SACRED METROPOLIS
OF NAFPAKTOS AND SAINT VLASIOS
OF NAFPAKTOS AND SAINT VLASIOS
Nafpaktos, 5th of March 2016
To
the Holy and Sacred Synod
of the Church of Greece
Ioannou Gennadiou 14
115 21 Athens
Your Beatitude the President [of the Holy Synod],
Bearing in mind the Synodical document numbered
755/351/16-02-2016, with which we are called to submit our views on the text
due to be discussed at the Holy and Great Council, I have the following to say:
In the texts unanimously adopted by the Synaxis of Primates
of the Orthodox Churches (Chambesy-Geneva 21st-28th
January 2016) there are a few points in need of further revision and
correction.
Of course, in agreement with the Regulations of Organisation
and Working Procedure of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church
(article 11), amendments, corrections and additions to the texts in question
may be made during discussions on each subject at the plenary session of the
Council, following the formulation of proposed amendments, corrections or
additions.
This means that every Church, and also our Church, has the
right to have opinions and a vote on each subject addressed in the texts and
which will be discussed. It thus gives freedom for each view to be expressed,
and we as Hierarchs are obliged to do so.
Primarily, I think that two texts are in need of necessary
corrections:
1. “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the
Christian world”
We notice in this text a confusion of terminology, which
likely derives from the consolidation of two texts, namely the text on
“Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world” and the
text “Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement.”
However, if the necessary changes are not made, a theological
and ecclesiological double-speak will prevail in this particular text, one
which is inappropriate for synodical texts and thus also for texts of the Holy
and Great Council.
In particular:
a) Terminology
The title of the text, “Relations of the Orthodox
Church with the rest of the Christian world,” is correct because it uses precise
terminology, with “the Orthodox Church” on one hand and “the rest of the
Christian world” on the other. Furthermore, many expressions in the content of
the text confirm the title, such as “The Orthodox Church, being the One, Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church, in her profound ecclesiastical consciousness”
(article 1), “with those separated from her, both far and near” (article 4), “those
who are external to her” (article 6).
However, other expressions present in the text, that “the
Orthodox Church acknowledges the existence in history of other Christian
Churches and confessions which are not in communion with her” (article 6) need
to be brought into harmony with the title in order for this double-speak not to
remain.
The phrase “the Orthodox Church acknowledges the existence in
history of other Christian Churches and confessions” should therefore be
replaced by the phrase: “the Orthodox Church knows that her charismatic
limits correspond to her canonical boundaries, as she also knows that there
exist other Christian Confessions, which are cut off from her and do not find
themselves in communion with her.”
The same should also happen with respect to other passages.
b)
The unity of the Church
The passage which speaks on the unity of the One, Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church is right to state that “the Unity of the Church”
(Orthodox Church should be added here) “is impossible to shatter”
(article 6), because as it again rightly stresses “the responsibility of the
Orthodox Church and her ecumenical mission with regard to the unity were
expressed by the Ecumenical Councils,” which “in particular, stressed the
indissoluble link existing between true faith and the sacramental communion”
(article 3).
However, other passages in the text, which imply that the
unity of the Church has been broken and that there are attempts to recover it,
need to be corrected.
In particular:
The statement that the Orthodox Church participates in
theological dialogues “are aimed at seeking the lost Christian unity on the basis
of the faith and tradition of the ancient Church of the Seven Ecumenical
Councils” (article 5), indicates that what is said elsewhere, that the unity of
the Church “is impossible to shatter” (article 6), is not true.
This passage therefore needs to be corrected lest the
decisions of the Holy and Great Council appear to contain double-speak, that it
does not provide clear teaching, but leaves “open windows” for other
interpretations.
It will have to read: “the Orthodox Church participates in
dialogues with Christians belonging to various Christian Confessions, for the
sake of their restoration to her faith, tradition and life.”
c) Theological dialogues, in relation to Baptism
There is in the text one paragraph which appeals to
“baptismal theology”, which is the basic position of the 2nd Vatican
Council. The paragraph follows:
“The prospects for conducting theological dialogues between
the Orthodox Church and other Christian Churches and confessions shall always
be derived from the canonical criteria of established Church Tradition (canon 7
of the Second Ecumenical Council and canon 95 of the Quinisext Ecumenical
Council)” (article 20).
Canons 7 of the 2nd Ecumenical Synod and 95 of the
Quinisext Ecumenical Council are concerned with the manner in which heretical
parties at that time were to be received into the Orthodox Church, by exactness
and by economy.
The 95th Canon of the Quinisext Ecumenical
Council, which repeats the 7th Canon of the 2nd
Ecumenical Council, stipulates that the Eunomians “who were baptised with one
immersion” should be rebaptised. Montanists and Sabellians “who consider the
Son to be the same as the Father, and are guilty in certain other grave
matters, and all the other heresies” are also to be rebaptised. There is
clearly cause for rebaptism whenever there is baptism by single immersion,
identification of the Father with the Son and other heresies.
It is important that the Three Patriarchs of the East, (Cyril
V of Constantinople, Matthew of Alexandria, Parthenios of Jerusalem) in the
year 1756 issued an edict by which they interpret these Canons in relation to
the Westerners who come to Orthodoxy. By this stipulation, Western heretics are
received into Orthodoxy as “profane and unbaptised,” seemingly due to there
being variations both with regards to the doctrine of the Trinity, due to the
teachings on the Filioque and the created divine energies (actus purus), and
because there is also a difference in form, since baptism is not performed by
immersion, but by “pouring” or “sprinkling” following the Council of Trent. The
edict of the Three Patriarchs thus contains a very clear interpretation of the
canons in question with regard to contemporary reality. We cite the following excerpt:
“The Second and the Quinisext Ecumenical Councils
prescribe that those turning to Orthodoxy be considered as unbaptized who were
not baptized by triple immersion, at each of which the name of one of the
Divine Hypostases is pronounced, but were baptized by some other means.
Adhering to these Holy and Divine decrees we consider heretical baptism
to be worthy of judgement and repudiation inasmuch as it does not conform
with but contradicts the Apostolic and Divine formation and is nothing more
than a useless washing, according to the words of St. Ambrose and St.
Athanasius the Great, neither sanctifying the catechumen nor cleanse him from
sin. This is why we receive all heretics turning to Orthodoxy as those who
were not baptized properly as not having been baptized and without any
hesitation baptize them according to the apostolic and conciliar canons
upon which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ — the common mother
of us all — firmly rests. We affirm this, our unanimous decision which is in
conformance with the apostolic and conciliar canons, with a written
testament subscribed with our signatures.”[1]
It is obvious that what is written in Article 20 of the text
prepared for adoption by the Holy and Great Council, is an effort to implicitly
withdraw this edict of the Three Patriarchs, which rests on the entirety of
ecclesiastical tradition. As mentioned above, from the 8th century
onwards, there were introduced into Christian Confessions the heresies of the Filioque
and actus pursus, as well as the improper baptism of the “Roman
Catholics” by pouring and sprinkling following the Council of Trent, as well as
various heretical views in other Confessions.
Thus, in order for there to be a unity of thought throughout
the entire text were it is written that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church, that its unity “is impossible to shatter”, that
there exist “those who are external to her”, it is necessary that this
paragraph is amended as follows:
“The theological dialogues of the Orthodox Church with the
other Christian Confessions take place on the basis of the faith and praxis of
the Orthodox Church, as determined by the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.
The reception of the heterodox into the Orthodox Church takes place by both
exactness and economy. Use of economy is observed when a Christian Confession
perform baptisms by three immersions and emersions, according to the apostolic
and patristic form, and the confession of the Holy, consubstantial and
indivisible Trinity.”
2. “The mission of the Orthodox Church in the modern world”
In this text there are a few expressions which, although
widely used by Orthodox, come from modern existentialist philosophy and German
idealism.
It regards the expressions “value of the human person” and
“communion of persons,”which should be replaced by the terms “value of the
human being” and “unity among human beings.”
In the final text signed at Chambesy-Geneva (21st
– 28th January 2016), some improvements were made to the text
produced by the 5th Pre-conciliar Pan-Orthodox Meeting (10th
– 17th October 2015), but there nonetheless remained a few
expressions which speak of the “value of the human person” and are in need of
further improvement.
In particular:
a) Human being and not human person
The text rightly makes reference to St. Gregory the
Theologian, Eusebius and St. Cyril of Alexandria who speak about the value of
the human being and not the human person. Likewise, mention is made of the
“protection of the value of the human being” (1, article 2), “God’s plan for
man” (1, article 1).
But there remains in the final text a few expressions from
the older text, such as “the value of the human person” (1, article 1), “the general
recognition of the lofty value of the human person” (1, article 3), “the notion
of the human person” (2, article 3).
The text therefore needs to be made uniform so that wherever
mention is made of “human person” this is replaced by the word “human being”,
which is understood by all.
b) Communion of persons
In the text there is a paragraph which is problematic from an
Orthodox point of view. It says:
“One of the loftiest gifts of God to the human person both as
a concrete bearer of the image of a personal God and as a member of a community
of persons in the unity of the human race by grace reflecting the life and
communion of the Divine Persons in the Holy trinity, is the gift of freedom”
(2, article 1).
The paragraph speaks about “communion of Divine Persons,” in
that the human race are a “communion of persons” which reflect “by grace… the
life and communion of the Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity” and that this
“constitutes the gift of freedom”, which is theologically inadmissible because
it creates a confusion of the created and uncreated, between the unity of man
and the unity of the Triune God.
This paragraph needs to be replaced by the following
paragraph:
“God created man in His image and likeness and gave him
intellect and autonomy: “He Who created the human person in the beginning made
him free and autonomous, limiting him solely by the laws of the commandment”
(Gregory the Theologian, 14, On Love for the Poor, 25. PG 35, 892A). Freedom
was granted to man in order for him to be capable of progressing towards
spiritual perfection, but at the same time entails the risk of disobedience, of
estrangement from God and, through this, of the fall, from which come all the
tragic consequences of evil in the world.”
Justification for the replacement of terms
In order to justify why it is proposed that the term “value
of the human person” be replaced by the term “value of the human being” and
that the phrase “communion of persons reflecting the communion of Divine
Persons” be deleted, the following theological positions will be pointed out:
1. The Fathers of the fourth century determined that the
Triune God is Three Persons, having the same essence-nature-energy and
particular hypostatic properties (unbegotten, begotten, proceeding). Person is
defined as essence with hypostatic properties.
2. In the Triune God there is a distinction of divine
Persons, not a communion of persons. In other words, the Father communicates
His essence to the Son through begetting, and to the Holy Spirit through
procession. The Father thus communicates His essence to the other Persons, but
not His Person or His hypostatic property. There is thus a communion of
nature-essence, an indwelling and interpenetration of Persons, and not a
communion of persons.
3. “The holy Fathers used hypostasis, person and individual
to refer to the same thing” (St. John of Damascus). Christ is one person who
has two natures which were united in His person without confusion, without
alteration, without division, without separation. Thus, the person is one and
the individual is one. The word individual (atomo) consists of the
negative a the word tome, and means “not intersecting nor shared”
(St. John of Damascus). This means that although Christ has two natures, they
do not intersect in the one Person of Christ the Word. The distinction between
person and individual comes from Western philosophy.
4. For man, the Fathers primarily used the term man. And
there is a chasmic difference between created and uncreated. Whatever happens
with the Triune God, does not happen with man. The theological concept of man
is expressed by the term “in the image” and “according to the likeness”, which
mean that he is lead towards deification.
In certain patristic texts man is spoken of as hypostasis,
but always with the theological meaning of in the image and according to the
image of God, with the principle of hypostasis (Heb. 3:14). And it is from this
understanding that Elder Sophrony also writes, not from the perspective of
modern philosophy.
5. Vladimir Lossky, who introduces to the orthodox vocabulary
the term person in relation to man, remarks with regards to this: “As for me, I
have to confess that I until now have not encountered in patristic theology any
complete theoretical treatment of the human person, to go alongside the very
clear teachings on the divine Persons or Hypostases.”
6. The problem, however, is not just the term person used in
relation to man, but that the modern theories regarding the “human person” and
even the “sanctity” and “dignity of the human person” associate nature with
necessity and sin, and person with freedom, desire-will and love. Such ideas
are reminiscent of Arianism and Monothelitism, which have been
condemned by Ecumenical Councils.
7. Will and self-rule do not belong to the person, but to
nature. The person is the one who desires, while desire is an appetite of
nature and will is a result of the desire of the one who desires. When
will-desire are seen as hypostatic, that is to say, belonging to the person,
then each divine Person has its own desire, will, freedom, something which
results in tri-theism. The 6th Ecumenical Council orders the
deposition of bishops and clergy, and the excommunication of monks and lay
people, who accept the notion of hypostatic will.
8. Thus, while scholastic theology identify energy with
essence, modern personalist theories associate the energy-will with the person
and introduce a voluntarist personalism.
Since there are all these problems in the text, the term
“value of the human person” must be replaced by the term “value of the human
being” and all the related expressions need to be corrected. If this does not
happen, the entire text will be affected and, more importantly, the probable
decision of the Holy and Great Council will be divergent and opposed to those
of the Ecumenical Synod from the 4th onwards.
Submitting this for the consideration of Your Beatitude and the Eminent Hierarchs, I remain,
Least among the brethren in Christ,
+ Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Saint Vlasios
Translation: Fr. Kristian Akselberg
[1]
Translation of excerpt: Alvian N. Smirensky (2000). http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch3.html
