Book Description (from Amazon.com)

As Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I is the symbol of unity for the self-governing national and ethnic Orthodox Christian churches throughout the world. He is well known for his commitment to protecting the environment, and for opening communications with other Christians (especially the Roman Catholic Church) as well as with Muslims and other religious groups.

Written with personal warmth and great erudition, ENCOUNTERING THE MYSTERY illuminates the rich culture and soul of Orthodox Christianity. Bartholomew I traces the roots of Orthodox Christianity to its founding 2000 years ago, explores its spirituality and doctrine, and explains its liturgy and art. More especially, in a unique and unprecedented way, he relates Orthodox Christianity to contemporary issues, such as freedom and human rights, social justice and globalization, as well as nationalism and war.

With a recent rebirth of Orthodox Christian churches (particularly in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe), there has been great interest in understanding this important branch of Christianity with its close ties to the traditions of the early Church. As USA TODAY recently reported, Orthodox Christian churches throughout the country are drawing converts attracted by the beauty of its liturgy and inspired by its enduring theology and teachings. But for the general seeker, whatever their background, ENCOUNTERING THE MYSTERY is a rich spiritual source that draws upon the wisdom of millennia.

About the Author

BARTHOLOMEW I, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch is spiritual leader for the world’s nearly 200 million Orthodox Christians. He is dedicated to advancing reconciliation among Christian, Muslim, and Jewish communities, and is an active proponent of environmental causes.

Many contemporary ethicists, such as Peter Singer, William Allen, John Harris and James Hughes, have created categories of non-persons for whom ordinary ethical and moral concerns do not apply: babies up to two years of age, the disabled, and the aged. Their ethical thinking affirms nothing and strengthens nothing. In fact, it only weakens the ability of people and cultures to respond in a genuinely ethical manner.

In many cases, their ethics are based solely on the Western dualism of rationality and desire that become the justification for narcissistic longings that end in the murder of others. By denying the centrality of God in their approach to ethics, these ethicists confirm the statement of St. Athanasius that when we deny God, we are capable of anything. All morality and ethics founded upon a denial of God is an attempt to deny death by controlling it. Unfortunately, they dominate the bioethical debates of our time.

Many who follow such ideas believe that the longing for communion with the divine is merely an artificial construct expressed in myths, poetry, and dead symbols which have individual emotional significance only; a sort of a rarefied desire designed and used to complement our rationality. Religious expression is regarded as sentiment that must never encroach on a rationalism that draws its meaning and bases its moral inferences on the “facts” of the natural world.

But a materialist rationalism can only lead to utilitarianism. It denies the transcendent and reduces man to animal, (despite its claims to the contrary). Classes of people can therefore be reclassified as non-persons and disposed of. The natural bonds of love, affection, and sacrifice that shape culture and hold communities together are gradually weakened.

Our personhood is an ontological reality, not a philosophical construct subject to a manipulation that justifies all types of dehumanization. Personhood is deeper than what desire, rationality, or biology can explain. It is an essential mystery expressed in the longing and realization of communion with a loving Creator.

Those who deny the true nature of what it means to be human attempt to deconstruct, minimalize, and even destroy those who challenge them — especially the people who believe in God. There should be no misunderstanding: ethics is always a matter of belief. The beliefs of the modern ethicists such as Singer, Hughes and others feed the twin passions of pride and power. They are unable to accept, and perhaps even see, the divine love that is at the heart of their own being. Isolated from real humanity, they live in a hell here on earth and will likely do so when they die. They seem to live by the words of Jean Paul Sartre: “Hell, is the other person”. They love death.

Christianity repudiates the love of death in the strongest possible terms. Christ died to destroy death.

Christians must reject and counter every argument that defines the human being as rooted only in the material creation and that celebrates death. We must continue to affirm that man is not fully human apart from communion with his Creator. True ethics is founded upon that communion and the life it brings.

Michael Bauman attends St. George Orthodox Christian Cathedral in Wichita, Kansas.

Posted: 24-Sep-06

2005.02.01 Sourozh

In our first issue of August 1980, Sourozh published a lengthy article by Archbishop Paul of Finland entitled ‘Suggestions for Solutions to the Problem of the Orthodox Diaspora’ (reprinted in Sourozh, No. 91, February 2003, pp. 3-19). In it the primate of the Orthodox Church of Finland reviewed the various submissions made by four regional autocephalous Churches to the Preparatory Commission for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church which has been in the planning stage for some forty years. In his conclusions Archbishop Paul strongly urged the Patriarchate of Constantinople to relinquish the theory of the supremacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the whole diaspora and to reject any talk of ‘barbarian areas’ as an anachronism.

The fact that in the intervening twenty-five years nothing has changed emerges clearly from the text we print below. On 18 March 2002 Patriarch Alexis wrote to Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople outlining the position of the Russian Church regarding the claims to the Ecumenical Patriarchate to jurisdiction over the worldwide Orthodox ‘diaspora’, coming to the same conclusions as did Archbishop Paul. More recently there has been a further exchange of letters, but none has gone over the ground as thoroughly as does the present text. The English version given below is translated from a French version of the Russian original. To His Holiness Bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarch and Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome

Your Holiness, Beloved Brother and fellow celebrant in God,

We greet you fraternally and wish you grace and mercy from God our Saviour.

We have received the message of Your Holiness, No. 129 of 11 April 2002, concerning the situation of the Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Parishes in Western Europe. Reading this letter, we were very troubled by the great number of bitter reproaches and unjust accusations that you formulate therein. In any case, however, we wish to follow the precept of wise Solomon (Proverbs 17:9): ‘He that covereth a transgression seeketh love; but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends’. Not wishing to put to the test for no good reason the feeling of brotherly love between our two Churches, we shall not consider in detail these awkward expressions, for we think that it is more a case of unfortunate misunderstandings deriving, in our opinion, from an erroneous understanding of the problems that you have raised. This is why we think that it is better to move on immediately to the interpretation of Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council advanced by Your Holiness, an interpretation with which we disagree completely.(1)

This canon in fact defines the area of responsibility of the Patriarchal See of the Church of Constantinople by limiting it to the ancient provinces [called ‘dioceses’ by the Roman government of the time, Ed.] of [Proconsular] Asia, Thrace and of Pontus, that is, to the provinces that correspond to modern-day Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece. It does not at all follow from this canon that ‘every province not belonging to another patriarchal see’ should be subject to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

It seems obvious that this inaccurate interpretation derives from an erroneous understanding of the term ‘among the barbarians’ (en tois barbarikois) and of the context of this _expression. It is erroneous in that it assumes that the issue here does not concern ‘barbarian’ peoples living either in the Roman Empire or beyond its limits, but administrative entities (defined by the State) and inhabited primarily by ‘barbarians’. Yet there is no doubt but that this _expression refers not to provinces but to peoples; it is not used in an administrative, but in an ethnic sense. This follows clearly from the considerations that we shall develop below.

As you know, during the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods the term barbaros referred to individuals belonging to peoples whose language, culture and customs were not Greek. Thus St Gregory of Nyssa, in the third of his works Against Eunomius, can speak of a ‘barbarian philosophy’ (barbariki philosophia), while Eusebius of Caesarea speaks of ‘barbarisms in the Greek language’ (idiomata barbarika), St Epiphanius of Cyprus of ‘barbarian names’ (barbarika onomata) and Libanius, the teacher of St John Chrysostom, of ‘barbarian customs’ (barbarika ithi). Similarly the Apostle Paul thinks of anyone who speaks neither Greek nor Latin, the official languages of the Empire, as a ‘barbarian’ (barbaros): ‘Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian (barbaros), and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian (barbaros) unto me’ (1 Cor 14:11). Such ‘barbarians’ could equally well live outside as within the Empire. The Apostle preached to the ‘barbarians’ without ever leaving the Roman Empire (cf. Rom 1:14) and the Acts of the Apostles call the inhabitants of Malta ‘barbarians’, even though the island was part of the Empire, simply because the local language was Punic.

As regards the _expression to barbarikon, it is certainly the case that this _expression can be used to refer to territories outside the limits of the Empire, and it is in this sense that the term is used, for example, in the Canon 63 (52) of the Council of Carthage. There it is said that in Mauritania there were no councils because that country was located at the very edge of the Empire and borders on barbarian land (to barbariko parakeitai). Nevertheless, it can also refer to anything that is barbarian, and therefore to territories which, while inhabited by barbarians, form part of the Empire.

It is precisely in this sense that the term is used in Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon. Reference is not being made to the barbarian peoples in general, but to certain well-defined peoples ‘belonging to the above-mentioned provinces’ (ton proeirimenon dioikeseon), i.e. the barbarians living in the provinces of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, which were an integral part of the Eastern Roman Empire. Thus the canon subordinates to the see of Constantinople the bishops of the barbarians living within the ecclesiastical boundaries of these three dioceses.

All the Byzantine commentators on the canons — Alexios Aristenus, John Zonaras and Theodore Balsamon, as well as Matthew Blastaris, author of the Syntagma — understand by the _expression en tois barbarikois precisely and only those barbarian peoples within those three provinces, thereby underlining that the barbarian peoples in neighbouring provinces were not subjected to Constantinople by this canon, but remained under the jurisdiction of other Orthodox Churches. Thus Aristenus writes that only the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia and Thrace are under the bishop of Constantinople and are consecrated by him; the same applies to the bishops of the barbarians in these provinces, since the provinces of Macedonia, Illyria, Thessaly, the Peloponese and Epirus were at that time subject to the authority of Rome (Syntagma 2.286; Kormchaia kniga [1816], P. 73). According to Zonaras, it is the bishop of Constantinople who is responsible for the consecration of bishops for the barbarians living in the provinces mentioned, while the remaining provinces, viz. Macedonia, Thessaly, Hellas, the Peloponese, Epirus and Illyria were subject to Rome (Syntagma 2.283, 284).

In the Syntagma of Blastaris we read that the bishop of Constantinople also has the right to consecrate the bishops of barbarian peoples living on the edges of these provinces, such as the Alans and the Rousoi, since the former live next to the diocese of Pontus and the latter next to the diocese of Thrace (6.257). In the latter case it is a question of a late ecclesiastical practice (Blastaris’ comments concern the fourteenth century) according to which the barbarian lands next to the three provinces mentioned were included in the jurisdiction of the bishop of Constantinople. Moreover, it is stressed that the jurisdiction of the bishop of Constantinople was extended to these territories precisely because of their nearness to the areas assigned to him by Canon 28 of Chalcedon, though in the canons themselves the possibility of such an enlargement is not foreseen.

Thus these ancient and authoritative commentators confirm that the Council of Chalcedon did not give to the bishop of Constantinople rights over ‘barbarian’ territories except within the limits of the three provinces mentioned, of which only the province of Thrace is situated in Europe. Aristenus and Zonaras, for example, indicate clearly that in Europe the right of the bishop of Constantinople to send bishops for the barbarians extends only to Thrace, since the other provinces are subject to the bishop of Rome. As regards the frontiers of the Church of Constantinople in Asia, Balsamon makes this comment in his interpretation of Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council:

Note that the metropolitans along the Black Sea up to Trebizond are called ‘Pontic’, while the metropolitans near Ephesus, and in Lycia and Pamphylia are called ‘Asiatic’, though not, as some say, those in Anatolia, since in Anatolia it is [the bishop of] Antioch who has the right to consecrate (Syntagma, 2.284).

It is also appropriate to note that in this canon it is not a question of a ‘diaspora’, but of autochthonous ‘barbarians’ living in their own lands. They became Christian largely as the result of missionary activity and Christianity did not reach them through a foreign homeland, as is the case with a ‘diaspora’. This is why one is distancing oneself from historical reality and mixing up differing concepts if one extends the field of application of a canon that concerned autochthonous peoples who became Christian as the result of missionary activity with the phenomenon of a diaspora made up of people who have departed for a foreign land, but who were brought up in the Orthodox tradition in their homeland.

Thus the statement by Your Holiness that as a result of Canon 28 of Chalcedon ‘Western Europe and all the lands recently discovered in America and Australia belong to the area of responsibility of the Ecumenical Patriarch’ seems completely fictitious and is without canonical foundation. These distant lands actually have no connection with the three provinces mentioned in Canon 28 and are nowhere near them. Moreover, the majority of the Orthodox faithful of the Churches in these territories are not native-born; they represent peoples that are traditionally Orthodox and have religious traditions that they wish to preserve. As regards Orthodox jurisdiction in the canonical territories that belonged to the Church of Rome before the schism of 1054, no authoritative pan-Orthodox decision has ever been taken.

All of this is supported by historical facts that indicate that until the 20s of the twentieth century the Patriarch of Constantinople did not in fact exercise authority over the whole of the Orthodox diaspora throughout the world, and made no claim to such authority. For example, in Australia the Orthodox diaspora was initially served by Jerusalem, and the Patriarch of Jerusalem sent priests there. In Western Europe, from the beginning, the parishes and Orthodox communities were dependent canonically on their Mother Churches and not on Constantinople. Similarly, in other parts of the world, in order to follow the commandment of Christ (Mt 28:19f.), zealous missionaries from local Orthodox Churches, including Constantinople, preached the Gospel and baptised the native peoples, who then became the children of the Church that had illumined them by Baptism.

As regards America, from 1794 Orthodoxy on that continent was represented exclusively by the Church of Russia, which by 1918 had brought together some 300,000 Orthodox of different nationalities (Russian, Ukrainians, Serbs, Albanians, Arabs, Aleuts, Indians, Africans, English). The Greek Orthodox were among them, receiving antimensia for their parishes from the Russian bishops. This situation was recognised by all the local Churches, who released clergy for the American parishes into the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Patriarchate of Constantinople followed the same practice. For example, when in 1912 the Greek Orthodox in America asked His Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople Joachim III to send a Greek bishop, the Patriarch did not send a bishop himself, nor did he refer the request to the Church of Greece, but recommended that it be referred to Archbishop Platon of the Aleutian Islands and North America so that the question could be settled by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Jurisdictional pluralism in North America began in 1921, when an ‘Archdiocese of North and South America’ was created without the agreement of the Russian Church, which was not informed of the matter. It is at this point that the situation you describe arose, i.e. ‘In spite of the Holy Canons, the Orthodox, in particular those who live in Western countries, are divided into ethnic groups. Their Churches have at their head bishops chosen on ethnic grounds. Often they are not the only bishops of their cities, and sometimes they are not on good terms with one another and fight among themselves’, something that is ‘a source of shame for all Orthodoxy and the cause of unfavourable reactions that have negative results for the Orthodox Church’. As we have seen, the blame for this sad situation cannot be attached to the Russian Church. On the contrary, seeking to bring American Orthodoxy into line with the rest of the Orthodox world, as Mother Church she granted autocephaly to her daughter Church. In doing this the Russian Church acted only within the limits of its own canonical jurisdiction and with a view to a future pan-Orthodox decision concerning the establishment of a single local Orthodox Church in America. We might note that, already in 1905, a proposal for the creation of such a Church had been presented to the Holy Synod by Saint Tikhon of Moscow, who was then Archbishop of the Aleutian Islands and North America.

It is sad to observe that the Most Holy Church of Constantinople did not support the action taken in 1970 and has not contributed to the union that was so desired. Until now this remains a source of discord and discontent on the part of many Orthodox in America.

In spite of Your Holiness’ affirmation that ‘no other Patriarchal see has received the privilege or canonical right’ to extend its jurisdiction beyond the provinces that belong to the canonical territories of the autocephalous Churches, history demonstrates that Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council that subjected the three provinces mentioned to Constantinople did not in any way diminish the rights of the other autocephalous Churches, in particular as concerns ecclesiastical jurisdiction over foreign lands. Thus the Church of Rome appointed bishops throughout most of Europe (excepting Thrace), while the Church of Alexandria assigned bishops to the countries south of Egypt (and subsequently throughout most of Africa), and the Church of Antioch did so in the East, in Georgia, Persia, Armenia and Mesopotamia. The jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople, however, for its part, for a long time remained confined within what had been the boundaries of the provinces of Asia, Pontus and Thrace before that Council.

We should also note that historically both the primacy of honour established by Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council and its jurisdiction over the three provinces mentioned above were given to the Church of Constantinople solely for political reasons, i.e. because the city in which the see of Constantinople was located had acquired the status of a political capital and had become ‘the city of the Emperor and the Senate’. Thus Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council stipulates that ‘In taking this decision as to the precedence of the Very Holy Church of Constantinople, the New Rome, we note that the Fathers [of the Second Ecumenical Council] have in fact rightly granted precedence to the see of Old Rome because that city was the Imperial City. Moved by the same considerations the 150 bishops beloved of God [of this Council] have granted the same precedence to the Very Holy See of New Rome, justifiably thinking that the city honoured by the presence of the Emperor and the Senate and enjoying the same civil privileges as Rome, the ancient Imperial City, should also have the same high rank as she has, in the affairs of the Church, while still remaining second after her.’ We do not intend to enter into discussion on this question now, but one should nonetheless not forget an obvious fact: the present situation of Constantinople after the collapse of the Byzantine Empire does not justify constant recourse to this canon, and still less to an excessively broad interpretation of its meaning.

The inclusion within the jurisdiction of the Very Holy Church of Constantinople of new provinces other than those bordering on the original three dioceses, which has taken place in the course of history, is not, in our opinion, linked with Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. The reasons were entirely other. Thus the provinces mentioned by Your Holiness — Illyria, Southern Italy and Sicily — did not belong ‘always’ to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but were taken by force from the Roman Church and given to the Church of Constantinople by the iconoclast Emperor Leo the Isaurian, without reference to Canon 28. One of the most important reasons for this action on the part of Leo the Isaurian was that the Church of Rome was opposed to the iconoclastic policies of the Byzantine Emperor, whose political power extended to those territories at that time.

As regards the Russian Church, she was initially subject to the Church of Constantinople not because of Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, but because of the general principle according to which converted peoples are subject to the Mother Church that had Christianised them, until they have acquired the conditions necessary for autocephaly. By becoming an autocephalous Church, the Russian Church received the same rights of mission beyond its canonical boundaries as the other local Orthodox Churches, since, as has been shown, the Holy Canons do not give precedence to any particular Church in the realisation of this right.

Such is the authentic pan-Orthodox tradition in this matter, and the Very Holy Church of Constantinople always respected it until the moment when Patriarch Meletios IV developed the theory of the subordination of the whole Orthodox diaspora to Constantinople. It is precisely this theory, which is clearly non-canonical, that is quite obviously ‘hostile to the spirit of the Orthodox Church, to Orthodoxy unity, and to canonical order’. It is itself, in fact, the _expression of ‘an expansionist tendency that is without canonical foundation and is unacceptable on an ecciesiological level’. By claiming a universal spiritual power, it does not correspond to the Orthodox canonical tradition or to the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church, and represents a direct challenge to Orthodox unity. In fact, there is no reason to agree with Your contention that the whole of the Orthodox diaspora does not finds itself under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople solely because Constantinople ‘tolerates this situation temporarily and for reasons of “economy”.’ This last _expression has particularly roused our incomprehension and disquiet, since it seems to point to an intention on the part of the Church of Constantinople to continue in the future to pursue a unilateral policy of expansion that is foreign to a spirit of brotherly love and conciliarity. In this respect, it is worthwhile recalling a judicious remark of Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem of blessed memory that is contained in his letter to Your Holiness (No. 480, dated 25 July 1993) to the effect that only a pan-Orthodox Council has the right to resolve the complex question of the diaspora. Neither the Orthodox Church of Romania nor the Orthodox Church of Poland shares the view put forward by Your Holiness of the problem of the diaspora. This is clear from the reports submitted by these Churches in 1990 to the Preparatory Commission for the Holy and Great Council.

Bearing in mind what has been said, we are completely justified in contesting the statement of Your Holiness to the effect that the Exarchate of Russian Parishes in Western Europe is ‘one of the forms of pastoral care that is incumbent’ upon the Church of Constantinople. The theory that this Exarchate is obliged to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is refuted by the very history of this ecclesiastical entity. We must remember that in the official documents of the Church of Constantinople concerning the status of the Russian parishes in Western Europe it is accepted that their Mother Church is the Russian Orthodox Church, and that the system of administration established for these parishes has a provisional character. There is no ambiguity concerning this in the Tomos of Patriarch Photios of 17 February 1931. Commenting on this document, Patriarch Photios himself wrote in a letter (No. 1428, 25 June 1931) to Metropolitan Sergii, Deputy Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, that ‘the situation should remain in this provisional state until, with God’s help, unity can be re-established with our Sister Church of Russia’. Similarly, His Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras, in a letter (No. 671, 22 November 1965) to Archbishop Georges of Eudokiada, mentioning the fact that ‘the Church of Russia has freed itself of divisions, acquired an internal organisation and freedom of action in its affairs outside Russia’, announces the suppression of the Exarchate of Russian Parishes in Western Europe, ‘which had a provisional character’, and recommends that it join itself to the Patriarchate of Moscow, ‘which can and should always demonstrate and manifest its fatherly love for these parishes’. The fact that the Patriarchate of Constantinople received back into its jurisdiction this diocese of Russian parishes in 1971 does not change in any way the provisional character of the current situation of the Russian Archdiocese, since in its first paragraph the relevant Tomos refers back to the Tomos of Patriarch Photios. Thus the Church of Constantinople, in these official documents, has recognised unambiguously the right of the Archdiocese of Russian Parishes in Western Europe to reunite itself with the Mother Church — the Russian Orthodox Church — without this being the manifestation of ‘an extremely secularised and erroneous spiritual state’ or of ‘an erroneous ethnic understanding’.

As regards the proposals of His Eminence Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad made during his stay in Paris from 10-12 February 2001, this subject has already been touched upon in negotiations between delegations of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and Moscow in Zurich on 19 April 2001 and in a letter of Metropolitan Kirill to Metropolitan Meliton of Philadelphia (No. 2062, 17 July 2001). While travelling through Paris, His Eminence Metropolitan Kirill was invited by Archbishop Sergii of Eukarpia to a meeting of the Council of the Archdiocese. At this meeting, the hierarch of our Church made no specific proposals, and when he was asked how he saw the future of the Archdiocese, he presented the position of our Church, which has never been concealed and to which we are irrevocably attached.

This position is the following: the existence of an isolated group of Russian parishes in Europe is the result of the tragedy of the Russian people provoked by the Revolution. At the present, when the consequences of the Revolution have been overcome, the return of the parishes of the emigration to the bosom of the Patriarchate of Moscow would be completely normal. This desire for the restoration of the spiritual unity of our people is reflected in the declaration you have mentioned, which was made by the Holy Synod on 8 November 2000, where it is question of those children ‘who live beyond the limits of the Russian State’ (not ‘outside the limits of the Russian Church’, as is incorrectly stated in Your letter). We continue to be saddened to see that the legitimate and natural desire to bring together again our own people, who live dispersed for historical and political reasons, is the object of such harsh and unjust attacks on the part of the primate of a Church that has experienced a similar tragedy.

The question of the Orthodox diaspora is one of most important problems in inter-Orthodox relations. Given its complexity and the fact that it has not been sufficiently regularised, it has introduced serious complications in the relations between Churches and has without a doubt diminished the strength of Orthodox witness throughout the contemporary world. Nevertheless, we hope very much that the sustained efforts of the local Orthodox Churches will enable us in the end to find a pan-Orthodox solution to the problem at the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The historical responsibility is all the greater for any actions directed against the achievement of an agreement pleasing to God on this key question.

This is why, for the true good both of Orthodoxy and the Church of Constantinople, which is dear to us for reasons stretching back over centuries, we call upon Your Holiness to follow the precepts of the Holy Fathers, expressed in Canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical council, to wit, ‘that the canons of the Fathers not be infringed upon, and that worldly pride and power not slip in under the pretext of holy actions, and that we do not lose, bit by bit and without noticing it, the freedom that Jesus Christ our Lord, the Liberator of all men, has given us by his Blood.’ Faithful to the tradition of the Holy Fathers, we ask earnestly and sincerely that Your Holiness renounce an attitude of mind that is an obstacle to the accord so ardently desired, and work hard for the speedy convocation of the Holy and Great Council.

We ask of God peace, health and length of life for Your Holiness, we salute You once again in brotherly fashion, and we continue to respect You and to love Your Holiness in Christ.

+ Alexis, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia

(1) Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) is discussed at length by Archbishop Peter L’Huillier in his book, The Church of the Ancient Councils (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996), pp. 267-296, where he reaches the same conclusions as the Patriarch (Ed.).

Sourozh, No. 99, February 2005, pp. 1-11
Posted: 07-Mar-05

Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and all Russia: “I sincerely hope that the next Primate of the Roman Catholic Church will enable relations with the Russian Orthodox Church to develop in a positive direction.”

Interview to the Italian newspaper “Corriere Della Sera.”

Your Holiness, how do you evaluate the results of John Paul II’s pastoral ministry?

I believe that only history can give a complete and objective evaluation of the church ministry of His Holiness John Paul II. His Holiness’s sermons, teachings and moral instructions have not only strengthened in faith Catholics throughout various corners of the globe, but also bore witness to Christianity in the complex world of today, which is subject to the imposition of the ideology of secularism as though there is no alternative to it. During the last days and hours of His Holiness’s earthly life we were witnesses of how many people gathered in St. Peter’s Square in order to pray for their pastor and teacher. This prayer and love is the best evaluation of John Paul II’s pastoral ministry.

Do you think that John Paul helped the two Churches to come together or by being a Pole by nationality only made deeper those divisions which have yet to be overcome?

Unfortunately there have been complications in relations between our two Churches which arose when John Paul II led the Roman Catholic Church. However, it would be a mistake to reduce the differences between Orthodox and Catholics to the person or nationality of the Primate of the Roman Catholic Church. The problems and conflicts which have caused our flock so much pain and which complicate Orthodox-Catholic dialogue today have deep roots. Therefore I am suggesting that on the Catholic side there ought to be the will to engage in difficult and assiduous work in changing at root their policies in Russia and the other countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Many years have passed since the collapse of communism. However, John Paul II’s dream of visiting Russia and meeting with Your Holiness was never realized. Do you feel any regret?

Regret has been caused by the fact that in relations between our Churches serious problems continue to exist which would not allow John Paul II to visit Russia. I would like to emphasize again that such visits and meetings between the primates of Churches are not an end in itself or something done for protocol’s sake. On the contrary, they ought to have great import, be a symbol of certain positive results achieved in relations between our Churches. In the case of our dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church the onset of a positive dynamic has yet to be seen.

Are you personally dissatisfied that the meeting that had been agreed to take place in neutral territory in Austria didn’t happen?

Of course, I regret that our meeting with Pope John Paul in 1997 in the Austrian city of Graz did not take place. I would like to remind you that this happened because of the unexpectedly declared refusal of the Catholic side to keep in the agreed draft of the final document of the forthcoming meeting the condemnation of Uniatism as a means of attaining Christian unity, as well as proselytism. This deprived our meeting of meaning as it is proselytism among the Orthodox population that is one of the most acute and painful problems in our mutual relations and requires urgent resolution.

What is your opinion of the Pope as a person?

I have respect for the person of the late Pope John Paul II. His ministry as the Primate of one of the most ancient and largest Churches came at a time of serious trials for the whole Christian world. The processes taking place in Europe and in the world have a tendency to cast doubt over the Christian values by which many nations have lived for more than two thousand years. The late Pope John Paul II spent much effort on reminding contemporary European civilization of its Christian origins. It is also important that in spite of his serious illness he did not leave his flock without pastoral care until the very last days of his earthly life. Such devotion to the Church, strong faith in God and care for his flock deserve the most sincere respect.

It would seem that recently there has been a mutual coming together of the two Churches. Do you view with optimism the overcoming of age old disputes? What do you think could be corrected?

I would say there has been a coming together and even coincidence of positions of our Churches on many questions confronting the modern world: artificially imposed secularism, global social injustice, the erosion of respect for life and many others. I am sure that mutual coordination in this field ought to get stronger and develop. However, in order for this to be maximally effective, it is essential to overcome the differences and misunderstandings which complicate our dialogue.

First of all there has to be the renunciation of proselytism, i.e. the conscious conversion to one’s confession of people who by baptism and tradition belong to a different Church. Also, our Church is also greatly concerned by those persistent attempts by Ukrainian Greek Catholics to impose Uniatism in those areas where it had never previously existed, to carry out mission work among the Orthodox population of the Ukraine, to establish a patriarchate and transfer its see from Lvov to Kiev, where the Orthodox make up the majority of the believing population.

What do you think the new Pope should do?

I sincerely hope that the next Primate of the Roman Catholic Church will enable relations with the Russian Orthodox Church to develop in a positive direction, will show the necessary wisdom and tact, as well as a striving towards the resolution of those difficulties which hinder the improvement of our mutual relations. It is this which can open before our Churches a new era of relations in which joint witness before the world of Christian faith and values will occupy an important place.

In which direction is Russia heading? Sometimes the opinion is heard that Russia is returning to the politics of authoritarianism. What is the opinion of the Orthodox Church on such matters?

The last two decades have been a complex period for the people of Russia. The militantly atheist totalitarian structure has receded into the past, and the country has chosen the way of political structuring on the principles of democracy. Yet we still have to overcome not only the consequences of that godless time but also of the ensuing period of intoxication with freedom, often understood as an ‘all is permitted’ attitude, as though there are no obligations before society and our neighbours. Geographically, Russia is located on vast territories at great distances from each other, the management of which is a far more complex process than in a small European country. In Russia there live side by side representatives of many nationalities, which requires from politicians wisdom and great tact. In my view, those changes in the political structure are aimed at establishing precisely those institutions of secular rule which will enable in Russia the emergence of the best forms of existence a a state for her. Let us not forget too the problem of security, linked to the threat of terrorism, crime and corruption. All of this requires consolidation of the powers that be and the people, the support of the army and law enforcement agencies. The time of political changes has brought into our lives many economic and social upheavals which often don’t give people a chance to reflect upon what is happening to them and to acquire firm moral orientation. In this situation it is obvious that people would like to have a certain stability which can and ought to be guaranteed by the state. However, the Orthodox Church considers the moral process of the rebirth of the Fatherland as more important. We cannot in a single moment transform the world around us, yet we can use all of our strength to plant Christian morality among people, to illumine them with faith in God and to make them a part of the life of Church.

DECR Communication Service (http://www.mospat.ru)

Read this article on the Orthodox Europe website (new window will open). Reprinting allowed.
Posted: 22-Apr-05

Paschal Message of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia to Hierarchs, Pastors, Monastics and All Faithful Children of the Russian Orthodox Church

Through Thy Cross, O Christ, Thou didst free us from the curse of old.
By Thy resurrection Thou hast filled all things with joy.
We thereby sing unto Thee:
Thou who hast risen from the dead, O Lord, glory to Thee.
Stanza for the Praises on Wednesday of Bright Week

Beloved in the Lord your graces the archpastors, honourable presbyters and deacons, God-loving monks and nuns, dear brothers and sisters - faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church! From the depths of my heart, filled with joy in Christ who has risen from the dead and has raised up with Him the human race, I turn to you with the words of the good news which have resounded throughout the millennia and manifest the triumph of Christian faith: Christ is risen!

Today once more before our mental gaze stands the burial tomb with the rock cast aside, and once more we hear the words of the Angel, spoken to the myrrh-bearing women: ‘Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen’ (Lk 24: 5-6).

The Resurrection of Christ is the central event in world history, for thanks to the Saviour’s redemptive act on the cross there has been overcome the abyss separating people from God, and the human person, once having fallen away from the heavenly Father, becomes a communicant of the Divine life.

Pascha ’so transcends all human and earthly conquests’, says St. Gregory the Theologian, ‘as the sun surpasses the stars’. Therefore for the Christian there is no more triumphant and great day as the day of the Resurrection of Christ, bringing salvation and Life Eternal.

We experience Holy Pascha not as an event of remote history, but as the triumph of the genuine encounter with Christ the Giver of Life who has risen from the tomb, and for this reason our hearts are filled with radiant spiritual joy. Let us cry aloud together with St. Andrew of Crete: ‘Christ has risen today: People, rejoice and be radiantly triumphant! The Light has come, Christ has come, Grace has come, Truth has come! Life and Resurrection for all things has come!’

The vanquishing of death and the Saviour’s victory over the powers of Hades grants to each the chance to transform his life, to become, as Scripture puts it, a ‘partaker of the divine nature’ (2 Pet 1:4), ‘being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus’ (Rom 3:24).

No one remains beyond the confines of this Divine action; all aspects of human nature are transfigured, healed and ascend to their dignity in the likeness of God. The spirit of division is alien to the Orthodox perception and view of the world. Therefore the Church calls upon her children to preserve chastity and inward integrity of the soul created according to the image and likeness of God, acquiring true life in the dedication of all its powers to its Creator and Provider.

May unity in faith in Christ and hope in His All-Beneficent Providence become the foundation for the labours of the faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church in order to communicate to our neighbours and those far removed from us spiritual joy in the Risen Lord - the joy which is the beginning of the transfiguration of the whole life of the human person.

My beloved! Like the myrrh-bearing women and the apostles of Christ, let us bring the joyous news of the Risen Christ to all those around us. We are called to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God with a sincere word, the accomplishing of good deeds and a Christian way of life. Let us bring the light of Christ’s Resurrection to those places where people abide in the darkness of unbelief. Let us bring love to those places where hatred reigns. Let us bring charity to those who have been hardened, concern for those who suffer and peace to those at war. May our words and our deeds soften evil hearts, save people from destructive vices and help them in life’s times of hardship.

‘Let us be enlightened by the feast and embrace each other. Let us say: Brethren! And to those who hate us, let us forgive all things in the Resurrection’ (Paschal stanza). My dear ones, let us follow the holy myrrh-bearing women so that we may ignite faith, love and hope in peoples’ hearts with the news of the Risen Christ the Saviour. May worldly cares and everyday disorder, hardness of heart and indifference, misery and despondency, lack of faith and hostility never bring us to a halt on this wise and saving path. According to St. Ignatius (Bryanchaninov), ‘faith in God, accompanied by the abandonment of hope in oneself, overcomes all anguish and temptations, vanquishes all obstacles’. Yes, the life of our country and peoples remains difficult; there is much evil and falsehood in it. Yet we Christians are called upon to vanquish the misery of this age through the promise granted to us.

On the radiant feast of Christ’s Passover I call upon each of you to increase your labours so that our society be freed from sin and unbelief, so that malice, injustice, all misfortune and trials be softened by the goodness of our hearts. I testify that in her ministry for the good of the people our Church intends to co-operate further with the secular authorities and all people whose will is directed towards good.

Dear brothers and sisters, I remind you of the apostle’s commandment: ‘Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another’ (Col 3:12-13). Let us accept the apostle’s exhortation and be guided by it in our lives in glorifying the Risen Lord and our Saviour.

Again and again I cordially congratulate you on the feast of the Holy Passover of Christ. I sent congratulations to Orthodox Christians of all the world and to all those who confess the Risen Christ.

Christ is risen!

Alexy II
Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia

Pascha 2006 AD, Moscow

Posted: 26-Apr-06

Paper read at the first Conference of Orthodox Theologians in America, Sept. 26-27, 1966.

What do we mean when we speak of the Orthodox theological task in America today? It is proper to begin with this question because the title of my paper may seem to suggest a theological orientation of which Orthodoxy is suspicious, but which seems to predominate in the West today. It is the reduction of theology to a given “situation” or “age,” a stress on “relevance” understood almost exclusively as a dependence of theology, its task, method and language on the “modern man” and his specifically modern “needs.” From the beginning, therefore, we must emphasize that Orthodoxy rejects such a reduction of theology, whose first and eternal tasks is to search for Truth, not for relevance, for words “adequate to God” (theoprepeis logoi), not to man. Theology is truly relevant because it is truly Christian when it remains a scandal for the Jews, foolishness for the Greeks and is at odds with this world and its passing “cultures” and “modernities.” This does not mean, however, that theology operates in a cultural vacuum. For it is one thing to depend on the world and quite another to be related to it. If the first attitude, the acceptance of the world as the only criterion of theology, is to be rejected, the second (which, in the last analysis, is but the basic Christian concern for the world and its salvation), is the very raison d’etre of theology. In this sense, all genuine theology has always been pastoral, missionary and prophetic, and whenever it lost these dimensions, it became a mere intellectual game justly ignored by the “real” Church. The task of theology at any given moment is necessarily determined by the needs of the Church, and the first task of the theologian is always to discern and to accept these needs, to become aware of what the Chuch expects from him.

As a small group of Orthodox theologians living and working in the West, far from the ancient and “organically” Orthodox worlds and cultures, we are justified therefore in asking this preliminary question: what are the needs of the Church to which we must respond and around which we are to organize and plan our theological work? How are we to obey here, in America, the eternal demands, pastoral, missionary and prophetic, of Orthodox theology? This paper is a brief attempt to inaugurate a common search for a common answer.

Everyone will probably agree that our theological task is determined primarily by the fact that, as theologians, we work within and for an Orthodox community which, for the first time in the long history of our Church, has to live in a non-Orthodox world, Western in its religious traditions, secularistic in its culture, and pluralistic in its “world view.” As I tried to show elsewhere,1 this for Orthodoxy is an unprecedented situation, and it challenges the whole Church and consequently us, her theologians, with a set of problems unknown to the Orthodox communities of the “old world.”

First of all, this new situation substantially affects the pastoral responsibilities of theology. I venture to affirm that for several centuries theology was not needed as vitally and on virtually every level of the Church’s life as it is today in America. The reason for this is simple. In Greece or Russia, or any other Orthodox country, culture itself, i.e. the complex of values, norms and ideas by which man evaluates his life, was related in some deep sense to the Orthodox faith, was in continuation with the Church’s “world view.” One can and must criticize the obvious shortcomings and sins of those Orthodox “worlds,” but one cannot deny that, in spite of many betrayals, they remained for a long time organically shaped by Orthodoxy. But this is not so in America. Here the rupture between the Orthodox world view and the secularistic culture is so radical that the former finds virtually no “point of application,” and the language by which it is transmitted, that of the Liturgy, spirituality and ethics, remains “alien,” even if it is English. As the integration of the formerly “immigrant” community into American culture and into the “American way of life” progresses, there develops a truly schizophrenic situation in which deep attachment to Orthodox symbols and “externals” (e.g., worship, music, architecture) easily coexists with an almost totally secularistic philosophy of life. Needless to say, such a situation cannot last long, and a mere faithfulness to Orthodox externals will not save Orthodoxy from being dissolved sooner or later into that peculiar blend of secularism and vague religiosity which seems to emerge as a new pattern of American religion. To those who have ears to hear and eyes to see, it is already abundantly clear that in America one cannot be Orthodox by “osmosis.” A spiritually alien culture makes Orthodoxy here a challenge, and the faith, if it is to be true to itself, must be consciously accepted, clearly understood in its implications for life, and constantly defended against the pressures of secularism. It is here, therefore, that theology is called to recover the pastoral dimension, to supply, or rather to be, that understanding, that essential link between the Tradition of the Church and the real life, to assure the acceptance of the faith by the faithful.

It would be a mistake to think, however, that what is meant here is a kind of theological “digest” for quick consumption by the laity, a mere descent of theology to a “popular level.” It is exactly the opposite that I have in mind; the uplifting of the whole life of the Church into theological consciousness, a vital relation to theological reflection of every aspect and every level of the Church’s life. But to achieve this, we must give some thought to that which, at least in my opinion, constitutes the basic defect of our theology: its almost total divorce from the real life of the Church and from her practical needs. By his very upbringing and training, the theologian is used to looking at everything “practical” as virtually opposed to theology and its lofty pursuits, and this attitude has been adopted for so many centuries that it is almost taken for granted. Since the breakdown of the patristic age, our theology (and not without Western influence) has become exclusively “academic” — “scholastic” in the literal sense of the word. It is confined to a narrow circle of professional intellectuals, writing and working, in fact, for each other (who else reads theology, or, even if he wished to, is capable of reading its highly professional and esoteric language?) and, as time goes by, more and more anxious to satisfy and please their peers in other academic disciplines, rather than the less and less theologically-minded Church. They are reconciled to the supreme indifference of the Church at large to their work because, in their unshakable self-righteousness, they put the blame on the anti-intellectualism of the clergy and laity. What they do not seem to realize, however, is that this “anti-intellectualism” is in a way a direct result of their own exclusive “intellectualism,” of their quasi-manichean contempt for the “practical” needs of the Church, for their reduction of theology to a harmless intellectual game of “interesting points of view” and scientifically impeccable footnotes. And the sad irony of the situation is that, ignored by the Church, they are not truly accepted by the so-called “intellectual community” either, for which, in spite of all their efforts ad captatiam benevolentiae, they remain non-objective and non-scientific “mystics.” And as long as such is the state and the inner orientation of our theology, the hope that it will fulfill its pastoral function and respond to the crying needs of our situation is, of course, vain.

But it is at this point, maybe, that we can turn our eyes to those whom we always claim to be our examples and teachers, the Holy Fathers of the Church, and look a little deeper into their understanding of theological task. Most certainly they were not less intellectual. And yet, there is one decisive difference between them and the modern theological scholars. To all of them that which we call “practical” and virtually exclude from our academic concerns meant nothing else but the unique and indeed very practical concern of Christianity: the eternal salvation of man. Words and ideas were for them directly related not simply to Truth and Error, but to the Truth that saves and to the error that brings with it death and damnation. And it is their constant, truly “existential” preoccupation with, and their total commitment to, salvation of real, concrete men that makes every line they wrote so ultimately serious and their theology so vital and so precisely pastoral. Intellectual as it is, their theology is always addressed not to “intellectuals,” but to the whole Church, in the firm belief that everyone in the Church has received the Spirit of Truth and was made a “theologian” — i.e., a man concerned with God. And the lasting truth of their theology is that in it ideas are always referred to the “practical” needs of the Church, revealed in their soteriological significance, whereas the most “practical” aspects of the Church are rooted in their ultimate theological implications.

For us in America to recover the pastoral dimension of theology means then not a change of level (”write on a more popular level”), but, above everything else, a change in the inner orientation of the theological mind, of the basic theological concern itself. First of all, we must aim our theological effort at the real Church and at real man in the Church. We must literally care about the situation of that man and not only about his becoming “more educated” and “proud of Orthodoxy.” For as long as we ourselves are not convinced that many ideas and philosophies by which he lives today lead him to spiritual death, and that the knowledge of Truth is to save him and not merely to adorn our Church with a respectable intellectual elite, we certainly will not find the words which can reach him. As luxury and status symbol theology is not needed in a religion which challenges man with the choice between life and death, salvation and damnation.

This means also that the “pastoral” revitalization of theology must begin with a deep evaluation and critique of the culture in which the Orthodox man is immersed today and which indeed makes Christianity irrelevant. It is not accidental, of course, that patristic theology is rooted in a healthy apologetical purpose, in the defense of the faith against its external and internal enemies. As for us, we fight with great wit the battles the Fathers have already won, but politely smile at the truly demonic implications of some of the modern philosophies and theories. We are unaware of the obvious fact that under the influences of these philosophies even some of the basic Christian terms are used in a meaning almost opposite to the ones they had in the past. Salvation means self-fulfillment, faith — security, sin — a personal problem of adjustment, etc. Our culture, which has been recently described as a “triumph of therapeutics,” has deeply changed the quest of even a religious man, which makes it almost impossible for him to hear and to understand the true teaching of the Church. And finally we do not seem to notice that this metamorphosis of religion takes place not in some mythical Western man, but in our own parishes, in the preaching of our priests. We must begin, therefore, with what patristic theology performed in its own time: an exorcism of culture, a liberating reconstruction of the words, concepts and symbols, of the theological language itself. And we must do it in order not to make our theology more “acceptable” to the modern man and his culture, but, on the contrary, to make him again aware of the ultimately serious, truly soteriological nature and demands of his faith.

Only theology can accomplish all this, and that is why it is so badly needed today. But it will succeed only when it becomes again pastoral, i.e. identified with the Church and her life, attentive to the real needs of the man, when, putting aside the academic “straining at a gnat” which has never prevented anyone from “swallowing a camel,” it accepts, in humility and with courage, its proper function in the Church.

I defined the second task of our theology as missionary. To keep with the spirit of the time, I should have probably called it “ecumenical.” But the word ecumenical has of late become so general and so ambiguous that it itself needs to be investigated and redefined. I prefer the slightly outmoded term “missionary” for several reasons. It indicates that Orthodox theology has a mission in the West. It has always been the consensus of Orthodox theologians that their participation in the Ecumenical Movement has as its goal to bring an Orthodox witness to the non-Orthodox, and there is no reason to deny that this implies the idea of conversion to Orthodoxy. I know very well that in current ecumenical thinking the term “conversion” has a bad reputation. But the Orthodox would simply betray both their Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement if now, under the impact of a superficial ecumenical euphoria, they concealed the fact that in their approach conversion is one of the basic components of genuine ecumenical perspective. More than ever, and precisely for deep ecumenical reasons, we must uphold our conviction that only a deep and genuinely Christian idea of conversion, i.e. of a decisive crisis, choice, and commitment to Truth, can give meaning and ultimate seriousness to all “dialogues,” “rapprochements,” and “convergences.” That this term and the reality behind it are regarded today by many as “un-ecumenical” reveals, in fact, an alarming trend; a shift of the ecumenical movement from its original goal — to organic unity in Christ, to a different one — the smooth functioning of pluralistic society; excellent and useful as it may be, this second goal has very little to do with the fundamental Christian values of unity, faith, and truth. Our “mission” then remains the same: to make Orthodoxy known, understood, and, with God’s help, accepted in the West. This mission stems naturally and, so to speak, inescapably from our truly awesome claim that we are Orthodox and that ours is the true Church. This claim is incompatible with any provincialism of thought and vision, ethnic self-consciousness, and self-centeredness.

For several decades the “ecumenical mission” has been, in fact, a monopoly of a small group of theologians, and it remained virtually unknown to and ignored by the Orthodox Church at large. I think that the time has come to put an end to this rather abnormal situation which, in addition to many other dangers, simply misleads the non-Orthodox by giving them the impression of an “ecumenical” Orthodoxy that does not exist in reality. A missionary orientation must be added to the whole theological structure of the Church and become an organic part of our theological “curriculum.” This brings me to the second meaning of the term missionary, to the “modality” of our approach to the West.

“Mission” has always meant, at least in the Christian connotations of that term, not only the effort to convert someone to true faith, but also the spiritual disposition of the missionary: his active charity and his self-giving to the “object” of his missionary task. From St. Paul to Bishop Nicholas of Japan there has been no mission without self-identification of the missionary with those to whom God has sent him, without a sacrifice of his personal attachments and his natural values. Mutatis mutandis the same must be said, it seems to me, about the Orthodox mission in the West, and more particularly, about the mission of Orthodox theology. This mission is impossible without some degree of love for the West and for the many authentically Christian values of its culture. Yet, we very often confuse the Universal Truth of the Church with a naive “superiority complex,” with arrogance and self-righteousness, with a childish certitude that everyone ought to share our own enthusiasm about the “splendors of Byzantium,” our “ancient and colorful rites,” and the forms of our Church architecture. It is sad and shocking to hear the West globally condemned and to see a condescending attitude towards the “poor Westerners” on the part of young people who, more often than not, have not read Shakespeare and Cervantes, have never heard about St. Francis of Assisi or listened to Bach. It is sad to realize that there is no greater obstacle to the understanding and acceptance of Orthodoxy than the provincialism, the human pride and the self-righteousness of the Orthodox themselves, their almost complete lack of humility and self-criticism. Yet, Truth always makes humble, and pride in all its forms and expressions is always alien to Truth and is always a sin. It is obviously inconceivable to say that we are “proud of Christ,” but we constantly preach and teach “pride of Orthodoxy.” It is time to understand that if the Orthodox mission is to progress, we must not only transcend and overcome this spirit of self-righteousness, but we must, without denying any genuine value of our Eastern cultural and spiritual heritage, open ourselves towards Western culture and make our own whatever in it “is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious” (Philip. 4:8).

The missionary task of Orthodox theology must be thus guided by two equally important and interdependent imperatives: the emphasis on Truth as the only genuine ground of all “ecumenical” concern and a real openness to the Western Christian values. At a time when a serious temptation appears to sacrifice Truth for a very sophisticated, very qualified and, because of this, only more dangerous relativism, to replace the search for unity with a search for a religious “peaceful coexistence,” when the very possibility of error and heresy is virtually ruled out by a pseudo-ecumenical doctrine of “convergence,” the Orthodox theologian must stand, alone if necessary, in defense of the very concept of Truth, without which Christianity, for all its “relevance,” denies in fact its own absolute claim. To do this, however, he must himself be open and obedient to all Truth, wherever he finds it.

The third task of Orthodox theology in America must be defined as prophetic, even if the word sounds presumptuous. The prophets were sent to the people of God not only to announce future events, but also to remind the people of their true mission and to denounce their betrayals of Divine Will. And if, with the coming of Christ, “the fulfillment of all law and the prophets,” their first function has become obsolete, the second remains as needed as ever. And properly understood, theology must always share in this prophetic function. For the eternal task of theology is to refer the life of the Church to the absolute Truth of the Church’s own tradition, to keep alive and operative a criterion by which the Church judges herself. Immersed in human history, the Church is always full of temptations and sins and, what is even more serious, of compromises and accommodations to the spirit of “this world.” The temptation is always to prefer peace to Truth, efficiency to rectitude, human success to the Will of God. And since, in the Orthodox Church, there exists no visible center of infallible authority, like the Papacy, since her ultimate criterion and recourse is always the Truth abiding in her, it certainly belongs to those whose specific ministry is the study and the search of that Truth to make it known and manifest in all its purity and clarity. There is no arrogance, no pride in that claim. The theologian has no rights, no power to govern and to administer that which belongs exclusively to the hierarchy. But it is his sacred duty to supply the hierarchy and, indeed, the whole Church with the pure teaching of the Church and to stand by that truth even when it is not considered “opportune.” It must be admitted that much too often our official “academic” theology has failed to accept this “obedience” and preferred quiet complacency. It has thus become accomplice to many deviations and distortions from which the whole Orthodox Church suffers today. But again, it was not so with the Fathers. Almost to the one, they suffered from the various “power structures” of their days for their refusal to opt for the compromise or to accept silent obedience to evil. And the fact is that ultimately the Chuirch followed them and not those who, then as today, have a thousand excellent reasons for avoiding the “abstract principles” and preferring the “demands of reality.”

Today this prophetic function of theology is needed again more than ever. For, whether we want it or not, the entire Orthodox Church is going through a deep crisis. Its causes are many. On the one hand, the world which for centuries framed and shaped her historical existence is crumbling and has all but vanished. The ancient and traditional centers of authority are threatened in their very existence and most of them deprived of even elementary freedom of action. An overwhelming majority of Orthodox people live under the pressures and persecution of openly and militantly atheistic regimes, in situations where mere survival and not progress is the only preoccupation. A minority living surrounded by an alien sea seems to have become the rule rather than the exception for Orthodoxy almost everywhere. Everywhere, and not only in the West, it is challenged by a secularistic, technological, and spiritually antagonistic culture which virtually swallows its younger generations. On the other hand, a large Orthodox diaspora has appeared, putting an end to the multi-secular isolation of Orthodoxy in the East, challenging Orthodoxy with problems of ecclesiastical organization and spiritual “adjustments” unprecedented in the whole history of the Church. Only the blind would deny the existence of the crisis, yet not too many seem to realize its depth and scope, least of all (let us face it) the bishops who continue in their routine work as “if nothing happened.” At no time in the past has there existed such an abyss between the hierarchy and the “real” Church, never before has the power-structure so little corresponded to the crying spiritual needs of the faithful. And here the American Orthodox “microcosm” seems an excellent example. How long are we to live in a multiplicity of jurisdictions either quarreling with each other or simply ignoring each other? How long shall we leave unnoticed the quick decay in liturgy, spirituality, and monasticism — the traditional sources of Orthodox piety and continuity? How long, in short, shall we accept and respectfully endorse as normal and almost traditional a situation which, if we are honest, must be described as a scandal and a tragedy?

In spite of what too many Orthodox people think today, this is the hour of theology. Only a deep, fearless, and constructive evaluation of this situation in the light of the genuine Tradition of the Church, only a creative return to the very springs of our dogma, canons and worship, only a total commitment to the Truth of the Church can help us overcome the crisis and transform it into a revival of Orthodoxy. I know that this task is difficult and that a long tradition has taught theologians to avoid hot issues and not to “get involved.” I know also that a certain traditionalism which has nothing to do with Tradition has made self-criticism and spiritual freedom a crime against the Church in the eyes of many. I know that too many “power-structures” have a vested interest in not allowing any question, any search, any encounter with Truth. The forces of inertia, pseudo-conservatism, and plain cynicism are formidable. But the same was true of the time of St. Athanasius the Great, St. John Chrysostom and St. Maximus the Confessor. As for the issues we face today, they are not lesser than those they had to deal with. And it depends on us to choose between the pleasant prestige attached to mere academic scholarship and the responses to the Will of God.

1Cf. my articles on “The Problems of Orthodoxy in America” in St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly: “The Canonical Problem,” vol. 8, 2, 1964, pp. 67-85; “The Liturgical Problem,” vol. 8, 4, 1964, pp. 164-185; and “The Spiritual Problem,” vol. 9, 4, 1965, pp. 171, 193.

St Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, 1966, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 180-188.

Description
Spirituality is in! Monks go platinum with recordings of chant, and books on self-help spirituality overflow supermarket book racks. But what is the meaning of true spirituality? Aren’t we all a little confused? Genuine spirituality keeps us in balance with God, our neighbor, and the material world. Fr. Michael Keiser walks us through the Orthodox Church s timeless teachings and practices on the ancient understanding of Christian spirituality with humor and keen insight. He outlines how ascetic practices, personal and corporate worship, confession and repentance, overcoming the passions, and opening ourselves up to God s grace can lead us to transformation, and to our ultimate destiny Jerusalem, the heavenly city.

About the Author
The Very Rev. Michael Keiser is a convert to the Orthodox faith who was raised in the Western Christian tradition. He has studied in both the Western and Eastern traditions of Christianity, and has been actively involved in evangelism and outreach on behalf of the Orthodox Christian Church. An Orthodox priest for thirty years, he has served his entire ministry as part of the ancient, biblical Church of Antioch, both in the United States and Europe, and currently works in the Department of Missions and Evangelism of the Antiochian Archdiocese. During his career he has worked with 28 different congregations in the areas of renewal and growth, established new congregations, and guided many who have found a true home in Orthodox Christianity. Fr. Keiser has written five books dealing with worship, spirituality, and an Orthodox comprehension of suffering. He currently lives in Florida with his wife of 39 years, Angelina.

Worry, despair, insecurity, fear of death . . . these are our daily companions, and even though we attempt to ignore them or try to crowd them out, they are there, waiting for us in our quieter moments.

It is precisely where we hurt most that the experience of the Orthodox Church has much to offer. The remedy is not a pep talk, or any simple admonitions to fight the good fight, cheer up, or think positively. Rather, the Orthodox method is to change the way we look at the human person (starting with ourselves).

According to two thousand years of experience, Orthodoxy shows us how to “be transformed by the renewing of our mind”—a process that is aided by participation in the traditional ascetic practices and Mysteries of the Church.

In this unique and accessible book, Archimandrite Meletios Webber first explores the role of mystery in the Christian life, then walks the reader through the seven major Mysteries of the Orthodox Church, showing the way to a richer, fuller life in Christ.

About the Author
Archimandrite Meletios Webber is an Orthodox priest. He was received into the Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware in 1971. He was educated at Dulwich College and Oxford University, and has a doctorate in psychological counseling. Fr. Meletios has served the Orthodox Church in Greece, Great Britain, Montana, and California, and is currently living in the Netherlands. He is the author of Steps of Transformation: An Orthodox Priest Examines the Twelve Steps (Conciliar Press, 2003).

Ut orci. Cras a orci. Phasellus pulvinar molestie felis. Mauris diam. Integer ut erat. Integer vulputate feugiat nunc. In lobortis augue eget ante. Nulla facilisi. Proin imperdiet vehicula dui. Fusce porta leo in nibh. Quisque nisi ipsum, imperdiet vel, semper nec, posuere a, dolor.

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Quisque diam. Proin vitae ipsum. Curabitur viverra blandit nisl. Suspendisse eu odio aliquet metus scelerisque lobortis. Maecenas adipiscing enim eu nibh. Suspendisse mattis purus a libero. Phasellus est pede, rhoncus in, imperdiet sed, tincidunt quis, erat. Fusce convallis, mi vulputate pharetra ullamcorper, enim nisl lobortis augue, vel rutrum nibh nisi sed arcu. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos.

Etiam urna nulla, condimentum ac, scelerisque vel, dapibus ut, mi. Sed placerat justo ut ante. Nullam congue lectus et quam. Fusce interdum, erat tempor dictum bibendum, mi purus cursus magna, sed laoreet pede mauris vel arcu. Nam ipsum nibh, varius sit amet, vestibulum in, hendrerit aliquet, libero. Aenean mi purus, euismod id, commodo quis, lobortis id, pede. Fusce sagittis aliquet orci. Nullam malesuada erat vel ante. Phasellus justo tortor, rutrum in, aliquet sit amet, condimentum in, mauris. Vestibulum ut magna quis orci venenatis sollicitudin. Aliquam molestie tincidunt arcu. Fusce vel nisi sed felis pellentesque aliquet. Cras vehicula. Vivamus hendrerit est sed nisl. Pellentesque vitae nunc at tellus porttitor ornare. Phasellus sed est at magna pulvinar sollicitudin. Mauris dignissim nisl sed erat.

Maecenas auctor malesuada massa. In purus pede, ultricies ullamcorper, ullamcorper quis, nonummy ut, neque. Proin scelerisque mauris. Quisque vitae ipsum in nunc molestie consequat. Vivamus interdum adipiscing lorem. Aliquam ullamcorper. Proin id purus. Aliquam adipiscing dictum dui. Suspendisse commodo. Pellentesque vitae sapien eu nulla nonummy tristique. Praesent sagittis dignissim justo. Etiam non nisl vel massa ultrices viverra. Quisque nunc. Pellentesque venenatis.