One
Holy Catholic Church: What do we mean?
The Orthodox Church in
all humility believes itself to be the ‘one, holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church,’ of which the Creed
speaks: such is the fundamental conviction which guides
Orthodox in their
relations with other Christians. There are divisions among Christians, but the
Church itself is not
divided nor can it ever be.
Christians of the
Reformation traditions will perhaps protest, ‘This is a hard saying; who
can hear it?’ It may
seem to them that this exclusive claim on the Orthodox side precludes any
serious ‘ecumenical
dialogue’ with the Orthodox, and any constructive work for reunion. And
yet they would be
utterly wrong to draw such a conclusion: for, paradoxically enough, over the
past half century there
have been a large number of encouraging and fruitful contacts between
Orthodox and other
Christians. Although enormous obstacles still remain, there has also been
great progress towards a
reconciliation.
If Orthodox claim to be
the one true Church, what then do they consider to be the status of
those Christians who do
not belong to their communion? Different Orthodox would answer in
slightly different ways,
for although all loyal Orthodox are agreed in their fundamental teaching
concerning the Church,
they do not entirely agree concerning the practical consequences which
follow from this
teaching. There is first a more moderate group, which includes most of those
Orthodox who have had
close personal contact with other Christians. This group holds that,
while it is true to say
that Orthodoxy is the Church, it is false to conclude from this that those
who are not Orthodox
cannot possibly belong to the Church. Many people may be members of
the Church who are not
visibly so; invisible bonds may exist despite an outward separation. The
Spirit of God blows
where it will, and, as Irenaeus said, where the Spirit is, there is the Church.
We know where the Church
is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from
passing judgment on
non-Orthodox Christians. In the eloquent words of Khomiakov: ‘Inasmuch
as the earthly and
visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which
the Lord has appointed
to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only
within her own limits;
and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as
excluded, that is to
say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind,
whether alien from the
Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her,
she leaves to the
judgment of the great day’ (The Church is One, section 2
(italics not in the original)).
There is only one
Church, but there are many different ways of being related to this one
Church, and many
different ways of being separated from it. Some non-Orthodox are very close
indeed to Orthodoxy,
others less so; some are friendly to the Orthodox Church, others indifferent
or hostile. By God’s
grace the Orthodox Church possesses the fullness of truth (so its members
are bound to believe),
but there are other Christian communions which possess to a greater or
lesser degree a genuine
measure of Orthodoxy. All these facts must be taken into account: one
cannot simply say that
all non-Orthodox are outside the Church, and leave it at that; one cannot
treat other Christians
as if they stood on the same level as unbelievers.
Such is the view of the
more moderate party. But there also exists in the Orthodox Church a
more rigorous group, who
hold that since Orthodoxy is the Church, anyone who is not Orthodox
60
cannot be a member of
the Church. Thus Metropolitan Antony, head of the Russian Church in
Exile and one of the
most distinguished of modern Russian theologians, wrote in his Catechism:
Question: Is it possible to
admit that a split within the Church or among the Churches could
ever take place?
Answer: Never. Heretics and
schismatics have from time to time fallen away from the one
indivisible Church, and,
by so doing, they ceased to be members of the Church, but the Church
itself can never lose
its unity according to Christ’s promise’ (Italics not in
the original).
Of course (so this
stricter group add) divine grace is certainly active among many
non-Orthodox, and if
they are sincere in their love of God, then we may be sure that God will
have mercy upon them;
but they cannot, in their present state, be termed members of the Church.
Workers for Christian
unity who do not often encounter this rigorist school should not forget that
such opinions are held
by many Orthodox of great learning and holiness.
Because they believe
their Church to be the true Church, Orthodox can have but one ultimate
desire: the conversion
or reconciliation of all Christians to Orthodoxy. Yet it must not be
thought that Orthodox
demand the submission of other Christians to a particular center of power
and jurisdiction (‘Orthodoxy
does not desire the submission of any person or group; it wishes to make each
one
understand’
(S. Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, p. 214)). The Orthodox Church is a family of
sister
Churches, decentralized
in structure, which means that separated communities can be integrated
into Orthodoxy without
forfeiting their autonomy: Orthodoxy desires their reconciliation, not
their absorption (Compare
the title of a famous paper written by Dom Lambert Beauduin and read by
Cardinal
Mercier
at the Malines Conversations, ‘The Anglican Church united, not absorbed’). In all reunion
discussions
Orthodox are guided (or
at any rate ought to be guided) by the principle of unity in diversity.
They do not seek to turn
western Christians into Byzantines or ‘Orientals,’ nor do they desire to
impose a rigid
uniformity on all alike: for there is room in Orthodoxy for many different
cultural
patterns, for many
different ways of worship, and even for many different systems of outward
organization.
Yet there is one field
in which diversity cannot be permitted. Orthodoxy insists upon unity
in matters of the faith.
Before there can be reunion among Christians, there must first be full
agreement in faith: this is a basic
principle for Orthodox in all their ecumenical relations. It is
unity in the faith that
matters, not organizational unity; and to secure unity of organization at the
price of a compromise in
dogma is like throwing away the kernel of a nut and keeping the shell.
Orthodox are not willing
to take part in a ‘minimal’ reunion scheme, which secures agreement on
a few points and leaves
everything else to private opinion. There can be only one basis for union
— the fullness of the
faith; for Orthodoxy looks on the faith as a united and organic whole.
Speaking of the
Anglo-Russian Theological Conference at Moscow in 1956, the present Archbishop
of Canterbury, Dr
Michael Ramsey, expressed the Orthodox viewpoint exactly: ‘The
Orthodox said in effect:
‘…The Tradition is a concrete fact. Here it is, in its totality. Do you
Anglicans
accept it, or do you
reject it?’ The Tradition is for the Orthodox one indivisible whole:
the entire, life of the
Church in its fullness of belief and custom down the ages, including Mariology
and the veneration of
icons. Faced with this challenge, the typically Anglican reply is: ‘We
would not regard
veneration of icons or Mariology as inadmissible, provided that in determining
what is necessary to
salvation, we confine ourselves to Holy Scripture.’ But this reply only
throws into relief the
contrast between the Anglican appeal to what is deemed necessary to salvation
and the Orthodox appeal
to the one indivisible organism of Tradition, to tamper with any
61
part of which is to
spoil the whole, in the sort of way that a single splodge on a picture can mar
its beauty (‘The
Moscow Conference in Retrospect,’ in Sobornost, series 3, no. 23, 1958,
pp. 562-563).
In the words of another
Anglican writer: ‘It has been said that the Faith is like a network
rather than an
assemblage of discrete dogmas; cut one strand and the whole pattern loses its
meaning’ (T. M.
Parker, ‘Devotion to the Mother of God,’ in The Mother of God, edited by
E. L. Mascall, p. 74).
Orthodox, then, ask of
other Christians that they accept Tradition as a whole; but it must be
remembered
that there is a
difference between Tradition and traditions. Many beliefs held by Orthodox
are not a part of the
one Tradition, but are simply theologoumena, theological opinions;
and there can be no
question of imposing mere matters of opinion on other Christians. Men can
possess full unity in
the faith, and yet hold divergent theological opinions in certain fields.
This basic principle —
no reunion without unity in the faith — has an important corollary:
until unity in the faith
has been achieved, there can be no communion in the sacraments. Communion
at the Lord’s Table
(most Orthodox believe) cannot be used to secure unity in the faith,
but must come as the
consequence and crown of a unity already attained. Orthodoxy rejects the
whole concept of ‘intercommunion’
between separated Christian bodies, and admits no form of
sacramental fellowship
short of full communion. Either Churches are in communion with one
another, or they are
not: there can be no half-way house (Such is the standard Orthodox
position. But
there
are individual Orthodox theologians who believe that some degree of
intercommunion is possible, even before
the
attainment of full dogmatic agreement. One slight qualification must be added.
Occasionally non-Orthodox
Christians,
if entirely cut off from the ministrations of their own Church, are allowed with
special permission to receive
communion
from an Orthodox priest. But the reverse does not hold true, for Orthodox are
forbidden to receive
communion
from any but a priest of their own Church). It is sometimes said that the
Anglican or the Old
Catholic Church is ‘in
communion’ with the Orthodox, but this is not in fact the case. The two
are not in communion,
nor can they be, until Anglicans and Orthodox are agreed in matters of
faith.
|