Concerning the Approaching Orthodox-Monophysite Union
An In-Depth Commentary
Readers of the ecumenical press have been led
to believe that, after a series of high-level
"informal" talks, the Eastern Orthodox and
"Oriental Orthodox" (Monophysite) Churches have come to
a realization that they profess the same faith. Their separation
in the fifth and sixth centuries can now be seen as having been
due to linguistic, political and national factors. Since they
have all along had the same faith, all that remains for the two
churches now to do is to remove a few secondary difficulties such
as mutual anathemas, the non-recognition of each other's saints
and parallel jurisdictions. When these difficulties are removed,
a new and glorious step will be achieved in the Ecumenical
Movement, which ardently desires the union of all
"Christian" churches and of all great world religions.
The Spring-Fall, 1971, issue of the Greek
Orthodox Theological Review contains the minutes of the
latest two Orthodox-Monophysite consultations, held in Geneva,
Switzerland, on August 16-21, 1970, and in Addis-Ababa, Ethiopia,
on January 22-23, 1971. An examination of these minutes would
obviously show whether or not the claims of ecumenists are
correct.
A glance at the list of the Orthodox
participants in the discussions would cause a traditional
Orthodox to pause before perusing the minutes. Could he in even
his wildest dreams expect that Metropolitan Nikodim of Lenigrad
(who has twice communicated Roman Catholics in Rome),
Metropolitan George Khodre of Mt. Lebanon (who calls for a union
with Muslims) and such arch-ecumenists as Metropolitan Emilianos
of Calabria, Archimandrite Damaskinos Papandreou
(Constantinople), Fr John Meyendorff (American Metropolia), Fr.
Vitaly Borovoy and Professor Livery Verenov (Moscow) would defend
traditional Orthodoxy? And what good could come out of sessions
co-chaired by such ecumenical veterans as Dr. Nikos Nissiotis,
Director of the Ecumenical Institute in Bossey, Switzerland, and
Fr. Paul Verghese of the World Council of Churches staff. A
careful reading of the minutes of the Geneva and Addis-Ababa
consultations shows that such misgivings would have been
eminently justified.
Any Orthodox Christian knows that the Holy
Church recognizes seven Divinely-inspired Holy Ecumenical
Councils. Under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, these
Councils solved once and for all crucial theological questions
concerning the nature of the blessed Trinity, of Christ the
Savior and concerning the veneration of icons. The doctrinal
decisions of these Councils, being like Holy Scripture—a
direct expression of God's self-revelation—are binding on
all Orthodox Christians unto ages of ages.
The Monophysites, as is well known, objected to
the Holy Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. Not only did
they refuse to accept it—they anathematized it and the theology
of St. Leo of Rome, whose doctrine was acclaimed by the Council.
The Monophysites claimed that Chalcedon and St. Leo preached
heresy. The Orthodox Church made great efforts to reconcile the
Monophysites to the Holy Church; the Holy Fifth Ecumenical
Council, held under the Emperor Justinian, had as its specific
aim such a reconciliation. The Monophysites, however, repulsed
all such advances, and the Monophysites of Armenia, Ethiopia,
Egypt (Copts), South India and Syria have remained to this day
separated from the One Church of Christ.
For any traditional Orthodox, it is evident
that the reestablishment of Communion with the Monophysites
depends on their acceptance of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils
as Orthodox and Divinely-inspired, and their repudiation of the
heresy preached by their fathers, such as Dioscorus of Alexandria
and Severus of Antioch (both of whom were condemned by the
Ecumenical Councils). Were the Monophysites of today to do this,
there would indeed be great Joy in heaven and we would embrace
them as beloved
brethren in the faith. The Geneva and Addis-Ababa consultations
however, show that the Monophysites have absolutely no intention
of doing so; they are as opposed as ever to Chalcedon and the
three Holy Ecumenical Councils that followed. To show their
unanimous enmity toward Chalcedon we shall quote their own words:
"Prof. Karmiris wants that a new
formula should be developed; but let us be quite clear that
that should not be an attempt to get the non-Chalcedonians to
accept Chalcedon." (Bishop Theophiles of South India, p.
29)
"In the thirteenth century an Armenian
Catholic agreed to accept Chalcedon but he was killed by the
people". (Dr. Krikorian, Armenia, p. 29)
"Within the last five years a bishop
of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was suspended from his
bishopric because something he wrote lent itself to be
interpreted as an acceptance of Chalcedon." (Rev.
Joseph, South India, p, 29)
"Here I have the feeling that one side
(i.e. the Eastern Orthodox) is assuming that they have a
monopoly of the truth and think the other side should admit
error." (Abba Degou, Ethiopia, p. 29)
"Our fathers found Nestorianism in the
horos (i.e. doctrinal definition) of Chalcedon. We cannot
accept any expression that lends itself to be interpreted as
a duality in the person of Jesus Christ...Even if we accept
the teaching of Chalcedon we are not obliged to accept
Chalcedon." (Bishop Gregories (Copt), p. 30)
"We have always held that Chalcedon
was not ecumenical. By all means, you continue to believe in
Chalcedon; but do not expect us to accept Chalcedon."
(Mariam of Ethiopia, p. 30)
"Let us be quite clear; Chalcedon is
not acceptable to us." (Bishop Zakka, Syrian
Monophysite, pp. 30-31)
"There should be no misunderstanding
of the position of the non-Chalcedonian Churches; there will
be no formal acceptance of Chalcedon." (Fr. Verghese,
South India, p. 31)
Students of Church History know that the Holy
Sixth Ecumenical Council, convoked to refute the very lethal
heresy of Monothelitism, dealt with a false teaching which, as it
were, revealed the inner logics of Monophysitism. It is not
surprising that the Sixth Council is considered even more odious
than Chalcedon by the Monophysites. In his paper presented at
Geneva, the Monophysite theologian, Fr. Verghese, shows this
perfectly clearly. He writes,
"If acceptance of the Sixth Council
thus means our agreeing to condemn Dioscorus and Severus, who
are true teachers of the Authentic Tradition, then we must
choose the two fathers mentioned in preference to the Sixth
Council, which appears to us badly muddled, not to say in
grievous error"...(p. 137)
He continues,
"The argument in the horos of the
Sixth Council is basically unacceptable for us...acceptance
of the Sixth Council is much more difficult for us than the
acceptance of Chalcedon...This council explicitly and
unjustifiedly condemns our fathers Dioscorus and Severus, and
calls the former 'hated of God' and the doctrine of the
latter 'mad and wicked'...We are unable to accept the
dithelite formula attributing will and energy to the natures
rather than to the hypostasis...We regard Leo (of Rome) as a
heretic for his teaching that the will and operation of
Christ is to be attributed to the two natures of Christ
rather than to the one hypostasis... If the restoration of
communion between our two families of Churches were to be
dependent on our acceptance of the four councils now rejected
by the non-Chalcedonian family, then we have little reason at
present to hope that this condition can be fulfilled."
(pp. 137-l41)
After reading such an extremely firm rejection
of Orthodox teaching and a passionate reaffirmation of the
Monothelite heresy, the Orthodox reader is astounded that even
the most true-believing of ecumenists could believe that Orthodox
and Monophysites have reached doctrinal agreement. Can it be that
men calling themselves Orthodox are willing to unite with those
so obviously repudiating Orthodoxy? The frightening truth is that
they are. Only one Orthodox delegate, Fr. John Romanides, a
Greek-Armerican representing the Church of Greece, had the wisdom
and courage to stand up at Geneva and speak the truth (Fr. John
was ejected from the Greek Archdiocese Seminary in Brookline
several years ago for his adherence to traditional Orthodox
views). "We have known for centuries," he stated,
"the non-Chalcedonian accusations against Chalcedon. Now we
are given the impression that the Chalcedonians can be considered
Orthodox by the non-Chalcedonians, not because Chalcedon is
Orthodox, but because the Chalcedonians are no longer faithful to
Chalcedon….If the non-Chalcedonian position on Chalcedon is
correct, then the Chalcedonian must reject Chalcedon. If the
Chalcedonians Greek position on Chalcedon is correct, then the
non-Chalcednians must accept the dogmatic teaching of Chalcedon
as Orthodox." (pp.22-23)
Behold the words of a man for whom the truth of
Christ is more precious than ecumenical compromise! On yet
another occasion Fr. Romanides felt compelled to speak up,
"Our discussions have now reached the point where the
Chalcedonian Orthodox are clearly being told that the
non-Chalcedonians should not be expected to accept Chalcedon as a
condition of union. This now seems to be put to us as a condition
for continuing our unofficial dialogue. Such a condition is
unacceptable and for us can only mean the end of dialogue. We
strongly sense that either (1) there has taken place a radical
change since (the discussions at) Aarhus and Bristol, or (2) we
have all along been the objects of an ecumenical technique which
aims at the accomplishment of inter-communion or communion, or
union without agreement on Chalcedon and the Fifth, Sixth, and
Seventh Ecumenical Councils. The non-Chalcedonians should very
clearly realize that from our side the faith professed cannot be
separated from the people who profess. The faith confessed by the
Fathers of Chalcedon is the true faith. If we accept that faith
we must accept also the Fathers who profess this true faith.
Otherwise, the communion of saints confessing this faith is not
accepted as a reality. In this connection, I would stress that we
are not going to be maneuvered into positions predetermined for
us by ecumenical technicians and strategists." (pp.29-30)
Glory to God for Fr. Romanides’ witness to
the truth! As he correctly showed, the flat refusal of the
Monophysites to accept Chalcedon and the ensuing Holy Council
dictates a breaking off of dialogue with them. What
"dialogue" can there be with those stubbornly
entrenched in their heresy?
Alas, Fr. Romanides’ voice was a lone
voice in an ecumenical wilderness. Much more representative of
the delegates’ opinion was Professor Nissiotis’
statement at Addis-Ababa, "We cannot put formal recognition
of Chalcedon a pre-condition of union." (p. 220) When the
delegates did not represent open despisers of the faith such as
Nissiotis or the Moscow Patriarchate representatives, they were
muddled and confused men, aware that something was wrong but
terrified to say so out of fear of sinning against ecumenical
"love". An example of such a muddled theologian is J.
D. Zizioulas (Church of Greece). Speaking on the subject of the
Monophysite theologian Severus of Antioch, he observes,
"The Sixth Ecumenical Council puts him
side by side with Apollinarius and calls him impious—a
very strong expression which was linked not with behavior but
with Orthodox faith. If we manage to free Severus from
heretical accusations—a matter not so easy to agree upon
at first sight—how can he be accepted to our common
communion without clear implication on the part of the
Eastern Orthodox that the Sixth Ecumenical Council to which
they adhere so firmly has in fact been in blunt error with
regard to Severus?" (p. 153)
Elsewhere he remarks,
"I agree with the view that the Church
is not a static entity, but if this is the case, how can we
maintain the position that horos is unchangeable? Will not
the revising of the anathemas involve revision of the horos
also? This question arises, for example, in connection with
the horos of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. The anathema
against Severus is found explicitly in the text of the
horos." (p. 42)
In true ecumenical fashion, the pointed
objections of Fr. Romanides and the soul-searchings of Zizioulas
were ignored as the ecumenical technicians rapidly and
pragmatically laid the groundwork for Unia. The following path to
union was chosen: A Formula Concordiae will be drawn up stating
the lie that Orthodox and Monophysites have the same faith; the
Monophysites will not officially recognize the last four
Ecumenical Councils but will refrain from openly anathematizing
them and St. Leo. The Orthodox, for their part, will lift the
anathemas over Severus, Dioscorus, and other deceased Monophysite
fathers. Neither side will be required to recognize the
other’s saints (i.e. the Monophysites need not recognize Leo
as a saint, and the Orthodox can refrain from canonizing
Severus); they must, however, remove the anathemas over these
men. When the Formula Concordiae is drawn up and accepted,
inter-communion will commence. A very practical plan! All that is
sacrificed is devotion to the truth, to Christ, and to His Holy
Church.
The idea of a Formula Concordiae was
enthusiastically received by most of the Eastern Orthodox
delegates to the consultations:
"Speaking of the Middle East
situation, I can say only that a Formula Concordiae is needed
not to create unity but to give recognition to a unity which
is actually felt and experienced by both sides." (Metr.
George Khodre of Antioch, p. 36)
"Will it not be enough if the Formula
Concordiae simply states our general agreement in our common
faith and leaves the councils to be treated merely as the
historical background?"(!) (Fr. Meyendorff, American
Metropolia, p. 33)
"We should work towards a Formula
Concordiae…Such a Formula Concordiae must affirm our
agreement in faith. The Chalcedonians held onto the seven
councils; the non-Chalcedonians have only the three councils;
the way out seems to be for the non-Chalcedonians to agree
that they do not object to the teaching of the fourth, fifth,
sixth and seventh councils…The anathemas pronounced by
the councils should not be allowed to stand in the way of
restoring communion. For the sake of a Formula Concordiae,
the anathemas may simply be ignored as having lost their
significance for the life of the Church now. Persons who are
considered saints by some traditions and condemned by others
should be regarded as persons locally venerated and not
condemned by others." (Fr. Verenov, Moscow, pp. 35-36)
The Orthodox ecumenists present found precious
little difficulty in removing anathemas imposed for doctrinal
reasons by Ecumenical Councils (e.g. the explicit condemnation of
Severus):
"I support what Paul Verghese has said
now. It is true that we have tended to take a position of
conciliar fundamentalism (!). In the matter of tradition,
continuity is essential…We should try to realize
continuity. But I doubt if true continuity can be maintained
on the level of persons. For example, take Leo and Severus.
How do they stand in the communion of saints? Or take Origen.
He was indeed in communion with many, but does not even a
council proclaim him out of communion? I would suggest that
all we can do is to consider individuals as models in
particular situations." (Fr. Meyendorff, Metropolia, p.
34)
"…Mutual explanations have shown
that our one Orthodox faith is one and the same. When
anathemas are lifted, the saints of each side will be beyond
any negative pronouncements…" (Met. Nikodim of
Leningrad, p. 227)
The Monophysites were overjoyed at the
capitulation of the Orthodox ecumenists, for though they will
fight to the death for their heretical traditions, they have no
sense of truth and are perfectly willing to enter into
intercommunion with Orthodox and Roman Catholics on a basis of
ecumenical relativism. "You have your truth and we’ll
have ours"—this is their position. At the
consultations, therefore, many Monophysites pressed for union:
"Let us formalize our agreement in the
faith first, then the question of Chalcedon and the later
councils can be attended to in the United Church later
on." (Dr. Samuel, South India, p.222)
"Since we have at our three previous
meetings reached this important Christological agreement,
should we not restore communion on that basis and then have a
commission to attend to matters like lifting anathemas and
altering liturgical texts.?" (Mikre Selassie, Ethiopia,
p. 223)
At Addis-Ababa, Fr. Vitaly Borovoy of the
Moscow Patriarchate presented a paper entitled "The
Recognition of Saints and Problems of Anathemas". This paper
pleased the Monophysites greatly and drew no objections from the
Orthodox delegates (Fr. Romanides did not attend the Addis-Ababa
conference). Expressly basing himself on the ideas of emigre
theologians of the Paris exarchate (a body which went into schism
from the Russian Church Abroad in 1926 and quickly became a
center of theological modernism and ecumenism), Borovoy asserts
that Monophysites (and Roman Catholics) are full fledged members
of the Body of Christ. Christ cannot be divided. He claims
Orthodox, Monophysites and Roman Catholics "have one Holy
Writ, one Apostolic Tradition, and sacred origin, the same
sacraments and in essence, the same dogmas; (they are) Churches,
in essence, of a single faith, a single piety, and a single way
of salvation." (p. 246) Splits in the one Body of Christ, as
that between Orthodox and Monophysites, must be overcome by
"repudiating" and "eradicating" past
transgressions through "repentance".
Not only does Fr. Borovoy preach blatant
heresy, claiming that Monophysites and Catholics are members of
the one Body of Christ, he also attacks true Orthodox doctrine.
The belief that there are no true sacraments outside the
canonical limits of the Orthodox Church is termed "not far
from blasphemy". (p. 256) "According to the views of
the Early Church," Borovoy declares, "not only Baptism
but also all other sacraments are recognized as real right from
the very moment of their correct performance, even though in
heretical churches—and not merely from the moment of their
reception into the Catholic Church." (p. 256) Since heretics
have true sacraments, what then is the meaning of ‘mutual
anathemas and excommunications?’ They are," he answers,
"like frontier barriers between separate states…".
(p. 257) The mutual lifting of anathemas by Pope Paul VI and
Patriarch Athenagoras is seen by Borovoy as a wonderful reversal
of the "terrible act" of separation in the eleventh
century.
Fr. Borovoy counsels Orthodox and Monophysites
to first restore Eucharistic communion and then worry about such
problems as the mutual recognition of saints. Both churches
should sponsor a liturgical renewal in which all "polemical
passages and judgements" should be "weighed" from
the point of view of their "present relations." (p.
258) They should remember that they (as well as the Catholics)
represent "a Holy Church, united in the Eucharistic
anamnesis around one single Holy Cup." (p. 259)
Even the apostate Athenagoras of Constantinople
has not put the ecumenical heresy more clearly than Fr. Borovoy
of Moscow! It is truly amazing that hierarchs calling themselves
Orthodox can maintain canonical ties with such open despisers of
the faith. Considering Borovoy’s total capitulation, the
enthusiastic reception of his speech by the Monophysites is not a
surprise. As Fr. Verghese of South India stated,
"Fr. Borovoy’s profound and well
documented paper has given us a fresh way of thinking. If I
may attempt to summarize what he said, the Church has a
divine-human nature and therefore contains within itself a
tendency to schism. But this is not a sickness unto death.
Schisms on the whole are not healed by compromise formulae:
accepting each other as we are is a better way." (p.
225)
The lie behind the approaching
Orthodox-Monophysite Unia is clear to all who have eyes to see.
The slogan "unity in the faith" is designed to deceive
the faithful—there is no such unity and the Monophysites
remain entrenched in their centuries-old heresy. The Formula
Concordiae (if it is deemed necessary to draw one up before
intercommunion) will simply be a vaguely worded compromise
statement. At Geneva, Fr. Romanides protested against the attempt
of the ecumenists present to compare their Formula with the great
and holy reconciliation of John of Antioch and Cyril of
Alexandria in 433. In the 433 reconciliation, he declared,
"On the one hand there was no compromise in dogma, but there
was accomodation in terminology. On the basis of mutual
explanations and clarifications, each side accepted the other as
Orthodox in spite of differing terminologies. However, John did
accept as Orthodox both the Third Council and the Twelve Chapters
of Cyril and Cyril did accept John’s use of two natures. No
one gave up his position, but recognized and accepted the other
as Orthodox. This must be the pattern for us also."
(pp.37-38) It is clear 433 cannot serve as a model when the
Monophysites refuse to accept four Orthodox councils and the
Orthodox are very unsure of whether or not the Monophysites are
still heretics (it would appear they are Monothelitists even if
not Monophysites).
At Addis-Ababa, it was resolved that the mutual
anathemas may simply be dropped. "Should there be a formal
declaration or ceremony in which the anathemas are lifted? Many
of us felt that it is much simpler to drop these anathemas in a
quiet way as some churches have begin to do." (p. 211) This
way, the faithful will, of course, be kept in total ignorance of
their betrayal by their hierarchs and theologians.
It should also not be forgotten that politics
plays a considerable role in the coming Unia. The
communist-controlled Orthodox Churches (in particular, Moscow,
Rumania and Bulgaria) are highly interested in establishing the
closest possible contacts with the "Third World"
populaces of Ethiopia, South India, etc. Through its controls
over the Moscow Patriarchate and the Armenian Monophysites, the
Soviet government can also heavily influence proceedings.
One day in the near future, Metropolitan
Nikodim of Leningrad, or Metropolitan Emilianons of Calabria, or
Metropolitan George Khodre of Mt. Lebanon will probably begin
quietly distributing sacraments to Monophysites, as Moscow is now
doing to Roman Catholics. This will serve to speed up the coming
Unia even more. The hierarch committing this initial blasphemy
will defend himself by claiming that the Monophysites share the
same cup as the Orthodox.
Orthodox faithful of America! After 1500 years,
the Holy Church once again stands confronted by the heresy of
Monophysitism, since the Ecumenical Movement has resurrected all
the heresies of old and sent them in legions against the Holy
Church. As the Synod’s Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal has
written, "Ecumenism is the heresy of heresies, because until
now every separate heresy in the history of the Church has
striven itself to stand in the place of the true Church, while
the ecumenical movement, having united all heresies, invites them
all together to honor themselves as the one true Church."
(from July-August 1969, p. 155) While the ecumenists have devoted
considerable coverage to the coming Orthodox union with Rome,
they have also been "quietly" paving a union with the
Monophysites. Let us not blaspheme the memory of Orthodox martyrs
and confessors who sacrificed themselves in combat against the
impious and soul-destroying doctrine of Monophysitism. Let us
decisively repudiate Orthodox ecumenists who have rejected Holy
Orthodoxy in the name of the union of all religions. Let our
voices be heard!
From the September 1971 issue of the Newsletter Supplement to The Orthodox
Christian Witness.
|