latins came from the bosom of the Orthodox Church. They
are, from our understanding, primarily errant in their ecclesiology, having separated
themselves from an Orthodox understanding of the Church by opting for a worldly notion of
the Church. They understand the Church in terms of numbers, influence, and worldly
powerthings which the Apostolic Church knew not at all and which the remnant Church
will also not know. Papism began in the Gospel as a temptation put before Christ by the
Evil One himself: the lure of worldly power. Roman Catholicism is Orthodoxy which has
succumbed to such temptation. This is the real Orthodox view. And today there are many
Orthodox, mostly in America where wealth and power are available, but also in the
historical Patriarchates, for whom recognition (even by Rome!) seems to be a road to the
re-establishment of ecclesiastical power. Latinism has beset them. Papism is in its
incipient stages. And just as the East separated itself from the life of the West before
an actual schism (which came in 1054), so many of us Orthodox have separated ourselves
from the disastrous trends in modernist Orthodoxy (a symptom of which is the Calendar
innovation). This the Uniates do not understand, because they do not understand the
Orthodox Church and have few traditional Orthodox to teach them.
Modernist Orthodox are not alone at fault in this process. Some modernists sincerely
believe that their compromises will help Orthodoxy. This, too, the Uniates do not know:
that, behind closed doors, our modernist brothers tell us Old Calendarists that they are
compromising for the sake of the Faith. Uniates who are attracted to such elements should
think long and hard about just what they are being offered. On the other hand, it is a
social psychological law that one tends to affiliate, in ambiguous situations, with others
who are like himself, both in an attempt to acquire a clearer view and in an attempt to
reduce psychological tension in the presence of "like others." The Uniates,
therefore, have a reason to court modernist Orthodox, to concelebrate with them (and by
Orthodox Canons thus automatically depose the Orthodox clergy with whom they
concelebratea sad but poignant point against ecumenism), and to encourage them in
their Latin views of ecclesiological "officialdom," actually reinforcing their
non-Orthodox views of the Church in the atmosphere of ecclesiological confusion in which
Orthodox now live. This is done among the Uniates at times for "Jesuitical"
reasons. Let us not be misled. At other times, however, it is done simply because Uniates
do not dare venture beyond the sure ecclesiological ground which the Latins have set up
for them, despite their feelings of being neither Latin nor Orthodox and despite their
ambiguous feelings toward that circumstance. In the former case, Papism will win over many
Orthodox, which is an old goal that we know too well (one of the unfortunate goals of
those who are dishonest ecumenistsand they must be separated from the deluded but
sincere ecumenists). In the latter case, the poor Uniates, if they ever find truly common
grounds with the modernist Orthodox, will ultimately find themselves Uniates again. After
all, this is what we traditionalists have been predicting for years. And our predictions
are coming true.
One of the most unfortunate consequences of this ecclesiological confusion among
Orthodox in America (who are divided into uncountable jurisdictions) is that, rather than
find profoundly spiritual bases for ecclesiological definitions, they are finding
simplistic solutions to their dilemmas (influenced, as we have said, by the Latins). Thus
we see a group of Bishops setting themselves up as the only canonical Bishops*. The fact
that many Bishops, who are canonical by the very definitions of the group in question,
will not join them compromises the whole thing from the beginning. Then some sincere but
rather plodding theological observers come along with the neo-Papist idea that everyone
must be in communion with a Patriarch to be canonically Orthodox.** This fails, since
history belies this and since all Bishops, as our own Synods have averred, are equal.
Finally, everyone settles on Apostolic Succession as a criterion for canonicity.
This last criterion is interesting, if simply because it finally favors traditional
Orthodoxy. In the Orthodox Church, Apostolic Succession is not merely historical. It is
not enough for Bishops to show that they go back to the Apostles. (After all, Rome
certainly can claim this, and yet all of the Orthodox Synods since the Great Schism have
flatly condemned Rome as heretical, schismatic, and devoid of Apostolic Succession.) In
fact, Apostolic Succession is meaningful only when spiritual succession, as Father
Florovsky terms it, is also present. There must be an adherence to Holy Tradition, the
Church as it has developed historically under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (since it
has blossomed and matured, such that so-called "primitive" Christianity is not
authentic for us today), and the Canons of the Orthodox Church (which depose a clergyman
for even praying with those who violate this definition of Orthodoxy).
It became abundantly clear to me recently, in speaking with a Uniate clergyman, that
Apostolic Succession, while it could lead to a healthy criterion for establishing Orthodox
"legitimacy" (if such a vulgar term should be used), is not well enough
understood today for this to be the case. This clergyman related to me various rumors that
he had heard about the Old Calendarists, most notably that Akakios, the Greek Bishop
Consecrated by two Bishops of the Russian Synod Abroad, was, indeed, Consecrated by a
single Bishop and the Old Calendarists therefore did not have Apostolic Succession. I was
rather astounded that this clergyman, an articulate and educated man, would make such a
statement. But then I realized that he truly did not know the Orthodox Church's teaching
on Apostolic Succession. (I should note here that he also chided Father Chrysostomos for
not mentioning the name of this second Bishop in his recent book on the Old Calendarists.
The Romanian Bishop Theophilus, then under the Russian Synod Abroad, is well known for his
activities and there are no aware Orthodox who fail to know his role in the Consecration
of the Old Calendar Bishops, along with Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago and Archbishop
Leonty of Chile. As a matter of fact, except in a footnote, Father Chrysostomos named
neither Bishop. It would be unnecessary among Orthodox.)
As we know from the life of St. Amphilochios, who was Consecrated to the Episcopacy by
"men in white robes" with "faces shining like the sun," and as we have
pointed out above, Apostolic Succession is not merely historical. It has a spiritual side.
Moreover, it is conveyed by a Bishop. So Latin have the Uniates become in their view of
the Church through the prism of the Papacy, that every Church rule is colored and
distorted. The Consecration of a Bishop by a single Bishop conveys Apostolic Succession,
but is uncanonical. The lack of canonicity is corrected, not by re-Consecration (which is
a blasphemy), but by "cheirothesia." The Consecration is "corrected."
A basic course in ecclesiastical history, with reference to the returns of heretics in the
early Church, would clear up this confusion. As for the Old Calendarists, they were not
Consecrated by a single Bishop. The irregularity of the Consecrations, which were
undertaken without the consent of the entire Russian Synod, was automatically corrected by
the declaration of the Greek Traditionalist Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
as Sister Churches in 1969. (This declaration, incidentally, has never been rescinded,
despite the distance that exists between the two Churches.)
All of this is not, of course, a matter for the Uniates. Nor is it something that they
can understand as long as they are under the sway of Latin theology or so bent on courting
modernist Orthodox, who are equally ignorant of their own traditions, thus failing to tell
the Uniates what they should hear: namely, that they do not have Apostolic Succession
according to the Orthodox formulation. If they do not accept that, then they are rightly
where they should bein the Unia. If they can accept it, then they must heed what we
traditionalist Orthodox (and we are found not only among Old Calendarists, but in all
jurisdictions) have to say.
A true witness to Uniates. If we can understand why the Uniates seek out modernist
Orthodox in their quest for self-definition, we must reach outwe
traditionaliststo help them. They are, indeed, isolated from Orthodox tradition. The
truncated services, shaved faces, Papist thinking, wealthy Churches, and lax spirituality
of modernists are alluring. These things are as familiar to them as they are foreign to
true Orthodoxy. It would be so easy for the Uniates to join with the modernist Orthodox,
since these modernists are on the same path toward Unia which put the Uniates where they
are today. How comfortable the Uniates must feel with these people. But we must warn them.
Again, we cannot give them a stone instead of bread. There are too many of them who will,
when the truth is clearly put forth, wish to return to the Orthodox Church.
As we reach out to these Uniates, we must be absolutely honest, since they have been
lured by those who are not open with them. We must also, in this honesty, teach them of
the majority of the Orthodox world: those poor, disenfranchised, captive masses that
Christ entrusted with His Holy Church. Only then will they leave the glitter of a fleeting
Orthodoxy in America, which sparkles with the same worldly glitter that they have known in
Rome. They know nothing of the true New Calendar Shepherds, such as Metropolitan
Augustinos of Florina. They attend banquets for Prelates in America, while, on his recent
name-day, Metropolitan Augustinos is greeted in the proper spiritual way by 20,000
pilgrims from all over Greece. They rush to Patriarchates which must compromise themselves
and play politics to survive (often because Rome itself threatens them), while they fail
to visit a village where Orthodoxy is lived. They go to places where Orthodoxy is being
decimated by missions (some from their own Church), while avoiding the vast amount of the
Orthodox world, where the Faith is staunch! They think of Florence, not remembering that
the real Orthodox world dismantled that political sham within a week of the return of
their Bishops. They know a few popular Orthodox theologians of Greek Catholic background
and bent, hardly even having touched a page of Archimandrite Philotheos Zervakos' works or
the works of the great Archimandrite Justin of Serbia. But they are not alone in this.
Their modernist Orthodox friends are equally ignorantthough sometimes because they
choose to be. We must change this.
As for us Old Calendarists and other traditionalists, we must make it clear to the
Uniates that we are opposing exactly what it is that took them from their past: the Unia.
Though the Unia comes today not in swords and treaties, it comes in the form of
irresponsible ecumenism. Our own Orthodox, in dialogues with Latins, are betraying the
very things that we Orthodox believe. We must not let the Uniates succumb to this. The
Latins would wish our witness ended. Thus the Vatican had the incredible gallthis
Church which claims that it does not interfere in the Orthodox worldto warn the
State Church of Greece that it must disavow the Old Calendarists, since their traditional
witness and theology are the chief impediments to union! This incident had quite an effect
in Greece, where the Uniates have established a front. Need one wonder whether these
directives have been given to other Orthodox Churches? Indeed not.
In our witness, we must also be both gentle and wise. I have seen our own Abbot, who is
very conservative in his Orthodoxy, agonize over the delusion of Uniates whom he knows and
considers spiritual brothers. He sees them poisoned by non-Orthodox ideas and sees their
course: union with Orthodox who are preparing for the Unia themselves. How can one not
weep for these people? And while we must counsel them to be slow and cautious in their
moves, we see that, as the remnant Church approaches, there is less and less chance that
these people will awaken. On the other hand, Uniates, too, have their betrayers. Many of
them wish to appear Orthodox and to entrap our Faithful, trying with every effort to
obfuscate the serious divisions between Orthodox and Latins. This is unfair and dangerous.
They court the modernist Orthodox, taking advantage of their ignorance and thus paving the
way for their entry into the Unia. For them, it is essential that all traditionalist
Orthodox Christians be disavowed. And they do their task with great care, often being more
vulgar than any deluded Orthodox.
We must defeat the deceivers on all sides, if we are to help our Uniate brothers. In
doing this, we should speak out in the way that our own Bishop, Metropolitan Cyprian, has
spoken out. He left the State Church and placed his monastery, as a dependency, under the
Holy Mountain. He has not once equivocated in speaking about the betrayal of Orthodoxy in
modern times by those who are becoming Uniates through ecumenism. And he has always given
a helping hand to those who wish to return to the fullness of the Orthodox witness, never
showing hate for hate, animosity in the face of deception. But he is not the only example.
If the Uniate deceivers and their blinded modernist Orthodox friends think that they can,
by deception and slander, remove the Old Calendarist witness, there are also State Church
Bishops in Greece who condemn the uncanonical moves of such as the cumenical Patriarch
with regard to Latins. As we have said, Metropolitan Augustinos of Florina is perhaps one
of the most courageous of these Bishops, flatly having condemned the cumenical Patriarch
for "Liturgical interaction with heretical Latins," citing numerous instances of
inter-Faith prayer by the Patriarchate and its representatives in absolute violation of
the Canons of the Church. There are, too, other Bishops of the Church who speak out,
followed by the vast majority of sober monastics on the Holy Mountain.
We must bring to the attention of honest Uniates the Old Calendar witness and the
witness of great Church champions like Metropolitan Augustinos (whose recent "Open
Letter" points out that Orthodox are forbidden even to join in common prayer with
Latins). In this way, one can see how far astray the modernist Orthodox have gone and
honest Uniates, seeking union with Orthodox, can turn to more mature guides. They must
turn from the captive Church of Russia, which, as we noted above, has uncanonically and
unilaterally decided to give Holy Communion to Roman Catholics under some extraordinary
circumstances. We must enlighten our Uniate brothers that there is nothing edifying when a
KGB agent passing as an Orthodox Bishop (Nikodim of Leningrad) dies before a Roman Pontiff
after orchestrating a denial of the Faith which he supposedly represented, all in an
effort to court influence in the Western Church for his Kremlin cronies. Are not even the
Jesuits ashamed of this?
Honest Uniates also must cease waning here and there to find unhealthy Orthodox with
whom to concelebrate. Since this is forbidden by our Church Canons, the Priest who does
so, as we have said, is automatically deposed. Does a brother do such a thing for his
brother, simply to try to reduce some ambiguity in himself about a situation which he does
not like? Hardly. And with what have such Uniates joined? Deposed clergy and those going
headlong into the Unia themselves. A good Orthodox Christian is distinguished these days
as much by those with whom he does NOT commune, as those with whom he maintains communion.
In this Uniates must put aside their personal feelings. Holy Communion is the ultimate
expression of unity within Orthodoxy, as is common prayer. We do not separate ourselves
from others in this out of hate, but to preserve our very identity. If ecumenists should
mature and accept this, how much more should Uniates appreciate this, especially when what
they seek in mistakenly communing with Orthodox is the very unity of Orthodox Faith which
such actions compromise? This is illogical. (As for Uniates who represent themselves as
Orthodox or claim that bastions of conservative Orthodoxy like the Holy Mountain receive
them for Communion, their dishonesty puts them outside the realm of true religion. There
are, indeed, these instances to counterbalance the blame on the Orthodox side.)
In dialogues with Uniates who wish truly to find their place (they feel at times that
they are neither Orthodox nor Latin), we must avoid the hatred that accompanies so much
religious dialoguecovered up at times by politeness and diplomatic words, but
present to a spiritually sensitive person. We have spoken with Uniates and have heard them
contradict themselves, change their statements, equivocate, and, as the expression goes,
"beat around the bush" on issues, only because many of their comments were
initially hostile, nasty, and vindictive. Despite themselves, they do not always wish to
hear the truth. They have heard the soothing lies of the modernists so long, that the
truth from traditional Orthodox burns them. This must end. They must be mature and accept
that, from an Orthodox position, they are outside the Orthodox Church, just as we Orthodox
were much more comfortable when we were considered outside the Latin Church. More honest
dialogue, without compromising the Faith of the Orthodox or Latins, took place before
modern ecumenism than takes place now. And if there was hostility before, it was open. It
could be dealt with and removed. Today it cannot. And in the end, the Uniates lose once
more. This must not occur. It must stop. They must admit which Orthodox are true: to be
sure, the ones who do not look like them, worship like them, or think like them. If they
want to be called to something, then they should heed another's voice, not their own.
Their Liturgies, their spiritual life, their monasticism, and their theological thought
are distorted, tainted, and compromised in the same way that anything which, in a set of X
and Y, is neither X nor Y. Let us be blunt about this.
As for those Orthodox, however, who spread hatred for Latins or Uniates: Beware. This
is not the way of the Church. It is wrong. We must not cry that Uniates have no
Priesthood, no Grace, no Church (or Latins for that matter). They do not have these things
as Orthodox receive them, indeed. About this we should be frank. But their belief in
Christ, their closeness to us, their love for many Orthodox thingsthese cannot count
for nothing. We should fear for our own salvation, we who think that we have preserved the
Church of Christ, and yet abuse it and misrepresent it. As for others, we should call them
to that of which we fall short. No spiritual man sees things in any other way. The problem
with the Uniates is one between brothers who are seeking their Mother. We have known our
Mother; they have not. They have been raised by a step-mother. Let us then show them
compassion and love. If I am wrong, then why has the Church, respecting the beautiful
vessel which many Uniates have preserved, filled this empty vessel by the most
extraordinary acts of economy, even extending the Priesthood by vesting and Chrismation?
Why, if I am not right? I am right, as we all know, and the Church has done this out of
the economy of a mother! Let us act with the charity of brothers. And let us reprove in
our families those modernist Orthodox who give hard stones to our brothers, rather than
good spiritual food, and let us censure those Uniates who deceptively hope to be what they
are not by associating with those who are ceasing to be what they should be and becoming,
rather, what the Uniates wish not to be!
From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. III, No. 1, pp. 35-47.
Webmaster Notes
* E.g., the so-called SCOBA: Standing Conference of Canonical
Orthodox Bishops in America.
** This wholly un-Orthodox idea was criticized by Fr. Alexander Schmemann in his
insightful article, "Problems of Orthodoxy in America: The
Canonical Problem" (St. Vladimirs Seminary Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 2, 1964):
... We must begin with a clarification of the seemingly simple notion of canonicity. I
say, "seemingly simple" because it is indeed simple enough to give a formal
definition: "canonical is that which complies with the canons of the Church". It
is much more difficult, however, to understand what this "compliance" is and how
to achieve it. And nothing illustrates better this difficulty than certain assumptions on
which the whole canonical controversy in America seems to be grounded and which are in
fact a very serious distortion of the Orthodox canonical tradition.
There are those, for example, who solve the complex and tragical canonical problem of
Orthodoxy in America by one simple rule, which to them seems a self-evident one: to be
"canonical" one has to be under some Patriarch, or, in general, under some
established autocephalous church in the old world. Canonicity is thus reduced to
subordination which is declared to constitute the fundamental principle of church
organization. Implied here is the idea that a "high ecclesiastical power"
(Patriarch, Synod, etc.) is in itself and by itself the source of canonicity: whatever it
decides is ipso facto canonical and the criterion of canonicity. But in the genuine
Orthodox tradition the ecclesiastical power is itself under the canons and its decisions
are valid and compulsory only inasmuch as they comply with the canons. In other terms, it
is not the decision of a Patriarch or His Synod that creates and guarantees
"canonicity", but, on the contrary, it is the canonicity of the decision that
gives it its true authority and power. Truth, and not power, is the criterion, and the
canons, not different in this from the dogmas, express the truth of the Church. And just
as no power, no authority can transform heresy into orthodoxy and to make white what is
black, no power can make canonical a situation which is not canonical.
|