|
An
issue that is becoming increasingly controversial among Orthodox Christians
in the United States is the exercise of Oikonomia in regard to the reception
of converts from heterodox Christian denominations.
The
main point of contention is the recognition and acceptance of heterodox
Baptism, and subsequently what sacramental procedures are to be followed
in receiving converts who were so Baptized.
Hierarchical
Authority Regarding Oikonomia
The
following article by Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, entitled "The
Basis on Which Economy May Be Used in the Reception of Converts,"
(the article by Metropolitan Anthony is not reprinted here, but did accompany
the original article in the December issue of the Diocesan News)
provides an excellent overview of the canonical and historical factors
dealing with this issue. The clear and unequivocal point of this article,
indeed the very foundation of our Orthodox ecclesiology, is that it is
solely the prerogative - and therefore the responsibility - of the Bishops
to determine how Oikonomia is to be applied.
It
should also be noted that in the Orthodox Church no priest has any authority
whatsoever to determine when or how to apply Oikonomia; the authority
to do so lies exclusively with his Bishop whom he represents and from
whom he is granted the authority to exercise the priesthood.
Too
often priests wrongfully arrogate to themselves the Apostolic authority
granted only to the Episcopacy. A priest has no authority - or "power"
- of his own, but rather by virtue of his ordination may receive from
a Bishop only a delegated authority while always remaining accountable
to that Bishop for the exercise thereof. The reality is that a Bishop
may delegate his authority to his priests (for instance to celebrate the
Mysteries) but can never delegate his responsibility for the rational
flock entrusted to him.
Since
it is the exclusive right of a Bishop to exercise Oikonomia, no
priest may judge - nor is he in a position to even question - the judgment
of a Bishop in this regard. He certainly has no right to judge the actions
of any other hierarch with whom his own Bishop is in communion.
Only
the Synod of hierarchs to which a Bishop belongs may address the matter
of his exercise of Oikonomia, and insofar as a Bishop remains in
communion with the Body of Christ, the Church, (i.e., has not been declared
a heretic and canonically deposed) his decisions are to be respected by
all clergy and laity as they are respected by the hierarchs who are in
communion with him.
Two
Concerns
The
present crisis within the Churches here in America concerns both the theological
basis for exercising Oikonomia in regard to the recognition of
heterodox Baptism and also whether certain hierarchs are in communion
with the Church - a much more serious matter and an awesome consideration.
Theological
Basis for Exercising Oikonomia
In
regard to the first concern, the article by Metropolitan Khrapovitsky
clearly delineates the reasoning that a hierarch might use in canonically
determining whether to exercise Oikonomia in regard to the reception
of converts, and the substance of that article will not be repeated here.
Suffice it to say only that there are many factors that a Bishop must
consider in this regard and he always exercises Oikonomia for the
salvation of the souls entrusted to him and for the good estate and welfare
of his diocese. The bottom line to the article by Metropolitan Khrapovitsky
is that heterodox Baptisms have historically been recognized according
to the Canons of the Church and may still be so recognized as determined
by the Bishop.
For
the record, the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined to recognize by extreme
Oikonomia the heterodox Baptisms normatively performed according
to the prescribed form in the following denominations and churches: (a.)
Anglican Catholic (b.) Anglican Communion (Church of England, Episcopal,
etc.) (c.) Assembly of God (d.) Baptist (e.) Church of the Brethren (f.)
Lutheran (g.) Methodist (h.) Moravians (i.) Non-Chalcedonian and Monophysite
Churches (j.) Old Catholic (Polish National Catholic Church, Church of
Utrecht, Liberal Catholic Church, etc.) (k.) Presbyterian (l.) Roman Catholic
(m.) United Church of Christ.
This decision is respected
by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with
the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and it is consonant with similar determinations
by the synods of the jurisdictions comprising the Standing Committee of
Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA). This decision is not called
into question nor refuted by any canonical hierarch simply because he
personally disagrees with it; instead hierarchs respect the principle
of conciliarity and the decisions of other hierarchs made in consideration
of the prevalent circumstances within their dioceses and made in concord
with the consensus of their synods.
Canonical Status of Hierarchs
In
regard to the second concern, there has been widespread, indiscriminate,
and irresponsible use of the terms "heretical" and "schismatic"
by some individuals to condemn and excoriate those hierarchs and jurisdictions
with whom they are not in agreement.
First,
the distinction between heresy and schism should be clearly defined and
understood.
Heresies
are doctrines (teachings and beliefs) that contravene revealed characteristics
of God's nature, and are therefore condemned by the Church as fraudulent.
Heresies contradict the irrefutable and eternally true statements of fact
that have been cautiously proclaimed by the church as dogmas which describe
the correct (orthodox) understanding about an aspect of God. Belief in
a heresy cuts one off from the Body of Christ; i.e., puts one outside
the Church.
A
schism is an administrative breach of communion within the Church. It
does not necessarily place the party (ies) outside the Church permanently,
although it is a separation from the Body of the Church. Schismatics share
the same faith and uphold the same dogmatic principles; yet they refute
the existing communion in faith because of some lesser disagreement.
It
can be said that of the two, schism is worse than heresy. Presuming that
a heretic is sincere in his belief - however erroneous - it could be that
God may at least judge him on the basis of his sincerity, his personal
integrity, and his consistency of action in regard to his principles.
The schismatic, on the other hand, has willfully separated himself from
others who share the same beliefs, thus denying the truth that unity and
communion exist in the very confession of the same truth. Heresy might
be seen as a sin of error, while schism is a sin against truth itself.
With
this in mind, the canonical principle universally followed in the Orthodox
Church is that clergy may only separate themselves from the authority
of their Bishop (or from communion with others) when he is (they are)
in heresy - actually one might say that a heretical hierarch has separated
himself from his flock by his heretical act. A determination of heretical
standing, however, is a consensus of the whole Church, not merely of clergy
and laity but also of the Synod to which that Bishop belongs - it is never
a matter of personal opinion and judgment.
Clergy
are not free to transfer themselves from the authority of one bishop,
nor do they even request their own release from their Bishop to another.
The canonical procedure is that a Bishop may request of another Bishop
the release of a particular clergyman. By the same token, a Bishop may
not receive under his obedience any clergyman who has not been released
by his canonical Bishop.
The
laity, on the other hand, do transfer freely from one parish to another,
and from one Diocese to another, according to the circumstances of their
geographic travels. It is most prudent, however, that the laity move between
parishes and/or jurisdictions in their immediate locale only after seeking
the guidance of their spiritual father, confessor or pastor.
Tragically,
however, there are clergy who, without the blessing of their Bishop, separate
themselves from him and seek to be recognized and received by another
hierarch. Worse, they justify their actions by denouncing their bishop
as a heretic and/or declare their former jurisdiction as being "without
grace."
Such
actions carry with them the most grave responsibility - and potentially
the most severe consequences - because an accounting will be demanded
of them by God at their judgment. The most woeful and grievous act that
they sometimes commit is that they sometimes even encourage other clergy
and laity to follow them.
These
actions are extremely dangerous and are filled with peril: it should be
very clear that to denounce a Bishop as a heretic is an extreme action
that can never be taken lightly and certainly never for reasons of personal
animosity.
Yet,
with increasing frequency Bishops - particularly those associated with
SCOBA - are being accused of apostasy and heresy (especially of the "Heresy
of Ecumenism") by renegade and irresponsible (or at least grossly
misinformed) individuals.
To be sure, the Ecumenist notion of ignoring theological differences between
denominations and the supposed union in some sort of world-religion Ecumenical
faith is truly a Pan-Heresy insofar as it proposes a ridiculous conglomeration
of Western, heterodox Christian theologies, each of which to one degree
or another embraces various of the ancient heresies that have been denounced
and condemned as anathema by the local and Ecumenical Councils of the
historic and Apostolic Orthodox Church.
It should be made very clear, however, that the official Orthodox participation
in the international, national, and local Ecumenical organizations has
as its sole purpose the opening of dialogue with the heterodox in the
hope that they will eventually be united with us in professing the one,
holy, catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith.
Whether
these dialogues will in fact result in such a hoped-for return of the
heterodox to the Orthodox Church remains arguable; as discussed in the
September edition (vol. 5, No. 9; pp. 7 & 8) of this newsletter (Diocesan
News), such discussions necessarily can only take place at the level
of secondary or intellectual - rather than essential or spiritual - theology.
During his recent visit to the United States, Patriarch Bartholomew stated
repeatedly that he prays and hopes for the union of all Christians, while
very clearly underscoring that this must be a unity in faith - specifically
in the Orthodox faith which he stressed is the only genuine and true Christian
faith. Lest anyone believe that the Ecumenical Patriarchate, or the Patriarch
of Constantinople himself, wishes to capitulate to the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism,
witness the consternation of other religious leaders upon hearing these
words from His All Holiness as was widely reported in the national, secular
media.
On
the other hand, individual participation in the Ecumenical organizations
by Orthodox laity, clergy, and hierarchs is solely on a personal basis
and might be for many and varied reasons or purposes. Should such individuals
- or for that matter any other of the faithful - hold a personal view
that "all religions are the same," that "all gods are one,"
or other such erroneous and illogical notions they are in error, misinformed,
or not thinking clearly - and such fact can place them outside the Body
of Christ.
Likewise a hierarch who personally holds some belief or opinion at odds
with the teaching of the Church, and perhaps expresses this to others,
is a sinner - and can be outside the Body of Christ. Yet, the personal
sins and failures of clergy - however great- do not transfer to, and thus
do not negate, the reality of the Mysteries they celebrate. To be sure,
it would be tragic if they did because we acknowledge that no one lives
and does not sin: for Jesus Christ is alone without sin!
Even
if a hierarch or other clergyman commits actions that are sinful and even
scandalous to the Church, he alone bears responsibility at his judgment
before God for his sins and for any attendant scandal. But this does not
necessarily place him outside the Church, obviate the Mysteries he celebrates,
or invalidate the ecclesial office he holds.
Only
when a hierarch, other clergyman, or layperson holds - and moreover maintains
in knowing disregard for the teachings and admonitions of the Church -
some antithetical belief contrary to the dogma of the Orthodox faith is
he ever denounced as a heretic and his beliefs accursed as anathema. It
is solely these individuals who are considered to be outside the Church
and thus not united to the Body of Christ.
Their
eternal disposition, however, will be determined by God alone - the only
all-good and all-righteous Judge.
Yet,
certain clergy and laity have even casually and offhandedly dismissed
some hierarchs and synods in America as being heretical and outside the
Church. We thus rightly ask: Where are such heretical Bishops? Which of
our hierarchs has publicly maintained and held to a heretical belief and
refused to submit to the authority and discipline of the Church? Who are
these supposedly apostate and dissident Bishops?
Let
us be clear to distinguish between heretical and sinful Bishops - indeed
between heretical and sinful priests, deacons, and laity. Sinful people
are, of course, ubiquitous; each and every one of us is a sinner. But
this fact does not obviate the sanctity of the Body of Christ to which
we are joined and of which we are members - lest our sins somehow have
condemned Christ Himself and the gates of hell do in fact prevail against
His Church.
Quite
the contrary: we are joined to His Body, the Church, so that our sins
might be remitted and that we might receive His righteousness in place
of our iniquities.
Let
us also carefully note that even such luminaries of the Church as the
Blessed Augustine and Saint Gregory of Nyssa were never branded as heretics
nor declared anathema although their personal writings and thoughts have
been deemed by the Church to contain errors and notions inconsistent with
our Apostolic faith.
Our
Bishops always support, teach, and defend the Apostolic faith and the
Dogmas of our Orthodox Church - despite any personal misgivings or doubts
and notwithstanding their private and public sins and errors.
Renascent
Donatism
The
great danger posed to the Orthodox Church in the United States today is
renascent Donatism. Individuals who believe that the efficacy or reality
of a Mystery depends upon the spiritual condition of the clergyman who
celebrates them affirm the heretical belief called Donatism which was
condemned as a heresy by the Council of Carthage in AD 404.
The
Donatist heresy manifests itself also when individuals proclaim that certain
Churches or jurisdictions - and thus their Mysteries - are "without
grace." This is a sin against the Holy Spirit Who manifests Himself
both within and without the Orthodox Church according to the Divine Will.
Such
Donatistic denial of grace is often a subterfuge to which individuals
may resort when trying to justify either their abandonment of their own
Bishop or the condemnation of a supposed schismatic element in the Church.
Donatistic
positions are often assumed by those who are overly preoccupied by juridical
correctness and jurisdictional canonicity. Perhaps it would be better
to avoid such legalisms, which in any event are foreign to the Orthodox
fronema (mindset), and simply to accept the fact that canonical anomalies
are currently unavoidable in the new and unusual administrative circumstances
encountered by the Orthodox Church in this multi-national, multi-ethnic,
heterogeneous American society.
Legalists
who misuse the Sacred Canons and the Holy Fathers to hurt innocent people
- or even guilty people, for that matter - are not champions of the Faith
and traditionalists. they are misanthropes - haters of their fellow men
- which is a terrible sin.
"Love
without truth is false; truth without love is ingenuine."
From Diocesan News
Publication of the Diocese of Denver
Greek Orthodox Church of America
December 1997
|
